Circumcision is Messed Up

[Joshua_5]

While this is off topic, who said God never created!?!?

It was implied in the evolution comments.

Wait, did you just use "feminized" as a pejorative? My mistake, didn't realize there was anything wrong with being feminine.

Nothing wrong with women being feminine, or men masculine. The converse is not true.

Also, when did it become more feminine to advocate for rights?

I have to be honest, don't get your comment here at all.

Its feminine to be more sensitive to pain. When guys go on about how bad it is to trim off a tiny unhygenic flap of unwanted skin, one shakes one's head in disbelief. Most would view circumcision as a positive thing, those few who don't must see that of all the wrong things in the world, circumcision is probably the least.

 

[Joshua_5]

If you read the thread, you'll see I have already answered this question here:
Circumcision is Messed Up

There are many things that God commanded in the OT, that if they occurred today we would question, and rightfully so.

God commanded the smiting of all the Amalekites, not His own people. I challenge you to find a command for God's people in the Old Testament that would not be just and right today. Harsh, possibly, but certainly not unjust. Circumcision as practised in the bible might have been a little harsh (carried out with rocks), but this doesn't mean it was harmful, or "messed up". Although physical circumcision today is not required for being right with God, it is the symbol for circumcision of the heart, which all Christians, male and female, must undergo. How can you have a positive understanding of circumcision of the heart, if you believe its metaphor, physical circumcision, is "messed up"?

 

[Tetra]

It was implied in the evolution comments.

Ummm no, since when did evolution and God creating become mutually exclusive.

Nothing wrong with women being feminine, or men masculine. The converse is not true.

I don't know what your point is, what does femininity have to do with circumcision? Some men are against circumcision of their children, some women are against circumcision of their children... no idea what any of this has to do with femininity.

Its feminine to be more sensitive to pain.

Don't know what that has to do with circumcision. I also have no clue what you're talking about, pain is subjective.

tiny unhygenic flap of unwanted skin

Any evidence to support this claim?

Most would view circumcision as a positive thing

Stats would disagree with you. The percentage of newborns being circumcised has only been decreasing. If "most" thought it was positive, it would be increasing... but it's not... so...

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't get circumcision at all... and to be honest, to me it seems messed up that Christians still practice it.

No matter how you justify it, it's the genital mutilation of an un-consenting child. If you have proof that it's not, love to hear it.

Also, if it's so important, why aren't people simply allowing their child to make that decision when they're older?

Does anyone know why Christian's are still practicing this? I'd really love the female perspective on this from Christian mothers as well.

"Christian" practice of circumcision largely exists not because it's a thing Christians do, but because in certain places (most specifically the US) there was a major push toward circumcision for a number of supposed medical reasons--as such it was common medical practice for most of the 20th century; and even though the supposed medical benefits have largely been dismissed as crackery, it continues to be a common secular practice in the United States and in a few other western nations.

Circumcision in the modern age is non-religious in nature.

Jews, however, of course still circumcise because this is a fundamental teaching of their religion.

Religious reasons for circumcision do not make any sense in a Christian context, given the clear and explicit statements made in the New Testament. Circumcision was the sign and seal of the covenant God made in the past, since that covenant does not apply to Christians the sign and seal of that covenant does not apply either. For this reason St. Paul writes that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing--it means nothing either way in Christianity.

As such it's not a "Christian practice", in the modern western world it is a secular practice; in Judaism it is a Jewish practice. In fact if a circumcised Gentile desires to convert to Judaism they are uncircumcised according to Jewish halakah, and still are required to undergo Bris in order to convert, usually a small pricking of the glans with a needle to get a drop of blood is all that is needed in that case.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FormerTweaker]

I wish this was never practiced on me. I didn't ask for it when I was a baby and it's not needed any more. I don't think it's cool to do it to infants who have no choice in the matter.

My friend got it done to him later in life. Then after circumcision he said sexual feelings were less fun.

 

[RaymondG]

I wish this was never practiced on me. I didn't ask for it when I was a baby and it's not needed any more. I don't think it's cool to do it to infants who have no choice in the matter.

My friend got it done to him later in life. Then after circumcision he said sexual feelings were less fun.

Why do you wish it wasnt? Why do you want the skin there? And why did your friend have it done when he was older?......Did you try to talk him out of it?

 

[FormerTweaker]

Why do you wish it wasnt? Why do you want the skin there? And why did your friend have it done when he was older?......Did you try to talk him out of it?

God created me with it there and it has more nerve endings for more pleasure.

He was curious to how it would be after having it done. He had it done before i knew him.

 

[RaymondG]

God created me with it there and it has more nerve endings for more pleasure.

He was curious to how it would be after having it done. He had it done before i knew him.

He's a brave man.....I wouldnt want any knives near that area when im old enough to remember it!

Ok @Tetra you found one person who was cric as a baby who wishes they werent. So I'm now with you. More thought should be put into it before deciding to cut all willy nilly.

That disease that you mentioned could be avoided with a circ, still bothers me a little though, I wouldnt wish that on anyone....especially the bad cases.....That may be worth it trying to avoid it.

 

[Tallguy88]

He had part of his member cut off out of curiosity?

 

[RaymondG]

He had part of his member cut off out of curiosity?

Sounds strange right? Dont let me find out @Tetra signed in with a second account to get one person to agree with him. lol

 

[Tetra]

Sounds strange right? Dont let me find out @Tetra signed in with a second account to get one person to agree with him. lol

Haha. No... but that's a good idea!

 

[Joshua_5]

Stats would disagree with you. The percentage of newborns being circumcised has only been decreasing. If "most" thought it was positive, it would be increasing... but it's not... so...

So, still no answer as to why the bible speaks of it positively when using the metaphor in regards to hearts and ears (and negatively of the uncircumcised status of the Philistines), but somehow the actual symbol the metaphors were based on is "messed up"? Some might not personally like the idea and its not a salvation issue, but I think its going too far for a Christian to call the covenant sign of circumcision "messed up".

 

[PureBliss]

OTE="Joshua_5, post: 70917591, member: 391177"]So, still no answer as to why the bible speaks of it positively when using the metaphor in regards to hearts and ears (and negatively of the uncircumcised status of the Philistines), but somehow the actual symbol the metaphors were based on is "messed up"? Some might not personally like the idea and its not a salvation issue, but I think its going too far for a Christian to call the covenant sign of circumcision "messed up".[/QUOTE]



Does this covenant apply to females too? Female genital mutilation?

 

[RaymondG]

Does this covenant apply to females too? Female genital mutilation?

These are apples and oranges. Reducing the desire or the feeling of sex was never giving as a reason to circumcise.....nor was it ever used as a punishment.

If the only method of discrediting circumcision you have is to compare it to a form of mutilation, you have a very weak case.

 

[PureBliss]

These are apples and oranges. Reducing the desire or the feeling of sex was never giving as a reason to circumcise.....nor was it ever used as a punishment.

If the only method of discrediting circumcision you have is to compare it to a form of mutilation, you have a very weak case. Maybe best to leave this argument to us circ and uncirc'd men.

1). What do you mean by apples and oranges?
2). What do you mean by making a weak case when I asked a simple question?
3). If you don't readily have an answer, then don't respond. This is a free speech forum, not for any kind of intimidation, the question was specifically to know if females were included in the circumcision and if female genital mutilation is part of it.
5). I didn't manufacture the term "mutilation", Human rights activists did.
So, don't crucify me if you are not properly informed on this topic.
While we look at it from the Christian stand point, it should also be looked at from the Society stand point which we are.

 

[RaymondG]

1). What do you mean by apples and oranges?
2). What do you mean by making a weak case when I asked a simple question?
3). If you don't readily have an answer, then don't respond. This is a free speech forum, not for any kind of intimidation, the question was specifically to know if females were included in the circumcision and if female genital mutilation is part of it.
5). I didn't manufacture the term "mutilation", Human rights activists did.
So, don't crucify me if you are not properly informed on this topic.
While we look at it from the Christian stand point, it should also be looked at from the Society stand point which we are.

1) I mean circumcision is not related to female mutilation. It should probably be a different thread....but I dont think there is a need because very few people would say female mutilation is right or biblical.

2)see 1
3)I could answer, but it seems maybe rhetorical as females were not mentioned in the convenant....and this topic was about the common practice of circumcising males

3b)I forgot i was on the sensitive, doom and gloom, section of the forum. I didnt mean any intimidation, or judgement or any kind of negativity from my post. Sorry if you felt anything negative from it. To make sure it doesnt happen again, I will never respond to any post or thread you start from this moment forward.

5) see 3b

 

[PureBliss]

From your response, it appears that you don't have regards for females. Besides the question was not meant for you.
Please don't respond to any of my posts.
Thanks

 

[RaymondG]

From your response, it appears that you don't have regards for females. Besides the question was not meant for you.
Please don't respond to any of my posts.
Thanks

From your post you still seem angry, so i have to make this my last post to you:

Females are wonderful, Females are great, without them, I'd have no one to Date.

And these are for you:


My last post ends.

 

[Joshua_5]

Does this covenant apply to females too? Female genital mutilation?

Its not right to compare the two. Circumcision is just snipping off an unneeded and often problematic flap of skin. Female genital mutilation is removing an essential and delicate part of female anatomy. God specifically commanded circumcision of the foreskin and specifically for males when they were 8 days old. Females are already born without foreskin and are not male, so circumcision is/was unnecessary for their flesh - from a certain point of view, they are born already circumcised.

 

[Joshua_5]

These are apples and oranges.

More like apples and cyanide. One practised for thousands of years, used by God as a covenant sign and metaphor, considered normal by many civilisations and likely improves health and function of the man (and his wife). The other designed to marr and denigrate women, never considered by God and used as a symbol of subjugation and misogyny, as well as permanently damaging a woman in numerous ways.

Maybe best to leave this argument to us circ and uncirc'd men.

Have to say this seems quite sexist.

If any group is in an objective position to determine the merits (or lack thereof) of circumcision, its women, as they are unable to be circumcised or uncircumcised themselves. Circumcision was never an elitist sign in the bible, as even though only men could receive the covenant sign, women could still participate (refer to Zipporah).