gg28 #fundie

gg28 #fundie answers.yahoo.com

Question:Why did God choose circumcision as a means to keep a covenant?

Answer:

This part of a man's body is about consummation of a covenant with a mate and it is the most sensitive part of the male body. Sensitivity and covenant are required by God to make sure there is no FLESH prohibiting contact in that spiritual process. When the foreskin is pushed back the full vulnerable part of the contact point is revealed and exposed. Nothing hidden or held back! Spirituality and sexuality cannot be separated.., although it can be adulterated and perverted. Men and women become one flesh in sexual intimacy as God and man become one in spiritual intimacy of asking Jesus to come into our heart and receiving Him.
On day eight, the baby boy has a certain chemical in the body so the body doesn't bleed excessively nor feel pain as on any other day. Also, the #8 means "new beginnings" in spiritual terms. Not a mystery to us but a revelation. Genesis 17: 9-14

50 comments

old comment by Brain_In_A_Jar

Bullshit. It's a barbaric, tribal initiation ritual, and the purpose of those is to clearly mark trusted tribal members in such a way as enemies and impostors would be extremely reluctant to imitate because it's so unbearably painful and permanently disfiguring that it usually has to be forced on a newborn child who is unable to resist, and also to force any outsider who wants to join the tribe to demonstrate their sincerity by voluntarily undergoing excruciating pain and humiliation.

Similar initiation practices, based on pain and humiliation, are extremely common in primitive cultures (also subcultures of modern civilisation that have degenerated to a tribal level, like street gangs or frat houses) and generally denounced by modern civilisations as the pointless cruelty that they are, symptoms of the absence or failure of enlightened society.

old comment by Shann

On day eight, the baby boy has a certain chemical in the body so the body doesn't bleed excessively nor feel pain as on any other day.

Around what bend in the highway of your ass did you pull that little slice of non-science from? Provide a citation or stop spreading this. It's bullshit and you know it.

Studies have proven that leaving the foreskin on actually does not affect cleanliness and protection.

Unlike you, I will provide a citation.

Also, it is completely untrue that it increases sexual stimulation. The scar tissue left by circumcision is actually less sensitive, not more, so sexual pleasure is diminished for men who have been circumcised.

Then there's this: are we a tribal nation? No.

Unless the parents belong to a religion that requires genital mutilation there is no good reason to do it (and religious beliefs aren't a good reason either, though it'd be easier to shave my legs with a bottle cap than to convince them of this).

I took all of this into consideration when deciding whether or not to circumcise my sons, and I could find absolutely no good reason to put them through that. To me it just represents a lot of unnecessary pain and trauma for what is basically a cosmetic procedure, and if it doesn't heal correctly or the skin is tighter on one side than the other, it isn't even really cosmetic.

So both of my boys, who are intact, would like you to know you fail. Miserably and without question.

old comment by Dawn

Regarding the "certain chemical"...babies are born with a deficiency of Vitamin K, which helps promote blood clotting (one reason Vitamin K shots are given to all babies after they are born; started with when baby boys used to be circumcised at birth, often within the first 12 hours of life and some bled a lot. Don't know why they decided to give it to baby girls too). Breastfeeding/bottlefeeding helps the baby colonize the gut with bacteria which promote the development of Vitamin K. After about 8 days of life, the baby is fairly well protected from bleeding to death from this procedure. So, the 8 days wait makes medical sense.

I imagine they discovered this by trial and error back a long time ago, once circumcision was done to babies instead of early teens. I can't cite it, but I recall reading that circumcision was a way to mark slaves.

old comment by k4jun

The baby can pee because it's a circular clamp that rings around the penis on the foreskin. No urinary function is disturbed.

We are talking about two different things here when discussing bacteria: For adult males it doesn't make much of a difference in the cleanliness factor, because most adult males know to wash thoroughly. The difference is in younger boys who don't know how to properly wash themselves.

My wife is an OB nurse, and this is the opinion of most of the doctors she works with. We aren't talking about 3,000 year old rituals being the reason. There is a practical medical reason for doing this.

And at least in my part of the country, most hot white girls I know prefer cut to uncut. It's all about the booty ya'll.

Female circumcision is a completely different concept, and is indeed horrific. Cutting the clit off is much different than eliminating a flap of useless skin.

old comment by MilkyWay

k4jun:
My wife is an OB nurse, and this is the opinion of most of the doctors she works with. We aren't talking about 3,000 year old rituals being the reason. There is a practical medical reason for doing this.

Interestingly enough, the practical medical reason doesn't seem to have surfaced on this side of the puddle. As far as I know, there's not a country in Europe where boys would be routinely circumcised (feel free to correct me, anyone). It is done occasionally, but only on case by case basis and only if the tight foreskin is actually causing problems to the boy.

Nobody is even seriously suggesting here that all boys should be circumcised as babies for medical reasons. Not even the most hard core health nuts. And well, if someone is, they're certainly not taken too seriously. Not even in the medical field.

old comment by Anon

>>634 66 666

"Actually, it's done for health and comfort, not spiritual reasons. Nothing better can be done for a guy to improve sex and prevent disease."

Yes there can. You could leave it on for example. <<

Wikipedia quotes the current medical literature as being ambiguous on the quality of sex, but favoring circumcision as a way to decrease the risk of acquiring HPV and perhaps other sexually transmitted diseases.

There is continued debate as to if the studies on which that conclusion is based have unaccounted-for biases. Conventional double-blind placebo trails don't work in this case.

Regardless of how that debate evolves, gg28 fails both medicine and religious studies.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

And of course, as you would point out, we are made in God's image. That means physiologically. As in anatomically. In that case...

Who circumcised God?

And not taking that little bit into account (pun may or may not be intended), here's just one thing that brings the whole fragile edifice of 'Intelligent Design' (and therefore Creationism) crashing down:

If we men were meant to have circumcisions, why weren't we born without them in the first place?

I'm an Englishman, and I still have my foreskin. At least here in the UK, the individual male can still choose for himself whether he wants his foreskin or not.

And I thought the USA was the 'land of the free'? So justify the practice of routine circumcision in the US - regardless if you're Jewish/Muslim or not?

@Ash

"Yet another case where the parents threw away the baby and raised the foreskin instead."

Or more appropriately, they threw away the more intelligent part of him. After all, when was a war, or any form of religious bigotry, intolerance & persecution, perpetrated by a foreskin?

Personally, I think the whole 'routine circumcision in the US' thing is a conspiracy by the snack food companies. Deep fried; Hula Hoops:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hula_Hoops

>_< X3 >:D

gg28 #fundie answers.yahoo.com

50 comments

Confused?