by AGuest 404 Replies latest jw friends
Wow, you really are straining out the gnat to gulp down the camel, aren't you?
No. If the Holy Ghost has directed you to come to JWN to save the heathens (or whatever words you want to use to describe it) then we should expect a higher standard. We don't have the Holy Ghost whispering in our ears so we are on our own, but you.... well, you know. You claim to have it.
Hmm, I'm going to step into this minefield, armed only with my two years of nursing training and biochemistry.
Water is not so much an antiseptic as it is very efficient at washing majority of germs away from intact skin. The cleaner the water available, the better this works, obviously. They do use sterile water in hospital to clean wounds too. Often this is all they use depending on the wound.
My point was only this: not that water was antiseptic, but whatever cleansing agents they possessed back then, including dirty water, spit and/or camel dung, the risk of infection would have been astronomically higher once God had instructed them to cut the skin. So the argument that all knowing God asked them to do this for any type of hygiene reasons makes no logical sense.
The doing this to make them a separate distinguishable people makes more sense. So God asked them to put themselves at risk to do this.....or they thought it up themselves to give them a tribal identity, knew nothing about the risk of germ infections from open cuts, and claimed divine insight from God. I favor the latter option myself.
You didn't just make the assumption, you strongly implied that they were unhygenic.
Ahhhh… Sorry, no. I implied no such thing, dear NVL (and peace to you!). I implied that some of the people were unhygienic, not foreskins in and of themselves. Because I am certain that just like there were some who were meticulously hygienic, so that not only were their foreskins clean, but all other body parts/orifices, as well… there were those, just as there are today when and where water is abundant, who were NOT so hygienic. And who, shall we say, did more than “shepherd” the sheep. And who had multiple wives/sex partners. Some who, like today, were “on the down-low.” So, in order to protect the ENTIRE nation… well, you get my drift (then, again, perhaps you don’t, but it’s valid)…
And peace to you.
And again to you, as well!
I just pointed out your error in basic microbiology. I am not sure how I strained anything.
Because you only addressed one meaning of the word “antiseptic”, the noun? Hmmmm... I don't think so, dear one.
After all, I am not the one that said water was an antiseptic, that was you. And no, not in theory. Water, in no form, is an antiseptic, not in a classical, neo or alternative definition.
Interesting. That's not exactly what the dictionary implies:
1 a: opposing sepsis, putrefaction, or decay; especially: preventing or arresting the growth of microorganisms (as on living tissue) b: acting or protecting like an antiseptic
I am also of the opinion that dear CD’s explanation is good, too!
OK, THAT part a was a joke.
Wow. You ARE pedantic, aren't you. Yes, it was…
taking the time to educate myself on basic words and their meanings is so embarassing. Oh wait, no it's not. That's jusy you making up stuff again.
Ahhh, more jokes! I would offer to you that given the times we live in, “basic words and their meanings,” can be different, even irrelevant. I myself am not that pedantic (although I can be pedantic regarding some things), and so I look toward what a person means as well as what they say. Because life really is too short to squabble over such a thing. But since you insist: a n anti-septic is something that prevents sepsis. Cleaning something with sterilized water can have this effect. That’s why back in the day a whole lot of women didn’t become septic after child-birth: a lot of boiled water was used to clean things up. Being of the girl persuasion myself, I tend to use a lot of water to clean up. Bleach, too, but not always. Sometimes I add things to the water... sometimes I don't. For example, when one of my children got a cut/scrape. Sometimes I washed it with soap and water, sometimes just water. End result... no sepsis. So, forgive me if I believe clean water has some... antiseptic... value. It absolutely does to me.
Apparently it floated your boat, you are the one that thought water was an antisceptic and suggested spit.
Well, dear one, I know water can be used to delay/arrest sepsis. Therefore, it is can “act… like” an antiseptic. But, again, if my use of water as an antiseptic is the only thing you can find wrong here, then I would venture to say you’ve got WAY too much time on your hands these days. Perhaps you need a hobby? And apparently there are some cultures that do use spit (probably because Clorox, Lysol, and other such chemical laden products aren't sold where they live and/or they can't afford them even if they were). Again, when I come across the show again (and no, I’m not going to run and look for it, so you’ll just have to take my word), I will most certainly let you know who and where. Again, I believe it was in the Amazon, so you can feel free to look it up yourself while you're waiting for me.
On, another note, I feel I must ask whether you have now decided to make me your personal... ummmm... "project" and if so, I am most flattered. It's happened before, where someone feels that they need to follow me around the board and take issue with what I post. I don't have a problem with it, but it does cause me some concern in that there are those here who think I am looking for attention. I assure you, I am not. So, if you wish to give it, please make sure that you acknowledge that it's something YOU wish to do... and not something I am asking or looking for you to do. You could well just leave me be and I would be quite fine. But, again, I truly don't mind the attention, so... whatever you choose. Just so you know that you ARE choosing.
Again, peace to you, dear NVL... and try to have a good weekend! You know, get out more, perhaps take in a movie, a little golf... all will do you good!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
If the Holy Ghost has directed you to come to JWN to save the heathens (or whatever words you want to use to describe it)
You have it all wrong, dear OTWO (peace to you!). My Lord didn't send me here for anyone other than the Household of God, Israel... and those who go with them. No others.
then we should expect a higher standard.
Again, you are in error: if you are considering yourself among those YOU call "heathens" (your word, not mine), then you have no expectations from me on the grounds that (1) you're not Israel (or one who goes with) and so what I state isn't FOR you, at all, and (2) you don't believe in God at all, anyway, so whatever I state is moot as to you. Right? So, the only ones YOU can expect such standard from are those whom YOU follow... and/or their "servants." For example, NVL. He knows/believes as you do and so all that comes from HIM should be held to such a standard.
Now, Israel can... and does... hold me to such standard. The PMs and emails I receive from them show that.
We don't have the Holy Ghost whispering in our ears so we are on our own
No, you don't and so, yes, you are. But that is not the case with Israel and those who go with them (excluding, of course, those of fleshly Israel who have not yet brought themselves to say, "Blessed is he... that comes in the name of JAH" - they, too, need to look to others to fulfill their "standards," those who they put THEIR faith in...)
but you.... well, you know.
I know nothing, dear OTWO. Not one thing. I only share what I hear from the One who knows, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH. And while that one is perfect, I certainly am not. If I were... I wouldn't need him.
You claim to have it.
I do. Claim and have. To say otherwise would be (1) a lie, and (2) a denial of him that leads me and by what means. Sorry, I can't do either, although I know it would please you. I, however, don't get how you and others CAN state such a lie... give yourselves credit for what is not yours, what does not come from you... while denying him. Truly, I just don't get it... other than understanding that you just think you hear and see because of what you experience with your flesh. That's like saying that physical blind people really can't see a thing (which is not true) and physicall deaf people really cannot hear a thing (which is also not true). They see/hear... perhaps not all that we who have such physical capabilities... but just not with their senses of the flesh.
Again, peace to you!
Your servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
Hmm, I'm going to step into this minefield, armed only with my two years of nursing training and biochemistry.
Thank you, dear CD, and peace to you! May we keep in mind that neither nursing (as we know it, today), or biochemistry existed during the time in question? I mean, these really were somewhat primitive people as compared to today, yes? Thank you!
Water is not so much an antiseptic as it is very efficient at washing majority of germs away from intact skin. The cleaner the water available, the better this works, obviously.
Yes, I agree that "it is not so much an antiseptic as it is..." if we are speaking of chemical solutions that are antiseptic. However, your next statement is what I was referring to... and has antiseptic... results:
They do use sterile water in hospital to clean wounds too. Often this is all they use depending on the wound.
Which was and is my point.
My point was only this: not that water was antiseptic,
Yes, I got that...
but whatever cleansing agents they possessed back then, including dirty water, spit and/or camel dung, the risk of infection would have been astronomically higher once God had instructed them to cut the skin.
For the one (or however many babies were being circumcised at the time), yes, dear one. However, STDs are not limited to the one person. Which is why we call them S...T... D's. They have a tendency to spread to others.
So the argument that all knowing God asked them to do this for any type of hygiene reasons makes no logical sense.
Not to you, perhaps, but make all the sense in the world to me. And a few others.
The doing this to make them a separate distinguishable people makes more sense.
Well, yes, there was that - the identifying mark. I don't deny that at all. But an different identifying mark could have been chosen, yes? Say, something more readily visible? The only way someone would truly know would be to see the man naked. But the Most Holy One of Israel could just as well have a mark made on, say, the inside of the thigh... or on the scrotum...
So God asked them to put themselves at risk to do this...
Seeing as you said that sterile water is often all that is needed to cleanse a wound... I can't see where the risk was so great to the NATION. It would have only taken a small amount of water to cleanse the cut... then sterile dressings for the child. Septic arrested. On the other hand, it would have only taken one man... and one other human sex partner... to potentially risk a good deal of, if not the entire, nation.
..or they thought it up themselves to give them a tribal identity, knew nothing about the risk of germ infections from open cuts, and claimed divine insight from God. I favor the latter option myself.
Hmmmm. Well, I can certainly see a bunch of men saying, "Hey, let's pierce our ears... or our noses... or our nipples... or our women... so that we can stand out different from the other guys." Or, "Hey, let's put slashes on our faces... or our forearms... or our chests... or our women... so we don't look like the guys from [the other team/tribe]." But, "Hey, let's cut off a part of our penises... and out sons' penises... so that we don't look like the other team/tribe/guys... and if someone asks we'll just say 'God told us to do it'"? Uh-uh. Sorry, but no one can convince me that a tribe of men agreed to do ANYTHING that would cause pain to a penis. Theirs... OR their sons'. Even the most tribal men today put things like bamboo tubes and other "decorations" on their "manhood" to show their "power" and prominence. Sorry, dear CD, but I can't buy that one. I can almost promise you (because I would have to consult a man to know for sure)... that there ain't a man... alive today or back then... who would cut [something off] his penis... or his son's... in any way, size, shape, or form... unless God... or a doctor... told him to do it. Or... a woman (and I think even that is slim to none!) And I'm not picking on men, here...
Again, I bid you peace!
Your servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
I only share what I hear from the One who knows, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH.
Then it would not be in error. It is- so you are not really getting information from the Holy Ghost, or else He lies or is wrong.
So glad I cleared that up and you can stop misleading all.
Shelby, dear, who is the "adversary", is it not one who would diminish the Divine to a thing, a deity, a person, and object? Rather than accentuate That which has no beginning or end and so can not be defined? Are you then, not that "adversary"???
Who here most accentuates a tiny god, one who walks into your room and talks to you like any other little man. It's you Shelby. It's you.
Your talk is sweet, but it's poison as it is nothing more than a huge EGO that thinks it is gods special and humble little messenger. The true Source, doesn't need you or anyone, Shelby. Get off your high horse, dear, and surrender.
I don't think she can James. It is just too terrifying for some people not to be "special".
Ahhhh… Sorry, no. I implied no such thing, dear NVL (and peace to you!). I implied that some of the people were unhygienic, not foreskins in and of themselves.
Ah, so then relating that to foreskins was completely off topic and worthless. Got it.
Yes, I agree that "it is not so much an antiseptic as it is..." if we are speaking of chemical solutions that are antiseptic. However, your next statement is what I was referring to... and has antiseptic... results:
Water IS a chemical solution and NOT in ANY way an antiseptic. Glad we are squared away that your suggesting water was an antispetic was 100% wrong.
Which was and is my point.
UInfortunately that was not what you actually said. If you now wish to amend your statement, go ahead.
For the one (or however many babies were being circumcised at the time), yes, dear one. However, STDs are not limited to the one person. Which is why we call them S...T... D's. They have a tendency to spread to others.
Since cleansing with water, using antiseptic or having foreskins has zero to do with STD transmission, I am not sure what your point here is. Are you suggesting that foreskins contribute to the transmission of STDs?
Not to you, perhaps, but make all the sense in the world to me. And a few others.
Please feel free to name a medically sound or sane reason.
Well, yes, there was that - the identifying mark. I don't deny that at all. But an different identifying mark could have been chosen, yes? Say, something more readily visible? The only way someone would truly know would be to see the man naked. But the Most Holy One of Israel could just as well have a mark made on, say, the inside of the thigh... or on the scrotum...
So why didn't he? Can you ask? It just seems weird to me for God to ask men to mark their penises and they use that to identify each other and so would therefore have to go around checking out each other's penises. I mean, with Noah seeing another man's nakedness was a bad thing, so it seems odd that he would later require it.
Seeing as you said that sterile water is often all that is needed to cleanse a wound... I can't see where the risk was so great to the NATION. It would have only taken a small amount of water to cleanse the cut... then sterile dressings for the child.
She said depening on the wound. That is not all that is used to clean circumcision cuts. Even in hospitals with all precautions taken there is a much higher risk of infection and often followup treatment is required. It would pose a risk to a nation because many would get sick and possibly die from infection and be disabled for days under the best of circumstances.
But, "Hey, let's cut off a part of our penises... and out sons' penises... so that we don't look like the other team/tribe/guys... and if someone asks we'll just say 'God told us to do it'"? Uh-uh. Sorry, but no one can convince me that a tribe of men agreed to do ANYTHING that would cause pain to a penis.
It happens all the time. No one needs to concinve you, it's well documented. The aborigines of australia, for instance. You deciding on your own without spending a single minutes lifting yourself out of ignorance has zero bearing on whether or not it happens, because it does.
