Jump to content

Percy

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Jesus' message was that He had fulfilled the law (including circumcision), and that all people needed to do was believe on Him. Paul just drove this message home. The circumcision of the heart was mentioned in the Old Testament (Deut 10:16), so certainly wasn't invented by Paul. People were prepared to be fed to the lions for their belief in Jesus. If eternal life really did require removal of an excess flap of skin, I doubt this would present anymore than a minor inconvenience. I don't believe in vaccines, if that's what you're getting at. But some people sincerely believe in t
  2. I think some are unwilling to accept that circumcision might have health benefits. Ultimately, it is the parents who love the child and want the best for him, so I believe it should be the parents' choice, just as for other issues such as tongue ties and vaccines. As Jews do practice routine circumcision, which as you indicated is used as a for cure phimosis, I doubt there is a large incidence of phimosis in Hebrew males. The ancient historic records refer to a commandment from God, rather than a medical reason, although studies show there are a number of health benefits (which
  3. I don't think circumcision is just chopping bits of children. It's been practiced for 1000s of years. If there's a real issue, I think the proper place for it to be raised is in court. Who are we to say how someone else should raise her child? There are far more damaging practices to children, such as abortion and vaccination, which are permitted in the name of freedom. It's inconsistent to allow these, without allowing circumcision.
  4. I can understand this, but you oversimplify the argument. If the arm was useless, and had a cancer that was to destroy the body, you could argue that removing it would be legitimate. This is similar to the argument for circumcision - foreskin serves no purpose if any, and circumcision prevents a number of diseases. I'm not saying the argument is right, but it's not as straightforward as your arm chopping argument. In support of this, there are thousands of generations of males who have been circumcised and able to function without issue. Legal. Isn't that what we are arguing? I
  5. I didn't say the clitoris is required for birth - simply that male and female anatomy is different, and therefore, it's not accurate to claim that circumcision is as bad as FGM. I think the majority believe that clitoris is of more importance than foreskin, as circumcision is a common medical procedure, while FGM is illegal. Circumcision (without complication) doesn't prevent a man's sexual pleasure, whereas Female Genital Mutilation does prevent a female's sexual pleasure, so probably this is part of the reason. People circumcise for health reasons, for religious reasons, and as it is often a
  6. I think you're missing the point. It's not girls are more important than boys, it's that the clitoris is more important than foreskin. Males still get circumcised today, and for the most part function well. Some claim circumcision is better and healthier, and certainly some suffer injury, but most males are unaffected by it. I don't believe any female who has her clitoris mutilated can be said to function adequately, let alone with improved health or function. It's not sexist, it is just biology. Only women can give birth, and the clitoris is simply more important than foreskin. Th
  7. As a Christian, I believe God had reasons for commanding circumcision, but can understand the claims of barbarism as practiced today, due to the more extreme nature put in place by the Jews. Some babies apparently go into shock also. Without the original requirement (God commanded it at 8 days old), I also would only entertain informed consent for older males (as I believe Muslims do). Mostly agree, but wasn't physical circumcision given as symbolism for circumcision of the heart? If so, surely one can't be bad, and the other good, right? Certainly agree that it has no spiritual
  8. In Old Testament times, I understand just the excess skin was trimmed from the male member. In the New Testament age, Jews were frowned upon, and some males would start stretching the remaining skin to appear uncircumcised and hence non-Jewish. The rabbis then introduced a new method of circumcising to remove most or all of the foreskin, to make uncircumcising difficult or impossible. The Catholic site below has some line diagrams to explain the difference. The Jews deny this history in general, of course, but who wouldn't deny what may appear to others to be a descent from some level of civil
  9. Physical circumcision was given as symbolism of what was to take place in the heart, so is important as a metaphor, but obsolete in terms of spiritual value. Deut 10:16 Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked. I don't agree with those who say circumcision (as commanded by God) is child abuse, because I don't think God would command something unhealthy for His people. I understand that today's circumcision is quite different from that done in bible times - the "horrific distraction" you mention, and by certain accounts, worthy of the d
  10. I agree with this. A Youtuber called Probably Alexandra has the most interesting take on it I've heard. This will be the great grand-daddy of all problem-reaction-solutions. Most know that. But her take is that Trump is really going to do something - put away some of the big traitors and paedophiles (watch out Creepy Joe and HRC). Do some really good things and so in the end, people finally realise that the conspiracy theorists were right (at least about some of the truth), and genuinely love him. But he'll still be one of Satan's reps - just an "angel of light" or a Lucifer rep, rather than a
×
×
  • Create New...