Circumcision technique issues

Circumcision is, in Christianity, irrelevant.

In the 21st century, circumcision exists for a lot of reasons, sometimes religious, sometimes non-religious.

The official Christian position is that circumcision is entirely meaningless. It just doesn't matter.

As I understand it, the circumcision of the New Testament period was more limited than what is practiced nowadays. Specifically, a smaller portion of the foreskin was removed. It was starting in the 2nd century when they started making a point to remove more foreskin. I believe this was in order to prevent what some Jews were doing, which was using devices to make it appear that they were uncircumcised. This is actually alluded to in the Bible, in 1 Corinthians 7:18:

"Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised."

To a lot of people nowadays, this verse seems an oddity, for how does someone become uncircumcised? But it was more possible back then, even with their much more limited technology, because the circumcision itself was more limited. I don't know if the "oral suction" the article refers to was performed back then, though.

i looked it up and apparently its only done in certain strict Orthodox communities wich means it most likely was not done like that back then

JohnClay said:

This topic is shocking but hopefully it can still be discussed in a careful way.

Rabbis and NY negotiate how to protect babies and preserve religious freedom

Oral suction circumcision has been linked to 17 cases of herpes since 2000 as mayor is in talks with Orthodox Jews to reconsider existing regulation on ritual

www.theguardian.com

So circumcision has been mentioned in the Bible a lot. The news article says the "tradition known as oral suction circumcision reaches back to biblical times". Even Jesus was circumcised. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

It is important to recognize that the Bible can speak against doing something for an incorrect reason without speaking against doing it for the reasons that God commanded it. If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason, then Galatians 5:2 would mean that Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised right after the Jerusalem Council and Christ is of no value to roughly 70% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason for why God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Law of Moses by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles correctly obeying what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.

Paul said that circumcision has no value and that what matters is obeying the commandments of God (1 Corinthians 7:19) and that circumcision has no value and that what matters is faith working through love (Galatians 5:6), so he equated the commandments of God with faith working through love, and indeed, he said that our faith upholds the Law of Moses (Romans 3:31) and he summarized it as being about love (Galatians 5:14). Paul also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and that circumcision conditionally has value if we obey the Law of Moses (Romans 2:25), so the issue is that circumcision has no inherent value and that its value is entirely derive from our obedience to the Law of Moses. Physical circumcision is a sign of having a circumcised heart, which is evident by our obedience to the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 10:12-16) while having an uncircumcised heart is evident by our disobedience to the Law of Moses (Jeremiah 9:25, Acts 7:51-53), so physical circumcision only has value insofar as what it is a sign of is true.

“Roman citizens who suffer that they themselves or their slaves be circumcised in accordance with the Jewish custom, are exiled perpetually to an island and their property confiscated; the doctors suffer capital punishment. If Jews shall circumcise purchased slaves of another nation, they shall be banished or suffer capital punishment.” - St Justinian

"... all who after that time observe circumcision, the [Jewish] sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation." - Council of Florence

“But someone might say: “Is there so much harm in circumcision that it makes Christ’s whole plan of redemption useless? Yes, the harm of circumcision is as great as that, not because of its own but because of your obstinacy. There was a time when the law was useful and necessary, but now it has ceased and is fruitless. If you take it on yourself to be circumcised now, when the time is no longer right, it makes the gift of God useless. It is because you are not willing to come to him that Christ will be of no advantage to you.” – St John Chrysostom

“It is unnecessary and indeed unlawful for the faithful to be circumcised” – Venerable Bede (Ecclesiastical History of the English People)

ViaCrucis said:

Circumcision is, in Christianity, irrelevant.

In the 21st century, circumcision exists for a lot of reasons, sometimes religious, sometimes non-religious.

The official Christian position is that circumcision is entirely meaningless. It just doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

That is false; "Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law." (Roman Catechism)

Every medical association on the planet says that infant circumcision is non-therapeutic and not medically necessary. Therefore, almost every single circumcision in America violates the moral law and is mortal sin.

Dogheaded said:

“Roman citizens who suffer that they themselves or their slaves be circumcised in accordance with the Jewish custom, are exiled perpetually to an island and their property confiscated; the doctors suffer capital punishment. If Jews shall circumcise purchased slaves of another nation, they shall be banished or suffer capital punishment.” - St Justinian

"... all who after that time observe circumcision, the [Jewish] sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation." - Council of Florence

“But someone might say: “Is there so much harm in circumcision that it makes Christ’s whole plan of redemption useless? Yes, the harm of circumcision is as great as that, not because of its own but because of your obstinacy. There was a time when the law was useful and necessary, but now it has ceased and is fruitless. If you take it on yourself to be circumcised now, when the time is no longer right, it makes the gift of God useless. It is because you are not willing to come to him that Christ will be of no advantage to you.” – St John Chrysostom

“It is unnecessary and indeed unlawful for the faithful to be circumcised” – Venerable Bede (Ecclesiastical History of the English People)

Click to expand...

Roughly 70% of the men in the US are circumcised, so do you think that we should be exiled to an Island that that the doctors who performed the circumcision should be executed? In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so do you think that all of the Gentiles through out history who have acted in accordance with this verse are unable to share in eternal salvation unless they repent from having done that? Christ kept the Sabbath and was circumcised, so can you not recognize the absurdity it of saying that the people who do this are strangers to the faith of Christ? If God has commanded something, God has spoken against following anyone who speaks against obeying what He has commanded, and man has spoken against obeying what God has commanded, then should we obey God or man?

Soyeong said:

Roughly 70% of the men in the US are circumcised, so do you think that we should be exiled to an Island that that the doctors who performed the circumcision should be executed? In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so do you think that all of the Gentiles through out history who have acted in accordance with this verse are unable to share in eternal salvation unless they repent from having done that? Christ kept the Sabbath and was circumcised, so can you not recognize the absurdity it of saying that the people who do this are strangers to the faith of Christ? If God has commanded something, God has spoken against following anyone who speaks against obeying what He has commanded, and man has spoken against obeying what God has commanded, then should we obey God or man?

Click to expand...

That was the penalty in the Roman Empire - St. Justinian was the Emperor, although he is citing much older law. The Simon Bar Kohkba revolution in the A.D. 130's was caused, according to the Historia Auguste, by Emperor Hadrian removing the Jewish exception from the law. (The only exception to the law was for Jewish fathers to have their own sons circumcised.) This lead to the destruction of Jerusalem. A later Emperor restored the exception. I don't think Hadrian was wrong to protect all children.

The current penalty for female circumcision (as it is referred to in the law I'm citing) in my state is 20 years to life in prison. According to the Equal Protection Clause this should also apply to male circumcision. There are ongoing lawsuits in several states over this Equal Protection Clause. These cases are mostly being raised to court by Jews and Jewish lawyers. If successful, the penalties for Female Genital Mutilation will apply to Male Genital Mutilation going forward. Parents who have already done so would be 'grandfathered' in, just like parents who did Female Genital Mutilation prior to their states (or the now defunct federal ban) were grandfathered out of responsibility. These lawsuits would also protect intersex children from mutilation - leaving it for them to decide what to do with their own genitals when they reach adulthood.

It seems to me that the already existing penalties are just and not disagreeable to most people, therefore they should not be disagreeable when applied equally between the sexes.

"Christ kept the Sabbath and was circumcised, so can you not recognize the absurdity it of saying that the people who do this are strangers to the faith of Christ?" They are teaching what the New Testament taught. Their words barely differ. Do you contend that the New Testament is absurd on the same grounds?

"I wish that those of you who promote mutilation by circumcision would mutilate themselves by castration." - St. Paul (Galations 5:12 Amplified Bible.) St. Paul is literally saying, "why not go all the way?"

Soyeong said:

Roughly 70% of the men in the US are circumcised, so do you think that we should be exiled to an Island that that the doctors who performed the circumcision should be executed? In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so do you think that all of the Gentiles through out history who have acted in accordance with this verse are unable to share in eternal salvation unless they repent from having done that? Christ kept the Sabbath and was circumcised, so can you not recognize the absurdity it of saying that the people who do this are strangers to the faith of Christ? If God has commanded something, God has spoken against following anyone who speaks against obeying what He has commanded, and man has spoken against obeying what God has commanded, then should we obey God or man?

Click to expand...

Why is it that (most) Americans feel that of all the things to be 'Selective Judiazers' about, they choose not the meritful prayers, spiritual meditations, or fasting cycles of the Jews, but instead choose only the mutilation of children?

wrotta said:

i looked it up and apparently its only done in certain strict Orthodox communities wich means it most likely was not done like that back then

Click to expand...

Many Reformed Jews do not practice circumcision at all. With a European group declaring in 1843 that circumcision is "cruel and unnecessary." Similarly, the Jewish Encyclopedia states that circumcision is not a requirement for being Jewish.

Dogheaded said:

The current penalty for female circumcision (as it is referred to in the law I'm citing) in my state is 20 years to life in prison. According to the Equal Protection Clause this should also apply to male circumcision. There are ongoing lawsuits in several states over this Equal Protection Clause. These cases are mostly being raised to court by Jews and Jewish lawyers. If successful, the penalties for Female Genital Mutilation will apply to Male Genital Mutilation going forward. Parents who have already done so would be 'grandfathered' in, just like parents who did Female Genital Mutilation prior to their states (or the now defunct federal ban) were grandfathered out of responsibility. These lawsuits would also protect intersex children from mutilation - leaving it for them to decide what to do with their own genitals when they reach adulthood.

Click to expand...

If they were to win on the Equal Protection Clause--possibly a very big if--it would not by itself make the female anti-circumcision laws apply to males as well. Rather, a court judgment would say that a law that forbids female circumcision but not male circumcision is unconstitutional and therefore would be struck down, so the applicable laws against female circumcision would be rendered inoperative. A legislature would then have the option of taking no further action (leaving both male and female circumcision legal) or enacting a law forbidding both (which would inherently involve "grandfathering" due to the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto convictions). But a court decision by itself would not make the penalties apply to male circumcision.

JSRG said:

If they were to win on the Equal Protection Clause--possibly a very big if--it would not by itself make the female anti-circumcision laws apply to males as well. Rather, a court judgment would say that a law that forbids female circumcision but not male circumcision is unconstitutional and therefore would be struck down, so the applicable laws against female circumcision would be rendered inoperative. A legislature would then have the option of taking no further action (leaving both male and female circumcision legal) or enacting a law forbidding both (which would inherently involve "grandfathering" due to the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto convictions). But a court decision by itself would not make the penalties apply to male circumcision.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. I am not an expert.

The states in question are states where A. the ban has been place long enough to have plaintiffs, and B. states more likely to receive it better politically, like Oregon.

FGM has only been illegal in Virginia, for example, since 2018 - a response to the 2017 federal ban being overturned in the Supreme Court. As such, the only plaintiffs are at most 8 years old and lose their right to sue at age 10 (essentially the parents would have to do it) without the precarious tolling of the statute of limitations. Virginia would be a bad state to bring such claims for those reasons, whereas other states have better discovery laws.

Although, it should be noted, that due to already existing court precedence, there is a 14th Ammendment constitutional right for bodily integrity as well as court specified limitations to what a parent can do to their child (Prince vs. Massachusetts) which forbids religious rights of parents negating the right of the child to not be harmed. And there is also the concept of common law battery. Parents and physicians are theorhetically liable for battery. As proxy consent only applies to medically necessary operations, not non-medical ones. A man cannot obtain a boob job for an incapacitated wife. When the AMA stated in 2000 that circumcision was not medically necessary and 18 year old in NY did immediately sue for battery - and as I understand it obtained a pricy settlement. The rarity of such cases has more to do with cultural acceptance than actual civil law status.

Similarly, in Germany a 2012 case found that a religious infant circumcision was battery leading to the physician actually getting charged (and, I believe, convicted) for assault - the German legislature added an exception to their law after that case to protect circumcision with a sui generis status (after U.S. and Israeli pressure.) That circumcision had never been prosecuted up to that point, didn't mean that it wasn't prosecutable.

Part of the difficulty with these cases is that American laws often make circumcision sui generis such that normal legal doctrines aren't allowed to apply - but these statutes are not necessarily constitutionally valid. This includes Illinois and California's sui generis exemption from their ritual abuse statutes. This means without the legal exception, circumcision meets all the criteria for ritual abuse under these state's laws.

Dogheaded said:

That was the penalty in the Roman Empire - St. Justinian was the Emperor, although he is citing much older law. The Simon Bar Kohkba revolution in the A.D. 130's was caused, according to the Historia Auguste, by Emperor Hadrian removing the Jewish exception from the law. (The only exception to the law was for Jewish fathers to have their own sons circumcised.) This lead to the destruction of Jerusalem. A later Emperor restored the exception. I don't think Hadrian was wrong to protect all children.

Click to expand...

Do you think that the penalty in the Romans Empire was correct? Would you be in favor of an executive order that rounded up everyone who was circumcised and exiled us to an island? Do you think that God was wrong to command Abraham to become circumcised and for him to circumcise his household? Do you think that Abraham should have been executed for circumcising his household?

Dogheaded said:

The current penalty for female circumcision (as it is referred to in the law I'm citing) in my state is 20 years to life in prison. According to the Equal Protection Clause this should also apply to male circumcision. There are ongoing lawsuits in several states over this Equal Protection Clause. These cases are mostly being raised to court by Jews and Jewish lawyers. If successful, the penalties for Female Genital Mutilation will apply to Male Genital Mutilation going forward. Parents who have already done so would be 'grandfathered' in, just like parents who did Female Genital Mutilation prior to their states (or the now defunct federal ban) were grandfathered out of responsibility. These lawsuits would also protect intersex children from mutilation - leaving it for them to decide what to do with their own genitals when they reach adulthood.

It seems to me that the already existing penalties are just and not disagreeable to most people, therefore they should not be disagreeable when applied equally between the sexes.

Click to expand...

Male and female circumcision and very different.

Dogheaded said:

"Christ kept the Sabbath and was circumcised, so can you not recognize the absurdity it of saying that the people who do this are strangers to the faith of Christ?" They are teaching what the New Testament taught. Their words barely differ.

Click to expand...

No, it is absurd to interpret the NT as being against the position that followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to what God has commanded.

Dogheaded said:

Do you contend that the New Testament is absurd on the same grounds?

"I wish that those of you who promote mutilation by circumcision would mutilate themselves by castration." - St. Paul (Galations 5:12 Amplified Bible.) St. Paul is literally saying, "why not go all the way?"

Click to expand...

Again, Paul was not speaking against circumcision for any reason but only against circumcision for incorrect reasons.

Soyeong said:

Do you think that the penalty in the Romans Empire was correct? Would you be in favor of an executive order that rounded up everyone who was circumcised and exiled us to an island? Do you think that God was wrong to command Abraham to become circumcised and for him to circumcise his household? Do you think that Abraham should have been executed for circumcising his household?

Click to expand...

Do to the extreme nature of the psychological and physiological harms by the practice, I believe that sufficient punishment is required. This includes permanent neurological damage of the mood centers of the brain which is observable by brain scan. Studies have linked circumcision to lower rates of pain tolerance (lower than both intact boys and girls), anxiety disorders, and depression. Altered adult socio‑affective processing, emotional regulation, and insecure attachment patterns are also observed. Disruption of the bonding process between child and mother is also shown in studies. Adult circumcised men are less likely to seek appropriate medical attention and may have strong psychosomatic reactions to antiseptics, like iodine, used during their mutilation - a strong sign of post-traumatic stress.

One survey showed 80% of circumcised respondents felt that circumcision had a negative emotional impact on their lives - the most common feelings described by the men were; "anger, resentment, revenge, rage, hate, sense of loss, deficiency, diminished body image, disbelief, lack of understanding, confusion, embarrassment, shame, sense of having been victimized, cheated, robbed, raped, violated, abused, mutilated, deformed, fear, distrust, withdrawal, grief, sadness, pain, envy of intact men.” Another study, albiet with only about 500 respondants reported that circumcised men were neutral or satisfied with their genitals 40.23 of the time compared to intact men who were neutral or satisfied with their genitals 91.32% of the time. 5.75% of circumcised men reported being “very satisfied” versus 43.18% of intact men who reported being “very satisfied.” 35.63% of circumcised men were ‘very dissatisfied’ with their genitals versus the 0.73% of intact men were 'very dissatisfied' with their genitals. This indicates that high rates of body dysmorphia results and that circumcision is often seen as a disfigurement (which, medically, it does meet the definition.

You can read more here; Psychology Today

Sexual Issues linked to circumcision include erectile dysfunction, difficulty reaching [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], sexual discomfort, necessity of synthetic lubrication, sensory loss and problems with intimacy.

A common side effect of circumcision is cyanosis wherein the infant turns blue from lack of oxygen as a result of expiatory apnea - the intense screaming of the child. Sometimes this screaming is so intense that internal organs rupture. There are cases where the stomach or lungs of the infants ruptured. There are at least 49 other side effects; like meatal stenosis - the narrowing of the urethra - which may require additional surgery. Penile necrosis has also been observed. Deaths do occur.

For this reason the Babylonian Talmud forbids families who have already lost a child from circumcision from circumcising any subsequent children.

Circumcision constitutes sexual torture, especially considering that it is commonly done without anesthesia and that infants are more pain sensitive than adults. What do you believe the penalty for sexually torturing infants should be? Do you believe that sexually torturing infants should be without penalty?

Sane adults do not usually volunteer to genital surgery without anesthesia and would generally consider to be barbaric - then they intentional fail to bring that consideration to their own offspring. The natural consequences my parents have received from their actions against me (in circumcising me as an infant) is, as I told them, "at that moment you lost the right to have any relationship with me.

I struggle greatly with that command, more than anything else in the Bible - after all how could a good god require sexual torture of boys to be his 'people.'. However, the American practice is extremely more invasive than the Abrahamic circumcision. The statue of Michelangelo's David is sometimes described as uncircumcised, but actually depicts a more historic circumcision - which is that enough foreskin was left to cover or mostly cover the glans. The American practice arose in the middle of the 19th century to "castigate" boys and girls for masturbation or future masturbation - with John Kellogg stating "The pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment." (John Kellogg, Plain Facts for Old and Young)

I believe protecting children from extreme harms is correct. Do you?

Soyeong said:

Male and female circumcision and very different.

Click to expand...

False. There are many types of male and female mutilation.

When you speak of female infibulation, the most extreme kind of female mutilation, it is certainly more extreme than male circumcision. However, there is also male infibulation. There is also penile subincision - a cultural practice of the Australian Aborigines - which is when the penile shaft is cut down from the base towards the shaft, opening up the urethral tube. This can cause mechanical infertility as there is no longer a tube for sperm to flow into the partner.

Male infibulation, subincision, and supercision - as well as other practices - are still technically legal even if cultural uncommon in America.
What about castrations? America actually has a history with parents having their sons castrated during the 'masturbation hysteria.' Should that form of male genital mutilation be illegal?

Meanwhile, female genital mutilation legally includes pinpricks, sometimes used as a 'symbolic' female circumcision. This causes almost no damage, because it is just a pinprick. Nevertheless this is just as illegal as female infibulation.

Circumcision is actually more damaging, in the realm of sensory loss, as the removal of the clitoral hood, which is a more common mutilation than infibulation.

If you would dispute medical fact, go right ahead, but honestly you should probably do some real research into the issue.

In an case - all of this is a violation of the moral law.

Soyeong said:

No, it is absurd to interpret the NT as being against the position that followers of Christ should follow his example of obedience to what God has commanded.

Click to expand...

Christ fulfilled the law including the commandment of circumcision. The New Testament is clear that the purpose of circumcision ended with Christ and that Christians should not do it. "Or Christ shall profit you nothing."

Soyeong said:

Again, Paul was not speaking against circumcision for any reason but only against circumcision for incorrect reasons.

Click to expand...

What are the correct reasons? Because circumcising for religious reasons is not one of them - which both his clear words and the full history of the church demonstrates repeatedly. Aesthetic reasons are totally contrary to the moral law. And medical and hygiene reasons are debunked by science according to every developed country's in the word

Further, the Netherland's Human Rights Ombudsman has stated (as other Ombudsmen have done) that circumcision violates human rights and international law requires countries to cease the practice.

Soyeong said:

It is important to recognize that the Bible can speak against doing something for an incorrect reason without speaking against doing it for the reasons that God commanded it. If Paul had been speaking against circumcision for any reason, then Galatians 5:2 would mean that Paul caused Christ to be of no value to Timothy when he had him circumcised right after the Jerusalem Council and Christ is of no value to roughly 70% of the men in the US. In Acts 15:1, men from Judea were wanting to require Gentiles to become circumcised in order to become saved, however, that was never the reason for why God commanded circumcision, so the Jerusalem Council upheld the Law of Moses by correctly ruling against requiring circumcision for an incorrect reason. In Exodus 12:48, Gentiles who want to eat of the Passover lamb are required to become circumcised, so the Jerusalem Council should not be interpreted as ruling against Gentiles correctly obeying what God has commanded as if they had the authority to countermand God.

Paul said that circumcision has no value and that what matters is obeying the commandments of God (1 Corinthians 7:19) and that circumcision has no value and that what matters is faith working through love (Galatians 5:6), so he equated the commandments of God with faith working through love, and indeed, he said that our faith upholds the Law of Moses (Romans 3:31) and he summarized it as being about love (Galatians 5:14). Paul also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and that circumcision conditionally has value if we obey the Law of Moses (Romans 2:25), so the issue is that circumcision has no inherent value and that its value is entirely derive from our obedience to the Law of Moses. Physical circumcision is a sign of having a circumcised heart, which is evident by our obedience to the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 10:12-16) while having an uncircumcised heart is evident by our disobedience to the Law of Moses (Jeremiah 9:25, Acts 7:51-53), so physical circumcision only has value insofar as what it is a sign of is true.

Click to expand...

I have finally notice you are hebrew roots. My comment on 'selective Judiazers' are my commentary against the entirity of American Christianity, not your group. Just FYI.

Timothy was already an adult when Paul circumcised him. As an adult, he was able to consent based on personal reflection and make a choice to do so. This is an entirely separate category from infant circumcision. It's worth noting that mitzvot are binding obligations which presuppose the agency infants can't have, which I'd say indicates that your framework is inconsistent. If mitzvot require moral agency, and infants don't have moral agency, then infant circumcision can't be the fulfillment of a mitzvah.

Timothy's choice is evangelical in nature, not a theological endorsement of continued circumcision- as Chrysostom noted this would create a contradiction between Acts 16 and Galatians 5 (where covenental circumcision is absolutely roasted.) Finally, by converting the Jews in that area, they entered into the fulfillment of the law with Christ wherein circumcision is unnecessary and has become spiritually harmful. Timothy's circumcision therefore served to end the requirement for circumcision in those communities rather than perpetuate it. Even granting the most generous possible reading of Timothy as establishing some ongoing permission for Christian circumcision: it would license only adult Christian men choosing it for themselves, for evangelistic or comparable reasons. It would not license infant circumcision, which is what the present argument is actually against.

To be as clear as possible, Timothy's choice is adult, consensual, purposeful, evangelistic which is the categorical opposite of routine American infant circumcision, which is non-consensual, imposed, and performed for aesthetic or cultural reasons. Timothy presents self-sacrifice for the sake of community. Infant circumcision is the sacrifice of the other for the self.

Soyeong said:

Paul said that circumcision has no value and that what matters is obeying the commandments of God (1 Corinthians 7:19) and that circumcision has no value and that what matters is faith working through love

Click to expand...

Yet, Maimonides taught that circumcision should be done as early as possible while "the father's love and affection for [the child] is not yet so strong; for the love of the parents for the child increases by his presence in their sight, and grows with the years of his life." Guide for the Perplexed, Part III, Chapter 49

Love indicts the practice more than it defends it. It is, in a word, unloving.