since the apostle Paul called circumcision mutilation, isn't it mutilation?

Philippians 3

1 Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. For me to write the same things to you is not tedious, but for you it is safe.

2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the mutilation! 3 For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit,[a] rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh,

So isn't it mutilation?

Update:

If you were Paul yeah.

But Paul already said that long hair on a guy is a shame.

10 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    yes

  • 1 decade ago

    It's mutilation if you do it because you think it's necessary to be a Christian. In Phillipi (and other churches), the new Christians were Gentiles; not circumcised. Some Jewish teaching got into the church there, and people started to require new converts be circumcised to be members. Paul was speaking against this, because it's too works-based.

    Circumcision was a sign of the covenant among Jews. But among Christians, fellowship (the church or "we") is the sign of the covenant. To require circumcision in a new Christian for the sake of salvation was "putting new wine in old wineskins."

  • jaime
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Hmmm. I guess if you remove a gangrenous or cancerous limb, which keeps the patient alive, and removes the disease, that is mutilation, too.

    If it is about being sanitary, is it mutilation? or is it life preserving?

    Keeping in mind, of course, that uncircumcised members need to take better cleaning care, and still, there is no guarantee that they won't get cancer (sometimes caused by the remaining ...I really don't want to use the word), and uncircumcised men's partners have a much higher incidence of cancer.

    No. Not mutilation. In fact, much pleasanter, safer, cleaner, more sanitary, healthier. And there are WHO statistics to back this up.

    Besides, who was Paul to contradict Gd?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    TMI buddy.

    anyway he seems to be talking of Unicks, not circumcision

    In case you don't know the difference, circumcision is a little bit off the top, being a unick is the whole thing gone.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Maybe. Tats and piercings are mutilations too. However circumcision can make for a fine looking member, or so some women have told me.

  • ?
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    And if I, no more holy than the random guy Paul, said goatees are an abomination, would they then be evil?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    well 1st off how does paul, by saying, we are the circumcision, call circumcision mutilation? he doesn't.

  • If Paul said the sun rose in the west, would you believe him because he said it?

  • 1 decade ago

    Stay away from my member, I like it the way it is. Don't gimme that "hygiene" crap, if your foot gets dirty you clean it, not cut it.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Oh grow up!

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.