Jump to content

Percy

Members
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Percy

  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 them. Free will (i.e. freedom) is more important than being right. If I stopped those parents vaccinating their children, I become a tyrant. Instead, the aim should be to convince people of their error, rather than force them into a mould of our design. It's a small piece of skin we are talking about, not just any other parts. And it is in the bible, and has been practiced for 1000s of years. Your culture has indoctrinated you into the belief that your views are right, and you are therefore justified in imposing these views on others by force. However, this is still tyranny, and is wrong. Our way should be to convince others, not to force them. Removing finger nails is not in the bible, and I'd argue it has no benefit in addition to causing pain and danger. I don't advocate using foreskins as facial products. That is gross, and I'd argue a type of cannibalism or vampirism. Ewwww. So gross. I thought the bone relics of saints was as low as they stooped.
  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 would include prevention of phimosis). In the New Testament, circumcision is seen as symbolising what is to take place in the heart - the removal of the sinful nature inherited through Adam, and sign of a new covenant through Christ.
  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 think lawful takes into account motive, but can only rightly be judged by God. I don't. I am just saying this is a practice that has gone on for thousands of generations, was instituted by God, and is said to have health, religious and physiological justifications. To just go out and ban it against people's consent would be a tyranny of sorts. I don't believe tyranny can be overcome with tyranny. Physical circumcision (OT) symbolised what is to happen in the heart - circumcision of the heart (NT). In the New Testament, the commandment was that circumcised males were to remain circumcised and uncircumcised uncircumcised. There was no prohibition on circumcision for cultural reasons. I do agree that Freemasonry has infiltrated the church - big time. Again, it comes down to your opinion. Are parents allowed to vaccinate their children? Pierce their ears? Loosen their tongue-ties, to help them to suckle? I believe parents should have the right to determine what is best for their children. If we sort out the more damaging issues like abortion and vaccination, I would propose that the circumcision issue could be resolved in a similar manner.
  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 preference of the fairer sex. There are no benefits to FGM. This isn't actually what I said. In times before, wicked people used to castrate boys and it was legal. It is my opinion that this would be a worse crime than FGM, as at least with FGM, it doesn't take away the ability for a female to reproduce. Again, this isn't about sexism - it is simply that some body parts are more important than others, irrespective of gender. The Christian belief system (New Testament) is based on the fulfillment of the Jewish belief system (Old Testament) through Jesus Christ. I don't think it's consistent for Christians to claim circumcision (at least Old Testament circumcision) is barbaric, when it was commanded by the same God we worship. If circumcision can be outlawed, how much more abortion and vaccination? And then where do the rights of the state end, and the rights of the parent begin? I am cautious about giving the state more rights than the parent, as the parent actually loves the child. If circumcision is to end, it is better to end through consent and education, than by use of legal force.
  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. The difficulty with banning circumcision is that it enters religious grounds, as God initiated circumcision. So to ban it crosses the line between state and religion, and transgresses into dangerous territory. Yeah, one might argue that banning child sacrifice crosses the same line, but what positive contribution have devil worshippers ever made to civilisation? However, to throw out Christian beliefs/values is to throw out the moral fabric of society. This I believe is the reason for the tolerance for circumcision.
  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 benefit today. I fully agree. If circumcision wasn't in the bible, I doubt it would have ever got any more popular than female circumcision. As it was, people were more open to it, and now it's realised there are some benefits (whether or not worth the risks). Female genital mutilation is called mutilation for the reasons you state - just cruel and rooted in hatred for femininity.
  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 civilisation into barbarism? https://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision2.html Just to be clear, the bible never required or mentioned physical circumcision for females. I think this is what you were saying, but wanted to make clear. I am a male so am biased on this subject, but don't view circumcision (if done properly) as causing problems with male function. This isn't to say that the modern methods aren't far more likely to harm (as many men claim). I think the mutilation or removal of the clitoris to be very barbaric though, and generally (but not always) not comparable to biblical circumcision.
  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 description of child abuse.
  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 devil/demon rep we've become so used to with so many other cult leaders. A false saviour. Time will tell.
×
×
  • Create New...