A Discussion/Debate on Religion & Other Closely Related Topics

[Gatefan1976]

what material things would these be? material things that fall under the realm of basic necessities are one thing......but ones that do not....superfluous possessions in and of themselves do not engender happiness, health, and vitality

I think Brother Freyr was more talking about necessities dude (and no, I agree that does not cover a TV and net access)

[Col.Foley]

First amendment is a non issue here isn't it? If a private citizen put up a cross or whatever and the AA sued, then I *think* that would qualify as being an infringement on the first ammendment. The point being debated is *should government funds and land be used to promote only one religion" is it not?

That is the argument yes.

But the first amendment states that Congrss shall not pass a law that respects an establishment of a religion nor prohibits the free excercise there of. Depending on the speciics of the situation this would be someone interfereing with someone else's religion and where they can or cannot hang their holy symbols.

Which as I pointed out this might not be a holy symbol at all... just something that looks like a cross.

[Gatefan1976]

That is the argument yes.

But the first amendment states that Congrss shall not pass a law that respects an establishment of a religion nor prohibits the free excercise there of. Depending on the speciics of the situation this would be someone interfereing with someone else's religion and where they can or cannot hang their holy symbols.

Right, thats the first amendment, and it covers *personal religion* yes? For example I would not consider myself to have a leg to stand on if I insisted a Christian can't wear a cross, thats personal freedom of religion (which I wholely support), but that's NOT what he is talking about. The question is *Should state funds be used to only support one religion?*

Which as I pointed out this might not be a holy symbol at all... just something that looks like a cross.

Unless they are talking about another Jesus, I think it's safe to say it's Christian

[pookey]

I would like to know the religious reason for circumcision please.

[The Flyattractor]

I would say "Google it" but that would probably prove to be far far to unpleasent....

[Brother Freyr]

I would like to know the religious reason for circumcision please.

I would say "Google it" but that would probably prove to be far far to unpleasent....

I don't remember the religious reason (although it might have been a symbol of God's contract with Israel -- just not sure about that recollection), but there's a good health reason: circumsized men contract STD's at lower rate than uncircumsized.

[Gatefan1976]

I would like to know the religious reason for circumcision please.

Ummm
This is one of the discussions that got the RHD retired, so, if you don't mind, keep it away this time

[The Flyattractor]

<Agrees that Religious taks should stay "out of the trousers"..

[lordofseas]

That is the argument yes.

But the first amendment states that Congrss shall not pass a law that respects an establishment of a religion nor prohibits the free excercise there of. Depending on the speciics of the situation this would be someone interfereing with someone else's religion and where they can or cannot hang their holy symbols.

Which as I pointed out this might not be a holy symbol at all... just something that looks like a cross.

Well, if you look at the link I pointed at:

"This shrine is a cross. It was picked up, trimmed, polished, the word 'Jesus' was carved on top of it, it was prayed over in front of a church for five years, and then it was installed in the WTC memorial with no warning by a priest in a religious service where in the ground was consecrated. This is a working Christian shrine in the memorial and then they had the gall to say it's not religious in nature, that it represents everybody. That's not true. It does not represent Jews, Muslims, Mormons or atheists, and they all had deaths on 9/11."

[lordofseas]

I would like to know the religious reason for circumcision please.

God's covenant with Abraham. Genesis 17:10-14.

10 This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt Me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.

[pookey]

And God never gave a reason for it ? Thankyou for that LoS. I know he states its a covenant, but I am unsure as to why it is one, as it seems strange to me. Unless God knew about STDs, which he probably would I know, Im a bit thick
And GateFan, I am genuinely puzzled by this, and this is the only place i can ask

[lordofseas]

And God never gave a reason for it ? Thankyou for that LoS. I know he states its a covenant, but I am unsure as to why it is one, as it seems strange to me. Unless God knew about STDs, which he probably would I know, Im a bit thick
And GateFan, I am genuinely puzzled by this, and this is the only place i can ask

Just as a symbol, I think.

[Gatefan1976]

And GateFan, I am genuinely puzzled by this, and this is the only place i can ask

It's cool dude

[mad_gater]

I would say "Google it" but that would probably prove to be far far to unpleasent....

or ask an Orthodox Jewish rabbi....

[SeaBee]

I know that in ancient times the taking of foreskins was used as a way of finding out how many of the enemy a victorious army had killed. Maybe it was originally started as a way of confusing the count, then picked up and added to the faith later on.