Do circumcised people masturbate more?

I honestly don't think it matters. People are still sensitive equivalently in our nature. But you do have a good point, the tip is more sensitive but it still retracts downwards when erected.

 

do you realize how many men are angry with their parents because of their “right of conscience” to cause irreversible harm to their children. There is an entire movement of pissed off victims of circumcision, you’ve already seen some of them in this thread. Somehow you still think it’s ok though. And regarding abortion... How about killing your baby after it’s born? Is that acceptable as well? You bring up 1 instance where abortion would be acceptable, if it was known for certain that it would cause death to the mother. I’d be happy for you to pull up the numbers on the percentage of abortions that involves. For someone who claims to be Christian, and also appears to be aware of the corruption in the world regarding poison vaccines and what not, you are pretty ignorant on topics like these. Surely you’re aware of the use of aborted fetal cells in vaccines right? I hope you’re also aware that the satan worshippers running this world love human sacrifice. What is abortion?

 

Those using that argument are the ones doing the gymnastics--based on a mistranslation of "the word of God." If you read it in Hebrew you will find that your statement is not so factual. What God's "Word" actually says is "Thou shalt not murder." The Hebrew word is "ratsach". This is a different Hebrew word than is used for when God commanded killing. For example: "And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:16, KJV) In this verse, it is not the Hebrew word for murder, but the word "harag," which carries more of the sense of "put to death." Capital punishment is Biblical, and is not "murder."

Now, what is "murder" according to the Bible's definitions? See Numbers chapter 35--but basically it involves several key principles: 1) hatred; 2) injustice; and 3) premeditation/intent. Perhaps more importantly, the Hebrew words indicate that "murder" involves the unjust killing of a human soul. One cannot "murder" an animal; and "soul" (Hebrew: nephesh) means a breathing creature, i.e. one that has the breath of life (see Genesis 2:7). Before God breathed into them, though they were perfectly formed, neither Adam nor Eve had a soul, a living soul. Nor does the Bible count the unborn in doing a census of the population. They are counted from the age of 30 days upwards.

 

Abortion has the potential to fulfill all 3.

Yeah man, fetuses are alive.. that means they have a soul. It’s not some inanimate object that kicks a woman’s belly. Your arguments actually give me a good laugh with how ridiculous and far fetched they are. I mean, you tried to compare circumcision to a woman breaking her hymen, and haircuts... enough said really. You continue this trend of erroneous comparisons into the topic of abortion now. Animals do have souls btw, according to the bible. So yes, you can certainly murder animals. Do you know anything about spirituality? Do you think witches and warlocks and satanists kill and sacrifice animals for no reason?

 

Yes, it does, but not in every case. As one example, most people recognize that a natural abortion, usually called a "miscarriage," does not fulfill those conditions.

There is a difference between "life" and "soul."

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28, KJV)

If one can kill the body without killing the soul (Jesus' own words), then one's life and one's soul are two separate entities.

If "murder" applied merely to the life, then capital punishment would contradict the Ten Commandments--as would military action against enemy combatants. One must, therefore, be careful with one's definitions; they are important.

 

You are partially right, and partially wrong. Animals have souls in the sense of having "breath." They are "nephesh." But there is another sense of the word "soul," such as when we speak of souls needing to be saved, that animals do not have. One clear example of this is found in Peter's writings.

"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." (1 Peter 3:20, KJV)

Those eight people on the ark were considered as having souls to be saved. The animals were not counted as "souls" in this context.

 

Dude... that verse is literally explaining that our souls are eternal. Your body dies and your soul lives on. That’s all it’s saying. Fear the one that has power over your eternal soul not your temporary body.

Nobody refers to natural miscarriages when discussing abortion. If that’s mixed in with the stats than that’s an issue sure, but it has nothing to do with the abortion argument.

Murdering animals senselessly is punishable by law in most places of the world. Yet somehow the law allows unborn babies to be murdered legally, in gruesome fashions, as depicted in the video I linked. The reason for that is clearly nefarious. You’re using incorrect interpretations of the bible to justify abortion.. just like you did with circumcision. And ironically, claiming that others are misinterpreting the bible. You are certainly in the vast minority of Christian’s that would attempt such a thing. Morality also is not entirely dependent on the bible. Most understand well that killing a fetus in the womb is wrong, despite the brainwashing that suggests otherwise.

 

https://forum.nofap.com/index.php?threads/animals-go-to-heaven.299232/#post-2846588

 

Where have I justified abortion? This statement of yours is untrue. I have not been justifying abortion. What I have been doing is more clearly defining the terms. It is killing, but it is not, Biblically, murder.

If I have been justifying anything, it is the right and liberty of conscience.

Personally, I am against abortion for unjustified reasons. I am not against abortion when it is necessary to save the woman's life. By the way, about 2% of pregnancies are ectopic. By definition, the surgery to remove that pregnancy is an abortion. Without that surgery, 99% of those women would die. Are you prolife or prodeath? Would you favor saving the mother's life or letting her die? To my mind, the latter is murder when it is within your power to save her.

 

And thus, indirectly justifying abortion, by backing that it should be legal. I wonder if you also justify the right of conscience when it comes to armed robbery, or rape perhaps? I understand you’re trying to play along with the whole vaccine thing should be a choice, which it obviously should, but there are some things that very clearly do not deserve the right to choose. There are other options, called adoption, which provide a solution to women who don’t want a child. Yes, it quite obviously should be a choice in the very small percentage of cases where the pregnancy is life threatening.I’m not sure why you continue to bring that up as if it proves anything.

 

What do you think will happen when the national laws disallow abortion? Every miscarriage is then a crime scene--which must be investigated for "murder" (which it isn't, Biblically, to begin with as the fetus does not yet have breath). How would you like your wife who has miscarried to, on top of the pain of her loss, be investigated for whether or not she had purposely done something to cause it?

Oh? You don't think the law will be applied that way? Suppose you have a disgruntled neighbor looking for a cause against you. Suppose said neighbor reports your loss of pregnancy to the police. What then?

Do you see where these laws might lead? So while I may be anti-abortion--those done for unjust reasons--I am also anti-legislation on the matter. It really is not a clear-cut issue, and needs to be decided in the court of one's own conscience.

 

Man your brain is a strange place.

 

This 'discussion' is completely off-topic. The question was, do circumcised people masturbate more.

 

Good observation. That question has not been answered in this thread, which went off topic from the earliest replies onward--mostly shifting to the ethics of circumcision.

Would you care to hazard an answer? Do circumcised men or do uncircumcised men masturbate more? Your earlier answer just said "I am not aware of any research on this."

 

I think, in response to the OP, the obvious clue would be in the fact that most respondents to this topic are uncircumcised, and this forum is especially helpful to those who have a problem with masturbation.

 

Please see my earlier response... Do circumcised people masturbate more?

 

Yes, God commanded the Israelites specifically to circumcise their sons (and others in their households, like slaves), but tell me, what did this circumcision look like? Have you researched it? Or are you making the assumption that how it's done today is the same as it was in Moses' day?

I did two research papers in seminary on the topic and its theology. I learned--from Jewish sources--that the act of male circumcision was originally just the cutting off of the overhang on the tip of a guy's foreskin. And yes, the Egyptians did it first, mostly to certain members of their priestly class, but theirs was a dorsal slit, not the removal of the foreskin. The Jewish rite (brit milah) was symbolic in nature, as it didn't really alter the penis that much.

It wasn't until 150 years AFTER the time of Christ that the brit peri'ah version that we use now came into being. That is when the foreskin is separated from the "head" and the majority of the outer foreskin is cut off, exposing the entire head. This was a cultural decision the rabbis made, to counter the stretching of foreskin some Hellenized Jews did to make them more Greek/gentile looking, to fit in basically. Men would exercise nude in their gymnasia, which were like health clubs/spas. The rabbis believed that many Jewish men were ashamed of their Jewishness, and so instituted the more drastic cut so there would be no possible confusion of who was Jewish and who was not. But that procedure is NOT what God commanded Moses, nor was it what Jesus and the apostles (as Jewish men) would have had.

As far as the New Testament teaching on the topic, in addition to the chapters in Acts IGY mentioned (abt the Jerusalem decree when the apostles decided that Gentile believers in Jesus did not need to first be circ'd), Paul said quite a bit about the topic, and was not a fan. Galatians 2:1–3; 5:1–11; 6:11–16; 1 Corinthians 7:17–20; Colossians 2:8–12; and Philippians 3:1–3. In the passage in Phil there, he even calls those Jews who tried to compel Gentile believers to get cut "mutilators of the flesh" -- and remember that this was still the less drastic form of circumcision being used then.

Circ in the old testament was a sign and symbol of the covenant to come in Christ. It is somewhat analogous with baptism (though not entirely because both men and women are baptized), and somewhat with communion, as it is a type of blood covenant. The moral law stands in Christ, but the ritual elements of the Torah are made pointless now as they were just signifiers of Jesus and his future work, which we have now received by faith. "Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. He is obligated to keep the whole law." - Gal 5:2-3

 

Thank you for this information. There is an assumption that we know best in the 21st century. But this is not always the case and what we see nowadays is materially different from 3,500 years ago. Excellent reasoning throughout your post!

 

I have phimosis and so i don't have any options and i lost my precious foreskin. I never promote circumscision, its a bullshit. You should never do that, unless you have phimosis.