Circumcision linked to increased risk of autism in young boys
#21
(01-14-2015, 04:38 PM)Philomena01 Wrote: Since I have 3 sons, all circumcised, by this statement, I am a horrible mother who has committed 3 grave sins.

And since St. Peter was Jewish, and was circumcised and no doubt had his sons circumcised, he too is a horrible person who committed grave sin.  Yet, Christ chose him as His successor to run His church on this earth.  So this horrible, monster of a father, who mutilated his sons by circumcision, was loved enough by our Savior to be entrusted with the keys to the kingdom?  Yes, it all makes perfect sense to me.

Yes, you committed a grave sin.  Did you believe you were doing what was best for your sons?  Did you circumcise them out of malice?  Then no, you're not a horrible mother.  As with any other grave sin, intent and knowledge mitigate culpability.  You don't have to be a horrible person to commit a grave sin.  Pretty decent people commit grave sins as well.
Reply
#22
(01-14-2015, 04:38 PM)Philomena01 Wrote:
(01-14-2015, 12:14 PM)Melkite Wrote: He never commanded circumcision, it is a violation of bodily integrity, and any person who circumcised their child at any point in history has committed a grave sin.

Since I have 3 sons, all circumcised, by this statement, I am a horrible mother who has committed 3 grave sins.

And since St. Peter was Jewish, and was circumcised and no doubt had his sons circumcised, he too is a horrible person who committed grave sin.  Yet, Christ chose him as His successor to run His church on this earth.  So this horrible, monster of a father, who mutilated his sons by circumcision, was loved enough by our Savior to be entrusted with the keys to the kingdom?  Yes, it all makes perfect sense to me.

Why did you have your sons circumcised?

If St Peter had his sons circumcised before his conversion to Christ, then he was dutifully following the old law; well and good. If after, then that would be because he was, before St Paul corrected him, a proponent of the heresy of Judaisation (incident at Antioch).
Reply
#23
Good grief not this again! 

Is it a slow day on FishEaters?

:eyeroll:
Reply
#24
(01-14-2015, 05:14 PM)Melkite Wrote: Yes, you committed a grave sin.  Did you believe you were doing what was best for your sons?  Did you circumcise them out of malice?  Then no, you're not a horrible mother.  As with any other grave sin, intent and knowledge mitigate culpability.  You don't have to be a horrible person to commit a grave sin.  Pretty decent people commit grave sins as well.

Melkite,

Circumcision is not a grave sin. The Church is neutral on circumcision.

Parents are free to decide to circumcise or not, but circumcision is not a requirement of Faith.
Reply
#25
(01-14-2015, 07:31 PM)austenbosten Wrote: Melkite,

Circumcision is not a grave sin. The Church is neutral on circumcision.

Parents are free to decide to circumcise or not, but circumcision is not a requirement of Faith.

The Church used to be neutral on sex outside of marriage, but that doesn't change that it either is or isn't a grave sin, unless you believe sin is subjective based upon Church declaration?

Quote:Pius XII, Discorsi e Messaggi Radiodiffusi
t. XIV, Rome 1952, s. 328-329


"From a moral point of view, circumcision is permissible if, in accordance
with therapeutic principles, it prevents a disease that cannot be
countered in any other way
."
emphasis mine

Pope Pius XII would not agree with you that circumcision as practiced by American parents today is either permissible or morally neutral.
Reply
#26
(01-14-2015, 09:00 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(01-14-2015, 07:31 PM)austenbosten Wrote: Melkite,

Circumcision is not a grave sin. The Church is neutral on circumcision.

Parents are free to decide to circumcise or not, but circumcision is not a requirement of Faith.

The Church used to be neutral on sex outside of marriage, but that doesn't change that it either is or isn't a grave sin, unless you believe sin is subjective based upon Church declaration?

The Church never was neutral on adultery, otherwise the entire Christian Faith is a lie. I really don't know where you get this stuff.


I am not going to have this debate, it's stupid and has been done over on this and many other forums ad nauseum.

As it stands today, the Church is neutral regarding circumcision.
Reply
#27
(01-14-2015, 09:11 PM)austenbosten Wrote: I am not going to have this debate, it's stupid and has been done over on this and many other forums ad nauseum.

I was referring to pre-marital sex, not adultery.

Quote:I am not going to have this debate, it's stupid and has been done over on this and many other forums ad nauseum.

Ok.  But if you're not going to have this debate, and it's stupid, why did you jump into it at all?  To tell me I'm stupid and then run away?
Reply
#28
(01-14-2015, 09:32 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(01-14-2015, 09:11 PM)austenbosten Wrote: I am not going to have this debate, it's stupid and has been done over on this and many other forums ad nauseum.

I was referring to pre-marital sex, not adultery.

Again, you're going to have to provide sources; asserting absurd-sounding things which contradict the supernatural faith of your audience will get you no where.

And further, why are you taking this thread wildly off topic and breaking the forum rules just to pursue your agenda?
Reply
#29
(01-14-2015, 09:32 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(01-14-2015, 09:11 PM)austenbosten Wrote: I am not going to have this debate, it's stupid and has been done over on this and many other forums ad nauseum.

I was referring to pre-marital sex, not adultery.

Then you might want to dust off your Bible.

I Corinthians 6.9

Quote: Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,

Quote:
Quote:I am not going to have this debate, it's stupid and has been done over on this and many other forums ad nauseum.

Ok.  But if you're not going to have this debate, and it's stupid, why did you jump into it at all?  To tell me I'm stupid and then run away?

Not having a debate, simply stating a fact.

Also nowhere did I call you "stupid", I said the debate is stupid.
Reply
#30
(01-14-2015, 09:48 PM)austenbosten Wrote: Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,

A fornicator was one who stood at the fornix, i.e, a prostitute.  It's not speaking of the Roman equivalent of common-law marriages.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)