Christian Zionists and antisemitism

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course Christians can be circumcised, I don't know what ad_o is talking about unless he means that we are no longer under that particular law, with which I agree.   Loads of Christians are circumcised throughout the world for all sorts of reasons but in the case of Christians, it is not a religious requirement as it is for Jewish people (& for Muslims). There are several Biblical references, I'll find them.

Yes surely Ao isn't suggesting that having a foreskin is a requirement for salvation.

[floo]

Circumcision should only be done for medical reasons, definitely NOT for religious ones, and never without an anaesthetic.

[jeremyp]

The British position can be seen in the Balfour Declaration of 1917:
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

But it was laughable. They wouldn't have considered such a declaration for any other group of people on the basis of a myth.

[floo]

But it was laughable. They wouldn't have considered such a declaration for any other group of people on the basis of a myth.

Exactly!

[Brownie]

Yes surely Ao isn't suggesting that having a foreskin is a requirement for salvation.

   No, he said quite the opposite Vlad  "Christians absolutely should not be circumcised".

Floo, what you say is right imo but what we are discussing here is the relevance or otherwise of circumcision as a religious requirement which is something quite different.

[floo]

What sort of god would create a foreskin then decree it should be cut off, only one which delights in pain and suffering.

[Nearly Sane]

Looks like a good time to roll out the attempted murder of Moses by God and the use of a foreskin to save him story


http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/exodus/passage/?q=exodus+4:24-26

[floo]

So kind and compassionate!

[ad_orientem]

  No, he said quite the opposite Vlad  "Christians absolutely should not be circumcised".

Floo, what you say is right imo but what we are discussing here is the relevance or otherwise of circumcision as a religious requirement which is something quite different.

I'll reword it for your benefit. Christians absolutely should not GET circumcised. The Apostle makes this absolutely clear in his epistle to the Galations, if I remember correctly.

[Spud]

But it was laughable. They wouldn't have considered such a declaration for any other group of people on the basis of a myth.

It was mainly done in order to win the First World War. In order to avoid stalemate and enable an Allied victory, Britain appealed to Jews worldwide to support the war against Germany, by promising them a Jewish state.
David Lloyd George, British Prime Minister from 1916-22, reflected in 1937 that "in this critical situation it was believed that Jewish sympathy or the reverse would make a substantial difference one way or the other to the Allied cause."

[floo]

I'll reword it for your benefit. Christians absolutely should not GET circumcised. The Apostle makes this absolutely clear in his epistle to the Galations, if I remember correctly.

It doesn't matter what the not so good book has to say on the topic, it is a matter of what is right. Circumcision should only be performed on any male of whatever faith for medical reasons.

[Brownie]

I respectfully disagree with what Ad_o says - unless he means that infants should not have to undergo circumcision for religious reasons;  I agree with that but that isn't what he's saying.  I've not read anything generally forbidding the procedure, only that it is not necessary.

What Paul says in Galatians is:  (New International Version)
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

He also says if one is circumcised for religious reasons they might as well embrace the entire law.  In other words, circumcision does nothing spiritually.  He's is trying to encourage followers of Christ not to cling onto their old traditions (which can be somewhat superstitious).  Well I would agree there, but circumcision isn't strictly forbidden and there are many other non-religious reasons for it. 

[jeremyp]

It was mainly done in order to win the First World War.

huh?

In order to avoid stalemate and enable an Allied victory, Britain appealed to Jews worldwide to support the war against Germany, by promising them a Jewish state.

Oh dear. You really believe that?

David Lloyd George, British Prime Minister from 1916-22, reflected in 1937 that "in this critical situation it was believed that Jewish sympathy or the reverse would make a substantial difference one way or the other to the Allied cause."

Oh dear. He really believed that?

Anyway, the Jews didn't get Israel until 30 years later. It was a stupid idea driven by a myth from a 2,500 year old book. No other group would have been granted a new country on that basis.

[jeremyp]

  No, he said quite the opposite Vlad  "Christians absolutely should not be circumcised".

That's not the opposite of what Vlad said.

[Brownie]

Me:
Quote from: Vlad and his ilk. on Today at 10:04:27 AM
Yes surely Ao isn't suggesting that having a foreskin is a requirement for salvation.

   No, he said quite the opposite Vlad  "Christians absolutely should not be circumcised".
 
Seems clear to me what Vlad said and what I replied.  Perhaps I should have said, "Yes, he said quite the opposite, Vlad...", instead of "No,...".
Whatever, let's not get bogged down.  If I misunderstood, apologies.

[jeremyp]

Me:
Quote from: Vlad and his ilk. on Today at 10:04:27 AM
Yes surely Ao isn't suggesting that having a foreskin is a requirement for salvation.

   No, he said quite the opposite Vlad  "Christians absolutely should not be circumcised".
 
Seems clear to me what Vlad said and what I replied.  Perhaps I should have said, "Yes, he said quite the opposite, Vlad...", instead of "No,...".
Whatever, let's not get bogged down.  If I misunderstood, apologies.

What Vlad said was an expression of disbelief that Ad O would make such a looney suggestion not a statement of what Ad O actually said.

[Spud]

huh?

In 1903, Britain offered to give them 5000 square miles of territory in British East Africa, for their protection. They declined because they believed they had the right to Palestine.

Oh dear. You really believe that?

Don't know.

Oh dear. He really believed that?

He said it.

Anyway, the Jews didn't get Israel until 30 years later.

But it was promised to them in 1917 for the reason stated in my last post: the British government believed that the Jews (those living in America, Russia and even Germany) could influence the outcome of the war, if they were offered Palestine as their homeland.

It was a stupid idea driven by a myth from a 2,500 year old book.

The 'myth' states that the world would be blessed through Abraham's seed. This was fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Christ. God's glory was in the Temple until the Exile, when it left and didn't return until Jesus came. Jesus then left it desolate (Matthew 23) and so it is no longer a sacred site and belongs to whoever can hold it.

No other group would have been granted a new country on that basis.

As I said, the original purpose of the British offer of land in East Africa that was part of the British Empire, was to protect Jews, because they were being persecuted. They were eventually given Palestine on the basis that they wouldn't accept anywhere else. (Although there were also strategic reasons)

[floo]

In 1903, Britain offered to give them 5000 square miles of territory in British East Africa, for their protection. They declined because they believed they had the right to Palestine.
Don't know.He said it.
But it was promised to them in 1917 for the reason stated in my last post.The 'myth' states that the world would be blessed through Abraham's seed. Thus was fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Christ. God's glory was in the Temple until the Exile, when it left and didn't return until Jesus came. Jesus then left it desolate (Matthew 23) and so it is no longer a sacred site.As I said, the original purpose of the British was to protect Jews, because they were being persecuted. They were eventually given Palestine on the basis that they wouldn't accept anywhere else.

Well tough, they shouldn't have been given Palestine!

[Jack Knave]

Jack, Christians are not banned from being circumcised, they are just not obliged to be circumcised.  We believe it is not something that will aid our salvation in any way and Paul speaks of this many times in the NT;  he did however ask one of his followers, Timothy, who was partly Jewish, to be circumcised so that he could mix freely with and evangelise Jews  (Acts 16).

Plenty of Christian men are circumcised and in some countries it is a cultural norm.  It is just not a necessary part of the practice of Christian faith, the emphasis being more on a spiritual covenant than a physical one.

(Floo, the Jews are not a 'race', there is considerable racial diversity, they consider themselves, collectively, to be 'a people'.)

I meant it in reference to the Biblical quote that Spud gave. Someone in the early days had to go against what they would have seen as holy scripture; something given to Abraham from God.

[Jack Knave]

Christians absolutely should not be circumcised, otherwise they become slaves to the law and they have no salvation in Christ. We have the sacraments of Christian initiation (baptism, confirmation/chrismation and holy communion).

So what about the quote from Spud then? Did God get it wrong or told Abraham a lie; a bit of primal spin.

[Jack Knave]

No converts allowed then, if on inspection, they have that particular physical feature?

There's always plastic surgery!

[Brownie]

Ah, fairynuff Jeremy.  Sorry Vlad.  Jack I get your point too in your post two before last.

Floo, I don't think it is wrong for the Jewish people to have somewhere to call their own, considering what persecution they have suffered, also the place being in that part of the world which is important to many of them.  What I object to is the Palestinians being put out!  One would think the Israelis would be content to live side by side with others (some are of course), but the way it has all panned out is horrendous.  Nevertheless, in principal, I believe in the State of Israel.

We are all talking about the religious aspects of Zionism but we must remember that Israel is a secular state and vast numbers of Jews are not religious at all.

[Jack Knave]

What sort of god would create a foreskin then decree it should be cut off, only one which delights in pain and suffering.

Quite. God was basically saying Its creation wasn't perfect.

[Brownie]

Let's be deadly serious for a minute, there must be men on this forum who are circumcised and women who have men who've been circumcised.  Did they suffer?

(My husband is circumcised and has no idea why, remembers nothing about it.  Must have happened when he was a baby.  He's not Jewish.)

[Harrowby Hall]

I have said this on this forum before.

Routine circumcision of male neonates was an American fad which crossed the Atlantic to English speaking countries but which (mercifully) went nowhere else. Among its protagonists was one John Harvey Kellogg (yes, that's him) who was a physician who believed that sexual activity for any purpose other than direct reproduction was wrong. He believed that sexual activity was dangerous and destructive and a waste of energies which could be put to better uses.

He advocated circumcision because he claimed it would reduce sensations and the interest the growing boy would have in masturbation. He is also reported as suggesting a drop of phenol on an infant girl's clitoris for the same reason.

He invented corn flakes as a breakfast cereal because they would give a sensation of fullness without providing any nutrition (energy which might be wasted in sex!)

Later on, the argument for circumcision was given impetus by the belief that removal of prepuce would reduce propensity to venereal disease - and it was this belief that fuelled its acceptance in the United Kingdom. Presumably it was not adopted in continental Europe because their doctors did not read many English language medical journals.

When I was at school during the 1950s the majority of boys were circumcised. It was done as a matter of routine by the midwives who managed home deliveries (the great majority of births). No physician was ever involved. The midwife would ask the mother if she "wanted him done" and that was that. She carried a special little implement in her black bag to enable her to perform the task.

It was done through a conspiracy of women. It seems bizarre that one of the first acts a mother would perform on her new born son was to give him the experience of intense pain.