Comments (15)
sorted by:
2
flatissmooth 2 points ago +2 / -0

Valid argument. Abraham circumcised himself as a sacrifice to God. He did it as testimony that The Father had circumcised his heart. We are to seek circumcision of the heart by The Father. There is no need to circumcise children, or even get circumcised later in life as that has nothing to do with what we are to seek in a relationship with The Father. Someone really likes to use foreskin of the young as an anti aging treatment and made the one time show of commitment to The Father a cash cow for CENTURIES!

-4
Jibideen [S] -4 points ago +1 / -5

What?

-4
Jibideen [S] -4 points ago +1 / -5

When you use that many sentences, it becomes a rant,

2
flatissmooth 2 points ago +2 / -0

6? It is a paragraph at best.

Circumcision isn't demanded by God. Not genital circumcision.

It has become mainstream because they sell the foreskins to people like Sandra Bullock https://www.huffpost.com/entry/penis-facial_n_5b02df5be4b0463cdba4a6fa Well, not directly to her probably.

1
WeaponizedSmirk 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're literally too stupid to insult.

0
Fignugent 0 points ago +3 / -3

he's not allowed to rail against people cutting baby dicks if he self intoxicates?

how fucking retarded are you and why do you feel the need to advertise it...

-3
Jibideen [S] -3 points ago +1 / -4

He only cares about harming skin. Organs and soul be damned

0
Fignugent 0 points ago +3 / -3

no, the point was that's not your fucking body

if he wants to harm HIS OWN fucking body, why are you fucking crying about it

fucking retard

-4
Jibideen [S] -4 points ago +1 / -5

Now it’s okay that you’re missing the point: he only cares about skin deep. Completely laced his body with carcinogens because of sin. The damage to his soul is incalculable to us. But he’s unable to see those things, so he doesn’t even register.

Like all atheists. Can’t see: can’t understand.

0
Fignugent 0 points ago +3 / -3

so?

once again, it's his fucking body

retard

-4
Jibideen [S] -4 points ago +1 / -5

It’s not “his” body. It’s that he doesn’t carry his own argument deeper than the literal surface.

I will definitely be doing some more debunking of Hitch.

0
Fignugent 0 points ago +3 / -3

It’s not “his” body

ladies and gentleman

this kid is now KING of the retards

-4
Jibideen [S] -4 points ago +1 / -5

I’m talking about Hitchens “defending” the “rhetorical kid”. By your take, you can’t feed a child or dress it because it’s not your body.