logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline RebelLibertarian  
#1 Posted : Tuesday, November 22, 2011 4:29:21 PM(UTC)
RebelLibertarian
Joined: 11/22/2011(UTC)
Posts: 24
Location: Alabamy

Howdy all, I'm new to the forum but have read portions of YY and QP and appreciate Yada's (among others') willingness to consider that which is alleged to be Scripture much more candidly than the average Christian/Jew/unbeliever. In other words, I know enough to know that I know fairly little ;) . I'm thoroughly confused regarding the merits of circumcision, however, and the material that I've read on the forum hasn't answered my questions at all. Likewise, in the portion of Yada's & James' podcast on the matter, my questions weren't even addressed.

While reiterating the imprecision of my understanding of the information available to us regarding YHWH, I do suspect that the DSS, LXX, and Masoretic texts all endorse circumcision for those desirous of entering YHWH's Covenant of Israel, not just for those who are to reside in the Land before MessiYah returns. However, as Yada himself correctly states in the first book (first chapter, too, I think) of YY, while the DSS is probably superior to the Masoretic, it isn't a panacea. Consider that the text was prepared long after the Babylonian captivity (wherein it isn't inconceivable to a conspiracy theorist like myself that Babylonian doctrines could have corrupted most of the descendants of Yahudah that found themselves in Babylon), and that (AFAIK) we don't have any hard assurance that the Qumran community didn't make modifications of its own. Sure, the fact that they preserved worn-out texts because they had the Name YHWH written on them would *suggest* that they valued His word, but there are plausible explanations for this: just as the average fundamentalist Christian has a zeal without knowledge, perhaps well-meaning scribes were deceived by the leaders of this probably-Essene group. But I digress ;)

Anyways, since I'm not aware of perfect evidence that male circumcision is required by YHWH, I think it reasonable to attempt to evaluate the practice based on its physical and mental effects, its secular history (i.e. that outside Yisrael), its implications for free will, its supposed analogue-female pain in childbirth, and the reasons for which it has become popular in the US (hint: it's not because the elite that introduced it had a particular love for YHWH & His Torah!). I would like to emphasize that, despite the sensitivity of the topic and my own suspicions, I do not positively aver that the practice is evil; rather, I freely confess to possible ignorance of morals or facts regarding the practice. Likewise, I do not condemn those who choose themselves to become circumcised, neither them that circumcise their sons for religious reasons.

It is my understanding that the foreskin is a highly erogenous and sensitive piece of tissue in itself (with a very high concentration of nerve endings and plenty of blood flow to boot), and the loss thereof no doubt reduces sexual pleasure in the male. Likewise, it serves to protect the sensitive glans head from asperity of environment, whether scratchy clothing or cold. In intercourse, it softens penetration, rendering it more pleasant to the female, and also reduces the amount per unit time of histamine produced, thereby making premature ejaculation less likely on average. Statistically, circumcision is strongly correlated with that performance issue, and while correlation isn't causation, the practice is common enough in the US (among Whites, at least; it's less common, though not rare by any means, amongst Blacks and Hispanics) to infer some sort of causation, I think. On the other end of the spectrum, its effects deleterious effects upon sensitivity can result in rather prolonged if less-pleasurable-than-ideal sex; I think any student of statistics will see analogous "stretching of the bell curve". KP (and I know people on this board don't universally agree with him) says that the practice results in a very slight loss of sensitivity; I think that the results are much more severe (especially considering the reasons for which it was popularized in the US and UK), and we should be more precise in our qualifications of the practice in general.

(Incidentally, I would be happy to cite my sources and elaborate, if these sexual effects of circumcision are questioned by any).

Now we must ask ourselves what, if any, might the psychological effects upon a typical 8-day old (or younger) boy, particularly in the US, where he is ripped away from his mother and under blinding lights cut by strangers? I am even less knowledgable concerning the intricacies of psychology than of Scriptural criticism, but a reasonable person might suspect that this would lead to feelings of powerlessness. Is it inconceivable that the satanic elite that rules our world wants males in particular to think themselves powerless against authority?

As for the secular history of circumcision, I'm no cultural anthropologist, either, but it's clear that the practice has existed not just concurrently with Israel, but independently. For instance, circumcision for boys and clitoridectomy for girls are important parts of adulthood rituals in Samoa, a country that probably had no contact with the descendants of Abraham (could it have had contact with much older Nimrodian Babylon?). It's rather common in Muslim-influenced cultures, although the koran is absolutely silent on the practice. These Islamic cultures are not generally known for their love of YHWH, their support of freedom, their respect for the rights of the individual, or even moral sexual practices (consider the frequency of rape of boys in Afghanistan, or the custom of female circumcision, a very barbaric practice indeed)...

Yada asserts (without any explicit support from the DSS and other texts, as they do not ever attempt to justify or explain the practice) that the practice is an unlisted punishment for humanity's (or an individual's - not trying to start an argument re: original sin) sin, just as the curse of pain in childbearing is (for women). However, childbearing is, save in the case of rape, a voluntary activity not incumbent upon women (but desired at least by normal ones, and a good way to reduce female narcissism too...), and its intense pain (admittedly much greater than that of circumcision) isn't felt immediately after birth, but when the woman has attained at least unto some maturity (save in presently-rare cases of pre-teen birth). Moreover, males' punishments are to have to work hard for sustenance, let alone luxury, and to defend himself & family from enemy animals and humans. While both of these punishments are certainly exacerbated by mankind's satanic Statist schemes, it should be noted that men are always regarded as expendable, women relatively (at least) biologically valuable. No society of import that sends its women off to have their lives thrown away in war whilst men keep house has ever existed.

In the Middle Ages, circumcision was very rare in Europe, practiced almost exclusively by Jews. I'm no defender of the RCC, of course, and this fact would appear suspicious, but I would advise them that would read too much into it that the enemy loves to establish false dichotomies (see: Republican vs. Democrat), and no doubt the average Catholic would have been no better off spiritually were he circumcised, regardless of whether or not the practice is itself moral. Babylonian Protestants weren't too enthusiastic about the practice as a whole until the Victorian age, when, first in Britain, sexual puritans came to advocate it in order to prevent masturbation in particular, and to generally inhibit sexual desires in boys. (Some also pushed for female circumcision, but thankfully that barbaric practice didn't take hold in the West. At the rate that Muslims are taking over, however, who knows what will happen vis-a-viz that iniquity?) Circumcision was later popularized in the US by the Seventh-Day Adventist John H Kellogg, who advocated it in order to reduce sexual feelings (he also recommended sewing foreskins shut, electroshock 'therapy', and carbolic acid applications for the less compliant; no keeper of Torah was he).

Finally, we have the question of free will: why would YHWH, Who clearly values free will in them that love Him, demand an involuntary performance such as this, without even an explanation?

Incidentally, I'm 100% pro-life, so (unlike some anti-circumcision activists, who are just playing into a false paradigm and will not do anything to effect the abolition of circumcision) I cannot be accused of hypocrisy on this issue. Personally, I'm circumcised (because it was the "middle cla$$" thing to do), and fairly young (no offense, but I haven't heard any young guys defending circumcision; it's either the already-circumcised or the relatively old).

Thank y'all for listening; I welcome future debate and hope I neither posters nor YHWH with my questions. Feel free to just reply to some of my points; I know I wrote a lot there.

RebelLibertarian
Offline James  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, November 23, 2011 9:22:48 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
RL wrote:
Howdy all, I'm new to the forum but have read portions of YY and QP and appreciate Yada's (among others') willingness to consider that which is alleged to be Scripture much more candidly than the average Christian/Jew/unbeliever. In other words, I know enough to know that I know fairly little ;) . I'm thoroughly confused regarding the merits of circumcision, however, and the material that I've read on the forum hasn't answered my questions at all. Likewise, in the portion of Yada's & James' podcast on the matter, my questions weren't even addressed.

We tried to address all the relative points that we could find, and what you are presenting here is something I had not seen before, but I will attempt to address them, in so far as it is possible, here.

Welcome to the forum by the way.


RL wrote:
While reiterating the imprecision of my understanding of the information available to us regarding YHWH, I do suspect that the DSS, LXX, and Masoretic texts all endorse circumcision for those desirous of entering YHWH's Covenant of Israel, not just for those who are to reside in the Land before MessiYah returns. However, as Yada himself correctly states in the first book (first chapter, too, I think) of YY, while the DSS is probably superior to the Masoretic, it isn't a panacea. Consider that the text was prepared long after the Babylonian captivity (wherein it isn't inconceivable to a conspiracy theorist like myself that Babylonian doctrines could have corrupted most of the descendants of Yahudah that found themselves in Babylon), and that (AFAIK) we don't have any hard assurance that the Qumran community didn't make modifications of its own. Sure, the fact that they preserved worn-out texts because they had the Name YHWH written on them would *suggest* that they valued His word, but there are plausible explanations for this: just as the average fundamentalist Christian has a zeal without knowledge, perhaps well-meaning scribes were deceived by the leaders of this probably-Essene group. But I digress ;)

The trouble with this logic is that with it, nothing is reliable in Scripture, and it is then impossible to know Yah. And yes it is impossible to prove that the DSS were not tampered with, it’s impossible to prove a negative. With that in mind the only portions of the Tanakh which would be reliable are prophecies that were fulfilled after the writing of the DSS and even then only in so far as history can give us details, so they become irrelevant altogether.

So with that in mind, my logic follows this way.

1) The Jewish people, especially prior to the Talmud, were well versed in their Scriptures, even if they didn’t understand them they knew them.

2) Based on that it would be difficult if not impossible to make large amounts of change to the text. Where the Masoretic text differs from the DSS it is in small ways (slight rewording, removal or addition of a word here and there and mostly through confining the meaning through their vowel pointing). Unlike for example the Greek text where the older manuscripts reveal that large swaths of text were added later.

3) Based on that we assume I know that can get you in trouble but we have no choice, that while small details may not be accurate by and large we can rely on what is there.

4) In addition, if large swaths of Scripture had been corrupted prior to the time of Yahowsha, He would have been compelled to make people aware of it, and His biographers would have been compelled to record it, and since we have no evidence of Yahowsha ever suggesting that the Scriptures had been tampered with, it doesn’t prove but suggests that they likely were not. Also he does discuss circumcision and if the way it was being practiced at the time were errant I’m sure he would have said something.

So again it is not possible to prove that they were not tampered with, the evidence to me suggests that we can, intellectually not blindly, rely on them.

My general rule is, unless there is proof that it was tampered with, or it is completely out of character for Yah then it is trustworthy.

With that in mind nothing concerning circumcision which is written in Scripture seems out of character for Yah to me. There is a great deal of meaning and symbolism behind circumcision.


RL wrote:
Anyways, since I'm not aware of perfect evidence that male circumcision is required by YHWH, I think it reasonable to attempt to evaluate the practice based on its physical and mental effects, its secular history (i.e. that outside Yisrael), its implications for free will, its supposed analogue-female pain in childbirth, and the reasons for which it has become popular in the US (hint: it's not because the elite that introduced it had a particular love for YHWH & His Torah!). I would like to emphasize that, despite the sensitivity of the topic and my own suspicions, I do not positively aver that the practice is evil; rather, I freely confess to possible ignorance of morals or facts regarding the practice. Likewise, I do not condemn those who choose themselves to become circumcised, neither them that circumcise their sons for religious reasons.

It is my understanding that the foreskin is a highly erogenous and sensitive piece of tissue in itself (with a very high concentration of nerve endings and plenty of blood flow to boot), and the loss thereof no doubt reduces sexual pleasure in the male. Likewise, it serves to protect the sensitive glans head from asperity of environment, whether scratchy clothing or cold. In intercourse, it softens penetration, rendering it more pleasant to the female, and also reduces the amount per unit time of histamine produced, thereby making premature ejaculation less likely on average. Statistically, circumcision is strongly correlated with that performance issue, and while correlation isn't causation, the practice is common enough in the US (among Whites, at least; it's less common, though not rare by any means, amongst Blacks and Hispanics) to infer some sort of causation, I think. On the other end of the spectrum, its effects deleterious effects upon sensitivity can result in rather prolonged if less-pleasurable-than-ideal sex; I think any student of statistics will see analogous "stretching of the bell curve". KP (and I know people on this board don't universally agree with him) says that the practice results in a very slight loss of sensitivity; I think that the results are much more severe (especially considering the reasons for which it was popularized in the US and UK), and we should be more precise in our qualifications of the practice in general.

Having been circumcised at birth I have no basis for comparison, but I have no complaint either. It makes you less sensitive and increases the likely hood of premature ejaculation, this to me seems to be counterintuitive, but I have never taken the time to research it, so it may be that the statistics bear it out. The “it’s popularized in the US to stop masturbation” is a claim I have heard time and time again by people, but at the same time I don’t know one person who had their child circumcised for that reason, and I have asked many. The most common answer I have heard, indeed the one my own parents gave, is they did it because that’s what the bible says to do.

But I digress. Even if both of these are true statements, and I am not saying they are or aren’t, it is irrelevant. As I stated, if we accept the first point, that we cannot trust the text we have, then Yah is unknowable, and it doesn’t matter, in which case you are free to choose rather or not to circumcise your child based on any criteria you choose.

RL wrote:
Now we must ask ourselves what, if any, might the psychological effects upon a typical 8-day old (or younger) boy, particularly in the US, where he is ripped away from his mother and under blinding lights cut by strangers? I am even less knowledgable concerning the intricacies of psychology than of Scriptural criticism, but a reasonable person might suspect that this would lead to feelings of powerlessness. Is it inconceivable that the satanic elite that rules our world wants males in particular to think themselves powerless against authority?

I really don’t see any long term psychological effects on a child. The first experience any of us has is being pulled from the nice warm and comfortable world of the womb and seeing a doctor in a surgical mask whose first act is to smack your butt. I for one have no psychological negatives from being circumcised.


RL wrote:
As for the secular history of circumcision, I'm no cultural anthropologist, either, but it's clear that the practice has existed not just concurrently with Israel, but independently. For instance, circumcision for boys and clitoridectomy for girls are important parts of adulthood rituals in Samoa, a country that probably had no contact with the descendants of Abraham (could it have had contact with much older Nimrodian Babylon?). It's rather common in Muslim-influenced cultures, although the koran is absolutely silent on the practice. These Islamic cultures are not generally known for their love of YHWH, their support of freedom, their respect for the rights of the individual, or even moral sexual practices (consider the frequency of rape of boys in Afghanistan, or the custom of female circumcision, a very barbaric practice indeed)...

Circumcision was done by other cultures, but that is a non sequitur.


RL wrote:
Finally, we have the question of free will: why would YHWH, Who clearly values free will in them that love Him, demand an involuntary performance such as this, without even an explanation?

The free will argument becomes moot because the instruction was for the parents to circumcise their children; the parents were absolutely free to not circumcise their children. The instruction was then if you were not circumcised on the 8th day by your parents, and you wish to partake in the covenant then you need to be circumcised, again you are then free to do or do not. The only way free will is removed is if by your parents circumcising you, you are automatically in the covenant. You can be circumcised and not partake in the covenant, but if you wish to partake of the covenant you must be circumcised, and you must circumcise your sons.

The crux of your argument comes down to we can either trust that the Scriptures are reliable or not, and if they are not then Yah is unknowable. To me the evidence and reason suggest that we can rely on the Scriptures, and there is no evidence that they are unreliable.

If you trust that the Scriptures are reliable then all the physical merits of circumcision are moot, if you don’t trust that the Scriptures are reliable then Yah is unknowable and it doesn’t matter if you circumcise or not, so examine all the physical evidence and decide what to do.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline Daniel  
#3 Posted : Thursday, November 24, 2011 4:41:56 AM(UTC)
Daniel
Joined: 10/24/2010(UTC)
Posts: 694
Location: Florida

James wrote:
The crux of your argument comes down to we can either trust that the Scriptures are reliable or not...


Ha!

James said crux!

He has to put a dollar in the box now!
Nehemiah wrote:
"We carried our weapons with us at all times, even when we went for water" Nehemiah 4:23b

We would do well to follow Nehemiah's example! http://OurSafeHome.net
Offline RebelLibertarian  
#4 Posted : Tuesday, May 22, 2012 3:02:50 PM(UTC)
RebelLibertarian
Joined: 11/22/2011(UTC)
Posts: 24
Location: Alabamy

[KIDS: The following contains explicit descriptions of unpleasant things. Best to limit yourself to reading other areas of the forum, YY, and ItG, especially with parental guidance if possible. You're not missing anything, that's for sure: I'd like never to have had occasion to learn this stuff.]

I'm afraid that most of the evidence that I referenced wasn't addressed, and I had intended not to reply until I discovered some astonishing information not mentioned on this forum at all in communication with a Karaite professor. I will address elaborate on the harmful aspects of circumcision (thereby addressing some of James' arguments), attempt to arrive at a theory of how it came to be instituted in the US., and finally impart the above novel intelligence as a means of verifying the improbability that the practice was sanctioned by Yah.

The analysis is lengthy and you may wish to skip the theories for the medical facts if you haven't researched the subject yourself and are nonetheless curious. I'll underline the must-reads.

James wrote:
Welcome to the forum by the way.


Thanks.

J wrote:
Having been circumcised at birth I have no basis for comparison, but I have no complaint either.


Allow me to relate my own story and play armchair autopsychiatrist in order to consider the veracity of this supposed practical evidence in favor of the practice. Despite my extraordinary intelligence, I can remember only a handful of memories from childhood, no doubt because it was unhappy. Often given to wondering what that ugly scar was, I was highly resistant to believing I was circumcised after I came to a basic understanding of the practice. After all, my parents told me they loved me and instinct told me that such an operation would be painful and couldn't be anything but harmful. Having grown up in an area of America heavily populated by upper-class Whites and Jews, it took until high school for me to overhear a conversation [GRAPHIC] between acquaintances, one of whom was uncircumcised; after taking jibes from his buddies at the novel appearance of his penis, he reminded them of the total, body-shaking orgasm he had enjoyed in mutual masturbation [I apologize if this is too graphic; I reasoned that the overall topic is an adult-enough one.] Nonetheless, by then I was deeply invested in Christianity (according to which circumcision is part of the perfect Torah if no longer enjoined upon believers), and I determined to rationalize his behavior as excessively "sensual and fleshly" (chanelling Paul, ironically). "Perhaps God wanted sex to be less pleasurable [for men] and intended it really only for procreation" I thought. (A sentiment echoed on this board in different threads; while this doesn't prove anything, it's statistical evidence for the antipleasure bias of some of circumcision's advocates).

Now, it is a well-accepted axiom in the psychology of grief that the first stage is denial of the loss (I'll provide sources if they're desired), and such is certainly true in reference to the loss of a body part, whereby the victim will probably be permanently deprived of its attendant sensations and utility [Fitzgerald RG, Parkes CM. Coping with loss: Blindness and loss of other sensory and cognitive functions..British Medical Journal 1998;316:1160-1163.[Part 5/10]]. I freely admit to denial (especially when I was less mature than I am now at 20) and hope you'll reflect on your reasons for supporting it. While this doesn't apply to YY posters (who would be universally appaled, I imagine), also remember that circumcision fetishes are non-trivial; the Acorn society (so named after the bare glans exposed by the act; glans is Latin for acorn), a London-based sado-masochistic and homosexual organization, openly solicits for video recordings of such acts, and members are known to have particular fascination with sexually humiliating boys and themselves (I'll provide examples and further info to anyone who can stomach it. It's representative of the psychology of hard-core circumcision fetishists and really should be disseminated). On an only-slightly less vile note, many doctors who practice circumcision have a single-minded, libidinous fixation on the practice that suggests a more conscientious concealment of a similar fetish.

This anecdotal evidence of the frequency with which circumcised men deny their harm aside, that the circumcised condition could be anything but inferior to the intact is theoretically impossible. To understand why, you must first be apprised of what is lost during circumcision (the layman generally has no conception), and while I'm explaining it, I might as well detail how infant circumcision is performed. The overview is graphic. Kids, you should have left this page a long time ago.

{In the rare case that the penis is partly hidden in a fold of groin fat, the circumciser elicits an erection in order to expose additional penis length. The grotesque psychological consequences of this can be imagined.}
From development in the womb until several years of age, the foreskin and glans are tightly bound together (for the protection of the latter) by a type of membrane, synechia (this specific one is called the balanopreputial membrane). Would you like to have your fingernail torn from its quick? What about a similar operation on a more sensitive part of your body? The first operation of an American circumcision is to forcefully separate the bonded foreskin and glans. Notably, some Jewish sources suggest that the Talmudic government revised its official definition of circumcision to include this practice in around 140CE as Jews were previously able to stretch their remaining foreskins easily and thus appear as Gentiles and regain much of their foreskins' functions; in the earlier form of circumcision, only the skin beyond the tip of the glans was cut off, entailing less removal of flesh (though the ridged band would still be lost, the child subjected to pain, &c.), or so the theory goes.
Advocates of this form of circumcision point out that the literal wording of the Torah considers only one operation, the actual cut; no forcible separation is required (though an adult could be circumcised tightly in the post-140AD fashion without the extra separation operation), a theory supported by Greek and Talmudic mentions of "removing the marks of circumcision"/epispasm. . Moreover, Jewish sources sometimes distinguish "brit milah" (cutting off the skin protruding beyond the glans tip before separation) and the violent separation followed by further cutting, "periah". As this mode of circumcision should in theory remove much less skin and traumatize the infant less, it would at least be preferable (if still immoral) to the present.

The next step in an American circumcision is to excise the separated foreskin. To comprehend the amount of flesh removed, take a 3x5 index card and fold it in half along the longer axis. This represents the average amount of skin removed in the process (remember that the foreskin is double folded: a sensitive and shiny inner layer faces the glans when the penis isn't erect, and this inner surface of the foreskin becomes a more-keratinized outer surface at the "ring" (ridged band) - like the index card, the foreskin is double-folded when the penis is flacid; a total of 15sq.in. worth of skin on average is thus cut off.
It should be noted that a non-trivial proportion of circumcisions entail so much skin loss as to make erections uncomfortably tight (while mine was probably in the 80th percentile in terms of skin loss, I at least have never suffered such). Shoddily-performed circumcisions can also leave shreds of the foreskin, forming painful skin bridges in adults. Sadly, the penile frenulum ("banjo string" in American vernacular; a frenulum is a tissue that connects a movable piece of skin to another part of the body), perhaps the most densely-ennervated part of the penis (albeit a small one), is occasionally removed as well. The sole functions of the frenulum are to provide further pleasure, and to hold the foreskin over the glans for the latter's protection when the penis isn't aroused.


Although instinct tells us that the above procedures should be excruciatingly painful, it wasn't until the 1970s that the medical Establishment in this country admitted as much. The zeigeist of pseudoscience scored another victory in 1872 when Paul Flechsig popularized the notion that infants couldn't feel pain, an attempt to excuse not only infant circumcision, but even open heart surgery (long performed on infants without anaesthetic!). It was not until the 1970s that the mainstream would even acknowledge that infants could be "stressed", and only in the late 1980s did the current understanding become commonly accepted - that is, to quote, "Numerous lines of evidence suggest that even in the human fetus, pain pathways as well as cortical and subcortical centers necessary for pain perception are well developed late in gestation, and the neurochemical systems now known to be associated with pain transmission and modulation are intact and functional. Physiologic responses to painful stimuli have been well documented in neonates of various gestational ages and are reflected in hormonal, metabolic, and cardiorespiratory changes similar to but greater than those observed in adult subjects. Other responses in newborn infants are suggestive of integrated emotional and behavioral responses to pain and are retained in memory long enough to modify subsequent behavior patterns." [Anand, KJS, Hickey PR. Pain and its Effects on the Human Neonate and Fetus. New Engl J Med 1987;317:1321-1329.] Be careful when you use the same argument as pro-aborts do to justify their murder ("'it's' just a blob and can't feel anything" is the lie told to most women).

If you need further confirmation, here is [rare; circumcising doctors aren't keen on the dissemination of these recordings save for teaching purposes] audio/video of a mutilation. It's hard to envision how he could express more pain; moreover, there are plenty of reports of infants going catatonic from shock during/afterwards. http://video.google.com/...57516627632617&hl=en


It also should be noted that it wasn't until 1997 that some pain control, and mediocre pain control at that, became common (if not universal) in US hospitals. Moreover, some scientists interpret the physiological and apparent psychological changes (the latter being harder to detect than the former) as evidence that circumcised babies suffer from 'an infant analogue of PTSD' even six months after the mutilation! [Taddio A, Koren G et al. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. The Lancet, Vol. 349: Pages 599-603 (March 1, 1997).] Do you have any evidence that would make you think babies are eventually entirely unaffected by the trauma?


J wrote:
It makes you less sensitive and increases the likely hood of premature ejaculation, this to me seems to be counterintuitive, but I have never taken the time to research it, so it may be that the statistics bear it out.


I should have been more specific. The practice only increases the likelihood of premature ejaculation in a small subset of the population who can be brought to it (without much actual pleasure) by direct stimulation of the corona of the glans head. Note that this part of an intact male is not directly stimulated by the vagina. [Zwang G. Functional and erotic consequences of sexual mutilations. In: GC Denniston and MF Milos, eds. Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy New York and London: Plenum Press, 1997 (ISBN 0-306-45589-7]. Studies of the incidence of PE have found it to be slightly more common in the circumcised. [Richters J, Smith AMA, de Visser RO, et al. Circumcision in Australia: prevalence and effects on sexual health. Int J STD AIDS 2006;17:547–54.]

However, it's abundantly clear that the mutilation {lest any object to the use of this word, its definition, from Dictionary.Com: v, 1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts} always has detrimental sexual consequences, both for the male but also for his female partner. The glans head loses considerable sensitivity when it is exposed to abrasion (from clothing, &c.) and the elements, for which cause, while an intact male's glans has a shiny surface of "mucosa" (the same sort as the inside of your cheek has when not actually coated with saliva), that of one who was circumcised long ago will have an uneven and relatively coarse texture. Furthermore, I am currently a few months into epispasm (stretching remaining inner and outer penile skin to stimulate growth of new skin and thereby to recover the glans, with the aim of regaining the appearance and glans protection if not neuronal functionality of my foreskin), and have stretched my skin enough (if not produced much new growth yet) that my glans has been covered fairly reliably for over a month; the organ is now too sensitive for me to comfortably go clothed without my skin-retaining device.
Even more significantly, the foreskin contains several structures whose sole functions are to provide pleasure in some way, most notably Meissner's corpuscles and the ridged band. Overall, the foreskin has over 20,000 nerve endings, and has been recently declared in the British Journal of Urology even to be "primary erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function." [The prepuce. British Journal of Urology 1999 Jan;83(1):34-44]. How is it even conceivable that its removal could not have deleterious effects of at least some magnitude?

A man's female sexual partner is also guaranteed a less pleasant experience, primarily because the vagina was designed to accomodate a penis with a rolling bearing (i.e. the foreskin); a bare glans is mildy irritating against the lower vaginal walls, especially when the male uses extra force for at least a modicum of sexual pleasure (why is the sex act called "banging" in the US?). Penetration is even rendered easier (there is a ten-fold increase in the force required after circumcision). As the foreskin acts as a seal to prevent the rapid pumping out of lubricant, the probability of vaginal dryness is considerably reduced (note that this unfortunate condition is sometimes the cause of apparent female frigidity towards sex). Moreover, statistical studies of female enjoyment of sex with circumcised and uncircumcised partners shows that it is vastly easier for women to orgasm with intact partners. [O'Hara K, O'Hara J. The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner. BJU Int 1999;83 Suppl 1, 79-84.]


One might reasonably expect that one of the many interpersonal consequences of man and woman's inability to enjoy the ideal level of sexual pleasure might be that circumcised men would engage in more risky [and, I imagine YY posters would believe, immoral] behavior than their uncut counterparts in an effort to feel the pleasure they [subconsciously] expect. Surveys of sexual behavior show that the circumcised have more sexual partners on average than the uncircumcised and that the former are less likely to use condoms with new partners / prostitutes.

Maimonides (obviously an advocate of circumcision) admitted:
Maimonides wrote:
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 for 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 the 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.


Given what we now know about the effects of circumcision, let's consider the probability it was originally found in YHWH's word.

J wrote:

So with that in mind, my logic follows this way.

1) The Jewish people, especially prior to the Talmud, were well versed in their Scriptures, even if they didn’t understand them they knew them.

In times even as distant as the Middle Ages there is indeed ample evidence that rigorous education in at least the obvious meanings of both TaNaKh and Talmud was commonplace in the Jewish community (at least for males). Do you have any reason to believe that this level of erudition was as widespread in the period of time that is of interest to the argument - immediately prior to, during, and [less importantly] immediately after the Babylonian Exile?

This is of course ridiculous of me to expect from you (if we haven't even scriptures from this period, how would we have cultural evidence that the common people had a good understanding of scripture?). However, you cannot use your claim as justification.

Moreover, consider the following verse, from Yirmeyahu:
Quote:

How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of YHWH," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?


There's debate as to whether Jeremiah is assailing the Levitical priesthood for having corrupted the previous religious tradition of Israel, or if he's merely condemning "scribes" (who apparently also acted as magistrates) for incorrectly applying the Torah. To debate this controversy is important but probably outside the scope of this argument. I have, however, learned information (from a noted Karaite scholar, Dr. Shmuel Asher) that was really the main reason for this reply:

Well-educated Jews are often aware that the whole Torah isn't genuine and that the Documentary Hypothesis has some merit to it! (This really shouldn't be surprising. There isn't any significant difference in levels of zeal for Zionism between secular, mildly religious, and Orthodox Jews, from which we conclude it's the political program that makes Zionism, not genuine religious belief).
In particular, a learned Karaite scholar and published author by the name of Dr. Shmuel Asher (http://ancienthebrewlearningcenter.blogspot.com/) is convinced that circumcision is a pagan invention. It isn't enjoined in the theoretical "J" text.

Now, this is clearly insufficient evidence to support my theory. I'm going to continue this line of research (I plan to post a thread on it in this forum in a week or so) and urge YY members to consider the Documentary Hypotheses. (It is mentioned only once on the entire website as per a Google search!). Note that Israeli researchers have recently employed a computer program to test the veracity of the hypothesis's assessment of writing styles. Of course, this doesn't prove that writing style and author are associated, but it surely deserves consideration.


J wrote:

2) ... Where the Masoretic text differs from the DSS it is in small ways (slight rewording, removal or addition of a word here and there and mostly through confining the meaning through their vowel pointing). Unlike for example the Greek text where the older manuscripts reveal that large swaths of text were added later.


True. Indeed, besides the difficult-to-interpret Jer 8:8 quote, I have no textual evidence of corruption. (I think that the Karaite testimony will prove powerful, but that remains for me to support to y'all.)

J wrote:

4) In addition, if large swaths of Scripture had been corrupted prior to the time of Yahowsha, He would have been compelled to make people aware of it, and His biographers would have been compelled to record it, and since we have no evidence of Yahowsha ever suggesting that the Scriptures had been tampered with, it doesn’t prove but suggests that they likely were not. Also he does discuss circumcision and if the way it was being practiced at the time were errant I’m sure he would have said something.


It's probably true that the Messiah doesn't condemn it at all. (There is John 7:22, but I think that the text only says that He says it's from the "fathers" in the sense of the patriarchs Abraham &al.)

However, among the many sects of "Christianity" (for lack of a better word) persecuted by the Roman Empire (amongst which we should not discount Gnosticism, like it or not), the Ebionites didn't trust the "received" copy of the Torah, doubting the inspiration of verses they thought associated sin to the patriarchs (not that I argue they were sinless), endorsement of the Davidic monarchy, and sacrificial laws.

Ephiphanius on Ebionites: “They do not accept the whole of the Pentateuch of Moses, but suppress certain passages” [Panarion XXX, 8]

Cardinal Danilou, in The Theology of Jewish Christianity: "They [Ebionites] also reject any aspect of Christianity which makes it a religion of salvation. For them Christ’s mission is simply of teaching…They see Jesus as a reformer of the Law who brings it back to the true ideas of Moses. As it exists in Judaism the Law seems to them to be mixed with elements of diabolical origin which are of later date than Moses. The elements to be rejected are primarily the Temple worship and, in particular, bloody sacrifices.”

In "Ebionites", in The Dictionary of Historical Theology, it's argued that Ebionites thought “He [Jesus] was the ‘true prophet’ [cf. Deut. 18:15-22], a second Moses, a teacher and reformer…He was not a priest, rather, he came to abolish the sacrificial cultus and to restore the true, spiritual meaning of the Mosaic code."

If these authors are correct in their accounts of Ebionite theology, the Ebionites would be quite important if for no other reason than, besides the true Gnostics, the Ebionites were the only sect we have record of to reject Paul's writings. While I don't even endorse Ebionite theology per se, I think it non-trivial that so many early believers even more pro-Torah than the average modern Messianic Jew questioned the perfection of extant copies of the Torah.

The Ebionites were particularly hung up on "sacrificial" laws as they opposed the shedding of blood (and given that the Prophets sometimes condemn sacrifices, they might not have contradicted the original Torah in so doing). Inasmuch as the command to circumcise one's children and slaves is considered to be one of the sacrificial laws (supposedly, it was given to Abraham in place of sacrificing his firstborn), AND cutting off part of the penis of an innocent infant entails shedding blood quite violently, I'm guessing that the Ebionites weren't thrilled with this practice.


J wrote:
"... the evidence to me suggests that we can, intellectually not blindly..."

As an aside, could you prepare a list of fulfilled prophecies (there isn't a convenient collation in YY) for study and even apologetics? Ditto with any other evidence or YY pages describing it. I probably wouldn't be the only one helped thereby and can only remember a textual analysis of Genesis showing that it doesn't contradict the Big Bang theory.

J wrote:
There is a great deal of meaning and symbolism behind circumcision.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but the only theories of symbolism in either YY or the preliminary copy of ItG [on Scribd] are the following:

1) Cutting off the foreskin symbolizes a necessary separation from sin. (What would make the foreskin representative of sin? Why is it only enjoined upon males - the female clitoris has a hood analogous to the male prepuce? Woman's pain in childbirth isn't the answer-the analogous punishment in Genesis is specified to be that man is compelled to work hard for his very survival. In every civilized society, men are sadly treated as less biologically valuable than women, upon which I'll elaborate below in my theory of the significance of circumcision.)
2) The foreskin "symbolizes" the fleshly, animal nature. (No more or less than the testicles/ovaries, or, for that matter, the brain. Also, note that Paul the probable liar attacks "the flesh" but is effectively neutral on circumcision, neither condemning it as immoral nor demanding that"Christians" become circumcised.)
3) The cutting act of circumcision, called "karat", is etymologically related to the word for cutting a covenant. (Unless I am quite mistaken, Yada himself never explains whence comes the phrase "to cut" a covenant. However, I've heard it theorized that in ancient Semitic cultures, a covenant between two parties was commonly sealed by slaughtering a bull, the act of which was symbolic of the fate to befall the party that broke the covenant.)
4) Parents would be reminded of the importance of bringing up their children in the covenant. (Tzit-tzit are more symbolic as they actually symbolize purity and the Doctrine/Torah, and more frequently seen.)

Neither the author(s) of the Torah (be they YHWH, scribes, or both) nor Yada make(s) an attempt to justify the harm circumcision entails. If the damage were somehow justified, however, honesty would compel YHWH (if He inspired the Torah) to at least admit some injurious consequences (presumably stating that these are outweighed by spiritual benefits). Suspiciously, they don't even acknowledge them, from which we can only infer that the principal aim in both cases was perpetuating circumcision itself (most people not desirous of forcing others to suffer with them would oppose circumcision if compelled to admit of its harm) : after all, full disclosure would not only give YHWH's argument more weight and grant us better understanding of His character, though it would drastically reduce the ritual's incidence.


J wrote:
The “it’s popularized in the US to stop masturbation” is a claim I have heard time and time again by people

Hate to split hairs, but I said it WAS introduced for only a few main stated purposes, of which the seminal one was to reduce masturbation. (Pseudoscientific reasons ranging from preventing club foot to blindness to insanity were also advocated but figured less prominently in circumcision's defense). Sure, the average adult who approves of circumcision will give entirely different reasons (interesting that American Christians who believe circumcision unnecessary if perfectly moral are so fond of it. Such apparent contradictions are often fruitful targets for research.).

Here's a timeline of the American medical Establishment's pro-circumcision rhetoric. (Those familiar with it will want to skip it: go to the next horizontal rule.)

1845

* Edward H. Dixon declares that circumcision prevents masturbation. [A Treatise on Diseases of the Sexual Organs. New York: Stringer & Co 1845 pp 158-65]

1855

* Johnathon Hutchinson publishes his theory that circumcision prevents syphilis. [On the Influence of Circumcision in Preventing Syphilis. Medical Times and Gazette 1855;32(844):542-543]

1865

* Nathaniel Heckford claims that circumcision cures epilepsy. [Circumcision as a remedial measure in certain cases of epilepsy and chorea. Clinical Lectures and Reports by the Medical and Surgical Staff of the London Hospital 1865;2:58-64]

1870

* Lewis A. Sayre publishes a paper 'proving' that circumcision cures epilepsy. [Circumcision versus epilepsy, etc; Transcription of the New York Pathological Society meeting of June 8, 1870. Medical Record 1870 Jul 15;5(10):231-4]

1870

* Lewis A. Sayre declares that circumcision prevents spinal paralysis. [Partial paralysis from reflex irritation, caused by congenital phimosis and adherent prepuce. Transactions of the American Medical Association 1870;21:205-11]

1871

* M.J. Moses declares that Jews are immune to masturbation because of circumcision. [The value of circumcision as a hygienic and therapeutic measure. New York Medical Journal 1871 Nov;14(4):368-74]

1875

* Lewis A. Sayre declares that foreskin causes curvature of the spine, paralysis of the bladder, and clubfoot. [Spinal anaemia with partial paralysis and want of coordination, from irritation of the genital organs. Transactions of the American Medical Association 1875;26:255-74]

1879

* H.H. Kane 'discovers' that circumcision cures nocturnal emissions and abdominal neuralgia. [Seminal emissions, abdominal neuralgia: circumcision: cure. Southern Clinic 1879 Oct;2(1):8-11]

1881

* Maximillian Landesburg announces that circumcision cures eye problems that he believed were caused by masturbation. [On affections of the eye caused by masturbation. Medical Bulletin 1881 Apr;3(4):79-81]

1886

* William G. Eggleston declares that foreskin causes crossed eyes. [Two cases of reflex paraplegia(one with aphasia) from tape-worm and phimosis. Journal of the American Medical Association 1886 May 8;6(19):511-5]

1888

* John Harvey Kellogg promotes circumcision as punishment for boys to discourage them from masturbating. [Treatment for Self-abuse and Its Effects, Plain Facts for Old and Young, Burlington, Iowa, F. Segner & Co. (1888) p. 107]

1890

* William D. Gentry declares that circumcision cures blindness, deafness and dumbness. [Nervous derangements produced by sexual irregularities in boys. Medical Current 1890 Jul;6(7):268-74]

1891

* Johnathan Hutchinson declares that foreskin encourages boys to masturbate. [On circumcision as preventive of masturbation. Archives of Surgery 1891 Jan;2(7):267-9]

1893

* Mark J. Lehman demands immediate implementation of mass circumcision of all American boys. [A plea for circumcision. Medical Review 1893 Jul 22;28(4):64-5]

* 1894
* P.C. Remondino says circumcising blacks will help prevent them from raping whites. [Negro rapes and their social problems. National Popular Review 1894 Jan;4(1):3-6]

1894

* H.L. Rosenberry publishes paper 'proving' that circumcision cures urinary and rectal incontinence. [Incontinence of the urine and faeces, cured by circumcision. Medical Record 1894 Aug 11;4(6):173]

1898

* T. Scott McFarland says he has "circumcised as many girls as boys, and always with happy results." [Circumcision of girls. Journal of Orificial Surgery, 1898 Jul;7:31-33]

1900

* Johnathan Hutchinson advises circumcision as way to decrease the pleasure of sex, and hence to discourage sexual immorality. [The advantages of circumcision. The Polyclinic 1900 Sep;3(9):129-31]

1901

* Ernest G. Mark notes that the "pleasurable sensations that are elicited from the extremely sensitive" inner lining of the foreskin may encourage a child to masturbate, which is why he recommends circumcision since it "lessens the sensitiveness of the organ". [Circumcision. American Practitioner and News 1901 Feb 15;31(4):122-6]

1902

* Roswell Park publishes paper 'proving' that foreskin causes epilepsy and that circumcision cures it. [The surgical treatment of epilepsy. American Medicine 1902 Nov 22;4(21):807-9]

1914

* Abraham L. Wolbarst claims that circumcision prevents tuberculosis and demands the compulsory circumcision of all children in America. [Universal circumcision as a sanitary measure. Journal of the American Medical Association 1914 Jan 10;62(2):92-7]

1915

* Benjamin E. Dawson says that since the clitoral hood is the source of many neuroses, female circumcision is necessary. [Circumcision in the Female: Its Necessity and How to Perform It. American Journal of Clinical Medicine, 1915 Jun;22(6):520-523]

1918

* Belle Eskridge concludes...
Offline RebelLibertarian  
#5 Posted : Tuesday, May 22, 2012 3:04:26 PM(UTC)
RebelLibertarian
Joined: 11/22/2011(UTC)
Posts: 24
Location: Alabamy

1918

* Belle Eskridge concludes circumcision will relieve one of the greatest causes of masturbation in girls. [Why not circumcise the girl as well as the boy?, Texas State Journal of Medicine, 1918 May;14:17-19]

1926

* Abraham L. Wolbarst claims that circumcision prevents penile cancer. [Is circumcision a prophylactic against penis cancer? Cancer 1926 Jul;3(4):301-10]

1930

* Norton Henry Bare claims that he has cured a boy of epilepsy by circumcising him. [Surgical treatment of epilepsy with report of case. The China Medical Journal 1930 Nov;4(11):1109-13]

1934

* Aaron Goldstein and Hiram S. Yellen invent and mass market the Gomco clamp which makes it easier for doctors to cut off even more skin than in traditional circumcisions. [Bloodless circumcision of the newborn. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, July 1935;30(1):146-7]

1935

* R.W. Cockshut demands that all boys be circumcised in order to desensitize the penis and promote chastity. [Circumcision. British Medical Journal 1935 Oct 19;2(3902):764]

1941

* Allan F. Guttmacher promotes mass circumcision as a means of blunting male sexual sensitivity. He also spreads the false claim that a baby's foreskin must be forcibly retracted and scrubbed daily. [Should the baby be circumcised? Parents Magazine 1941 Sept;16(9):26,76-8]

1942

* Abraham Ravich claims that circumcision prevents prostate cancer. [The relationship of circumcision to cancer of the prostate. Journal of Urology 1942 Sep;48(3):298-9]

1949

* Eugene H. Hand declares that circumcision prevents venereal disease and cancer of the tongue. [Circumcision and venereal disease. Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology 1949 Sep;60(3):341-6]


1951

* Abraham Ravich invents claims that circumcision prevents cervical cancer in women. [Prophylaxis of cancer of the prostate, penis, and cervix by circumcision. New York State Journal of Medicine 1951 Jun;51(12):1519-20]

1953

* R.L. Miller and D.C. Snyder unleash their plans to circumcise all male babies immediately after birth while still in the delivery room to prevent masturbation and provide "immunity to nearly all physical and mental illness." [Immediate circumcision of the newborn male. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1953, Jan;6(1):1-11]

1954

* Ernest L. Wydner claims that male circumcision prevents cervical cancer in women. [A study of environmental factors of carcinoma of the cervix. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1954 Oct;68(4):1016-52]

1958

* C.F. McDonald says "the same reasons that apply for the circumcision of males are generally valid when considered for the female." [Circumcision of the female. General Practitioner 1958 Sep;18(3):98-99]

1959

* W.G. Rathmann finds that among the many benefits of female circumcision is that it will make the clitoris easier for the husband to find. [Female Circumcision: Indications and a New Technique. General Practitioner 1959 Sep;20(9):115-120]

1969

* Morris Fishbein calls for circumcision to prevent nervousness and of course also masturbation. [Sex hygiene. Modern Home Medical Adviser. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co: 1969 pp 90, 119]

1971

* Abraham Ravich claims that circumcision prevents cancer of the bladder and the rectum. [Viral carcinogenesis in venereally susceptible organs. Cancer 1971 Jun;27(6)1493-6]


1973

* R. Dagher, Melvin Selzer, and Jack Lapides declare that anyone who disagrees with their agenda to impose mass circumcision on America is deluded. [Carcinoma of the penis and the anti-circumcision crusade. Journal of Urology 1973 Jul;110(1):79-80]

1975

* The American Academy of Pediatrics Task force on Circumcision declares, "There are no medical indications for routine circumcisions and the procedure cannot be considered an essential component of health care." [Report on the ad hoc task force on circumcision. Pediatrics 1975;56:610-1]

1985

* Thomas E. Wiswell claims that circumcision prevents urinary tract infections. [Decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised male infants. Pediatrics 1985 May;75(5):901-3]

1986

* Aaron J. Fink claims that circumcision prevents AIDS. [A possible explanation for heterosexual male infection with AIDS. New England Journal of Medicine 1986 Oct 30;31(18):1167]

1988

* Aaron J. Fink invents the falsehood that circumcision prevents neonatal group B streptococcal disease. [Is hygiene enough? Circumcision as a possible strategy to prevent group B streptococcal disease. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1988 Aug;159 (2):534-5]

1989

* Under the direction of Edgar J. Schoen, the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision declares circumcision is necessary. [Report of the Task Force on Circumcision. Pediatrics 1989 Aug;84(2):388-91]

1991

* Aaron J. Fink declares mass circumcision is necessary to prevent sand from getting into the soldiers' foreskins. [Circumcision and sand. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 1991 Nov;84(11):696]

1996

* J.R. Taylor finds that the average amount of amputated foreskin was nearly half of the total penile skin. [The prepuce: Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. British Journal of Urology 1996 Feb;77:291-5]

1997

* Edgar J. Schoen tries and fails once again to convince European countries to institute mass circumcision. [Benefits of newborn circumcision: Is Europe ignoring the medical evidence? Archives of Diseases of Childhood 1997 Sep;7(3):258-60]

1997

* Janice Lander discovers that circumcision without anesthesia is traumatic for babies. (Note: Before this, almost all infant circumcisions were done without anesthetic due to the prevalent belief among circumcisers that babies are not capable of feeling significant pain and if they could it doesn't matter since they won't be able to remember it.) [Comparison of ring block, dorsal penile nerve block, and topical anesthesia for neonatal circumcision. Journal of the American Medical Association 1997 Dec;274(24):2157-2162]

1999

* The American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision, after reviewing 40 years worth of medical studies, concluded that the "potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision... are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision." This report is also the first time the AAP has acknowledged(after decades of doctors mindlessly repeating the belief that babies don't feel significant pain) that circumcision without anesthesia is traumatic and if circumcision is to be done, anesthesia should be used.

o Ethics: Here they say while even though cutting off part of your baby's genitalia "is not essential to the child's current well-being" they are perfectly fine with parents and doctors using cultural tradition as justification. (Note: The report does not mention whether they also think cultural tradition is an acceptable reason to anesthetize infant girls and then cut off their clitoral hoods(which are biologically analogous to foreskin)). [Task Force on Circumcision. Circumcision Policy Statement. Pediatrics 1999;103 (3):686-693]


2005

* R.Y. Stallings finds that HIV rates are significantly lower in circumcised women. (Note: There was no WHO call for mass female circumcision to help prevent AIDS) [Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse? Third International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment. Rio de Janeiro, 25-27 July 2005]

Now that we have been apprised of the official rhetoric in favor of circumcision, let us consider why American parents have gone along with it. No doubt some do justify it, as you argue, by citing the bible; statistically, most of these proponents of religious benefits must be mainstream, moderately-religious Christians, according to whose religion the practice isn't necessary (if supposedly neither immoral), so perhaps some other explanation should be sought. We do know that it's correlated positively with socioeconomic status (which is itself correlated negatively with religiosity); since a more common justification than the religious one is that "the baby should look like his father in this respect", perhaps the implied argument is that "it's the middle-class White thing to do." As already stated, "misery loves company". In general, the sheeple aren't known for their insight or disposition to freethinking: if the elite tell them to circumcise their sons, most will, and parrot the justifications they were given lest they feel guilty.

Part of my theory of the real reason for mass circumcision in the US in particular is incomplete. On this subject, I will add only that popular culture grossly devalues males: we are expected to submit to the draft and go to war without the slightest justification, our desires for members of the opposite sex are ridiculed (female beauty) whereas there is no taboo on female fantasies of (romance novels targeted almost exclusively at them aren't taboo in the slightest). Most of all, however, male pain is not only demeaned, but considered humorous. As a child, I largely detested TV and movies, and most of the few Disney movies I watched (all rated PG and targeted exclusively at young kids!) had a scene wherein an adult male was hit in the groin to the amusement of both audience and little kids (especially little girls) in the set, deliverd with an air of perfuntoriness. Tellingly, in the US in particular foreskin harvesting is highly lucrative; the organs contain fibroblasts used by the cosmetic industry. Some of our occult-loving starlets AKA celebrities have endorsed g-strings made of human foreskins! While every issue of Playboy magazine contains pro-abortion polemic, the magazine mocks the anti-circumcision movement (no surprise, porn would not sell quite so well if men were sexually satisfied through intercourse. Similarly, masturbation is generally more sexually satisfying to the circumcised than is intercourse.). These are but further proofs of the elite's contempt for the average male. The seminal proponents of circumcision today are globalist organizations like WHO and the UN and globalists like Bill Gates. The US Army forced many of its soldiers to get circumcised during WWII (run by the same people who burned 95,000 Japanese people alive during the firebombing of Tokyo). Muslim radicals and other half-civilized peoples frequently practice circumcision. Sure, correlation doesn't always correspond to causation, but one has to wonder why violent civilizations tend to favor the practice? Also, no peaceful culture has ever practiced it (for better or worse). With correlations like these, who needs proof of causation? Or, where are the confounding variables?

Remember that, while women are innately disposed to nurture and comfort (not that males oughtn't also occupy themselves therein), men are better able than women to defend innocent (specifically, they posess the will to seek out and confront evil that women usually don't). Is this part of the reason why the Powers that Be feel the need to make men feel powerless through this and other practices?



I thank y'all for reading this long missive. I eagerly anticipate consideration of my evidences and will happily answer specific questions.
Offline dajstill  
#6 Posted : Tuesday, May 22, 2012 3:49:20 PM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
I am a female. But I do have 2 young sons they are 4 and 6. They have no memory of their circumcision. My daughter doesn't remember being in NICU. None of them remember breastfeeding and they all did it past 12 months. I have asked them. Beware of supposed supressed memories.
Offline MadDog  
#7 Posted : Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:48:40 PM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 588
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Was thanked: 19 time(s) in 13 post(s)
RebelLibertarian wrote:
1935

* R.W. Cockshut demands that all boys be circumcised in order to desensitize the penis and promote chastity. [Circumcision. British Medical Journal 1935 Oct 19;2(3902):764]


LOL!

RebelLibertarian wrote:
I thank y'all for reading this long missive. I eagerly anticipate consideration of my evidences and will happily answer specific questions.


None of what you said negates the Torah.

That doctors and moooooslimes became over-zealous in circumcision which doesn't include females IAW the Torah does not negate the Torah.

RebelLibertarian wrote:
Neither the author(s) of the Torah (be they YHWH, scribes, or both) nor Yada make(s) an attempt to justify the harm circumcision entails. If the damage were somehow justified, however, honesty would compel YHWH (if He inspired the Torah) to at least admit some injurious consequences (presumably stating that these are outweighed by spiritual benefits). Suspiciously, they don't even acknowledge them, from which we can only infer that the principal aim in both cases was perpetuating circumcision itself (most people not desirous of forcing others to suffer with them would oppose circumcision if compelled to admit of its harm) : after all, full disclosure would not only give YHWH's argument more weight and grant us better understanding of His character, though it would drastically reduce the ritual's incidence.


It should be common sense that if you cut away skin from your body it will cause pain.

You want Yahweh and Yada to state the obvious to you?!?

And Yahweh did state benefits of participating in his covenant starting with circumcision.
Offline RebelLibertarian  
#8 Posted : Tuesday, May 22, 2012 4:53:53 PM(UTC)
RebelLibertarian
Joined: 11/22/2011(UTC)
Posts: 24
Location: Alabamy

dajstill wrote:
I am a female. But I do have 2 young sons they are 4 and 6. They have no memory of their circumcision. My daughter doesn't remember being in NICU. None of them remember breastfeeding and they all did it past 12 months. I have asked them. Beware of supposed supressed memories.

Anand and Hickey said that infant traumas are "retained in memory [b]long enough to modify subsequent behavior patterns[b]". It's not expected that the trauma will be specifically identifiable long after the fact, only that it will have had a non-trivial effect (Incidentally, I did read anecdotes of children horrifying their parents by recalling pain but didn't consider them compelling enough to post)
Offline RebelLibertarian  
#9 Posted : Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:05:44 PM(UTC)
RebelLibertarian
Joined: 11/22/2011(UTC)
Posts: 24
Location: Alabamy

MadDog wrote:
None of what you said negates the Torah.


I ask for explanation. Honestly, you sound awfully defensive. If circumcision is a gift of God, then nothing I could say could negate its required status; if it isn't, then no evidence I've seen so far elevates it above barbarism.
MD wrote:

That doctors and moooooslimes became over-zealous in circumcision which doesn't include females IAW the Torah does not negate the Torah.


No, nor did I claim it does. The fact that some people who are disposed to commend male circumcision support the equally-barbaric practice of cutting females surely doesn't prove the morality of our version of the Torah!

MD wrote:

It should be common sense that if SOMEONE ELSE cut away skin from your body it will cause pain.

You want Yahweh and Yada to state the obvious to you?!?


Equally obvious that mutilating an ingeniously-designed organ will have deleterious results, but yet some are in denial on this score.


No, I want explanation, higher-level information, not the obvious. I.e. wherefore is it necessary to cause pain?
MD wrote:

And Yahweh did state benefits of participating in his covenant starting with circumcision.

Right. My question remains, Why??

Moreover, why will no one address the Documentary Hypothesis?
Offline TorahAndYahweh  
#10 Posted : Tuesday, May 22, 2012 5:21:44 PM(UTC)
TorahAndYahweh
Joined: 1/7/2012(UTC)
Posts: 6

Hey Racist Libertarian,
RacistLibertarian wrote:
Why??
Because Yahweh said so--thats why!
You must think you're really smart bringing up the documentary hypothesis. Its bs.
Usually you have to go to a neo-nazi website to read antisemitic drivel like RL's.
Offline Richard  
#11 Posted : Tuesday, May 22, 2012 6:58:28 PM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
*sigh*

Where do these people come from? And why do they feel obligated/coerced/forced/driven by their commanding demon to vomit their nonsense all over our forums? Not one of them demonstrates the tiniest desire to know Yahowah. Not one of them presents a hunger and thirst for the Word. Every one of them stomps in wearing earplugs and with an armload of pet ideas and a mouthful of prerecorded answers. I don't know why any of us wastes our time and bandwidth responding to any of them.

Where is that one who is tender-hearted and who trembles at Yahowah's Word? To that one we should pay attention. Time is too precious to waste on insincere debate mongers.

Offline MadDog  
#12 Posted : Tuesday, May 22, 2012 7:49:18 PM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 588
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Was thanked: 19 time(s) in 13 post(s)
RebelLibertarian wrote:
Honestly, you sound awfully defensive.


Honestly, you sound awfully offensive.

RebelLibertarian wrote:
If circumcision is a gift of God


Circumcision is not a "gift."

It is a sign of the covenant.

RebelLibertarian wrote:
then nothing I could say could negate its required status; if it isn't, then no evidence I've seen so far elevates it above barbarism.


That is true...there is nothing YOU can say to negate Yahweh's Torah.

And again you are throwing EVERYONE who misused Yahweh's instruction under the bus.

And if you don't want to participate in Yahweh's covenant then don't!

RebelLibertarian wrote:
Neither the author(s) of the Torah (be they YHWH, scribes, or both) nor Yada make(s) an attempt to justify the harm circumcision entails. If the damage were somehow justified, however, honesty would compel YHWH (if He inspired the Torah) to at least admit some injurious consequences (presumably stating that these are outweighed by spiritual benefits). Suspiciously, they don't even acknowledge them, from which we can only infer that the principal aim in both cases was perpetuating circumcision itself (most people not desirous of forcing others to suffer with them would oppose circumcision if compelled to admit of its harm) : after all, full disclosure would not only give YHWH's argument more weight and grant us better understanding of His character, though it would drastically reduce the ritual's incidence.


RebelLibertarian wrote:
The fact that some people who are disposed to commend male circumcision support the equally-barbaric practice of cutting females surely doesn't prove the morality of our version of the Torah!


So it's now "our version of the Torah" instead of Yahweh's, his scribes, and/or Yada's now is it?!?

Again, Yahweh does not require female circumcision. That is the secular and mooooooslime religion.

And even then if you do not want to participate in Yahweh's covenant then don't.....you do not have to.

Quote:
MD wrote:

It should be common sense that if SOMEONE ELSE cut away skin from your body it will cause pain.

You want Yahweh and Yada to state the obvious to you?!?


The whole purpose of a quote is to record what that person actually said.

You ADDED to my quote.

RebelLibertarian wrote:
No, I want explanation, higher-level information, not the obvious. I.e. wherefore is it necessary to cause pain?


The first order of reason and logic is observing the obvious which leads to higher-level of information.

You are putting the carriage before the horse. The forest for the trees.

Child-birth is a prime example of painful but yet beneficial results....especially to the mother.

You are basically asking the same question everyone on this fourm is asking.....the chicken before the egg question......WHY?!?!

To answer your question, Yahweh wanted children, companionship, friendship, relationship.

That's why!

RebelLibertarian wrote:
Moreover, why will no one address the Documentary Hypothesis?


Because it's already been answered.

You just aren't listening.
Offline James  
#13 Posted : Wednesday, May 23, 2012 4:04:02 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
Okay having invested a lot of time recently to a futile discussion, not with you but with someone else, So i am not really up for this, but I will engage any way.

So here is what I will say in response:
1. Medical benefits/negatives You can find as many doctors who say one as say the other, and I'm not a doctor so I don't know. I do know I don't know a single person who has experienced any negative medical side effects to circumcision. But this point is really irrelevant because it doesn't change Yahowah's instructions.

2. I'm sorry to hear about your traumatic experience because of your circumcision. Personally I didn't even know what it was until I was about 12 or 13 didn't know that it had been done to me until then and just assumed I was normal. Again doesn't matter to me one bit.

3. I was recently at my nephews circumcision circumcision and in all honesty he cried ten times more just being taking away from his mom then he did when the doctor sniped him. He stopped crying pretty much the second he was handed back to his mother. So while I am sure it is painful to them, but so is a lot of stuff to kids. And again still not a relevant point. If you choose to disagree with Yah because of His stance on circumcision, then fine that is your choice, but it still doesn't change His instructions.

4. Okay on to the only point that really matters. Does Yahowah instruct circumcision?

Now it is quite clear, and I believe you have said as much, that circumcision is prescribed in the Towrah. So the question you really have is rather or not the Towrah is reliable. As I stated before We cannot prove that the Towrah has not been changed. Sadly we do not have the originals that Moshe placed in the arch of the covenant. Personally I see no reason to think that it wasn't. As I said it would have been very difficult for such a major thing to have been added to the text.

Now I will say your Jeremiah 8:8 citation did get me thinking when I read it last night. So first thing this morning I fired up Logos, opened my exegetical guide did a search for Jeremiah 8 and started to examine the text.

Yet another example of how translators mess up was found here. I don't know which translation you cited, but most all of them say about the same, something along the lines of, "How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of YHWH," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?" Though most do not have Yahowah's name.

Lets' examine the text:
'ekah 'amar - They get this part right, How can you say
'anahnuw - We, again correct
chakam - are wise is an appropriate albeit incomplete translation.
wa - and, can mean for, but most of the time wa is translated and. Because, which is where for would be derived is listed as it's 9th or 9th definition depending upon which dictionary you look at. Personally I would render it as AND
Towrah Yahowah - law is not a very good translation of Towrah, and I would usually just transliterate it. So this would be the Towrah of Yahowah, or Yahowah's Towrah.
'eth an 'aken - literally "with us surely" or surely is with us.
hinneh - Behold, look and see
la ha sheqer - concerning(la) the(ha) misleading lie and falsehood.
'asha - prepared and produced, fashioned and brought about
'et sheqer saphar - literally "writing implement misleading lie and falsehood military leaders, officials, authorities, writers and scribes"

The last three words are where translations go way off, so lets examine them. First sheqer is not an adjective it is a noun, and therefore lying pen is not an appropriate rendering. So how should we handle sheqer then, i would say the same as we handled the last time two nouns where side by side in this sentence, Towrah Yahowah. So it would be the saphar's sheqer.

'et - pen or writting implement
sheqer saphar - the military leaders, officials, authorities, writers and scribes misleading lie and falsehood.

You will notice that there is no basis whatsoever for handled it in the Hebrew. Other translations render it as, "has made it into a lie." again no basis for it in the text. So let's put it all together.

How can you say we are wise and Yahowah's Towrah is surely with us? Behold, concerning the misleading lie and falsehood prepared and produced, fashioned and brought about by the pen, the military leaders, officials, authorities, writers and scribes misleading lie and falsehood.

or less amplified

How can you say we are wise and Yahowah's Towrah is with us? Behold, concerning the lie produced by the pen, the authorities' lie.

So what is the lie brought about by the pen, what is the authorities' lie, the lie is that they are wise and that the Towrah of Yahowah is with them, not the Towrah itself, and not that the Towrah had been corrupted. This is especially true if you look at the context. The 8th chapter of Jeremiah is constantly condemning the sapher, and the very next verse says they have no wisdom because they have rejected the Word of Yahowah, i.e. Towrah. So context being king it is ridiculous for every translator to translate this verse the way they have.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline RebelLibertarian  
#14 Posted : Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:14:29 AM(UTC)
RebelLibertarian
Joined: 11/22/2011(UTC)
Posts: 24
Location: Alabamy

TorahAndYahweh: Nothing I've said can be construed as racist.

MadDog, I understand it's theorized that YHWH created us for friendship & companionship. "WHY" asks why circumcision is necessary to establish a covenant. More importantly, the Documentary Hypothesis has never been addressed in YY or this forum. To confirm this, enter the following into Google: site:yadayahweh.com Documentary Hypothesis

You'll find 3 pages, one of which only mentions it in a quote from Wikipedia (the other two are entirely irrelevant). It's not been discussed.

James, sure one can find plenty of pro-circumcision doctors. That's why I included ample evidence of its harms. Note that doctors might endorse it for reasons other than medical benefits or the fact it's a harmless cultural practice, like the fact they make hundreds of dollars for a 10-minute procedure (though they admittedly can earn similar amounts of money for some other procedures), guilt over previous circumcisions, the need to tote the mainstream party line, &c.

Concerning your nephew's circumcision, a lot of Jewish mohels forcibly separate the foreskin from the glans (like removing the fingernail from a quick since the two are bound in infancy and synechia is broken) in private and perform the actual cutting in public; perhaps this was how his was performed? Do you recall? {EDIT: I see that he was taken away and returned in your presence. Fair enough. I don't know enough about medicine to claim "he went catatonic" or something of that nature; maybe circumcision at home is more pleasant?}

I appreciate the amplified translation. My hypothesis is that nothing can corrupt YHWH's Torah, but perhaps the collection of extant copies of it can be corrupted: this could be the authorities' lie (or it might not), forced upon the people by Nehemiah and the Persian military after the exiles returned. However, my theory is definitely half-baked at this point and the main point of this forum post was to see if YY posters agreed that the practice is so out-of-character for Yah that the Documentary Hypothesis should be considered.
Offline James  
#15 Posted : Wednesday, May 23, 2012 6:30:55 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline RebelLibertarian  
#16 Posted : Wednesday, May 23, 2012 7:03:04 AM(UTC)
RebelLibertarian
Joined: 11/22/2011(UTC)
Posts: 24
Location: Alabamy

James, very common misconception (currently the main medical justification for the practice, having supplanted preventing masturbation). Apart from the fact that the only 100% effective way to avoid HIV and other STDs is monogamy with an uninfected partner (which most posters here, myself included, think is YHWH's design for sexual relations. There's no reason to believe that He would want to facilitate sexual behavior He disapproves of by reducing the probability of contracting a disease), the reduction in HIV incidence is heavily confounded and so minor that spending the same amount of money on condoms that a[n often unsanitary] African circumcision costs would be vastly superior in preventing HIV and other diseases. A refutation to the African studies endorsed by the CDC is here: http://www.futuremedicin...10.2217/17469600.2.3.193

Basically, the subjects were not just willing to be circumcised, but actually wished to be (for cultural reasons), and, moreover, ALL used condoms at the direction of those performing the studies (whereas circumcised men are less likely to use condoms given that they reduce sensitivity further). HIV transfers from other sources (contaminated needles, &c.) weren't controlled for adequately. Etc.

Some peer-reviewed studies even contradict CDC's claims:
South African Medical Journal, October 2008, Vol. 98, No. 10 wrote:

Male circumcision and its relationship to HIV infection in South Africa: Results of a national survey in 2002

Catherine Connolly, Leickness C Simbayi, Rebecca Shanmugam, Ayanda Nqeketo

Objective. To investigate the nature of male circumcision and its relationship to HIV infection. Methods. Analysis of a sub-sample of 3 025 men aged 15 years and older who participated in the first national population-based survey on HIV/AIDS in 2002. Chi-square tests and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to identify factors associated with circumcision and HIV status, followed by a logistic regression model.

Results. One-third of the men (35.3%) were circumcised. The factors strongly associated with circumcision were age >50, black living in rural areas and speaking SePedi (71.2%) or IsiXhosa (64.3%). The median age was significantly older for blacks (18 years) compared with other racial groups (3.5 years), p <0.001. Among blacks, circumcisions were mainly conducted outside hospital settings. In 40.5% of subjects, circumcision took place after sexual debut; two-thirds of the men circumcised after their 17th birthday were already sexually active. HIV and circumcision were not associated (12.3% HIV positive in the circumcised group v. 12% HIV positive in the uncircumcised group). HIV was, however, significantly lower in men circumcised before 12 years of age (6.8%) than in those circumcised after 12 years of age (13.5%, p=0.02). When restricted to sexually active men, the difference that remained did not reach statistical significance (8.9% v. 13.6%, p=0.08.). There was no effect when adjusted for possible confounding.

Conclusion. Circumcision had no protective effect in the prevention of HIV transmission. This is a concern, and has implications for the possible adoption of the mass male circumcision strategy both as a public health policy and an HIV prevention strategy.


The Lancet, Volume 374, Issue 9685, Pages 229 - 237, 18 July 2009 wrote:

Circumcision in HIV-infected men and its effect on HIV transmission to female partners in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised controlled trial

Dr, Prof Maria J Wawer MD, Frederick Makumbi PhD, Godfrey Kigozi MBChB, David Serwadda MMed, Stephen Watya MMed, Fred Nalugoda MHS, Dennis Buwembo MBChB, Victor Ssempijja ScM, Noah Kiwanuka MBChB, Prof Lawrence H Moulton PhD, Nelson K Sewankambo MMed, Steven J Reynolds MD, Thomas C Quinn MD, Pius Opendi MBChB, Boaz Iga MSc, Renee Ridzon MD, Oliver Laeyendecker MBA, Prof Ronald H Gray MD

Summary
Background
Observational studies have reported an association between male circumcision and reduced risk of HIV infection in female partners. We assessed whether circumcision in HIV-infected men would reduce transmission of the virus to female sexual partners.

Methods
922 uncircumcised, HIV-infected, asymptomatic men aged 15-49 years with CD4-cell counts 350 cells per ?L or more were enrolled in this unblinded, randomised controlled trial in Rakai District, Uganda. Men were randomly assigned by computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive immediate circumcision (intervention; n=474) or circumcision delayed for 24 months (control; n=448). HIV-uninfected female partners of the randomised men were concurrently enrolled (intervention, n=93; control, n=70) and followed up at 6, 12, and 24 months, to assess HIV acquisition by male treatment assignment (primary outcome). A modified intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, which included all concurrently enrolled couples in which the female partner had at least one follow-up visit over 24 months, assessed female HIV acquisition by use of survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards modelling. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00124878.

Findings
The trial was stopped early because of futility. [That is, it failed to find any protection. It might have shown increased risk, but they weren't interested in that.] 92 couples in the intervention group and 67 couples in the control group were included in the modified ITT analysis. 17 (18%) women in the intervention group and eight (12%) women in the control group acquired HIV during follow-up (p=0·36). Cumulative probabilities of female HIV infection at 24 months were 21·7% (95% CI 12·7-33·4) in the intervention group and 13·4% (6·7-25·8) in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio 1·49, 95% CI 0·62-3·57; p=0·368).

Interpretation
Circumcision of HIV-infected men did not reduce HIV transmission to female partners over 24 months; longer-term effects could not be assessed. Condom use after male circumcision is essential for HIV prevention.

Funding
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation with additional laboratory and training support from the National Institutes of Health and the Fogarty International Center.
Offline dajstill  
#17 Posted : Wednesday, May 23, 2012 8:02:27 AM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
Why would circumcision be out of step with YHWH's character?

You are over thinking this a lot and it really may be due to some sort of trauma you have had in your own life. I get that, the same way many women feel that their monthly cycle is somehow a curse. I am a big fan of questioning our beliefs - that is probably what led 99% of the folks here. However, once you have seen evidence that the Scriptures probably weren't corrupt - it becomes a time for seeing if maybe we are the problem.

Again, I am not a man, but having been through the birthing process twice (producing three children) - one of those times being a cesarean - I get that to you circumcision seems like a scary thing for people to go through. Believe me, I totally understand thinking why does something good have to hurt so bad. Similar to the pain of circumcision - women experience a severe pain when the lose their virginity - because there is a thin layer of skin across the vagina known as the hymen. Upon first encounter - it tears and/rips. It is often times a very painful and a very bloody experience for the woman. No pain pills administered, no thin knife of a surgeon. However, this painful and bloody experience was often used as a sign of a true marriage contract - showing that the woman was indeed "undefiled". It doesn't mean that YHWH's hates women or that we should move past women having sex since that is a very painful, bloody, traumatic experience for women to go through. That process happens for women whether or not they are having their first encounter within the parameters of the covenant - just like there are some circumcised men who aren't a part of it. Lots of women have questioned exactly why YHWH would put the hymen there, knowing how painful that first encounter would be - so I get the fear and I get the questioning of His logic.

This isn't trying to be a competition over who endures the most pain, simply a point that what our views of as "good" or "right" with the flesh or what "should" have been the process don't always line up with what it is. I am not saying get over it as much as I am saying you seem to be questioning the plans and designs of YHWH as opposed to trying to understand them. Maybe if you looked at it more from "what is YHWH trying to get me to understand" you may start to have a different take of His idea of covenant, circumcision, and relationship.
Offline RebelLibertarian  
#18 Posted : Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:02:04 PM(UTC)
RebelLibertarian
Joined: 11/22/2011(UTC)
Posts: 24
Location: Alabamy

dajstill wrote:
However, once you have seen evidence that the Scriptures probably weren't corrupt - it becomes a time for seeing if maybe we are the problem.
OK, maybe I am.
As for whether or not there is a complete absence of textual corruption, I will start a separate thread on the documentary hypothesis.

dajstill wrote:
Again, I am not a man, but having been through the birthing process twice (producing three children) - one of those times being a cesarean - I get that to you circumcision seems like a scary thing for people to go through. Believe me, I totally understand thinking why does something good have to hurt so bad. Similar to the pain of circumcision - women experience a severe pain when the lose their virginity - because there is a thin layer of skin across the vagina known as the hymen. Upon first encounter - it tears and/rips. It is often times a very painful and a very bloody experience for the woman. No pain pills administered, no thin knife of a surgeon. However, this painful and bloody experience was often used as a sign of a true marriage contract - showing that the woman was indeed "undefiled". It doesn't mean that YHWH's hates women or that we should move past women having sex since that is a very painful, bloody, traumatic experience for women to go through. That process happens for women whether or not they are having their first encounter within the parameters of the covenant - just like there are some circumcised men who aren't a part of it. Lots of women have questioned exactly why YHWH would put the hymen there, knowing how painful that first encounter would be - so I get the fear and I get the questioning of His logic.


Of all of my objections to circumcsion, the most important is that it makes sex less pleasurable for men and women. (If it is indeed out of character for Yah, then one might expect it to be harmful in other ways, so that is why I included other evidences.) I think that the male analogue of the punishment of pain in childbirth is disproportionate labor as per Genesis, though I appreciate that the pain of childbirth could mean that an analogue for men could be painful and yet God-given.

Determining the male analogue of the hymen in Torah might be fruitful. For what it's worth, in an intact man, a modicum of force is also required to retract the foreskin for the first time (no doubt much less painful than a hymen breaking) - this would be equivalent evidence of the man's virginity, though such isn't valued in Scripture as much as that of females, right? Also, the foreskin can be retracted and the hymen broken through masturbation, and the latter also through athletic activities, so neither is a 100%-reliable proof of virginity. (This might be irrelevant, however, as perhaps the symbolism of an intact hymen is more important, or, for that matter, unseparated foreskin.)

d wrote:
This isn't trying to be a competition over who endures the most pain, simply a point that what our views of as "good" or "right" with the flesh or what "should" have been the process don't always line up with what it is. I am not saying get over it as much as I am saying you seem to be questioning the plans and designs of YHWH as opposed to trying to understand them. Maybe if you looked at it more from "what is YHWH trying to get me to understand" you may start to have a different take of His idea of covenant, circumcision, and relationship.


Given that circumcision diminishes male and female enjoyment of sex, if YHWH did inspire it, then I can only assume He wants us to learn precisely what Maimonides advocated it for:
Maimonides wrote:
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.

...

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 [because it's more pleasurable, I presume]." In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.
Vis-a-viz, that sex shouldn't be "overly" pleasurable. I'd like to think I've missed more obvious symbolism.
Offline dajstill  
#19 Posted : Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:12:29 PM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
Hmm - diminishing the enjoyment of sex?

Thankfully no one informed me or my husband about that - LOL! Sorry, I am going to leave this thread now, but really - we like it quite well.
Offline RebelLibertarian  
#20 Posted : Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:16:34 PM(UTC)
RebelLibertarian
Joined: 11/22/2011(UTC)
Posts: 24
Location: Alabamy

dajstill wrote:
Hmm - diminishing the enjoyment of sex?

Thankfully no one informed me or my husband about that - LOL! Sorry, I am going to leave this thread now, but really - we like it quite well.


Glad to hear it, and understood. However, I collected plenty of theoretical and empirical evidence to that effect and will provide more in response to specific questions, if others are curious.
Offline MadDog  
#21 Posted : Wednesday, May 23, 2012 1:36:20 PM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 588
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Was thanked: 19 time(s) in 13 post(s)
RebelLibertarian wrote:
MadDog, I understand it's theorized that YHWH created us for friendship & companionship.


It's not just a theory.

The entire creation story backs up that Yahweh went out of his way to create a unique being not unlike himself.

A unique being with free will.

RebelLibertarian wrote:
"WHY" asks why circumcision is necessary to establish a covenant.


You are looking for some epiphany here about circumcision?

There are guidelines like "Thou shalt not kill, steal, etc." that are pretty self-evident.

There are others that are less clear but still valid such as the shabbat, circumcision, observing his feasts.

Like someone else on this forum said, "because Yahweh said so."

There is nothing that states that Yahweh had to have established any covenant whatsoever.

Yahweh could have just let us wipe each other off the face of the planet.

Many times he came pretty close to doing that.

RebelLibertarian wrote:
More importantly, the Documentary Hypothesis has never been addressed in YY or this forum. To confirm this, enter the following into Google: site:yadayahweh.com Documentary Hypothesis

You'll find 3 pages, one of which only mentions it in a quote from Wikipedia (the other two are entirely irrelevant). It's not been discussed.


So?!?

Have you ever considered that the reason it hasn't been discussed is because it's a moot point for the lot of us on this forum?

Whatever botched up surgery and/or corrupted form it has taken like the moooooslime female mutilations does not negate Yahweh's Torah.

RebelLibertarian wrote:
Given that circumcision diminishes male and female enjoyment of sex, if YHWH did inspire it, then I can only assume He wants us to learn precisely what Maimonides advocated it for: Vis-a-viz, that sex shouldn't be "overly" pleasurable. I'd like to think I've missed more obvious symbolism.


Who cares what Maimonides said?

Have you even read YY, QP, and the other books listed here?

Maimonides is along the same lines as Paul and Mohammed.

They were all anti-Torah.

You can shuck whatever Maimonides, Paul, and Mohammed said out the window.
Offline RebelLibertarian  
#22 Posted : Wednesday, May 23, 2012 2:32:49 PM(UTC)
RebelLibertarian
Joined: 11/22/2011(UTC)
Posts: 24
Location: Alabamy

Like someone else on this forum said, "because Yahweh said so."
MD wrote:

There is nothing that states that Yahweh had to have established any covenant whatsoever.


True. That's utterly irrelevant to my thesis, that it merely remains to be proved that adults have a right to circumcise their children without the express approval of the latter.

MD wrote:
Yahweh could have just let us wipe each other off the face of the planet.


Well, He wasn't always content to stop there, He even wiped people off the face of [part of] the planet Himself. My problem isn't YHWH's non-intervention. This doesn't apply to me, anyways; I'm a libertarian, not a warmonger.


MD wrote:

Have you ever considered that the reason it hasn't been discussed is because it's a moot point for the lot of us on this forum?


Fair enough (remember it's not mentioned once in YY, either). Unless you're well versed in an argument, how can you tell it to be false? You can't, ergo your faith isn't based on knowledge to the degree you'd like to claim (even if the Documentary Hypothesis is utterly false!)

MD wrote:

Whatever botched up surgery and/or corrupted form it has taken like the moooooslime female mutilations does not negate Yahweh's Torah.


I never said that Muslim practices themselves negate it; I'm arguing that unpleasant consequences should imply that it's out of character for Yah. Maybe my argument is false. If so, please show me that it is. Believe it or not, I don't derive joy from holding this highly-unpopular (among Torah-keepers, Jews, and American gentiles) view.

MD wrote:

Who cares what Maimonides said?

Have you even read YY, QP, and the other books listed here?


I've read SOME of YY and QP (and ItG on Scribd), as per the OP. Regardless of whether or not the Torah is 100% true, I am convinced that Paul must have been a liar. Mohammed is obviously even more sinister. I've read plenty of Yada's condemnations of the Rabbis & Pharisees; if you're afraid I'm conflating your beliefs with those of Talmudic Judaism, rest assured I apprehend their differences and similarities and could accurately summarize Yada's stated beliefs.
MD wrote:
Maimonides is along the same lines as Paul and Mohammed.

They were all anti-Torah.


To non-trivially-different degrees... I'll elaborate on this in a different post as it's quite off-topic from the harm caused by circumcision.

MD wrote:

You can shuck whatever Maimonides, Paul, and Mohammed said out the window.


Right. My whole point in discussing Maimonides' support of circumcision was to demonstrate that a known liar endorses the practice for the express purpose of reducing the pleasure of sex. Now, IF the Jews corrupted this part of the Torah {I'm not saying I can prove this}, we would expect them to have a record of WHY it was done (albeit one not commonly shared with their own people, let alone the Gentiles).

There are two possible reasons for which Maimonides could have written in favor of circumcision if he really is bad and circumcision really is good. 1) He was anti-YHWH, but ignorant of the fact that YHWH really likes circumcision (least probable)
2) He was part of the "controlled opposition"-he acted to misdirect people against circumcision inasmuch as some would assume that, because Maimonides purveyed some falsehoods, all or most of his doctrines were equally false and damaging. (I'd like to again point out that I don't oppose circumcision based solely, or even mainly, on Talmudic support for it, but in theory some might fall for this argument.)

The former is somewhat probable, although it'd be a bit ironic. If the latter is the case, we have to ask if he did a very good job, given how little attention his justification has ever enjoyed: among peoples who often practice circumcision (eg Jews), it does nothing to discourage circumcision; among peoples who rarely practice circumcision (e.g. gentiles before the 1800s), it doesn't stir up outright animosity towards circumcision (most regarded the practice as a perfectly normal if outdated one in accordance with Christian theology. The RCC has an interesting fascination with the practice: New Year's Day is supposedly the day on which "Jesus" was circumcised, even though Yahowshua's Name isn't Jesus, He wasn't born on 12/25, &c.).


Anyways, MadDog, so far you have not addressed the crux of my argument: that it makes sex less pleasurable. Would you please do so?
Offline TorahAndYahweh  
#23 Posted : Wednesday, May 23, 2012 2:41:11 PM(UTC)
TorahAndYahweh
Joined: 1/7/2012(UTC)
Posts: 6

The Only harm of circumcision is it caused RacistLibertarian to spluge hatred of Jews and Yahweh's TORAH on this forum! One of the Many benefits are that it will teach RacistLibertarian to man-up. And remind him of Parental Authority! Your parents have authority over you--like it or not!!
RacistLibertarian wrote:
that it merely remains to be proved that adults have a right to circumcise their children without the express approval of the latter
RIGHT? YAHWEH says they have a right, theres your "right"! That's all you need to know!
Offline RebelLibertarian  
#24 Posted : Wednesday, May 23, 2012 2:48:18 PM(UTC)
RebelLibertarian
Joined: 11/22/2011(UTC)
Posts: 24
Location: Alabamy

TorahAndYahweh, I'm sorry you have such hatred of me. I at least hope it's for the right reasons - a genuine if misguided love of YHWH, and not bitterness at any mistreatment you might have suffered or shame in complicity therein.

Peace and love.
Offline MadDog  
#25 Posted : Wednesday, May 23, 2012 4:19:19 PM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 588
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Was thanked: 19 time(s) in 13 post(s)
RebelLibertarian wrote:
Anyways, MadDog, so far you have not addressed the crux of my argument: that it makes sex less pleasurable. Would you please do so?


You want me to do what again?!

YOU want ME to explain why circumcision makes sex less pleasurable?!

1) How old are you?

2) You have convinced yourself that what you've read is true. Circumcision DOES NOT make sex less pleasurable. Maybe for some of the more severe botched up procedures, but no, I've actually heard the opposite.

3) You need to consult a Urologist or your own personal physician if you are having medical issues, not me. Are you having problems?!

RebelLibertarian wrote:
Well, He wasn't always content to stop there, He even wiped people off the face of [part of] the planet Himself. My problem isn't YHWH's non-intervention. This doesn't apply to me, anyways; I'm a libertarian, not a warmonger.


Right. I'm 100% positive Yahweh could not care less what political affiliation you claim to be or not.

If you are living and breathing then you are involved whether you like it or not.

Even if you choose not to adhere to Yahweh's covenant.

RebelLibertarian wrote:
True. That's utterly irrelevant to my thesis, that it merely remains to be proved that adults have a right to circumcise their children without the express approval of the latter.


Parent's have every right to raise their children in manner that they approve. That's not even a serious argument that a parent has to ask the permission of an infant to do anything.

RebelLibertarian wrote:
I never said that Muslim practices themselves negate it; I'm arguing that unpleasant consequences should imply that it's out of character for Yah. Maybe my argument is false. If so, please show me that it is. Believe it or not, I don't derive joy from holding this highly-unpopular (among Torah-keepers, Jews, and American gentiles) view.


So YOU THINK that pain or destructive creation isn't part of Yahweh's character.

The whole story of creation says that there was great violence in it's creation.

And/or you seem to think that Yahweh is not capable of violent acts?!

Everything I've read in the T,P&P says otherwise.

RebelLibertarian wrote:
Right. My whole point in discussing Maimonides' support of circumcision was to demonstrate that a known liar endorses the practice for the express purpose of reducing the pleasure of sex.


I just don't care what Maimonides said or didn't say.

I only care what Yahweh said in his Torah, Prophets, and Psalms.

RebelLibertarian wrote:
Fair enough (remember it's not mentioned once in YY, either). Unless you're well versed in an argument, how can you tell it to be false? You can't, ergo your faith isn't based on knowledge to the degree you'd like to claim (even if the Documentary Hypothesis is utterly false!)


I see. So in order to know it's dangerous to jump off a 30 story building I need a degree in aerodynamics?!

I need a college degree to know that smashing my car into a brick wall at 100MPH can be a wee bit dangerous?!

Again, you need to observe the obvious and need not higher-learning to know certain things.

Common sense and logic go a long way.
Offline RebelLibertarian2  
#26 Posted : Saturday, May 26, 2012 7:46:40 AM(UTC)
RebelLibertarian2
Joined: 5/26/2012(UTC)
Posts: 32
Location: Alabamy

RebelLibertarian here, had to get a new account due to a forum bug.


MadDog wrote:
Circumcision DOES NOT make sex less pleasurable. Maybe for some of the more severe botched up procedures...


MadDog, I provided ample evidence in my second post that it does, and you haven't even acknowledged it (whereas James and Dajstill did, to their credit, although they claimed it was irrelevant because they're sure YHWH commanded it). . As per above, circumcision removes the unique structures (not found elsewhere on the penis), including the ridged band and Meissner's corpuscules, both of which are very sensitive structures whose sole functions are to provide pleasure. The foreskin also contains organs that sense estrogen (presumably in lubricant) that are as yet little understood. Overall, the foreskin in an adult male may be visualized by folding a 3x5 index card in half along the longer axis; it is very densely innervated, having over 20,000 nerve endings. Relatively unimportant but non-trivial is the fact that the glans head of the penis becomes desensitized when not protected from abrasive clothing, etc. (as it would be were the man intact); however, the glans head has a relatively low concentration of fine-touch receptors as compared to the foreskin, though it is still considerably more pleasurable when its mucosal surface (think the inside of your cheek) is maintained. It's thus inconceivable from a theoretical aspect that circumcision could do anything but reduce the pleasure of the male (it makes intercourse less pleasurable for the female in different ways, though of note an uncut female can still experience full orgasmic potential with some tricks).

Do you want empirical evidence of its harm from before-and-after studies on circumcision's effects upon male pleasure? I'll happily provide them.

MD wrote:

Right. I'm 100% positive Yahweh could not care less what political affiliation you claim to be or not.


{Technically, I'm anti-political by definition of anarcho-libertarianism.} I wasn't claiming that my opposition to the State justifies me in the eyes of YHWH, merely that I'm even less likely to get involved in wars than the average poster here (not trying to be critical, but some posters, perhaps not representative of the forum's leadership, think that the State of Israel can do no wrong and focus exclusively on Muslim misdeeds.)


MD wrote:

Parent's have every right to raise their children in manner that they approve. That's not even a serious argument that a parent has to ask the permission of an infant to do anything.


They can do anything? That's far outside the mainstream even of pro-circumcision thought. Do you believe in absolute human rights?


MD wrote:

So YOU THINK that pain or destructive creation isn't part of Yahweh's character.

The whole story of creation says that there was great violence in it's creation.

And/or you seem to think that Yahweh is not capable of violent acts?!

Everything I've read in the T,P&P says otherwise.


Fair enough. My understanding of YHWH is admittedly lacking (that's why I've asked this question). While I won't come to a decision viz-a-viz YHWH until I have more knowledge, any being who orders the violation of innocents is unworthy of worship. It's my hope and hypothesis that YHWH has commanded nothing of the kind.

MD wrote:

I see. So in order to know it's dangerous to jump off a 30 story building I need a degree in aerodynamics?!

I need a college degree to know that smashing my car into a brick wall at 100MPH can be a wee bit dangerous?!

Again, you need to observe the obvious and need not higher-learning to know certain things.

Common sense and logic go a long way.

You mean that you're 100% certain (!) that the version of the Torah we have is 100%-the-same as that written down by Moshe, even though the oldest manuscripts of the Torah are around 1000 years older than the original Torah should have been? Also, do you really know what the Documentary Hypothesis is? "My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge."
Offline Noach  
#27 Posted : Saturday, May 26, 2012 12:27:45 PM(UTC)
Noach
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 127

RL2,

The oldest extant manuscripts of the Torah are found in the DSS. What older manuscripts are you referring to?

No offense but, your excuses against circumcision are really lame. Even if all of your research is correct, maybe Yah isn't concerned about your sexual gratification, or latent childhood memories as much as He is concerned about cutting a contract with you and your children. I'm circumcised and have no complaints about sex or childhood memories. These are ridiculous excuses.

If you don't like Yah's instructions regarding the Covenant, don't bother participating.
Offline MadDog  
#28 Posted : Saturday, May 26, 2012 6:39:18 PM(UTC)
MadDog
Joined: 6/19/2009(UTC)
Posts: 588
Man
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Was thanked: 19 time(s) in 13 post(s)
RebelLibertarian2 wrote:
MadDog, I provided ample evidence in my second post that it does, and you haven't even acknowledged it (whereas James and Dajstill did, to their credit, although they claimed it was irrelevant because they're sure YHWH commanded it).


Your evidence isn't good enough for me. Why?

Because I've just recently had circumcision performed on me not more than six ago.

And after consulting with my doctor (Urologist) who answered all my questions, I was convinced that a male can live a good long, healthy life, including a sex life.

So again, your "ample" evidence isn't good enough AND it is irrelevant.

RebelLibertarian2 wrote:
Do you want empirical evidence of its harm from before-and-after studies on circumcision's effects upon male pleasure? I'll happily provide them.


You're the one who brought this subject up to begin with and now you're not satisfied with the answers you are hearing here on this forum.

You either accept my answer and stop trying to "convince" me you are right.

Or you accept the fact that you're trying to force YOUR ANSWER on me.

If you're convinced it's harmful, then that's on you. Then don't do it and don't let your children do it.

All I'm saying it's essential for Yahweh's covenant.

RebelLibertarian2 wrote:
{Technically, I'm anti-political by definition of anarcho-libertarianism.} I wasn't claiming that my opposition to the State justifies me in the eyes of YHWH, merely that I'm even less likely to get involved in wars than the average poster here (not trying to be critical, but some posters, perhaps not representative of the forum's leadership, think that the State of Israel can do no wrong and focus exclusively on Muslim misdeeds.)


Well, you are involved. Or very soon you will be whether you want to or not.

If you live on planet earth, you are involved.

And by reading this one quote above, it leads me to think that you are on the wrong side.

If you want to trumpet Israel misdeeds, which we do here on YY and on BlogTalkRadio, is one thing.

But to choose moooooslimes over Israel is a deal breaker or covenant breaker.

Yahweh did not ever make a covenant with Ishmael or islame.

You will not win if you side with the mooooooslimes.

RebelLibertarian2 wrote:
They can do anything? That's far outside the mainstream even of pro-circumcision thought. Do you believe in absolute human rights?


Sure I believe in absolute human rights.

I also believe it exists in La La Land over the rainbow right next to the pot of gold. Don't be naive, we will never, ever achieve a utopia with human hands.

Listen. You are stuck here along with the rest of us Mr. Rebel and we are very fortunate to live in a time and place where we can discuss things without too much political, military, or religious interference.


Enjoy it while it lasts.


RebelLibertarian2 wrote:
Fair enough. My understanding of YHWH is admittedly lacking (that's why I've asked this question). While I won't come to a decision viz-a-viz YHWH until I have more knowledge, any being who orders the violation of innocents is unworthy of worship. It's my hope and hypothesis that YHWH has commanded nothing of the kind.


Then you haven't read the Torah at all or failed to understand it. You haven't even read YY because it concludes Yahweh does not need or require worship.

Also you have some pre-conceived "christian" baggage coming here thinking Yahweh should behave the way YOU want. Why don't you just take him at his word?

And Yahweh is not just ANY being.

RebelLibertarian2 wrote:
You mean that you're 100% certain (!) that the version of the Torah we have is 100%-the-same as that written down by Moshe, even though the oldest manuscripts of the Torah are around 1000 years older than the original Torah should have been? Also, do you really know what the Documentary Hypothesis is? "My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge."


I'm 100% sure that Yahweh's Torah has been grossly mistranslated throughout history.

I'm 100% sure that Yahweh's Torah has been taken out of context like you just did in the quote above.

I'm 100% sure that Yahweh himself said that his words would be corrupted by man.

The "lack of knowledge" Yahweh was referring to is absolutely 100% NOT the Documentary Hypothesis you are referring to.

The "lack of knowledge" Yahweh was referring to is absolutely 100% the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. Please do not twist Yahweh's words to fit your agenda, not on this forum.

Listen, let me make myself 100% perfectly clear about your Documentary Hypothesis: I DON'T CARE ABOUT IT!

I am 100% sure I only care about what Yahweh said in his Torah, Prophets, and Psalms.

You're the one who brought up the Documentary Hypothesis in the first place and now you're touting it and trying to make it seem as if it should matter to the rest US.

You're the only one tooting it's credibility. At one point you point out it's merits and then at another disavow it altogether.

If you want to discuss the Documentary Hypothesis fine, but don't make it sound as if we on this forum are somehow wrong for dismissing it as irrelevant.

Remember you're the one who brought it up in the first place, not us.
Offline lassie1865  
#29 Posted : Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:21:47 AM(UTC)
lassie1865
Joined: 2/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 309
Woman
Location: Colorado

Has anyone heard of this:

"What most people don’t know is that there is no such thing as “circumcision” according to Scripture. The word “circumcision” in English means to “cut around” the head of the penis. This is the common interpretation of Scripture. It is the common practice of hospitals. However, if you go to different places around the world, you will see that this is not the only way to cut the foreskin of one’s flesh. The word in Scripture for “circumcision” is “mool” or “milah” which means to “cut back” the foreskin of the flesh. It doesn’t mean to “cut around” the head of the penis. Modern-day cutting around the head of the penis is a process which is complicated and often ends in drastic results. Because of the 20-40 minute process, there is an extreme amount of pain which one would need to be “put under” drugs for. We will not go into the details for modern-day cutting around the head of the penis, but it should be noted that many times the skin is cut well below the head of the penis and results in a lot of discomfort and pain to the man long after the operation. Many penises have been deformed, bent, or lots of other tragedies as a result of the common modern-day cutting around the head of the penis for both children and adults. Scripturally speaking, “circumcision” or “mool” or “milah” should have been translated simply as “to cut back” the foreskin of the penis.

For details on this process, do a search on Google for Troy Miller’s circumcision websites dealing with “milah” vs. “periah.” One warning, Troy’s websites on this subject show you how to perform a “milah” circumcision (simply cutting the foreskin and not around the head of the penis), but we do not advise that you do this yourself. It must be given a lot of thought, a seriously sharp knife (such as a barber’s straight-razor), and it must be done in one stroke that is precise and hard and fast, and should never be done alone. Your instrument should be able to cut through cow hide or thick chicken skin with ease. If you would like to talk to us about this process and experience, please contact us. The point is, Scriptural “circumcision” is a short, quick, single cutting of the foreskin that hangs over the head of the penis. That is why it is called “foreskin,” not the entire skin that covers the head of the penis! But let us get back to the promise to Awbrahawm and the Scriptural sign of that oath through cutting the foreskin."


http://www.truthseekers.co.za/content/view/268/53/
Offline Richard  
#30 Posted : Thursday, June 14, 2012 10:08:03 AM(UTC)
Richard
Joined: 1/19/2010(UTC)
Posts: 695
Man
United States

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Well, I searched Google and DuckDuckGo for "Troy Miller milah" and found nothing more than some obscure references to lunar Shabbat observances. So I guess what I need to do is look at the word "circumcision" in Hebrew and see what Yah actually says. Then it won't matter what Mr. Miller or any other person opines about the matter, because I will know for myself.

Thanks for providing me with an opportunity to verify something else. That's the only way we truly come to know and understand our Father's communications to us.

Richard
Offline James  
#31 Posted : Friday, June 15, 2012 3:35:59 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
lassie, I don't know anything about Troy Miller, and I don't know where he is getting his information. The Hebrew word milah, which is a derivative of mul, means literally to remove the foreskin, or cut off, not cut back.

Think also of the symbolic uses where we are told to circumcise our hearts. For example in Jeremiah 4:4 the men of Yahuwsah are told to circumcise themselves to Yahowah, to sur cut off and remove the foreskin of their hearts. So this confirms that circumcision is the cutting off and removal of foreskin, not the cutting back of it.

Also I don't know what hospitals he has been to where it is a 20-40 minute process. When my nephew was circumcised a few months back it was maybe a 5 minute process that was done right in front of us with only an alcohol swab before and a single shot, a coagulant, given after it was done. He cried a bit, more from being taken away from his mother, and stopped almost immediately after being returned to her.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline needhelp  
#32 Posted : Friday, June 15, 2012 4:06:18 AM(UTC)
needhelp
Joined: 5/19/2011(UTC)
Posts: 197
Location: US

What about this?


http://www.covenantcircu...nfo/milah_vs_Periah.html
Milah or Periah?

Milah = only the foreskin is snipped. (Circa the time of Abraham until 140 A.D.)

Periah = the entire fold of skin covering the head of the penis (the prepuce) is
amputated. (Circa 140 A.D. until today)


Offline pilgrimhere  
#33 Posted : Friday, June 15, 2012 4:36:23 AM(UTC)
pilgrimhere
Joined: 1/11/2012(UTC)
Posts: 154
Man
Location: TX

Was thanked: 8 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Sorry, I cannot contribute to the word study, but I will mention a very obvious reference from Shemu’el Aleph (I Samuel) when Dowd handed over the foreskins of 200 Philistines to Saul for his daughter. They were clearly removed from the men prior to delivery. And Dowd would certainly have utilized the standard (albeit postmortem) method of circumcision common to Yisra’el. And don’t forget how Moshe’s wife presented him with their son’s.

Someone is attempting to obscure a very simple matter.
Offline dajstill  
#34 Posted : Saturday, June 16, 2012 6:26:54 AM(UTC)
dajstill
Joined: 11/23/2011(UTC)
Posts: 748
Location: Alabama

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
pilgrimhere wrote:


Someone is attempting to obscure a very simple matter.


As much as I honestly try to sympathize with uncircumcised men who are waffling with this decision, I can't help but remember the joke that said if men had to have babies - humans would have died out long ago do to lack of population growth.

I get studying to making sure you are in line with Yah's word - but it seems folks are trying to find a way "out" rather than making sure they do the right thing to be "in" so to speak.

Honestly good grief! Have you men ever seen child birth? Yes, "some" women get an epidural - but that wears off at some point and they bring you a big diaper with a ice pack shoved in it as the only way to dull the pain. I am sorry that the parents of some men didn't do the right thing and circumcise their children when they were just days old. But come of fellas - suck it up!!! Pain pills rock these days and even YOU can get an epidural (you will see the limits of an epidural in that it doesn't take away all the pain, but it does make the pain less severe). At least you won't have to nurse twins that eat every two hours while you are trying to heal - and because you nurse you can't take the "good" pain pills. I even gave you a good option - an ice pack diaper will dull the pain if the good pain pills don't kick in soon enough.

Again, I get how sensitive that area is, but have you SEEN child birth? Do you see how big a baby's head is? Have you seen an episiotomy? They sew you up with a needle and thread fellas!!!! So really - suck it up!

Offline FredSnell  
#35 Posted : Sunday, June 17, 2012 5:03:08 PM(UTC)
FredSnell
Joined: 1/29/2011(UTC)
Posts: 874
Location: Houston, Texas

Thanks: 14 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
dajstill wrote:
As much as I honestly try to sympathize with uncircumcised men who are waffling with this decision, I can't help but remember the joke that said if men had to have babies - humans would have died out long ago do to lack of population growth.

I get studying to making sure you are in line with Yah's word - but it seems folks are trying to find a way "out" rather than making sure they do the right thing to be "in" so to speak.

Honestly good grief! Have you men ever seen child birth? Yes, "some" women get an epidural - but that wears off at some point and they bring you a big diaper with a ice pack shoved in it as the only way to dull the pain. I am sorry that the parents of some men didn't do the right thing and circumcise their children when they were just days old. But come of fellas - suck it up!!! Pain pills rock these days and even YOU can get an epidural (you will see the limits of an epidural in that it doesn't take away all the pain, but it does make the pain less severe). At least you won't have to nurse twins that eat every two hours while you are trying to heal - and because you nurse you can't take the "good" pain pills. I even gave you a good option - an ice pack diaper will dull the pain if the good pain pills don't kick in soon enough.

Again, I get how sensitive that area is, but have you SEEN child birth? Do you see how big a baby's head is? Have you seen an episiotomy? They sew you up with a needle and thread fellas!!!! So really - suck it up!



LOL..you should be a writer daj, that's hilarious. I can almost feel you kicking us guys into action. I do remember my 1st sons birth in '83', the last yowbel yr. We arrived late and my wife was not allowed any pain relief, and never took one day of, "here's how you breath" lessons for having a child. When we were in the labor room awaiting delivery she would smile at me and say, "see that woman screaming, that won't be me." Well, she soon ate those words. I never expected to see the delivery, it was all by chance as they tried to teach my wife the proper breathing meathod while she was screaming every word in the bathroom humor book there is. The dr. came out of the room and grabbed me hollering at me like I had something to do with her not hearing him and taking in the instant lesson. I just asked if I might go in and give it a try? Soon as I entered the delivery room I noticed her face red as a tomato and knowing my wife has never been one of those ppl that know how to move their breath from their mouth to the diaphram I just hollered as loud as I could. "g--dammit Mary, listen to me, push the air into your stomach and push instead of holding it." She quickly got it and out popped, Joshua. So I was there when I didn't intend to be there, but the pain I witnessed that night is forever lodged in my memory. Tim and Kat, our next two, had plenty of time. My wife remembers it feeling like trying to squeeze a watermelon through a opening the size of a lemon and having a garden rake ran down her back over and over.
Offline Anne  
#36 Posted : Monday, June 18, 2012 5:04:56 AM(UTC)
Anne
Joined: 5/16/2011(UTC)
Posts: 14
Location: New England

Thanks: 3 times
LOL, dajstill! I'm so glad I circumcised my boys when they were born...it wasn't encouraged, but somehow I felt it was the right thing to do. Now if only I could un-do the damage I had done by having raised them catholic.
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.