Circumcision is Messed Up

[Paul Yohannan]

It is a matter of Christian freedom.

Indeed, although I consider it to be inadvisable to make this choice for the youth. The Coptic church has had some success in eradicating FGM, and my hope is that at some point we might be able to address this problem as well, and thus be more in line with other Orthodox churches (which overwhelmingly reject circumcision).

 

[Tetra]

Indeed, although I consider it to be inadvisable to make this choice for the youth. The Coptic church has had some success in eradicating FGM, and my hope is that at some point we might be able to address this problem as well, and thus be more in line with other Orthodox churches (which overwhelmingly reject circumcision).

I'm thankful to not be alone in my position.

 

[Tetra]

I don't think it's as big of a deal as we are now making it.

I guess to some no... but we have been desensitized to it. I never thought much about it until I sat back and really considered what was going on. We are permanently altering someone else's body. I just can't see how that's ethical.

 

[Tallguy88]

No one is saying there isn't any benefits... however, there are also risks. I linked 2 studies conducted by the British Journal of Urology indicating some of them. Even if there are benefits, no reason a child cannot make that decision for himself when he's older.


You're altering the definition to fit your worldview. I'm claiming the human body is being mutilated by removing a piece which serves function. Just like removing my eyelid would be the mutilation of my body. Just because my eye still works doesn't mean my body wasn't mutilated.


Again, my eyelid is just a piece of skin... I'd like it to stay where it is too.

I'll maintain my position, don't think it's okay to cut off pieces of children.

God specifically commanded it. While Christians are not required to follow it as a means of salvation, that does not change the fact that it was a direct command by God for all males of Israel to be circumcised, without their consent, and before anesthesia existed. Vilifying the practice is not theologically consistent for a Christian, unless you intend to vilify God himself.

You can debate it's necessariness, but that's about as far as you can go with it without going down a theological rabbit hole.

 

[TurtleAnne]

There were several instructions given by God in the OT to help the ancient peoples distinguish themselves from the surrounding societies, a lot of that stuff gets cherry picked when it is the old covenant and not part of the new covenant. Humanity has been developing for thousands of years, and to be honest there are other things in the OT that seem a lot more messed up than circumcision. A big emphasis throughout the Bible has been to help humans let go of the physical and embrace the spiritual, and some of the methods God used with the ancient peoples may seem pretty extreme to us, but were not extreme to them.

I personally would not have a son of mine circumcised because the new covenant clearly says it is no longer important, just like my children could wear mixed types of linens and so on.

As far as why it is still so commonly practiced, I think it's one of those, "We've always done it this way," sort of things, where people don't really think about it, and then they don't want to think about it, either. I mean you have to consider that most parents love their children fiercely, even though no parents are perfect, so if you try to convince a parent that they mutilated their children when they were not even religious or it wasn't required by God even if they were religious, well that is quite the emotional uphill battle. I'm not condoning it, but I am saying that I understand it. It's not like most parents have a male infant and are like yeah let's mutilate our son, it's not like that in their hearts and minds, and then they are scared to death of the idea because they love their children so much; this is imperfect human love, but it is a strong form of love none the less and blinds people to reason.

So just as Jesus set the example for us, the best approach is compassion and empathy, understanding that most parents do not mean any harm to their children, most parents are overwhelmed and in a whirlwind when having their babies and for the most part are relying heavily on medical staff for a sense of direction (and many parents experience much fear of getting things wrong, many lose a lot of sleep during the night just worrying about their new infants and checking on them), and then from that same love many parents are scared to death to consider that they may have done anything harmful, so people don't want to think about it and thus it doesn't change.

If we judge (and we ought not, lest we be judged) instead, and come at people like, "You mutilated your child, how could you?!" then people will just shut down even more.

 

[RaymondG]

What about giving babies flu and hep and measle shots? I mean stabbing them in the leg and inserting foreign diseases and viruses, which sometimes make them sick right after? I am seriously against this. And there is no proof that the strains of viruses we jab into their bodies would help them with the strand of that current year !

What about you? Do you feel they should wait until they are able to decide if they what to do it themselves?

 

[Tallguy88]

Indeed, although I consider it to be inadvisable to make this choice for the youth. The Coptic church has had some success in eradicating FGM, and my hope is that at some point we might be able to address this problem as well, and thus be more in line with other Orthodox churches (which overwhelmingly reject circumcision).

FGM and male circ are not comparable in any way. One is a pagan practice designed to destroy a woman's ability to receive pleasure from sex, while the other is small removal of excess skin either as a sign of the covenant or for health benefits. There are no health benefits from FGM.

The Catholic Church teaches that circumcision isn't necessary for salvation, but is left up to believers to decide.

 

[Tetra]

God specifically commanded it. While Christians are not required to follow it as a means of salvation, that does not change the fact that it was a direct command by God for all males of Israel to be circumcised, without their consent, and before anesthesia existed. Vilifying the practice is not theologically consistent for a Christian, unless you intend to vilify God himself.

You can debate it's necessariness, but that's about as far as you can go with it without going down a theological rabbit hole.

Incorrect, God commanded Saul to "put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.". If someone attempted such a thing today, I would say it was unethical. I fail to see your point. Lots of things were commanded in the OT, that doesn't mean if they happen today, it okay.

1 Samuel 15:2-3
"2 Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

I think it's wrong to remove parts of a child without their consent.

 

[Tallguy88]

I guess to some no... but we have been desensitized to it. I never thought much about it until I sat back and really considered what was going on. We are permanently altering someone else's body. I just can't see how that's ethical.

Do you feel the same way about piercing children's ears?

 

[Tetra]

What about giving babies flu and hep and measle shots? I mean stabbing them in the leg and inserting foreign diseases and viruses, which sometimes make them sick right after? I am seriously against this. And there is no proof that the strains of viruses we jab into their bodies would help them with the strand of that current year !

What about you? Do you feel they should wait until they are able to decide if they what to do it themselves?

This is also a debated topic, however a slight difference. MMR vaccines have the ability to prevent death, while circumcision doesn't.

 

[Tetra]

Do you feel the same way about piercing children's ears?

Excellent question, but since it doesn't alter function, it doesn't seem to be as upsetting for me. My children did wait to decide however in this regard.

 

[Tetra]

There were several instructions given by God in the OT to help the ancient peoples distinguish themselves from the surrounding societies, a lot of that stuff gets cherry picked when it is the old covenant and not part of the new covenant. Humanity has been developing for thousands of years, and to be honest there are other things in the OT that seem a lot more messed up than circumcision. A big emphasis throughout the Bible has been to help humans let go of the physical and embrace the spiritual, and some of the methods God used with the ancient peoples may seem pretty extreme to us, but were not extreme to them.

I personally would not have a son of mine circumcised because the new covenant clearly says it is no longer important, just like my children could wear mixed types of linens and so on.

As far as why it is still so commonly practiced, I think it's one of those, "We've always done it this way," sort of things, where people don't really think about it, and then they don't want to think about it, either. I mean you have to consider that most parents love their children fiercely, even though no parents are perfect, so if you try to convince a parent that they mutilated their children when they were not even religious or it wasn't required by God even if they were religious, well that is quite the emotional uphill battle. I'm not condoning it, but I am saying that I understand it. It's not like most parents have a male infant and are like yeah let's mutilate our son, it's not like that in their hearts and minds, and then they are scared to death of the idea because they love their children so much; this is imperfect human love, but it is a strong form of love none the less and blinds people to reason.

So just as Jesus set the example for us, the best approach is compassion and empathy, understanding that most parents do not mean any harm to their children, most parents are overwhelmed and in a whirlwind when having their babies and for the most part are relying heavily on medical staff for a sense of direction (and many parents experience much fear of getting things wrong, many lose a lot of sleep during the night just worrying about their new infants and checking on them), and then from that same love many parents are scared to death to consider that they may have done anything harmful, so people don't want to think about it and thus it doesn't change.

If we judge (and we ought not, lest we be judged) instead, and come at people like, "You mutilated your child, how could you?!" then people will just shut down even more.

I will conceded this point, you're correct.

I'm not saying it's malicious however, I understand that no one wishes to harm their children. I get that. I do think that it's occurring though. And we can't just keep going on and on without questioning the practice to some degree.

 

[Tallguy88]

Incorrect, God commanded Saul to "put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.". If someone attempted such a thing today, I would say it was unethical. I fail to see your point. Lots of things were commanded in the OT, that doesn't mean if they happen today, it okay.

1 Samuel 15:2-3
"2 Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

I think it's wrong to remove parts of a child without their consent.

That verse refers to a specific command given at a specific time. It can't be done today because it was already done. The commandment to circumcise is "standing orders" however. Even the Talmudic Jews in their excessive legalism recognize that only certain ones of the 600ish mitzvah are applicable today to modern Jews. Many were historic one-time commands, others simply cannot be done because the conditions don't exist to do them, like things that require the Temple. But the rest are still applicable, like circumcision.

 

[Tallguy88]

Excellent question, but since it doesn't alter function, it doesn't seem to be as upsetting for me. My children did wait to decide however in this regard.

Circumcision doesn't affect function. I assure you, I am fully functional.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Do you feel the same way about piercing children's ears?

I would oppose piercing the ears of children without their consent. A consent which would become effectively possible around age 7.

 

[TurtleAnne]

I will conceded this point, you're correct.

I'm not saying it's malicious however, I understand that no one wishes to harm their children. I get that. I do think that it's occurring though. And we can't just keep going on and on without questioning the practice to some degree.

I agree with you on that point, I've just had some of my own intense struggles with my own messed up family, and one of the things I learned through all of it was that for the most part, parents are terrified of the idea that they screwed up, are terrified that their children will hate them and abandon them, etc. This intense fear keeps many parents across multiple generations from questioning their past decisions, active or passive. So combining this understanding with the wisdom given by Jesus, I think it's just important to question gently and with empathy. Another way to look at it, is that if we really care, then we want to be strategic, and not just correct, because if we really care, then we want results, and being strategic on such a sensitive matter requires a lot of patience and empathy.

 

[Tetra]

That verse refers to a specific command given at a specific time. It can't be done today because it was already done. The commandment to circumcise is "standing orders" however. Even the Talmudic Jews in their excessive legalism recognize that only certain ones of the 600ish mitzvah are applicable today to modern Jews. Many were historic one-time commands, others simply cannot be done because the conditions don't exist to do them, like things that require the Temple. But the rest are still applicable, like circumcision.

Yes, my point is that just because something was commanded in the OT doesn't necessarily mean it's okay to do today. I think we can both come up with other examples of what I mean.

Circumcision doesn't affect function. I assure you, I am fully functional.

I'm sure you are, in truthfulness, I don't know if you'd be able to tell otherwise since you've always been? I linked to two studies in the Britsh Journal of Urology indicating problems with circumcised men. When we consider say one function of the foreskin... protection of the glans for example, it's impossible for circumcised children to retain this function.

 

[Tetra]

I agree with you on that point, I've just had some of my own intense struggles with my own messed up family, and one of the things I learned through all of it was that for the most part, parents are terrified of the idea that they screwed up, are terrified that their children will hate them and abandon them, etc. This intense fear keeps many parents across multiple generations from questioning their past decisions, active or passive. So combining this understanding with the wisdom given by Jesus, I think it's just important to question gently and with empathy. Another way to look at it, is that if we really care, then we want to be strategic, and not just correct, because if we really care, then we want results, and being strategic on such a sensitive matter requires a lot of patience and empathy.

You're hard to argue with. I'll concede this as well... I could do better on the patience and empathy side of things.

 

[Tallguy88]

Yes, my point is that just because something was commanded in the OT doesn't necessarily mean it's okay to do today. I think we can both come up with other examples of what I mean.


I'm sure you are, in truthfulness, I don't know if you'd be able to tell otherwise since you've always been? I linked to two studies in the Britsh Journal of Urology indicating problems with circumcised men. When we consider say one function of the foreskin... protection of the glans for example, it's impossible for circumcised children to retain this function.

The glans isn't in any danger from being exposed. It still spends most of its time in underwear and in pants. Just be careful with the zipper and you'll be alright, though I suspect that's good advice even if you are uncircumcised.

 

[Tetra]

There were several instructions given by God in the OT to help the ancient peoples distinguish themselves from the surrounding societies, a lot of that stuff gets cherry picked when it is the old covenant and not part of the new covenant. Humanity has been developing for thousands of years, and to be honest there are other things in the OT that seem a lot more messed up than circumcision. A big emphasis throughout the Bible has been to help humans let go of the physical and embrace the spiritual, and some of the methods God used with the ancient peoples may seem pretty extreme to us, but were not extreme to them.

I personally would not have a son of mine circumcised because the new covenant clearly says it is no longer important, just like my children could wear mixed types of linens and so on.

As far as why it is still so commonly practiced, I think it's one of those, "We've always done it this way," sort of things, where people don't really think about it, and then they don't want to think about it, either. I mean you have to consider that most parents love their children fiercely, even though no parents are perfect, so if you try to convince a parent that they mutilated their children when they were not even religious or it wasn't required by God even if they were religious, well that is quite the emotional uphill battle. I'm not condoning it, but I am saying that I understand it. It's not like most parents have a male infant and are like yeah let's mutilate our son, it's not like that in their hearts and minds, and then they are scared to death of the idea because they love their children so much; this is imperfect human love, but it is a strong form of love none the less and blinds people to reason.

So just as Jesus set the example for us, the best approach is compassion and empathy, understanding that most parents do not mean any harm to their children, most parents are overwhelmed and in a whirlwind when having their babies and for the most part are relying heavily on medical staff for a sense of direction (and many parents experience much fear of getting things wrong, many lose a lot of sleep during the night just worrying about their new infants and checking on them), and then from that same love many parents are scared to death to consider that they may have done anything harmful, so people don't want to think about it and thus it doesn't change.

If we judge (and we ought not, lest we be judged) instead, and come at people like, "You mutilated your child, how could you?!" then people will just shut down even more.

My wife just read this by the way and said "I really like this guy".