Are you freaking kidding me?

[FollowingHim]

They've worded that very well to ban undesirable genital mutilation, while clearly exempting religious or other circumcision from the ban to completely avoid another can of worms, in a tiny number of words, and without mentioning either religion or circumcision to further avoid even touching the can of worms. I am impressed by the drafter's skill with language.

 

[Pacman]

Never fear, they won't be stopping the routine mutilation of infant boys; can't have them experiencing too much pleasure in sex now can we.

Circumcision is biblical bro. Commanded on the 8th day. Now it's very possible that the common practice today is different than what it was in OT times I'm not debating that. But the idea that circumcision is mutilation is false unless you believe Yah commanded mutilation.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

Circumcision is biblical bro. Commanded on the 8th day. Now it's very possible that the common practice today is different than what it was in OT times I'm not debating that. But the idea that circumcision is mutilation is false unless you believe Yah commanded mutilation.

I thought about circumcising our oldest, when he was born, but when I read Galatians 5, I decided against it. Another reason I didn't want to go ahead with it, was that we were informed that there was a risk of infection that could result in requiring removal. I am of the opinion, from what I have read online, where I found testimonies of those who have had the procedure done as adults, that it does result in more enjoyable sex, but as long as my boys are not in a position to marry, it is probably a good thing to leave them as they are, and that is something they can consider, once they find a wife.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

On the Texas Ballot for tomorrow's primary:

Proposition #6 Texas should ban chemical castration, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and genital mutilation surgery on all minor children for transition purposes, given that Texas children as young as three (3) are being transitioned from their biological sex to the opposite sex.

I was thinking of skipping out on the Primaries for tomorrow, but weighing this proposition out there, it is a no-brainer.

It sailed through the Republican primary 94.6% For - 5.6% Against.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/p...2020/269-beeb4808-2a13-46e5-87e5-9eee84e11b0b

Apparently these propositions are only opinion polls. It will give legislators an idea of what to push for when Congress is in session, which the Governor is free to call in at any time, but typically won't do unless a session has just completed and key legislation that they were working on, has not been passed, so we will probably have to wait until next year to get any real action done.

 

[rockfox]

But the idea that circumcision is mutilation is false

And yet Paul call's it mutilation.

Boys aren't getting their foreskins cut off in hospitals all across the country because Torah keeping is a widespread phenomena. It is at best a vestigial practice of the 19th century anti-sex movement.

 

[Pacman]

And yet Paul call's it mutilation.

Boys aren't getting their foreskins cut off in hospitals all across the country because Torah keeping is a widespread phenomena. It is at best a vestigial practice of the 19th century anti-sex movement.

I don't disagree with you that following the Bible is not the motivation for circumcision in most cases currently.

Paul was not referring to biblical circumcision. You seriously cannot be that obtuse. Even if you believe that Paul taught circumcision to be unnecessary the mutilation is not biblical circumcision.

Philippians 3:2 KJV
Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.

Philippians 3:2 NASB
Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision;

Is there some other passage you are referring to?

 

[GunnarR]

I thought about circumcising our oldest, when he was born, but when I read Galatians 5, I decided against it. Another reason I didn't want to go ahead with it, was that we were informed that there was a risk of infection that could result in requiring removal. I am of the opinion, from what I have read online, where I found testimonies of those who have had the procedure done as adults, that it does result in more enjoyable sex, but as long as my boys are not in a position to marry, it is probably a good thing to leave them as they are, and that is something they can consider, once they find a wife.

I've seen a circumcision done on an infant and the risk for infection is extremely low. The doctor saturated the entire perinium (groin region) with betadine/iodine mix. It is also fairly quick and the infant appears to not experience much pain (if any due to the lidocaine). The "procedure" took less than 8 minutes (if that).

However, there is greater risk for infection if you DON'T circumcise. Higher incidence of STD's, UTI's, and foreskin infections are seen with people who don't circumcise. Scripture gives clear commands for a reason. However, it is neat when science further proves the word of Yah. He had a reason for that command: to protect the men (and women) and their offspring from diseases and infections.

Edit: I was just informed that women are at an increased risk for cervical cancer when with uncircumcised men. Another reason why YHVH instituted this.

 

[steve]

I do believe that the normal amount excised is excessive.

 

[Joleneakamama]

I've seen a circumcision done on an infant and the risk for infection is extremely low.

I'm sure Dr's use good sanitation. Honestly a healthy body with a non messed with immune system is very unlikely to suffer infections at all. I have never in my life used antibiotics and I suspect a lot of that was due to avoiding the messing with our bodies the medical profession practices.
There is a website here that documents a lot of damage beyond infection for anyone interested.
http://www.circumcisionharm.org/index.htm

However, there is greater risk for infection if you DON'T circumcise. Higher incidence of STD's, UTI's, and foreskin infections are seen with people who don't circumcise. Scripture gives clear commands for a reason. However, it is neat when science further proves the word of Yah. He had a reason for that command: to protect the men (and women) and their offspring from diseases and infections.

STDs do not just originate on an uncut man. Infections in the urinary tract usually have many contributing factors including ......antibiotic use.

I am not opposed to biblical circumsicion at all, but the fact that we have a loving God is a big reason why I am sure that the modern procedure is NOT how it would have been done biblically.
Lidocaine may numb while the procedure is performed, but many are done with no anesthetic at all, and have been for many years. The infants foreskin is connected with very sensitive tissues, much like those that connect fingernails. Removing it without anesthesia (which of course did not exist in biblical times) would be as painful to an infant as peeling of your fingernails would be to an adult.

Trimming off a ring of skin at the tip? Mama will probably have less sprinkles to clean up in the bathroom.

Doing an all off procedure with no lidocain?
Mama may have a baby that cries every time he pees or remembers what happened to him.

Most doctors are just making money on the job, doing what they have been trained and told to do. Most were circumcised as infants and cannot remember a different reality.

I know a lot of people who did not circumcise. I just counted about 35 intact fellas off the top of my head. Lol
I know of no problems at all relating to infections or being intact. But our children have two circumcised cousins that had to have their urinary opening surgically enlarged, and that is a frequent complication of infant circumcision.

 

[Daniel DeLuca]

 

[rockfox]

Philippians 3:2 KJV
Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.

Philippians 3:2 NASB
Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision;

Have you ever used the word concision in everyday conversation?

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2699: κατατομή

κατατομή, κατατομης, ἡ (from κατατέμνω (cf. κατά, III. 4) to cut up, mutilate), mutilation (Latinconcisio): Philippians 3:2, where Paul sarcastically alludes to the word περιτομή which follows in Philippians 3:3; as though he would say, Keep your eye on that boasted circumcision, or to call it by its true name 'concision' or 'mutilation.' Cf. the similar passage, Galatians 5:12; see ἀποκόπτω.

Mutilation is good translation and description of it and what it effects.

Paul was not referring to biblical circumcision. You seriously cannot be that obtuse. Even if you believe that Paul taught circumcision to be unnecessary the mutilation is not biblical circumcision.

Yes Paul was talking about circumcision...

2Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation! 3For we are the circumcision, who worship [a]God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh, 4though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: 5circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; 6concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

That could not be more clear from the context.

 

[rockfox]

Higher incidence of STD's, UTI's, and foreskin infections are seen with people who don't circumcise

The risks of infection are low and can be avoided by proper washing. Cutting off your God given anatomy isn't a replacement for proper hygiene. Put differently,

The positions of the world's major medical organizations range from a belief that elective circumcision of babies and children carries significant risks and offers no medical benefits to a belief that the procedure has a modest health benefit that outweighs small risks.

It is also fairly quick and the infant appears to not experience much pain (if any due to the lidocaine).

Does the lidocaine last until it has fully healed? Does it make new sensory nerves to replace the ones cut off?

 

[Joleneakamama]

Edit: I was just informed that women are at an increased risk for cervical cancer when with uncircumcised men. Another reason why YHVH instituted this.

Well, here is an article linking other documents and historical info.

The following quote is taken from the article linked to above.


"In February 1996, representatives of the American Cancer Society stated in a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics:

The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such [genital] cancers. Research suggesting a pattern in the circumcision status of partners of women with cervical cancer is methodologically flawed, outdated and has not been taken seriously in the medical community for decades."

I don't believe Yah made a mistake in the design of man that had to be rectified by torturous flesh removal on infants. Biblical circumcision required the shedding of blood. That's it!!
It appears that baptism took the place of circumcision in the new covenant, as it is being immersed that symbolized being buried with Yeshua and applied HIS blood to the believers account.

Of course all are free to live according to conscience in this matter. I just find the history and blind tradition interesting, for lack of a better word.

 

[GunnarR]

The risks of infection are low and can be avoided by proper washing. Cutting off your God given anatomy isn't a replacement for proper hygiene. Put differently,

Does the lidocaine last until it has fully healed? Does it make new sensory nerves to replace the ones cut off?

Well, here is an article linking other documents and historical info.

The following quote is taken from the article linked to above.


"In February 1996, representatives of the American Cancer Society stated in a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics:

The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such [genital] cancers. Research suggesting a pattern in the circumcision status of partners of women with cervical cancer is methodologically flawed, outdated and has not been taken seriously in the medical community for decades."

I don't believe Yah made a mistake in the design of man that had to be rectified by torturous flesh removal on infants. Biblical circumcision required the shedding of blood. That's it!!
It appears that baptism took the place of circumcision in the new covenant, as it is being immersed that symbolized being buried with Yeshua and applied HIS blood to the believers account.

Of course all are free to live according to conscience in this matter. I just find the history and blind tradition interesting, for lack of a better word.

I will address these posts after Shabbat. Blessings and Shalom!

 

[Christopher Huggins]

I, myself, have had debates with peers about many of the"popular" issues in this country today. I often feel like the odd man out for not being on with abortion and gender transitions and such. God made us in His image, each and every one of us, and to have the audacity to think that its better to change what He brought into being or to take the life of the most innocent creature on earth for whatever reasons you use is horrible.

 

[GunnarR]

The risks of infection are low and can be avoided by proper washing. Cutting off your God given anatomy isn't a replacement for proper hygiene. Put differently,


Does the lidocaine last until it has fully healed? Does it make new sensory nerves to replace the ones cut off?

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..."

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.

Well, here is an article linking other documents and historical info.

The following quote is taken from the article linked to above.


"In February 1996, representatives of the American Cancer Society stated in a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics:

The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such [genital] cancers. Research suggesting a pattern in the circumcision status of partners of women with cervical cancer is methodologically flawed, outdated and has not been taken seriously in the medical community for decades."

I don't believe Yah made a mistake in the design of man that had to be rectified by torturous flesh removal on infants. Biblical circumcision required the shedding of blood. That's it!!
It appears that baptism took the place of circumcision in the new covenant, as it is being immersed that symbolized being buried with Yeshua and applied HIS blood to the believers account.

Of course all are free to live according to conscience in this matter. I just find the history and blind tradition interesting, for lack of a better word.

With all due respect, that information is severely outdated... Because healthcare is always changing, 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.

Here is an article that was written in 2012 from the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. It quotes, "Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks; furthermore, the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits from male circumcision were identified for the prevention of urinary tract infections, acquisition of HIV, transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, and penile cancer. Male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction. It is imperative that those providing circumcision are adequately trained and that both sterile techniques and effective pain management are used. Significant acute complications are rare."

Another article more recently written in 2016 states, "Based on three large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in Africa, it can clearly be stated that circumcision lowers the risk of infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and some sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among males in settings of high HIV and STI endemicity."

More recently, an article written this year (2020) states, "Circumcised males have a lower risk of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and several sexually transmitted infections. The benefit of circumcision is greater for males with certain urologic conditions, such as isolated hydronephrosis, vesicoureteral reflux, and ureteropelvic junction obstruction." Later in this article, they endorse the continued access to circumcision and conclude that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Also, HPV is a known STI. This STI has been proven to cause cervical cancer in women. So removing the foreskin does indeed remove the risk of women contracting HPV associated with being uncircumcised.

Circumcision is more than just blind tradition or history. It is science and has proven why YHVH instituted it in the first place.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The risks of infection are low and can be avoided by proper washing. Cutting off your God given anatomy isn't a replacement for proper hygiene. Put differently,





Does the lidocaine last until it has fully healed? Does it make new sensory nerves to replace the ones cut off?

My father is circumcised. I am circumcised. My first born son is circumcised. My second son is circumcised. My third son is also circumcised. When @windblown and I first got married we weren’t following Torah yet so my fourth son is circumcised anyway. My fifth son however was circumcised and rather than ruin the set we went ahead and circumcised the sixth one too. The youngest boy was born at home in an unassisted birth so he was circumcised too. My father has four sons. I have seven sons. 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.

 

[FollowingHim]

They've worded that very well to ban undesirable genital mutilation, while clearly exempting religious or other circumcision from the ban to completely avoid another can of worms, in a tiny number of words, and without mentioning either religion or circumcision to further avoid even touching the can of worms. I am impressed by the drafter's skill with language.

Well, I suppose even their careful wording can't prevent other people from opening the can of worms anyway!

@rockfox, circumcision is not "mutilation". It is a Biblical matter that very divergent opinions exist on medically, culturally and theologically, and is worthy of calm discussion. Throwing around the "m" word doesn't help anybody consider it calmly.

@GunnarR, I see the concept that circumcision helps reduce the risk of sexually transmitted infections (HIV, HPV, and cervical cancer caused by HPV) rather differently. These diseases only spread through promiscuity, they are completely irrelevant to faithful marriage, whether monogomous or polygamous. In marriage, either two (or more) virgins have no such disease, or if they are infected prior to marriage it is inevitable that all will be infected eventually even if circumcision reduces the transmission rate, due to the sheer number of sexual encounters within marriage. So either none have the disease or all do eventually, regardless of circumcision.

So this particular factor could only benefit promiscuous people, by reducing the likelihood of infection from a single sexual encounter.

God does not want us to be promiscuous. He would not invent circumcision to reduce the harm caused by promiscuity. This is therefore completely irrelevant. In fact, it actually argues against circumcision, because it reduces circumcision to being a tool to facilitate an evil lifestyle. Which it cannot be, as God instituted it as a holy procedure.

We must stick to arguments that are relevant to Godly lifestyles. Theological arguments are completely valid, as are points about general cleanliness and health, from either perspective. But STDs are a red herring.

Obviously circumcision must be ok medically, given God invented it. The questions are whether it remains mandatory today, and if so what it actually is supposed to be physically. Remembering it was originally simple enough to do with a sharp stone in a tent in the middle of the night (Zipporah and Moses), and so minor that it was possible to become "uncircumcised" (1 Co 7:18, a reference to the fact that some Hellenized Jews in New Testament times were able through slight stretching to encourage a small amount of regrowth, so they appeared uncircumcosed when participating in naked gymnastics).

 

[Pacman]

Have you ever used the word concision in everyday conversation?



Mutilation is good translation and description of it and what it effects.



Yes Paul was talking about circumcision...



That could not be more clear from the context.

I do not disagree that he was talking about circumcision. And I even agree with the translation mutilation. I never said otherwise. You are completely missing my point. Whatever these folks were doing for circumcision was clearly not Biblical circumcision. Likely removing way more than was necessary to actually fulfill the command. My point is circumcision done the way Yah intended it is not mutilation! It's actually offensive to say it is. Paul would not have said that and you shouldn't either.