Ive thought long and hard about the circumscision question with regards to proper christianity
Firstly, “long and hard” lol :D.
Secondly, I’m not up on the circumcision thing. I’ve seen a couple of people go into the minutia, and honestly it strikes me as a neurotic subject to pick for a moral panic. In terms of rhetorically countersignaling semitic influence, usury is a better meme. If you’re Varg Vikernes and you want to get rid the West of Christianity I’d recommend the hypocrisy angle, which has never stopped working on high-functioning white people (the sorts who care about things like ketogenic dieting). You’re going to lose low-functioning whites by talking about circumcision at all because they’ll assume you’re a hypochondriac (therefore weak), so just stick to funny racism, the fake Holocaust thing like TRS does, and appeals to group strength through cohesion.
Thirdly, Gentiles generally should not be circumcised. But like eating pork, it’s just not a big deal unless you’re a guest in the house of somebody who thinks otherwise, or the Judaizers are using it to assert their dominance.
Why Was Timothy Circumcised?
By John Piper
Was Paul inconsistent when he had Timothy circumcised in Acts 16:3? After all, he had absolutely refused to let Titus be circumcised in Galatians 2:3-5. He said that the truth of the gospel was at stake. To concede that Titus should be circumcised would be tantamount to abandoning the gospel of justification by faith apart from works of law.
But what about Timothy? Acts 16:1-3 says,
Paul came also to Derbe and Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer; but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brethren at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
There are three differences between the Timothy situation and the Titus situation.
1) Titus was a pure Greek (Galatians 2:3). Timothy was born of a Greek father and a Jewish mother. According to 2 Timothy 3:15, from childhood Timothy had been taught the Old Testament scriptures. In other words, his Jewish mother brought him up as a Jew. But his Greek father had not allowed the circumcision. For Titus the pressure was to become Jewish. Timothy was already very Jewish by race and by training. For him to be circumcised would not have had the implication of moving from Gentile status to Jew status.
2) The people Paul resisted in Galatians 2:3-5 were false brothers. The Jews to whom he catered in Acts 16:3 were not even Christians. The pressure in Galatians 2:3-5 was from professing believers upon another believer to perform a work of law in order to be accepted. But Acts 16:2 says Timothy was “well spoken of by all the brethren at Lystra and Iconium.” No Christians were pushing for Timothy’s circumcision. Rather it was “because of the Jews that were in those places” (16:3) that Paul had Timothy circumcised. “Jews” is used over 85 times in Acts and almost without exception refers to unbelievers. And here they appear to be distinct from “brethren.” So it appears that Timothy’s circumcision was not motivated by “Christian” pressure from within but by a missionary strategy from without.
3) Titus was a “test case” in Jerusalem (Galatians 2:1), but Timothy was to be a constant travel companion (Acts 16:3). Therefore, in Titus’ case a clear theological issue was at stake. But in Timothy’s case, what was at stake was how unbelieving Jews might best be won to Christ. So just as Christian freedom caused Paul to resist Titus’ circumcision, this same freedom allowed him to remove the stumbling block of Timothy’s lack of circumcision. Paul applied his principle from 1 Corinthians 9:20, “To the Jews I became a Jew in order to win the Jews.”
On the basis of these three differences, then, I would say Paul was not inconsistent when he resisted Titus’ circumcision but sought Timothy’s.
The problem is that narcissistic Christians have a tendency to start believing they’re the chosen people. Narcissists are always looking for a way to purity spiral and self-identify as special, and within the Christian worldview this pathological identity signaling tends to be LARPing a TRUE Israelite. You can see this in Mormons, Black Israelites, and even this guy. Hence a tendency to live by the old law, abstain from pork, and of course “muh dick”. In many places the practice of circumcision sticks as an cultural Christian institution after its elites go through a narcissistic purity spiral where they LARP as Troo Israelites for a bit. The Jewish Question is downstream from the Freemason Question because it’s those fuckers who keep giving their nations over to the Jews for a pittance of affirmation.
I’m circumcised but it means nothing to me except as a matter of aesthetics. I’m covered under the new covenant, whereas circumcision was a pledge to the old covenant (which did not apply to me). When I decide whether to circumcise my kids it’ll be based on whether girls think it looks more appealing, which is something I won’t bother looking into until it comes up.