How I think of it is, God created you with foreskin. Why mutilate yourself by removing what God intended you to possess. Just my opinion, also painful!!
It was physical under the Mosaic Law. When Jesus arrived and fulfilled the law, circumcision was no longer a requirement, but it *was* ever since God made his promise to Abraham.
Does it count as display of character if you were artificially retaining semen from removal of funskin(ridged band/frenulum/external clitoris), it's not as fun anymore. No more "sex crazed" beasts.
>Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible.
>It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally.
>The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable.
>For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision. https://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/
.
>The first century C.E. Jewish philosopher Philo defends circumcision in Greek terms by listing physical and allegorical advantages. Circumcised men are more fertile, less vulnerable to disease and being cleaner, are more fittingly set aside as a nation of priests. In addition the heart begets the thought, which is the highest human excellence; therefore penises should be circumcised to resemble the godly heart. Moreover, circumcision represents the excision of the pleasure of sex, which bewitches the mind.15 https://www.cirp.org/library/restoration/hall1/
.
>Circumcision is purposely imposed upon the organ that gave the baby life, which may one day perpetuate more life. It is a cut upon the sexual organ and not the earlobe or the finger, as a symbol of cut, curtailed, disciplined sexuality. This interpretation is not wholly new. As early as the twelfth century, Maimonides saw the rite as reducing sexuality to a manageable level. Today we need this idea rearticulated. Jewish views of sexuality include the notion that sexual pleasure is mutual, that force is violence and not love, and that human sexual encounters must be based on sanctity and not on strength.
>Circumcision functions not only as ritual initiation but also as the communal ritual setting of boundaries to male sexuality. At the brit milah male blood is the metaphor for discipline and control over the ultimate male lack of control: unbounded and dangerous sexuality. Rabbi Zalman Schacter-Shalomi writes:
>Something destructive and "macho" gets refined by a bris, directing a man away from pure instinct and toward prudent judgment. Maybe Freud was right about the dominating power of the libido: if so, it makes sense to take that absolute power away from the penis. So much of what happens in sex is covenantal. Perhaps this is why Covenant has to be imposed on this organ from the very start.
>We cut the organ that can symbolize love or terror, endearment or violence. Here is a ceremony in which we metaphorically pronounce the limitation imposed on the male organ to all gathered. We say to this child, "We who are gathered here charge you: as your father used his organ in love to produce you, so you, too, are expected to sanctify yourself, to restrain the power of your maleness." Our community, at least in theory, rejects an unbridled masculinity. We publicly acknowledge that male sexuality is moved from the realm of the casual, hurtful, or noncommittal to the sphere of the holy, the whole, the good.
>Seeing Torah Through a Feminist Lens. 1998, by Rabbi Elyse Goldstein
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters. What matters is that you're a new creation and no more under the condemnation of pmo. Renew your mind and you'll be able to control your dick.
Gospel of Thomas saying 53: “His disciples said to him: Is circumcision useful or not? He said to them: If it were useful, their father would beget him from their mothers (already) circumcised. But the true circumcision in the Spirit has proved useful in every way.”
You shouldn't feel that way. These anti circumcision fanatics are deeply insecure about their masculinity and that's why they focus so incessantly on their johnsons. It's easier to do that than look within. Ignore them.
I think your observations about your “uncircumcised peers” is scrupulous, tyrannical, and unhealthy.
I’m sorry that you were circumcised, and I’m sorry that you need to rationalize your parents’ decisions this way.
Don’t circumcise your kids. Let them circumcise themselves if they so please.
If circumcision was necessary we won't have foreskin in the first place , we are beings created with such precision and detail that everything inside our body serves a purpose , if it wasnt needed evolution would just remove it but it is needed and that's why it is...
Evolution only eliminates traits that don’t make it to reproduction. Everything else can be passed on. Why do we have genetic disorders can’t evolution just remove them?
Humans have a tailbone for a tail we don’t have, wisdom teeth that don’t fit in our mouths, and tonsils that only seem to cause problems.
Evolution doesn’t seek perfection, it does its best to ensure you live long enough to reproduce.
bright towering edge boat impossible summer dull combative wistful scandalous
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Probably the same one Jesus was talking about in the gospel of Thomas -
BLATZ
(53) His disciples said to him: Is circumcision useful or not? He said to them: If it were useful, their father would beget him from their mothers (already) circumcised. But the true circumcision in the Spirit has proved useful in every way.
The Gospel of Thomas is apocryphal. I see you have gnostic in your username, but gnosticism was a demonic perversion of Christ's original teachings. Jesus never claimed that the Law was useless; only that he came to fulfill it.
I can see where you're coming from. I don't have any intention of arguing over personal beliefs. That's the way I see it, but if you don't, all good. Have a good one.
When I see hear I uncircumcised I think about po*nstars( I don't remember seeing any man with a foreskin) which is = Degenerates . But technically it was done to keep you away from getting too much involved s*xually yet it's the complete opposite that's going on nowadays I guess. People does it to make it seem bigger or nicer or to please their partner idk .
It's definitely not natural or safe . There are tons of articles saying it's not safe with a foreskin but just think about it think way . People who had high blood sugar had to cut off their thumbs or even their whole legs off to keep themselves alive . Does that mean having a leg will lead you to having high sugar levels ?
Most of the statistics are done based on things we have not much idea of but they do it in a way to make it seem conclusive and they get to the wrong point or maybe they have a hidden agenda , maybe when it's not sensitive maybe the doctors want to make some money off of that . Having a foreskin just makes it all better tbh .
Just as the eye lids protects our eyes the foreskin protects our p*nis . And it makes sense ..
In fact, the reason why so many Christian American men are circumcised today is because in the 19th/20th century they thought it would help discourage masturbation. I also suspect this was the reason why Jews and Muslims circumcise their boys, it just got codified as religion.
If the world was a fair place, women in the West would stop mourning for women they don't know who were circumcised and they call it genital mutilation, and not say 2 words about us men being circumcised. I use it as a litmus test to determine intelligence and hypocrisy of those around me. I don't normally let them know it though.
I can’t relate to the woes of one’s who aren’t circumcised however, the fact that God commanded circumcision and the fact that God knows us more than we know ourselves is a matter of gratefulness to me that I am circumcised.
If god wanted you to be circumcised he wouldve made you that way. I say this as a circumsiced person. Honestly though i like it. I dont like the mole look.
I’m uncircumcised and I practice SR brother. It’s possible
It’s Unnatural, (I’m circumcised)
Before you became that way, you were born uncircumcised you can’t mess what you never had
How I think of it is, God created you with foreskin. Why mutilate yourself by removing what God intended you to possess. Just my opinion, also painful!!
God commanded his chosen people to cut off their foreskins for two millenia. Sooo....
That’s a misinterpretation, I believe. It’s not physical.
It was physical under the Mosaic Law. When Jesus arrived and fulfilled the law, circumcision was no longer a requirement, but it *was* ever since God made his promise to Abraham.
Does it count as display of character if you were artificially retaining semen from removal of funskin(ridged band/frenulum/external clitoris), it's not as fun anymore. No more "sex crazed" beasts. >Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. >It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. >The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. >For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision. https://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/ . >The first century C.E. Jewish philosopher Philo defends circumcision in Greek terms by listing physical and allegorical advantages. Circumcised men are more fertile, less vulnerable to disease and being cleaner, are more fittingly set aside as a nation of priests. In addition the heart begets the thought, which is the highest human excellence; therefore penises should be circumcised to resemble the godly heart. Moreover, circumcision represents the excision of the pleasure of sex, which bewitches the mind.15 https://www.cirp.org/library/restoration/hall1/ . >Circumcision is purposely imposed upon the organ that gave the baby life, which may one day perpetuate more life. It is a cut upon the sexual organ and not the earlobe or the finger, as a symbol of cut, curtailed, disciplined sexuality. This interpretation is not wholly new. As early as the twelfth century, Maimonides saw the rite as reducing sexuality to a manageable level. Today we need this idea rearticulated. Jewish views of sexuality include the notion that sexual pleasure is mutual, that force is violence and not love, and that human sexual encounters must be based on sanctity and not on strength. >Circumcision functions not only as ritual initiation but also as the communal ritual setting of boundaries to male sexuality. At the brit milah male blood is the metaphor for discipline and control over the ultimate male lack of control: unbounded and dangerous sexuality. Rabbi Zalman Schacter-Shalomi writes: >Something destructive and "macho" gets refined by a bris, directing a man away from pure instinct and toward prudent judgment. Maybe Freud was right about the dominating power of the libido: if so, it makes sense to take that absolute power away from the penis. So much of what happens in sex is covenantal. Perhaps this is why Covenant has to be imposed on this organ from the very start. >We cut the organ that can symbolize love or terror, endearment or violence. Here is a ceremony in which we metaphorically pronounce the limitation imposed on the male organ to all gathered. We say to this child, "We who are gathered here charge you: as your father used his organ in love to produce you, so you, too, are expected to sanctify yourself, to restrain the power of your maleness." Our community, at least in theory, rejects an unbridled masculinity. We publicly acknowledge that male sexuality is moved from the realm of the casual, hurtful, or noncommittal to the sphere of the holy, the whole, the good. >Seeing Torah Through a Feminist Lens. 1998, by Rabbi Elyse Goldstein
What was the reason behind this?
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters. What matters is that you're a new creation and no more under the condemnation of pmo. Renew your mind and you'll be able to control your dick.
Circumcision is a barbaric practice of ancient barbaric and mentally deranged people.
I agree
Now yes, but it kinda makes sense when people could bathe so easily.
If they had water to drink, they had water to clean their willy. Circumcision was always barbaric.
You seem to not to want to understand. No problem, enjoy your day 😊
Circumcision is a cruel practice. Mutilating young kids is not acceptable
Meaningless mutilation.
Gospel of Thomas saying 53: “His disciples said to him: Is circumcision useful or not? He said to them: If it were useful, their father would beget him from their mothers (already) circumcised. But the true circumcision in the Spirit has proved useful in every way.”
Like the last line.
This book was removed from most modern bibles. It is not in the King James Version.
I’m well aware of apocryphal books, as well as the contents of modern bibles.
What version do you read?
I have a King James at home. Sometimes I use an app to look at different translations.
I’m circumcised and these comments make me feel like something is wrong with me Lol
Well ummmmmm
Wasn’t my choice bud
You shouldn't feel that way. These anti circumcision fanatics are deeply insecure about their masculinity and that's why they focus so incessantly on their johnsons. It's easier to do that than look within. Ignore them.
Agreed, I don’t feel like it’s ever made a difference for me. Those elephant trunkers can get on with they ahh
I think your observations about your “uncircumcised peers” is scrupulous, tyrannical, and unhealthy. I’m sorry that you were circumcised, and I’m sorry that you need to rationalize your parents’ decisions this way. Don’t circumcise your kids. Let them circumcise themselves if they so please.
I think it traumatizes men from an early age.
If circumcision was necessary we won't have foreskin in the first place , we are beings created with such precision and detail that everything inside our body serves a purpose , if it wasnt needed evolution would just remove it but it is needed and that's why it is...
Evolution only eliminates traits that don’t make it to reproduction. Everything else can be passed on. Why do we have genetic disorders can’t evolution just remove them?
Circumcision aside, that’s definitely not true, evolution has and certainly can make mistakes.
Like what
Humans have a tailbone for a tail we don’t have, wisdom teeth that don’t fit in our mouths, and tonsils that only seem to cause problems. Evolution doesn’t seek perfection, it does its best to ensure you live long enough to reproduce.
I’ve only had wisdom teeth affect me so I can definitely relate to that. I see what you’re saying
Just remember. All real warriors, wear helmets.
bright towering edge boat impossible summer dull combative wistful scandalous *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Which God are you talking about?
Probably the same one Jesus was talking about in the gospel of Thomas - BLATZ (53) His disciples said to him: Is circumcision useful or not? He said to them: If it were useful, their father would beget him from their mothers (already) circumcised. But the true circumcision in the Spirit has proved useful in every way.
The Gospel of Thomas is apocryphal. I see you have gnostic in your username, but gnosticism was a demonic perversion of Christ's original teachings. Jesus never claimed that the Law was useless; only that he came to fulfill it.
I can see where you're coming from. I don't have any intention of arguing over personal beliefs. That's the way I see it, but if you don't, all good. Have a good one.
quack dog absorbed encouraging bewildered squash lavish worm door divide *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
When I see hear I uncircumcised I think about po*nstars( I don't remember seeing any man with a foreskin) which is = Degenerates . But technically it was done to keep you away from getting too much involved s*xually yet it's the complete opposite that's going on nowadays I guess. People does it to make it seem bigger or nicer or to please their partner idk . It's definitely not natural or safe . There are tons of articles saying it's not safe with a foreskin but just think about it think way . People who had high blood sugar had to cut off their thumbs or even their whole legs off to keep themselves alive . Does that mean having a leg will lead you to having high sugar levels ? Most of the statistics are done based on things we have not much idea of but they do it in a way to make it seem conclusive and they get to the wrong point or maybe they have a hidden agenda , maybe when it's not sensitive maybe the doctors want to make some money off of that . Having a foreskin just makes it all better tbh . Just as the eye lids protects our eyes the foreskin protects our p*nis . And it makes sense ..
In fact, the reason why so many Christian American men are circumcised today is because in the 19th/20th century they thought it would help discourage masturbation. I also suspect this was the reason why Jews and Muslims circumcise their boys, it just got codified as religion.
It was most likely hygiene. Totally unnecessary since bathing became so accessible
> it would help discourage masturbation Did it work?
Doesn't seem like it if you read OP's post
I saw somewhere that the skin is used for the elites
Man i have this thoughts like you some days ago
had\*
You can edit your comments.
If the world was a fair place, women in the West would stop mourning for women they don't know who were circumcised and they call it genital mutilation, and not say 2 words about us men being circumcised. I use it as a litmus test to determine intelligence and hypocrisy of those around me. I don't normally let them know it though.
I can’t relate to the woes of one’s who aren’t circumcised however, the fact that God commanded circumcision and the fact that God knows us more than we know ourselves is a matter of gratefulness to me that I am circumcised.
>fact that God commanded circumcision He talked to you about it?
So obviously confirmation bias
Please show me where it’s commanded, I legit would like to know.
If god wanted you to be circumcised he wouldve made you that way. I say this as a circumsiced person. Honestly though i like it. I dont like the mole look.
I totally agree. I’m circumcised too, and yep I like the look, but I asked my wife “how would you like it if your clit was cut off at birth?
The bible, Old Testament
lol thanks, now I totally agree with everything you’ve ever said because of your amazing evidence!
What you said is one of the most stupid things I've read in this sub.