Circumcision 'lowers risk of HIV infection by 60%' (Ind.UK)

[White_Male_Canada]

It used to be called the unkindest cut. But now the head of the one of the world's largest Aids charities believes we are on the brink of a revolution in attitudes to circumcision.

Richard Feachem, executive director of the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, said research revealing the protective effect of circumcision against HIV was set to change parental expectations and medical practice across the world. Instead of viewing the operation as an assault on the male sex, it was increasingly being seen as a lifesaving procedure which every parent would want for their sons.

Removing the foreskin is thought to harden the glans (head) of the penis, making it less permeable to viruses. Research conducted in 2005 showed the transmission of HIV from women to men during sex was reduced by 60 per cent if the men were circumcised.

A study published last month calculated that if all men in sub-Saharan Africa were circumcised, it would prevent almost six million new cases of HIV infection and save three million lives over the next 20 years...(excerpt)

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1217831.ece

[Like Loving]

Or just use a fucking condom.

[greenkb]

saw a TV show on about this about 5 yrs ago, the BBC's horizon science programme.

[Vicki Richter]

This is why I only let circumsized men cum in my ass on the first date.

[Jamie Michelle]

It used to be called the unkindest cut. But now the head of the one of the world's largest Aids charities believes we are on the brink of a revolution in attitudes to circumcision.

Richard Feachem, executive director of the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, said research revealing the protective effect of circumcision against HIV was set to change parental expectations and medical practice across the world. Instead of viewing the operation as an assault on the male sex, it was increasingly being seen as a lifesaving procedure which every parent would want for their sons.

Removing the foreskin is thought to harden the glans (head) of the penis, making it less permeable to viruses. Research conducted in 2005 showed the transmission of HIV from women to men during sex was reduced by 60 per cent if the men were circumcised.

A study published last month calculated that if all men in sub-Saharan Africa were circumcised, it would prevent almost six million new cases of HIV infection and save three million lives over the next 20 years...(excerpt)

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1217831.ece

If this is true, then this will properly be something for human males to consider for themselves, not something for adults to force upon them against their will. A person old enough to decide to have sex is old enough to choose for himself whether he wants to be circumcized.

I doubt, though, that this is true to begin with, as most so-called "AIDS" cases in Africa have nothing to do with HIV. Rather, African "AIDS" is mostly due to starvation, dysentery, malaria, etc., which are labeled "AIDS" because that is where the international funding is at.

But these arguments are ex post facto justifications for circumcision. In the West, circumcision was exceedingly rare until the latter half of the 1800s, when anti-masturbation campaigns called for circumcision of youngsters in order to reduce masturbation (since it is often the case that circumcized males cannot masturbate naturally and normally).

This is the origin of circumcision in the Western world. It was only later, after masturbatory fears no longer held ground, that pseudo-medical and hygienic rationales were thought of in order to justify the already-established practice of circumcision.

In other words, the industry of circumcision was already in place, founded as it was upon utter idiocy, and in order to justify the existence of that industry (and hence, to assuage the conscience of its practitioners, who had been conducting circumcisions based upon that idiocy), new rationales had to be invented, in an attempt to retroactively justify all the previous circumcisions as well as continue on with business as usual.

For more on this, see the below:

"A Short History of Circumcision in North America: In the Physicians' Own Words," National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM):

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

"The Ritual of Circumcision," Karen Ericksen Paige, Human Nature, May 1978, pp. 40-48:

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

[Jamie Michelle]

This is why I only let circumsized men cum in my ass on the first date.

And that is why you get the Wholesome Families' Safe-Sex Seal of Approval®.

[ARMANIXXX]

Jamie Michelle said,
If this is true, then this will properly be something for human males to consider for themselves, not something for adults to force upon them against their will. A person old enough to decide to have sex is old enough to choose for himself whether he wants to be circumcized.

I doubt, though, that this is true to begin with, as most so-called "AIDS" cases in Africa have nothing to do with HIV. Rather, African "AIDS" is mostly due to starvation, dysentery, malaria, etc., which are labeled "AIDS" because that is where the international funding is at.

But these arguments are ex post facto justifications for circumcision. In the West, circumcision was exceedingly rare until the latter half of the 1800s, when anti-masturbation campaigns called for circumcision of youngsters in order to reduce masturbation (since it is often the case that circumcized males cannot masturbate naturally and normally).

This is the origin of circumcision in the Western world. It was only later, after masturbatory fears no longer held ground, that pseudo-medical and hygienic rationales were thought of in order to justify the already-established practice of circumcision.

In other words, the industry of circumcision was already in place, founded as it was upon utter idiocy, and in order to justify the existence of that industry (and hence, to assuage the conscience of its practitioners, who had been conducting circumcisions based upon that idiocy), new rationales had to be invented, in an attempt to retroactively justify all the previous circumcisions as well as continue on with business as usual.

For more on this, see the below:

"A Short History of Circumcision in North America: In the Physicians' Own Words," National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM):

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

"The Ritual of Circumcision," Karen Ericksen Paige, Human Nature, May 1978, pp. 40-48:

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

__________________________________________________ ________________________





No Jaime. This Idea of "circumcision" is not new or anything revolutionary. Circumcision is the product of biblical reference. In the Bible, both Christian and Jewish (Muslim Koran does as well), It speaks several times of circumcising children and it also makes numerous reference to those who are "UNCLEAN" (uncircumcised men).

I just think that it's facinating how a book thousands of years old and considered "obsolete" my many cynical pundits, I think it's facinating how that book can symbolically smack folks upside their head as if to tell them, "See, I was right, I tried to tell you silly basatards a long time ago and you hung me on a tree."

[White_Male_Canada]

This is why I only let circumsized men cum in my ass on the first date.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Witty,but true no doubt.

And stop making my cut one perk up when you say those things :wink:

[chefmike]

How nice of you to post a picture of your boyfriend...is he against gay marriage like yourself, canadian cracker hypocrite? :lol: :P :lol: :P 8)

[JRon]

How nice of you to post a picture of your boyfriend...is he against gay marriage like yourself, canadian cracker hypocrite? :lol: :P :lol: :P 8)

The same Republican that makes every attempt to explain why he supports George W. Bush actually just posted a picture of his dick on a Shemale message board. Does that seem contradictory to anyone else?

[Jamie Michelle]

Jamie Michelle said,
If this is true, then this will properly be something for human males to consider for themselves, not something for adults to force upon them against their will. A person old enough to decide to have sex is old enough to choose for himself whether he wants to be circumcized.

I doubt, though, that this is true to begin with, as most so-called "AIDS" cases in Africa have nothing to do with HIV. Rather, African "AIDS" is mostly due to starvation, dysentery, malaria, etc., which are labeled "AIDS" because that is where the international funding is at.

But these arguments are ex post facto justifications for circumcision. In the West, circumcision was exceedingly rare until the latter half of the 1800s, when anti-masturbation campaigns called for circumcision of youngsters in order to reduce masturbation (since it is often the case that circumcized males cannot masturbate naturally and normally).

This is the origin of circumcision in the Western world. It was only later, after masturbatory fears no longer held ground, that pseudo-medical and hygienic rationales were thought of in order to justify the already-established practice of circumcision.

In other words, the industry of circumcision was already in place, founded as it was upon utter idiocy, and in order to justify the existence of that industry (and hence, to assuage the conscience of its practitioners, who had been conducting circumcisions based upon that idiocy), new rationales had to be invented, in an attempt to retroactively justify all the previous circumcisions as well as continue on with business as usual.

For more on this, see the below:

"A Short History of Circumcision in North America: In the Physicians' Own Words," National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM):

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

"The Ritual of Circumcision," Karen Ericksen Paige, Human Nature, May 1978, pp. 40-48:

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

__________________________________________________ ________________________





No Jaime. This Idea of "circumcision" is not new or anything revolutionary. Circumcision is the product of biblical reference. In the Bible, both Christian and Jewish (Muslim Koran does as well), It speaks several times of circumcising children and it also makes numerous reference to those who are "UNCLEAN" (uncircumcised men).

I just think that it's facinating how a book thousands of years old and considered "obsolete" my many cynical pundits, I think it's facinating how that book can symbolically smack folks upside their head as if to tell them, "See, I was right, I tried to tell you silly basatards a long time ago and you hung me on a tree."

Circumcision has never been a Christian practice. Until the latter half of the 19th centrury it was exceedingly rare in Christian countries.

Apparently you have never actually read the New Testament from beginning to end. I have.

Galatians 5:1-6: Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love. [NKJV.]

Indeed, the Catholic Church even prohibited circumcision:

"Bull of Union with the Copts," Pope Eugenius IV, Ecumenical Council of Florence, Session 11, February 4, 1442 (Norman P. Tanner, translator) http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/councilflorence/ :

""
Therefore [the Holy Roman Church] denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.
""

[chefmike]

How nice of you to post a picture of your boyfriend...is he against gay marriage like yourself, canadian cracker hypocrite? :lol: :P :lol: :P 8)

The same Republican that makes every attempt to explain why he supports George W. Bush actually just posted a picture of his dick on a Shemale message board. Does that seem contradictory to anyone else?

Not Jeff Gannon...Jeff...is that you?

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-07,GGLG:en&q=Jeff+Gannon

[JRon]

How nice of you to post a picture of your boyfriend...is he against gay marriage like yourself, canadian cracker hypocrite? :lol: :P :lol: :P 8)

The same Republican that makes every attempt to explain why he supports George W. Bush actually just posted a picture of his dick on a Shemale message board. Does that seem contradictory to anyone else?

Not Jeff Gannon...Jeff...is that you?

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-07,GGLG:en&q=Jeff+Gannon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon

They mention that he has gone under the pseudonym of "Bulldog" - - maybe we should add "White_Male_Canada" to the list :lol:

[ARMANIXXX]

Jamie Michelle said,

Circumcision has never been a Christian practice. Until the latter half of the 19th centrury it was exceedingly rare in Christian countries.

Apparently you have never actually read the New Testament from beginning to end. I have.

Galatians 5:1-6: Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love. [NKJV.]

Indeed, the Catholic Church even prohibited circumcision:

"Bull of Union with the Copts," Pope Eugenius IV, Ecumenical Council of Florence, Session 11, February 4, 1442 (Norman P. Tanner, translator) http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/councilflorence/ :

""
Therefore [the Holy Roman Church] denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

__________________________________________________ _______________________________


ahh...see you are mistaken on this count Jaime.

I'm not at home atm so I don't have access you a bible atm,
but I will point you into the direction of DAVID.
David was charged by God to collect the foreskins of hundreds of newborn children. I don't remember which book of the bible, but I'll get it for you latter when I go back home......just remind me ok.

I don't claim to be a scholar or anything like that, but I'm not a complete slouch in this subject either. Its been done for centuries because essentially God promoted clean well being.....which, and I know your gonna hate me for saying this, but this is also why it is against his will to partake in homosexual acts....partially anyways.

[ARMANIXXX]

here's some though I picked up with a skillfull google ;) :


SCRIPTURE ABOUT CIRCUMCISION
THE GOSPELS
Luke 1:59-60 Circumcision of John the Baptist.

On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were going to name him after his father Zecheriah, but his mother spoke up and said,n "No! He is to be called John."

Luke 2:21-39. Circumcision of Jesus.

On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he had been conceived.

John 7:21-24 Jesus teaches at the feast.

Jesus said to them, "I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. Yet because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from Moses but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath. Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on the Sabbath? Stop judging by mere appearances and make a right judgment."

THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
Acts 15:1-21 The Council at Jerusalem

Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: Unless you are circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved. This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed along with some other believers to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the brothers very glad. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they had reported every thing God had done through them.

Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses."

The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are."

The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling them about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they had finished, James spoke up: "Brothers, listen to me. Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

`After this I will return
and rebuild David's fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
that the remnant of men may seek the Lord,
and all Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things'
that have been known for ages.

It is my judgment, therefore that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."
:wink: :wink:

[ARMANIXXX]

Here's one more set for you Jaime,



Here is the origin of circumcision found in the �Covenant of Circumcision� from the Bible.

[Gen 17:14.13] Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." This is the covenant of circumcision.

Also the following:

[Gen 17:24.16] Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

This story is replicated in the Sunni hadith theology. The Sunnis say Abraham circumcised himself with a small axe.

[Gen 17:25.18] And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin

And here is a particularly cultish ritual:

Exod 4:25.11] Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin, and touched Moses' feet with it, and said, "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!"

[chefmike]

Jamie Michelle said,

Circumcision has never been a Christian practice. Until the latter half of the 19th centrury it was exceedingly rare in Christian countries.

Apparently you have never actually read the New Testament from beginning to end. I have.

Galatians 5:1-6: Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love. [NKJV.]

Indeed, the Catholic Church even prohibited circumcision:

"Bull of Union with the Copts," Pope Eugenius IV, Ecumenical Council of Florence, Session 11, February 4, 1442 (Norman P. Tanner, translator) http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/councilflorence/ :

""
Therefore [the Holy Roman Church] denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.

__________________________________________________ _______________________________


ahh...see you are mistaken on this count Jaime.

I'm not at home atm so I don't have access you a bible atm,
but I will point you into the direction of DAVID.
David was charged by God to collect the foreskins of hundreds of newborn children. I don't remember which book of the bible, but I'll get it for you latter when I go back home......just remind me ok.

I don't claim to be a scholar or anything like that, but I'm not a complete slouch in this subject either. Its been done for centuries because essentially God promoted clean well being.....which, and I know your gonna hate me for saying this, but this is also why it is against his will to partake in homosexual acts....partially anyways.

LMAO...two more people in addition to the chimp-in-chief, pat robertson, jerry falwell et al who have a direct conduit to god, jesus, bart simpson, or whoever the pagan idol du jour is... let the rapture (and the hypocrisy) continue brethren...

[chefmike]

How nice of you to post a picture of your boyfriend...is he against gay marriage like yourself, canadian cracker hypocrite? :lol: :P :lol: :P 8)

The same Republican that makes every attempt to explain why he supports George W. Bush actually just posted a picture of his dick on a Shemale message board. Does that seem contradictory to anyone else?

Not Jeff Gannon...Jeff...is that you?

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-07,GGLG:en&q=Jeff+Gannon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon

They mention that he has gone under the pseudonym of "Bulldog" - - maybe we should add "White_Male_Canada" to the list :lol:

Not to mention-- "yet another white male chickenhawk"... :wink: :roll:

[Jamie Michelle]

ARMANIXXX, the Old Testament is not the New Testament. There is a reason why these books have different names. The Gospel that Jesus Christ preached is not the same as the Old Testament doctrine.

Christians are "dead to the law," i.e., the law of men and the so-called "Law of Moses." That is, Christians are under not so much as the slightest obligation to follow such laws.

John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and Saul (later to become Paul) were circumcised before Jesus Christ had preached His message. Simply because the New Testament gives an account of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ's circumcisions doesn't mean that it is giving it as an endorsement of the practice; it's simply relating a historical event.

Indeed, you even quote Acts 15, which speaks against circumcision!

[ARMANIXXX]

Jamie you are taking what is said out of context,

As I mentioned before to you Jaime, The first GALATIONS reference simply says that gettting circumcised will not save your spirit only your body. In other words, because you are NOT circumsised doesn't mean you can't go to heaven.

The same thing is said in ACTS.


The bottom line to squash this is:

JESUS WAS CIRCUMCISED. As far as I'm concerned if it was good enough for Jesus, then damn be me or my son to not be as well.


top that :lol:

[chefmike]

Jamie you are taking what is said out of context,

As I mentioned before to you Jaime, The first GALATIONS reference simply says that gettting circumcised will not save your spirit only your body. In other words, because you are NOT circumsised doesn't mean you can't go to heaven.

The same thing is said in ACTS.


The bottom line to squash this is:

JESUS WAS CIRCUMCISED. As far as I'm concerned if it was good enough for Jesus, then damn be me or my son to not be as well.


top that :lol:

And how can you verify this fable? Did this mythical person jesus top you or your son?

[Jamie Michelle]

Jamie you are taking what is said out of context,

As I mentioned before to you Jaime, The first GALATIONS reference simply says that gettting circumcised will not save your spirit only your body. In other words, because you are NOT circumsised doesn't mean you can't go to heaven.

The same thing is said in ACTS.


The bottom line to squash this is:

JESUS WAS CIRCUMCISED. As far as I'm concerned if it was good enough for Jesus, then damn be me or my son to not be as well.


top that :lol:

Jesus Christ was also crucified. Is that likewise good enough for you and your son?

You're confusing a historical event that happened to Jesus Christ with that event somehow being right. As I said previously, the Gospel that Jesus Christ preached is not the same as the Old Testament doctrine. John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and Saul (later to become Paul) were circumcised before Jesus Christ had preached His message. Simply because the New Testament gives an account of John the Baptist and Jesus Christ's circumcisions doesn't mean that it is giving it as an endorsement of the practice; it's simply relating a historical event.

Getting a circumcision damns a person (unless they repudiate the act), because then they commit themselves to the law--in this case, the so-called "Law of Moses." That is what Paul is writing about in Galatians 5:1-6, and why he is speaking so strongly against circumcision.

And there is no such thing as "sav[ing] your body" as contrasted with "your soul." Those who are saved all get resurrection bodies upon the formation of Heaven on Earth.

[Jamie Michelle]

Jamie you are taking what is said out of context,

As I mentioned before to you Jaime, The first GALATIONS reference simply says that gettting circumcised will not save your spirit only your body. In other words, because you are NOT circumsised doesn't mean you can't go to heaven.

The same thing is said in ACTS.


The bottom line to squash this is:

JESUS WAS CIRCUMCISED. As far as I'm concerned if it was good enough for Jesus, then damn be me or my son to not be as well.


top that :lol:

And how can you verify this fable? Did this mythical person jesus top you or your son?

The historicity of Jesus Christ has never been much in doubt by scholars (including non-Christians) other than with recent atheists with a skewed philosophical bone to pick and who don't hesitate to make fools out of themselves in the process. This modern charge of the non-historicity of Jesus is grounded on an a priori philosophical assumption--i.e., that an actual personage such as Jesus is impossible, therefore any historical evidence which confirms His place in actual history is *by definition* untrue.

But these same people are quite reluctant to actually flesh-out the necessary implications of this position (since doing so would reveal the absurdity of this position). Namely, that a massive conspiracy was instituted by (presumably) a break-away sect of Jews in an apparent effort to get themselves tortured and murdered by their fellow Jews and by the Roman government, willingly martyring themselves for a personage whom they knew to be a fictional creation of their own invention.

After all, it would be a number of centuries before people claiming the mantle of Christianity would actually come into power; the originators of this conspiracy had only to look forward to a life of suffering and being marginalized as (1) a heretical sect by the Jews (punishable by death, such as by stoning), and (2) a popular scapegoat by the Roman government (with such niceties awaiting as being fed to lions, burned alive as living torches, crucifixion, etc.). And moreover, that this conspiracy could somehow overtake the Western world without leaving the slightest historical trace of its mechinations in inventing a fictional character which it represented as a historical person--that this somehow all managed to occur without the early Christian-conspirators' many violently hostile enemies ever bothering to make note of the Christian-conspirators' invented fiction.

The following are some first century non-Christian sources which corroborate the historicity of Jesus Christ: Josephus, the Talmud, Thallus, Mara Bar-Serapion, etc.

Jesus lived His public life in the land of Palestine under the Roman rule of Tiberius (A.D. 14-37). There are *three possible* Roman historical sources for Tiberius's reign written prior to A.D. 200: Tacitus (A.D. 55-117), Suetonius (A.D. 70-160), and Velleius Paterculus (a contemporary). There are two Jewish historical resources that describe events of this period: Josephus (A.D. 37-c. 100), writing in Greek, and the Rabbinical writings (compilation of the Talmud started c. A.D. 70 from the oral form prior to that time).

Of these writings, we would *not* expect Velleius to have a reference to Jesus (i.e., the events were happening outside of Velleius's home area during his life; Velleius [c. 19 B.C.-c. A.D. 31] was a contemporary of Jesus who likely died before Jesus's crucifixion). Of the remaining Roman historians--Tacitus and Suetonius--we have references to Jesus. Thus, we have an amazing fact--*all* the relevant non-Jewish historical sources mention Jesus! (Notice that this is the *opposite* situation than is commonly assumed: "If Jesus was so important, why didn't more historians write about Him?" In this case, *they all did!*)

Of the Jewish resources--Josephus and the Rabbinical writings (i.e., the Talmud, and the Midrash)--both make clear references to the existence of Jesus. So *all* the Jewish historical sources refer to Jesus Christ.

The above three paragraphs only concern the standard Roman histories of Tiberius's reign and the standard Jewish historical sources written prior to A.D. 200. Other non-Christian historical sources writing prior to A.D. 200 which independently confirm the Gospels include Pliny the Younger (Roman governor of Bithynia), Lucian of Samosata, the Greek historian Phlegon, the historian Thallus, the Greek writer Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapion, etc. Most of these sources were actively hostile to Christianity.

[ARMANIXXX]

Im most definately back from LA and while this topic died a while ago, I'll just end this by saying: I was right :)

As shown via variable passages, Circumcision in America DID in fact get its roots from THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE.

*sticks tongue out and Jaime*

lol


8)

[Jamie Michelle]

Im most definately back from LA and while this topic died a while ago, I'll just end this by saying: I was right :)

As shown via variable passages, Circumcision in America DID in fact get its roots from THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE.

*sticks tongue out and Jaime*

lol


8)

We've been over this already. Circumcision has never been a Christian practice. Until the latter half of the 19th centrury it was exceedingly rare in Christian countries.

Apparently you have never actually read the New Testament from beginning to end. I have.

Galatians 5:1-6: Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love. [NKJV.]

Indeed, the Catholic Church even prohibited circumcision:

"Bull of Union with the Copts," Pope Eugenius IV, Ecumenical Council of Florence, Session 11, February 4, 1442 (Norman P. Tanner, translator) http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/councilflorence/ :

""
Therefore [the Holy Roman Church] denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.
""

In the West, circumcision was exceedingly rare until the latter half of the 1800s, when anti-masturbation campaigns called for circumcision of youngsters in order to reduce masturbation (since it is often the case that circumcized males cannot masturbate naturally and normally).

This is the origin of circumcision in the Western world. It was only later, after masturbatory fears no longer held ground, that pseudo-medical and hygienic rationales were thought of in order to justify the already-established practice of circumcision.

In other words, the industry of circumcision was already in place, founded as it was upon utter idiocy, and in order to justify the existence of that industry (and hence, to assuage the conscience of its practitioners, who had been conducting circumcisions based upon that idiocy), new rationales had to be invented, in an attempt to retroactively justify all the previous circumcisions as well as continue on with business as usual.

For more on this, see the below:

"A Short History of Circumcision in North America: In the Physicians' Own Words," National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males (NOHARMM):

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

"The Ritual of Circumcision," Karen Ericksen Paige, Human Nature, May 1978, pp. 40-48:

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

Poster says: I am against Hitler! He was an evil man!

James Michelle says: Well then you are against the Autobahn because Hitlers germany invented the Autobahn and therefore, you are against Freeways!!!

[Jamie Michelle]

Poster says: I am against Hitler! He was an evil man!

James Michelle says: Well then you are against the Autobahn because Hitlers germany invented the Autobahn and therefore, you are against Freeways!!!

Please elaborate.