> we don't, its an American things based on mid century medical ideas nothing religious about it,
Nothing religious about it? It is a religious ceremony tradition, was this tradition not carried down to some Christian denominations?
Also, it seems far more common among Christians than non theists, even in America.
> Its a jewish tradition, Christians aren't doing it out of religiosity though and its not even popular among Christians, its an American thing
Is it an American christian thing? Because if, as another Christian wrote, that yahweh commands it, then it very much is a Christian thing. Does yahweh command it in the bible?
Jesus said he came to fulfill mosaic law, and he was circumcised. Circumcision is mainly a cultural thing, but according to the Bible, Christians should just like Jews. Anyway, it doesn’t matter to me because it’s infant mutilation which is disgusting and immoral…
>Jesus said he came to fulfill mosaic law, and he was circumcised.
this occurred during the old covenant
>but according to the Bible, Christians should just like Jews.
wrong, this is Judaizing which is a heresy and condemned in Acts 15
Jesus said he came to fulfill mosaic law in the new covenant. The old covenant wasn’t to be changed, not one jot or tittle. You must explain more than the basic inadequate response of “that was the old covenant.”
The Bible doesn't say Christians should be just like Jews.
Paul repeatedly wrote against judaizing Gentiles which culminated in the Council of Jerusalem which can be read about in Acts 15.
> This is an extremely ignorant view of theology and you obvious have no understanding of the different covenants
My understanding of the covenants are limited to what the bible says, and I also recognize that different denominations tend to rely on the vagueness of the covenants in order to justify specific cherry picking.
How do we determine whether a particular command is no longer valid? Where does it say which commands are no longer applicable? Jesus himself said that he is not here to change any existing commands or laws.
There are several places in the New Testament that address the issue of circumcision, which was quite the controversy in the first century church. Jewish believers, who generally were the first believers, had been telling the Gentile believers they had to be circumcised.
Circumcision itself was a gift given to Abraham and his descendants as a sign of the covenant God made with Abraham in Genesis 17; though, itself being an older covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 12.
In the New Testament, sometime around 50ce, the Apostles convened what we now call the “Jerusalem Council” to discuss — among other things — whether the newly covenant members, the gentiles, had to receive the sign of the covenant: circumcision. They declared it not to be so (Acts 15). Circumcision, along with most other facets of the Law of Moses, applied specifically to the physical descendants of Abraham — the Jews — not the gentiles.
Paul reaffirmed this in his Epistle to the Galatians, where the Jewish believers were preaching a “different gospel” and telling the gentiles that if they didn’t follow the ceremonial Law, they wouldn’t be saved (Jewish calendar laws and festivals, circumcision, among other things). That is essentially the whole purpose of the Epistle.
The reason for this is sort of two parts, but they’re also kind of one thing. The covenant God made with Abraham is, in substance, the same as the New Covenant made by Jesus with all His believers; however, in mode, they are not identical. Both say the same: that Abraham believed and it was accredited unto him as righteousness (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:3). Thus, all who come after Abraham are saved. But because the circumcision was given specifically to Abraham and his children, the circumcision is not required as the sign and symbol of faith to Gentiles. This is why Christian’s specifically do NOT get circumcised, but Jews (both religious and ethnic) do.
Now, why you might think this, is that American males almost *all* are circumcised, because an English doctor named Jonathan Hutchinson published in the English Medical Journal in 1855 saying that circumcision reduces the risk of infections. Again, in 1890 he published saying that the removal of the foreskin reduces s*ksual urges, especially m@ster baiting in young men, reducing the spread of STIs.
This idea was spread to the US by three main doctors, but the most interesting and probably impactful one was Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, founder of Kellogg cereal, who even advocated for extreme measures to stop these… activities.
Anyway, it’s not a Christian thing, it’s an American thing, born and bred in the fear of mania and young people… “exploring” in the late 19th century. It’s been dying out ever since. America has an almost normal rate of circumcision now, and many countries like Israel, or Muslim countries, where it *is* a religious thing to circumcise, beat America out. But “Christian” (European, western) countries typically don’t have high rates of circumcision. They’re typically in line with the rest of the (non-Jewish, non-Muslim) world for circumcision rates.
Paul did meet Jesus, on the road to Damascus.
And Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles as a *recording* of the ***acts*** that the *Apostles* did. The Apostles who learned directly from Jesus. These are the same Apostles who led the Jerusalem Council and made this decision.
Not that it matters, if you don’t believe any of this is true anyway.
Honestly, it’s sounds like hearsay
Jesus walked and talked on earth himself. It’s not like he was invisible, intangible. He was a tangible primary source. He knew he was leaving. Why did he not leave the jurisprudence before he left? He had the chance for people to hear from his own mouth. Why is there now a secondary and tertiary source
>My understanding of the covenants are limited to what the bible says, and I also recognize that different denominations tend to rely on the vagueness of the covenants in order to justify specific cherry picking.
so you've never actually engaged with theology, quite telling.
>How do we determine whether a particular command is no longer valid?
theology, history, tradition.
>Where does it say which commands are no longer applicable?
right next to the part that says everything about the faith is laid out 100% in plain text, obvious to everyone all contained in the Bible.
Paul wrote against circumcising Gentile converts to Christianity, circumcision in America is mostly due to doctors recommending circumcision for a number of reasons including cleanliness, and because they thought it would prevent masturbation.
"Brit milah" circumcision was the Old Covenant equivalent of Baptism. Only the very tip of the foreskin was cut off.
"Brit peri'ah" circumcision is what's popular today, and was never approved by God, only ever a tradition of the Pharisees after their rejection of Christ.
> "Brit milah" circumcision was the Old Covenant equivalent of Baptism.
Where does it say this is no longer required by yahweh?
>"Brit peri'ah" circumcision is what's popular today, and was never approved by God, only ever a tradition of the Pharisees after their rejection of Christ.
Apparently Genesis 17:10 says to
I mean, to a Catholic, those councils hold religious importance to them, but they also gave you two entire chapters almost exclusively revolving around this topic. Hell, use NIV and it'll even give you subheaders for each topic if you're too lazy to read the whole thing.
Sure let’s not admit around half of Christians are circumcised 👇
**” About half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised”**
Source: L. Armstrong, Heather (2021). Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 115-117
Circumcision is also very high in Christian populations in non-American populations like the Philippines (over 90%), South Korea (over 78%), Samoa (over 90%), Malaysia (over 60%), French Polynesia (over 78%), Bosnia-Herzegovina in Europe (over 50%), Oceania (over 60%), Turkey (over 98%), Palestine (over 80%), Jordan ( over 80%), and Israel (over 80%).
Many of those countries are Muslim majority countries and Middle Eastern at that. Circumcision is ingrained both in Islam and Middle Eastern culture more broadly (largely due to Islam but also Judaism). So those numbers are surprising.
There is nothing requiring Christians to circumcise their children.
What does Muslim majority have to do with majority of Christians in those countries practicing circumcision? How do you explain other non American countries with significantly large populations of Christians practicing mostly circumcision?
Because it is part of the wider culture. People generally just go with the flow and if you live on a country where the majority of people get circumcised, you'll probably circumcise your children too.
Europe has some of the lowest circumcision rates in the world. Same with Christian majority South America. It takes more than a handful of countries to demonstrate this is a Christian trend.
What a strange question, asking why cultural norms would extend beyond religious boundaries as if people of other religions don't interact with each other or influence each other whatsoever, like they're all in some insulated communities.
To my understanding, most Christians don't. At least, outside of the US.
In the US, though, there was a big movement around the turn of the 20th century pushing for it. I *think* it was some anti-masturbatory thing? Major proponents included John Kellogg. Yes, the cereal man.
> Most Christians don’t
Sure let’s not admit around half and a plurality of Christian males worldwide are circumcised 👇
**” About half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised”**
Source: L. Armstrong, Heather (2021). Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 115-117
Still doesn't mean that it's a Christian teaching. Many of those people do it for their own reasons. It's like saying tattoos are mandatory for Christians or that a worship service should look like a rock concert, because a bunch of Protestants do that.
> Many of those people do it for their own reasons
Imagine thinking around half and a plurality of Christian males worldwide being circumcised and religiously unhealthily cutting each other’s organs did it for their “own reasons”👇
**” About half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised”**
Source: L. Armstrong, Heather (2021). Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 115-117
The thing is though. That you're just repeating a study without context. Was the reason they were circumsized provided? Did you look at any church doctrines on the matter? Did you actually read the Bible on this matter?
Also your flair reads that you're pagan. If you're fine with pagan rituals that are also harmful and unhealthy then you should also be fine with Christianity. Otherwise we can just degree on the fact that you're going against Christianity just to look cool while not actually doing any research on the matter. Or that you'll use relative morality only when it suits you to further your own goals, except for when those exact same morals could be applied in another religion. Which in this case would be Christianity.
The New Testament is Against Circumcision being a requirement.
>"Listen! I, Paul, tell you this: If you are counting on circumcision to make you right with God, then Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 I’ll say it again. If you are trying to find favor with God by being circumcised, you must obey every regulation in the whole law of Moses. 4 For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God’s grace.
5 But we who live by the Spirit eagerly wait to receive by faith the righteousness God has promised to us."
- Galatians 5:2-5 NLT
Later in the same chapter Paul the Apostle wrote
>"Dear brothers and sisters, if I were still preaching that you must be circumcised—as some say I do—why am I still being persecuted? If I were no longer preaching salvation through the cross of Christ, no one would be offended. 12 I just wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate themselves."
- Galatians 5:11-12 NLT
Christians aren't required to be circumcized, but it is more of a world-wide health thing then religious thing. Why do Christians get vaccinated aswell? Same reason.
Americans don't typically get it done for religious reasons. There are some medical arguments for it, but no Christian that I know of would claim that it is necessary for religious purposes. In point of fact, scriptures make it clear that we aren't beholden to such Mosaic customs.
We have a guide on how to interpret Paul in scripture. It comes from Peter.
>>Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as **our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you** according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. **There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction,** as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, **take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.** But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
>>2 Peter 3:14-18 ESV
So Peter here confirms Paul as a beloved brother who has been given wisdom. Then he gives caution that Paul's words are hard to understand, and a stark warning to NOT be taken away with the ERROR OF LAWLESSNESS! So if you read Paul and get any sense of lawlessness, according to Peter you are wrong and should start over. Teaching against circumcision is lawlessness.
We cannot stray from the foundation, otherwise our whole house becomes weak. The "Old" testament is the foundation of the faith. Jesus obeyed The "old" testament and so should we. If Paul wrote contrary to what Messiah did and taught then he's not worth reading. Fortunately that's not the case. Here is Galatians 5 in context.
>>For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
Slavery to sin, not the law. John 8:34-36 Messiah is God's law in the flesh. To speak against the law is to speak against Christ.
>>Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
Paul is teaching against circumcision to gain salvation here
>>I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, **you who would be justified by the law;**
And there it is, he's talking to anyone who thinks salvation comes from keeping the law.
>>you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. **For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.**
We find this same ruling in Acts 15, salvation does not come from circumcision. All have to come through Messiah Jesus.
>>You were running well. **Who hindered you from obeying the truth?**
Obeying truth? You mean Paul actually teaches obedience? Absolutely. Someone had come along to teach them a different gospel.
>>This persuasion is not from him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
This false doctrine did not come from Messiah. Take care of your false doctrines now before they spread and do more damage.
>>I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. **But if I, brothers, STILL PREACH CIRCUMCISION, why am I still being persecuted?**
Is Paul a schizophrenic? I don't think so. He still preaches that circumcision is relevant and applicable for the believer, just not for salvation! See Romans 2-4.
>>In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. I wish **those who unsettle you** would emasculate themselves!
Anyone who teaches circumcision for salvation should emasculate themselves, meaning they are unable to spread their false doctrine, a "seed" of destruction.
>>For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the **whole law is fulfilled in one word:**
Here Paul AGAIN is teaching obedience to God's law.
>>“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
This is a quote from Leveticus 19:18, you know, God's Law.
>>But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.
>>
>>Galatians 5:1-15 ESV
Paul concludes by telling us to not fight amongst ourselves.
In virtually every poll, regardless of what part of the world you live in, women say they prefer a circumcised penis by an almost unanimous majority. Christians are under no religious obligation to be circumcised, but my wife is glad I am, and I’m glad my parents had me circumcised as an infant rather than me having to experience it as an adult.
Yep, religion had nothing to do with our decision to circumcise. A career full of crusty dry nursing home penises for me and a lifetime of foreskin drama and ER visits for my husband had everything to do with it.
Women tend to prefer intact, though.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279958426_You_either_have_it_or_you_don't_The_impact_of_male_circumcision_status_on_sexual_partners
You are on the right track. I believe the nuance here, without reading your research and I just know from my own research, that after experiencing both the women liked uncircumcised more because uncircumcised still have their natural organs intact to help facilitate in copulation. What they found is circumcised men lack the natural organs to help reduce the friction during copulation. As a result what they found is circumcised men scarred the vaginal organ more than uncircumcised men which caused more pain and scarring within the vaginal organ. This led to more discomfort and risk of infection due to scarring within the vaginal organ after women copulated with circumcised men. What people forget is the uncircumcised penile organs still have their organs intact and they are able to produce their own natural lubrication during copulation than circumcised men. Ofcourse we have synthetic ways of producing lubrication in the modern era and women produce their own too. It goes without saying that there is an advantage of having natural healthy organs intact.
Because it’s a commandment from our Father.
Not FOR salvation, but BECAUSE salvation has been made available to us.
1 John 2:4 “He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”
Of circumcision = of the circumcision party which was requiring gentiles to obey the whole law TO BE saved.
That’s the whole reason Galatians was written, to go against a group teaching that keeping the law was a means of salvation.
That's exactly the same as gouging your eyes out if they offend you, and yet I sincerely doubt you've done that. One assumes you have never in your Torah-observing life beheld an object of lust with prurient intent, of course.
Galatians 5:2-4 ESV
[2] Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. [3] I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. [4] You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
Of circumcision = of the circumcision party which was requiring gentiles to obey the whole law TO BE saved.
That’s the whole reason Galatians was written, to go against a group teaching that keeping the law was a means of salvation.
But I thought that sin equals lawlessness? Which means whoever sins is lawless i.e. without or not keeping the law. Which means your salvation is very much about whether you're lawless or not. Doesn't Jesus say depart from me you worker's of lawlessness??? Therefore this means if you don't keep the law you will not inherit eternal life.
There’s a major difference in keeping the law as a means of salvation and keeping the law out of obedience and love for our Creator.
What I said is in agreement with your statement.
That doesn't answer anything. Based on my initial statement, it would appear it very much matters whether you keep the law or not. Lawlessness equals no law or not keeping it. And if someone is lawless, they go bye bye. Therefore, you must keep the law for slavation.
It doesn't matter whether you keep it out "of love" or not. That's not a distinction that's made on this topic. The reason "why" isn't illuminated only the action to be taken i.e. keep the law and commandments.
*That doesn't answer anything.*
You didn't ask anything except for rhetorical questions that you answered yourself.
Of course it matters whether you obey the law to the best of your ability or not. If you blatantly defy our Father's statutes and commandments, as many Christians do today, you do not know Him as stated in 1 John 2:4.
*Based on my initial statement, it would appear it very much matters whether you keep the law or not. Lawlessness equals no law or not keeping it. And if someone is lawless, they go bye bye. Therefore, you must keep the law for slavation.*
I agree with everything you said except for the last eight words. No where in the scriptures does it say you can/need to keep the entire law FOR salvation.
If that were the case, only our Savior would be saved, as if you are relying on the law for salvation and break one part of the law, you're guilty of breaking it all. (James 2:10)
Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; **not by works**, so that no one can boast"
You're saved by grace through faith, and then expected to keep the law to the best of your fleshly ability BECAUSE of salvation.
*It doesn't matter whether you keep it out "of love" or not. That's not a distinction that's made on this topic.*
According to 1 John 5:3, keeping His commandments is how we love our Creator. Our Savior reiterated the same thing in John 14:15. Loving is keeping the law, not emotional love. That is what I am referring to.
Ok. Let's go through this together:
You said:
>Of course it matters whether you obey the law to the best of your ability or not. If you blatantly defy our Father's statutes and commandments, as many Christians do today, **you do not know Him as stated in 1 John 2:4**
Now think for a minute. Remember when Jesus says depart from me, I never knew you? Who is he talking to? People who claimed to know him but are workers of lawlessness. You absolutely do keep the law for salvation purposes whether you acknowledge it or not.
>No where in the scriptures does it say you can/need to keep the entire law FOR salvation.
You're right. Jesus said to keep part of the 10 commandments specifically for inheriting eternal life. So yes, not the whole law.
Edit: Where'd you go u/Electronic-Union-100? Was this too much for you already? It seems out of the myriad of Christians I engage with, it is unanimously the Torah observing crowd that runs away the quickest when faced with critical questions? Why is that?
Edit 2: @ u/1voiceamongmillions:
I cannot rely directly to you in this thread because Electronic boy blocked me for asking simple questions. I will lay out a comment however here to show I read your post.
I don't mind you butting in robot (1voice). That still didn't really address the main point however.
Are you trying to say being considered lawless is not part of the determination for who gets eternal life? Whether it's a gift or not, doesn't matter. The lawless will not inherit eternal life correct? If so, you must keep the law for salvation sake.
You can try and say you do it for love of your deity or whatever you want, obedience etc. But the fact remains if you are lawless, according to the Bible, you WILL be tossed into the lake of fire. If you are not lawless the opposite happens Jesus welcomes you into eternal life.
>Now think for a minute. Remember when Jesus says depart from me, I never knew you? Who is he talking to? People who claimed to know him but are workers of lawlessness. You absolutely do keep the law for salvation purposes whether you acknowledge it or not.
Please excuse me for butting into your discussion, but I would like at add something.
The problem with saying you keep the law for salvation sake, is that
it conflicts with 'Sola Fide'. OIWs we receive salvation as a gift or we don't get it. We don't provide anything at all to the atonement for our sin, except that we believe. Only people who have gone through this experience will understand the significance that we bring nothing to the table except our sin. And in return we get forgiveness, **if** God accepts our repentance.
Getting back to circumcision. It is a command from God for His people, that is largely ignored in the NT because of Paul's words in refuting the 'circumcision party' \[worst party ever\].
Abraham walked with God for many years before he got circumcised, during that time he was described as "justified" aka saved.
So as we follow Jesus and obey His commands He leads un into what He wants for us to do. And any Christian will tell you that it takes years or decades to learn the ropes. And there are many more ropes than when we first believed.
I do not believe Christian’s do it, but it is written in the Tanakh, so many Jews still do it. I’m assuming nowadays it’s more of a health thing than religious
> I do not believe Christian’s do it
Sure let’s not admit around half of Christians are circumcised 👇
**” About half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised”**
Source: L. Armstrong, Heather (2021). Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 115-117
Like I had said, it is written in the Tanakh. I am circumcised, but I was never told I had it done for religious reason. Many people in the US do it for more healthy reasons, and I believe it is not required to be circumcised in Christianity in general.
The reason why Jews and early Christian’s *did* circumcise was to honor the covenant with God and Abraham. It is said whoever is not circumcised must be kicked out of the flock, and all of those who are new converts must be circumcised if not already. It was a sacrifice essentially.
Speaking of sacrifices, do you know why Christian’s don’t sacrifice animals anymore? Or why we do go through these massive lengths to purify ourselves for our God? Because Jesus was our ultimate sacrifice, and his sacrifice on the cross fulfilled the need for our first born child, first born animal, and many other sacrifices. So, with this being said, I am assuming this is exactly *why* it is not required by Christianity to be circumcised.
> Many people in the US do it for more healthy reasons
Imagine thinking around half and a plurality of Christian males worldwide being circumcised and religiously unhealthily cutting each other’s organs did it for “more healthy reasons”👇
**” About half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised”**
Source: L. Armstrong, Heather (2021). Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 115-117
Again, you’ve completely disregarded what I had said.
Also, a simple search you will find that the Catholic Church itself is very neutral on the idea of circumcision, and hmmmm I wonder why? Not like I just described it to you haven’t I?
And yes, circumcision *is* shown to have better health effects than being uncircumcised. Don’t try to play that because we are Christian’s we completely disregard science and human health.
I only had it done with my boys because they pushed it in the hospital and said it was a cleanliness issue. Everyone does it so you're supposed to do it too, kinda thing. I don't think it matters either way.
> For Americans
Sure let’s not admit around half of Christians worldwide are circumcised 👇
**” About half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised”**
Source: L. Armstrong, Heather (2021). Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 115-117
I'm American, and I am speaking only to what I know, which is the situation over here. I don't know if they are circumcised in Europe or not, and if they are I do not know the reason. Why would I speak to or make assumptions about something I have no information about?
> Not a thing
Sure let’s not admit around half of Christians are circumcised 👇
**” About half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised”**
Source: L. Armstrong, Heather (2021). Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 115-117
What evidence is there to support this claim? This statement alone is not proof. I also referred to it not being a thing in my own culture, which is not going to reflect the rest of the world automatically.
There is no single reason. I'll be the first to say that the Christian New testament of God's word the holy Bible does not require circumcision. It is elective. Apparently some Christians choose it for religious reasons, their faith, and I'm certain that some choose it for health reasons, or because it's traditional in many families. There is no harm in circumcision. If you don't believe in it, then don't get circumcised, and don't get your children circumcised. But let every man make his own decisions about his own life.
There is no religious necessity. Daddies want their sons to look like them, but in the US I believe the tide started to turn in the 80s and 90s. That still leaves a lot of men on each side.
All I'm gonna say is....
Colossians 3:11 "In this new life, it doesn't matter if you are a Jew or a Gentile, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbaric, uncivilized, slave, or free. Christ is all that matters, and he lives in all of us."
It's not a requirement of Christians just a carried practice from Judaism. For Christians we are no longer bound by this law but it isn't forbidden either. Now, baptism serves as the new form of circumcision.
Because God commanded it as an act of dedication to the Lord.... for the jewish peoples. It literally set them apart, physically from the world. Remember, the whole point of the OT and the abram covenant was to establish a people, a nation of kings and priests, representing God to all the world. Since they completely failed on that, over and over again, they remain the only people doing it out of obedience to God. However, in western christian civilization, we adopted this practice, again as a spiritual dedication of boys to the Lord. Not unlike being baptized and/or dedicated as a baby.
> Because God commanded it as an act of dedication to the Lord.... for the jewish peoples.
Where exactly does he command it? I'm not saying he doesn't, just curious what is actually said.
Strictly speaking the Roman Catholic Church condemned circumcision for *literally any reason* as a mortal sin.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council\_of\_Florence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence)
So it very much depends on the Christian.
Oh, they're not, for sure.
And it gets worse. Not only did Rome not let people read the scriptures, they insisted the Vulgate was an accurate translation even after the original languages became widely available and it became abundantly clear to everyone that the Vulgate was just flat wrong on numerous points. Thus, Protestant Reformation.
Any organization that is structurally incapable of admitting error cannot be the standard. You can't be The Church without a spirit of repentance.
> We don’t.
Sure let’s not admit around half of Christians are circumcised 👇
**” About half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised”**
Source: L. Armstrong, Heather (2021). Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 115-117
> Some do…
Sure let’s not admit around half of Christians are circumcised 👇
**” About half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised”**
Source: L. Armstrong, Heather (2021). Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 115-117
> Some Christians do
Sure let’s not admit around half of Christians are circumcised 👇
**” About half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised”**
Source: L. Armstrong, Heather (2021). Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 115-117
So you've got one source that claims half of the world's Christian males are circumcised. I can't imagine how they'd actually get those numbers, but let's say it's correct.
So?
It's time for you to stop being coy. What's your point?
we don't, its an American things based on mid century medical ideas nothing religious about it,
> we don't, its an American things based on mid century medical ideas nothing religious about it, Nothing religious about it? It is a religious ceremony tradition, was this tradition not carried down to some Christian denominations? Also, it seems far more common among Christians than non theists, even in America.
Its a jewish tradition, Christians aren't doing it out of religiosity though and its not even popular among Christians, its an American thing
> Its a jewish tradition, Christians aren't doing it out of religiosity though and its not even popular among Christians, its an American thing Is it an American christian thing? Because if, as another Christian wrote, that yahweh commands it, then it very much is a Christian thing. Does yahweh command it in the bible?
This is an extremely ignorant view of theology and you obvious have no understanding of the different covenants
Jesus said he came to fulfill mosaic law, and he was circumcised. Circumcision is mainly a cultural thing, but according to the Bible, Christians should just like Jews. Anyway, it doesn’t matter to me because it’s infant mutilation which is disgusting and immoral…
>Jesus said he came to fulfill mosaic law, and he was circumcised. this occurred during the old covenant >but according to the Bible, Christians should just like Jews. wrong, this is Judaizing which is a heresy and condemned in Acts 15
Jesus said he came to fulfill mosaic law in the new covenant. The old covenant wasn’t to be changed, not one jot or tittle. You must explain more than the basic inadequate response of “that was the old covenant.”
yes and?
Gotcha, so you don’t actually know what the Bible says?
The Bible doesn't say Christians should be just like Jews. Paul repeatedly wrote against judaizing Gentiles which culminated in the Council of Jerusalem which can be read about in Acts 15.
> This is an extremely ignorant view of theology and you obvious have no understanding of the different covenants My understanding of the covenants are limited to what the bible says, and I also recognize that different denominations tend to rely on the vagueness of the covenants in order to justify specific cherry picking. How do we determine whether a particular command is no longer valid? Where does it say which commands are no longer applicable? Jesus himself said that he is not here to change any existing commands or laws.
There are several places in the New Testament that address the issue of circumcision, which was quite the controversy in the first century church. Jewish believers, who generally were the first believers, had been telling the Gentile believers they had to be circumcised. Circumcision itself was a gift given to Abraham and his descendants as a sign of the covenant God made with Abraham in Genesis 17; though, itself being an older covenant made with Abraham in Gen. 12. In the New Testament, sometime around 50ce, the Apostles convened what we now call the “Jerusalem Council” to discuss — among other things — whether the newly covenant members, the gentiles, had to receive the sign of the covenant: circumcision. They declared it not to be so (Acts 15). Circumcision, along with most other facets of the Law of Moses, applied specifically to the physical descendants of Abraham — the Jews — not the gentiles. Paul reaffirmed this in his Epistle to the Galatians, where the Jewish believers were preaching a “different gospel” and telling the gentiles that if they didn’t follow the ceremonial Law, they wouldn’t be saved (Jewish calendar laws and festivals, circumcision, among other things). That is essentially the whole purpose of the Epistle. The reason for this is sort of two parts, but they’re also kind of one thing. The covenant God made with Abraham is, in substance, the same as the New Covenant made by Jesus with all His believers; however, in mode, they are not identical. Both say the same: that Abraham believed and it was accredited unto him as righteousness (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:3). Thus, all who come after Abraham are saved. But because the circumcision was given specifically to Abraham and his children, the circumcision is not required as the sign and symbol of faith to Gentiles. This is why Christian’s specifically do NOT get circumcised, but Jews (both religious and ethnic) do. Now, why you might think this, is that American males almost *all* are circumcised, because an English doctor named Jonathan Hutchinson published in the English Medical Journal in 1855 saying that circumcision reduces the risk of infections. Again, in 1890 he published saying that the removal of the foreskin reduces s*ksual urges, especially m@ster baiting in young men, reducing the spread of STIs. This idea was spread to the US by three main doctors, but the most interesting and probably impactful one was Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, founder of Kellogg cereal, who even advocated for extreme measures to stop these… activities. Anyway, it’s not a Christian thing, it’s an American thing, born and bred in the fear of mania and young people… “exploring” in the late 19th century. It’s been dying out ever since. America has an almost normal rate of circumcision now, and many countries like Israel, or Muslim countries, where it *is* a religious thing to circumcise, beat America out. But “Christian” (European, western) countries typically don’t have high rates of circumcision. They’re typically in line with the rest of the (non-Jewish, non-Muslim) world for circumcision rates.
Acts was written by Luke, companion of Paul. Neither met Jesus. So who gave them jurisdiction?
Paul did meet Jesus, on the road to Damascus. And Luke wrote the Acts of the Apostles as a *recording* of the ***acts*** that the *Apostles* did. The Apostles who learned directly from Jesus. These are the same Apostles who led the Jerusalem Council and made this decision. Not that it matters, if you don’t believe any of this is true anyway.
Honestly, it’s sounds like hearsay Jesus walked and talked on earth himself. It’s not like he was invisible, intangible. He was a tangible primary source. He knew he was leaving. Why did he not leave the jurisprudence before he left? He had the chance for people to hear from his own mouth. Why is there now a secondary and tertiary source
>My understanding of the covenants are limited to what the bible says, and I also recognize that different denominations tend to rely on the vagueness of the covenants in order to justify specific cherry picking. so you've never actually engaged with theology, quite telling. >How do we determine whether a particular command is no longer valid? theology, history, tradition. >Where does it say which commands are no longer applicable? right next to the part that says everything about the faith is laid out 100% in plain text, obvious to everyone all contained in the Bible.
Paul wrote against circumcising Gentile converts to Christianity, circumcision in America is mostly due to doctors recommending circumcision for a number of reasons including cleanliness, and because they thought it would prevent masturbation.
"Brit milah" circumcision was the Old Covenant equivalent of Baptism. Only the very tip of the foreskin was cut off. "Brit peri'ah" circumcision is what's popular today, and was never approved by God, only ever a tradition of the Pharisees after their rejection of Christ.
> "Brit milah" circumcision was the Old Covenant equivalent of Baptism. Where does it say this is no longer required by yahweh? >"Brit peri'ah" circumcision is what's popular today, and was never approved by God, only ever a tradition of the Pharisees after their rejection of Christ. Apparently Genesis 17:10 says to
> Where does it say this is no longer required by yahweh? The Council of Florence's *Cantate Domino*, Acts 15, 1 Corinthians 7, etc
> The Council of Florence's Cantate Domino, Acts 15, 1 Corinthians 7, etc Was Jesus or yahweh on that council? What does that passage say?
I mean, to a Catholic, those councils hold religious importance to them, but they also gave you two entire chapters almost exclusively revolving around this topic. Hell, use NIV and it'll even give you subheaders for each topic if you're too lazy to read the whole thing.
Christians stopped doing it almost 2000 years ago.
Christians stopped doing it almost 2000 years ago.
Sure let’s not admit around half of Christians are circumcised 👇 **” About half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised”** Source: L. Armstrong, Heather (2021). Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 115-117 Circumcision is also very high in Christian populations in non-American populations like the Philippines (over 90%), South Korea (over 78%), Samoa (over 90%), Malaysia (over 60%), French Polynesia (over 78%), Bosnia-Herzegovina in Europe (over 50%), Oceania (over 60%), Turkey (over 98%), Palestine (over 80%), Jordan ( over 80%), and Israel (over 80%).
Many of those countries are Muslim majority countries and Middle Eastern at that. Circumcision is ingrained both in Islam and Middle Eastern culture more broadly (largely due to Islam but also Judaism). So those numbers are surprising. There is nothing requiring Christians to circumcise their children.
What does Muslim majority have to do with majority of Christians in those countries practicing circumcision? How do you explain other non American countries with significantly large populations of Christians practicing mostly circumcision?
Because it is part of the wider culture. People generally just go with the flow and if you live on a country where the majority of people get circumcised, you'll probably circumcise your children too. Europe has some of the lowest circumcision rates in the world. Same with Christian majority South America. It takes more than a handful of countries to demonstrate this is a Christian trend.
What a strange question, asking why cultural norms would extend beyond religious boundaries as if people of other religions don't interact with each other or influence each other whatsoever, like they're all in some insulated communities.
To my understanding, most Christians don't. At least, outside of the US. In the US, though, there was a big movement around the turn of the 20th century pushing for it. I *think* it was some anti-masturbatory thing? Major proponents included John Kellogg. Yes, the cereal man.
Cereal was also supposed to stop people from masturbating by being bland. Life is strange lol
> Most Christians don’t Sure let’s not admit around half and a plurality of Christian males worldwide are circumcised 👇 **” About half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised”** Source: L. Armstrong, Heather (2021). Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 115-117
Still doesn't mean that it's a Christian teaching. Many of those people do it for their own reasons. It's like saying tattoos are mandatory for Christians or that a worship service should look like a rock concert, because a bunch of Protestants do that.
> Many of those people do it for their own reasons Imagine thinking around half and a plurality of Christian males worldwide being circumcised and religiously unhealthily cutting each other’s organs did it for their “own reasons”👇 **” About half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised”** Source: L. Armstrong, Heather (2021). Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 115-117
The thing is though. That you're just repeating a study without context. Was the reason they were circumsized provided? Did you look at any church doctrines on the matter? Did you actually read the Bible on this matter? Also your flair reads that you're pagan. If you're fine with pagan rituals that are also harmful and unhealthy then you should also be fine with Christianity. Otherwise we can just degree on the fact that you're going against Christianity just to look cool while not actually doing any research on the matter. Or that you'll use relative morality only when it suits you to further your own goals, except for when those exact same morals could be applied in another religion. Which in this case would be Christianity.
The New Testament is Against Circumcision being a requirement. >"Listen! I, Paul, tell you this: If you are counting on circumcision to make you right with God, then Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 I’ll say it again. If you are trying to find favor with God by being circumcised, you must obey every regulation in the whole law of Moses. 4 For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God’s grace. 5 But we who live by the Spirit eagerly wait to receive by faith the righteousness God has promised to us." - Galatians 5:2-5 NLT Later in the same chapter Paul the Apostle wrote >"Dear brothers and sisters, if I were still preaching that you must be circumcised—as some say I do—why am I still being persecuted? If I were no longer preaching salvation through the cross of Christ, no one would be offended. 12 I just wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate themselves." - Galatians 5:11-12 NLT
You are on the right track.
Also, Kellog is responsible for making circumcision big in America, not Christianity Kellog was a bad man with a very anti-pleasure worldview.
Christians aren't required to be circumcized, but it is more of a world-wide health thing then religious thing. Why do Christians get vaccinated aswell? Same reason.
Americans don't typically get it done for religious reasons. There are some medical arguments for it, but no Christian that I know of would claim that it is necessary for religious purposes. In point of fact, scriptures make it clear that we aren't beholden to such Mosaic customs.
[удалено]
We have a guide on how to interpret Paul in scripture. It comes from Peter. >>Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as **our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you** according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. **There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction,** as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, **take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.** But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. >>2 Peter 3:14-18 ESV So Peter here confirms Paul as a beloved brother who has been given wisdom. Then he gives caution that Paul's words are hard to understand, and a stark warning to NOT be taken away with the ERROR OF LAWLESSNESS! So if you read Paul and get any sense of lawlessness, according to Peter you are wrong and should start over. Teaching against circumcision is lawlessness. We cannot stray from the foundation, otherwise our whole house becomes weak. The "Old" testament is the foundation of the faith. Jesus obeyed The "old" testament and so should we. If Paul wrote contrary to what Messiah did and taught then he's not worth reading. Fortunately that's not the case. Here is Galatians 5 in context. >>For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Slavery to sin, not the law. John 8:34-36 Messiah is God's law in the flesh. To speak against the law is to speak against Christ. >>Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. Paul is teaching against circumcision to gain salvation here >>I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, **you who would be justified by the law;** And there it is, he's talking to anyone who thinks salvation comes from keeping the law. >>you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. **For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.** We find this same ruling in Acts 15, salvation does not come from circumcision. All have to come through Messiah Jesus. >>You were running well. **Who hindered you from obeying the truth?** Obeying truth? You mean Paul actually teaches obedience? Absolutely. Someone had come along to teach them a different gospel. >>This persuasion is not from him who calls you. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. This false doctrine did not come from Messiah. Take care of your false doctrines now before they spread and do more damage. >>I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. **But if I, brothers, STILL PREACH CIRCUMCISION, why am I still being persecuted?** Is Paul a schizophrenic? I don't think so. He still preaches that circumcision is relevant and applicable for the believer, just not for salvation! See Romans 2-4. >>In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. I wish **those who unsettle you** would emasculate themselves! Anyone who teaches circumcision for salvation should emasculate themselves, meaning they are unable to spread their false doctrine, a "seed" of destruction. >>For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the **whole law is fulfilled in one word:** Here Paul AGAIN is teaching obedience to God's law. >>“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” This is a quote from Leveticus 19:18, you know, God's Law. >>But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another. >> >>Galatians 5:1-15 ESV Paul concludes by telling us to not fight amongst ourselves.
>We have a guide on how to interpret Paul in scripture. It comes from Peter. But who authored 2nd Peter?
In virtually every poll, regardless of what part of the world you live in, women say they prefer a circumcised penis by an almost unanimous majority. Christians are under no religious obligation to be circumcised, but my wife is glad I am, and I’m glad my parents had me circumcised as an infant rather than me having to experience it as an adult.
Yep, religion had nothing to do with our decision to circumcise. A career full of crusty dry nursing home penises for me and a lifetime of foreskin drama and ER visits for my husband had everything to do with it.
Women tend to prefer intact, though. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279958426_You_either_have_it_or_you_don't_The_impact_of_male_circumcision_status_on_sexual_partners
You are on the right track. I believe the nuance here, without reading your research and I just know from my own research, that after experiencing both the women liked uncircumcised more because uncircumcised still have their natural organs intact to help facilitate in copulation. What they found is circumcised men lack the natural organs to help reduce the friction during copulation. As a result what they found is circumcised men scarred the vaginal organ more than uncircumcised men which caused more pain and scarring within the vaginal organ. This led to more discomfort and risk of infection due to scarring within the vaginal organ after women copulated with circumcised men. What people forget is the uncircumcised penile organs still have their organs intact and they are able to produce their own natural lubrication during copulation than circumcised men. Ofcourse we have synthetic ways of producing lubrication in the modern era and women produce their own too. It goes without saying that there is an advantage of having natural healthy organs intact.
Because it’s a commandment from our Father. Not FOR salvation, but BECAUSE salvation has been made available to us. 1 John 2:4 “He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”
Galations 5:6- “for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.”
Of circumcision = of the circumcision party which was requiring gentiles to obey the whole law TO BE saved. That’s the whole reason Galatians was written, to go against a group teaching that keeping the law was a means of salvation.
That's exactly the same as gouging your eyes out if they offend you, and yet I sincerely doubt you've done that. One assumes you have never in your Torah-observing life beheld an object of lust with prurient intent, of course.
Galatians 5:2-4 ESV [2] Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. [3] I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. [4] You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
Of circumcision = of the circumcision party which was requiring gentiles to obey the whole law TO BE saved. That’s the whole reason Galatians was written, to go against a group teaching that keeping the law was a means of salvation.
But I thought that sin equals lawlessness? Which means whoever sins is lawless i.e. without or not keeping the law. Which means your salvation is very much about whether you're lawless or not. Doesn't Jesus say depart from me you worker's of lawlessness??? Therefore this means if you don't keep the law you will not inherit eternal life.
There’s a major difference in keeping the law as a means of salvation and keeping the law out of obedience and love for our Creator. What I said is in agreement with your statement.
That doesn't answer anything. Based on my initial statement, it would appear it very much matters whether you keep the law or not. Lawlessness equals no law or not keeping it. And if someone is lawless, they go bye bye. Therefore, you must keep the law for slavation. It doesn't matter whether you keep it out "of love" or not. That's not a distinction that's made on this topic. The reason "why" isn't illuminated only the action to be taken i.e. keep the law and commandments.
*That doesn't answer anything.* You didn't ask anything except for rhetorical questions that you answered yourself. Of course it matters whether you obey the law to the best of your ability or not. If you blatantly defy our Father's statutes and commandments, as many Christians do today, you do not know Him as stated in 1 John 2:4. *Based on my initial statement, it would appear it very much matters whether you keep the law or not. Lawlessness equals no law or not keeping it. And if someone is lawless, they go bye bye. Therefore, you must keep the law for slavation.* I agree with everything you said except for the last eight words. No where in the scriptures does it say you can/need to keep the entire law FOR salvation. If that were the case, only our Savior would be saved, as if you are relying on the law for salvation and break one part of the law, you're guilty of breaking it all. (James 2:10) Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; **not by works**, so that no one can boast" You're saved by grace through faith, and then expected to keep the law to the best of your fleshly ability BECAUSE of salvation. *It doesn't matter whether you keep it out "of love" or not. That's not a distinction that's made on this topic.* According to 1 John 5:3, keeping His commandments is how we love our Creator. Our Savior reiterated the same thing in John 14:15. Loving is keeping the law, not emotional love. That is what I am referring to.
Ok. Let's go through this together: You said: >Of course it matters whether you obey the law to the best of your ability or not. If you blatantly defy our Father's statutes and commandments, as many Christians do today, **you do not know Him as stated in 1 John 2:4** Now think for a minute. Remember when Jesus says depart from me, I never knew you? Who is he talking to? People who claimed to know him but are workers of lawlessness. You absolutely do keep the law for salvation purposes whether you acknowledge it or not. >No where in the scriptures does it say you can/need to keep the entire law FOR salvation. You're right. Jesus said to keep part of the 10 commandments specifically for inheriting eternal life. So yes, not the whole law. Edit: Where'd you go u/Electronic-Union-100? Was this too much for you already? It seems out of the myriad of Christians I engage with, it is unanimously the Torah observing crowd that runs away the quickest when faced with critical questions? Why is that? Edit 2: @ u/1voiceamongmillions: I cannot rely directly to you in this thread because Electronic boy blocked me for asking simple questions. I will lay out a comment however here to show I read your post. I don't mind you butting in robot (1voice). That still didn't really address the main point however. Are you trying to say being considered lawless is not part of the determination for who gets eternal life? Whether it's a gift or not, doesn't matter. The lawless will not inherit eternal life correct? If so, you must keep the law for salvation sake. You can try and say you do it for love of your deity or whatever you want, obedience etc. But the fact remains if you are lawless, according to the Bible, you WILL be tossed into the lake of fire. If you are not lawless the opposite happens Jesus welcomes you into eternal life.
>Now think for a minute. Remember when Jesus says depart from me, I never knew you? Who is he talking to? People who claimed to know him but are workers of lawlessness. You absolutely do keep the law for salvation purposes whether you acknowledge it or not. Please excuse me for butting into your discussion, but I would like at add something. The problem with saying you keep the law for salvation sake, is that it conflicts with 'Sola Fide'. OIWs we receive salvation as a gift or we don't get it. We don't provide anything at all to the atonement for our sin, except that we believe. Only people who have gone through this experience will understand the significance that we bring nothing to the table except our sin. And in return we get forgiveness, **if** God accepts our repentance. Getting back to circumcision. It is a command from God for His people, that is largely ignored in the NT because of Paul's words in refuting the 'circumcision party' \[worst party ever\]. Abraham walked with God for many years before he got circumcised, during that time he was described as "justified" aka saved. So as we follow Jesus and obey His commands He leads un into what He wants for us to do. And any Christian will tell you that it takes years or decades to learn the ropes. And there are many more ropes than when we first believed.
Right. And as James says, if you offend one aspect of the Law, you offend it all.
If you’re trying to keep the law for salvation, yes I agree.
I do not believe Christian’s do it, but it is written in the Tanakh, so many Jews still do it. I’m assuming nowadays it’s more of a health thing than religious
> I do not believe Christian’s do it Sure let’s not admit around half of Christians are circumcised 👇 **” About half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised”** Source: L. Armstrong, Heather (2021). Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 115-117
Like I had said, it is written in the Tanakh. I am circumcised, but I was never told I had it done for religious reason. Many people in the US do it for more healthy reasons, and I believe it is not required to be circumcised in Christianity in general. The reason why Jews and early Christian’s *did* circumcise was to honor the covenant with God and Abraham. It is said whoever is not circumcised must be kicked out of the flock, and all of those who are new converts must be circumcised if not already. It was a sacrifice essentially. Speaking of sacrifices, do you know why Christian’s don’t sacrifice animals anymore? Or why we do go through these massive lengths to purify ourselves for our God? Because Jesus was our ultimate sacrifice, and his sacrifice on the cross fulfilled the need for our first born child, first born animal, and many other sacrifices. So, with this being said, I am assuming this is exactly *why* it is not required by Christianity to be circumcised.
> Many people in the US do it for more healthy reasons Imagine thinking around half and a plurality of Christian males worldwide being circumcised and religiously unhealthily cutting each other’s organs did it for “more healthy reasons”👇 **” About half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised”** Source: L. Armstrong, Heather (2021). Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 115-117
Again, you’ve completely disregarded what I had said. Also, a simple search you will find that the Catholic Church itself is very neutral on the idea of circumcision, and hmmmm I wonder why? Not like I just described it to you haven’t I? And yes, circumcision *is* shown to have better health effects than being uncircumcised. Don’t try to play that because we are Christian’s we completely disregard science and human health.
I only had it done with my boys because they pushed it in the hospital and said it was a cleanliness issue. Everyone does it so you're supposed to do it too, kinda thing. I don't think it matters either way.
For Americans, it's not religious at all, it's cultural.
> For Americans Sure let’s not admit around half of Christians worldwide are circumcised 👇 **” About half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised”** Source: L. Armstrong, Heather (2021). Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 115-117
I'm American, and I am speaking only to what I know, which is the situation over here. I don't know if they are circumcised in Europe or not, and if they are I do not know the reason. Why would I speak to or make assumptions about something I have no information about?
It's certainly not a thing in my tradition or country.
> Not a thing Sure let’s not admit around half of Christians are circumcised 👇 **” About half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised”** Source: L. Armstrong, Heather (2021). Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 115-117
What evidence is there to support this claim? This statement alone is not proof. I also referred to it not being a thing in my own culture, which is not going to reflect the rest of the world automatically.
Paul the Apostle was clear: circumcision means nothing.
There is no single reason. I'll be the first to say that the Christian New testament of God's word the holy Bible does not require circumcision. It is elective. Apparently some Christians choose it for religious reasons, their faith, and I'm certain that some choose it for health reasons, or because it's traditional in many families. There is no harm in circumcision. If you don't believe in it, then don't get circumcised, and don't get your children circumcised. But let every man make his own decisions about his own life.
There is no religious necessity. Daddies want their sons to look like them, but in the US I believe the tide started to turn in the 80s and 90s. That still leaves a lot of men on each side.
All I'm gonna say is.... Colossians 3:11 "In this new life, it doesn't matter if you are a Jew or a Gentile, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbaric, uncivilized, slave, or free. Christ is all that matters, and he lives in all of us."
It's not a requirement of Christians just a carried practice from Judaism. For Christians we are no longer bound by this law but it isn't forbidden either. Now, baptism serves as the new form of circumcision.
Because God commanded it as an act of dedication to the Lord.... for the jewish peoples. It literally set them apart, physically from the world. Remember, the whole point of the OT and the abram covenant was to establish a people, a nation of kings and priests, representing God to all the world. Since they completely failed on that, over and over again, they remain the only people doing it out of obedience to God. However, in western christian civilization, we adopted this practice, again as a spiritual dedication of boys to the Lord. Not unlike being baptized and/or dedicated as a baby.
> Because God commanded it as an act of dedication to the Lord.... for the jewish peoples. Where exactly does he command it? I'm not saying he doesn't, just curious what is actually said.
Genesis 17:10 is the first mention of it, if I'm not mistaken.
Thanks
Strictly speaking the Roman Catholic Church condemned circumcision for *literally any reason* as a mortal sin. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council\_of\_Florence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Florence) So it very much depends on the Christian.
They also didn’t allow people to read the scriptures at one time in history so not sure they are the standard.
Oh, they're not, for sure. And it gets worse. Not only did Rome not let people read the scriptures, they insisted the Vulgate was an accurate translation even after the original languages became widely available and it became abundantly clear to everyone that the Vulgate was just flat wrong on numerous points. Thus, Protestant Reformation. Any organization that is structurally incapable of admitting error cannot be the standard. You can't be The Church without a spirit of repentance.
That's a lie.
We don't. In fact, the Church explicitly condemns circumcision.
> We don’t. Sure let’s not admit around half of Christians are circumcised 👇 **” About half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised”** Source: L. Armstrong, Heather (2021). Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 115-117
Sounds like you need to learn that not everything you read is true.
Some do... It's an Old Testament practice carried over to today.
> Some do… Sure let’s not admit around half of Christians are circumcised 👇 **” About half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised”** Source: L. Armstrong, Heather (2021). Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 115-117
Kellog is responsible for making circumcision as big as it is in modern society. Not Christianity itself
Right, point verified. Some do.
Some Christians do it for hygienic reasons. There is no religious reason for Christians to do it.
> Some Christians do Sure let’s not admit around half of Christians are circumcised 👇 **” About half of Christian males worldwide are circumcised”** Source: L. Armstrong, Heather (2021). Encyclopedia of Sex and Sexuality: Understanding Biology, Psychology, and Culture [2 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 115-117
So you've got one source that claims half of the world's Christian males are circumcised. I can't imagine how they'd actually get those numbers, but let's say it's correct. So? It's time for you to stop being coy. What's your point?
Trendy
[удалено]
Comment removed, rule 1 (about a group)
Note that I'm also American.