Support NeoGAF

[Luffytubby]

So this just happened:

The World Health Organization (WHO) has listed vaccine hesitancy—the delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite their availability—as one of its top 10 health threats facing the world in 2019.
The phenomenon has taken hold in a number of countries around the world in recent times, and notably in the U.S. as well. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that while coverage of most recommended vaccines remained relatively stable and high in 2017 for American children aged 19 to 35 months, the percentage who have received no vaccinations has quadrupled since 2001.

According to a recent study published in the journal PLOS ONE, increasing numbers of people in many U.S. states now hold anti-vaccination views.
“Since 2009, the number of 'philosophical-belief' vaccine non-medical exemptions has risen in 12 of the 18 states that currently allow this policy: Arkansas, Arizona, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Utah,” the PLOS ONE study authors wrote in their paper.

To understand the colossal damage anti-vaxxers are doing, you can look at how a relatively low drop in the herd immunity % undermines safety for even vaccinated people:

 

[badblue]

Hey badblue , so you’re not misguided by the misinterpretation of my post the few thousand I was referring to was this.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056803.htm

At the beginning of the 20th century, infectious diseases were widely prevalent in the United States and exacted an enormous toll on the population. For example, in 1900, 21,064 smallpox cases were reported, and 894 patients died (1). In 1920, 469,924 measles cases were reported, and 7575 patients died; 147,991 diphtheria cases were reported, and 13,170 patients died. In 1922, 107,473 pertussis cases were reported, and 5099 patients died

Dramatic declines in morbidity have been reported for the nine vaccine-preventable diseases for which vaccination was universally recommended for use in children before 1990 (excluding hepatitis B, rotavirus, and varicella) (Table_2). Morbidity associated with smallpox and polio caused by wild-type viruses has declined 100% and nearly 100% for each of the other seven diseases.

Smallpox. Smallpox is the only disease that has been eradicated. During 1900-1904, an average of 48,164 cases and 1528 deaths caused by both the severe (variola major) and milder (variola minor) forms of smallpox were reported each year in the United States (1). The pattern in the decline of smallpox was sporadic. Outbreaks of variola major occurred periodically in the first quarter of the 1900s and then ceased abruptly in 1929. Outbreaks of variola minor declined in the 1940s, and the last case in the United States was reported in 1949. The eradication of smallpox in 1977 enabled the discontinuation of prevention and treatment efforts, including routine vaccination. As a result, in 1985 the United States recouped its investment in worldwide eradication every 26 days (1).

Polio. Polio vaccine was licensed in the United States in 1955. During 1951-1954, an average of 16,316 paralytic polio cases and 1879 deaths from polio were reported each year (9,10). Polio incidence declined sharply following the introduction of vaccine to less than 1000 cases in 1962 and remained below 100 cases after that year. In 1994, every dollar spent to administer oral poliovirus vaccine saved $3.40 in direct medical costs and $2.74 in indirect societal costs (14). The last documented indigenous transmission of wild poliovirus in the United States occurred in 1979. Since then, reported cases have been either vaccine-associated or imported. As of 1991, polio caused by wild-type viruses has been eliminated from the Western Hemisphere (16). Enhanced use of the inactivated polio vaccine is expected to reduce the number of vaccine-associated cases, which averaged eight cases per year during 1980-1994 (17).

Measles. Measles vaccine was licensed in the United States in 1963. During 1958-1962, an average of 503,282 measles cases and 432 measles-associated deaths were reported each year (9-11). Measles incidence and deaths began to decline in 1965 and continued a 33-year downward trend. This trend was interrupted by epidemics in 1970-1972, 1976-1978, and 1989-1991. In 1998, measles reached a provisional record low number of 89 cases with no measles-associated deaths (13). All cases in 1998 were either documented to be associated with international importations (69 cases) or believed to be associated with international importations (CDC, unpublished data, 1998). In 1994, every dollar spent to purchase measles-containing vaccine saved $10.30 in direct medical costs and $3.20 in indirect societal costs (7).

Hib. The first Hib vaccines were polysaccharide products licensed in 1985 for use in children aged 18-24 months. Polysaccharide-protein conjugate vaccines were licensed subsequently for use in children aged 18 months (in 1987) and later for use in children aged 2 months (in 1990). Before the first vaccine was licensed, an estimated 20,000 cases of Hib invasive disease occurred each year, and Hib was the leading cause of childhood bacterial meningitis and postnatal mental retardation (8,18). The incidence of disease declined slowly after licensure of the polysaccharide vaccine; the decline accelerated after the 1987 introduction of polysaccharide-protein conjugate vaccines for toddlers and the 1990 recommendation to vaccinate infants. In 1998, 125 cases of Hib disease and Haemophilis influenzae invasive disease of unknown serotype among children aged less than 5 years were provisionally reported: 54 were Hib and 71 were of unknown serotype (CDC, unpublished data, 1998). In less than a decade, the use of the Hib conjugate vaccines nearly eliminated Hib invasive disease among children.

You own link is showing that vaccines work and does not say much about the risk that vaccinations have...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4599698/

A study published in 2013 using electronic health record databases reviewed health information on over 13 million vaccinated persons and compared causes of death in the vaccinated study population to the general US population. The death rate 1 or 2 months following vaccination was lower than that in the general US population, and the causes of death were similar [28]. This study provides convincing evidence that vaccinations are not associated with an increased risk of death at the population level.

Emphasis mine.

Vaccines are rigorously tested and monitored and are among the safest medical products in use. Millions of vaccinations are administered to children and adults in the United States each year. Serious adverse reactions are uncommon and deaths caused by vaccines are very rare.

Data is showing that risks from not vaccinating are higher then vaccinating.

 

[Afro Republican]

Toi be fair vaccinations are child abuse if the vaccination contains a version of the virus that you're intending to prevent, or if the side effects involve death in any way.

So basically only .08% of vaccines are not child abuse.

 

[Redneckerz]

Hey badblue , so you’re not misguided by the misinterpretation of my post the few thousand I was referring to was this.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056803.htm

20 year old link and something totally different from your original claim.

You are literally just throwing pieces of paper to a wall and somehow hoping one piece of paper sticks, aren't you?

So this just happened:

https://www.newsweek.com/world-heal...bal-health-air-pollution-anti-vaxxers-1292493


To understand the colossal damage anti-vaxxers are doing, you can look at how a relatively low drop in the herd immunity % undermines safety for even vaccinated people:

Honestly, i hope Angular sees that but i have zero belief that he either understands that gif or accepts that as valid.

Toi be fair vaccinations are child abuse if the vaccination contains a version of the virus that you're intending to prevent,

That isn't child abuse. Significantly filtered dosages of the virus you want to prevent are used to create anti-bodies, thus providing a natural resistance.

or if the side effects involve death in any way.

That's also not child abuse since every child reacts differently. The overwhelming majority reacts similarly, but there are exceptions. In such cases, it is usually already known that the child or the parents are more susceptible to certain vaccines and should be given alternatives.

If a medic knows this history and still provides the wrong vaccine/or when the parents make this known but the medic continues anyway, only then is it child abuse and potential murder.

 

[Afro Republican]

20 year old link and something totally different from your original claim.

You are literally just throwing pieces of paper to a wall and somehow hoping one piece of paper sticks, aren't you?


Honestly, i hope Angular sees that but i have zero belief that he either understands that gif or accepts that as valid.


That isn't child abuse. Significantly filtered dosages of the virus you want to prevent are used to create anti-bodies, thus providing a natural resistance.


That's also not child abuse since every child reacts differently. The overwhelming majority reacts similarly, but there are exceptions. In such cases, it is usually already known that the child or the parents are more susceptible to certain vaccines and should be given alternatives.

If a medic knows this history and still provides the wrong vaccine/or when the parents make this known but the medic continues anyway, only then is it child abuse and potential murder.

It's all child abuse by legal definition since it's high risk. Children die from vaccine issues way more than Adults. Literally any parent can sue of a child gets a bad side-effect or dies from a Vaccine because of the Legal definition, even if it was highly recommended and it was one of the only solutions. This is also why prices are very bad in certain parts of the country.

 

[Redneckerz]

It's all child abuse by legal definition since it's high risk. Children die from vaccine issues way more than Adults. Literally any parent can sue of a child gets a bad side-effect or dies from a Vaccine because of the Legal definition, even if it was highly recommended and it was one of the only solutions. This is also why prices are very bad in certain parts of the country.

Okay.

 

[materdolorosa]

Why thank you. We’re witnessing the seeds of godlessness bloom and you’re worried about vaccines that don’t work half the time but if that’s what you feel then hey.

Circumcision is at best heathen

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Circumcision is at best heathen

How.

 

[materdolorosa]

How.

There is no reason for Christians to circumcise, usually it's for aesthetic reasons which is just... demonic.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

There is no reason for Christians to circumcise, usually it's for aesthetic reasons which is just... demonic.

Yeah I’m gonna pass on this one. Nice try tho.

 

[Luffytubby]

Yeah I’m gonna pass on this one. Nice try tho.

The overwhelming science finds that there is no benefit to it, and since every medical procedure has risks and side effects, many countries are moving towards banning it unless for medical reasons. It's a trend all over Europe. It's pretty well established and you can read up on it if you want to know why. Psychology Today has some articles that debunk many of the myths that have existed around the subject here and here.

A lot of falsehoods arose about the validity of circumcision in the 20th century as a way to justify a religious practice. You see governments fighting against it in many European countries because there is no just medical basis for it.

 

[badblue]

L Luffytubby

There is a whole thread a few pages back on circumcision and a lot of information was provided that argue against the practice. If none of that could convince AngularSaxophone to reevaluate his position on the topic, it's probably not worth continuing to beat your head against a wall trying.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

God vs. Science. Wonder who I’ll listen to if I’m supposed to be a believer. Circumcision not being OK isn’t the doctrine of God but the doctrine of someone else.

 

[Luffytubby]

God vs. Science. Wonder who I’ll listen to if I’m supposed to be a believer. Circumcision not being OK isn’t the doctrine of God but the doctrine of someone else.

It's not really a doctrine as nobody has a problem with circumcision for legit medical procedures (like narrow foreskin). People are talking about quack science, and superstition masquerading as religion, due to gullible people jumping on it.

 

[Reckheim]

WTF indeed but I’m dumb as shit. That’s the exact point of the thread.

I was wondering what the point of the thread was, thanks for clarifying. You are indeed dumb as shit.

 

[materdolorosa]

God vs. Science. Wonder who I’ll listen to if I’m supposed to be a believer. Circumcision not being OK isn’t the doctrine of God but the doctrine of someone else.

Christians do not need to follow Jewish law anymore the same way we are allowed to eat pork

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Christians do not need to follow Jewish law anymore the same way we are allowed to eat pork

Not true and pork wasn’t even considered food back then.

I was wondering what the point of the thread was, thanks for clarifying. You are indeed dumb as shit.

That’s your opinion.

It's not really a doctrine as nobody has a problem with circumcision for legit medical procedures (like narrow foreskin). People are talking about quack science, and superstition masquerading as religion, due to gullible people jumping on it.

It is a doctrine as it’s a belief opposite of what God has set in place for those who believe in Him. Like I said if God says we’re to circumcise and someone else comes along and says no I don’t have to, I’m gonna side with God instead of man. It’s pretty simple.

 

[materdolorosa]

Not true and pork wasn’t even considered food back then.

The Old Covenant was not the perfect word of God. Jesus is. Read Hebrews.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

I’ve read Hebrews. Christ came to prove the law could be fulfilled not to nullify it. If I were to go by the way you’re interpreting it, I could sin all I wanted to with no repercussions simply by believing. Believing in Christ is not only believing but trying to and eventually live as he did. Sin free. He always taught people to leave sin. Not to keep doing it. Scripture says when you were young you did childish things but when you grew into a man you left the childish things behind. Growing in Christ means leaving those things.

 

[materdolorosa]

I’ve read Hebrews. Christ came to prove the law could be fulfilled not to nullify it. If I were to go by the way you’re interpreting it, I could sin all I wanted to with no repercussions simply by believing. Believing in Christ is not only believing but trying to live as he did. Sin free. He always taught people to leave sin. Not to keep doing it.

Jesus doesn't nullify the law, He preaches many of them. Ancient tribal laws which are not relevant to faith, about fabrics and food, are nullified. He preaches against many of them as well. We should forgive our enemies rather than exert equal cruelty.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

Jesus doesn't nullify the law, He preaches many of them. Ancient tribal laws which are not relevant to faith, about fabrics and food, are nullified. He preaches against many of them as well. We should forgive our enemies rather than exert equal cruelty.

Ok let me ask you this question since you bring up Hebrews. Who is Christ? Is he God or is he the son of God?

 

[badblue]

God vs. Science. Wonder who I’ll listen to if I’m supposed to be a believer. Circumcision not being OK isn’t the doctrine of God but the doctrine of someone else.

It is a doctrine as it’s a belief opposite of what God has set in place for those who believe in Him. Like I said if God says we’re to circumcise and someone else comes along and says no I don’t have to, I’m gonna side with God instead of man. It’s pretty simple.

You do know that hiding behind the bible and religion in this way just opens you up to being criticized even more? When people start to bring up other things the the Doctrine of God has supported in the past, that we now view as atrocities you begin to appear as a hypocrite if you start to pick and choose which of those practices and teaching you follow.

There are passages in the bible that support circumcision, there are also passages that condemn it. What makes former passages more important then the latter?

I never get a chance to talk to people with your believe's in this fashion, so I am genuinely curious on how this works.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

You do know that hiding behind the bible and religion in this way just opens you up to being criticized even more?

You really think that matters to me? Honestly. Think about that one for a minute.

 

[Reckheim]

That’s your opinion.

based on what you are talking about in this thread. I'd say its factual.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

based on what you are talking about in this thread. I'd say its factual.

Ok.

 

[materdolorosa]

Ok let me ask you this question since you bring up Hebrews. Who is Christ? Is he God or is he the son of God?

He's the Son of God

You do know that hiding behind the bible and religion in this way just opens you up to being criticized even more? When people start to bring up other things the the Doctrine of God has supported in the past, that we now view as atrocities you begin to appear as a hypocrite if you start to pick and choose which of those practices and teaching you follow.

There are passages in the bible that support circumcision, there are also passages that condemn it. What makes former passages more important then the latter?

I never get a chance to talk to people with your believe's in this fashion, so I am genuinely curious on how this works.

The old passages are from Prophets, who were inspired by God, but subject to their own culture's biases, and mere men, etc., Jesus is the perfect and final expression of God's will. That's why it's "more important" and why Christians aren't circumcised. In the USA some are circumcised because either it supposedly looks better (women don't care) or it prevents masturbation (it doesn't), very contemptible reasons to mutilate a child's body

 

[Frank Spencer]

Spoiler

deleted.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

The old passages are from Prophets, who were inspired by God, but subject to their own culture's biases, and mere men, etc.

This isn’t true either. You may as well say the Bible wasn’t written by men at all. When it’s said that it was inspired by God, that means they were moved by the Holy Spirit to write. Meaning the spirit gave them what to write as testimony. The men were basically transcribers. A huge problem is that people think that it was just written by men therefore subject to fault, bias, etc but this isn’t correct at all. To say this would be to inadvertently call God a liar or say the spirit wasn’t correct. Doesn’t work that way. Things may have been messed with intentionally with some of the newer translations and books were also removed purposely to hide knowledge but this isn’t the same as what you’re referring to.

 

[materdolorosa]

This isn’t true either. You may as well say the Bible wasn’t written by men at all. When it’s said that it was inspired by God, that means they were moved by the Holy Spirit to write. Meaning the spirit gave them what to write as testimony. The men were basically transcribers. A huge problem is that people think that it was just written by men therefore subject to fault, bias, etc but this isn’t correct at all. To say this would be to inadvertently call God a liar or say the spirit wasn’t correct. Doesn’t work that way. Things may have been messed with intentionally with some of the newer translations and books were also removed purposely to hide knowledge but this isn’t the same as what you’re referring to.

God's word is perfect. The prophets wrote what was told to them and no more. Jesus is the only word of God. The old covenant was the word of prophets. God had a reason for the old covenant, He wasn't lying, but now we have a new one that is perfect and unadulterated.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

If you’re agreeing that the prophets wrote what they were told and no more, then at the same time say that it was wrong or adulterated, that makes no sense. As far as Christ being the word, the word was before the world was. The world was created through Christ which means he also was when the Old Testament was given to the prophets. God didn’t have to send Christ because the first set of rules were flawed, Christ was sent because we were flawed by the evil in the world.

 

[materdolorosa]

If you’re agreeing that the prophets wrote what they were told and no more, then at the same time say that it was wrong or adulterated, that makes no sense. As far as Christ being the word, the word was before the world was. The world was created through Christ which means he also was when the Old Testament was given to the prophets. God didn’t have to send Christ because the first set of rules were flawed, Christ was sent because we were flawed by the evil in the world.

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second."
What does this mean to you?

 

[badblue]

AngularSaxophone Thanks for acknowledging the rest of my post, where I express interest in why you feel the way you do on these subject matters. The question that you quoted was more rhetorical then anything so I did not expect you to respond to it.

Anyways, I think I'm done with this topic for now. It's been a joy, Later taters.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

https://www.ecclesia.org/truth/covenants.html

God is reported as "finding fault with them." (Hebrews 8:8). He said, "Because they continued not in my covenant ... I regarded them not." (Verse 9). The blame is placed squarely upon the human side of the mutual pact. Not God's side, not God's Law. Thus, we can see exactly why Paul wrote as he did about this Old Covenant in Hebrews 8. It did gender to bondage, it proved faulty, had poor promises, and vanished away - all because the people failed to obey their part of the agreement. Putting all these things together we can see why a new covenant was desperately needed, which would have better promises.

As I said, we were the fault. Not God.

 

[Luffytubby]

What is circumcision?
Circumcision cuts off the foreskin, the sexually sensitive sleeve of tissue that normally covers and protects the head of the penis.
Is circumcision today the same as circumcision in the Bible?
No. The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion traces the origin of per'iah (the baring of the glans) to the time of Hadrian (A.D.132-135):

​

Many Hellenistic Jews, particularly those who participated in athletics at the gymnasium, had an operation performed to conceal the fact of their circumcision (1 Maccabees 1.15). Similar action was taken during the Hadrianic persecution, in which period a prohibition against circumcision was issued. It was probably in order to prevent the possibility of obliterating the traces of circumcision that the rabbis added to the requirement of cutting the foreskin that of peri'ah (laying bare the glans).​

(The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, ed. R.J. Zwi Werblowsky and G. Wigoder. Oxford University Press, 1997, page 161.)​

The New Testament predates this development (see 1 Corinthians 7:18). Medical circumcisions developed from the later, more radical rite, so today's infant circumcisions are more severe than circumcisions in the Bible.
Is the foreskin a mistake of nature?
No. The Bible says that God pronounced creation 'very good' (Genesis 1:31) and that humans were made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). The Apostle Paul also said that God made every part of the body as he wanted it. (1 Corinthians 12:18).
How did circumcision start in the Bible?
According to Genesis, God told Abraham to circumcise himself, his household and his slaves as an everlasting covenant in their flesh. Those who were not circumcised were to be 'cut off' from their people (Genesis 17:10-14). Note the connection between circumcision and slavery. It is alluded to in the New Testament.
Who was to be circumcised?
Abraham, his descendants and those who were bought with their money (Genesis 17:12-13). Also, all the males of a household were to be circumcised if one of them wanted to join in the Passover celebrations (Exodus 12:43-49).
However, there is a puzzle. Laws commanding circumcision are said to come through Moses (e.g. Leviticus 12), but the Children of Israel abandoned circumcision during Moses' leadership (Joshua 5: 4-7). Exodus 4: 24-26 tells us that Moses had not circumcised his own son.
This suggests several scribal traditions. In the first, Moses did not practise circumcision, and the custom was abandoned under his leadership (Joshua 5: 4-7). In the second his wife is made to conform to the practice (Exodus 4: 24-26). Finally, in the third tradition, he is given the command to circumcise from the LORD himself.
Did circumcision apply to anyone else?
Circumcision applied to the slaves of Jews. Apart from that, circumcision never applied to people outside the Jewish faith. The first covenant was not with other nations. All other people were described as uncircumcised, even those who practised circumcision (Jeremiah 9:25-26). Circumcision never applied to Christians (Acts 15:5-11). The Apostle Peter, who was circumcised, said:

​

... we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.​

(Acts 15:11, New RSV)​

hould Christians follow the Law of Moses?
No. Christians were freed from the Law, including circumcision (Acts 15:1-20). It was described as an almost unbearable yoke on the neck (Acts 15: 10). The yoke, of course, was a sign of slavery and Christians were told not to become entangled with 'a yoke of bondage' (Galatians 5:1-2).
The Law as we read it contains things that appall us, such as forcing a rapist to marry his victim (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) or rejecting people born out of wedlock and their descendants (Deuteronomy 23:2). However, almost all of us read the Law in translation, which inevitably changes and distorts the text. Even fewer read it with a background of the checks, balances and insights of the Jewish oral and legal tradition. This has contributed to atrocities such as when Christians used Exodus 22:18 to justify the slaughter of 'witches' or other verses to justify slavery and the slave trade (e.g., Exodus 21:2-11, 20-21, Leviticus 25:44-46 and Deuteronomy 20:10-15).
What does this mean for Christians?
Christians must be wary. Many of these laws, including the food laws, were repudiated in the New Testament (Acts 10:1-33). Jesus himself criticized the scribes and their traditions. (e.g., Matthew 15: 1-9, also Isaiah 29 :13). Jeremiah's assessment of the Law must also be pondered.

​

How can you say, "We are wise,​

and the law of the LORD is with us,"​

when in fact, the false pen of the scribes​

has made it into a lie?​

(Jeremiah 8: 8, New RSV)​

Why are Bible stories about circumcision so vicious?
There has always been a nasty underside to circumcision. Whether it was Greek authorities killing Jews for circumcising their infant boys (1 Maccabees 1: 60-62), Jewish zealots forcibly circumcising uncircumcised Jewish boys (1 Maccabees 2: 46) or Muslim zealots forcibly circumcising Christian men, women and children in Ambon, Indonesia (Sydney Morning Herald January 27, 2001, page 25), there has always been a powerful undercurrent of violence and sexual abuse associated with circumcision.
The Bible tells us about circumcision as it is. Stories such as the circumcision and slaughter of the Shechemites (Genesis 34) or the 100 foreskin dowry (1 Samuel 18: 25-27) carry an implicit warning that was made explicit by the Apostle Paul when he said:

​

It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised...​

...they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh.​

(Galatians 6:11, 13, Revised Standard Version)​

Jesus was circumcised. Does this make it right?
Jesus was also wrapped in swaddling clothes and put in a manger (Luke 2: 7). This doesn't mean we have to wrap babies tightly in cloth and put them in animal feeding troughs or circumcise them. Jesus also had a crown of thorns forced onto his head and was crucified. (John 19). We don't do that to our children, either.
It is better to take to heart what Jesus taught about circumcision and circumcisers.
What did Jesus teach about circumcision and circumcisers?
Jesus spoke about circumcision in the Temple in Jerusalem (John 7:14).

​

Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.​

(John 7:22-24, King James Version)​

Or, from a modern version:

​

...why are you angry with me for making a man whole and complete on a sabbath? (Jerusalem Bible, John 7:23.)​

Jesus contrasted circumcision (cutting off foreskins) with his own healing, which made a man 'whole and complete.' Jesus' conclusion, not to judge by appearances, also hit the mark, for his critics rejected those who were not circumcised.
But didn't Jesus just mean that he made the man completely well?
That is what you will read in most modern English translations. However, the Greek expression for making a man completely well could also be translated as making him completely whole. This meaning, with its powerful contrast with circumcision, came over easily in the King James Version. The Jerusalem Bible got this meaning across with 'making a man whole and complete'. Moffatt did it slightly differently:

​

...are you enraged at me for curing, not cutting, the entire body of a man upon the sabbath?​

(from John 6:23, Moffatt's translation, 1935)​

A note in the Jerusalem and New Jerusalem Bibles claims that the Rabbis argued that circumcision 'heals' the penis so they were doing a little healing while Jesus was doing a big healing. The great Jewish sage, Moses Maimondes, rejected this line of argument:

​

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. (from Moses Maimonides, "The Guide of the Perplexed", Part III, ch. 49)​

Moses Maimondes would have seen and understood the contrast that Jesus made between circumcising a man and making a man completely whole.
What did the early church decide about circumcision?
Some were saying that Christians must follow the Law of Moses and be circumcised. Peter replied:

​

Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear?​

(Acts 15:10, New RSV)​

The early church followed Peter, and all were welcome, circumcised or not. The early churchrejected the ideas that Christians had to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses.
What did Paul teach about circumcision?
Genesis 17:14 says that an uncircumcised man shall be 'cut off from his people' but Paul taught that those who accept circumcision are obliged to keep the whole law, and those who want to be justified by the law have cut themselves off from Christ (Galatians 5: 2-4).
Paul confirmed that circumcision was nothing (Galatians 6:15) and Christ was all and in all(Colossians 3:11). Jeremiah had already taught that circumcision in other nations was uncircumcision (Jeremiah 9: 25-26).
Paul advised people to accept their lot in life and not seek circumcision or uncircumcision, or slavery or freedom (1 Corinthians 7:17-24).
Paul condemned people he described as false believers (Galatians 2:4). These people were pressuring Christians to become circumcised. Paul was so incensed by this that he said:

​

I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves!​

(Galatians 5: 12, New RSV)​

Paul taught that Jesus accepts people as they are and does not ask them to become circumcised or uncircumcised to become Christian (Galatians 5: 6). Paul said, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved...' (Acts 16: 31).
If Paul was against circumcision, why did he say that circumcision was of much advantage in every way?
That is how most translations read Romans 3: 1-2. However, it is not the only reading. Young's Literal Translation (1898) says:

​

What, then, is the superiority of the Jew? or what the profit of the circumcision? much in every way; for first, indeed, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God.​

At that time, the Jews were called 'the circumcision'. It could simply have been another way of referring to Jews. Paul's words explain themselves best in context. In the verse immediately before the one quoted above, Paul said that true circumcision was spiritual, not literal (Romans 2: 29). As for the profit or advantage of 'the circumcision', this came from the oracles of God that Jews were entrusted with.
Paul circumcised a man, but later he called circumcisers mutilators. Why?
Paul turned against circumcision. At first he gave in to pressure to circumcise Timothy (Acts 16: 1-4). (Timothy's mother was Jewish, so Timothy was Jewish by Jewish law.) However, Paul absolutely refused to circumcise Titus (Galatians 2:3) and opposed those false believers with fury. He wished they would castrate themselves, accusing them of wanting to make 'a good showing in the flesh' and 'glorying in the flesh' (Galatians 6: 12-15, RSV). In Philippians he warned believers to beware those who mutilate the flesh (Philippians 3: 2). Finally, in Titus he says that 'those of the circumcision' (from Crete) were 'upsetting' or 'ruining' whole families and were in it for the money (Titus 1: 10-12). What he had found out about circumcisers changed his mind.
Was circumcision ever a Christian tradition?
Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches never adopted circumcision. Circumcision was condemned in The Ecumenical Council of Florence on 4 February 1442. One exception was the Coptic Church in Egypt, and the Council condemned this practice amongst them. Routine infant circumcision never took off in Europe but circumcision enthusiasts promoted it in English-speaking countries from the late Victorian era. As a result, some Christians have been misled into believing that Christianity recommends circumcision. This is simply not true.
Does the Bible ever say that circumcision has health benefits?
No. The Bible never makes such a claim. Jewish authorities hesitate to circumcise a baby if two previous sons had died from circumcision. Even today, circumcisions lead to haemorrhages, infections and sometimes even death.
The Apostle Peter said that circumcision and the Jewish law were an unbearable burden. He was a married man and he lived before aseptic surgery, blood transfusions and antibiotics. Did he or someone close to him lose a child to circumcision? We don't know. What we know is that the first church council supported Peter, and not the circumcision enthusiasts. (Acts 15: 10)

From the sound of this, it seems that even at the time, they understood circumscision to not be needed. "God put every different part of the body, just as he wanted it to be.(Good News Bible, 1 Corinthians 12: 18) " - If man was made perfectly in gods image, then it doesnt made sense he made man with foreskin for them to chop off.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

No. Christians were freed from the Law, including circumcision (Acts 15:1-20). It was described as an almost unbearable yoke on the neck (Acts 15: 10). The yoke, of course, was a sign of slavery and Christians were told not to become entangled with 'a yoke of bondage' (Galatians 5:1-2).

Here we go again. This is misinterpretation. Christ gave examples of this all the time. It’s like the doing good on the sabbath thing. It even speaks of entanglement meaning not having yourself trip up over laws to satisfy them. I’ll just put it like this. Should be easy. Who is the lawless one?

AngularSaxophone Thanks for acknowledging the rest of my post, where I express interest in why you feel the way you do on these subject matters. The question that you quoted was more rhetorical then anything so I did not expect you to respond to it.

Anyways, I think I'm done with this topic for now. It's been a joy, Later taters.

Not sure if I missed something but I’ll give you another. Who sent plagues and diseases upon men for their wrongdoing? Wouldn’t intentionally giving someone a disease be in a way trying to play God?

 

[Redneckerz]

based on what you are talking about in this thread. I'd say its factual.

Sooner or later the curtain will fall. It has done so in the past, it will happen again.

Not sure if I missed something but I’ll give you another. Who sent plagues and diseases upon men for their wrongdoing? Wouldn’t intentionally giving someone a disease be in a way trying to play God?

Can you just like, stop asking meta-questions to derail your own topic considering you couldn't even form up a debate regarding your own OP?

 

[Antoon]

There is no reason for Christians to circumcise, usually it's for aesthetic reasons which is just... demonic.

Wrong. It has a pretty big health factor. I had erections from the slightest of contact with clothes or anything, it was ruining my life, so I'm glad I did it at age 15. Sure, some people may not have such sensitive foreskin, but it doesnt make anyone's life worse if you circumcise.

 

[Wag]

Did someone just equate vaccinations with circumcision? Talk about a stretch...

 

[Wings 嫩翼翻せ]

If man was made perfectly in gods image, then it doesnt made sense he made man with foreskin for them to chop off.

When I was more naïve as a young boy, I remember this was the first thing I thought when first introduced to this topic. Though, I must mention this is my first time learning that uncircumcised privates are more sensitive.

 

[badblue]

Not sure if I missed something

To address what you missed, I will quote my statement, and how you replied.

You do know that hiding behind the bible and religion in this way just opens you up to being criticized even more? When people start to bring up other things the the Doctrine of God has supported in the past, that we now view as atrocities you begin to appear as a hypocrite if you start to pick and choose which of those practices and teaching you follow.
There are passages in the bible that support circumcision, there are also passages that condemn it. What makes former passages more important then the latter?

I never get a chance to talk to people with your believe's in this fashion, so I am genuinely curious on how this works.

You really think that matters to me? Honestly. Think about that one for a minute.

The bold line is what you replied to, completely ignoring the rest of my message.

As for this:

Who sent plagues and diseases upon men for their wrongdoing?

Not God? I assume since you don't believe that God ever killed anyone.

I don’t think God ever killed anyone. He allowed some to be given to death I think.

Wouldn’t intentionally giving someone a disease be in a way trying to play God?

This only works if you believe that God does not direct people in acting... Like I've stated earlier in this thread:

Well, God tried too.
God works in mysterious ways, and He heard the prayers of the people to save their children from sickness. So He created the men and women that discovered germs and bacteria and how they make people sick. And from there to the eventual discovery of Penicillin and other medicine that we use to keep our children from suffering the same way those families in the past did.

To which you replied with a link to this lovely passage (Or you were wishing a pox upon my house)

Pox is an alternate spelling of pocks, which has come to us directly from Old English. Pocks are the pustules of some diseases, notably small pox and syphilis, and the word became attached as the name of the disease as well. The OED finds a usage from 1530 in which the pocks is called a punishment from God, so to call down a pox on a house is to wish the punishing calamity of a deadly disease on the family.

Which is in part of why I asked:
"When people start to bring up other things the Doctrine of God has supported in the past, that we now view as atrocities you begin to appear as a hypocrite if you start to pick and choose which of those practices and teaching you follow.
There are passages in the bible that support circumcision, there are also passages that condemn it. What makes former passages more important then the latter?"

If you are not, or can not answer that question in your own words, there is no point in continuing to engage in this thread any more.

 

[AngularSaxophone]

If you are not, or can not answer that question in your own words, there is no point in continuing to engage in this thread any more.

That one goes with the same issue I’m having with the other two posters. The former passages aren’t more important than the latter. Some think that law was done away with. It wasn’t.