Rand Paul couldn't have said it better

You're missing the point.

I can't speak for Evangelicals, but Christianity isn't against anything. It's for God; God's will, God's law and God's kingdom.

If God sanctioned circumcision for His people, then that's good enough for me. Calling it mutilation when God prescribed it is a stretch.

Circumcision isn't a requirement any more, hasn't been for a long time. It's a parental choice.

Circumcision has been going on for thousands of years. It's much bigger than Evangelicals.

I'm sorry, but your premise falls flat in my view.

Nihilist Virus said:

"Genital mutilation has been nearly universally condemned. Genital mutilation has been condemned by the WHO, the United Nations Children’s Fund, the United Nations Population Fund. According to the WHO, genital mutilation is recognized internationally as a violation of human rights. Genital mutilation is considered particularly egregious because, as the WHO notes, it is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. Most genital mutilation is not typically performed by force, but as WHO notes, that by social convention, social norm, the social pressure to conform, to do what others do and have been doing, as well as the need to be accepted socially and the fear of being rejected by the community."

If you are a right wing Evangelical Christian and you agree with the above, then you must be against the circumcision of infants. If not, you're a hypocrite with no principles.

Click to expand...

On no! Even though I'm not a right wing Evangelical Christian, I'm apparently still a hypocrite in this case !!!

And apparently, my parents are as well.

Eeeeeek!!! Gasp !!! Travesty !!!


But seriously. Do you have anything better than this for us to debate over, NV?

2PhiloVoid said:

But seriously. Do you have anything better than this for us to debate over, NV?

Click to expand...

It's about genitals, isn't it? What could be more appropriate for an Evangelical Christian forum? I can't think of anything, except guns, maybe.

If Dr. Paul doesn't know the difference between genital mutilation and sexual reassignment surgery, I suspect we may make some assumptions about his class ranking in medical school.

1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

7 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth? 8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” 10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. 11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

Click to expand...

~Galatians 5:1-12 (NIV)

Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 5 - King James Version
Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 5 - New King James Version
Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 5 - New International Version
Bible Gateway passage: Galatians 5 - International Children’s Bible

Circumcision is NOT required by the Bible anymore. Jews still perform it because of the covenant with God they choose to still follow. Christians should put more stock in the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ than Mosiac Law. Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled the law, now we must choose to accept salvation through Him and His death on the cross (Acts 16:25-34, Ephesians 2:1-10, John 3:16, 6:25-59).

Islam, on the other hand, REQUIRES circumcision on males and recommends it on females.[1] How many Islamic forums have you asked this question on? Please provide evidence.

1. https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Female_Genital_Mutilation

seeking.IAM said:

If Dr. Paul doesn't know the difference between genital mutilation and sexual reassignment surgery, I suspect we may make some assumptions about his class ranking in medical school.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't assume he doesn't know better.

People say stupid things about things they should know better about all the time, especially politicians.

It reflects poorly on their character either way. They are either stupid or pretending they don't know better.

seeking.IAM said:

If Dr. Paul doesn't know the difference between genital mutilation and sexual reassignment surgery, I suspect we may make some assumptions about his class ranking in medical school.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Thankfully, there was some sanity in the room in response to his comments:

From NBC article —————————

Dr. Colt Wasserman, a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health, who provides gender-affirming care to trans minors, told NBC News that Paul’s questions and concerns are “not based in medical fact whatsoever.”

Wasserman said gender-affirming care is understood and supported by major medical associations and physicians “to be a life-affirming practice that, through an informed consent process, patients, parents and their providers come together to support gender-diverse youth in the medical environment in a wide range of ways, which typically doesn't involve any kind of procedural intervention.”

“There's a lot of concern about surgery or irreversible decisions,” when it comes to the health care that transgender youth receive, Wasserman added, but surgery is not a component of that care.

Is this about circumcision or female genital mutilation? My understanding, which isn't that great on this issue, is that the repercussions of female genital mutilation are much more severe than circumcision. Doesn't it remove the ability for a female to experience sexual pleasure?

public hermit said:

Is this about circumcision or female genital mutilation? My understanding, which isn't that great on this issue, is that the repercussions of female genital mutilation are much more severe than circumcision. Doesn't it remove the ability for a female to experience sexual pleasure?

Click to expand...

Yes, not by choice...

Jamsie said:

Yes, not by choice...

Click to expand...

That's horrible. I don't see how the two could be considered comparable. Male circumcision, if anything, results in some health benefits and no adverse consequences, of which I am aware.

Nihilist Virus said:

If you are a right wing Evangelical Christian and you agree with the above, then you must be against the circumcision of infants. If not, you're a hypocrite with no principles.

Click to expand...

The problem with grouping a large population together is the larger it gets, it is far more likely that "right wing Evangelical Christians" will not necessarily agree with each other either. I would just ask is if there is a problem with circumcision and what are the options that need talking about?

I believe it is not immediately evident that there's a difference between removing the entire genitalia or just the clitoral hood. So what is in question here?

Nihilist Virus said:

"Genital mutilation has been nearly universally condemned. Genital mutilation has been condemned by the WHO, the United Nations Children’s Fund, the United Nations Population Fund. According to the WHO, genital mutilation is recognized internationally as a violation of human rights. Genital mutilation is considered particularly egregious because, as the WHO notes, it is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. Most genital mutilation is not typically performed by force, but as WHO notes, that by social convention, social norm, the social pressure to conform, to do what others do and have been doing, as well as the need to be accepted socially and the fear of being rejected by the community."

If you are a right wing Evangelical Christian and you agree with the above, then you must be against the circumcision of infants. If not, you're a hypocrite with no principles.

Click to expand...

I can assure you, right wing Evangelical Christians do not consider circumcision to be genital mutilation. And the WHO, the United Nations and other organizations condemning something is okay, as long as isn't condemned by the bible

Ken-1122 said:

I can assure you, right wing Evangelical Christians do not consider circumcision to be genital mutilation. And the WHO, the United Nations and other organizations condemning something is okay, as long as isn't condemned by the bible

Click to expand...

Let's be clear. As far as WHO is concerned, their positions on circumcision and female genital mutilation are not the same. I'm up for correction on this, but my reading is one is condemned and the other approved.

I know of no evangelical organization that promotes or approves female genital mutilation (and I'm no fan evangelicalism). The two are not even close to being the same thing, except it involves genitals.

Female genital mutilation

WHO | Male circumcision: global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability

Regardless of what Ran Paul said, and why he said it, the premise of this thread is flawed and uninformed.

seeking.IAM said:

If Dr. Paul doesn't know the difference between genital mutilation and sexual reassignment surgery, I suspect we may make some assumptions about his class ranking in medical school.

Click to expand...

Are you a better source of information on genetic mutilation than Dr. Paul?

grasping the after wind said:

Are you a better source of information on genetic mutilation than Dr. Paul?

Click to expand...

Since I would never equate the two, yes, it looks like I am a better source. But that is not saying much. I wouldn't particularly call it my area of expertise. Neither is it the area of expertise of an ophthamologist. But, I'll bet Dr. Paul knows more about macular degeneration than I do.

Not than I'm planning on it, but if I ever wake up one morning with a hankering to get sexual reassignment surgery, I won't be contacting my local ophthamolgist to perform it. Seems risky.

Nihilist Virus said:

"Genital mutilation has been nearly universally condemned. Genital mutilation has been condemned by the WHO, the United Nations Children’s Fund, the United Nations Population Fund. According to the WHO, genital mutilation is recognized internationally as a violation of human rights. Genital mutilation is considered particularly egregious because, as the WHO notes, it is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. Most genital mutilation is not typically performed by force, but as WHO notes, that by social convention, social norm, the social pressure to conform, to do what others do and have been doing, as well as the need to be accepted socially and the fear of being rejected by the community."

If you are a right wing Evangelical Christian and you agree with the above, then you must be against the circumcision of infants. If not, you're a hypocrite with no principles.

Click to expand...

Sounds like an attack on the Judaism.

Clare73 said:

Sounds like an attack on the Judaism.

Click to expand...

Jewish religious rituals are not beyond criticism.

Desk trauma said:

Jewish religious rituals are not beyond criticism.

Click to expand...

Nothing is beyond criticism. . .even God.

So much for criticism.