Vatican now says there is no longer a chosen people

fedup100 said:
The thread title is a lie and should be changed.

Just to clarify, the Vatican DID NOT say there is no longer a chosen people, the Vatican said correctly, the JOO IS NOT the chosen people, big difference.

Again, the Bible is clear; after Jesus came and was sacrificed, all people are welcome to become part of the "chosen people", the spiritual Israel.

Those of you who do not believe in God or have never ever studied the word are using this discussion the blaspheme God.
Click to expand...

Again, a synod of bishops from the Middle East meeting in the Vatican produced this, not the Vatican itself.
 
amy31416 said:
What kind of psychos think that god wants them to hack off a piece of their penis?

What kind of psychos go along with it?
Click to expand...

Funny that 5,000 years ago this would have been a very healthy thing to do. God knew what science didn't. With showering daily and today's technology that shouldn't be an issue - but it was healthy then.

I heard the laws around kosher are the same thing. They had some serious health benefits that people back then shouldn't have known about.

I guess God knows what he's talking about.
 
I think Jews are chosen in the sense they were the people who spread the Abrahamic God's message to the world. The word chosen wasn't suppose to mean they were some sort of master race.
 
BlackTerrel said:
Funny that 5,000 years ago this would have been a very healthy thing to do. God knew what science didn't. With showering daily and today's technology that shouldn't be an issue - but it was healthy then.

I heard the laws around kosher are the same thing. They had some serious health benefits that people back then shouldn't have known about.

I guess God knows what he's talking about.
Click to expand...

I think in an individualistic realm--what asshole/psycho suggested cutting a part of your penis off to honor god? What assholes listened to him? How many babies got infections and died? That's god's work?

And there's no proof that circumcision prevented disease, unlike some kosher/halal laws.
 
amy31416 said:
I think in an individualistic realm--what asshole/psycho suggested cutting a part of your penis off to honor god? What assholes listened to him? How many babies got infections and died? That's god's work?

And there's no proof that circumcision prevented disease, unlike some kosher/halal laws.
Click to expand...

props to future mothers against circumcision. it's sick.
 
amy31416 said:
I won't even mention one of the incredibly repulsive parts of the ritual--aside from the initial mutilation.
Click to expand...

there was a website that had a picture with a baby's face when he was being circumcised. it was really painful to watch. i tried to find the site but it seems it was taken down.

and someone made a comment: what good can come from having a new born associate the first experience of his private parts with pain?

there are psychos out there.
 
Last edited:
I would like to see numbers on how many men who didn't have the procedure actually got made fun of for it as boys, and whether or not they voluntarily chose to have it done as adults as a result of this.
 
I believe the US has the highest rates of circumcision in the world (if I remember an article correctly)

Something like 70% or something. I have no idea what the fascination is.

My guess is that number will go down as more Latinos have children.
 
MelissaWV said:
I would like to see numbers on how many men who didn't have the procedure actually got made fun of for it as boys, and whether or not they voluntarily chose to have it done as adults as a result of this.
Click to expand...

I would say not many. The boys I grew up with didn't go around looking at each others penises. And most of us didn't even know what circumcision was or that it existed until sometime in mid-late puberty.

There definitely are a lot of American girls who say they don't like it though. I'm sure some uncircumsized guys have to deal with girls not liking the way it looks. It's a shame.
 
brandon said:
There definitely are a lot of American girls who say they don't like it though. I'm sure some uncircumsized guys have to deal with girls not liking the way it looks. It's a shame.
Click to expand...

i don't think that's unfortunate for the guy. it's an opportunity to see a pretty important red flag, which probably indicates there are other issues with the girl.

if a guy finds out "has to deal" with a girl that is displeased with that, he should laugh in her face and merrily walk away to not ever see her again.
 
The whole circumcision debate is historical now anyway.

You have to understand that the Old Testament was full of TYPES and SHADOWS of the coming savior, who would fulfill the ceremonial laws.

The circumcision of the Old Testament was there to point to the true circumcision: circumcision of the heart.

1. There was the ceremonial act in the Old Covenant

2. To point to the spiritual fullfillment in the New Covenant


Paul says in Romans 2:29:

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter, and his praise is not from men, but from God.


Paul goes on to say in Phillippians that "We [Christians] are the circumcision".
 
Last edited:
brandon said:
I would say not many. The boys I grew up with didn't go around looking at each others penises. And most of us didn't even know what circumcision was or that it existed until sometime in mid-late puberty.

There definitely are a lot of American girls who say they don't like it though. I'm sure some uncircumsized guys have to deal with girls not liking the way it looks. It's a shame.
Click to expand...

My point is that, if it really becomes such an issue for the "poor guy," he could have the procedure done as he becomes aware of it being an issue. The opposite is not true. A guy who realizes he might be missing out on something by having part of his anatomy removed as an infant cannot easily be made whole.

If a guy is so boring and otherwise useless that it all comes down to whether or not he has a bit of skin down there or not, he probably isn't worth worrying over for me :) If a girl is so preoccupied and unskilled that it makes a difference and she has to whine about it, she isn't worth the guy's time. The only time that particular region should become an issue is if there are functionality or comfort concerns that the couple can handle like grownups. Well, or if grooming is to be discussed, but that's also ultimately up to the owner of the anatomy in question.
 
Good for the Vatican. Now if we could only get those Pastor Hagee types to tone down their rhetoric.
--
If you think about it, circumcision was a pretty rational way for a "chosen" tribe who was obsessed with bloodlines to operate. Marking the sex organ at birth was a perfect way to keep from intermarrying with pagans. If scripture is to believed, there was a planned bloodline through Israel from King David to the eventual savior.

Black Terrell is also right, It is commonly understood that some the more silly sounding Old Testament laws were considered serious public health concerns at their time. Raising rabbits domestically was banned, as footwear at the time didn't protect from diseases spread by their fecal matter, which (this is hearsay) an entire tribe was wiped out by.

My experience from other forums is that debates about circumcision go on forever, we might ought to have a separate thread if it continues..

I'll just say this, If I could go back and consent to my circumcision, I would, and I'm glad it happened when I was too young to know what was happening.
 
Distinguished Gentleman said:
Good for the Vatican. Now if we could only get those Pastor Hagee types to tone down their rhetoric.
--
If you think about it, circumcision was a pretty rational way for a "chosen" tribe who was obsessed with bloodlines to operate. Marking the sex organ at birth was a perfect way to keep from intermarrying with pagans. If scripture is to believed, there was a planned bloodline through Israel from King David to the eventual savior.

Black Terrell is also right, It is commonly understood that some the more silly sounding Old Testament laws were considered serious public health concerns at their time. Raising rabbits domestically was banned, as footwear at the time didn't protect from diseases spread by their fecal matter, which (this is hearsay) an entire tribe was wiped out by.

My experience from other forums is that debates about circumcision go on forever, we might ought to have a separate thread if it continues..

I'll just say this, If I could go back and consent to my circumcision, I would, and I'm glad it happened when I was too young to know what was happening.
Click to expand...


Most Europeans aren't circumcised and that entire continent is full of AIDS and people dying on the streets from disease.
 
Last edited:
I would like to add a few things-"circumcision" as mentioned in the Torah/Old Testament only referred to removing a small tab of skin, not the whole foreskin (I'm not sure when that was changed). We now know that the foreskin provides lubrication and that smegma promotes glans health (though you'll want to clean it off for your partner). Also, since we now have modern clothing and sanitation practices, the procedure is unnecessary. And, as a previous poster mentioned, gentiles are to be "circumcised in spirit" rather than the flesh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jmdrake
Are modern Jews God's chosen people?
Replies
17
Views
2K
Working Poor
Working Poor
W
Trump: We need a lot of people coming in
2
Replies
21
Views
5K
unknown
unknown
PAF
FEMA and North Carolina and No Money and Land Grab
Replies
2
Views
305
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
There Is No “Efficient” Government
Replies
3
Views
3K
GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged
G
Anti Federalist
New York Times Highlights Christian and Jewish ‘Blessings’ for Abortion Clinics
Replies
2
Views
940
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
Back
Top