Unitarian Church?

...
sexually very disadvantageous male genital mutilation (I am not saying that offensively, but that's what the circumcision means)...


May I BOASTFULLY but yet humbly correct you here... I am totally sure that you will be vehemently contradicted by my over 23 girlfriends and some more wives (I might have forgotten a few more) from about 10 countries on 6 continents (I never went to Antarctica.. sadly for the penguins). And now a century later I'm not as advantaged but yet occasionally I've had cause for more boasting.


...
So God inspired the Israelites to implement sexually very disadvantageous male genital mutilation (I am not saying that offensively, but that's what the circumcision means), to set them apart from other nations and thus insulate their monotheism? That's a huge hit to take for Monotheism, which by now a huge chunk of the world accepts anyway, thus obviating a need for circumcision. So even if this ritual demand had major value back then in insulating monotheism, how can it be needed to insulate monotheism today? Couldn't such extreme, strict Monotheists just tattoo themselves instead, like the Copts do to block themselves from conversion to Islam?


The big problem with your premise that circumcision had anything to do with monotheism is that Egyptians and many other cultures have been practicing circumcision long before YHWH was invented.

History of male circumcision
Various reasons have been given for the adoption of circumcision as a practice in different cultures around the world. The oldest documentary evidence for circumcision comes from ancient Egypt. Circumcision was common, although not universal, among ancient Semitic peoples. In the aftermath of the conquests of Alexander the Great, however, Greek dislike of circumcision (they regarded a man as truly "naked" only if his prepuce was retracted) led to a decline in its incidence among many peoples that had previously practiced it.

Circumcision has ancient roots among several ethnic groups in sub-equatorial Africa, and is still performed on adolescent boys to symbolize their transition to warrior status or adulthood.[4]

.....

"The distribution of circumcision and initiation rites throughout Africa, and the frequent resemblance between details of ceremonial procedure in areas thousands of miles apart, indicate that the circumcision ritual has an old tradition behind it and in its present form is the result of a long process of development."[14]

...

Sixth Dynasty (2345–2181 BCE) tomb artwork in Egypt has been thought to be the oldest documentary evidence of circumcision, the most ancient depiction being a bas-relief from the necropolis at Saqqara (c. 2400 BCE) with the inscriptions reading: "The ointment is to make it acceptable." and "Hold him so that he does not fall". In the oldest written account, by an Egyptian named Uha, in the 23rd century BCE, he describes a mass circumcision and boasts of his ability to stoically endure the pain: "When I was circumcised, together with one hundred and twenty men...there was none thereof who hit out, there was none thereof who was hit, and there was none thereof who scratched and there was none thereof who was scratched."

 
Last edited:
sexually very disadvantageous male genital mutilation (I am not saying that offensively, but that's what the circumcision means)...

May I BOASTFULLY but yet humbly correct you here... I am totally sure that you will be vehemently contradicted by my over 23 girlfriends and some more wives (I might have forgotten a few more) from about 10 countries on 6 continents (I never went to Antarctica.. sadly for the penguins). And now a century later I'm not as advantaged but yet occasionally I've had cause for more boasting.
Congratulations on your sexual exploits. However I don't see how that means that circumcision is not a disadvantage. Why do you think that your sexual performance and sexual life experience would be no better if you retained your foreskin? Didn't Evolution give it to you for a good reason?




The big problem with your premise that circumcision had anything to do with monotheism is that Egyptians and many other cultures have been practicing circumcision long before YHWH was invented.
Supposedly in the Bible this was a sign of the religious "contract" between God and Abraham's subjects or community, which preceded Moses' identification of YHWH's name.

But this still raises the question of how an adherent of Judaism who disbelieves Moses' miracle stories would explain a religious belief that God gave instructions to impose disadvantageous MGM on the adherents.

I mean was Abraham just "inspired" to accept this ritual as a sign of the contract and therefore we conclude that MGM is good because it serves this purpose even though in terms of science it's counterproductive?
 
We've got both Natalie Portman AND Mila Kunis. Certainly, that has to count for something.
Would you rather be Mila Kunis and Natalie Portman or be their partners in relationships? Their husbands are Catholic.
 
Last edited:
I was born & raised Unitarian Universalist, although we didn't live near a congregation until I was in my teens. I occasionally attend the UU church where I live now, but I have found that it just doesn't sit well with me.

I don't find it empty; there are some well-defined tenets and a general set of agreed-upon ideas. There are traditions, and with its 500+-year-history, some of them go back quite far. But there's something that doesn't quite sit well with me, and it's hard to define what it is.

I have no problem with a group of people trying to form some kind of community when they feel like they're not part of something the larger population participates in. That's not it.

The hymnal - yeah, I could never get into the songs. The hymnals (there are two now) are huge, unwieldy, and the songs are either Christian (uncomfortable for me) or New-Age (uncomfortable for me). Plus, there's well over a thousand, I could never learn them all and I don't read music well. Fortunately ours has a rather large and enthusiastic choir, my favorite part of the whole show.

Good ministers try to weave stories from the pulpit that illustrate points and provide food for thought, but this doesn't always work, in my view. I often leave thinking, "Huh. That whole thing was a waste of my time. Nothing new or insightful, the sermon never got 'round to a point. I could have been home walking my dogs..."

I've come to the conclusion that this particular UU congregation is probably not my cup of tea, but again, it's hard to define what I feel is lacking. My brother is much more attached to UU, as was my father (from a Jewish family) and my mother (Scottish prob. Protestant, not sure).

I feel a lot more strongly connected to the people I do dog training and trialing with. I'm sure there's something to be made of that, but I don't know what.
 
Congratulations on your sexual exploits.

:thumbsup: :o

However I don't see how that means that circumcision is not a disadvantage.


How could one have a very full and very active sexual life with numerous VERY SATISFIED partners and a few resulting healthy children planned and accidental (although one succumbed to cancer later) and yet be considered to have been disadvantaged in any way that bears logical reasoning?

Why do you think that your sexual performance and sexual life experience would be no better if you retained your foreskin?


I don't know maybe it could have... but sorry I have to be boastful again out of necessity

I know for fact that ALLLLL the nice and lovely girls whose worm and cherished affections I have had the good luck to have been blessed by... from 10 different countries... on 6 continents... of different colors and ethnicities and cultures and religions... had nothing but satisfied praise for my efforts and I in turn equally reciprocated the praise.

Sorry about the boasting but it is necessary in this case to prove my point! :o:o

Didn't Evolution give it to you for a good reason?


Do you shave your beard?

Have you had any of your wisdom teeth pulled out?

Have you had an appendectomy?

Have you had a tonsillectomy?

Do you clip your nails?

Do you cut your hair?

Do you like women who are hairy all over?


...
I mean was Abraham just "inspired" to accept this ritual as a sign of the contract and therefore we conclude that MGM is good because it serves this purpose even though in terms of science it's counterproductive?


You are assuming way too much claptrap was for real... there was no Abraham, no Moses no God and no covenant... it is all a myth much like that of Achilles and Athena and Thor and Quetzalcoatl.

Some subgroups of Canaanites opted to follow the ANCIENT practice just as many other polytheists and henotheists and other Semitic peoples and cultures and African cultures and the Egyptians from all around them used to do for eons.

But for the sake of amusing literary speculation have a look at my explanation for Abraham's attempt to slaughter Isaac and why he had to accept circumcision.


Abraham trying to kill Isaac was definitely caused by God... but not YHWH and it was not a sacrifice but attempted murder.

Abraham adopting the practice of circumcision was a sign of a covenant with God... but not with YHWH.

WARNING!!! The content below is not suitable for fragile minds!!


Abraham wanted to kill Isaac because Isaac was Pharaoh' BASTARD CHILD after Abraham pimped Sarah to him.

Abraham was a Sumerian/Assyrian lower ranked nobleman who on a diplomatic mission to Egypt found it expedient for one reason or another to pimp off Sarah to God Pharaoh as his sister, who later became pregnant.

God Pharaoh upon becoming aware that Sarah was in fact Abraham's wife sent them away but being pregnant with his seed he gave them riches and goods and of course sent along spies to keep an eye on the progeny.

On the way back to Haran, Abraham decided to stay in Canaan until Sarah gave birth. The pretense that YHWH ordered Abraham to kill Isaac was an excuse to justify eliminating the bastard son of God Pharaoh.

The whole expiation with an entangled stray lamb was nothing but the bodyguards staying off the hand of Abraham to whom God Pharaoh later gave even more lambs and sheep and wealth so as to refrain from assassinating the boy.

Pharaoh, the God of Egypt and all its colonial territories, made a Covenant with Abraham that he will be his shield and friend if he resided in Canaan to raise Isaac whom Pharaoh promised to give those lands to as an inheritance along with his descendants.

God Pharaoh of course demanded that Abraham circumcise Isaac and teach him to do so for his descendants in keeping with the Egyptian custom.

To prove Abraham's compliance to the Covenant of guardianship of Isaac the Egyptian God made Abraham also circumcise himself and his whole tribe too.

 
Last edited:
Which is why it won't last. And when their marriage falls apart, guess who'll be there to pick up the pieces?


It won't be me. I'm a nobody. But, still.

Do you see Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis being attractive advertisements for Judaism to potential converts, if
(A) The two pretty female stars married Catholics
and
(B) Their interfaith marriage won't last because the spouses are Jewish and Catholic?

I am trying to understand the logic.
 
Do you see Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis being attractive advertisements for Judaism to potential converts, if
(A) The two pretty female stars married Catholics
and
(B) Their interfaith marriage won't last because the spouses are Jewish and Catholic?

I am trying to understand the logic.
There is no logic, there is only the Portman.
 
:thumbsup: :o
How could one have a very full and very active sexual life with numerous VERY SATISFIED partners and a few resulting healthy children planned and accidental (although one succumbed to cancer later) and yet be considered to have been disadvantaged in any way that bears logical reasoning?
Isn't that like asking how someone could be a master pianist if their physical blindness impacted them in any disadvantageous way?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F3ex_qkx54

I don't know maybe it could have... but sorry I have to be boastful again out of necessity

I know for fact that ALLLLL the nice and lovely girls whose worm and cherished affections I have had the good luck to have been blessed by... from 10 different countries... on 6 continents... of different colors and ethnicities and cultures and religions... had nothing but satisfied praise for my efforts and I in turn equally reciprocated the praise.

Sorry about the boasting but it is necessary in this case to prove my point! :o:o
Congratulations. But it could still make you the Ray Charles of the world dating and marriage scene.

raycharles.jpg


Have you had any of your wisdom teeth pulled out?

Have you had an appendectomy?

Have you had a tonsillectomy?

No. I think that the tonsils are usually helpful to warding off infection, and so don't support their removal. I suspect that the appendix also serves a useful function. If the foreskin or any of the organs you just mentioned became deeply infected, then it is necessary to remove these organs as a last resort. But otherwise they should remain because of their helpful functions or because the surgery would be extra.

Do you shave your beard?

Do you clip your nails?

Do you cut your hair?

Do you like women who are hairy all over?
Hair and nails are external even to the epidermis and would be shed naturally even if not manicured. But the foreskin is an important bodily organ. In medical terms, it's like removing your earlobes or something.

You are assuming way too much claptrap was for real... there was no Abraham, no Moses no God and no covenant... it is all a myth much like that of Achilles and Athena and Thor and Quetzalcoatl.

Some subgroups of Canaanites opted to follow the ANCIENT practice just as many other polytheists and henotheists and other Semitic peoples and cultures and African cultures and the Egyptians from all around them used to do for eons.

But for the sake of amusing literary speculation have a look at my explanation for Abraham's attempt to slaughter Isaac and why he had to accept circumcision.


Abraham trying to kill Isaac was definitely caused by God... but not YHWH and it was not a sacrifice but attempted murder.

Abraham adopting the practice of circumcision was a sign of a covenant with God... but not with YHWH.

WARNING!!! The content below is not suitable for fragile minds!!


Abraham wanted to kill Isaac because Isaac was Pharaoh' BASTARD CHILD after Abraham pimped Sarah to him.

Abraham was a Sumerian/Assyrian lower ranked nobleman who on a diplomatic mission to Egypt found it expedient for one reason or another to pimp off Sarah to God Pharaoh as his sister, who later became pregnant.

God Pharaoh upon becoming aware that Sarah was in fact Abraham's wife sent them away but being pregnant with his seed he gave them riches and goods and of course sent along spies to keep an eye on the progeny.

On the way back to Haran, Abraham decided to stay in Canaan until Sarah gave birth. The pretense that YHWH ordered Abraham to kill Isaac was an excuse to justify eliminating the bastard son of God Pharaoh.

The whole expiation with an entangled stray lamb was nothing but the bodyguards staying off the hand of Abraham to whom God Pharaoh later gave even more lambs and sheep and wealth so as to refrain from assassinating the boy.

Pharaoh, the God of Egypt and all its colonial territories, made a Covenant with Abraham that he will be his shield and friend if he resided in Canaan to raise Isaac whom Pharaoh promised to give those lands to as an inheritance along with his descendants.

God Pharaoh of course demanded that Abraham circumcise Isaac and teach him to do so for his descendants in keeping with the Egyptian custom.

To prove Abraham's compliance to the Covenant of guardianship of Isaac the Egyptian God made Abraham also circumcise himself and his whole tribe too.

OK, how does any of this support conversion to liberal Reform Judaism, defined by basic rituals like the one you just discussed?
 
Last edited:
There is no logic, there is only the Portman.
Got it. So you are supposed to convert to her religion, thereby making you less likely to partner with someone like her, and undergo MGM to your intimate disadvantage, just because its hers? Are you familiar with how the caste system in ant families works?

http://kaweahoaks.com/html/ant_caste_sys.jpg

Even a "gullible skeptic" like me could make a better argument for conversion, since Judaism has some inspiring aspects.
 
Last edited:
Isn't that like asking how someone could be a master pianist if their physical blindness impacted them in any disadvantageous way?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F3ex_qkx54


Congratulations. But it could still make you the Ray Charles of the world dating and marriage scene.


Goodness gracious!!!

...
OK, how does any of this support conversion to liberal Reform Judaism, defined by basic rituals like the one you just discussed?


It does not... there are no gods or prophets or sons of gods or spirits or ghosts or angels and all religions are shams much like Pyramid Schemes and Multilevel Marketing Scams.

If you are after joining some community volunteer your time to charity work or even community services or join a book club or play more team sports or take up scuba diving or hiking or orienteering or spelunking or sailing or surfing or skydiving or touring etc. etc. etc.
 
I was born & raised Unitarian Universalist, although we didn't live near a congregation until I was in my teens. I occasionally attend the UU church where I live now, but I have found that it just doesn't sit well with me.

I don't find it empty; there are some well-defined tenets and a general set of agreed-upon ideas. There are traditions, and with its 500+-year-history, some of them go back quite far. But there's something that doesn't quite sit well with me, and it's hard to define what it is.

I have no problem with a group of people trying to form some kind of community when they feel like they're not part of something the larger population participates in. That's not it.

The hymnal - yeah, I could never get into the songs. The hymnals (there are two now) are huge, unwieldy, and the songs are either Christian (uncomfortable for me) or New-Age (uncomfortable for me). Plus, there's well over a thousand, I could never learn them all and I don't read music well. Fortunately ours has a rather large and enthusiastic choir, my favorite part of the whole show.

Good ministers try to weave stories from the pulpit that illustrate points and provide food for thought, but this doesn't always work, in my view. I often leave thinking, "Huh. That whole thing was a waste of my time. Nothing new or insightful, the sermon never got 'round to a point. I could have been home walking my dogs..."

I've come to the conclusion that this particular UU congregation is probably not my cup of tea, but again, it's hard to define what I feel is lacking. My brother is much more attached to UU, as was my father (from a Jewish family) and my mother (Scottish prob. Protestant, not sure).

I feel a lot more strongly connected to the people I do dog training and trialing with. I'm sure there's something to be made of that, but I don't know what.
Yes, that's what I am getting at T. What you are describing, and some of the sermon titles I've read, sound like a grade school "Life Skills" class for adults.

I think you make your case too strongly when you say you might as well have been walking your dog, because having some community is helpful, along with hearing some type of positive social or psychological sermon or message.

Still, it seems like you and I might be reacting to the same thing. For me, the story or "ballad" of Jesus in the Bible is inspiring in a way that a Life Skills class is not. It's a bit like how the life stories of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mother Teresa have inspiring parts that I want to look to. But if Jesus' story didn't actually happen then it's hard to make a full religion out of it just like it would be hard to rationalize making a whole religion out of MLK Jr and Mother Teresa.

So T., am I missing something in my summary in the opening post? Is there something besides "Reform Protestant" style worship and architecture, a mix of actual Unitarian theology and a chaotic "anything goes" openness about beliefs, Life Skills style sermons, a very friendly community, an emphasis on "mainstream culturally liberal" politics, and occasional Free Love issues like the Rainbow flags and YRUU scandal?

You are not alone in your observation, since the UU minister I cited in the second post said:

I've been told by a Unitarian Universalist minister acquaintance
of mine that the average "stay" within the Unitarian Universalist
church is about five years.

In that sense, it seems to me the church is like a train station,
a place to be between where you're leaving from and where you're
going to. This led me to a working title for my talk today,
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISM, THE TRAIN STATION RELIGION, OR PARDON ME
BOY, IS THAT THE CHATTANOOGA U-U?

So I would like to ask you to think more about what didn't sit right with you, in case you could explain it better. It seems to me that the Unitarian belief system is the one that best matches our current scientific understanding, but why would it basically be a train station? It seems like people leave to go to either a more doctrinaire, structured, religion with a set of detailed traditions or else drop out of religious practice altogether.
 
Goodness gracious!!!
That's a Ray Charles classic.
And the subsequent lyrics are apropos. My grandfather got medical MGM after his infancy but while the practice was coming into vogue in the US. He said the injury was extremely painful. The removed and injured tissue is actually the most sexually sensitive part of the organ.
 
Last edited:
Even a "gullible skeptic" like me could make a better argument for conversion, since Judaism has some inspiring aspects.


Have you tried just looking at pictures of her online. I find it very soothing.
 
Have you tried just looking at pictures of her online. I find it very soothing.

OK, so far you got the cool self-critical humor, mythical or true miracle stories, Mila Kunis and Natalie Portman. Is that basically it?
 
Last edited:
Rakovsky, what I've heard all my life is that this is exactly what the UU church has been struggling with for many years. It's kind of a matter of definition - a 'who are we?'. As you probably know, the Unitarians and Universalists originally merged specifically to deal with Civil Rights in the early 1960s - but after that, where do they go?

It has turned out that the UU congregations are so diverse in background (yet physically rather homogeneous) that nothing they do can satisfy everyone. They are going to have to settle for satisfying a specific group and cater to that group more strongly; right now they are trying to be everything for everyone, it seems to me.

Not much clearer, sorry.
 

Back
Top Bottom