Circumcision

[Dave-W]

There are men who convert to Judaism as adults, and get circumcised as adults. You never hear them complain.

True. But the way a mohel is trained to do that surgery is much looser than how hospitals routinely did the cutting back when I was a kid. (1950s-60s) I have seen some that left huge divots from cutting too closely. Most of those cases resulted in noticeable nerve damage.

 

[Dave-W]

It's a sign of the covenant, to show that we are set apart from un believers. So the default for gentiles is uncircumcision. Jews are required to be circumcised because they are still (they believe) under the Law of Moses. Christians are not under the Law of Moses, but circumcision is not forbidden to those Christians who wish to keep it as a sign of the covenant.

Actually it is NOT a sign of the Mosaic covenant as much as it is of the Abrahamic covenant which still is in effect. As such it is ONLY required by the offspring of Abraham (which includes the Arabs). It is NOT required of gentile christians.

 

[Tallguy88]

So, in order to mark believers in a crowd, it was decided that the most hidden and private part of the human body would be a good flag? And that makes sense to you? That the male sex organ is the best place to advertise your allegiance?

It's God's command. Not mine. And apparently it was a pretty good indicator of their set apartness as the Romans and Greeks tried to suppress it, not for ethical reasons, but to try to destroy Jewish identity and get them to integrate into Greek or Roman society

 

[Tallguy88]

Actually it is NOT a sign of the Mosaic covenant as much as it is of the Abrahamic covenant which still is in effect. As such it is ONLY required by the offspring of Abraham (which includes the Arabs). It is NOT required of gentile christians.

You are right it is abrahamic, not mosaic covenant. Thanks for the correction.

I agree it is not required of Christians, but those Christians who do believe in it have the right to have their children circumcised, at least in the USA.

 

[Hikarifuru]

Circumcision doesn't cause any harm.

Since I don't think there is any medical reason for circumcision, I can't see going to a doctor. A mohel is fine.

Actually it does, babies can die from it. There is bleeding, screaming, crying and it can be lethal.

 

[Armoured]

I was circumcised as an infant. It's never bothered me.

Castrati probably say the same thing.

Blind people, too.

Not quite the point, though.

 

[Armoured]

You are right it is abrahamic, not mosaic covenant. Thanks for the correction.

I agree it is not required of Christians, but those Christians who do believe in it have the right to have their children circumcised, at least in the USA.

What about the children's rights not to have pieces of their body needlessly amputated?

 

[Hikarifuru]

If prophets of the four finger clan felt like god wanted their children to have a finger removed as an infant would we support that?

Mr. Kellog was not trying to obey god, he was trying to make little boys not touch their-self by making their penis less sensitive and less responsive to pleasure.

 

[Dave-W]

What about the children's rights not to have pieces of their body needlessly amputated?

Is that a "right" before God?

 

[Armoured]

Is that a "right" before God?

TallGuy invoked "rights", not me. I don't believe the concepts of "rights" have anything to do with God, but that's probably a different thread.

 

[Hikarifuru]

Is that a "right" before God?

If a god did bestow or restrict rights, they still wouldn't apply to people in this location, time or heritage.

But I would presume that any good god would bestow a person with a right to their own body, before a right for you to do something to someone else's body without their consent. Especially when this god seems to believe in free will, making a choice to follow him and when it really REALLY hurts, it damages the normal use of the penis and it can actually kill you.

 

[Nithavela]

You know what, we are talking about something that is very abstract and far-removed from everyone's mind and imagination.

I think that everyone who participates this thread would do well to actually watch a video of a circumcision. Without anestisia, mind you, because with 55% of all cases , that is the majority of cases. I don't think I am allowed to link such a graphic video on here, but go to youtube and watch the video "a typical infant male circumcision (WITHOUT anethetics)". It's about 14 minutes long. And make sure to have your PC sounds on, because you will never again hear such horrible screaming in your entire life, outside of the worst slasher movies.

Tell me what you think about it when you are done. I'm tickled pink.

 

[Tallguy88]

What about the children's rights not to have pieces of their body needlessly amputated?

So far, the law and courts have come down on the side of the parents' right to make religious decisions for their children. As I posted earlier, nearly 80% of US males are circumcised and almost 60% of newborns are circumcised.

 

[Nithavela]

So far, the law and courts have come down on the side of the parents' right to make religious decisions for their children. As I posted earlier, nearly 80% of US males are circumcised and almost 60% of newborns are circumcised.

Watched that video yet, Tallguy?

 

[Armoured]

So far, the law and courts have come down on the side of the parents' right to make religious decisions for their children. As I posted earlier, nearly 80% of US males are circumcised and almost 60% of newborns are circumcised.

And slavery used to be legal.

Just because something used to happen regularly is not, in and of itself, a good argument for it. Especially if it can be shown to have no benefits and be actively harmful in some cases.

If we were talking about FEmale circumcision, would we be having this same discussion? I hope not. But if little girls have a right to grow up without being unnecessarily genitally mutilated, why should little boys be any different?

 

[Nithavela]

And slavery used to be legal.

Just because something used to happen regularly is not, in and of itself, a good argument for it. Especially if it can be shown to have no benefits and be actively harmful in some cases.

If we were talking about FEmale circumcision, would we be having this same discussion? I hope not. But if little girls have a right to grow up without being unnecessarily genitally mutilated, why should little boys be any different?

Hey, come on, you can't equate that. Raping men is funny, too.

 

[Tallguy88]

Watched that video yet, Tallguy?

No, why would I?

 

[Tallguy88]

And slavery used to be legal.

Just because something used to happen regularly is not, in and of itself, a good argument for it. Especially if it can be shown to have no benefits and be actively harmful in some cases.

If we were talking about FEmale circumcision, would we be having this same discussion? I hope not. But if little girls have a right to grow up without being unnecessarily genitally mutilated, why should little boys be any different?

There are health benefits as I already discussed.

And female circumcision is entirely different in what it does. Male circumcision does not cut the penis off.

 

[Nithavela]

No, why would I?

I don't know, do you not want to know what you are actually advocating?

 

[Armoured]

There are health benefits as I already discussed.

There really aren't.

And female circumcision is entirely different in what it does. Male circumcision does not cut the penis off.

See, that seems like just a matter of degree. Having your finger cut off is less traumatic than having your arm cut off, that still doesn't make it OK to have your finger cut off.