Christian refusal to sanction the mutilation of children is "problematic"

My wife had an appendectomy in '79, and she was over the loss in less than a month. Not quite so devastating a loss, I suppose.

Grief is normal and healthy, but only up to a point. I shall say a prayer for your speedy recovery from grief over the loss of your foreskin, and I encourage my fellow forum members to pray also.

 

Maybe one day there will be a liturgy to mourn the removal of tonsils, wisdom teeth, and maybe even the daily shaving of facial hair… Strange that Catholicism has no position on tattoos (Orthodoxy, however, does), which deform the largest and most visible organ of all (and despite the clear biblical prohibition)…

 

Interesting that you can see tattoos as damaging the skin but not circumcision. I guess circumcision is fine because God commanded it? It's as if you worship the same capricious god as the Muslims do.

 

That’s generally been the default assumption for Christians this side of the Tiber…

The inconsistency is yours. Altering the body is either inherently evil or it’s not. If the Scriptures appear to be inconsistent on this score, it is because they clearly teach the latter alternative rather than the former. The perceptive will probe deeper and ask why that is.

 

More like, God commanded circumcision among the Israelites, therefore it must not be the abhorrent abomination you make it out to be. And if you don't worship the God who commanded circumcision, you have the wrong god. God of the OT and God of the NT are one and the same.

 

I know. God gave us brains, but Protestants often refuse to use them. If God commanded you to rape your daughter, you wouldn't think twice. Just follow blindly, don't dare to question if what you're told is really coming from God.

 

Rabbinic and American circumcision isn't the same thing God commanded the Israelites to do. Using the same word alone doesn't make it the same thing.

 

Come on, that’s a silly argument. A Model T isn’t as advanced as a Tesla, but they’re both still cars. Improved processes don’t alter the most basic features of their end results. To say they aren’t the same in that sense is absurd. Besides, nowhere in the Scriptures is there a precise description of how it should be done, only that it should be done. Any practicing Jew today would tell you that they are fulfilling the mitzvah despite no longer employing crude Bronze Age methods.

 

Who cares whether they're still fulfilling. The Bible (well, our Bible does) talks about Jews who used weights to hide their circumcision during the hellenistic era. Brit periah was added on after that time so this could no longer be done. Abrahamic circumcision only removed the portion of the foreskin that extended beyond the glans. Rabbinc circumcision removed the entire foreskin. I don't see how greater damage could be considered an improvement without some degree of fetishising the amputation. It's like saying gouging out both eyes is an improvement upon gouging out just one.

Re: model T and Teslas. Of course it's not a silly argument. Abrahamic circumcision removed one section. Rabbinic circumcision removes that section along with another that Abrahamic does not. Would you also say removing the entire skin of the penis is still circumcision, or would you agree that that, too, is something altogether different?

 

1 Maccabees, to which you alluded, is part of the Anglican Bible (which even includes a few books no longer found in Catholic Bibles). Obviously, practicing Jews who are still obligated to fulfill those commandments care a great deal about whether they’re doing so. Arrogantly dismissing their concerns doesn’t help your argument here. (The Abrahamic Covenant, I remind you, is described as an everlasting covenant, and there is not only no indication anywhere in the NT that the obligations of the Torah were ever abrogated for Jews, but in fact this is specifically denied by Christ himself.)

Again, a more refined procedure does not make something a fundamentally different sort of thing. What you are mischaracterizing as “damage” is in fact a superior procedure that frankly ought to be standard common sense practice everywhere, given the health benefits. Parents who opt for it are making the right decision. What you’re advocating is just gross. Pick a different obsession.

 

Trying to win the argument by redefining the term. Yeah, great technique.

Circumcision is circumcision. Not liking a method of circumcising does not invalidate the procedure or the reasons for it.

 

Rubbish.

 

I reject the medical justifications for it, but you are specifically invoking the convenant in order to defend its practice. That makes it entirely legitimate to distinguish the differences between the covenantal practice and the modern practice, which is what I'm condemning. The modern practice is not what was advocated by the covenant, so cannot be defended by invoking it. Such a defense is disingenuous. Conflating the forms of circumcision is like conflating the forms of FGM. Yes, they fall under the same umbrella, but the ritual nick is hardly the same thing as infibulation.

 

Well, rejecting a thing doesn't make it false. I'm going to trust trained doctors, not internet culture warriors.

I've already dealt with the other assertions, and am not going to keep repeating their refutation. Yours is a radical extremist view, that does not merit serious consideration given the current state of the known facts. The rhetoric you've employed to support it is also offensive and unsupportable.

It's time for this thread to come to an end.

 

Protecting children from unnecessary surgery is hardly radical or extremist. Trust the doctors all you want, but the medical justifications are, at best, widely disputed. For every highly trained physician who accepts the justifications, there is at least one who rejects them. Given the increasingly circumfetishist tone of your previous posts, I understand why you don't want to continue talking about it. Advocating an unnecessary, mutilating procedure on boys who can't consent as a 'standard, common sense practice everywhere' based on spurious information is certainly more radical and extreme than anything I've proposed.

 

On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being most important), sharing the Gospel with others is a 10.
Living a demonstrative life of love in the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit is also a 10.
Generosity toward the poor and needy is a 9 or 10.
Promoting the sanctity of all human life, in the unborn, disabled, and elderly: 8 or 9?
Inviting people to attend church with us is, IMO, about a 4. Some may place this one higher or lower, though.
Stamping out circumcision is a 1 or, at best, a 2. (There are bigger fish to fry.)

No one can do it all. What should I spend my time, energy, and effort on? Hmmmmmm.

 

If you ignore children being mutilated, I'd argue you're not sharing the Gospel because you're not *living* the Gospel. Christ never said "You can't do it all, so only preach 70% of the gospel."

There may be bigger fish to fry, but there are also more people trying to fry those fish. It's not needed for everyone to fry the biggest ones together. Fry whichever one you'll be most successful at, even if it's one of the smaller ones.