Circumcision

[bbbbbbb]

That is not what Doctor Who was doing. It was always a possibility that he can regenerate into a woman.

The reality is that Doctor Who, from its very inception, was merely a means of molding viewers into politically correct thinking. The original black-and-white version pushed a heavily pacifist message following the carnage of World War II. I have also admired the fairly clever way the writers have managed to convey their message within this popular series, even though I personally find these messages questionable, at best, and disgusting, at worst.

 

[Thera]

The reality is that Doctor Who, from its very inception, was merely a means of molding viewers into politically correct thinking. The original black-and-white version pushed a heavily pacifist message following the carnage of World War II. I have also admired the fairly clever way the writers have managed to convey their message within this popular series, even though I personally find these messages questionable, at best, and disgusting, at worst.

Really? I never saw the first series - I knew it existed, but a little too young for that. But you are right - looking back it pushed many a message. Sickeningly politically-correct messages, when I see one or two of the modern episodes.

But the daleks.... Surely they weren't politically correct?

 

[coffee4u]

This sounds like the perverse trans-agenda to me. Part of the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] that bears no resemblence to a foreskin but is called a female foreskin? Isn't that as wrong as calling the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] a female penis? No offense meant if that is what it is called in medical literature, but it sounds like the LBGQT agenda to me. I know you are against circumcision, but it sounds to me like it's an effort to equate circumcision with FGM. While I can see for and against for circumcision, FGM is much worse (except possibly for the pin-prick type you mentioned on the other thread).

I think you might have your anatomy back-to-front. Babies come through the birth canal.

Lol no, definitely not LBGQT agenda.
The gender is determined by the chromosomes but start off looking the same.
edit:
Girl or Boy: How Baby's Genitals Develop?

I will answer anything else in the morning, close to 1 am now.

 

[Thera]

Lol no, definitely not LBGQT agenda.
The gender is determined by the chromosomes but start off looking the same.
External Genital Development in Males and Females - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
very late here but this is easy to understand.

Yeah, but I mean, calling part of the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] a "female foreskin". It sounds disrespectful, if not totally inaccurate. I don't doubt they form from same cells, but a penis is not a "male vulva".

 

[Isilwen]

I was quoting scripture. Matthew said that the love of Christ would cause conflict, even within families. So if there is conflict within your family because of Christ, Jesus spoke of it long ago.

I guess I will continue to deal with this the way I feel is best. There will not be conflict between me and my fourteen year old. That serves no true purpose.

 

[Thera]

I guess I will continue to deal with this the way I feel is best. There will not be conflict between me and my fourteen year old. That serves no true purpose.

"Variance" then.

 

[Isilwen]

"Variance" then.

Still cryptic. I see variance in the scripture.

I need you to explain what you mean.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes. But fiction can be (and is) used to send moral messages. In this case, a wrong message, that a man can become a woman (as in the LGBQT agenda).

I don't really want to get into the subject, but there are many people who genuinely struggle with their sexuality and the whole shame/guilt/"sinful" feelings; sometimes to the point where they feel quite suicidal. I know; I'm a Samaritan and hear them on the phones.

 

[coffee4u]

If I cast her away, she will hate me forever. I will not do that to her. She needs my support, not for me to shun her!

Maybe I need to leave Christianity if I will be required to shun my 14 year old daughter!

We all struggle with sin. For one person it will be one thing and another person it will be something else. We are to love all people, especially our children, but just because we dearly love someone does not mean everything they do or think is pure and holy or right. We all fall short. Maybe we have a short fuse, or we gossip, or borrow stuff and don't give it back. Other people struggle with various addictions and some with sexual sin -in fact, most people over the age of 12-15 will struggle with or commit some form of sexual sin at some point in their life.

When Jesus had the women caught in adultery brought before him the church leaders wanted to trick him. They wanted to stone her for her sin and under the Old Covenant law they could have done so. Instead, he challenged them and said those without sin may cast the first stone. One by one they left, because none of them was without sin.
But Jesus didn't say to her "it's okay, God loves you, keep on sinning" he forgave her as God and then he said, "go sin no more". God gives us perfect love but he also expects us as his followers to not sin. As fallen humans, we will still sin, but we should hate sin and turn away from it and pray to God to strengthen us and keep us away from it.

Practising Homosexuality is a sexual sin. No different to adultery, pornography or fornication. There is a difference between temptation and feelings and falling into sin. Falling into sin means doing and practising sin either with your body or dwelling on it in your mind which is why Jesus said if a man looks lustfully on a women ( meaning his thought life has gone into areas it should not have done) that he had committed adultery. If someone has feelings for the same gender as themselves then they should remain celibate and keep their mind pure. The same way non-married straight people should also be celibate and keep their minds pure. Not saying this is easy but its what God calls for us to do. Sexual contact or deep fantasies about a particular person is for inside of marriage only.

 

[coffee4u]

Yeah, but I mean, calling part of the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] a "female foreskin". It sounds disrespectful, if not totally inaccurate. I don't doubt they form from same cells, but a penis is not a "male vulva".

It's not meant to be disrespectful. In male fetuses, the same bulge elongates to form the penis while on female fetuses it turns inwards and becomes the vagina. But calling the clitoral hood the 'female foreskin' is accurate although not technically the correct term for either, the correct term is the prepuce.

 

[Strong in Him]

Is that how Jesus behaved with sinners?

No, he ate and drank with them, and then gave his life for them - us.

 

[Thera]

It's not meant to be disrespectful. In male fetuses, the same bulge elongates to form the penis while on female fetuses it turns inwards and becomes the vagina. But calling the clitoral hood the 'female foreskin' is accurate although not technically the correct term for either, the correct term is the prepuce.

If the foreskin is equivalent to the clitoral hood, why in Genesis 17 did God command males (not females) to get circumcised? If the clitoral hood was really the same use and worth as the foreskin, it seems strange that only foreskins were circumcised from His people.

 

[coffee4u]

If the foreskin is equivalent to the clitoral hood, why in Genesis 17 did God command males (not females) to get circumcised? If the clitoral hood was really the same use and worth as the foreskin, it seems strange that only foreskins were circumcised from His people.

Not really, there are a few reasons. One man was created first and woman was taken from him. While us women may not like it, God created us to be a helpmate to the man.
He was meant to be the spiritual head. As such his blood sacrifice counted for his whole family. The form of circumcision given to Abram was just the tip. It was pulled down and cut not pulled back and cut. The entire ritual became corrupted from what the original intension was.
It was also his sin that caused the fall not hers. He sinned in understanding while she sinned because she was deceived.

Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned-

1 Timothy 2:14
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

This is why Jesus also came as a man, he was the second Adam- A man failed so a man had to succeed.
1 Corinthians 15:45
So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

Female circumcision came about in a completely different way, caused by peoples sin. Women were never intended to be circumcised.

 

[Thera]

Not really, there are a few reasons. One man was created first and woman was taken from him. While us women may not like it, God created us to be a helpmate to the man.
He was meant to be the spiritual head. As such his blood sacrifice counted for his whole family. The form of circumcision given to Abram was just the tip. It was pulled down and cut not pulled back and cut. The entire ritual became corrupted from what the original intension was.
It was also his sin that caused the fall not hers. He sinned in understanding while she sinned because she was deceived.

I agree with this. But surely this shows the foreskin is not the equivalent of the clitoral hood? If males can be circumcised without issue, but women were not intended to be circumcised, to me this indicates that the clitoral hood is significantly different to (i.e. more important than) foreskin.

Female circumcision came about in a completely different way, caused by peoples sin. Women were never intended to be circumcised.

I agree. But doesn't equating the clitoral hood with the foreskin allow the subtle implication that Female Genital Mutilation is equivalent to circumcision? The bible speaks of heart circumcision as a good thing, but like you say, physical circumcision was only ever intended for males, not females.

 

[Jipsah]

I believe that an infant's parents have a duty to have it done if they feel it is commanded in Scripture, but beyond that, there really aren't any other valid reasons to do it at that time.

Sure beats doing it later. Ouch!

 

[Jipsah]

this stems back to the early 20th century when it was believed by some medical experts that circumcision would help prevent teenage boys from masturbating.

I think that may be apocryphal. Sounds to me too much like the people who say anything used in Asian traditional medicine is an "aphrodisiac". Not too much difference between the "them orientals..." and "them fundamentalists..." viewpoint that ascribes almost anything the groups referred to do that's out of the ordinary as motivated by ignorance.

At least as far back as I can remember, here in the South boys were circumcised because it was in the Bible and was therefore the correct thing to do. It probably had more to do with the Bad Guys in the OT so often being identified as "uncircumcised whatevers" than anything else. I've also noticed that most of the Korean parents around here have their sons clipped, and again I suspect it's more religiously motivated than otherwise.

 

[Jipsah]

Well,.. I don't know about that. I would like a second opinion first but things changed a bit after the death and resurrection of Christ.

Quite a bit.

 

[coffee4u]

I agree with this. But surely this shows the foreskin is not the equivalent of the clitoral hood? If males can be circumcised without issue, but women were not intended to be circumcised, to me this indicates that the clitoral hood is significantly different to (i.e. more important than) foreskin.

I agree. But doesn't equating the clitoral hood with the foreskin allow the subtle implication that Female Genital Mutilation is equivalent to circumcision? The bible speaks of heart circumcision as a good thing, but like you say, physical circumcision was only ever intended for males, not females.

You seem to have some issue with this? You can look up a medical text or ask a doctor. The final structure obviously looks different but both have sexual and protective functions.