Child Circumcision

[lake]

Much can be said but this is a point to start

 

 

[shabbirss]

i wonder what the spiritual implications are.

as a Muslim, its a sensitive topic for me but
what if the foreskin serves as a protection of sorts of male energy
- on a spiritual level - like from wandering succubus types of entities
 

Edited October 28, 2020 by shabbirss

[Ethel]

30 minutes ago, shabbirss said:

what if the foreskin serves as a protection of sorts of male energy
- on a spiritual level
 

 

It does. I have just finished reading both 'Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma' by Ronald Goldman and 'Birth Trauma And The Dark Side Of Modern Medicine' by Jeanice Barcelo. 

 

The second one in particular is the most difficult book to read I have ever encountered. At one point, when I was reading a description of the actual circumcision of babies, how they do it and the reaction of the babies, I felt close to vomiting/fainting. That was from reading about it. There are fully grown adult medical students who have fainted or been sick before when witnessing the procedure. 

 

Jeanice Barcelo explains the spiritual implications thusly: The foreskin contains pores/receptors which detect pheromones and enhance bonding in a relationship, and play a role in enhancing genuine spiritual love within the context of a sexual relationship. This capacity, therefore, is reduced as the result of circumcision, along with the after effects of the extreme trauma, which will come and go, and vary from person to person.

 

Many of the devils working in the medical profession continue to claim that newborn babies do not feel pain, which is obviously an insane lie. If anything, those who possess an ounce of emotion, empathy or intuition will know that they probably feel more of it. 

 

Eyewitness accounts of babies reactions to the procedure are enough to sicken a person beyond belief; descriptions of babies emitting cries which were "unlike anything ever heard" whilst in some cases also fainting, vomiting or going deathly silent after initially shrieking.

 

The fiends who carry out these procedures are either the knowingly evil type, who are the worst kind of Satanists in existence, or those who are so totally and utterly spiritually dead that their emotional compass allows them to brutalize the genitalia of a baby whilst feeling nothing. Either way, I must confess that the urge to corner one of these individuals and punch their face until it pleases me to stop is extremely strong.

[Church Militant]

baby circumcision reminds me of MK-Ultra trauma treatment.

[Michi713]

When I was pregnant I read What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision by Paul Fleiss.  It was the scariest horror story I ever read.  It talked about the industry behind selling foreskins in America and other horrors.  Thankfully, there is a counter movement in the US to reduce the practice, but circumcisers are filling the gap with African American poor babies. 

 

Had a rotation in the Neonatal Unit in nursing school and had to care for a baby who just had it done.  He would not stop screaming.  Very cruel. 

[Ethel]

18 minutes ago, Michi713 said:

  It talked about the industry behind selling foreskins in America and other horrors. 

 

Yes, it is put into cosmetics which are bought by very wealthy women, including 'celebrity' females, who are literally applying the energy of suffering to their skin. Again; Satan worshipping.

[Steph]

They circumcise the foreskin of the penis nut not the foreskin of the heart? Those who are not circumcised of the foreskin of their heart are cut off from God and the circumcission of the penis is at best irrelevent but at worst a horrific distraction.

[novymir]

Complete insanity.

 

Huge effect on humanity. A complete betrayal and traumatization on the child almost immediately. Trauma is used by cancer for assimilation.

This is hell. A sick dream. Not God's Creation.

The Truth Heals All, and Sets Us Free. Never to return here again. Thank GOD!

Edited November 19, 2020 by novymir

[Truthspoon]

On 10/29/2020 at 1:28 AM, shabbirss said:

i wonder what the spiritual implications are.

as a Muslim, its a sensitive topic for me but
what if the foreskin serves as a protection of sorts of male energy
- on a spiritual level - like from wandering succubus types of entities
 

 

Respect to you that even as a Muslim you are willing to discuss this.......

 

I do not know about spiritual protection but I think there can be no doubt that childhood trauma has a profoundly negative effect on congnitive development.

 

At least the Muslims wait until the child is older, the Jews do this to babies when they cannot rationalise or understand what is happening to them.

 

I think this explains a lot of the issues the world is having and has been having with the small hatted ones for the past couple of thousand years.

 

 

[Beaujangles]

In Canada I would say most babies are circumcised.. I had already had my children before I came here and most definitely my sons were not circumcised. People here frown on mothers who refuse to have their boys circumcised, they say it is ``cleaner`` to have it done. My grandsons are not circumcised and my daughters were criticised for not doing it. People certainly get a mouthful from me when they dare to question my choice. 

 

I understand the practice of Jews was or is to bite off the babies foreskin, then suck the blood...All I can say is that if I were ever present the one doing that, a mohel, would have less than one more second left on this earth. I would personally annihilate the bastard.

[novymir]

Yeah, I'd suggest maybe anyone who has had it done to watch a vid of it, and realize that they lived through that, and that there may be a part of themself that is buried within that needs healing, understanding, love. Try to own the experience, and connect with the baby you were, it/you were just an innocent child, that entered into an insane world. Somehow, forgive. I did it, and I feel like there was some value in it.

I find it hard to believe there isn't a strong after-effect from such an experience, like other forms of child abuse, that seems to be ignored, dismissed, or covered up.

[shabbirss]

On 11/20/2020 at 6:39 AM, Beaujangles said:

 

I understand the practice of Jews was or is to bite off the babies foreskin, then suck the blood...

omw sick o.O

Edited November 29, 2020 by shabbirss

[QuodHumana]

Child circumcision is child abuse. 

[rideforever]

From what I understand circumcision is to stop young men masturbating.

Of course such things mean very little to a society that teaches young men sodomy and genital removal.

In a world who's products are cancer and planetary destruction ... what use is it to find flaws in others, when your own activity leads to such obvious and unrestrained evil.

Another thing about people is that they have a lot of crocodile tears, and they are not really so vulnerable as they like to act.

 

Real tears they don't seem to feel anymore, so buried is their soul.

[Liam3880]

I’m in my 30s from England and I had it done when I was born and it still baffles me to this day, from what I’ve read it’s something called thimosis but I’m not sure that’s a genuine condition 

[Percy]

On 10/29/2020 at 9:10 AM, Steph said:

They circumcise the foreskin of the penis nut not the foreskin of the heart? Those who are not circumcised of the foreskin of their heart are cut off from God and the circumcission of the penis is at best irrelevent but at worst a horrific distraction.

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.

[Guest Gone Fishing...]

14 minutes ago, Percy said:

I understand that today's circumcision is quite different from that done in bible times

Can you explain the differences please ?
 

[EnigmaticWorld]

Does anyone else wonder if Bobby Fischer being uncircumcised played a part in his views? Probably just me.

[Steph]

1 hour ago, Basket Case said:

Can you explain the differences please ?
 

Circumcision of the flesh is at best a symbolic ritual which is purely physical in nature. There are cults which perform circumcision of the flesh on the penis of males exclusively. Biblical circumcision was done to males and females, both the children of Gods people and those who served Gods people. It was not a physical thing that was done but a spiritual one. The priests job was to pull aside the veil between the physical plane and the spiritual plane. The heart being circumcised was not the cardiovascular quadriventrical blood pumping bodily organ in a persons chest but the core of a persons being. The foreskin which was peeled back was the veil which made it appear they were only physical beings.

[Guest Gone Fishing...]

2 hours ago, Steph said:

Circumcision of the flesh is at best a symbolic ritual which is purely physical in nature. There are cults which perform circumcision of the flesh on the penis of males exclusively. Biblical circumcision was done to males and females, both the children of Gods people and those who served Gods people. It was not a physical thing that was done but a spiritual one. The priests job was to pull aside the veil between the physical plane and the spiritual plane. The heart being circumcised was not the cardiovascular quadriventrical blood pumping bodily organ in a persons chest but the core of a persons being. The foreskin which was peeled back was the veil which made it appear they were only physical beings.

 

l was looking for the exact physical difference between biblical and modern circumcision.
 

[DarianF]

7 hours ago, Basket Case said:

 

l was looking for the exact physical difference between biblical and modern circumcision.
 

 

https://southfloridamohel.com/blog/biblical-circumcision-vs-modern-circumcision/

[Eldnah]

On 11/19/2020 at 8:59 AM, Truthspoon said:

 

Respect to you that even as a Muslim you are willing to discuss this.......

 

I do not know about spiritual protection but I think there can be no doubt that childhood trauma has a profoundly negative effect on congnitive development.

 

At least the Muslims wait until the child is older, the Jews do this to babies when they cannot rationalise or understand what is happening to them.

 

I think this explains a lot of the issues the world is having and has been having with the small hatted ones for the past couple of thousand years.

 

 

 

Circumcision may have made sense at one point for health and hygene regions for desert cultures (short of water lots of sand) - and it later becomes a religious practice.   

Not eating Pork has similar origins

 

The hygene aspect isnt  really an issue until you get to older youths and so perhaps explains in part at least why the age differrence in when its done. 

 

Personally I would see it banned, but whilst I will accept it on religious grounds* - those mothers who have their sons done because they prefer it like that - should be slapped silly.

 

Because it can be done on medical grounds - its never going to attract the support the anti FGM movement does - since theres no medical reason for the latter** as such it will be difficult to get it banned

 

 

*Providing the subject gives consent  (so is at least 14 but i would rather 16 - 18)

**Not withstanding that its also far more barbaric a procedure with serious implications in many victims as well 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2020 by Eldnah

[Percy]

On 12/7/2020 at 12:07 AM, Basket Case said:

Can you explain the differences please ?
 

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

 

On 12/7/2020 at 2:39 AM, Steph said:

Circumcision of the flesh is at best a symbolic ritual which is purely physical in nature. There are cults which perform circumcision of the flesh on the penis of males exclusively. Biblical circumcision was done to males and females, both the children of Gods people and those who served Gods people. It was not a physical thing that was done but a spiritual one. The priests job was to pull aside the veil between the physical plane and the spiritual plane. The heart being circumcised was not the cardiovascular quadriventrical blood pumping bodily organ in a persons chest but the core of a persons being. The foreskin which was peeled back was the veil which made it appear they were only physical beings.

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.

Edited December 9, 2020 by Percy
Error

[Guest Gone Fishing...]

4 hours ago, Percy said:

but who wouldn't deny what may appear to others to be a descent from some level of civilisation into barbarism?

 

Thanks for the link. Interesting. I've never looked into the exact details before. 

But, either way... Ancient or Modern, no anesthetic is outrageously barbaric . 

And as Eldnah suggests above, Informed consent at around 16 / 18 years WITH anesthesia would be much more acceptable IMO. 

BC 

[Steph]

4 hours ago, Percy said:

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.

I dont agree with circumcission of the flesh. The true circumcission has nothing to do with the foreskin of the penis but the foreskin of the soul. Those who were only circumcised in flesh were .... read this ...

"The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will punish all who are circumcised only in the flesh--"

 

By biblical circumcission we refer to the extra practice of circumcission which is not done in the flesh. I dont agree with physical circumcission since it deceives the uncircumcised to believe they are circumcised and its barbaric. In christianity, baptisms of water are given which is symbolic of the same covenant but carried out on babies which to me seems more like some 'bring them young' ownership of the flock thing. The true baptism is done by a spiritual practice rather than a physical one. As rituals go, the watery baptism is safer but whats the point if a baby has no idea whats going on or the older neophytes do not have the symbolic meaning of the watery baptism explained to them as symbolising the spiritual baptism to come.