Re: circumcision

Tolian said:

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.

Advertisements

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Re: circumcision

  1. glosoli says:

    I read this piece by chance last night, on the old versus new covenant, and it was just what I needed at this juncture. The law is now in our hearts, not just on tablets of stone:

    https://ragingvanity.wordpress.com/2014/06/18/the-law-is-a-shadow/

    ‘The law was a shadow, not the thing itself. Like the shadows of my hands shows you the outline of my hands with the sense of proportion and the idea that I have 10 digits they are not my hands themselves. When we are told not to steal, it is not enough to not steal we must not be a thief in our heart, to do so is to sin. The person who is not a thief has had the law written on their heart and their shadow will not steal. The person abiding in the Lord has that law written on their heart, they are at rest and their shadow will be a reflection of this rest. I am open to the possibility that God may want me to observe a rest but that is something I will do as I conform to His will, not because I am trying my hardest to make the proper shadow puppet on the ground.’

    A great analogy I thought, shame he doesn’t blog much any more.

    I no longer eat pork or shrimps, not because of the law, but because I am sure God knows that these creatures are unhealthy for us to eat, as they feed on shit and don’t process their food as effectively as ruminants or fishies. Recent health scares in the UK have centred around pork products.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      Beautifully said, glosoli. The shadow is evidence of the thing, not the thing itself. Our observance of the law is by faith, that God is good, and He loves us, and has given it to us for edification, health, justice and all good things that there are in this life. And most importantly, because it shows us what pleases Him.

  2. SirHamster says:

    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.

    Still mulling over this one. Father, myself, and nephews are circumcised, but Biblically there is no reason to do so, and there is zero Jew in ancestry.

    It’ll be a choice between making a statement against Jew LARPing, or conforming to family practice and making it a tradition.

  3. Heaviside says:

    >When I decide whether to circumcise my kids it’ll be based on whether girls think it looks more appealing,

    Imagine cucking this hard for women. Would you force them to have elective plastic surgery too?

    • a says:

      ^^^
      If they care at all, its like 1 percent compared to status,looks, and similarity.
      And even if they did care… I mean you are already fucking naked bro. Things worked out.

      80/20 MOFO. IS YOUR FORESKIN IN THE 20?

      Thats n i g g e r t i e r

    • Tolian says:

      Not really cucking. More like going against established medical procedures, which is entirely different gestalt.

  4. Mycroft Jones says:

    Circumcision for Gentiles was NEVER a “work of the law”. Only for Israelites. That is why Acts 15 says it isn’t necessary. It isn’t negating the covenant with Israel; it is just correctly interpreting the Law as given.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      To clarify: Gentiles in Israel were obligated to follow Israelite law, as it was the national law. Ergo, Gentiles were required to keep the law of Moses. But this same Law of Moses explicitly states that Gentiles don’t have to be circumcised unless they want to celebrate Passover. So, if you want to celebrate Passover, get circumcised. If you don’t, then don’t.

  5. Mycroft Jones says:

    As for practicalities, personal experience is, sex is just as good with or without circumcision. Circumcision makes the male member a little bit larger.

    • a says:

      But when I take a banana peel off a banana it gets smaller

    • Glenn MT says:

      No, you’re literally removing part of the penis. This does not make it larger. Stupid.

      • glosoli says:

        There’s a certain flow of blood into the penis.
        If you remove the foreskin, that blood has to go somewhere, hence the rest of the penis is larger.
        Now who is stupid?

        • Glenn MT says:

          “There’s a certain flow of blood into the penis” assumes that there is a set amount of blood that would be involved in an erection. This is almost certainly false, as circulation is one of the health factors that is affected by a huge amount of “lifestyle” decisions (diet, age, exercise, hormones, etc.). Studies show that circumcized men are significantly smaller on average (that is to say, they are smaller by a magnitude greater than the actual tissues removed); unless there is a bias in who is getting circumcized, that means that circumcision significantly reduces penis size.

          • glosoli says:

            ‘“There’s a certain flow of blood into the penis” assumes that there is a set amount of blood that would be involved in an erection. This is almost certainly false, as circulation is one of the health factors that is affected by a huge amount of “lifestyle” decisions (diet, age, exercise, hormones, etc.).’

            What a silly comment. A circumcision won’t affect any of those ‘health factors’. Fail.

            Studies show? Indeed, some studies show the world is still warming. And you shared no studies. And I’m not interested in ‘averages’.

            • Crazt TM says:

              Wouldn’t the body regulate the blood pressure anyway, cause your penis takes a whole lot of blood any way, it would be automatic reaction of the capillary, veins and artery. .

              Circumcision may make the head bigger from scar tissue formation and inflammation, due to the foreskin being missing. You’d also be more at risk of ballanitis.

              Advantages of no foreskin when young, you can maintain a hard on for longer.

              Disadvantage, you go droopy dick earlier in life, due to the nerves in the head of the penis becoming less sensitive as time goes by.

              Penis enlargement via removal of foreskin would be minimal IMO. Nothing a pressure pump couldn’t fix though.

              If you cut the penis ligament on the pubic bone on the other hand and surgically have the shaft elongated 2 or 3 inches, then you would have a longer helicopter dick.

              Unless you micro cock. It ain’t how long it is, it’s how you use it, girth does make more of a difference though.

              Yeah what the ffff is it with you guys and penises, to much wanking and not enough sex musky smell in bedroom or what?

              Penis.

  6. Mycroft Jones says:

    Relevant listening, a radio show by the late George Gordon on the topic of Christians and circumcision: http://georgegordon.org/audio/radio/search.lsp?r=95&q=circumcision

  7. a says:

    How could this happen to meeeeeeeeeeeeeee

    Ive made my missttttttaaaaaaaaaaaakkkeess

  8. Koanic says:

    I think circumcision is masculinizing in that it makes a dick less like a clit, with attendant psychological effects. Now that there is no association with submission to Judaizers, and it is medically safe, I endorse the practice.

    • Glenn MT says:

      “I think circumcision is masculinizing in that it makes a dick less like a clit”
      If a penis is not a sufficiently masculine appendage, then nothing is. This is probably the most bizarre comment I’ve ever read from you.

      If a completely unnecessary pseudo-medical procedure on a healthy infant doesn’t set off red flags, then what does?

  9. Boneflour says:

    http://www.noharmm.org/instruments.htm

    Strapping a struggling child in a chair and clamping their dick would be torture in any other situation. I would argue especially in this situation, it’s just that social habits make the horrifying seem commonplace. You know, like abortion.

    Also risk of complication, infection, cutting too much. Also that’s apparently where a lot of nerves are, you lose feeling in yer dick.

    Something to think about.

    • Koanic says:

      God didn’t prescribe abortion for thousands of years. Losing some of the feeling is the point. It puts the big head (more) in charge.

  10. Tolian says:

    I always thought itd fall under the spectrum of rules against mutilation:

    Leviticus 19:28 – Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I [am] the LORD.

    Also see Proverbs 22:6:
    Train up a child in the way he should go,
    And when he is old he will not depart from it.

    A newborn is the responsibility of its parents. Its also a medical probelm as well. Doctors are violating the Hippocratic Oath when they perform the procedure. The only case where its been shown to do any good is in the case of preventing HIV Transmission (https://infogalactic.com/info/Circumcision_and_HIV), and the evidence is specious at best.

  11. a says:

    Those fried “pork rinds” that you find in gas stations?
    Final destination for those millions of foreskins.
    (Rabbis eat them to re-supply their dark magick)

    Few know this.

  12. LEATHUR says:

    Sorry, completely off-topic: does any one have a handy site-rip of the old Vault-Co? I recently deleted my old back-up and Tex has wiped it before I could download another :)

  13. Anonymous Fake says:

    Let me let you in on a little secret. Jelqing works. Foreskin “restoration” works. They both modestly improve your own sexual pleasure and significantly increase your prowess towards women, which is historically a bad thing because female sexual preference is utterly chthonian hybristophilia, but we live in evil times. Adjust your sails if you can’t change the winds. Jewish women, by the way, have a real thing for fake foreskin, and it avoids any technical issues the real thing can have. You can even stop shaving your penis.

    All post-Talmud Jews are totally LARPing the ancient Hebrews, by the way. They’re the biggest goys in denial of all.

  14. Pingback: Aristocratic Judaizers | Aeoli Pera

  15. Pingback: Announcement: group discussion on Discord, “Self-defense” next Saturday from 1 to 4 PM EST | Aeoli Pera

  16. Pingback: Right of the parents or children to fall under religious rules | Marcus Ampe's Space

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s