The original description of the Covenant (Genesis 15 in the Jahwist text) had no reference to #circumcision. That story was revised only after the Babylonian Captivity (& moved to Genesis 17) by priests who thereafter pretended the circumcision reference had always been there.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @cooney21 @realChaim_Rubin and
Then, 100s of years after the Baylonian Captivity, the rules of the Covenant were changed again to require the entire foreskin to be removed. Until then, only the small part of the foreskin that always overhangs the glans was deemed necessary to remove.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @realChaim_Rubin and
Each of us can (& does) believe what he or she would like. But there simply is no historical or other support for the idea that infant
#circumcision always has been an immutable requirement for Jewish identity, & so no basis for the idea it couldn't be changed yet again.#i22 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @RockerMan_198 and
. The Torah has been increasingly validated by historical research &material findings &never once invalidated Any contrary statement is unsupported speculation All academic work is loaded with suppositions &qualifiers Bottom line is universal Jewish practice on the ground
3 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @realChaim_Rubin @cooney21 and
The members of the Smegma Platoon have psychological issues w/circumcision, the origin of which is obscure & probably differs. Some complain of decreased sensation. Others feel cheated & angry. Others fixate on Jews. The overwhelming # of circumcised men are fine w/it. Not them.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @COPIA_COPMA1 @realChaim_Rubin and
There's no evidence most circumcised men are "fine w/it." This study addressed that issue & found 64% of men cut as neonates had a negative view of it: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319635437_Attitude_Toward_One's_Circumcision_Status_Is_More_Important_than_Actual_Circumcision_Status_for_Men's_Body_Image_and_Sexual_Functioning … The decreased sensation is a valid reason to object to it & why it's not ok to force it on an infant.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @realChaim_Rubin and
An online survey? Very scientific.. One wonders about the participation of the Smegma Platoon.. "A total of 811 men (367 circumcised as neonates, 107 circumcised in childhood, 47 circumcised in adulthood, and 290 intact) completed an online survey."
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @COPIA_COPMA1 @realChaim_Rubin and
Your attempt to discredit, with what you think is a clever derogatory label, the views of the hundreds of circumcised men in that study who said they negatively view the circumcisions that were forced on their bodies is just another of your empty, ad hominem attacks.
#i22 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @realChaim_Rubin and
I'm not discrediting anyone's views. I'm simply questioning the validity of this so-called study. It was an online survey, w/only 300+ circumcised men, so do you know whether that 300 may have been polluted by foreskin advocates such as you & your fellow Smegma Platoon members?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
"Not discrediting anyone's views, just saying their views about what was done to their own bodies must have been polluted because they disagree with how I think they must view what was done to their own bodies." 
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.