Circumcision

[Hikarifuru]

I understood your interpretation very well and held it myself for years, before I realized it was entirely wrong.

well since you can clearly read the words that say it's good to not have sex.... it's not wrong at all. You're using faith.

 

[Dave-W]

ince you can clearly read the words that say it's good to not have sex

Bad translation. A better translation would be "good not to touch on an emotional level..." or "kindle up the emotions of..."

 

[Hikarifuru]

Bad translation. A better translation would be "good not to touch on an emotional level..." or "kindle up the emotions of..."

Even of that were actually true, it would mean SEX is even less preferable than before. If Paul urges men and women not even get emotional or romantic with each other... then yes he saying avoid sex. But he specifically mentioned not marrying so yes he is advocating celibacy.

Almost every translation uses sex
http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/7-1.htm

 

[Meowzltov]

two of those four are pure vanity (2 & 3), one is debunked (4), and the other is a terrible reason to mutilate a newborn.

It doesn't matter. The point is that these are the REAL reasons why people circumcise their kids, NOT to keep them from masturbating.

And religious reasons ARE a legitimate reason to circumcise.

 

[Meowzltov]

Don't be getting a boob job at 16, but let me cut off a part of my newborn's sex organ. It's okay, I have religious reasons.

Right.

 

[Nithavela]

It doesn't matter. The point is that these are the REAL reasons why people circumcise their kids, NOT to keep them from masturbating.

And religious reasons ARE a legitimate reason to circumcise.

What is, in your opinion, the point where religious reasons are not good enough anymore?

 

[yasic]

It doesn't matter. The point is that these are the REAL reasons why people circumcise their kids, NOT to keep them from masturbating.

And religious reasons ARE a legitimate reason to circumcise.

If parents decide to do a ritual nick to the genitals of their daughter (one that do not include any permanent damage), citing religious reasons, would you support them being able to do so?

 

[Meowzltov]

You don't think that you should have a REALLY good idea why you're obeying something or why you do it?

If you can understand God's reason, EXCELLENT! But if you can't, you must still obey. A two year old doesn't understand why he has to put away his toys -- he must still obey.

 

[Meowzltov]

Frankly, I oppose piercing children's ears before they can consent to that, too.

And, although I didn't pierce my little girl's ears until she was older, I think you are being ridiculous.

 

[Armoured]

And, although I didn't pierce my little girl's ears until she was older, I think you are being ridiculous.

You are entitled to your belief.

 

[Meowzltov]

What is, in your opinion, the point where religious reasons are not good enough anymore?

When they require the destruction of a basic bodily function, as with FGM.

 

[Reeniee]

When they require the destruction of a basic bodily function, as with FGM.

So would breaking a babies arm, then allowing it to heal, be alright?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[Meowzltov]

If parents decide to do a ritual nick to the genitals of their daughter (one that do not include any permanent damage), citing religious reasons, would you support them being able to do so?

If the ONLY thing they were doing was removing skin, I would have no objections. Such alterations are merely cosmetic. Heck, I'm always biting off the skin around my fingernails and the inside of my cheeks. Skin is just skin.

But FGM removes the underlying organ and thus destroys a bodily function. It is comparable to removing the penis.

 

[Nithavela]

When they require the destruction of a basic bodily function, as with FGM.

What about FGM that doesn't destroy a basic bodily function? Not all FGM entails cutting off everything. (see post 367)

On the other hand, circumcision does remove a basic bodily function, the foreskin, which protects the glans, is the most sensitive spot of the penis and eases movement during coitus.

 

[Nithavela]

If the ONLY thing they were doing was removing skin, I would have no objections. Such alterations are merely cosmetic. But FGM removes the underlying organ and thus destroys a bodily function. It is comparable to removing the head of the penis.

You don't know much about FGM, do you?

 

[Locutus]

It doesn't matter. The point is that these are the REAL reasons why people circumcise their kids, NOT to keep them from masturbating.

And religious reasons ARE a legitimate reason to circumcise.

I would submit that the vanity reasons are paramount in America. "To look like dad" and "because everyone does it".

Those are ADULT issues (and not healthy ones, either), visited upon a helpless newborn. You cannot justify that.

 

[Locutus]

And, although I didn't pierce my little girl's ears until she was older, I think you are being ridiculous.

It's 'ridiculous' to comment on the awfulness of adult vanity being visited on small children in the form of body mutilation?

 

[Nithavela]

It's 'ridiculous' to comment on the awfulness of adult vanity being visited on small children in the form of body mutilation?

Ever watched honey boo boo?

 

[yasic]

If the ONLY thing they were doing was removing skin, I would have no objections. Such alterations are merely cosmetic. Heck, I'm always biting off the skin around my fingernails and the inside of my cheeks. Skin is just skin.

But FGM removes the underlying organ and thus destroys a bodily function. It is comparable to removing the penis.

There are several benefits to being uncircumcised that you lose. Please note I will get a bit explicit with my post so if you do not want to read sexual language please stop reading.

Back in my college days my third girlfriend agreed to give me a handjob for the first time. She reached for a large amount of lotion and applied it liberally before doing her thing. Afterwards I asked her what that was about and why- thats when she revealed that her previous boyfriends needed the lotion because doing it without lotion causes too much friction and can really hurt.

Uncircumcised, when masturbating or getting manual sex, you actively use the foreskin- you rub the foreskin around the shaft of the main penis to stimulate it, and there is no lubricant or lotion required as it stays moisturized and ... well comfortable. For circumcised men, with the foreskin gone one must use something else, be it tissues, toys, or skin to stimulate the penis, and due to lack of natural motorization and the hardening of the penile skin, you need to use other-side sources of lubericant on it.

I have since confirmed this information with many other men, both circumcised and uncircumcised, mostly out of curiosity.


Yes this isn't exactly something one can work around, however I would hardly consider something that affects all masturbation and manual contact with ones significant other on the same level as a skin piercing.

 

[Locutus]

Ever watched honey boo boo?

No, and please don't make me

Actually I've seen glimpses, and that was enough to make me want to section the parents.