Foreskin Restoration / Intactivism Network

Go Back   Foreskin Restoration / Intactivism Network > FORESKIN RESTORATION > Safe Haven
Register FAQ Members List Calendars Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Safe Haven Disrespect for religious views is not permitted.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 17th, 2011
hopeforemore237's Avatar
hopeforemore237 hopeforemore237 is offline
Junior Member? I'd say it's above average.
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Southeast
Posts: 202
Default Re: Is foreskin restoration against Holy Bible of Christianity?

To those that feel the need to bash the Bible here, I think you need to look at where you are posting. This is in the "Safe Haven." Nobody here is asking you to believe the Bible, so you don't need to come in here and try to convince people to not believe the Bible. It is unnecessary. I believe he was asking for clarification so that he can answer questions of people who do believe in the Bible. Therefore, your answer in invalid and unproductive. By the way, no where in the new covenant (upon which Christianity has it's foundation) does it say to or condone stoning or killing for sin. That was the whole purpose of Jesus dying on the cross, so there no longer needs to be a sacrifice for sin.

Without getting too deep into theology and explaining the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, the model of the old testament was through external motivation based on punishment. The New Testament is based on an internal relationship with God. Therefore, there is not a need to have an external representation, such as circumcision, as a sign of covenant. More about this in a second.

Here is an excerpt from a book by Danny Silk. Psalm 32:8-9 says, "I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go. I will guide you with my eye. Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding, which must be harnessed with bit and bridle, else they will not come near you." The second part of the verse is pretty easy to understand. The horse and mule require an external source of control to direct them. God doesn't want us to be controlled externally, but instead, He wants us to be led by His eye. The eyes are the windows of the heart. God directs us by letting us know how our choices are affecting His heart. When we make choices that violate our connection with him and violate who we are, the Holy Spirit Convicts us, which is basically a message that says, "Hey, look into Father God's eyes. Do you see what you are doing breaks His heart?" He trusts that the connection (aka - covenant, relationship, etc) that we have for His heart will direct us.

God doesn't want to control us. If he did, why did he put a poor choice in the garden of Eden? It's only out of a choice can we choose, and truly communicate love. Out of multitude of options, we choose to love Him, serve Him, have a relationship with Him, and give up our life for Him.

One way I have heard the purpose of circumcision was a sign of covenant. Making a covenant with God in the intimate, secret place that nobody sees, which still has spiritual implications (not literal). Also, culturally, it set them apart from other people, especially the Greeks. Today, Christians are to be set apart, but not by circumcision, but by their heart, character, and "fruit" - (Galations 5:22-24 "22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires."). Unfortunately, many people claim to be Christians do pick and choose what they want to believe and don't reflect the fruit of being a Christian.

Basically, the new testament/new covenant, is very clear that circumcision is not necessary. It's about our heart. So, if being intact is not against Christianity, then there should be no problem with restoring. Does this help?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old March 17th, 2011
Dasher Dasher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,012
Default Re: Is foreskin restoration against Holy Bible of Christianity?

I agree, but would go way beyond this, and say that Jesus shed his blood so that we would not have to shed ours. So that, unlike Him, we would not have to be circumcised.

Circumcision is immoral. That is the official teaching of the Catholic Church, which represents many if not most of the world's Christians. Circumcision is not allowed because it is a mutilation of the body (see the Catechism, #2247 I believe without looking it up). Several Popes over the centuries have issued various edicts prohibiting the circumcision of Catholics.

The New Testament is filled with warnings about circumcision and those who circumcise (they are "dogs", i.e. male prostitutes). St. Paul warned us against the circumcisers, because they seek to cut us off from Christ. Cut off your foreskin, and you are cut off from Christ. And cut off from salvation, too.

I realize that there are many renegade Protestant sects (they never refer to themselves as Protestant, but they aren't Catholic or Eastern Orthodox) which claim -- falsely in my opinion -- that you have to be circumcised to be a Christian. Such claims -- again in my opinion -- are heresy, and totally ignore the New Testament.

Every once in a while we have someone new come onto this forum who is from such a supposedly Christian background, and is shocked to find out that circumcision is not a requirement of Christianity. Imagine how horrified these poor circumcision victims are to find out that, on the contrary, circumcision is a no-no in Christianity.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old March 18th, 2011
hopeforemore237's Avatar
hopeforemore237 hopeforemore237 is offline
Junior Member? I'd say it's above average.
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Southeast
Posts: 202
Default Re: Is foreskin restoration against Holy Bible of Christianity?

I don't know where the post went about how Christians "gloss over the old testament." Maybe he removed it because this is NOT the place to have a debate over this. Obviously this was spoken by somebody who doesn't know the Bible and bases his view of Christianity on certain individuals.

Simply put, Christians don't "gloss over the old testament." The moral beliefs and foundations of the old testament are supported by the new testament. The system of following "the law" including it's punishments and sacrifices is no longer needed since Jesus fulfilled the law. The moral/character standards are still the same.

If a person picks and chooses what they want to believe out of the Bible, then they are not a Christian, aka "believer." They would then be an unbelieving believer if they only believe parts.

Sorry, I am not familiar with Catholic beliefs, so thank you for adding that perspective. True there are almost twice as many catholics as protestants in the world.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old March 18th, 2011
soft-cover recovery agent soft-cover recovery agent is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Earth, thinking about changing to the Restaurant at the other end of the Universe
Posts: 82
Default Re: Is foreskin restoration against Holy Bible of Christianity?

I think since Jesus fulfilled the law through his perfect sacrifice and atonement on the cross for our sins, that unless you to not believe this, then circumcision is not needed any longer from a Christian perspective. Resurrection and the giving of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, are unparalleled events in the history of the human race. I think Resurrection of Christ helps shed light on how we can enjoy heaven. I think that the Resurrection negated the need as well for circumcision. The new covenant has two different vessels. Christ's body and Christ's blood, celebrated every day at Holy Mass. Why do confessing Christians in the catholic (meaning universal) church need circumcision? The answer is that they do not. Circumcision is a sign of the old covenant, and it is called the Old Covenant (Old Promise) because it was God's specific promise that Israel would forever be his holy people. Christ fulfilled the laws of the holy people Israel, and through his death and resurrection showed what the New Covenant (New Promise) was. The New Promise is a bodily resurrection, and for all those who choose to be with God in this life will be with Him in the next life. To me, being with God is not the same as Him being with us. He is always with us, but sometimes we are not with him. What I mean is that we are not always on the same page with God. This is because of sin. Sometimes it is our own sin, sometimes it is due to the sin of others. It is easier to be sinning when we are not on the same page as God, than when we are on the same page as God. I do not think that in this life we are every entirely on the same page as God is. Some times, we are more on than off the page, other times we are more off the page than on the page, and I think some times we are totally of the page, on which God is.

God loved us that much that he sent his Son, as the perfect example of the extent of what love is for God, and at the same time experienced what mortality is like. Simultaneously, he took our sin on himself.

In light of the New Promise, why would one bother trying to show the signs of the Old Promise? The New Promise is that death is temporary, and that showing love to God and showing that one wants to adhere to God's mode of operating, that one can do that (hopefully sera') in a perfect manner if one wants. However, this life now is not the time in which we are permitted to do this. The New Promise includes the provision that we can live in God's mode of operating more fully (hopefully perfectly) in the new life that will follow death. I think in part, the point of this life now is to learn how to read God, and if we enjoy reading God, then that is something that He says, you may to this with me always after this life is finished. I think that death shows that this life is finished (spectres and such not withstanding) pretty strongly. I do think, that if Jesus comes the second time, before all humanity is dead, that there will be some people who do not die in this Earth, but who will also not get to experience life eternally with God. Who they are, I cannot say. To me, one has some choice in whether one spends forever with God, or whether one does not. This is pretty amazing. In the life now, if one wants to be with God, one may but is not required. To me, choosing not to be with God now, indicates, that were one to have the opportunity to be with God always, why would one want to be with God always if one were not to want to be with God now, when we do not comprehend the full effect of who God is. In other words, were we able to comprehend God perfectly, and it seems to me that in the second life we may be able to do this, if we were not interested in knowing God to a limited extent in this life, why would we want to know Him completely? Therefore, it would seem that love is the opposite of control, but consequence is real, meaning that there is an opposite action for every action taken. It would seem therefore, that circumcision is definitely needless if one takes seriously the Resurrection of Christ. The fact that Christ is really present in the elements of the Sacrament of Holy Communion is to me, a much stronger sign for any covenant; that one can have Christ with them every day. To me the most amazing thing, is that we can experience two parts of the Trinity in the Sacrament of Holy Communion and because of already having Sacrament of Baptism (the Holy Spirit comes then and dwells in the baptized on an on-going basis), even though Christ ascended bodily into heaven. This is a most amazing gift.

If Christians understood their amazing heritage and inheritance better, then I think circumcision would cease amongst them. I think too, that the legacy of Kellogg will long over-shadow them. It reminds me of cutting the nose off to spite the face, but in this case it seems to be cut off the penis to spite the morality. Really, cutting off some one's body part just for masturbation? Some Victorians would bath themselves in such manner that they would not even see their own genitalia. How ridiculous is that? Hopefully circumcision will become just one of those crazy Victorian habits.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old March 22nd, 2011
mwolverine8 mwolverine8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 214
Default Re: Is foreskin restoration against Holy Bible of Christianity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dasher View Post
I agree, but would go way beyond this, and say that Jesus shed his blood so that we would not have to shed ours. So that, unlike Him, we would not have to be circumcised.

Circumcision is immoral. That is the official teaching of the Catholic Church, which represents many if not most of the world's Christians. Circumcision is not allowed because it is a mutilation of the body (see the Catechism, #2247 I believe without looking it up). Several Popes over the centuries have issued various edicts prohibiting the circumcision of Catholics.

The New Testament is filled with warnings about circumcision and those who circumcise (they are "dogs", i.e. male prostitutes). St. Paul warned us against the circumcisers, because they seek to cut us off from Christ. Cut off your foreskin, and you are cut off from Christ. And cut off from salvation, too.

I realize that there are many renegade Protestant sects (they never refer to themselves as Protestant, but they aren't Catholic or Eastern Orthodox) which claim -- falsely in my opinion -- that you have to be circumcised to be a Christian. Such claims -- again in my opinion -- are heresy, and totally ignore the New Testament.

Every once in a while we have someone new come onto this forum who is from such a supposedly Christian background, and is shocked to find out that circumcision is not a requirement of Christianity. Imagine how horrified these poor circumcision victims are to find out that, on the contrary, circumcision is a no-no in Christianity.
I am of the Christian faith and I was not circumcised for religious reasons. In fact most christians are for the "hygiene" benefits or just aren't educated or plain don't give a crap. But what you just said was absolutely far-fetched. The new testament says in a nutshell you can be cut or uncut, doesn't matter anymore. That was only between the people of Abraham and God. Circumcision is definitely not a no-no in christianity I'm nt even gonna argue with that lol..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old March 22nd, 2011
Dasher Dasher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,012
Default Re: Is foreskin restoration against Holy Bible of Christianity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mwolverine8 View Post
I am of the Christian faith and I was not circumcised for religious reasons. In fact most christians are for the "hygiene" benefits or just aren't educated or plain don't give a crap. But what you just said was absolutely far-fetched. The new testament says in a nutshell you can be cut or uncut, doesn't matter anymore. That was only between the people of Abraham and God. Circumcision is definitely not a no-no in christianity I'm nt even gonna argue with that lol..
You're just plain wrong, but you make a common error. Here's the explanation:

http://www.udonet.com/circumcision/christian.html
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old March 22nd, 2011
admin admin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,530
Default Re: Is foreskin restoration against Holy Bible of Christianity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dasher View Post
You're just plain wrong, but you make a common error. Here's the explanation:

http://www.udonet.com/circumcision/christian.html
That link makes a pretty persuasive case. I especially like:

"Let each man remain in that condition in which he was called" which basically admonishes believers to leave the genitals alone.

I also like "If Ye be circumcised christ will profit you nothing" which sounds pretty scary.

But we really don't even need the New Testament to make the case. My #1 favorite is THOU SHALL NOT STEAL. When the kid gives his permission then it is no longer stealing.

-Ron
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old March 23rd, 2011
mwolverine8 mwolverine8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 214
Default Re: Is foreskin restoration against Holy Bible of Christianity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dasher View Post
You're just plain wrong, but you make a common error. Here's the explanation:

http://www.udonet.com/circumcision/christian.html
First off that chick who wrote that is no scholarly article. She got all her sources from ANTI CIRCUMCISION websites you num nuts.

Second, you don't know the first thing about Christianity obviously. If The act of circumcision severed you from Christ and sent all Christians to hell, don't you think preachers and theologians, not some woman writing a webpage, would have spread that and forbidden it? Do you honestly think Christians who are circumcised would goto hell?

Third, the absurdity and mis interpretation of the bible was ridiculous. The freedom which Christ provides would not apply to those who place themselves under bondage to the law. The practical instruction here is that if we were enslaved to something and then Christ made us free from it, don't willfully place yourselves back under bondage again. This is the interpretaton from ALL major christian theologins and professors. They are not specifically talking about the medical circumcision.

And in Acts, which don't even argue about that with me because I attend a Christian school and have studied in depth many books, the debate was whether or not newly baptized Christians needed to become circumcised, well the answer is no. When a man is called, he need not be circumcised by the new testament.

Regardless of all that, circumcision is not a "no no" sin. And if it was, God judges you by your heart. I understand the points that article makes and i understand many of you are not christians and understand where you are coming from. Maybe catholics or whatever else forbid it, idk, but you cannot read and believe that without being a christian without ever understanding or living the word. Ask any Christian. You must also understand I am not defending myself because I am "cut"

Btw my Uncle is a world famous preacher and professor. My family are members of the church of Christ.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old March 23rd, 2011
mwolverine8 mwolverine8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 214
Default Re: Is foreskin restoration against Holy Bible of Christianity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DPX1 View Post
The translation you posted is a little misleading to me. Here's the whole passage from the "English Standard Version"



I take this to have two meanings:

1.) Circumcision doesn't matter in the eyes of God. You will be accepted by the Lord the way you are, so you don't have to make any changes to yourself to appease him.

This is in the next line


Pretty straightforward. You don't need to change your circ status to appease God.

However the whole passage is also about how your life is according to God's plan, therefore you don't need to change it. If you wanted to be more cynical you could say that it's a message to the masses not to question authority.

I take it more to mean something like, free or slave, rich or poor, injured or whole, God accepts everyone. Therefore you shouldn't throw your life into turmoil and unhappiness trying to change what might not matter, and instead focus on the inner peace that comes with knowing that you are just as good as anyone before God.

I don't think it means you're forbidden to change, or restore your foreskin, or whatever. I think it just means "don't make yourself unhappy trying to change what is already done because it's all really an illusion compared to the truth that you will have once you're with God".

If I'm a slave, I'm damn sure gonna free myself if I can. On the other hand, if I'm fat and happy with it, I shouldn't try to convince myself that I'm living wrong because God accepts me the way I am. Or, maybe more abstractly, I shouldn't live to earn more money because society says I should be ashamed of the kind of car I drive, because I'm just as good as anybody in the eyes of God so I shouldn't let it bother me.

In short, I think this is the message: Don't worry about any of it, God loves you regardless.
That is wonderfully put. That truly exemplifies the meaning of Christianity. I couldn't have thought it better. Are you a Christian?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old March 23rd, 2011
Dasher Dasher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,012
Default Re: Is foreskin restoration against Holy Bible of Christianity?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mwolverine8 View Post
You must also understand I am not defending myself because I am "cut"
It sure sounds that way.

By the way, the Catholic Church considers circumcision immoral, and teaches that circumcision will deprive one of salvation. That can only be interpreted as disapproval. In other words, a no-no. The vast majority of the world's Christians are Catholic.

This is Safe Haven, and if you disagree with someone's religious beliefs, you should not refer to them as "num" [sic] nuts. Besides, it's low class.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 20:39.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.