News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Russ, I am really disappointed that you have blocked me from posting in the thread because we have a difference of opinion.

As to being a Christian, it isn't about us, it is about what Jesus did FOR us. Circumcision is totally meaningless. America does it because people profit from it. The only clinics that do it in my county aere private ones who make a living from it.

As to "attacking" your character, I was certainly not doing that. I was just pointing out the blinkers you have. It's cetainly no "less" attacking than you saying those of us who disagree with you are "misunderstanding" or "ignorant" of the truth. Maybe one day someone who disagree with someone else will come up with a more original argument!

Babies die from circumcision, others are left with severe injuries, others psychological trauma. Everey baby boy has a 99% chance of getting through their first year without a UTI. The benefit of circumcision is only a fraction of a percent and does not make up for the risk of infection and complication from the circumcision itself or the removal of a healthy organ.

You accuse organisations of manipulating data and information so that people get biased information, and then you go and block me from posting in a thread so I can't provide information that goes against your opinion so other people can come to their own conclusions. I really thought you were more man than that.

Ok, I see that you have closed the thread, not that you have blocked me personally from posting. I apologise for that wrong assumption.

However, I think closing the thread so that people can't dispute your view is just as bad.

You may be interested in this site:

http://www.acts15.org/

They should be able to answer any concerns you have and help you to see that circumcision is not required of Christians.

That Christians for Wholeness site should be most educational for openhearted Christians. Harriet, if you are still here, thanks for mentioning the circumcision info on Mothering site.

Russ, I most certainly do read your posts - but they are mostly lengthy religious references, plus your commentary on them. And that is exactly what Judaism is all about (the Talmud - an exposition followed by endless commentary.)

And I don't live my life according to the Bible, if what it says goes against my conscience. What else do I have to go by??? There is informatiion in the bible that I do agree with, and I will say so, but if there are passaages that are hard to interpret, then you and everyone else for whom the bible is central to your life will interpret it according to your own values.

If something in the bible bothers you, if you think it is wrong for us to apply it to today's world, why go against it? God can handle it! Because Jesus made it plain that what counts is what is in one's HEART - we should not get all wound up trying to interpret scripture, like the Pharisee rabbis of old.

John, Chapter 8, Verse 44 says it all. It's ancient rabbinical thought (genital cutting) vs Blood of Christ cancelling it all out! And you are still stuck in the ancient way, discarded by Christ! I can't believe it! In this day and age!

A couple of days ago you asked me, elsewhere, who I thought did not have a chance of salvation. Well, that depends on your definition of salvation, which is never made completely clear to my satisfaction. But my brief answer would be, "Those who refuse to reject circumcision of the infant male."

And I am quite distressed that when I ask simple questions as to how you would handle questioning from a man whose penis was badly damaged by an UN-necessary genital cutting, you completely ignore that question. You cannot just go about ignoring difficult questions. Elsewhere, you longed to hear people say those lovely words, "I don't know." Yet, you yourself are not using those words in response to MY questions.

This is my last post on this subject, so you don't have to lock this thread or ban me. I am not going to wreck it for everyone else who may want to continue on this topic.

Thank you.

I too have said all I am going to say on it.

I do live my life by the Bible, my faith is the most important aspect of my life, but there is just nothing in the Bible that requires circumcision and no Christians I have ever known do it. That goes for Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Roman Catholics, and Evangelicals. It's extemely rare in my county. My father wasn't circumcised or my grandfathers. It was only a couple of years ago that I found out America still did it and was quite appalled.

Unfortunately, neither of you have carefully read what I have posted. You have read into my posts things that were not there and completely missed important things that were there. Based on both of your comments concerning the Bible, it's plain-to-see that you do exactly the same with it as well.

Concerning your link to a catholic website: I would solemnly warn you that catholicism does not follow the Bible. They—like Mormons—use it as a front and then pick and choose their doctrine as they please. They ease their conscience in this practice by having assigned themselves the "authority" to alter scripture.

There are many good catholic people—who will eventually leave the catholic church when they realize the truth behind it—so don't misunderstand this statement. I'm speaking about catholicism, as a system of doctrine, not individuals who are in the personally active process of learning the Bible!

Concerning circumcision: Making new man-made laws is not the answer, but until you realize that, you will continue to live with tyranny, forced vaccinations, and government corruption and will have no one to blame but yourselves. Again, it's about freedom (Biblical law) and blessings (Biblical obedience); i.e. Quality of Life.

What counts? What counts for what, salvation?

And what scripture makes that plain?

You are not saved by emotion. You are not saved by how you feel about Christ. This modern-day deception has effectively found it's way into modern-day "churches" (501-C3), and not without help.

[color:"red"]"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"[/color]
Jeremiah 17:9

And self deception is the greatest kind.

If you believe you are saved by (or as you said, what "counts") is because of what is in your heart, you are in great error.

You are saved by faith.

[color:"red"]"For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God"[/color]
Ephesians 2:8

[color:"red"]"But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."[/color]
Hebrews 11:6

Our faith is revealed by what we do. If we think we have faith and are not keeping His commandments, we have no faith and deceive ourselves.

[color:"red"]"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."[/color]
James 2:26

[color:"red"]"Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on a rock."[/color]
Matthew 7:24

[color:"red"]"If you love Me, keep My commandments."[/color]
John 14:15

[color:"red"]"but if you turn to Me, and keep My commandments and do them, though you were cast out to the outermost part of the heavens, yet I will gather you from there and will bring you to the place that I have chosen to set My name there."[/color]
Nehemiah 1:9

What "counts" is faith, and our faith is revealed by what we do. If you want to know yourself, look at what you do.

I posted the scripture you are referring to to make a point, and you have made it for me perfectly.

As I said in my previous post:


You need to carefully read the scripture that I posted and see if you can't find that it may be saying something quite different than you think. Hint: Always take writings in context.

Russ, there are thousands of Christians in my country and we don't circumcise. It is extremely rare here.

And I didn't post a link to a Catholic site, I posted one to a Christian site of many denominations united in educating people on this issue. And I am finding your constant slandering of Catholics to be quite offensive.

For some reason your normal good sense has gone out of the window, and this seriously questions your credibility. I'm sorry, but I have to say it. You want people to listen to you on amalgam and vaccines, but you aren't interested in listening to the dangers and unnecessity of circumcision because of prefetemined beliefs, because of emotional and time investment in your belief.

Millions of Christians don't circumcise, but rather than open your mind to the possibility they might be right, you endorse this ritual because of your pretermined beliefs. This is no different whatsoever to the dentists and associations who continue to endorse amalgam because of their investment in it.

I, like Carla, would rather hear something different from you than "the Bible says so", as millions of Christians DON'T circumcise, and I am tired of you saying those of us who don't agree with you need to read the Bible etc.

The only things you've given in favour of circumcision is

1. UTI
2 HIV

The first is illogical because there is less than a 1% chance of baby getting UTI in the first year of life, but 2% chance of complication from the circumcision aswell as loss of a body part.

As to the second, it's a ridiculous argument because responsible sexual behaviour is the best protection from HIV.

I have no vested interest in this issue. I am not a man and I am not a mother.

As to salvation, there is nothing that we can do to earn our salvation. You keep putting down the RCC, but your position is far nearer theirs than Protestant, but not even they go as far as saying circumcision is necessary.

When someone asked Jesus what was necessary for salvation, he said keep the ten commandments. When talking to his disciples, he said that he had fulfilled the law, and that those who did as he asked would remain in his love. THIS is what he told us to do - love one another.

None of could ever fulfill God's requirements for heaven. We're just not good enough. There was only one person who ever was good enough and didn't sin at all - Jesus Christ. As Jesus was perfect, he was given as a sacrifice for our sins.

Therefore, the idea that we must somehow "do" things to please God and earn salvation totally undermines what Jesus did for us. It is because of Jesus that we are saved.

There is nothing you can do to earn your salvation, and circumcision is totally meaningless. It's the faith a person has that matters, it's their hope in God, and it's the love in their heart.

Does that mean we can just go out and do what we like? No it doesn't, because if we have Jesus in our heart and we abide in his body (the church) we won't want to do wicked things. We will want to do what is good.

If someone professes faith but sleeps around, lies, steals, slanders people, then their faith "is" dead because it is meaningless. They don't act in a way that honours Jesus.

If they have faith and they do good in life, keep the commandments as best as they can, and don't sin sexually, then their faith is alive.

Jesus says we are known by our fruits, and this is what he means. A person with a living faith will do good things, but a person wiith a faith that is dead will keep on doing bad things.

Galatians 5: Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law. 4You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working* through love.

7 You were running well; who prevented you from obeying the truth? 8Such persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9A little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough. 10I am confident about you in the Lord that you will not think otherwise. But whoever it is that is confusing you will pay the penalty. 11But my friends,* why am I still being persecuted if I am still preaching circumcision? In that case the offence of the cross has been removed. 12I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!

13 For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters;* only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence,* but through love become slaves to one another. 14For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ 15If, however, you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another.

16 Live by the Spirit, I say, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not subject to the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, 20idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, 21envy,* drunkenness, carousing, and things like these. I am warning you, as I warned you before: those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, 23gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things. 24And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, competing against one another, envying one another.

Gal. 6:12-13: "As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these try to compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh."

Col 3:9-11: "Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all."

It is far more important to read the New Testament than the Old Testament, because it is in the New Testament that we learn what it means to be Christians, not of Judaism.

Paul makes it very clear that circumcision is not necessary for a Christian, even goes as far as to say that it illustrates lack of faith because it not entrusting Jesus with our salvation, but clinging to an idea that we must "do" something.

As to Gal: 5-11, I feel this gets the point accross better, incase someone is misunderstanding it:

11 if I were still preaching that you must be circumcised--as some say I do--why would the Jews persecute me? The fact that I am still being persecuted proves that I am still preaching salvation through the cross of Christ alone. 12I only wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate themselves.[b]" New Living Translation

Paul isn't saying that he IS teaching the need for circumcision. What he's saying is that IF he was teaching the need for circumcision, why would he still persecuted? By teaching circumcision he would not offend the Jews because he wouldn't be saying they are saved through Jesus.

He is saying he is persecuted because he is teaching that there is no need to be circumcised, and this is offensive to the Jews.

Wow, I didn't highlight that at all because I am not familar how to do it! Just had to say that because it's not me highlighting it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

First off, let's get one thing straight. The act of curcumcision, much like clitorectomy, is genital mutilation. Whether you argue in favor of or against the act, it is and will always be genital mutilation.

Having said that, I find it all too convenient that most men who have been curcumcised argue in favor of this appaling act while those who have not been curcumcised also -- conveniently -- argue against it. It would behoove the debaters of the world to step outside their own diminutive view point and adopt a bird's eye view.

If you're speaking in biblical terms, curcumcision existed in a time where desert dwellers accepted this practice as a matter of course. To this day, if you live in a desert environment and are not curcumcised, you can expect a lifetime of genital infections. In the desert it's HOT. There's not a lot of WATER. Bathing may be an infrequent activity and, as such, the glans of an uncucrumcised penis will accumulate an excess of bacteria. It's only natural that man would decide to forcefully shed their foreskin in hopes to avoid this kind of suffering. Over time this sort of activity becomes a ritual, no different than how eating has become a ritual.

Now, for the rest of us not wearing djellabahs and traipsing around the desert wastes, curcumcision serves no purpose whatsoever. I don't care what website you're reading or what "irrifutible" evidence you claim to have, it's an otherwise pointless act no different than piercing one's nipples! This notion that curcumcision helps keep (non-desert dwelling) men "cleaner" is pure rubbish. Such ignorant, Medieval beliefs must assume that all girls are "dirty" simply due to their biology. Ridiculous.

There are no benefits to genital mutilation in men unless you are born in, raised, and live evermore in a desert environtment. There are no benefits to genital mutilation in women whatsoever.

As an aside note, it's important to realise that aside from Jews and Muslims, the only people subject to genital mutilation are the barbarians in the United States, who adopted this practice from their Jewish and Muslim predecessors due to an abhorrent CHRISTIAN phobic paranoia of sex. These inept, psychopathic WACKOS were hacking off the foreskin of their boy's penises in hopes to prevent them from having the NATURAL desires of sex. My heart goes out to the victims of CHRISTIAN barbarism everywhere.

But it's not Christian, Egan, that is the point. Circumcision has been a non issue in my country for centuries. It's even illegal in Finland. It was actually a defining and identifying characteristic between Christians and non-believers that Christians were NOT circumcised. It seems to me that those who do it in north America are being deceived into thinking it is necessary by money-hungry medical professionals.

Some people have done it historically because they believed it would help stop boys masterbating, so you are right, warped views of sex have contributed. Again, this is not Christian. All the bible teaches us is the need for sexual responsibility. There are allusions to oral sex in the song of solomon, for example, and a celebration of our sexuality. Those who teach sex is dirty in some way are wrong.

Anyway, I wasn't going to post as much on this subject as I have, but felt the need to point out that circumcision is not a Christian teaching, quite the contrary, and neither is the view that sex is dirty. Certainly you will find this view amongst some Christian circles, but it is not biblical.

As Paul says, Christians are born into freedom, unlike Jews and some other religions who have to follow many rituals and rules. This means freedom from bodily mutilation and the need for rituals. As Russ pointed out, there are only a couple of rituals Christians believe in - Lord's supper and baptism. I would add marriage to that, but I'm Catholic (not Roman Catholic), Protestants only believe in these two.

PS Egan, what can we Christians do when others chose to go ahead and do this mutilation because their doctors tell them there is some benefit to it? I was just talking to a woman whose baby boy is due to be born in a couple of weeks and she just didn't want to know about the functions of the foreskin or the risks of circumcision. I offered to send her sites and everything, but she wasn't interested.

I am in tears about this now because that poor baby is going to lose an irreplaceable part of himself for ever. But what could I do when his own mother doesn't care? I mentioned my opposition to it, the risks, and that the foreskin protects and aids in sexual pleasure, but she just wasn't interested because it's "normal" to do it in the USA. It's the same with the fillings, people just won't listen.

All I can do is pray that between now and her baby being born she changes her mind, but I doubt it as her husband and other son are circumcised. This breaks my heart, but all I can do is pray now.

The purpose of genital mutilation in the unfree United States, today, no longer bears any religious connotation, however, its origins are wholly Christian in nature. During the Victorian Era fundamentalist Christians possessed an abhorent fear of all things sexual and, as such, partook of genital mutilation in desperate hopes to prevent their adolescent boys from sexually maturing. This is how the practice began un the United States, and though few cling to these backwards ancient Victorian beliefs, the practice, itself, remains. Maybe it is done today for the purpose of making money, I don't know. I'm just talking about the origins and how it all got started in the U.S. in the first place.

It's not a practice in Europe except for Muslim and Jewish minorities, nor is it a practice for the European Christians. But that isn't my point. All I'm saying is that the beginning of genital mutilation in the United States began from fundamentalist Christians in the Victorian era. Christians who, by the very defition of the word, were psychopaths.

Then that is very unfortunate, Egan. I would say they were not following Christian principles by circumcising as Paul makes it very clear that to not circumcise is a sign of faith in Christ and historically it separated the Christians from the Jews . As an outsider, all I can say is that it seems to me that the USA is a breeding ground for Christian fanatics and sects. Anyone can go out and set up a church and claim it is based on the Bible, when their teachings actually very little represent Christ. The Bible warns about this.

If I can get better from mercury poisoning, I am thinking of becoming ordained as a Catholic priest and starting a church in the USA that will be conservative, but most importantly will teach people about God's love for them. I don't agree with "all" the doctine of Catholicism (in general not Roman exclusively) but I think it's a dangerous thing for individuals to just go and start up churches without any formal blessing or education. I would have to do seminary and training and be ordained in apostolic succession. Not even all those ordained by apostolic succession teach the Bible accurately, but it's the ability of just anyone to go out and start up any kind of church teaching anything, that leads to extremism.

Catholics are generally united in doctrinal beliefs. What we differ on is the infallibility of the Pope and some other things like birth control. Independent, Old and Liberal Catholics are free of the Vatican.

Isn't Mel Gibson some kind of Pope-rejecting, old-order Catholic?

Hi Carla. I haven't a clue, lol. I know he is a very religious man.

It isn't so much that Independent/Old Catholics "reject" the Pope, most respect him as the successor or St Peter (Jesus gave Peter the "keys to heaven" and said he would be the rock upon which he would build his church) but reject the idea that the Pope is infallible. This idea of infallibility wasn't decided until the late 19th century and was very controversial.

It was also controversial that the priests had to be celibate. Roman Catholics are the only celibate priests. All others can marry, including Orthodox priests. I think it is even a requirement for them at pastoral level.

Even priests of the Eastern Rite Catholic Church can be married (except those who want to be made bishop some day). People sometimes confuse the Eastern Rite with Orthodox Church; it is not the same thing. The Catholic Church has a western rite and an eastern rite, but a long time ago, the eastern rite threatened to leave the Church and go over to the Orthodox Church if they couldn't get married and have their own rituals, etc. So the Pope gave in to them. I agree that all priests should be allowed to be married - to women, that is.

But if they allowed priests to be married to women only, the governments of the liberal democracies would call that a hate crime because it discriminates against homosexuals, so there you go. They can't win.

By the way, did you go to see The Passion of the Christ? I made sure I stayed away. Imagine paying $8 or so to see someone tortured for 2 hours.

No, I haven't seen Passion of the Christ. I also heard that it is violent so it doesn't appeal to me. It did bring some people to Christ so I guess it had value, but I personally find the violent and sexually graphic nature of films of today distasteful.

I forgot that some priests in the RC can be married, that is true. The RC is careful to maintain that celibacy of the clergy in general isn't doctrine but practise and may change.

The RC maintains that women shouldn't be ordained, as do some fundamentalist protestants, but that isn't really consistent with Scripture. Paul does say that women should be silent in churches, but what he most likely meant was that they shouldn't gossip, interrupt the sermons and so forth. He refers to Phoebe, a woman church leader in another part of the NT, in Acts of the Apostles, Peter says that women aswell as men will preach the word of God, and there is some obscure reference to a "lady" in John 2 who might have been leader of that particular church.

Paul says we are all equal in Christ, which goes for men, women and all nationalities, so those who use Paul to keep women from being priests are somewhat contradictory.

No, it's not a matter of some "Roman Catholic" priests being permitted to marry - it is the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church where the priests can marry.

There is the one Catholic Church, and it is divided up into 2 rites: Eastern/Byzantine and Western/Roman.

You are right.

It's contrary to Scripture for church leaders to not be able to marry, so I do hope the RCC lifts the restriction completely.

I am considering being a Catholic Priest, but I might have to settle for being a Protestant Minister. I don't really think it's right that people can just go out and set up their own churches, but at the same time it's the only real option if certain people can't be ordained, or there is limits on what they want to do.

Well, John Paul II and now this one won't let that happen. Trouble is this: if we get a Pope who is liberal about letting all Catholic priests marry, they will also bless homosexual unions, abortion, and so on. And then it will be just like the Unitarian Church...

Why do you think it is wrong for people to set up "their own church", as you put it. Luther did it, Henry VIII did it, there are countless Christian sects around, and you are just as good as they are. If you want something bad enough, and it isn't immoral, what would be the objection?

Fundamentalists have married clergy, but oppose abortion, homosexuality etc. The Bible says that clergy can marry, so it's contrary to Scripture to not allow it. The RCC acknowledges this, however, and says the policy may change. There is a shortage of priests, so this may be the trigger.

As to setting up ones own church, I'm not "comfortable" with it because then you can get all kinds of loonies setting up a church that gives wrong teachings etc. I'm not sure what the solution would be, though, when people feel called and find too many obstacles from established churches.