• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Female Circumcision.

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Female circumcision is very harmful from a Biological view. Such a practice should be banned. If an adult wishes that to happen to themselves then fine, but on infants (unless for medical purposes) is quite unnecessary and harmful.

. . . Ritual circumcision is "ritual." The blood of the niddah is the female form of the blood drawn from the male the eighth day. The niddah's blood is supposed natural, while the male's blood is drawn through human volition.

The thread seeder should have made it clear that female circumcision takes place naturally, trough oogenesis, which throws off the bad flesh in contaminated blood: the blood of the niddah.

Oogenesis is the biological reality of the mikveh. The mikveh is a ritual and not a real cleansing. The real cleansing takes place throgh oogenesis and niddah.


John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
"The doctrine of original sin, the evil-inclination, and sin-nature," Only exist in the mind of Calvin's Theology. Male circumcision relates to Jewish theology, not Christian.
Circumcision is rare in the UK and much of Europe It is certainly not part of Christian practice. Most Doctors are not even taught how to do it here. it is not in their syllabus.

. . . You might want to alert Augustine and Aquinas and St. Paul that they're Calvinists then since every one of the afore[actually three]mentioned taught original sin and the transmission of that sin through the male seed.



John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
To a large extent these are things civilisation tries to rise above.

. . . These are the foundations of modern Western Civilization. All the scientific discovery we take for granted arises from circumcision. Without circumcision we would have no I-phones, Internet, space-travel, heart-transplants, and the like. Every one of these things is based on what circumcision implies when you cut deeper than the flesh.


John
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
. . . These are the foundations of modern Western Civilization. All the scientific discovery we take for granted arises from circumcision. Without circumcision we would have no I-phones, Internet, space-travel, heart-transplants, and the like. Every one of these things is based on what circumcision implies when you cut deeper than the flesh.


John

I take it that is a joke:mad:
But I don't get it.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
. . . These are the foundations of modern Western Civilization. All the scientific discovery we take for granted arises from circumcision. Without circumcision we would have no I-phones, Internet, space-travel, heart-transplants, and the like. Every one of these things is based on what circumcision implies when you cut deeper than the flesh.


John
This is the sort of bizarre and insupportable assertion that leaves me convinced that religion is a purely human invention.

Nothing to do with God.
Tom
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
. . . You might want to alert Augustine and Aquinas and St. Paul that they're Calvinists then since every one of the afore[actually three]mentioned taught original sin and the transmission of that sin through the male seed.



John

Actually Calvin invented nothing new, He trawled the scriptures and rearranged what he found, and made new connections from them, to suit his own agenda.

Much in the way you are doing.
 

Mindmaster

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
This is the sort of bizarre and insupportable assertion that leaves me convinced that religion is a purely human invention.

Nothing to do with God.
Tom

Your key would be that God seems to be just as trifling and irrelevant as humans, ergo he parodies their desires. :D Why should God give a crap if you get to keep an extra bit of skin between your legs, what, did he screw up? :D
 

IndigoStorm

Member
What a crock. There is no sane reason why in some cultures the genitalia of females are mutilated. It is something usually practiced by uneducated people.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
. . . Without religion and tribal tradition mankind is utterly and forever lost.
Huh? You're going to have to explain that.
The doctrine of original sin, the evil-inclination, and sin-nature are the bedrock of all meaningful theology.
They're features of Catholic theology, but certainly not of all theology. In most non-Abrahamic theologies such concepts don't even exist.
. . . All of the cutting is symbolic.
Male cutting is symbolic. Female cutting's supposed to be functional -- to reduce libido or prevent coitus.
Someone might think that's a mighty violent symbol. But what's at stake makes the violence tame in relationship to what's being screamed at the top of an eight day old boy's lungs.John
What on Earth are you talking about? I have no idea what this means.
dunno.gif
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
The doctrine of original sin, the evil-inclination, and sin-nature are the bedrock of all meaningful theology.
But alas, I've never considered any theology to be meaningful. In fact, I dislike the word itself, because it is not an apt description of what it pretends to be. Gods are generally thought to be transcendent and ineffable -- thus you can't "study" them at all. What theology actually does (and the proof of this is that every religion has its own theology and all are different) is to study what some humans THINK ABOUT God. Different thing altogether.
In the thread seeder I'm talking not about the ritual cutting, but about what the ritual merely signifies. Perhaps it's necessary to know what male circumcision signifies prior to delving into female circumcision.
I read your article, but found it stretched credulity. After all, male circumcision has been around since before Abraham, and in places Abraham would never have known existed.

Its history of migration and evolution of the practice in multiple cultures and regions. South and east of the Mediterranean, it seems to have begun in Sudan and Ethiopia, and then was picked up the ancient Egyptian, early Semites, and only then be Jews (and of course much later, Muslims). In Oceania, circumcision is practiced by Australian Aborigines, and Polynesians, and there is some evidence of practice among Aztec and Mayan civilizations in the Americas.

The earliest historical record of circumcision comes from Egypt, in the form of an image of the circumcision of an adult carved into the tomb of Ankh-Mahor at Saqqara (c. 2400–2300 BCE).
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
The actual cutting of flesh is ritualistic. It's a sign. It signifies something by means of the nature of the ritual. The message in question is dealing not with the ritual cutting, but with what that cutting signifies.
It is only religion that would attempt to justify mutilating a child's body by calling it 'ritualistic'.
It is not a sign, it is barbaric.

Join the 21st century and stop defending ancient scriptures.
Once the child is 16-years old, let them make an informed decision if they want to undergo the procedure.
 

beenie

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I have yet to find any compelling evidence that circumcision is beneficial for either sex. Female "circumcision" is even worse, and has no place in modern life. It didn't have any place in any time period.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
. . . Ritual circumcision is "ritual." The blood of the niddah is the female form of the blood drawn from the male the eighth day. The niddah's blood is supposed natural, while the male's blood is drawn through human volition.

The thread seeder should have made it clear that female circumcision takes place naturally, trough oogenesis, which throws off the bad flesh in contaminated blood: the blood of the niddah.

Oogenesis is the biological reality of the mikveh. The mikveh is a ritual and not a real cleansing. The real cleansing takes place throgh oogenesis and niddah.


John

A ritual is nothing more than superstitious old timey crap. I mean, if it's largely benign I won't take issue with it, might even partake in them. But if science says that a ritual is harmful, well then it doesn't matter what any Holy books says, it's harmful and barbaric. Better left in the past.
 

Baroodi

Active Member
Male circumcisin is beneficiary, health wise with no bad effect at all other than the surgery small risks
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Female circumcision is the polar opposite of male circumcision. In male circumcision the flesh is discarded and the blood is pure; while in female circumcision the purified flesh is kept and the impure blood is discarded.

Female circumcision takes place when during meiosis and polar body, the female seed throws-off the contamination related to the sin-nature, and the evil inclination, into polar bodies that are washed out in the menstrual blood, leaving one uncontaminated pure (tamim) female seed. The contaminated polar bodies are washed out in the menstrual blood.

Unlike female meiosis where the contamination of the sin-nature is thrown-off through polar bodies in oogenesis, leaving one uncontaminated cell, in male meiosis no part of the reproductive cell is thrown off. Instead, the cells divides in order to halve the chromosomes such that the needed 46 are achieved through the combination of male and female seed.

Whereas the sin nature is throw-off through polar bodies in oogenesis, the male seed keeps all its material and splits into four sperm. Nothing is thrown-off in male meiosis (there's no oogenesis). Instead spermatogenesis keeps all the material, sinful or not, producing four serpent-like mini-leviathan.

The foregoing dictates (so to say) that after oogenesis the "seed of the woman" is pure, perfect (tamim) having gone through the biological mikveh (meiosis and polar body). ------If this perfect (tamim), "seed of the woman" begins to develop without acquiring the same poison that began the Fall of man, the semen, it will conceive a "perfect" human being such that the commandment to be "perfect" (tamim) will have been kept.

This gives us the key to understanding male circumcision (bris milah), since the flesh is discarded (symbolizing its contamination with sin) while the blood is pure, perfect (tamim).

The foreskin discarded in ritual circumcision represents the same thing as the polar-bodies discarded in oogenesis. The foreskin is the equivalent of the discarded polar-bodies such that we're left to wonder why the male blood is pure (tamim) while the female blood is contaminated with sin?

Remember that unlike the "seed of the woman" which is purified through the biological mikveh (oogenesis), the male reproductive seed keeps all its material and thus remains contaminated with sin-nature (spermatogenesis).

Since the male reproductive seed remains contaminated, the throwing-off of the flesh of the reproductive organ (the foreskin) can't represent the splitting of the male seed through oogenesis (which only occurs for the "seed of the woman") and can't represent the purification of the male seed (since all the material sinful or otherwise remains intact in the process of spermatogenesis) and thus can only represent a sacrificial act not associated with biology but with the volition of the sacrificer.

The blood of circumcision is perfect because it sacrifices the male seed before that seed can contaminated the perfected female seed such that the elimination of the flesh of the foreskin signifies Adam discarding with the sinful flesh prior to the conception of Cain.

Rabbi Kaplan's adages that circumcision somehow returns the Jew to Adam prior to the Fall is easily deciphered through even a basic understanding of the parallel between Jewish ritual and biological reality.

The problem is merely finding people who trust the word of God enough to know that every jot and tittle of the word of God is accurate and expresses itself in biology and physics as much as in word, deed, and ritual. The same semen that contaminates the sinful man contaminates his understanding of the sementics of the word of God.


John

This crap doesn't even make sense. Where do you get this stuff about contaminated "seed"????? Can you support this junk with anything scientific or did you just pull it out of your nether region?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Male circumcisin is beneficiary, health wise with no bad effect at all other than the surgery small risks
Small risk -- ask David Reimer, a Canadian who lost his penis during a botched circumcision as an infant, and was subsequently "raised as a girl," that is, they tried to "train her " into femininity. It didn't work, of course, and a life ruined. But why let that spoil the fun of cutting little children's genitals? Religious twaddle remains religious twaddle, no matter how you try to dress it up.
 
Top