What’s the Baptist position on outlawing circumcision?
i) Many Baptists are dispensationalists. I assume they support the right of Jewish parents to circumcise their sons.
ii) Baptist theology also tends to accentuate the discontinuity between the old covenant and the new covenant, although there are many variations on this emphasis. Baptists who subscribe to the LBCF see more continuity than new covenant Baptists (e.g. D. A. Carson). Dispensationalists see continuity in terms of ethnic Israel's future restoration.
Considered in isolation, if you emphasize the newness of the new covenant, you might be more inclined to support a legal ban on circumcision. Circumcision null and void.
iii) On the other hand, Baptists also tend to stress separation of church and state, although there are variations on this emphasis as well. And Baptists who stress separation of church and state often ground this in their view of the old covenant. They say the old covenant in toto is obsolete. The OT theocracy was part of Israel’s unique, unrepeatable, cultic holiness. It represents a temporary stage in the history of redemption.
If you begin with that frame of reference, you might be inclined to oppose the state outlawing circumcision because you don’t think the state has the duty to regulate religion. That’s too theocratic. Rather, you’d support religious freedom. Individual conscience.
A baptist might oppose the state regulating religion, but they might be in favour of the state regulating the mutilation of children. Otherwise you wouldn't have a leg to stand on in asking the state to oppose abortion.
ReplyDeleteSo you think snipping a patch of skin is equivalent to murder. Nice to see the moral clarity of anticircumcisionists.
ReplyDeleteI had an elderly relative who had minor surgery to remove excess eyelid skin. By your yardstick, that's tantamount to homicide.
Jut taking your argument to its conclusion. If I'm a Satan worshipper, should i have the right to kill children because my religion says so? If not, then you'd better nuance your argument a whole lot better than "my religion says I can do X, therefore the state shouldn't stop me doing X".
ReplyDeleteI already anticipated that objection in an earlier post. Try to keep up with the actual state of the argument.
ReplyDeleteAnd Judaism is hardly comparable to Satanism.
If you're arguing for the secular state, then they are completely equivalent in the eyes of secularism.
ReplyDeleteEven a secular state is capable of drawing distinctions between one religion and another. For instance, Islam is dangerous in a way that Judaism is not.
Delete(a) the secular state can't say anything about religions. Otherwise you'd have bureaucrats saying that the Christian scriptures instruct the killing of the Amalekites, and do should be banned.
Delete(b) Palestinians might have a different perspective on how dangerous Judaism is.
i) Of course a secular state can judge one religion to be more dangerous than another. That's not a religious judgment.
Deleteii) Why drag the so-called Palestinians into this? Are you shifting from a secular state to a religious state? If so, are you saying all religious claims and claimants are on a par?
Most western countries don't judge religions, other than perhaps behind closed doors in counter terrorism groups. But in the actual laws and public running of the country, they don't judge. Sure they could judge, then you would be in a semi or full theocracy, or perhaps Marxist country.
DeleteI'm sure Palestinians consider Judaism to be dangerous independent of any religious considerations. They did after all lose their land basically because of a religious idea.
The German court decision, which you're defending, is a case of judging religious practice. So you support semi or full theocracy or Marxism.
DeleteRegarding the so-called Palestinians, you're tipping your hand by showing yourself to be a terrorist sympathizer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSure I support theocracy. It is what the OT instituted after all. You know that book that instituted circumcision in the first place? Apparently you support this book in one area, but not in the area of the political system it advocates.
ReplyDeleteSo all Palestinians are terrorists? You're part of the reason there won't be peace over there.
John
Delete"Sure I support theocracy."
Now you're dissembling. But that's the best you can do.
"So all Palestinians are terrorists? You're part of the reason there won't be peace over there."
Actually, terrorists exploit useful idiots like yourself.
Dissembling? Yet again you think slapping a label on someone is an actual argument.
DeleteAnd apparently you think slapping the label of "terrorists" on a whole virtual nation is an intelligent approach to life. Why don't you tell your president to just nuke them from space then?
John
Delete"Dissembling? Yet again you think slapping a label on someone is an actual argument."
You gave no argument to argue against. Sarcasm is not an argument, although it can accompany argument.
"And apparently you think slapping the label of 'terrorists' on a whole virtual nation is an intelligent approach to life."
There's a groupthink mentality among the so-called Palestinians.
"Why don't you tell your president to just nuke them from space then?"
I doubt we have the technological wherewithal.
"There's a groupthink mentality among the so-called Palestinians".
ReplyDeleteWhat, as opposed to Americans? LOL.
Anyway, where is your evidence? From watching CNN I suppose.