Circumcision

[Nurbz]

This question comes from a mostly non religious family member discussing having a circumcision for their new child.

Do most christians still practice this, and if so, why? Isn't it an old Testement Jewish law? Why would God create man with a foreskin and then make him cut it off?

Personally, I think it's genital mutilation that's equally as serious as female circumcision, which is condemned as inhumane by most nations. Doctors don't even see a reason for it, so it seems to be rooted in old tradition.

 

[ml66uk]

There are lots of other threads discussing circumcision, and they often get quite heated, but it's safe to say that most Christians worldwide do *not* circumcise. In the most Christian countries in the world (places like Mexico, Poland, Brazil, Spain, Italy), the practice is almost unknown. For Catholics, there's actually a very strongly worded Papal Bull condemning the practice.

Personally, I agree with you that it's comparable to the mild forms of female circumcision, but a lot of people will disagree vehemently.

 

[Steve Petersen]

The UN urged adult males in Africa to get circumcised to reduce the transmission of AIDS.

 

[Nurbz]

There are lots of other threads discussing circumcision, and they often get quite heated, but it's safe to say that most Christians worldwide do *not* circumcise. In the most Christian countries in the world (places like Mexico, Poland, Brazil, Spain, Italy), the practice is almost unknown. For Catholics, there's actually a very strongly worded Papal Bull condeming the practice.

Personally, I agree with you that it's comparable to the mild forms of female circumcision, but a lot of people will disagree vehemently.

Oh I didn't see any threads that I could remember. So whoops!

I have heard from folks in European nations that it's mostly an American thing now, even done by those who aren't religious at all. I guess I'm wondering if it's seen as just tradition or what.

The UN urged adult males in Africa to get circumcised to reduce the transmission of AIDS.

It's not a disease prevention measure by any means. A condom is better at preventing AIDS.

 

[ml66uk]

The UN urged adult males in Africa to get circumcised to reduce the transmission of AIDS.

I was at the AIDS conference in Vienna this year, and believe that circumcision is a dangerous distraction in the fight against AIDS. There are six African countries where men are *more* likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Rwanda, the HIV rate is 3.5% among circumcised men, but only 2.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn't happen. We now have people calling circumcision a "vaccine" or "invisible condom", and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms. The South African National Communication Survey on HIV/AIDS, 2009 found that 15% of adults across age groups "believe that circumcised men do not need to use condoms".

The one randomized controlled trial into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw.

ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, and especially Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost African lives, not save them.

 

[ozell]

This question comes from a mostly non religious family member discussing having a circumcision for their new child.

Do most christians still practice this, and if so, why? Isn't it an old Testement Jewish law? Why would God create man with a foreskin and then make him cut it off?

Personally, I think it's genital mutilation that's equally as serious as female circumcision, which is condemned as inhumane by most nations. Doctors don't even see a reason for it, so it seems to be rooted in old tradition.

was Jesus circumcised?
was Paul circumcised?
was timothy circumcised?

was these three Ot orNt?

go read Ezekiel 44 v7-9

 

[miamited]

Hi Nurbz,

I had my son's foreskin removed for health reasons. It's easier to keep the penis clean and, while I can't personally confirm this because I am circumcised myself, I have been told that it increases sexual pleasure. You are correct that circumcision as a sign of faithfulness to God and inclusion in the Jewish faith is of no value.

However, I don't agree that circumcision is equivalent to genital mutilation, although I can clearly see how such an argument may be made. Maybe one day we will no longer practice such a thing, but I'm confident that being circumcised, while it has no value before God, is likewise not a sin before God. If it were a sin, then God would not have commanded it of His people.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[ozell]

why do christians think circumcision is a jewish ritual?
the circumcision did not start with israel, it was given to abraham.
was abraham a jew? or israelite?
the circumcision is a covenant and God dont break his covenants

 

[Cjwinnit]

It's fairly rare in Britain.

 

[Jerushabelle]

This question comes from a mostly non religious family member discussing having a circumcision for their new child.

Do most christians still practice this, and if so, why? Isn't it an old Testement Jewish law? Why would God create man with a foreskin and then make him cut it off?

Personally, I think it's genital mutilation that's equally as serious as female circumcision, which is condemned as inhumane by most nations. Doctors don't even see a reason for it, so it seems to be rooted in old tradition.

Circumcision was a covenant between man and God. Is it a requirement for Christians? That depends on whether you believe Jesus was serious when He said that He will not honor before God those who do not honor God. I believe what Jesus said.

 

[ml66uk]

If you're going to read Ezekiel, don't forget to read some of what's in the New Testament too:

Galatians 5:2 (New American Standard Bible)
"Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you."

Corinthians 7:18-19 (New American Standard Bible)
"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.
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God."

This is what Pope Eugene IV said in the Papal Bull of 1445:
The Holy Roman Church "...commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation."

This was relaxed by Pope Pius XII in 1952:
"From a moral point of view, circumcision is permissible if, in accordance with therapeutic principles, it prevents a disease that cannot be countered in any other way."

The form of circumcision undergone by Christ was nothing like a modern day circumcision anyway. He would have looked more like an intact man than like someone who has had a typical American circumcision. The most common form of circumcision today was only introduced by rabbis (not Christians) over a century after the Crucifixion to stop Jewish men from pretending to be gentile.

As far as circumcising for health reasons goes, all these medical society quotes can be found at their own websites in their official position statements on male circumcision:

Canadian Paediatric Society
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."

Royal Australasian College of Physicians
"In the absence of evidence of risk of substantial harm, informed parental choice should be respected. Informed parental consent should include the possibility that the ethical principle of autonomy may be better fulfilled by deferring the circumcision to adolescence with the young man consenting on his own behalf."
(almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)

British Medical Association
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."

The Royal Dutch Medical Association
"The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children's rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications - bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."

It's worth remembering that no Christians would even be having this discussion if it weren't for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.

Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but how that's how they thought back then, and that's how non-religious circumcision got started. If you don't believe me, then google: "A Short History of Circumcision in North America In the Physicians' Own Words".

Heck, they even passed laws against "self-pollution" as it was called.
Over a hundred years later, circumcised men keep looking for new ways to defend the practice.

drops in male circumcision since 1950:
USA: from 90% to 57%
Canada: from 48% to 17%
UK: from 35% to about 5% (about 1% among non-Muslims)
Australia: 90% to 12.6% ("routine" circumcision has recently been *banned* in public hospitals in all states except one, so the rate will now be a lot lower)
New Zealand: 95% to below 3% (mostly Samoans and Tongans)
South America and Europe: never above 5%

 

[Look Up]

Arguably there seems a short line of reasoning between God's covenant with Abraham as including "to Abraham's seed" on the one hand and circumcision being applied to the male instrument of successive human generations on the other. Generation by generation, circumcision was a sign (cf. Rom. 4:11) of faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant.

In "New Testament" days, Paul was arguably concerned enough with avoiding unnecessary hindrances to gospel preaching to Jews to have Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3). Timothy's mother alone was Jewish. Yet among the churches in Galatia at least, circumcision became identified with keeping the law of Moses as a means to salvation (and of boasting before God in self-righteousness), on account of which Paul tells those churches, "If you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ ..." (Galatians 5:2-4, cf. 6:12-16 ).

The same argument reached Antioch from Judea: "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1). The subsequent Jerusalem Council (A.D. 49, Acts 15) ruled against this teaching in a manner consistent with Paul's "justification by faith alone" doctrine. Gentile Christians (and for that matter, Jewish Christians) need not be circumcised in order to be saved. "Neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation" (Galatians 6:15).

However, Paul clearly identifies Christians as those who inherit the blessings given to Abraham and as fulfilling God's promises to Abraham to be the father of many nations. Through Abraham, many nations would be blessed (Genesis 12:1-3)). "If you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:29).

As Isaac was a child of promise, Sarah's womb being dead due to advanced age at the time of Isaac's conception, so people of faith in God/Jesus are children of promise. And Abraham had this same faith before he was circumcised that he might be the father of Jew and Gentile who believe in Jesus (as Paul argues in Romans 4).

Thus the religious grounds for and against circumcision depend on the significance of circumcision in context. But that debate as it is worked out in the New Testament gives strong evidence against circumcision as a requirement for salvation or, barring possible and exceptional missionary accommodation reasons, Christian faithfulness. (Health reasons for and against circumcision are a different matter.)

 

[Look Up]

The abiding religious significance of circumcision for the Christian seems foreshadowed as far back as God's promise in metaphorical form to circumcise the heart of His people in Deuteronomy 30:6 (cf. Jer. 4:4, Ezekiel 44:9), namely the "putting off of the body of flesh [or sin nature] by the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2:11f). This is a circumcision "made without hands." As the foreskin was shed by human hands, so the inclination of the heart to sin would be shed by the power of God. "For we are the real circumcised people who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh" (Philippians 3:3).

 

[His_disciple3]

was Jesus circumcised?
was Paul circumcised?
was timothy circumcised?

was these three Ot orNt?

go read Ezekiel 44 v7-9

Ezekiel 44 deals with Jews under the old covenant, yes all three people you mention were Jews and at that time Before the Blood was shed the old covenant was still enforced. however the New Testament says :

Acts 15:24
24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
KJV


Romans 2:29
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
KJV

 

[RevRo]

This question comes from a mostly non religious family member discussing having a circumcision for their new child.

Do most christians still practice this, and if so, why? Isn't it an old Testement Jewish law? Why would God create man with a foreskin and then make him cut it off?

Personally, I think it's genital mutilation that's equally as serious as female circumcision, which is condemned as inhumane by most nations. Doctors don't even see a reason for it, so it seems to be rooted in old tradition.

I read a medical paper once on the clinical study they did on Jewish women and woman married to uncurcumsized males and the Jewish women had a 1% cervical cancer rate and the woman who were married to uncurcumsized men had a whopping number. I myself was married to an uncurcumsized man and had to have a hysterectomy due to pre- cancerous cells. Think maybe God knew something when He initiated circumcision?

 

[Nurbz]

Corinthians 7:18-19 (New American Standard Bible)
"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.
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God."

Works for me!

I read a medical paper once on the clinical study they did on Jewish women and woman married to uncurcumsized males and the Jewish women had a 1% cervical cancer rate and the woman who were married to uncurcumsized men had a whopping number. I myself was married to an uncurcumsized man and had to have a hysterectomy due to pre- cancerous cells. Think maybe God knew something when He initiated circumcision?

A report on circumcision in 1999 had a consensus among physicians that circumcision should not be used, it basicly being ritual genital mutilation. I don't think God would want a healthy, functioning part of the human body removed, especially when the person involved has no choice, and christianity is all about choice. The bible reference above is enough for me.

http://www.infocirc.org/bg072599.htm

 

[Cassidy]

No we don't need to circumcise anymore because we are separated in Christ. Hebrews 11 talks about this SPECIFICALLY.

Yes it is genital mutilation and barbaric for they don't even use anisthetic or anything and the baby is litterly screaming in pain. I've seen one performed and I was balling my eyes out. I felt so sorry for the little baby.

Neither of my boys are circumcised, if they want it done later they can get it done, but I won't be doing that ghastly thing to them.

 

[ml66uk]

I read a medical paper once on the clinical study they did on Jewish women and woman married to uncurcumsized males and the Jewish women had a 1% cervical cancer rate and the woman who were married to uncurcumsized men had a whopping number. I myself was married to an uncurcumsized man and had to have a hysterectomy due to pre- cancerous cells. Think maybe God knew something when He initiated circumcision?

This doesn't apply to Muslim women though, or to non-Jewish women, or even to Jewish women in some countries. It appears to be a genetic variation.

The main risk factors for cervical cancer are early first sexual activity, number of sexual partners, and smoking. (I'm not saying any of these apply to you).

Consider this : 91% of American men born in 1970 and 83% of American men born in 1980 were circumcised, but the US has a high cervical cancer rate compared to countries with the lowest rates of circumcision like Holland, Switzerland, Austria, Finland, the U.S.S.R., China, and Japan. There is no obvious connection between a country's male circumcision rate and the rate of cervical cancer.

I can't post a clickable link , but this: www ima org il imaj ar03feb-11 pdf
should take you to a 2003 paper in the Israeli Medical Association Journal. It discusses circumcision and cervical cancer at length and says the following:
"Although the dispute over the association of circumcision and cervical cancer in various populations is still ongoing, there seems to be no hard evidence that circumcision prevents its occurrence in Jewish women, and it is no longer considered to play a protective role."

Why would baby boys all be born with a foreskin if God wants us to have part of it cut off? (Before around 130AD, circumcision only removed the tip of the foreskin, not the whole thing).

 

[RevRo]

This doesn't apply to Muslim women though, or to non-Jewish women, or even to Jewish women in some countries. It appears to be a genetic variation.

The main risk factors for cervical cancer are early first sexual activity, number of sexual partners, and smoking. (I'm not saying any of these apply to you).

Consider this : 91% of American men born in 1970 and 83% of American men born in 1980 were circumcised, but the US has a high cervical cancer rate compared to countries with the lowest rates of circumcision like Holland, Switzerland, Austria, Finland, the U.S.S.R., China, and Japan. There is no obvious connection between a country's male circumcision rate and the rate of cervical cancer.

I can't post a clickable link , but this: www ima org il imaj ar03feb-11 pdf
should take you to a 2003 paper in the Israeli Medical Association Journal. It discusses circumcision and cervical cancer at length and says the following:
"Although the dispute over the association of circumcision and cervical cancer in various populations is still ongoing, there seems to be no hard evidence that circumcision prevents its occurrence in Jewish women, and it is no longer considered to play a protective role."

Why would baby boys all be born with a foreskin if God wants us to have part of it cut off? (Before around 130AD, circumcision only removed the tip of the foreskin, not the whole thing).

I stand corrected and thank you very much for this information.

 

[new_wine]

Does not matter in either way.

It is neither more or less safe for cleanliness or transmission of STDs.
It is neither more or less holy than anything else.

The only thing it really does is increase cost.

This question comes from a mostly non religious family member discussing having a circumcision for their new child.

Do most christians still practice this, and if so, why? Isn't it an old Testement Jewish law? Why would God create man with a foreskin and then make him cut it off?

Personally, I think it's genital mutilation that's equally as serious as female circumcision, which is condemned as inhumane by most nations. Doctors don't even see a reason for it, so it seems to be rooted in old tradition.