THE circumcision thread

TrustAndObey · Aug 1, 2008

Circumcision comes up a lot, so I thought I'd designate a thread just for the subjects of physical and spiritual circumcision.

I'll add some observations after I pull over some posts from another thread.

Pythons · Aug 2, 2008

For what it's worth I'll throw up the traditional Catholic view.

Circumcision of the heart means that one is sensitive and listens to that inner voice called Natural or Moral Law that says what it right and what is wrong.

A circumcised penis is VERY SENSITIVE to even a breeze so apply this simple meaning to ones inner self (heart) and it becomes easy to see what "Circumcision of the Heart" really means. Same thing goes for when the Bible talks of "circumcised ears", same thing.

Abraham had this sensitive heart and there have been many others who had it as well. Keep this in mind when reading the New Covenant where it's mentioned and things will start to pop out at ya.

Peace.

ml66uk · Aug 2, 2008

The traditional Catholic view is that physical circumcision is a sin:

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."

From Cantate Domino, re-affirmed by Pope Pius XII in 1952

An exception was made for medical need:

"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." Pope Pius XII in 1952"

I think most people opposed to circumcision would argue that a circumcised penis is less sensitive rather than more sensitive.

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.

TrustAndObey · Aug 2, 2008

Pythons said:
For what it's worth I'll throw up the traditional Catholic view.

Please refrain from throwing up in this thread.

ml66uk said:
The traditional Catholic view is that physical circumcision is a sin:

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."

From Cantate Domino, re-affirmed by Pope Pius XII in 1952

An exception was made for medical need:

"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." Pope Pius XII in 1952"

I think most people opposed to circumcision would argue that a circumcised penis is less sensitive rather than more sensitive.

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.

There are some aspects of this conversation that I obviously won't be able to relate to since I am female, but that's interesting that an uncircumcised penis is actually more sensitive. That makes sense really.

I didn't realize the Catholic church felt circumcision would result in loss of eternal salvation. My poor boys. I made that decision FOR them when they were minutes or days old.

Pythons, I am going to transfer over some of the comments from the other thread a little later, okay? I'm doing a study on another subject at the moment.

Pythons · Aug 2, 2008

ml66uk said:
The traditional Catholic view is that physical circumcision is a sin:

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."

From Cantate Domino, re-affirmed by Pope Pius XII in 1952

An exception was made for medical need:

"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." Pope Pius XII in 1952"

I think most people opposed to circumcision would argue that a circumcised penis is less sensitive rather than more sensitive.

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.

Are you taking a crack at finding some holes in the armor? If so, you should attempt another topic.

1 Corinthians 7 said:
Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts.

Catholicism rejects "religious circumcision" mL66uk and if you read the Council of Florence it will become clear to you.

I am circumcised and my Son was circumcised, "BY A RABBI" because, as my doctor explained, the medical reasons for doing it outweighed the reasons against it. Growing up I had three friends who were not circumcised and each one had "problems" that required LATER circumcision. The Rabbi did it because he worked for the hospital and performed them all the time.

Catholicism has no beef aginst circumcision provided the person does not do it or have it done "for religious reasons". You will find catholics against doing it that quote tiny sections out of large documents but people like that exist in any church. The Catholic Church has never issued an official stance on this. If you are going to quote Catholic teaching make sure you quote all of it. Now, lets get on with some of the other things you said.

Ml66uk said:
I think most people opposed to circumcision would argue that a circumcised penis is less sensitive rather than more sensitive.

Genesis 34 said:
All the men who went out of the city gate agreed with Hamor and his son Shechem, and every male in the city was circumcised.

Three days later, while all of them were still in pain, two of Jacob's sons, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brothers, took their swords and attacked the unsuspecting city, killing every male.

If you circumcise your penis it's very sensitive. Same goes for the spiritual meaning when applied to the heart equating to being hyper aware, ultra sensitive, etc.

Joshua 5 said:
And after the whole nation had been circumcised, they remained where they were in camp until they were healed

copy and paste said:
Penile sensation improved after circumcision in 38% (p = 0.01) but got worse in 18%, with the remainder having no change. Overall satisfaction was 61%. Conclusions: Penile sensitivity had variable outcomes after circumcision. The poor outcome of circumcision considered by overall satisfaction rates suggests that when we circumcise men, these outcome data should be discussed during the informed consent process.

Department of Urology, Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham, and
Institute of Urology, University College London, London, UK

http://content.karger.com/ProdukteD...oduktNr=224282&Ausgabe=230970&ArtikelNr=85930

Meaning of circumcision of the heart

Colossians 2 said:
In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ

Removing that which prevents the heart from being receptive to what God wants us to do. Consider;

Ezekiel 3 said:
But the house of Israel is not willing to listen to you because they are not willing to listen to me, for the whole house of Israel is hardened and obstinate.

Daniel 5 said:
But when his heart became arrogant and hardened with pride, he was deposed from his royal throne and stripped of his glory.

Lev 26 said:
I will break down your stubborn pride and make the sky above you like iron and the ground beneath you like bronze.

2 Chron 26 said:
But after Uzziah became powerful, his pride led to his downfall. He was unfaithful to the LORD his God, and entered the temple of the LORD to burn incense on the altar of incense.

Job 33 said:
For God does speak—now one way, now another— though man may not perceive it.

In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falls on men as they slumber in their beds, he may speak in their ears and terrify them with warnings, to turn man from wrongdoing and keep him from pride, to preserve his soul from the pit, his life from perishing by the sword.

Proverbs 16 said:
Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.

Etc, etc, etc, etc. Does a "meek" or humble person have a 'circumcised heart'? What you've suggested is that if a person does not have circumcision then his penis would be 'more sensitive' and that would translate Biblically that a person with an uncircumcised heart would be more sensitive then a person who had a circumcised heart. My Biblical truth meter is going crazy right now.

Jesus said:
For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Luke 18 said:
I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

The Philippines is 99% Catholic and the rate of circumcision reflects that.

Pythons · Aug 2, 2008

TrustAndObey said:
Please refrain from throwing up in this thread.

LOL!

T&O said:
There are some aspects of this conversation that I obviously won't be able to relate to since I am female, but that's interesting that an uncircumcised penis is actually more sensitive. That makes sense really.

Depending on what study you read. Scripture is clear that it's "the process" of circumcision and soon after as I described above in my previous answer.

T&O said:
I didn't realize the Catholic church felt circumcision would result in loss of eternal salvation. My poor boys. I made that decision FOR them when they were minutes or days old.

Being circumcised "as a means of Salvation" would result in a loss salvation. Most Catholic's are circumcised T&O and the Church does not have a problem with it.

T&O said:
Pythons, I am going to transfer over some of the comments from the other thread a little later, okay? I'm doing a study on another subject at the moment.

Feel free.

TrustAndObey · Aug 2, 2008

I hope that the Lord can let me talk about this subject without continuing to feel as uneasy as I do right now. It's felt a little creepy at times talking about it with men that are not my husband, so I know I'm thinking on a "self" level and need to get over that part of it and only consider the spiritual meaning associated with it.

<deep breath>

Pythons, in some of those verses that you mentioned in your post to ml66uk, you mentioned the hardening of the heart. Would that even be possible if our hearts were circumcised at birth like you've suggested before?

TrustAndObey · Aug 2, 2008

Also...the Lord tells the children of Israel that THEY need to circumcise their hearts.

Does God do it FOR us or do we have at least some control over it?

Pythons · Aug 2, 2008

TrustAndObey said:
I hope that the Lord can let me talk about this subject without continuing to feel as uneasy as I do right now. It's felt a little creepy at times talking about it with men that are not my husband, so I know I'm thinking on a "self" level and need to get over that part of it and only consider the spiritual meaning associated with it.

IMO to get any meaning out of this topic a person would have to understand what circumcision would mean to the people of the Old and New Testament.

One would need to look at it through Jewish eyes to gain any Spiritual meaning into what Christ and the Apostles spoke of, to both the Jews who accepted Christ and those who didn't.

T&O said:
Pythons, in some of those verses that you mentioned in your post to ml66uk, you mentioned the hardening of the heart. Would that even be possible if our hearts were circumcised at birth like you've suggested before?

I would think it's safe to say that for Christians, Baptism replaced circumcision.

Colossians 2 said:
In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

We know that circumcision took place on the eighth day after birth from reading Genesis 18,12 and also that Children can reveive Spiritual benefits,

Mark 10 said:
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.

We also know have examples of whole households being baptized,

Acts 16 said:
When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house."

1 Corinthians 1 said:
Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.

Household (Strong's # 3624) = "All the persons forming one family"

COMPARED with,

Genesis 17 said:
On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him.

Baptizm is a Command of God, a Sacrament of God.

Matthew 28 said:
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

This is exactly why infant Baptizm is so important, it's a visible sign of an inward or invisible grace. Children are VERY sensitive and open to ideas and that is why Jesus said what He did about the little children. Like Abraham, they were circumcised in the heart be they circumcised in the flesh or not.

Titus 3 said:
But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy.

He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

John 3 said:
Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

Hardening of the heart happens over time and not all at once. Children exposed to voilence and great evil become hard.

T&O said:
Also...the Lord tells the children of Israel that THEY need to circumcise their hearts.

Does God do it FOR us or do we have at least some control over it?

In some cases God hardens peoples hearts for a greater good. The way I think you mean it is that we as Christians are told to "circumcise OUR hearts" for what we can do for ourselves in this way. God also does it for us at times.

Deut 10 said:
Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer.

Deut 30 said:
The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.

Jeremiah 4 said:
Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, circumcise your hearts, you men of Judah and people of Jerusalem, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done— burn with no one to quench it.

We must do for ourselves what we can do and allow God's Grace to save us.

ml66uk · Aug 3, 2008

Whether you agree with it or not, the Council of Florence actually decided against circumcision for any reason:

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."

An exception was later made for medical need:

"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." Pope Pius XII in 1952

I wouldn't want to defend everything in Cantate Domino, but it appears that in 1952 circumcision was only "permissible" to prevent a disease that could not be treated otherwise.

Actually about 81% of people in the Philippines are Catholic. They almost all circumcise, but it seems to have been a common practice even before Magellan landed in 1521. Their circumcision practice is however not the same as what is being done in America. 90% use a dorsal slit technique which is very different from a regular American circumcision, and both forms are very different from circumcision at the time of Christ.

In most of the world's other Catholic countries (Spain, Italy, Poland, Mexico, Ireland, Brazil etc), circumcision is almost unheard of. It's not even an issue - it just doesn't happen.

The link posted about sensitivity is about men who had to have it done for medical reasons. People with such conditions generally will be more sensitive afterwards, but for most people, cutting off the most sensitive part of the penis (it's not just there to protect what's left), is not going to make it more sensitive.

It's worth remembering that we wouldn't 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, tubercolosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.

Both of those sound ludicrous today I know, but if you don't believe me, then check out this link:
www noharmm org docswords htm

TrustAndObey · Aug 3, 2008

Pythons, please don't turn this into an infant baptism thread. I totally disagree with infants being baptized and I think it should go without saying that an infant cannot make the conscious decision to give their lives to Christ, nor can they let the old man die.

Pythons said:
This is exactly why infant Baptizm is so important, it's a visible sign of an inward or invisible grace. Children are VERY sensitive and open to ideas and that is why Jesus said what He did about the little children. Like Abraham, they were circumcised in the heart be they circumcised in the flesh or not.

Parents make the decision to baptize their infants, Pythons. The child has NO say in the matter and they have no idea what's happening or why.

And what if a parent doesn't do it? If something is "so important" to do, then a parent just made a life-changing negative decision FOR their child, and there's not a big window in which to do it.

No way, it's so unbiblical I can't even begin to address it without totally derailing this thread.

Back on-topic:
I used to baby-sit for my nephew a couple of summers ago and he was uncircumcised. He was born prematurely and weighed just a little over 3 pounds at birth, so my sister decided the surgery wasn't worth traumatizing his frail little body.

One thing I know for sure is that when he'd pull the skin back to urinate, his penis underneath was very pink. Common sense would say that something that isn't exposed very often would just be more sensitive, as opposed to a penis that is in contact with cloth in a diaper, underwear, etc. over time.

Common sense would also say that right after a circumcision the penis would be very sensitive and painful, but that the pain would go away (just like the pain of a vasectomy).

When you cut your finger, it hurts to touch things, but eventually it heals and it's not overly sensitive from then on out. I don't see the penis as being any different and it would desensitize over time.

Why do you suppose the COI weren't circumcised in the wilderness at 8 days old?

Pythons · Aug 3, 2008

TrustAndObey said:
Pythons, please don't turn this into an infant baptism thread. I totally disagree with infants being baptized and I think it should go without saying that an infant cannot make the conscious decision to give their lives to Christ, nor can they let the old man die.

I don't think an infant can make a conscious desision to give their life to Christ either?

In the Old Covenant if somone was going to attach themselves to the Children of Israel they (and all the males in their household) would be circumcised.

Baptism 'replaced' circumcision . A male child who was circumcised on the eighth day didn't know what was going on either and that is why after the child grows up a bit they go through "conformation", prior to receiving Eucharist. Does the SDA church not have some type of dedication ceremony or something?

T&O said:
Parents make the decision to baptize their infants, Pythons. The child has NO say in the matter and they have no idea what's happening or why.

Yes, I realize that but still don't follow your point? It's like trying to say Abraham was wrong for circumcising Isaac because as a baby he would have had no idea what was happening to him or why. God said it was to be done, did He not?

A Jewish male baby was circumcised then 'raised' according to the teachings of the religion and when he was ready had Bar Mitzvah. By default, your reasoning against Catholicism baptzing an infant would have nothing done until the kid can make up it's own mind on if they are going to 'buy-in' or not. The following is either a timeless truth or not,

Proverbs 22 said:
Train a child in the way they should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.

Circumcision in the Old Covenant and Baptism in the New Testament is a huge part of this. To say otherwise would be like asking a person to take a Bar exam without every training in law. It just doen't work this way.

T&O said:
And what if a parent doesn't do it? If something is "so important" to do, then a parent just made a life-changing negative decision FOR their child, and there's not a big window in which to do it.

No way, it's so unbiblical I can't even begin to address it without totally derailing this thread.

Think about what I just said above. It's so Biblical you can't ignore it. I think you've assigned some correct beliefs to something the Catholic Church doesn't teach. When you know what the Church teaches you will say "voila", that's so Biblical I've got to do it.

T&O said:
Back on-topic:
I used to baby-sit for my nephew a couple of summers ago and he was uncircumcised. He was born prematurely and weighed just a little over 3 pounds at birth, so my sister decided the surgery wasn't worth traumatizing his frail little body.

One thing I know for sure is that when he'd pull the skin back to urinate, his penis underneath was very pink. Common sense would say that something that isn't exposed very often would just be more sensitive, as opposed to a penis that is in contact with cloth in a diaper, underwear, etc. over time.

Common sense would also say that right after a circumcision the penis would be very sensitive and painful, but that the pain would go away (just like the pain of a vasectomy).

When you cut your finger, it hurts to touch things, but eventually it heals and it's not overly sensitive from then on out. I don't see the penis as being any different and it would desensitize over time.

Why do you suppose the COI weren't circumcised in the wilderness at 8 days old?

Scripture is speaking of 'directly after' otherwise circumcision of the heart would leave one with a hardened heart and circumcision of the ears would leave one deaf. I'm not thinking this is what the Good Book had in mind.

The reason was it was part of God's plan. Those who didn't obey God were bled out in the desert. This is why God instructed Joshua to use "flint knives", exactly as Moses wife used on her Son when she threw the mess at Moses' feet.

Joshua 5 said:
At that time the LORD said to Joshua, "Make flint knives and circumcise the Israelites again."

Or as other translations render it, "for the second time"

TrustAndObey · Aug 4, 2008

Pythons said:
[/color][/size][/font]

I don't think an infant can make a conscious desision to give their life to Christ either?

In the Old Covenant if somone was going to attach themselves to the Children of Israel they (and all the males in their household) would be circumcised.

There ya go. Bloodline obviously WASN'T enough to become among the chosen people of God or those truly OF Abraham wouldn't have needed to do it.

The stranger could be circumcised and counted amongst His people, just as though Abraham himself was their father.

Pythons said:
Baptism

Pythons said:
'replaced' circumcision . A male child who was circumcised on the eighth day didn't know what was going on either and that is why after the child grows up a bit they go through "conformation", prior to receiving Eucharist. Does the SDA church not have some type of dedication ceremony or something?

I would like to see the scripture you're basing this off of. Please show me where the Lord said we should baptize our babies before they even know who the Lord is.

Baptism isn't a physical transformation, Pythons, it's a spiritual one. It's a commitment to follow Christ, and symobolic of dying and rising with Him. Can a baby comprehend that?

In the SDA church we do have dedications, but it's the PARENTS saying "I promise to do my part to raise this child up in the ways of the Lord".

Pythons said:
Yes, I realize that but still don't follow your point? It's like trying to say Abraham was wrong for circumcising Isaac because as a baby he would have had no idea what was happening to him or why. God said it was to be done, did He not?

Pythons said:
A Jewish male baby was circumcised then 'raised' according to the teachings of the religion and when he was ready had Bar Mitzvah. By default, your reasoning against Catholicism baptzing an infant would have nothing done until the kid can make up it's own mind on if they are going to 'buy-in' or not. The following is either a timeless truth or not,

Abraham had a directive to circumcise Isaac. I see no such directive in scripture to baptize an infant before they can even comprehend what it means to follow Christ.

Christ said "whosoever believeth in Me and is baptized...." A baby wouldn't have the slightest clue who Christ is.

Pythons said:
Circumcision in the Old Covenant and Baptism in the New Testament is a huge part of this. To say otherwise would be like asking a person to take a Bar exam without every training in law. It just doen't work this way.

Pythons said:
Think about what I just said above. It's so Biblical you can't ignore it. I think you've assigned some correct beliefs to something the Catholic Church doesn't teach. When you know what the Church teaches you will say "voila", that's so Biblical I've got to do it.

Too late. My children aren't babies anymore. But I'll tell you what, I'll let them make their own decision to follow Christ when they are able to fully understand what that means. As babies, they wouldn't have had a clue.

Let me ask you this.....if it's an imperative thing that we baptize our BABIES, then what about the non-Christian parents that didn't? Have they altered the eternal salvation of their children?

Pythons said:
Scripture is speaking of 'directly after' otherwise circumcision of the heart would leave one with a hardened heart and circumcision of the ears would leave one deaf. I'm not thinking this is what the Good Book had in mind.

The reason was it was part of God's plan. Those who didn't obey God were bled out in the desert. This is why God instructed Joshua to use "flint knives", exactly as Moses wife used on her Son when she threw the mess at Moses' feet.

Or as other translations render it, "for the second time"

Joshua was told to circumcise them again. Do you think "again" could possibly mean "return to"?

If someone is on a diet and they go off of it, then later they say "I'm going to start dieting again", aren't they returning to something they had done before?

Jos 5:5 says no one was circumcised that was born after the Exodus. Couldn't it be a logical step to conclude that they were returning to something they had done before and that penises weren't actually cut twice?

Pythons · Aug 5, 2008

TrustAndObey said:
There ya go. Bloodline obviously WASN'T enough to become among the chosen people of God or those truly OF Abraham wouldn't have needed to do it.

The stranger could be circumcised and counted amongst His people, just as though Abraham himself was their father.

The Old Covenant worked in a similar way to the New in that God 'selected Israel' to be special from the other nations of the earth. A Child of Israel would be the biological child of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, this in and of itself would not merit salvation.

God has chosen "all" but not all choose God.

T&O said:
I would like to see the scripture you're basing this off of. Please show me where the Lord said we should baptize our babies before they even know who the Lord is.

Colossians 2 said:
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.

In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ.

Matthew 28 said:
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

Circumcision done by Christ Biblically starts with Baptism. A PreChrist Jewish child was circumcised then raised (trained) in the ways of Judaism then when he was ready went through Bar Mitzvah. In the Christian Faith a child of Christian parents is baptized then raised in the Christian way and when they are ready are confirmed.

T&O said:
Baptism isn't a physical transformation, Pythons, it's a spiritual one. It's a commitment to follow Christ, and symobolic of dying and rising with Him. Can a baby comprehend that?

Catechism of the Catholic Church said:
ARTICLE 1
THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM
1213

Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5

I. WHAT IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED?

1214 This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to "plunge" or "immerse"; the "plunge" into the water symbolizes the catechumen's burial into Christ's death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as "a new creature."6

1215 This sacrament is also called "the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit," for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."7

1216 "This bath is called enlightenment, because those who receive this [catechetical] instruction are enlightened in their understanding . . . ."8 Having received in Baptism the Word, "the true light that enlightens every man," the person baptized has been "enlightened," he becomes a "son of light," indeed, he becomes "light" himself:9
[SIZE=-1]Baptism is God's most beautiful and magnificent gift. . . .We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called gift because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own; grace since it is given even to the guilty; Baptism because sin is buried in the water; anointing for it is priestly and royal as are those who are anointed; enlightenment because it radiates light; clothing since it veils our shame; bath because it washes; and seal as it is our guard and the sign of God's Lordship.10 [/SIZE]

T&O said:
In the SDA church we do have dedications, but it's the PARENTS saying "I promise to do my part to raise this child up in the ways of the Lord".

The object of the dedication is the parents "promise"?

T&O said:
Abraham had a directive to circumcise Isaac. I see no such directive in scripture to baptize an infant before they can even comprehend what it means to follow Christ.

Christ said "whosoever believeth in Me and is baptized...." A baby wouldn't have the slightest clue who Christ is.

Exactly! In the New Covenant there is no difference between Jew and Greek, slave and free "males or females" as "ALL" are brought into the fold by Baptism. Instead of the old way of Jewish male or their slaves male children being "God's Chosen" it's everyone and Jesus says "Baptize all Nations".

T&O said:
Too late. My children aren't babies anymore. But I'll tell you what, I'll let them make their own decision to follow Christ when they are able to fully understand what that means. As babies, they wouldn't have had a clue.

This confounds the point of the SDA dedication ceremony if 'training up a child in the way they should go' is true.

T&O said:
Let me ask you this.....if it's an imperative thing that we baptize our BABIES, then what about the non-Christian parents that didn't? Have they altered the eternal salvation of their children?

According to Catholicm God's mercy extends to them far greater then adults.

CCC 1261 said:
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them.

Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

The Biblical model follows below

Acts 16 said:
They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be savedyou and your household." Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized.

T&O said:
Joshua was told to circumcise them again. Do you think "again" could possibly mean "return to"?

Yes, I do.

T&O said:
Jos 5:5 says no one was circumcised that was born after the Exodus. Couldn't it be a logical step to conclude that they were returning to something they had done before and that penises weren't actually cut twice?

Errrr, I thought you knew I already knew this. This is what I've been saying, no?

Eluria · Aug 5, 2008

My son is uncircumcised mainly because he was born that way.
I am an Athiest, but have a question regarding circumcision.
If your God made your child the way he is, why do you have to change it? Why wouldn't he be born without a foreskin?

Pythons · Aug 5, 2008

Eluria said:
My son is uncircumcised mainly because he was born that way.
I am an Athiest, but have a question regarding circumcision.
If your God made your child the way he is, why do you have to change it? Why wouldn't he be born without a foreskin?

A big welcome Eluria, I'm glad you stopped by. Christians believe humans were 'made' to live forever and this, in some way, may help you to understand the Circumcision issue better.

Circumcision was initiated by God with Abraham. This marking was made to set apart Abraham and his generations from other people. This marking was expanded with the giving of the Law to the Children of Israel through Moses and continued up until the point of Christs death on the cross and subsequent resurrection.

Within Christianity there are different beliefs as to exactly what circumcision was (between God and man) and that is what you are seeing in this thread.

If you had the time or would be willing to look at a Christians view of the reality of God I would point you toward a DVD that was made by a man whose name is,

Louie Giglio

The DVD's I've seen are "Indescribable' & 'How Great is Our God'. Louie comes at this from a standpoint of Known facts that exist and takes the viewer on a tour of the known solar system with a huge high def projector. I would prefer to point you toward a Catholic production but this Louie guy is the best I've ever seen. I would assure you after watching either of these DVD's you would at least understand exactly why someone would explore faith in Christ.

All the best to you.

TrustAndObey · Aug 8, 2008

Pythons, when someone comes to the Adventist forum, please let Adventists answer their question(s). It's only fair, brother, come on (that's in our rules too, FYI).

Eluria said:
My son is uncircumcised mainly because he was born that way.
I am an Athiest, but have a question regarding circumcision.
If your God made your child the way he is, why do you have to change it? Why wouldn't he be born without a foreskin?

I'd like to welcome you as well (and apologize that I didn't see this post sooner).

God used circumcision as a sign between Him and His people. It was an outward display of an inward belief. Abraham and his decendents were not the only ones that could be counted among God's people through circumcision, contrary to what Pythons said.

The "stranger" could be counted amongst God's people as well. In fact, the "stranger" (Greek/Gentile) HAD to be circumcised in order to observe Passover and be counted.

There was a mixed multitude at Mt. Sinai when God handed down His law as well, but most of Christianity refuses to acknowledge that.

Flashskeletal · Aug 19, 2008

Truthandobey, like you, I have some reservations about talking about circumcision and I have talked about it on others posts at this website. I have had this burning question about the sensitive aspect and would like to talk about it. However, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am looking for mature and serious conversation nothing perverted.
Python is correct; the uncircumcised penis is much more sensitive than the circumcised penis. Although there is a small medical benefit to be circumcised (e.g., less yeast infections, later life circumcision due to foreskin complications), I have always felt one of the benefits of not being circumcised is the sensitivity (my parents choose not to circumcise me). In my mind, the more sensitivity is a benefit because a man can be more sensitive to a woman, rather than just and I do not mean to sound crude pound. I am not circumcised and I would hear these stories about men pounding and I did not understand them, but now Ive come to the conclusion that some men need to pound which seems to be a metaphor for be self-centered. The uncircumcised man becomes more sensitive to the woman during sexual relations and symbolically in life relations.
However, recently, I have had another man challenge this view on the grounds that uncircumsicised men can be too sensitive, and in that way its a limitation in sexual life. Im not sure, but Im guessing it means that the slowing down or premature [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][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] can be a disadvantage to women. That is the uncircumcised man becomes too self focused because of the extra sensitivity.
I recognize this post has not much to do with the spiritual aspects, and in the end, to me a good marriage trumps these types of questions (in regard to marriage and sexual activity I am very conservative). However, its a question that keeps burning in my mind probably related more to my sons I keep thinking about. I hope its not too crude or carnal. Again, I am looking for only mature replies and would accept private replies, as long as its mature and not perverted in any way.

Pythons · Aug 22, 2008

The real meaning of a circumcised heart and circumcised ears are the anti-type of the Old Covenant circumcision. After a penis was circumcised it hurt so much and the penis was so sensitive that there are examples of whole villages being put to the sword because the men who had just been circumcised couldn't fight. This is what this means - you have feelings for God and your neighbor that go past what the normal person would even notice...

I've got to admit Flashskeletal, your post made me laugh. I can see what you mean but am not the expert in that kind of thing other then saying that the Bible says that the husbands body belongs to the wife and the wife's body belongs to the husband which from my point of view means that you both do the best you can for each other with one party not outranking the other in sexual things (like the left and right hand of a body) and remember her feelings (wishes) are just as important as your's because that's what the Bible says. I had to learn that one the hard way.

JohnT · Aug 26, 2008

Anyone want to discuss what I found from the ISBE?

Seems like it answered T&O's question. and would provide a good foundation for a spiritual level discussion, as she wanted to do in the first place.

THE circumcision thread

TrustAndObey

Guest

Well-Known Member

Newbie

TrustAndObey

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

TrustAndObey

Guest

TrustAndObey

Guest

Well-Known Member

Newbie

TrustAndObey

Guest

Well-Known Member

TrustAndObey

Guest

Well-Known Member

You don't always have to be right.

Well-Known Member

TrustAndObey

Guest

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency