Exodus 4: 24-26 WTF???

Perjury is less demanding in terms of commitment than growing another foreskin.

The cut is a sign of an alliance, and if witnesses are ready to sacrifice their entire son, why not just the tip?
This would seem inappropriate to one who doesn't believe that the demanding party is also the Creator of all people and things. And so many men enjoy their foreskin and smegma.

Once one believes the demanding party, as represented by either one's ancestors as today, or directly as assessed by Abraham, Moses, or the handful of people written to have had contact with something we haven't experienced and they define as the creator is legitimate, then sure, it does make sense.

Analogies include playing chess or modern games, where characters aren't that big a moral deal to the superior plane of reality, in this instance the chesspiece and board maker. You "ate" that bishop for entertainment? To get to a king made of wood? Or mud? Why yes I did, and it was good.

Just go read the benefits of circumcision and remember how long ago this happened
It was a cleanliness issue as much as a spiritual act of obedience

Ak, God condemned those youths, not children, read the true text, because of their sin

Sin must be met with justice, deny it all you like
YHWH and Jesus are a God of justice

a reply to: Raggedyman

Paul said that circumcision was slavery under the Law....that Jesus' death freed us from dumb stuff like circumcision.

a reply to: windword

Yes Paul did say that, I didn't suggest otherwise

You may think it's dumb but the health factors are common knowledge, you are I expect an adult, you decide what best suits you, not for me to tell you

The covenant was between Israel and God

What's your point windy

Just looking for a fight

I am not interested, believe what you want to believe, live your life

a reply to: Rasalghul

Why was Yahweh trying to kill his friend Moses? He messed with him bad by not letting him see the promised land, but this earlier event is just unexplainable.

I have questioned this episode numerous time but my best responses came from two individuals, one was Catholic and the other, Jewish. They each held positions of respect but they both had far different approaches...

The first one suggested that there may well be something lost in the translation or, perhaps, even in the original record. The abilities to write out episodes of life, which are so diverse and complicated into a language that was so restrictively limited in its wording, often led to outcomes similar to this.

The second was pretty straight forward; the human species was NEVER to be confused with animals and the Hebrews, NEVER to be confused with any other peoples. Circumcision was one identifying factor in this and that is why it was required on all males.

But, regardless, it all falls back to faith over all else.

...

a reply to: redoubt

I think it's a very, very old story. All you said are possible. I think it's allegorical and its purpose to show just how serious YHWH is about covenants.

a reply to: Raggedyman

My point is that Paul didn't seem to care about the medical consequences of circumcision. He saw it a symbol slavery.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Raggedyman

Does that "justice" include letting wild animals maul children for calling his friend a few names?

Ak you are the worst kind of religious person
You are a fundamentalist and hater

You can not accept others have a different opinion and will gnostic bash them to death

Yes it's Gods justice, it's not human justice

Rant and rage all you like but your only complaining because the world doesn't fit into your own personal view.
You want to be a god
I accept that I am not a god so I don't expect anyone to conform, you demand it
Sorry, your opinion is invalid to me

Lovely... how typically Christian of you... when you have no decent reply you go on the attack

Way to stay true to form...

but in regards to your reply... I am NO kind of religious person... and I am certainly not a fundamentalist... Look that word up though... might do you some good to understand the definition before using it

I don't hate either... not you, nor anyone in your religion...or anyone else for that matter... what I do hate is what your religion turns the majority of people who adhere to it into... and thank you for providing the class an example of that

Im not sure what "gnostic bashing" is... but if that's what you're calling my replies, I haven't used a touch of gnostic texts in any of my replies... but if you'd like me to I could certainly do so with pleasure

Im not ranting and raging either... just pointing out the obvious, regardless of whether or not you agree

Nor do I demand anything... I couldn't care less what you or anyone else believes... Everyone is welcome to their beliefs without exception...

Basically what you mean is... "I have nothing valid to add, but your opinion effects me, so im going to attack your character to make myself feel better"

Well done good sir... lol

On the lighter side, I do love how Christians attach labels to everyone that doesn't agree with their beliefs... I've been called everything from a Satanist, to an Atheist by Christians who clearly have no idea what most of the labels even mean... but I've never been called a fundamentalist before, which by the way is exactly what I mean when I say most don't understand the labels they use

so congrats on that one

originally posted by: wisvol
Perjury is less demanding in terms of commitment than growing another foreskin.

Well seeing as that's impossible....

The cut is a sign of an alliance, and if witnesses are ready to sacrifice their entire son, why not just the tip?

Anyone willing to sacrifice their child is an unworthy parent and a despicable person. But I can tell you think otherwise, another example of the poisoning I mentioned.

This would seem inappropriate to one who doesn't believe that the demanding party is also the Creator of all people and things. And so many men enjoy their foreskin and smegma.

Smegma collects on penis's and vaginas regardless of whether or not they've been circumcised. But the idea that a god would be concerned enough ( or at all) about smegma to command babies having their genitals mutilated in the desert with sharp rocks is both hilarious and tragic.

Once one believes the demanding party, as represented by either one's ancestors as today, or directly as assessed by Abraham, Moses, or the handful of people written to have had contact with something we haven't experienced and they define as the creator is legitimate, then sure, it does make sense.

I couldn't care less who it was, I wouldn't do such a thing and neither would any rational parent.

Analogies include playing chess or modern games, where characters aren't that big a moral deal to the superior plane of reality, in this instance the chesspiece and board maker. You "ate" that bishop for entertainment? To get to a king made of wood? Or mud? Why yes I did, and it was good.

Your morals might be so worthless and debased, but mine are not.

a reply to: Akragon

Why do people think that there is a united Gnostic church all of a sudden everyone who likes Apocryphal books is a Gnostic.

It's a good idea though. That's a church I would attend. The root of the world Gnostic is knowledge, gnosis just means to know. It was never about secret knowledge until the RCC did some ancient propaganda and persecution only to be busted on it in the 40's when the NHL was found.

That's smart. The church wants to destroy you and your books so you hide them for another generation and now...

originally posted by: Rasalghul
a reply to: Akragon

Why do people think that there is a united Gnostic church all of a sudden everyone who likes Apocryphal books is a Gnostic.

It's a good idea though. That's a church I would attend. The root of the world Gnostic is knowledge, gnosis just means to know. It was never about secret knowledge until the RCC did some ancient propaganda and persecution only to be busted on it in the 40's when the NHL was found.

That's smart. The church wants to destroy you and your books so you hide them for another generation and now...

Well technically there is a gnostic church and religion now... Back when the gnostic writers actually lived there wasn't any such thing

Christians love their labels... Some like to say anything that falls outside of their belief system is Satanic, yet those same people haven't got a clue what Satanism is... same usually goes for the term gnostic...

Our friend above called me gnostic, yet I used no gnostic texts... Nor do I ever when I speak to Christians, yet the label still emerges...

We can all play the label game though... Doesn't bother me in the least, especially when I know said person doesn't even understand the label he/she is using

Its more amusing then anything else

a reply to: Akragon

What is the name of this united Gnostic church?

a reply to: windword

Oh well fair enough, slaves who choose to serve their master, can make the same adult decision to walk away as you can
Slaves who are by choice Jewish, followers of YHWH

Slaves who want to serve their God

Your argument is tenuous at best

Salves are bought and sold and pressed into work, the Jews chose

Anyway, servants of God or slaves to sin

That's my opinion

originally posted by: Rasalghul
· I was just reading Exodus for the hundredth time and noticed something very peculiar.

24 On the way (to Egypt), at a place where they spent the night, Yahweh met him (Moses) and tried to kill him.25 But Zipporah took a flint and cut off her sons foreskin, " Truly you are a bridegroom of blood to me!" 26 So he let him alone. It was then she said, " A bridegroom of blood by circumcision."

WTF?

I have some questions for everyone. What's a bridegroom of blood?

Why was Yahweh trying to kill his friend Moses? He messed with him bad by not letting him see the promised land, but this earlier event is just unexplainable.

Anyone?

A lot of the events/words in the OT point to the messiah Jesus. That is what this one is about so that we know Jesus is both Lord and Christ.

Moses(represents us sinners) deserves death(due to sins) and notice God spared him, with the dead flesh of the foreskin of his son. With that God let Moses live.

That represents Jesus as our dead flesh for the forgiveness of our sins so that all who believe in him may live.

originally posted by: Rasalghul
a reply to: Akragon

What is the name of this united Gnostic church?

Google is your friend brother...

Look it up, they have churches all over the place... Never been to one myself though

a reply to: Akragon

They aren't in my area. Oh well, churches are all b.s. anyway, even this Gnostic one. I don't need it, I have sacred texts for that

a reply to: Prezbo369

If I had been given the chance, I would not have been circumcised. That foreskin has a lot of sensitive nerves.

a reply to: Prezbo369

If I had been given the chance, I would not have been circumcised. That foreskin has a lot of sensitive nerves.

a reply to: Akragon

How typical gnostic of you, attaching labels to everyone

You are blind to your own religion and hypocrisy

And as a truth dear Ak I have labeled you a fundy countless times

Don't get more fundy than you, you can't stand others who oppose or hold different views to yours

Gnostic bashing is where you bash people with your beliefs, anyone who won't accept your beliefs, you remind me of ghost and his faith in evolution

Basically what I am saying is that you hate people who disagree with you

I have nothing valid to add because you don't have the capacity to hear and accept another's opinion without judging and accepting it, wrong or right

a reply to: Raggedyman

Your argument is tenuous at best

I have no argument. I'm merely pointing out an observation. Here, I'll explain it again.

God told Abraham that he would make a "covenant" with Abraham and all of his decedents, blessing them above all others. There only part, as a show of obedience and faith, was to circumcise their male babies at 8 days after their birth.

Now, later in the book, "God" is waiting for Abraham at an inn, where he intends to kill Moses, so his wife quickly circumcises their son, and "God" is appeased.

Then, even later in the book, after all kinds of foreskin fun, "God's" son, Jesus, Dies, and Paul says that now nobody has to get circumcised any more! Anyone who does so, is a slave to the law!

What's my argument?