Modern Day Circumcision Not the Same as Ancient?

[Earth_is-]

Modern day circumcision is circumcision. But, scripturally speaking, you can have a circumcision that involves keeping much more of your foreskin intact - and you’d still be technically circumcised. Why is it better to have that extra foreskin? Because the extra foreskin may play a part in increased sexual satisfaction for the marital union.

With fasting - you take time off of food. It’s not too much our Lord and Savior is asking of us. We still keep our taste buds in tact when the fast is over.

Same thing with taking breaks from sexual relations:

1 Corinthians 7:5

5 Do not deprive each other of sexual relations, unless you both agree to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time so you can give yourselves more completely to prayer. Afterward, you should come together again so that Satan won’t be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

There’s an old statue of Michaelangelo's depiction of king David - and his foreskin appears to be almost fully intact. People have noted that it’s accurate - and not a mistake. The reason they say is because circumcision was different in the time of David; and is actually correctly noted in the statue with just the tip of the foreskin removed. I know these are simply opinions of people - but it does align with the Hebrew word for “clip.”

 

[Joleneakamama]

It is ONLY the USA that is like that. In the rest of the world, including New Zealand, circumcision is an unusual practice and there are no anti-circumcision crusaders because they'd have nothing to do.

Those Drs in earlier America succeeded quite well.
As a result of how many are done here, and the fact that they are working on tiny immature babies there is also a fair amount of goof ups. circumcisionharm.org has articles and photos. One article mentioned a hospital in Chicago that does many surgeries attempting to repair damage. (Seems crazy to me to try and fix it with more cutting)

My sw has a son who went to preschool briefly. she found out talking to other moms that the trend has shifted. Because insurance to longer covers infant circumcision being uncut is the norm in his generation.

 

[steve]

Is this because I said concubines didn’t share the same rights as wives? I have scripture to back that up. King david - when he was chased out of his kingdom he brought his wives with him, but he left his concubines behind. Abraham - he gave all he had to his only son from his wife - Sarah. But for his concubines - he simply gave them gifts:

Genesis 25:5-6
Abraham gave all he had to Isaac.

6 But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, while he was still living, and he sent them away from his son Isaac, eastward to the east country.

A concubine is a wife. She belongs to the husband - and the husband still is to provide for her and the children. But it’s clear there was a difference between a concubine and a wife. Even though both were still a man’s wives.

Sheesh, please don’t bring a different argument into this thread, even though it’s yours

 

[Earth_is-]

Those Drs in earlier America succeeded quite well.
As a result of how many are done here, and the fact that they are working on tiny immature babies there is also a fair amount of goof ups. circumcisionharm.org has articles and photos. One article mentioned a hospital in Chicago that does many surgeries attempting to repair damage. (Seems crazy to me to try and fix it with more cutting)

My sw has a son who went to preschool briefly. she found out talking to other moms that the trend has shifted. Because insurance to longer covers infant circumcision being uncut is the norm in his generation.

The thing is - most people do this circumcision aren’t even doing it for religious purposes. But because of social norms and trusting that the system wants what’s best for you. If the system wants what’s best for you - why are they allowed to put junk ingredients into our food supply (such as high fructose corn syrup as a sugar replacement)? Or pushing gender confusion in the youth? Or encouraging homosexuality acceptance - which is an abomination to our Master. I can go on and on - but scripture is true when it says - Satan is the god of this world:

2 Corinthians 4:4
Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don’t believe.

He hasn’t just blinded non-believers but also Christians by causing them to do things that provoke the Creator (bowing down to statues, calling Mary sinless, repetition prayer with the Hail Mary, keeping King Jesus on the cross which is putting him up to public disgrace - and violates the law which says not to keep even a murderer hanging on a pole/cross overnight - but to bury him. Since man is made in the image of God). Christians have the scriptures - and yet they still do things to provoke their Creator in favor of their worthless human traditions.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Modern day circumcision is circumcision. But, scripturally speaking, you can have a circumcision that involves keeping much more of your foreskin intact - and you’d still be technically circumcised. Why is it better to have that extra foreskin? Because the extra foreskin may play a part in increased sexual satisfaction for the marital union.

With fasting - you take time off of food. It’s not too much our Lord and Savior is asking of us. We still keep our taste buds in tact when the fast is over.

Same thing with taking breaks from sexual relations:

1 Corinthians 7:5

5 Do not deprive each other of sexual relations, unless you both agree to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time so you can give yourselves more completely to prayer. Afterward, you should come together again so that Satan won’t be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

There’s an old statue of Michaelangelo's depiction of king David - and his foreskin appears to be almost fully intact. People have noted that it’s accurate - and not a mistake. The reason they say is because circumcision was different in the time of David; and is actually correctly noted in the statue with just the tip of the foreskin removed. I know these are simply opinions of people - but it does align with the Hebrew word for “clip.”

You see if you had led with this I would have rolled my eyes and ignored you. It’s silly but it’s not egregiously misleading. The idea that Michelangelo had some insight in to David’s circumcision thousands of years later is patently ridiculous but doesn’t require refutation.

The idea that foreskin somehow effects a woman’s pleasure sounds like insecure men grasping for some kind of mental advantage but again, doesn’t require refutation.