[Besoeker]

Care to expound what those differences might be?

Nah, I don't argue with primitive species ...

Zam

OK. So it's a POV it seems that you can't support.
No surprise.

[Besoeker]

Presence of a foreskin has some bearing on ability to argue?

Does the absence of it?

[Syph]

I don't argue with primitive species ...

Where does your "circumcision = man" argument come from? I must admit you're the only person I've ever met who's made it.

[abu_rashid]

Does the absence of it?

That was preccisely my point, does either the absence or the presence of it having any bearing on such a thing?

[Besoeker]

Does the absence of it?

That was preccisely my point, does either the absence or the presence of it having any bearing on such a thing?

So what is the point of it?

[Pants-of-dog]

The point is the part that is removed.

[Rei Murasame]

Circumcision demonstrates the difference between a civilized and a primitive man.

A question that no one has yet asked, is why does anyone want to be 'civilised' in the Abrahamic sense? Why not just be 'a primitive' with lots of technology?

[Besoeker]

The point is the part that is removed.

Perhaps I didn't make my point simply enough.
What is the point of removing that part?

[Pants-of-dog]

It was a joke.

But to answer your question, different people do it for different reasons.

[Besoeker]

It was a joke.

Oh, OK.
Bit like throwing the wrong part away?

[abu_rashid]

So what is the point of it?

Clearly not the endeavour of improving one's debating skills.

The point is to separate from the rest of the herd. To mark themselves as those who've dedicated themselves to their Lord.

Possibly also some hygienic considerations.

Interestingly it's one of the oldest known medical procedures humans developed, stretching back around 15,000 years.

[Besoeker]

So what is the point of it?

Clearly not the endeavour of improving one's debating skills.

Evidently not.

[GandalfTheGrey]

The point is to separate from the rest of the herd. To mark themselves as those who've dedicated themselves to their Lord.

Possibly also some hygienic considerations.

This is a genuine question. How does you beliefs on circumcision reconcile with clear quranic statements about a) not to alter the human body (eg the standard islamic argument against tatoos) and b) how the human form is already in a perfected state?

And just to be clear, I'm not necessarily against circumcision.

[abu_rashid]

I cannot comment on vague claims. If you want something addressed, please provide a reference. Also note that Islam consists of two primary sources, Qur'an & Sunnah.

[Besoeker]

I cannot comment on vague claims. If you want something addressed, please provide a reference. Also note that Islam consists of two primary sources, Qur'an & Sunnah.

Galdalf didn't make a claim. He asked a driect question.

Perhaps you have had your body mutilated and that has adversly affected your debating skills.......

[abu_rashid]

Perhaps I have, perhaps I haven't, I thought we already agreed above it's not something that affects one's debating skills.

And he did make vague claims:

How does you beliefs on circumcision reconcile with clear quranic statements about a) not to alter the human body (eg the standard islamic argument against tatoos) and b) how the human form is already in a perfected state?

To address these, I'd need to know the specific verses he thinks apply here. Really perplexed as to why I had to spell that out to you.

[Besoeker]

Perhaps I have, perhaps I haven't, I thought we already agreed above it's not something that affects one's debating skills.

And he did make vague claims:

And they were?

[abu_rashid]

Are you for real?

[Besoeker]

Are you for real?

Can't you just answer the question rather than make personal vacuous remarks?

[GandalfTheGrey]

I cannot comment on vague claims. If you want something addressed, please provide a reference. Also note that Islam consists of two primary sources, Qur'an & Sunnah.

To be honest, I didn't give the exact references because I thought it was pretty common knowledge.

Quran on perfected state of human body: 64:3, 40:64 among others.

Whatever the ahadith say, how can those "commands" be consistent with the above verses? Is it a case of "the human body is already perfected - but its still necessary to change it for boys (and probably for girls - juries still out) soon after they are born?

Why would God tell us to alter the form of our children's bodies if they are already perfected?