Assertion: circumcision | /r/HasProperty | given
Facets:
value: for decades
type: TEMPORAL
Source sentences:
text: The clear statement of the Bible that circumcision was given to Abraham, as “a sign of the covenant” (Gen. xvii, 11), need not compel us to believe that hitherto it was unknown in the world.
text: For decades, circumcision has been something of a given in the United States.
text: then you can't use this meaning of baptism by itself as an argument against baptizing infants, because circumcision was given to infants.
text: So, if circumcision can be a sign of faith and righteousness, and still be given to all the male children of the Israelites (who don't yet have faith for themselves), then why should not baptism can be given to the children of Christians even though it is a sign of faith and righteousness (which they don't yet have)?
text: Therefore it was fitting that circumcision was given to all the children of the flesh.
text: For decades, circumcision has been something of a given in the United States.