• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Are you freaking kidding me?

GunnarR said:
I don't understand what you mean on the first half... What do you mean by "the risks of infection are low and can be avoided by proper washing..."
Click to expand...

That was a summation of the Mayo clinic's perspective on circumcision. In other words, the harm you attempt to avoid with it is slight and easily avoided. I.e. the treatment is unnecessary.

GunnarR said:
Lidocaine has a rather short half-life (around 1.5-2 hours per my pharmacology information). So the infant will feel some discomfort, however it is no different if you had a tooth pulled or had to have surgery (prayerfully you haven't had to experience either). And lidocaine only temporarily numbs the nerves and all the nerves down from where the medicine is injected. It doesn't cause any nerves to grow.
Click to expand...

Which is my point, Lidocaine can't possibly ameliorate the harm and suffering caused by circumcision. You realize people develop phobias about dentists right? And not for no reason. It strains credulity to think that cutting off the nerves on a penis won't have similar long lasting harmful effects to some boys.

GunnarR said:
the rule of thumb is to try and find articles that are anywhere from 5 to 10 years when looking things up. Any farther than that has a very high probability of being updated and/or erroneous because of the new information.
Click to expand...

Wow, science must be really poor then to have such a recent expiration date.

GunnarR said:
Male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction.
Click to expand...

That's the me or your lying eyes moment for science; it strains basic logic. And it's not even true 'scientifically'. Oh wait, that's 9 years old, must be wrong.

FollowingHim said:
(HIV, HPV, and cervical cancer caused by HPV) rather differently. These diseases only spread through promiscuity,
Click to expand...

Worse than that, HPV infections often are removed by the immune system. It turning cancerous is a symptom of poor immune function.
 
FollowingHim said:
circumcision is not "mutilation".
Click to expand...

Paul had a different opinion and that's not even the worst thing he had to say about it.

Pacman said:
Whatever these folks were doing for circumcision was clearly not Biblical circumcision.
Click to expand...

That's a presupposition not born out by the text. There is no mention of an 'adherent' form of circumcision. Paul was contrasting circumcision with the way of Christ. Paul taught them to not be circumcised (period, regardless the method or extent).

The Revolting Man said:
Circumcision is no big deal. I’ve seen a lot of them at this point and they are healed in days. God wouldn’t call us to do something harmful, even before Jesus and Paul.
Click to expand...

That is normalcy bias talking. Circumcision is a far more meaningful a religious act if it does come at a cost. And God calls people to harm all the time; many servants of God have suffered for His glory. To the death even. There is value in suffering.

But there is no longer any spiritual value in the suffering or sign of circumcision. And for those not of a religious conviction to do it, which is the vast majority of men, it is an unnecessary and harmful procedure done without the consent of the male who will suffer the repercussions.
 
rockfox said:
Wow, science must be really poor then to have such a recent expiration date.
Click to expand...

I must admit to having had a similar reaction to reading what you were responding to, @rockfox. Please keep in mind, though, that @GunnarR is currently in college about all this, and you and I both know that what he's expressed about the short shelf life of scientific wisdom is the common folly of the social sciences: by insisting that only the latest 'insights' are worthy, they inadvertently emphasize the degree to which their suppositions are based on foundations of sand.

Because to assert that any information over 10 years old is outdated begs the following conclusion: that anything being asserted in the present will be nearly worthless in a decade, so why bother building one's life around it in the present?

That limited-shelf-life propaganda is not only designed to keep Big Education in business, it's also to a large extent a concerted effort to deny the existence of God and His Word. Religious institutions of higher learning are not exempt from this. I received my bachelors degree from a Protestant church-affiliated college, and they were and continue to demonstrate being just as susceptible to such characterizations as any secular public university.
 
rockfox said:
It strains credulity to think that cutting off the nerves on a penis won't have similar long lasting harmful effects to some boys.
Click to expand...

I myself have mixed feelings about this issue. I'm with you, @rockfox, about recognizing that Paul was very clearly admonishing Judaizers from insisting that male Gentile converts to Christianity get circumcised, but I'm not certain that he was prohibiting circumcision altogether, especially given that he frequently used 'Circumcision' and 'Uncircumcision' to symbolically represent those who came from the Judaic tradition and those who didn't.

Personally, I'm quite happy that my parents had me circumcised and regularly celebrate some of the advantages. My father, who chose to have me circumcised, occasionally asserted to us that there was no disadvantage to him in being a man who wasn't circumcised, stating that it just required more fastidious cleaning! But then when my youngest son was circumcised and I could hear his blood-curdling screams from way down the hallway as his otherwise-totally-awesome Orthodox Jewish obstetrician made a slight mistake in the procedure, I had my first significant doubts about the worthiness of it.

I remain, though, somewhat agnostic on the subject.

So, I'm wondering, especially given how obvious it is from your many posts that you have passionate thoughts on the subject: what is your own personal experience with circumcision, Rock?
 
I should actually state my position on the matter, since I've jumped into the conversation but have been vague as to my own views.

I have not circumcised my sons. I have considered this issue many times over the years, and have never been able to come to a firm conclusion on it. Therefore, lacking any strong conviction that I should do this, and knowing that you can choose to do it once but can't choose to go back from that decision if it was wrong, I have chosen not to. If my sons decide I was wrong they can always rectify that themselves - but if I had them circumcised and they disagreed, they couldn't change that. If in doubt, leave your options open.

However I also understand very well that the circumcision Abraham was given as the sign of his covenant was a very minor operation compared to the Pharisaical Jewish circumcision and Western medical circumcision. Jewish and Western medical circumcision are not at all Biblical, but have been invented subsequently for other purposes - the Pharisees made the procedure more extreme to prevent people from being able to regrow their foreskins in order to fit into Greek culture, and the Western medical establishment adopted that extreme version for a range of mostly unjustifiable reasons back in the 19th century (such as stopping masturbation). God never instructed this.
Circumcision.png
If I were to take my sons to a doctor for circumcision, they would most likely receive this unBiblical form of circumcision, which I would not under any circumstances wish to give them.
But if I were to do a more minor procedure myself, I could be had up for child abuse because of not getting a medical professional involved - remembering that most of the world does not see circumcision as "normal", the USA is an anomaly.
Obviously these difficult waters could be navigated if I had a firm conviction on the matter, but I don't have such conviction.

I object to @rockfox's characterisation of all circumcision as "mutilation" (I don't mind Brit Peri'ah being labelled "mutilation" as it is an extreme invention of man, but Brit Milah is not mutilation as it was given by God even if not necessary for us today). However, I also disagree with those who say it is necessary, because I cannot make that agree with Paul's strong statements like "Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised." and "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing."

I think this is a matter for personal conviction - and I personally lack any such conviction.
 
rockfox said:
Paul had a different opinion and that's not even the worst thing he had to say about it.



That's a presupposition not born out by the text. There is no mention of an 'adherent' form of circumcision. Paul was contrasting circumcision with the way of Christ. Paul taught them to not be circumcised (period, regardless the method or extent).



That is normalcy bias talking. Circumcision is a far more meaningful a religious act if it does come at a cost. And God calls people to harm all the time; many servants of God have suffered for His glory. To the death even. There is value in suffering.

But there is no longer any spiritual value in the suffering or sign of circumcision. And for those not of a religious conviction to do it, which is the vast majority of men, it is an unnecessary and harmful procedure done without the consent of the male who will suffer the repercussions.
Click to expand...
What version of Galatians did you read? Check out chapter two again. I may have normalcy bias but you appear to have an emotionally driven bias.
 
rockfox said:
Paul had a different opinion and that's not even the worst thing he had to say about it.



That's a presupposition not born out by the text. There is no mention of an 'adherent' form of circumcision. Paul was contrasting circumcision with the way of Christ. Paul taught them to not be circumcised (period, regardless the method or extent).



That is normalcy bias talking. Circumcision is a far more meaningful a religious act if it does come at a cost. And God calls people to harm all the time; many servants of God have suffered for His glory. To the death even. There is value in suffering.

But there is no longer any spiritual value in the suffering or sign of circumcision. And for those not of a religious conviction to do it, which is the vast majority of men, it is an unnecessary and harmful procedure done without the consent of the male who will suffer the repercussions.
Click to expand...
Let’s explore this a little more. You make a claim to intellectual rigor that is born out in many cases. You certainly don’t mind calling people out when you think they’re wrong. Now it’s your turn. You’re wrong. Astoundingly wrong and I will prove it to you in one quick, three word sentence. Three words, that’s all I need to prove conclusively that you’re so far off base that you’re out of the green zone and deep in enemy territory ass deep in adversaries, played in the metaphor by simple facts.

Are you ready for your three word sentence? Here it is:

Paul circumcised Timothy.

That’s it, you’re anti-circumcision crusading apostle to the gentiles circumcised a half Greek convert to Christianity. I will wait patiently for your retraction.
 
Last edited:
frederick said:
Gal. 2:3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
Click to expand...

It seems Titus was not "compelled" to be a Torah-keeper... as Paul wrote... "not even Titus".
I think that speaks volumes.

It puzzles me as to why many professing Bible believers do not think like the apostle Paul on such issues toward ethnically non-Jewish people.

I find the tone of Paul's talk and behavior quite interesting, especially in light of...

Genesis 17:14 : "Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.” NIV

That sounds rather serious - for whomever it may apply - seemingly, not Greeks, but I imagine others as well
 
frederick said:
Gal. 2:3 Yet not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
Click to expand...
The assumption is that he is talking about physical circumcision. The context is actually about the full conversion to Judaism. Including the Pharasaical laws stacked on top of the Torah. Circumcision is a short hand used by Paul in many or even most places in his writings. He wasn't saying that Titus never got physically circumcised only that he wasn't forced to go through the man made conversion process into 'the circumcision'.

Folks the proof is in Paul's own words. He said in a court of law that he had done nothing worthy of death. Teaching against the Torah (including physical curcumcision) is worthy of death and it's actually what they had FALSELY accused him of. So either you are misunderstanding the passages where you claim that Paul taught against circumcision or he is a liar and we shouldn't be listening to anything he has to say.

Possibly 2 Peter 3:14-17 actually have some relevance here?
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
Ive read this several times and cant quite determine exactly what you’re trying to say here.
Click to expand...

"the circumcision" or similar terms are a short hand used by Paul and others to refer to proselyte conversion to Judaism. It comes with the oral tradition and all the baggage that Yeshua railed against. That's what Tutus wasn't compelled to do. It wasn't the physical circumcision. Physical circumcision is something he likely willing did at some point simply out of obedience to God.
 
Pacman said:
"the circumcision" or similar terms are a short hand used by Paul and others to refer to proselyte conversion to Judaism. It comes with the oral tradition and all the baggage that Yeshua railed against. That's what Tutus wasn't compelled to do. It wasn't the physical circumcision. Physical circumcision is something he likely willing did at some point simply out of obedience to God.
Click to expand...
I understand that's what you're saying. But the text does not say "Not even Titus was compelled to join the circumcision". It says "be circumcised". This seems to be written very clearly, and I don't see how it can be read in the way you are asserting.
 
Pacman said:
"the circumcision" or similar terms are a short hand used by Paul and others to refer to proselyte conversion to Judaism. It comes with the oral tradition and all the baggage that Yeshua railed against. That's what Tutus wasn't compelled to do. It wasn't the physical circumcision. Physical circumcision is something he likely willing did at some point simply out of obedience to God.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with Samuel here. The entire need to defend mandatory circumcision dissipates for us if we accept that Torah isn’t mandatory. I know we disagree on this but everything clicks in to place of you accept Gentiles can stay gentiles. Then Titus simply wasn’t circumcised and it ends strengthening the case for Torah because his uncircumcision was worth noting.
 
Pacman said:
"the circumcision" or similar terms are a short hand used by Paul and others to refer to proselyte conversion to Judaism. It comes with the oral tradition and all the baggage that Yeshua railed against. That's what Tutus wasn't compelled to do. It wasn't the physical circumcision. Physical circumcision is something he likely willing did at some point simply out of obedience to God.
Click to expand...

I find it quite interesting what ideas can be formulated using eisegesis. It is really a useful technique; with it, most of the bible can be made to say whatever is our own preconceived stance on almost any issue.
@Pacman, you really do have a knack for using eisegesis. I see the plain reading of what is written in the text doesn't quite work for you, but it sure does for me. I guess I'm inclined to stay with plain old exegesis. I do respect your inventive ability to come up with alternative thoughts to overlay on the straightforward meaning of words. I suppose we'll have to agree to not be on the same page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis
 
Frank S said:
I find it quite interesting what ideas can be formulated using eisegesis. It is really a useful technique; with it, most of the bible can be made to say whatever is our own preconceived stance on almost any issue.
@Pacman, you really do have a knack for using eisegesis. I see the plain reading of what is written in the text doesn't quite work for you, but it sure does for me. I guess I'm inclined to stay with plain old exegesis. I do respect your inventive ability to come up with alternative thoughts to overlay on the straightforward meaning of words. I suppose we'll have to agree to not be on the same page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis
Click to expand...

So the dispute is what exactly? The fact is that the circumcision is a short hand and it's demonstrated many times through the new testament. The only thing I'm making a leap about is that it is what Paul is talking about in this particular passage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top