/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>567441

Bad, Judaizing nonsense you should not do.

>>567441

Oh, because it was to set the Jewish people apart in the land of Canaan. It was part of the old covenant purity law.

>>567450

But this just seems like an excuse. There are plenty of other ways they could have been set apart. So my question isn't what was God's reasoning, it is how do you as a Christian reconcile the fact that the book of Gen depicts God as laying down a commandment that is inherently perverse. Also, Abraham was a Hebrew, not a "Jew" (an anachronistic term that makes no sense to apply to Abraham at this time).

https://forum.therightstuff.biz/topic/54617/75-of-doctors-in-the-aap-task-force-which-concluded-circumcision-is-beneficial-were-jewish/2

>>567441

Circumcision was a sacrament of the old covenant. The reason God commanded it was to signify the righteousness His people had by faith, and to attach His seal to the same people showing that they had the same righteousness. It needn't be practiced by anyone anymore because according to Colossians 2:11-12 it has been replaced with baptism.

>>567441

Circumcision done back then cut off a lot less.

>>567463

>posting alt right materials here

go back to /pol/

>>567483

>fallacy fallacy

Racism is incompatible with Christianity. Here are a few verses that prove my point:

THE BIBLE CONDEMNS RACIAL BIAS OR PREFERENCE:

"So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but IN EVERY NATION anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." - Acts 10:34-35

"In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality." - 1 Timothy 5:21

"If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing well. BUT IF YOU SHOW PARTIALITY, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors." - James 2:8-9

GOD MADE ONE RACE THE HUMAN RACE:

"And hath made of ONE BLOOD ALL NATIONS of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;" - Acts 17:26

"After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands" - Revelation 2:9

Also Moses married an Ethiopian woman and God did not condemn him.

>>567485

http://faithandheritage.com/2011/01/a-biblical-defense-of-ethno-nationalism/

>>567441

It's just cuttimg off a bit of skin, supposedly it makes masterbation more difficult but thats probably a meme.

Anyone have that pic of a guy saying "your book doesn't line up with my modern sense of morality so it's wrong

>>567485

>GOD MADE ONE RACE THE HUMAN RACE

>literally quoting a meme used to mock people who think this way

Race =/= species. It's more like different breeds of the same species. I don't know if you thought race did mean species but it seems that way.

God made one species, the human species, which has multiple races comprising it.

>>567485

>fallacy fallacy

Racism is incompatible with Christianity.

>>567488

Explained this so I won't.

>Racism is incompatible with Christianity

Every U.S. president up until JFK had "racist" views by modern standards, so we didn't have a single Christian president until JFK (an adulterer I might add)? And almost every single European who had contact with nonwhites from the late 15th century onwards had racial views unacceptable today. Even the Romans and ancient Egyptians clearly depicted Sub-Saharan Africans, Europeans, and Egyptians (brown Caucasians)) as separate racial groups.

>"So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but IN EVERY NATION anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." - Acts 10:34-35

God's impartiality has no implications about immigration policy or the reality of race.

>"In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels I charge you to keep these rules without prejudging, doing nothing from partiality." - 1 Timothy 5:21

Those actions to be done without "partiality" had nothing to do with race or immigration. There wasn't a commandment not to discriminate against people entering your home, community, or country.

>"If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing well. BUT IF YOU SHOW PARTIALITY, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors." - James 2:8-9

Thy neighbor is a member of one's own in-group. The encouragement is not that you shall allow people you should detest to become your neighbor, or to subsidize them.

>

"And hath made of ONE BLOOD ALL NATIONS of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;" - Acts 17:26

Reading this passage in context makes it clear that it is not a statement that "all groups are fundamentally the same".

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+17&version=KJV

>"After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands" - Revelation 2:9

That's not what that says.

http://biblehub.com/revelation/2-9.htm

>>567453

They were almost wiped out physically and they were enslaved a few times. They needed to differentiate themselves from the nations. Circumcision was a part of that. And again, really, really bad stuff happened to these people.

>>567441

>ask legit question about circumcision

>WNs flood screaming into the thread to kvetch and clutch their pearls about J00000Z

This is just sad.

>>567485

>God made all the nations, and kindreds

>There is only one nation, we are all kindred

WEW

>>567515

>Less than 20 posts in the thread total, some of which were replies to an originally off-topic screed by a progressive

>Flooded

A little bit ironic to defend the chosen by saying their critics are 'kvetching' chaim

Yeah it would be definitely nice to get some sober responses to the actual topic at hand, which is God commanding Abraham and his descendants to perform a barbaric ritual of genital mutilation (not some harmless little snip and we're done as some of you are making it out to be; this is a very painful and traumatic procedure for infants http://www.circumcision.org/response.htm). How do we accept that our God ordained this behavior? How do we reconcile this? What if God had commanded child sacrifice? Would that be justified? "Circumcision is not child sacrifice" you say. You are right. It's not. But it is still Satanic. So how do you as a Christian reconcile this command?

For myself, I personally believe that God never actually commanded it, but that the claim that He did is a distortion. But this is problematic because it draws into question what other distortions might exist in the Christian Holy Book.

To simply accept that God at one time commanded the Hebrews to practice this evil ritual and then we get to decide later that this command is no longer in effect simply because Saint Paul says so is not a satisfactory resolution to this problem.

>>567490

This is not about my modern sense of morality. Do you think that what was moral then is not moral now? That's simply moral relativism. I'm saying this practice was as evil then as it is now. Good and evil do not change from millennium to millennium unless you're a Marxist.

>>567534

Look, God writes the rules. Anything that He commands is moral, because true morality is based on God and His commands.

Separately, asserting that someone made up circumcision-citation required. Who made it up, when, and most importantly, WHY?

Who would consciously make up a divine command to cut off that particular part, which he would then have to have done on himself? What would be gained?

>>567453

Maybe God was right about circumcision being an acceptable practice for the time and you are wrong? Is that a possibility you are willing to entertain?

Farmers brand their cattle. Did the Israelites not belong to God to the extent that cattle belong to a farmer?

>Look, God writes the rules. Anything that He commands is moral, because true morality is based on God and His commands

So if He had commanded the Hebrews to sacrifice his children, this would have been moral too? What kind of insanity is that? Is there not some reason why you accept God and his son Jesus Christ, other than the fact that they are God? Is it not because they are also the epitome of goodness? Why do you accept Jesus Christ over Muhammad or Buddha or any of the other religious figures? Is it not because the latter are in fact evil and Jesus is good?

>Who would consciously make up a divine command to cut off that particular part, which he would then have to have done on himself? What would be gained?

I suggest that a distortion was made not necessarily intentionally for any particular gain, but simply as a mistake. The Hebrews lived among many other barbaric tribes and practiced many of their Satanic practices at various points in time. I argue that circumcision was one that they acquired from the Canaanite tribes and thought (wrongly) that it came from God when in fact it came from Satan. This was just one of the many steps towards perdition that the Hebrews took in their transition away from God's Law into Pharisaism.

And no, I do not have sources for this. These are just my own thoughts based on reason.

>>567550

>So if He had commanded the Hebrews to sacrifice his children, this would have been moral too?

should we tell him fam

>>567542

>Maybe God was right about circumcision being an acceptable practice for the time and you are wrong? Is that a possibility you are willing to entertain?

"Ye shall know them by their fruits." Anyone can claim anything to be from God, when it is in fact from the Devil. Anyone can claim to be the Christ, when they are in fact the Anti-Christ. How do we discern? Jesus gave us the answer: know them by their fruits. We know it is God's word because it is good. We know the Christ is the Christ because He is good. If it is evil, it must be of the source of evil. If it is good, it must be of the source of good.

>>567550

Also, if you read the OT, you see what a vicious fight for survival the Jews had - they had to on occasion slaughter opposing tribes wholesale. Circumcision was kind of a big deal - no matter what happened, they had that mark of their Jewishness - remember, many were captured into slavery like a whole bunch of times. You can remove things everyone has, but you can't remove circumcision I mean I guess you could but you'd have to remove something else and eww

>>567554

Did God let Abraham go through with it or not?

>>567561

negative ghost rider

Basically God is like "Yo I'm gonna found a great nation through your son, I promise. Oh yeah, you gotta kill him. Who you gonna believe? Me or your fears?" And then Abraham was righteous and God carried through with the sacrifice with his own son instead of us.

Reading Paul's letter to Romans converted Augustine and I commend it to you as well.

>>567560

This defense of the practice based on historic need doesn't hold up. Why? Many other ancient peoples practiced it (hence my argument that the Hebrews got this wrong in thinking this was God's command - this wasn't from God, this was simply a pollution from foreign tribes). "Circumcision was also adopted by some Semitic peoples living in or around Egypt. Herodotus reported that circumcision is only practiced by the Egyptians, Colchians, Ethiopians, Phoenicians, the 'Syrians of Palestine', and "the Syrians who dwell about the rivers Thermodon and Parthenius, as well as their neighbours the Macronians and Macrones"." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision#Ancient_world

>>567565

Dude I'm reporting the theological understanding. If some hangers on around the Jews wanted to take up circumcision than I mean whatever. It's old testament ceremonial law, it's fulfilled, done, fini.

My point being precisely that God did not go through with the sacrifice after all, but had He done so, we might need to question the source and holiness of that act. If God required the Hebrews to throw their newborns into the fire as Baal did, would you sanctify that practice? No, you would say, ah ha, this is not God we are dealing with here, though they were deceived at that time and thought it was God. No, it was Baal all along. How do we know? Because Baal (Satan) does Baal-like things, which is require gratuitous murder of infants, while God and Jesus do God-like things, which is to sacrifice, which is to forgive, which is to condemn that which is evil.

We know God by the good fruits of God's commands. If the fruit is not good but evil, it must not be of God but of the Devil.

>>567559

Mary and Joseph had Jesus circumcised. Were they Satanic? Paul performed a circumcision on another Christian after becoming a Christian (not because it was necessary but to stop the Jews from whining about it), Would Paul have done that if it were inherently Satanic? If you choose to throw out circumcision having been from God you are setting yourself up as God, picking and choosing based on your own standards of morality as a fallible man. A flap of skin that allows more sexual sensitivity is not that big a deal except to hedonists. Just be thankful it's no longer necessary and stop trying to for God into your box and make him fit your trendy values. You can make just as convincing arguments that eating meat is unethical as you can that circumcision is inherently unethical. But those ideas are based on manmade values. We need to conform to God and not try to make God conform to us.

>>567573

But how do we know God? How do we distinguish Him from His antithesis? Is that now through our own power of discernment and reasoning that what He commands is good and is in opposition to evil?

>>567574

We know God through His word that he revealed to us. The Bible is his word, and in the Bible, the Israelites were commanded to be circumcised as part of the old covenant

>>567485

By that reasoning, there is only one animal, the living animal.

There is only one rock, the mineral rock.

There is only one chemical, the physical chemical.

There is only one music, the audio music.

There is only one food, the edible food.

See how it looks when you apply deliberate ignorance to all fields.

See >>567490

Species = human.

Breed = race.

You can say all men are equal, it doesn't mean they aren't different.

Smegma is the devils cheese, anon.

The only place it is practised is the middle east and the united states.

It is almost non existent elsewhere, besides aborigines in Australia, who have quite a different mutilation technique.

The reason for it being so widespread in the states is because of a few lawmakers pushing it, and they weren't christian.

It seems a rather barbaric and tribalistic ritual that has no reasoning whatsoever within Christianity.

"If your eye offends you, cut it out", but that applies to disease, that it is permitted to remove something which is dead, infected or a threat to the rest of the body.

A foreskin is the opposite, it is there to protect, otherwise why would it be there in the first place on every single man who is born.

It isn't a security tag to be clipped off and discarded upon purchase.

>>567441

With my parents hadn't cut me.

Will not do to my kids.

>>567588

*wish

>>567441

>>567453

>I hold the strong conviction that circumcision is, was, and always will be a Satanic practice.

>inherently perverse.

That's where you're wrong, kiddo. At the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), it was agreed that you don't need to become a good Jew to accept Jesus. Some of the laws in the Old Testament no longer apply under Christianity. The vail of the tabernacle ripped upon Jesus' death (Matthew 27:15); this represents either the ending of or a major change in status for the Old Covenant. For example, animal sacrifices are no longer necessary.

1 Cor 7

18 Was one called having been circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was one called being uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision does not matter, and uncircumcision does not matter; but the keeping of the commandments of God is what matters.

Gal 5

2 Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who has himself circumcised, that he is bound to observe the whole Law. 4 You who would be justified in the Law are estranged from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For we in the Spirit wait for the hope of justice in virtue of faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision is of any avail, nor uncircumcision, but faith which works through charity.

Gal 6

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision but a new creation is of any account.

16* And whoever follow this rule, peace and mercy upon them, even unto the Israel of God.

Do not circumcise.

>>567577

How do you know that the Bible is His word? I'm not trying to be obnoxious or inflammatory, or blasphemous for that matter. Whether it feels comfortable to admit or not, we all decided, through our God given discernment and reasoning faculties, that the Bible is the word of God because we judged that it was good. Just as we chose to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, because we saw that he was good.

Or do you believe in the Bible or in Jesus because someone else told you to do so? Would that be better than using your judgment?

>>567579

Nobody who actually washes themselves regularly has ever even seen or heard of "smegma", anon…

>>567611

I totally agree, anon, but I don't think this is a good argument:

>19 Circumcision does not matter, and uncircumcision does not matter; but the keeping of the commandments of God is what matters.

Why is it a bad argument? Because it says "keeping the commandments of God is what matters". But circumcision WAS a commandment of God according to Genesis. We have all allowed until now St. Paul to declare that this commandment no longer needs to be followed. Wow, that is some authority to give to Paul, a mortal man, to declare what is and what is not God's command. Is it any different to say, rather than declaring that we don't have to follow a commandment of God, that such a thing never was a commandment of God in the first place? Better to disagree with Paul than with God, I think.

>>567583

>The reason for it being so widespread in the states is because of a few lawmakers pushing it, and they weren't christian.

Nah. It started back when Dr. Kellogg thought it would stop kids from masturbating, back when people thought masturbating caused siphilus. It pervades today because the doctors here make money off of it, so they are incentivized to push it and Americans are too stupid to question it. Moreover, American women have been conditioned to find it more attractive, going back to the doctors pushing intact penises as unhygienic.

>>567617

I see what you're saying. My initial reaction is that Paul wrote these words inspired by the Holy spirit, and therefore God wrote it, not Paul.

I admit I do not think that is a convincing argument, and I imagine you do not either.

I think it is also important to note, the circumcision known today removes significantly more flesh than the circumcision of Abraham. We see this is so because the Bible describes men restoring their flesh, 1 Machabees 1:11-15, 1 Corinthians 7:18. Check out these illustrations: https://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision2.html

So where does this leave us?

>>567620

I actually did not know that Biblical circumcision was significantly different from Pharisaic. Interesting.

But the bottom line for me is that inflicting severe pain on an infant is an inherently evil act. I wonder if biblical circumcision could be shown to be painless in an infant? Then we might be getting some where.

Good to know of, in any case, anon.

>>567613

Wha't smegma?

>>567588

Same.

Circumcision was a divine joke/punishment placed upon Hebrews to protect gentiles from mixing them.

Circumcision symbolized the new birth, the shedding of the phallic flesh meant the death of the lusts of the flesh. That's why today it profit nothing. (Colossenses 2:11)

First, on what basis due you classify the physical act of circumcision to be satanic? Why do you consider it mutilation? Is surgery mutilation? Why?

Second, there are two major covenants discussed in the Bible. You are right by saying that the New testament (more accurately the new covenant) does away with the previous covenant. This is done on a legal basis so God is right in doing away with the old covenant. Can there be a change in a law? Is that always illegal?

>>568173

>First, on what basis due you classify the physical act of circumcision to be satanic?

If we are talking about the current practice as it is performed today, I classify it as Satanic because it is very painful for the infant (a quick Google search will make this apparent, but a couple sources off the top:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/myths-about-circumcision-you-likely-believe

http://www.circumcision.org/response.htm

)

Causing severe pain to an infant is Satanic; there is simply no way around this. Any true Christian would agree, I believe (I hope I don't need to explain why?).

Now, the anon above did direct me to the fact that Biblical circumcision is apparently different than that performed today. If it is different enough that it would not be a painful procedure to the infant, then I could believe that God commanded it.

Some think that I am merely applying my modern values, my personal sense of what is civilized to this situation and trying to fit God into that value system. No. There are some things that are simply evil no matter the time or the place, things that God would never command, not now or ever. Inflicting severe pain on an infant as a ritual is one of them. This is not about style or custom, this is about foundational, unchanging concepts of good and evil and our ability to recognize them.

>>567534

>Causing severe pain to an infant is Satanic; there is simply no way around this.

To save their life?

>There are some things that are simply evil no matter the time or the place, things that God would never command, not now or ever.

So do you think hell exists? I mean it's pretty clear you reject the authority of the word of God, the Creator, and instead ascribe the word to various men. But since you are at least trying to suppose for the sake of argument that this word of God is truth, shouldn't you be concerned at the existence of hell since it is eternal and much worse than anything that exists on Earth, and God's perfectly just will is that sinful unsaved men be sent there?

>>568268

>To save their life?

How would ritualistically brutalizing them save their life? You mean because that saves their souls because it is God's commandment? That's circular reasoning, if so.

>I mean it's pretty clear you reject the authority of the word of God, the Creator

No. But I do say that if it is in fact the word of God, then it will be good, and not evil, because good things come from God and evil comes from Satan.

>>568272

>But I do say that if it is in fact the word of God,

If it's the word of God then those of God will recognize it. God is not the author of confusion.

John 8:47

He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

>because good things come from God and evil comes from Satan.

That sounds awfully similar to dualism. God is all-powerful, and recompenses us for our own evil ways in a perfectly just manner.

He has no counterpart. He is the judge and the life-giver, everything he has given us it is his right to take away again. Everything that was made for us he has equal right to destroy. We sinned, and He was sinned against.

Job 34:10-15

Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity.

For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways.

Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment.

Who hath given him a charge over the earth? or who hath disposed the whole world?

If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath;

All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.

>>568276

>If it's the word of God then those of God will recognize it. God is not the author of confusion.

>

>John 8:47

>

>He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

Indeed. So we agree that it is up to us to recognize, through our own God-given power of discernment, what is God's word and what is not? It is either that or believing blindly what someone else says is God's word. And if you go with the former, your own recognition of what is God's word, then how do you do it? Do you not judge that it is God's word because it has qualities of that which is Godly- goodness, justice, righteousness, beauty?

>That sounds awfully similar to dualism

Good and evil, God and Satan are distinct, aren't they? God is recognizable because He is good, and Satan because he is evil. Or how else do we distinguish them?

>>568282

>it is up to us to recognize, through our own God-given power of discernment,

Only God can reveal himself to us, we cannot see him, without his help. According to John 12:39-40 for instance, some he has blinded. But we can know all things which are given to us are done according to his grace alone, and so are not given to all. Romans 11:7. So not everyone can discern, yet at the same time, all are without excuse not to believe. Because being given the gift of God which is faith is exactly that, a gift purely of His grace: Ephesians 2:8.

1 Corinthians 2:9-14

>But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

>But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

>For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

<Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

<Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

<But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I could quote more but let's not overdo it.

>And if you go with the former, your own recognition of what is God's word, then how do you do it?

How do I do it myself? Well I determined that there must be objective truth. And according to the same word of God that he set forth, every word of it is pure and exactly chosen by God, to be preserved to all generations. So therefore, the originals of both Old and New Testament must have been preserved unchanged even until today. God said it. I believe He is capable of that and that He said He would do it. So it primarily ties right back into belief in the word of God, for instance:

Psalm 12:6-7

<The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

<Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Matthew 24:35

<Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

1 Peter 1:23-25

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

<For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:

<But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

http://www.modernalternativemama.com/2014/11/06/x-reasons-reconsider-circumcision/

http://www.cirp.org/library/history/peron2/

Joke

>I want my baby to have a healthy, happy life so he is getting circumcised. I'm going to make sure he gets all his fluoride and soy formula, because I want him to have a Healthy Start.

Broke

>circumcision is evil and a proof that Christianity is a brutal and disgusting social disease

Woke

>modern and Biblical circumcision are vastly different. Biblical circumcision was a symbolic procedure and did not remove a significant amount of tissue; the foreskin was fully functional. Modern circumcision is a post-Christ deception that is has more in common with pagan rituals than Biblical circumcision.

>ITT Dudes obsessing about the look of another dude's cock.

>>569277

>hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation …

So much for my dream of living on a boat cuz, you know, humans aren't supposed to live on water, right?

I think your personal interpretation may be a little off, friend.