Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Hygiene in Christianity" in English language version.
Although the Jewish, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopal, and Lutheran traditions generally allow moderate drinking for those who can do so, it is simply incorrect to accuse them of condoning drunkenness.
Michael Benatar and David Benatar (2003) identify and insightfully refute two arguments that opponents of neonatal male circumcision use in an attempt to demonstrate the moral illicitness of the practice. The first argument they consider is that circumcision is tantamount to an unjustifiable form of mutilation. The second argument is that, because circumcision is not a strictly therapeutic procedure, parents are not justified in giving consent for it on behalf of their child. As ethicists for a large Catholic health system, we have encountered a third argument opposing the practice, particularly in Catholic hospitals. In short, this argument is that the practice of circumcising male neonates is a violation of the natural law as conceived within the Catholic moral tradition and Church teaching. ... We are unaware of the Catholic Church explicitly addressing the practice of circumcising male infants in any of its official teachings.
All the faithful should strive to pray seven times a day & at the following hours: Upon rising from bed in the morning & before eating & commencing any task. Wash your hands & pray standing.
Principles which underlie our Wesleyan/holiness heritage include such commitments as unquestioned scriptural authority; classical orthodox theology; identity with the one holy and apostolic church; warmhearted evangelical experience; love perfected in sanctifying grace; careful, disciplined living; structured spiritual formation, fidelity to the means of grace; and responsible witness both in public and in private—all of which converge in holiness of heart and life, which for us Methodists will always be the "central idea of Christianity." These are bedrock essentials, and without them we shall have no heritage at all. Though we may neglect them, these principles never change. But our prudentials often do. Granted, some of these are so basic to our DNA that to give them up would be to alter the character of our movement. John Wesley, for example, believed that the prudentials of early Methodism were so necessary to guard its principles that to lose the first would be also to lose the second. His immediate followers should have listened to his caution, as should we. For throughout our history, foolish men have often imperiled our treasure by their brutal assault against the walls which our founders raised to contain them. Having said this, we must add that we have had many other prudentials less significant to our common life which have come and gone throughout our history. For instance, weekly class meetings, quarterly love feasts, and Friday fast days were once practiced universally among us, as was the appointment of circuit-riding ministers assisted by "exhorters" and "local preachers."
Michael Benatar and David Benatar (2003) identify and insightfully refute two arguments that opponents of neonatal male circumcision use in an attempt to demonstrate the moral illicitness of the practice. The first argument they consider is that circumcision is tantamount to an unjustifiable form of mutilation. The second argument is that, because circumcision is not a strictly therapeutic procedure, parents are not justified in giving consent for it on behalf of their child. As ethicists for a large Catholic health system, we have encountered a third argument opposing the practice, particularly in Catholic hospitals. In short, this argument is that the practice of circumcising male neonates is a violation of the natural law as conceived within the Catholic moral tradition and Church teaching. ... We are unaware of the Catholic Church explicitly addressing the practice of circumcising male infants in any of its official teachings.
Michael Benatar and David Benatar (2003) identify and insightfully refute two arguments that opponents of neonatal male circumcision use in an attempt to demonstrate the moral illicitness of the practice. The first argument they consider is that circumcision is tantamount to an unjustifiable form of mutilation. The second argument is that, because circumcision is not a strictly therapeutic procedure, parents are not justified in giving consent for it on behalf of their child. As ethicists for a large Catholic health system, we have encountered a third argument opposing the practice, particularly in Catholic hospitals. In short, this argument is that the practice of circumcising male neonates is a violation of the natural law as conceived within the Catholic moral tradition and Church teaching. ... We are unaware of the Catholic Church explicitly addressing the practice of circumcising male infants in any of its official teachings.
Christians in Syria as well, in the second century, would place the cross in the direction of the East towards which people in their homes or churches prayed. The direction to which Christians prayed symbolized their souls facing God, talking with him, and sharing their spirituality with the Lord.
