Circumcision Poll, To Snip or Not to Snip

Chris V++ said:

I just saw a documentary on circumcision which stated the procedure evolved since the time of Abraham and that it was originally just a smaller section of the foreskin at the very tip and over time they started removing more and more skin. It was an anti circumcision documentary so I don't know if that can be verified, but the documentary proposes that the covenant procedure was never as extreme as it is now.

Click to expand...

I guess it could be true, but the Jews claim that they've been doing it this way for thousands of years.

And I don't mean to be crude, but how could the Israelites have made an entire hill of foreskins in Joshua 5, if these weren't removed? And why did Zipporah throw a foreskin at Moses after she circumcised her son, if she only partially circumcised him? And why would the bible say to circumcise the foreskin, if it meant only a part of it? And wasn't the purpose of circumcision to be set apart from the nations - how would this "circumcision" be different to uncircumcision?

Phil.Stein said:

I guess it could be true, but the Jews claim that they've been doing it this way for thousands of years.

And I don't mean to be crude, but how could the Israelites have made an entire hill of foreskins in Joshua 5, if these weren't removed?

Click to expand...

Are you sure that means the hill was made up of foreskins?
Or was it a hill called "the hill of foreskins", like there is "the mountain of God", which is not made up of God particles?

Hieronymus said:

Are you sure that means the hill was made up of foreskins?
Or was it a hill called "the hill of foreskins", like there is "the mountain of God", which is not made up of God particles?

Click to expand...

Lol. Good point. I hadn't thought of it like that. The "mountain of God" obviously isn't made of "God particles". I guess this makes the Joshua account somewhat less unsavory. But if in bible times circumcision wasn't removal of foreskin, I still don't see why the place would be called "hill of foreskins", rather than "hill of circumcision". ("Hill of circumcision" sounds much more sanitary, so it's likely they would have used this, if it was more appropriate).

Well, this is an old thread, but I don't think it's required under the New Covenant. Still, there may be some truth behind some of the medical reasons why it's helpful to prevent infections or just general uncleanliness.

I find it interesting people are so opposed to it, though... Can any man really say it left him scarred? I doubt anyone has any real memories of it. If you compare men who were circumcised to men who weren't, is there any real psychological difference? And would God have asked the Israelites to do something to themselves which was actually harmful instead of beneficial? I doubt it.

I think the anti-circumcision thing is not so loosely tied to anti-Semitism. If we make circumcision illegal, that leaves Jewish families in a difficult position and potentially breaking the law by carrying on a thousands-year-old tradition. some people would love to see that happen.

Joshua 5: NKJV

The Second Generation Circumcised

1So it was, when all the kings of the Amorites who were on the west side of the Jordan, and all the kings of the Canaanites who were by the sea, heard that the LORD had dried up the waters of the Jordan from before the children of Israel until wea had crossed over, that their heart melted; and there was no spirit in them any longer because of the children of Israel. 2At that time the LORD said to Joshua, “Make flint knives for yourself, and circumcise the sons of Israel again the second time.” 3So Joshua made flint knives for himself, and circumcised the sons of Israel at the hill of the foreskins.

Messerve said:

I think the anti-circumcision thing is not so loosely tied to anti-Semitism. If we make circumcision illegal, that leaves Jewish families in a difficult position and potentially breaking the law by carrying on a thousands-year-old tradition. some people would love to see that happen.

Click to expand...

And do you also think we should tolerate Female Genital Mutilation in order to appease the traditions of some cultures?

Jon Osterman said:

And do you also think we should tolerate Female Genital Mutilation in order to appease the traditions of some cultures?

Click to expand...

Male circumcision was prescribed by God (under limited circumstances, the old covenant). FGM never was. The former means that it is, ultimately, acceptable* (in contrast to the latter) even if no longer mandatory.

To insist otherwise is to accuse God of Male Genital Mutilation.

*Like hand washing & eating kosher.

Circumcision simply would have no religious significance for me as a Christian. My parents opted out of the procedure for their kids, even though medical staff thought it was an unusual request back then.

One of the funniest lines of Scriptures is where St. Paul suggests to the Galatians that their Judaizer critics should go ahead and cut the whole thing off! (Galatians 5:12).

Yes, for his health's and his future wife's sake. Ladies prefer clipped.

If you circumcise your sons, you’re a bad parent and I judge you for it.

Jon Osterman said:

And do you also think we should tolerate Female Genital Mutilation in order to appease the traditions of some cultures?

Click to expand...

I don't really know how female genital mutilation works (and don't really want to learn...) but if it's truly mutilation then of course not! Male circumcision isn't mutilation...

thecolorsblend said:

If you circumcise your sons, you’re a bad parent and I judge you for it.

Click to expand...

I guess you have no Jewish friends...

I voted two ways. First, no, the boy should decide when he comes of age. I believe that part of the body is something between him and God only, unless, and here is my second vote. Yes, for medical reasons. In America, where I live, there really isn't much of a medical reason for circumcision, but in other countries, like those in Africa, HIV is a major problem and studies have shown that uncircumcised men are much more likely to contact and or spread the disease if uncircumcised so it all depends on where you live.

Messerve said:

I guess you have no Jewish friends...

Click to expand...

or female friends. of all the females and jews i spoke to about this subject, the one most understanding of uncircumcision was a jew!! all the others were of the opinion that a few moments of pain were worth the lifelong health benefits.

nephilimiyr said:

In America, where I live, there really isn't much of a medical reason for circumcision, but in other countries, like those in Africa, HIV is a major problem and studies have shown that uncircumcised men are much more likely to contact and or spread the disease if uncircumcised so it all depends on where you live.

Click to expand...

its good general hygeine too, like keeping your nails short so they dont build up bacteria. women prefer it for this reason and also because they are less likely to catch diseases from a relationship where a man has the excess skin removed. jews have perfected it, although they do it more for religious purposes, but it still gives health benefits to them.

thecolorsblend said:

If you circumcise your sons, you’re a bad parent and I judge you for it.

Click to expand...

why is someone a bad parent just because they want to prevent their son catching a disease? i think u dont have good perpsective on this subject.

Sabertooth said:

Male circumcision was prescribed by God (under limited circumstances, the old covenant). FGM never was. The former means that it is, ultimately, acceptable* (in contrast to the latter) even if no longer mandatory.

To insist otherwise is to accuse God of Male Genital Mutilation.

Click to expand...

very true. whether u circumcise or not, to say the sign given by God is mutilation is going too far. cutting a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], as in fgm, is totally barbaric, though. it is obvious even from people's conscience, as no man would want his wife to have her [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] damaged, but both men and women are widely supportive of the health benefits of circumcision.

hu1tz said:

or female friends

Click to expand...

I would love to know why women think they’re entitled to any opinion about circumcision.

Because they’re not.

thecolorsblend said:

I would love to know why women think they’re entitled to any opinion about circumcision.

Because they’re not.

Click to expand...

y not? does the wife's body only belong to her, or also to her husband? y not the husband's body belonging to the wife?

men like women to be pretty. women like men to be clean. is it so wrong?

hu1tz said:

y not

Click to expand...

Because they’re women.

thecolorsblend said:

Because they’re women.

Click to expand...

i think all are entitled to their opinions. women are no different to men in their souls.