Circumcised = Not a Christian?

[Adstar]

Apparently, according to Paul in the verses below, if you are circumcised you cannot be a Christian. He seems to be even a little intense about it!

Galatians 5:2-3
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

Is this true?

If so, should they not warn people about this and teach this truth in church? If false, shouldn't someone, perhaps, declare Paul to be a false prophet?

Just wondering.

Paul was reacting to some Jews who where going into the Christian community teaching salvation by adherence to the law. Paul himself was circumcised so your misguided (or disingenuous) interpretation that Paul was saying that if you are circumcised you cannot be a Christian is wrong.

Paul was saying if you place your trust on Law adherence to obtain eternity with God you have given up the gift of the grace of Jesus. So He was saying either rely on being Redeemed by Jesus or lose that Redemption by going down the path of Law adherence.

So if i went and got circumcised because i believed it was necessary to obtain eternity with God then i would be showing my lack of faith in the salvation of Jesus. I could however go and get circumcised because i believed it would be a good health and hygiene move. That would not affect my salvation status with Jesus because i would not be getting circumcised for religious reasons.

Oh by the way i am circumcised. My parents got it done for health reasons and many people in my country have had it done.

Only in recent times have the bleating of the PC crowd caused many in the community to stop doing it.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Adstar]

Ok but are Christians circumcised?

Circumcision is not a religious requirement for Christians. Although some have been circumcised for Health reasons. So not all Christens are circumcised and some are. Just as many atheist also had their children circumcised in the past and some still do.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Kadark]

So are Christians circumcised as a general rule? I know Jews are.

By disincluding Islam from your post, are you implying Muslims don't have to (or shouldn't) be circumcised?

 

[mikenostic]

Today, the role of circumcision in health is even stronger than ever. It's been discovered that uncircumcised men are about 20 times as likely to contract HIV as circumcised men, other factors being equal. A massive circumcision campaign is now under way in the countries of sub-Saharan Africa where the AIDS epidemic is causing the greatest grief.

And you do realize that the areas that circ advocates are talking about are 3rd world countries with less than adequate cleaning facilities.
Cut or not, if you keep your member clean, you won't have to worry about it. What do you think would happen if a woman went for days or weeks without cleaning her snatch?

I have no idea whether the assertion is true that circumcision decreases a man's sensitivity to sexual pleasure. I can't think of any way to test the hypothesis. In any case, since we circumcised men seem to have no trouble enjoying sex and reaching climax, I don't see the risk of HIV as being worth whatever the slight differential in pleasure might be.

Google. Do some research. Or if you don't feel like it, I can probably do some research for you to find testimonies of men who weren't cut until they were in their teens. They will tell you that there is a difference.
It's the same damn thing that you are talking about below.
I'm still intact but I don't know why. It's not something that I'm going to go bring up to mom. I've never had any hygiene problems. I also have no problem with circumcision itself, HOWEVER. I feel that the parents should leave that shit alone and let the boy/man decide to have it done for himself. Fraggle, you do realize that they are cutting part of your weiner off, don't you? Why does that seem to elude you guys? WOW.
Unless there are medical complications (i.e. foreskin not opening, etc.) then there's no reason to circumcise.
Approximately 82% of the world's men are still intact (not cut).

The male chauvinist pigs who coined the euphemism "female circumcision" for clitoridectomy are full of drenn. Removing a woman's clitoris takes away virtually all of the nerves that transmit sexual stimulation, if not literally all of them, and results in a loss of ability to have orgasm in virtually all victims, if not literally all of them. It is a tool of repression, turning a woman from an equal partner in sex into a sex object. It is analogous to cutting off the head of a man's penis so he will spend the rest of his life without sexual release. This surgery should be mandatory for all men who advocate and perform clitoridectomies. At the very least it would stop this blighted group of retards from reproducing.

The effect of true male circumcision on sexuality is, to date, so small as to be unmeasurable objectively, whereas it has a tremendous, measurable, beneficial effect on health. It could actually save Africa from being ravaged by AIDS.

Or they could just get better education/facilities/healthcare/hygiene and not have to worry about it.
For every source you can come up with concerning the 'medical benefits' of it (rollseyes), I can come up with just as many to counter it. Just like studies of the bad effects of pot, they're all speculation.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Cut or not, if you keep your member clean, you won't have to worry about it. What do you think would happen if a woman went for days or weeks without cleaning her snatch?

*************
M*W: FYI--Hygiene is a wonderful thing, but in a pinch, a woman's snatch is technically self-cleaning. Speaking as a professional who has seen thousands of them, they are quite odorless critters. The only times there is an odor is if they have a severe vaginal infection or when they've been with a man.

 

[Kadark]

Medicine*Woman: I feel you're qualified to answer this question of mine. I have read somewhere that circumcised men can sometimes prevent getting HIV just by being circumcised. Of course it isn't a foolproof solution, but can it still work at times? I found that fascinating, but never knew if it was a fact or myth.

 

[John99]

It would be good luck.

 

[Nutter]

*************
M*W: ... Speaking as a professional who has seen thousands of them, they are quite odorless critters. The only times there is an odor is if they have a severe vaginal infection or when they've been with a man.

1. Seeing thousands of them is not the same as smelling thousands of them.

2. In all liklihood you have grown accustomed to the odor/aroma, or have built up a tolerance to it.

3. How does being "with a man" affect the scent, and why?

4. What is the nature of this profession whereby one sees "thousands of them"?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Medicine*Woman: I feel you're qualified to answer this question of mine. I have read somewhere that circumcised men can sometimes prevent getting HIV just by being circumcised. Of course it isn't a foolproof solution, but can it still work at times? I found that fascinating, but never knew if it was a fact or myth.

*************
M*W: As an epidemic, there is a higher incidence of HIV among uncircumcised men. Since it is transmitted via bodily fluids, I can see where the foreskin might offer somewhat of a protection, but statistically this hasn't been proven. Also, uncircumcised men say in third world countries pass it along to their wives. The penis itself is just skin, but the danger comes when it comes in contact with someone else's mucous membranes. In third world countries, there is the lack of hygiene, sanitation and medical care. I think in the USA, there probably is a higher incidence of IV drug-related HIV.

But to try to answer your question a little better, when the foreskin is still intact, there is extra mucoid tissue underneath to be exposed, whereas in the circumcised penis, that mucoid tissue is no longer there to accumulate another's bodily fluid.

I hope I've answered your question. I haven't heard this myself, but then there was an Italian study done in the early 90s that suggested HIV can be transmitted by kissing. Also, in a medical meeting of immunologists that I attended, it was suggested that a basically healthy person who is not an IV drug user, who practices good hygiene, would have to have unprotected sex about 150 times with an infected partner before his immune system would be weak enough to get the virus. I have never read a study confirming this, so I really don't know, but I don't recommend taking the chance. Even condoms aren't fool-proof.

 

[Kadark]

*************
M*W: As an epidemic, there is a higher incidence of HIV among uncircumcised men. Since it is transmitted via bodily fluids, I can see where the foreskin might offer somewhat of a protection, but statistically this hasn't been proven. Also, uncircumcised men say in third world countries pass it along to their wives. The penis itself is just skin, but the danger comes when it comes in contact with someone else's mucous membranes. In third world countries, there is the lack of hygiene, sanitation and medical care. I think in the USA, there probably is a higher incidence of IV drug-related HIV.

But to try to answer your question a little better, when the foreskin is still intact, there is extra mucoid tissue underneath to be exposed, whereas in the circumcised penis, that mucoid tissue is no longer there to accumulate another's bodily fluid.

I hope I've answered your question. I haven't heard this myself, but then there was an Italian study done in the early 90s that suggested HIV can be transmitted by kissing. Also, in a medical meeting of immunologists that I attended, it was suggested that a basically healthy person who is not an IV drug user, who practices good hygiene, would have to have unprotected sex about 150 times with an infected partner before his immune system would be weak enough to get the virus. I have never read a study confirming this, so I really don't know, but I don't recommend taking the chance. Even condoms aren't fool-proof.

Thanks for the answer and detail, MW. Makes a lot more sense now.

 

[Neildo]

Snatches are only smelly on hairy women (same for guys), and it's not because of a dirty snatch, but sweaty hair, at least from my experiences, unless for the other reasons MW mentioned.

- N

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Circumcision is not a religious requirement for Christians. Although some have been circumcised for Health reasons. So not all Christens are circumcised and some are. Just as many atheist also had their children circumcised in the past and some still do.

*************
M*W: Apparently circumcision is considered important, because the day Jesus was presented to the temple, he was there to be circumcised. There are three components of the Day of Epiphany. They are the visit from the Magi, Jesus's presentation in the temple, and his circumcision.

Circumcision is not a christian requirement, but Jesus's circumcision is worshipped as a Roman Catholic holy day of observation.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

1. Seeing thousands of them is not the same as smelling thousands of them.

2. In all liklihood you have grown accustomed to the odor/aroma, or have built up a tolerance to it.

3. How does being "with a man" affect the scent, and why?

4. What is the nature of this profession whereby one sees "thousands of them"?

*************
M*W: In reply to your statements:

1. Seeing them is, in fact, smelling them. That's a diagnostic tool.

2. There are different odors for differing diagnoses. A bacterial infection and a yeast infection don't smell the same, but a lot has to do with body chemistry.

3. Semen left in a vagina smells fishy from the dead sperm.

4. I deliver babies for a living.

 

[anonymous2]

To be fair though, I think, it is an assumption that just because Paul was supposedly circumcised, that this passage is not a blanket condemnation of all circumcision. He was supposedly circumcised on the 8th day, so it's not like he had a choice in the matter. I know that it is written that Paul had Timothy circumcised, but it appears he does it to try to prevent offending "the Jews". But, I think this Galatians passage should stand on its own and not be merely used to harmonize with other passages. The plain meaning, to me, does appear to be condemning anyone who is circumcised or allows himself to be circumcised, although I do agree that the focus is on being circumcised in order to obey the Law of Moses.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Paul was reacting to some Jews who where going into the Christian community teaching salvation by adherence to the law. Paul himself was circumcised so your misguided (or disingenuous) interpretation that Paul was saying that if you are circumcised you cannot be a Christian is wrong.

Paul was saying if you place your trust on Law adherence to obtain eternity with God you have given up the gift of the grace of Jesus. So He was saying either rely on being Redeemed by Jesus or lose that Redemption by going down the path of Law adherence.

So if i went and got circumcised because i believed it was necessary to obtain eternity with God then i would be showing my lack of faith in the salvation of Jesus. I could however go and get circumcised because i believed it would be a good health and hygiene move. That would not affect my salvation status with Jesus because i would not be getting circumcised for religious reasons.

Paul inverted the teachings of Jesus. One of those Jews, you speak of, that actually taught that salvation was by keeping the Law, was Jesus Himself.

Shall I quote some examples for you?

Here is just one...

Matthew 5:18-20
18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

People have very narrow views about circumcision; probably due to insecurities of their own. It shouldn’t be the parents’ decision, and it shouldn’t be encouraged or prohibited at all.
I still think circumcision is the mutilation of a part of your body that brings intense pleasure in love-making for both male and female; I don´t see how "less pleassure" could be something good. At the other hand, the hygiene side is not a good argument, because un-circumcised men can clean it pretty good; another issue would be to be non-hygienic, but that depends on the person, not the circumcision itself.

Paul was not an exception, he was probably very insecure about his penis.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Paul inverted the teachings of Jesus. One of those Jews, you speak of, that actually taught that salvation was by keeping the Law, was Jesus Himself.

Shall I quote some examples for you?

Here is just one...

Matthew 5:18-20
18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

*************
M*W: If I believed Paul existed, I would believe he was the antichrist. But now I know differently.

Everything in the blibel can be explained by astro-theology.

1) Solomon=Sol=Son-of-Man

2) Saul=Apollo=Paul

3) Jupiter=Peter-the-Jew

4) Venus=Morningstar=Lucifer (whose light competes with the Sun=God)

It's simple, really.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Paul was not an exception, he was probably very insecure about his penis.

*************
M*W: What man isn't? But that's beside the point.

Some NT scholars seem to think that if Paul existed as a man, the "thorn" in his flesh indicated "homosexuality," and that Timothy was his protege/lover. I don't think Paul existed. I see him as Paul=Apollo who was a lesser god than Jesus=Sol=Sun-of-Man. Did Paul write the NT? No. It was a compiliation of stories written about Apollo's relationship to Sol or Paul's teaching of Jesus. Paul's suspected homosexuality was nothing more than Apollo's adoration of the Sun.

 

[Adstar]

Paul inverted the teachings of Jesus. One of those Jews, you speak of, that actually taught that salvation was by keeping the Law, was Jesus Himself.

Shall I quote some examples for you?

Here is just one...

Matthew 5:18-20
18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Don't you read the scriptures you post?

I have not preached against people getting circumcised at all.

I preached against people relying on Law observance to obtain eternity with God.

Note What Jesus said himself.

"19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

So Jesus was not talking about people being rejected from the kingdom He said that some would be least in the kingdom of heaven and others would be great. It is not a case of in and out but a case of the position within.


Once again you show clearly that while you have the ability to read scriptures you have been blinded in understanding them. Maybe it is not a case of wilful disregarding of scriptures maybe your just incapable of understanding the scriptures you read.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Note What Jesus said himself.

"19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

So Jesus was not talking about people being rejected from the kingdom He said that some would be least in the kingdom of heaven and others would be great. It is not a case of in and out but a case of the position within.

Verse 20 tells you why He was speaking about the Law in verses 18 and 19.

Why?

"For I tell you that unless "your righteousness"...

20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Here is another verse you might consider:

Matthew 18:8-9
8If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

I am sure He didn't really mean for anyone to actually do this, right?

Even Paul, is apparently confused about this. He teaches the opposite of what you are saying in the following verses and then almost immediately starts contradicting himself.

Romans 2: 6-7, & 13
6God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.


I am blinded by God, O.K.? He wants to make sure that I will go directly to hell, so He prevents me from understanding. That is what you teach, anyway!

God Bless You, Adstar