Originally posted by stellspalfieProbably the same reason he gave a crap about what people ate; how detailed can you be with a bunch of dumb-ass humans to get them to take care of themselves properly? They typically snip snip foreskins at birth in hospitals, per the sanitary benefits during life.
why would a god give a crap about penis skin?
Originally posted by wolfgang59Didn't say I agreed with it, but that apparently is the rationale given. Can't recall that as an infant they gave me any choice, or requested me to sign a release. Besides, some of us needed to have a little taken off the top, to give you "little fellers" a fighting chance with some of the ladies.
Hogwash!
Benefits are minimal.
Unless you believe amputating babies' legs as a
preventative measure against Athletes' Foot.
Originally posted by mikelomYeah, well I guess ,(without having read the other comments yet), that I would have to decline on the circumcision of babies - I would vote against it. Then again , it is down on the list of stuff I'm real serious about ..
Tattooing is a personal choice, isn't it?
Circumcision at 7 days old, or indoctrinated to be set up for at a later young age, isn't, is it?
-m. ?
Originally posted by sonhouseThis is a serious issue for your kid???
TMI🙂 I have 2 sons whom we did not have cut, and now the younger one, 24 yo, is having problems with infections and painful intercourse. He wants to get the cut job but is it advisable in a 24-25 yo?
Damn... that's outta my league - my oldest is female, however I would like to have a heads up if it comes up 😕
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelJust a conjecture on the accuracy of translation, and a bit of an amusement as well. Wonder just how they know for sure there was a word in ancient languages for "foreskin?" I am sure that particular item did not come up often in daily conversations, any more than it does in modern day times. Maybe someplace there is a cave drawing of the foreskin and the removal process, and the whole thing goes back further than spoken language.
"problem in language translation" ? that's a BIG problem. What's your angle? (other than fingernails 😕 )
1 edit
Originally posted by CLL53Stonehenge could have been an ancient foreskin removal ceremony site, where they did the removal with a stone knife.
Just a conjecture on the accuracy of translation, and a bit of an amusement as well. Wonder just how they know for sure there was a word in ancient languages for "foreskin?" I am sure that particular item did not come up often in daily conversations, any more than it does in modern day times. Maybe someplace there is a cave drawing of the foreskin and the removal process, and the whole thing goes back further than spoken language.
Originally posted by CLL53No need to worry about a mistranslation there. It is clear that it is the flesh or folded skin of the male sex organ. The English dictionary definition of "foreskin" is a fold of skin that covers the glans of the penis -- also called prepuce.
Just a conjecture on the accuracy of translation, and a bit of an amusement as well. Wonder just how they know for sure there was a word in ancient languages for "foreskin?" I am sure that particular item did not come up often in daily conversations, any more than it does in modern day times. Maybe someplace there is a cave drawing of the foreskin and the removal process, and the whole thing goes back further than spoken language.
There are two Hebrew words here and they are listed in Srong's Concordance under number 1320 - meaning "flesh or skin" and number 6190 - meaning - the prepuce, foreskin.
In Genesis 17:10-14 NKJV God tells Moses the following:
"This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”
Originally posted by RJHindsYou know, if you think about it, this really does separate the serious from the casual believers. To be willing to undergo the circumcision, the snippee really does "walk the walk" as the saying goes, and indicates real faith and belief. Wonder if that is the origin of the saying "have skin in the game?"
No need to worry about a mistranslation there. It is clear that it is the flesh or folded skin of the male sex organ. The English dictionary definition of "foreskin" is a fold of skin that covers the glans of the penis -- also called prepuce.
There are two Hebrew words here and they are listed in Srong's Concordance under number 1320 - meaning "flesh or ...[text shortened]... [b]foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”[/b]
Originally posted by CLL53Except a new born does not actually opt for circumcision, I think there may have been a hygiene factor in a hot dusty environment, same as eating pork, and shellfish; them bible writers were a shrewd bunch of head screwers and stole another good idea from the pagans.
You know, if you think about it, this really does separate the serious from the casual believers. To be willing to undergo the circumcision, the snippee really does "walk the walk" as the saying goes, and indicates real faith and belief. Wonder if that is the origin of the saying "have skin in the game?"