Vatican now says there is no longer a chosen people

[low preference guy]

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.

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.

[Sola_Fide]

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".

[MelissaWV]

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.

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.

[Distinguished Gentleman]

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.

[Southron]

Good for the Vatican. Now if we could only get those Pastor Hagee types to tone down their rhetoric.

I think Hagee is trying to speed up the "End times", as if God would work on man's timetable.

[RedStripe]

Holy crap I agree with the Vatican, hell just froze over.

Seriously.

It's like two super-villains fighting each other (the Catholic Church and Zionism).

[Flash]

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.

Most Europeans aren't circumcised and that entire continent is full of AIDS and people dying on the streets from disease.

[heavenlyboy34]

most europeans aren't circumcised and that entire continent is full of aids and people dying on the streets from disease.

lolz!!!

[heavenlyboy34]

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.

[BlackTerrel]

I don't think the Vatican has changed their view after 2,000 years. They think if they take the dominant view of the Muslims in the area less Catholics will die in senseless violence. Whether or not it will make a difference only time will tell:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2957849

[Dr.3D]

Most Europeans aren't circumcised and that entire continent is full of AIDS and people dying on the streets from disease.

Eh yeah, that's got to be what's causing the aids problem.

[PaulineDisciple]

The pope doesn't know his bible very well;

Speaking to Christians Peter (supposedly the 1st pope) said,
1 Peter 2:9 9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

[erowe1]

The pope doesn't know his bible very well;

Speaking to Christians Peter (supposedly the 1st pope) said,
1 Peter 2:9 9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

Why do you bring the pope into this story?

[reillym]

People still care about those little boy rapists think?

[jazzloversinc]

I agree with the Pope. That's old news though, Christians have always believed everyone is chosen since Christ died on the cross for the sins of the world. The christians who talk aobut the book of Revelation all the time are dispensationalists ...that movement is only aobut 179 years old. Christians ARE Israel.

[PaulineDisciple]

Why do you bring the pope into this story?

Oh, ok, edit; the vatican doesn't know their Bible very well.

[Maximus]

The pope doesn't know his bible very well;

Speaking to Christians Peter (supposedly the 1st pope) said,
1 Peter 2:9 9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the Papacy. It's always been Catholic teaching that those who are Baptized are Baptized into a priesthood.

[Inflation]

“We Christians cannot speak about the promised land for the Jewish people. There is no longer a chosen people. All men and women of all countries have become the chosen people.

“The concept of the promised land cannot be used as a base for the justification of the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of Palestinians,” he added. “The justification of Israel’s occupation of the land of Palestine cannot be based on sacred scriptures.”

OMG that is the most anti-semetic thing ever said. It's so vile, and shocking. It revisits age-old canards of a Jewish Banker Conspiracy and the Protocols, which led to the Holocaust.

The Pope is a Nazi. Settled law and treaty must to uprooted to justify eternal reparations for one group affected by WW2. Christianity is worse than Mel Gibson, and God is a real estate broker who favors ethnically pure nation-states.

/Abe Fauxman

[erowe1]

Oh, ok, edit; the vatican doesn't know their Bible very well.

The Vatican is a place.

[Inflation]

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.

Male genital mutilation wasn't done by Hebrews until the days of Rome, and it was started by a small sect for POLITICAL reasons.

Try again to justify torturing a baby boy's penis; this attempt didn't even get the facts right before appealing to magic sky gods.

The Female Genital Mutilators also make up 'scientific' reasons to justify their primitive caveman savagery; you aren't fooling anybody they aren't.

Same Fundy, Different Book.

[heavenlyboy34]

male genital mutilation wasn't done by hebrews until the days of rome, and it was started by a small sect for political reasons.

Try again to justify torturing a baby boy's penis; this attempt didn't even get the facts right before appealing to magic sky gods.

The female genital mutilators also make up 'scientific' reasons to justify their primitive caveman savagery; you aren't fooling anybody they aren't.

Same fundy, different book .

qft!!!

[osan]

That might have been the theory, but I doubt it was practice. This falls along the same lines as people who want to pretend marriages were happy in the olden days because there was a much lower divorce rate

Historical accounts are rife with examples of cardinals and bishops who'd fathered all manner of children and even had wives "on the side".

[osan]

Seriously.

It's like two super-villains fighting each other (the Catholic Church and Zionism).

Not quite convinced they are fighting each other.

[Dr.3D]

Male genital mutilation wasn't done by Hebrews until the days of Rome, and it was started by a small sect for POLITICAL reasons.

~snip

And how do you account for this covenant between God and Abraham?

Genesis 17:9-11 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. (KJV)

This was long before there was a Roman empire.

[Theocrat]

And how do you account for this covenant between God and Abraham?


This was long before there was a Roman empire.

Isn't it amazing how ignorant some people are of history?

[heavenlyboy34]

Isn't it amazing how ignorant some people are of history?

yes, it is.

[jmdrake]

How can "god's" word just be overwritten like this?

Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Matthew 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."

John 1:12 "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God"

Those who claim to be Christians and yet pretend that there is a chosen race of people are the ones who are out of line with God's word. I'm surprised the Vatican actually returned to a correct Biblical interpretation on this one.

[jmdrake]

I don't think the Vatican has changed their view after 2,000 years. They think if they take the dominant view of the Muslims in the area less Catholics will die in senseless violence. Whether or not it will make a difference only time will tell:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2957849

Ummmm....2,000 years ago the Vatican didn't exist. And the Christian view back then was that Jews were no longer to be considered the "chosen people". When the Vatican did come into existence it spent a large part of its history persecuting Jews. Research the Spanish inquisition or the effects of the crusades on the Jews.

The sad fact is that Christianity has swung from one extreme to the other. There's the "Kill the evil blashpheming descendants of Christ killers" view up against the more modern "Let's worship Jews because of some twisted interpretation of Revelation and the 144K" view.