The Bible......

[silverton64]

So...some weird and wondering thoughts pondering my mind tonight....my friend showed me Gensis 17 a couple weeks ago:

Genesis 17


1And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
2And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
3And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
4As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
5Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
6And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
7And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
8And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
9And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
15And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.
16And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.
17Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
18And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
19And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
20And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
21But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
22And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.
23And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.
24And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
25And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.


26In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and Ishmael his son. 27And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.





I just ask....WHY....why would "God" want this on someone? For what reason? If he wanted the children circumcised wouldn't he have made them be born like that? It seems circumcision was all over getting Sarah pregnant or something...how do we even know what circumcision REALLY meant back in those days? And why would God chose the penis? It's a part no one even see's. "Hey there, let me see if you're a son of Abraham, show me your penis." --...Really?... c'mon....just a little confused here.

[Joseph]

silverton,

Not sure posts of a religious nature belong in the restoration section, so I moved the post here.

[Joseph]

This is also written in the Bible in the book of Galatians, but it seems a lot of gentiles prefer to pick and choose and ignore this part:

2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.

4Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

5For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

6For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

[Joseph]

Also, to answer your question, some people claim circumcision was never in the bible, and it was added later, as circumcision is not mention in earlier versions of the Torah, namely the so-called "Book of J."

But I ask myself the same question; why would god so ask his "chosen" to "honor" him by intentionally maring this, his "perfect" creation and holy image?

I'll never know...

Good thing I'm not Christian or Jewish... to hell with a religion that sanctions the forceful mutilation of non-consenting individuals.

[m4hornets]

Am I allowed to say how I feel about religion as long as I keep it clean?

[Aspie]

As it has already been pointed out by Joseph there are those who believe circumcision was never a part of the bible and the belief is based off of several things.

1.) A covenant can only be created by a person and god if they choose to do so when they understand what they are doing, thus a Bris cannot be part of a covenant.
2.) It is in conflict with other laws in the old testament such as not putting someone's life at risk and back then circumcisions of healthy adult men was dangerous for newborns it would have been very dangerous.
3.) After the time of Abraham the Jews didn't always circumcise I think one such time was during the reign of Moses I believe the practice was forbidden by Moses and to be part of a covenant what Mosses didn't would have been allowed yet it was.
4.) It states that if a mother loses a certain number of children to circumcision then the rest may remain intact which flies again in the face of the Bris being part of a covenant.
5.) The Jews didn't always follow God's orders one such incident is when they adopted the practice of burning their children to Molech.

[Daniel Thomas]

Well not many creditable historians cn find any evidence for most of whats in the bible, chance are its just desert man tales past down over hundreds of years, ander over time legend became truth,

so summing up id not try to make to much sense out of it because it may be there is no sense to be found. its not rocket science to know that snakes dont talk.

[Americut]

I keep my view on the bible simple: It was written by people. If it makes what I'm saying any more obvious, underline that - People.

I have no problem with healthy religious beliefs and intentions. I have a BIG problem with people who twist and abuse religion for their own personal agendas. People do it today, they did it 200 years ago, and they did it 2,000 years ago.

You say you're confused as to why God would want these things your friend quoted from the bible. I'm confused as to why people think that God wrote anything with ink and paper. Ever.

[ctrclckws]

Circumcision and sacred cows.

Ideas and policies put into place in ancient times to control the actions of the people.

Make it a commandment of the faith, by putting the fear of God into the ruling.

Think of the dietary laws of the Jewish and Islamic Faiths, At that time and place, they probably made sense for other reasons that might be harder to explain to the population. But by making it an article of faith, it didn't have to be explained.

Personally, I am glad I am not Jewish or Isamic, as both of those culture require circ...

At least Christians get a pass...

[cobra]

Religion is just after-life insurance... and as we all know, insurance companies are crooked.

I believe that the soul goes on after we die and that there is a higher intelligence in the universe. Put your faith in God, though, and not some worldly heirarchy or cache of ancient fairy tale books. God is love. Men are assholes.

[silverton64]

A lot of info to take in...I had no idea the bible ALSO referenced against circumcision......interesting....

[silverton64]

Also, I'm sure you guys don't know, but how on earth did they actually manage to curcumcise their boys/men without injuring them really bad, or even killing them? This was a LONG time ago, and there isn't ANY way they had all of these sterile things we have today...I was in music class last year and they talked about how in the motzart days the parents would chop off the boys testicles so he wouldn't change his vocal cords...so they could become rich...but when they did this a lot of the kids bled to death or got a serious infection. Why wouldn't this have happened back then? ....just a thought.

[peterpink]

Those that think the Bible is a reliable source of morality, science and wisdom should check out: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[Aspie]

Also, I'm sure you guys don't know, but how on earth did they actually manage to curcumcise their boys/men without injuring them really bad, or even killing them? This was a LONG time ago, and there isn't ANY way they had all of these sterile things we have today...I was in music class last year and they talked about how in the motzart days the parents would chop off the boys testicles so he wouldn't change his vocal cords...so they could become rich...but when they did this a lot of the kids bled to death or got a serious infection. Why wouldn't this have happened back then? ....just a thought.

Well it did happen back then and a lot back then and it still does to this day in unsanitary conditions, this was most likely why if X number of sons died from the circumcision the rest could be left intact.

[Dasher]

The answer is, God never intended Gentiles to be circumcised, only the sons of Abraham (and the boys they may have bought on the slave market).

Scripture requires that Christians not be circumcised. Plain and simple.

I agree that some Christians will pick and choose what parts of the New Testament they will obey, and which parts they will violate. But that just makes them hypocrites. In the Catholic faith, they are known as "Cafeteria Catholics". This phenomenon also exists in the various Protestant faiths.

One can not call himself a "fundamentalist Christian" without observing the requirement that Christians not be circumcised.

[silverton64]

The answer is, God never intended Gentiles to be circumcised, only the sons of Abraham (and the boys they may have bought on the slave market).

Scripture requires that Christians not be circumcised. Plain and simple.

I agree that some Christians will pick and choose what parts of the New Testament they will obey, and which parts they will violate. But that just makes them hypocrites. In the Catholic faith, they are known as "Cafeteria Catholics". This phenomenon also exists in the various Protestant faiths.

One can not call himself a "fundamentalist Christian" without observing the requirement that Christians not be circumcised.

Can you explain your thoughts? Where does scripture require they are not circumcised?

[jninja]

It never says not to. It just says that it doesn't matter.

Romans 5:6

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."

[BamaDude]

Can you explain your thoughts? Where does scripture require they are not circumcised?

It never says not to. It just says that it doesn't matter.

Romans 5:6

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."
There is this-

Titus 1:7-1:11-
(King James version, other translations available at http://bible.cc/titus/1-10.htm )
"For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.

[Dasher]

Let's look at Galatians first, because it is often quoted as proof that circumcision is "optional" in Christianity. But nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Apostle Paul wrote the Galatians a letter telling them that they must not circumcise their sons, or risk losing the freedom and redemption won for them by Jesus Christ. More details are here:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9306ntg.asp

You might be interested to know that God wasn't circumcised (and we were made in his image)....and you might find the following interesting:

"Since most Christians don't know their Bibles very well, or at least have given up the age-old practice of reading them chronologically or cover-to-cover, let's get right down to the facts.


"All the men who followed God in the Old Testament were certainly NOT circumcised. Adam, Able, Seth, Enoch, Methuselah (here's a plug for good health-the man who lived the longest in history was intact!), Noah, Shem (the father of the Semites), Terah, and countless other men, many of whom are listed in Scripture, were not circumcised. In fact, conservative Bible scholars estimate that Adam lived in 6,000-8,000 B.C., and Abraham didn't come onto the scene until 2,000 B.C., so that means the majority of men in the Old Testament (for 4,000-6,000 years!!), including those in the geneology of Christ, were not circumcised. What's more, Abraham walked with God for most of his life without being circumcised (which didn't take place until he was 99 years old!). When God found favor with Abraham ("Blessed be Abram of God Most High...who has delivered your enemies into your hand. And he gave him a tenth of all"), he was uncircumcised and continued to remain so for many, many years to come. Circumcision was also suspended by God for the 40 years in the wilderness.

"When God instituted circumcision, it was as a symbol of the Old Covenant (sacrifice of one's son, shedding of innocent blood, etc.), and as a prelude to the coming of the Sacrificial Lamb of God, Jesus Christ Himself. Relatively speaking, God waited til shortly before the advent of the Messiah to begin this practice that foreshadowed the meaning of Christ's sacrificial atonement. God wanted to make sure people understood very well the purpose of the Old Covenant before the New Covenant took its place. While the Old Covenant was symbolically pictured through animal sacrifice and infant circumcision, both were forever made obsolete (and abhorrent) by the dawn of the New Covenant. That is why the Scripture says that to shed the blood of a baby boy or an animal now, after Christ shed His own innocent blood once for all, would be blasphemous and mock our Lord's sacrifice. (The New Testament is very stringent in its warning about this!)"

-- from "What the Bible Really Says about Routine Infant Circumcision."

[Dasher]

For any Christian who is baptised, circumcision is the ultimate blasphemy, and rejection of Christ our Saviour. Consider this:

Colossians is the proof-text for the doctrine of Christ's circumcision being a part of his substitutionary sacrifice. Jesus was mutilated in order to identify with those who suffered under the Old Covenant, as well as to shed His innocent blood once and for all, so no baby would ever have to be subjected to circumcision again.

~Col. 2:8-14 "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men...rather than according to Christ. For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form and in Him you have been made whole.. and in Him you were also circumcised, with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with Him in baptism, and raised up with Him through faith. And...in the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him. . . having cancelled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us which were hostile to us. And He has taken them out of the way, having nailed them to the cross."

For Christians of the New Covenant, circumcision is not "optional". It is the work of Satan. It violates the will of God.

[jninja]

I think that what Paul and the other new testament apostles were saying is that circumcision is not a guarantee of heaven. I believe what was happening was Christians were getting circumcised and baptized because they thought that was all that was it took to get heaven. They were simply going through the outward actions of faith and not following through with the change of heart.

[Dasher]

What the Apostle Paul was saying is that circumcision by Gentiles who believed in the New Covenant was a deal-breaker, because it went against Christ's having died for them and having shed his blood for them, so they would not have to be circumcised themselves.

For some reason, people insist on believing that Paul was promoting circumcision when he was not. Neither were the other apostles. They weren't saying that circumcision was optional, either. What they were saying is that accepting Christ as your Saviour and accepting the New Covenant means that you reject circumcision, mutilation of the body, and animal sacrifice too for that matter.

Paul had to go to six different Galatian villages to straighten out the Christians there who mistakenly thought they had to be circumcised just because Jesus was.

The teaching of the New Testament is clear that circumcision is incompatible with Christianity. Why Americans who claim to be Christians believe otherwise is just baffling to me.

[jninja]

Why Americans who claim to be Christians believe otherwise is just baffling to me.


Totally agree with this. I'm not Catholic and therefore do not hold the Pope in any sort of regard but I think he would be doing the world a great service if he would make a big deal about this. The guy apologized for the holocaust. I think a little correction about a doctrinal misunderstanding wouldn't be that big of a deal. Then again, maybe he is unaware of the American love affair with circumcision.

[peterpink]

Coming have a largely secular country where self-professing Christians are regarded as a rather strange minority, I cannot understand why so many of you are caught up in the laws laid down by Bronze and Iron Age people who were basically primitive farmers with little understanding of the anatomy and physiology, let alone neurology, of the sex organs. Theological arguments can prove or justify anything and are not based on scientifically admissible evidence such as the number of Meissner's corpuscles in the foreskin. Our way of treating each other and animals is now much more caring and enlightened. We have decided keeping, maltreating and killing slaves is wrong. Stoning people and carrying out genocide etc are unacceptable today, yet these were all condoned or encouraged in the OT. We have moved on and so have our ethics. Today our ethics are decided by common consent and enshrined in civil laws. Currently some of us have decided that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is unethical and when we convince the majority it will become part of our law, just as FGM is. Bronze Age thinking is irrelevant.

Once it started, circumcision became a self-perpetuating cycle, father to son, so that the father does not have to face the fact that he is sexually deficient and the mother will think her husband is sexually normal. (In recent times in the USA females through ignorance have introduced a cosmetic justification to reinforce the social norm.) Genital mutilation of the sons raises the parents' self esteem in the eyes of their peers, and the religious or medical justifications are really secondary justifications used to support an irrational action. Any parent with a glimmering of common sense knows we do not cut off healthy parts of the body. I know of no other mammal that needs to have part of its sex organs removed at birth in order to live a better life. Do you?

[Dasher]

"Coming have a largely secular country where self-professing Christians are regarded as a rather strange minority, I cannot understand why so many of you are caught up in the laws laid down by Bronze and Iron Age people."

But the U.S. is not a largely secular country (around 80% of Americans say they belong to some faith). Self-professing Christians may be rather strange in the eyes of some, but they are by no means a minority (fewer than 2% of religious Americans are Jewish, and I would guess that fewer than 1% are Muslim). Around 25% of religious Americans identify as Catholics.

The U.S. is a secular country in that there is no state religion (unlike England, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.) because of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. However, most Americans are not atheists or agnostics, and according to all surveys, the vast majority profess religion, and in nearly all cases, this is some form of Christianity.

We are discussing the laws laid down for Christians to follow, because the topic of this thread is the Bible and what it says about circumcision. Since Christians are guided by the New Testament, we have been focusing on that.

The various references from the New Testament show that Christianity not only does not require circumcision, it equates circumcision with blasphemy because it negates the suffering of Christ, because it was part of the Old Law which can not be adhered to by Christians, and because circumcision was considered in the same category as animal sacrifice and other repugnant and barbaric practices of the Old Law (the Old Testament).

The New Testament in numerous chapters and passages is quite clear that circumcision not only is discouraged, but circumcision disqualifies one from being a Christian. That is the plain meaning of the New Testament. We also know that the Apostle Paul campaigned against circumcision and straightened out the Galatians (who mistakenly believed, just like many American Christians today) that you can be circumcised and still be a Christian. Other apostles intervened with the Pharysees and other "Judaizers" to stop them from circumcising their sons after they had converted to Christianity.

The Catholic church has been firm in its teaching that circumcision is mutilation of the human body and must not be allowed. The Pope issued an order in 1442 against circumcision. That may be part of the reason that few Europeans are circumcised. Also, the Cathechism in Rule 2344 prohibits circumcision because it is mutilation of the human body. But the U.S. bishops have been lax on this issue, instead choosing to focus elsewhere. And some Catholic hospitals, outside the control of the bishops anyway, have been allowing circumcisions to be performed.

What is shocking to me is the way some non-Catholic, fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. cherry pick which provisions of the New Testament they choose to obey, and which ones they will ignore. Clearly, the many condemnations of circumcision in the New Testament -- especially that circumcision is necessarily a disqualification from Christianity -- are ignored, plain and simple.

Anyone would find that puzzling.

[jninja]

If you tell an American Christian that circumcising their son would be against their faith they would say they are doing it for "health and cleaning" benefits. Christian circumcision in America isn't about religious beliefs (aside from the original intent of reducing sexual desire to remain pure) as it is for "health benefits", "cleaner", and "fitting in". Which I find confusing because it's an inherently Jewish practice.

[silverton64]

You guys have helped so much! I understnad now what I hadn't before. ...not that I honestly believe the bible anyways, I just wanted to know so I could talk to people who are into it....and now I can. Can't wait to have my skin back...............

[Barceno]

Can you explain your thoughts? Where does scripture require they are not circumcised?


The Catholic church has been firm in its teaching that circumcision is mutilation of the human body and must not be allowed. The Pope issued an order in 1442 against circumcision. That may be part of the reason that few Europeans are circumcised. Also, the Cathechism in Rule 2344 prohibits circumcision because it is mutilation of the human body.

What is shocking to me is the way some non-Catholic, fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. cherry pick which provisions of the New Testament they choose to obey, and which ones they will ignore. Clearly, the many condemnations of circumcision in the New Testament -- especially that circumcision is necessarily a disqualification from Christianity -- are ignored, plain and simple.



Silverton, you pose a good question. The first thing to understand, to really ponder and absorb, is that Genesis 17 is very suspect. It is essentially the same account as Genesis 15, and earlier versions of the Pentateuch did not have what we recognize today as Genesis 17. It was added later -- much later. From the early Book of J right up through the next 3 or 4 iterations of Genesis, there was no mention of God and circumcision. Then, suddenly, it appeared in the last edition (sometimes called the Book of P, or Priests, by some biblical scholars). It didn't surprise people at the time, because the priests of Judaism had recently - around 500 BC - been calling for widespread circumcision and claiming it was "an order of God". Thing is, they then had to go back and weave a bunch of awkward references to circumcision into the Pentateuch to defend their lie. Just read these passages to see how unbelievable and ghastly these are:

Genesis 34: 8-29
Exodus 4: 24-26
1 Samuel 18: 25-27

The dumb authors couldn't even get around the fact that Moses wasn't circumcised (most scholars agree on this point, but wave it away by saying he was born with aposthia). The real story is that there was no circumcision among the Hebrews back then, so naturally he and his sons were intact. The priests were in such a rush to write circumcision backward into the Bible that they got their timelines all wrong. Duh.

The priestly class was a corrupt lot, and Judaism soon got rid of them, to its credit. They replaced them with lay leadership (teachers) known as rabbis, who intentionally lack the ecclesiastical power of what other religions call priests and bishops.

Unfortunately, some of the damage they did still stands, like the passage on circumcision in Genesis 17. But read it closely for syntax: nowhere does it say that circumcision is a covenant with God. It says that the covenant God made with his followers was that if they obeyed his laws to come (roughly numbering 613 at present, known as the mitzvot or Laws of Moses), He would favor and protect these humans, and ensure their expansion and survival. Circumcision of the penis was mentioned as an outward, physical, permanent sign that this covenant with God was understood and taken seriously.

Of course it's messy, because God never proposed it. Man did, without fully thinking it through. It applies only to males (sexist), it's done on other people than yourself (cowardly), and there are no instructions whatsoever about how much or how little to cut (confusing and dangerous). As we know, there really is no such perfectly defined structure as a foreskin, no dotted line along which to cut -- it's all penis, and all necessary.

The new Testament is rather clear that circumcision is at best a relic to be ignored. But the Catholic Church -- the only Christian church until the reformation -- could not have been clearer on the inappropriateness of circumcision for followers of Christ, those of the new covenant. Pope Eugene IV went so far as to decree in a papal bull:

"...it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christ, not to practice circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it [circumcision of the penis] cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

And that applied to all Christians the world over.

In the Apocrypha, Gospel of Thomas, Saying 53 quotes Jesus:

His students said to him, “Is circumcision of benefit to us or not?” He said to them, “If it were of benefit, their father would have them born from their mother already circumcised. Rather, it is the true circumcision in spirit that is worth something.”

The Bible and Christian teachings are rife with references to the pointlessness, and even evils, of circumcision for false reasons of faith. You can read most of them here (http://www.circumstitions.com/Xy.html) and here (http://www.udonet.com/circumcision/christian.html) and here (http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass2/). The duplicitous history of circumcision as a way to brainwash, terrify and control humans (whether historical or even today) will make your blood boil.

That's why my favorite remains Philippians 3:2: Beware of anyone who would have you get circumcised.

[Barceno]

Also, I'm sure you guys don't know, but how on earth did they actually manage to curcumcise their boys/men without injuring them really bad, or even killing them? This was a LONG time ago, and there isn't ANY way they had all of these sterile things we have today...I was in music class last year and they talked about how in the motzart days the parents would chop off the boys testicles so he wouldn't change his vocal cords...so they could become rich...but when they did this a lot of the kids bled to death or got a serious infection. Why wouldn't this have happened back then? ....just a thought.

I see there hasn't been a direct answer to your question, so let me offer some food for thought.

To really understand the evolution of religious and then medical circumcision, we have to peel away a lot of layers in the same way that archaeologists and anthropologists do. The most important starting point is to realize that the original circumcision mentioned in the Bible may not have been at all like the procedure done today.

Let's consider what the Bible doesn't say. Genesis 17, the ostensible root of this mess, does not give any indication of how much penis to cut off. It does not say "use a surrogate", like a doctor or mohel. It suggests this was something for men to do to themselves, initially, and then to their sons and manservants. (I don't have a butler or chauffeur, but I seriously doubt he would be very happy about me taking a knife or sharp rock to his cock and claiming God ordered me to do it.) They didn't have scalpels in those days, so this was something that had to be relatively easily and safely achieved by your average dad using whatever he could find in the yard. The Bible also doesn't say that circumcision of your kid was supposed to be witnessed by anyone other than the dad, so catered parties -- like a bris -- are out. These came along later to put peer pressure on the parents from backing out or lying about having done it.

We also know that the Talmud contains an instruction from around 150 AD that basically says: we need to make infant circumcision more severe. Take off a lot more skin. Make it almost impossible to restore your foreskin.

Why? Because we know from many reliable accounts that young Jewish athletes in the early Greek games were practicing epispasm (http://www.cirp.org/library/restoration/hall1/), or crude foreskin restoration. Some reports suggest that a few of those who attempted surgical techniques suffered sepsis and died. This alarmed and outraged the rabbis, who convened and came up with a denunciation of epispasm and what they considered a fool-proof way to radicalize infant circumcision to ensure that up to half the skin of the penis was removed in the procedure.

For you see, up to that point infant circumcision involved cutting off only the overhanging tip of the infant's foreskin. This meant there was almost no chance of severing the frenular artery, and the effect in adulthood was to just leave you with a very short foreskin revealing about half your head. This is because what was removed included the smooth muscle tissue that closes the foreskin around the head, so the Jewish lads of that era (200 BC) had no snugness to their short, cut foreskins. Yet they had enough to try to restore through surgical and stretching means.

What this further suggests was that the circumcision mentioned in the Old Testament was in fact nothing more than the cutting of overhang. There was no tearing of the fused foreskin from the glans, and when the operation was "finished", the head of the penis was still completely covered in attached foreskin. It just no longer had a snout or spigot.

With this primary muscle tissue removed, as the boy grew up he would quickly "outgrow" this partial foreskin and the head would be exposed most of the time. He would still have his frenulum, of course.

Dads could do this procedure with a sharp flint. Sure, there were mishaps... most dads aren't great surgeons. But this simple procedure really only carried the risk of infection or bleeding. This may be why the Talmud states that if parents lose 2 boys in succession to circumcision, they are not obligated to cut the 3rd. Bleeding could be deadly, and not only to hemophiliacs.

So, probably the real timeline of circumcision looks like this:

. 2000 BC - story of Genesis 17, though many consider Abraham to be a mythical figure and the Gen 17 to be a meddlesome remake of Gen 15.

. 2000-600 BC - Over the next 1400 years some Jews, not a lot, imitate local populations and try circumcision. It's not required, but not forbidden.

. Around 605-585 BC - the Hebrew priests are getting very nervous about their power and face restless followers during their Babylonian exile from Judah. They rally the troops with stories of the power of strictly observing God's laws, which Jews have gotten pretty lax about. The two the priests really emphasize are (1) holiness of the Sabbath and (2) circumcision. The people go "WTF?!?" but give it a try. Men and sons all get cut. (The Jews were probably the first tribe to attempt this on newborns, as the Sumarians and other contemporary tribes reserved it for older youth.)

. Over the next 50 years the Hebrews get all fired up and eventually re-enter Jerusalem. By then, the fictional story of God's insistence on circumcision has become legend and no one questions it anymore. But the surgery is mild, rather like battle tattoos or warpaint, and infant circumcision remains a minor procedure for the next 600-700 years.

Note that this includes the birth of Jesus Christ, who as little Emanuel was probably lightly snipped by his dad, Joseph. There is no account anywhere in the Bible of a mohel showing up, or a bris taking place, or of a recovery period from radical circumcision. Those didn't show up for another 100-200 years. So, when Jesus, Paul and the early Christians were debating circumcision, their point of reference was this minor snip. They would have been freaked out if they knew what was coming.

It is safe to bet that once the Talmud specified the new steps for infant circumcision around 150 AD that there were more than a few deaths. They probably saw it as a small price to pay for keeping their custom, even if they mistakenly thought it was a decree from God. The new guidelines, which are still in place today, are:

1. milah - cut the foreskin lengthwise to sever the muscle tissue
2. periah - tear the foreskin completely off the glans and sever it as far back as you can, ensuring that no bit of foreskin remnant touches the glans.
3. metzitzah - the operator (mohel) must take the freshly cut infant penis in his mouth and suck gently for 30 to 60 seconds until the bleeding subsides.

Infant circumcision remained almost exclusively the rather eccentric province of the Jews until the mid 19th century, when British and American doctors developed an unhealthy interest in it. In fact, those doctors were really only interested in circumcising boys ages 2-7 or so who would really remember and suffer from the pain of unanesthetized penile surgery. Medicalized infant circumcision didn't really catch on until the 20th century, and particularly after WWI when docs in that baby boom persuaded returning soldier and sailor dads that cutting their newborns would save them from having to be circumcised later in the military.

As more births moved from the house or farm to the hospital, circumcision became part of the standard maternity plan and really took off. A recent review (http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-causes-100-deaths-each-year-in-us/) estimates that 100 boys a year still die from infant circumcision, and we know that there are 50,000-80,000 circumcision complications a year in the US alone require physician attention or surgical correction. It remains one of the most inexact, error-prone surgeries in the world.

[ayk1987]

The Bible is written by men. It is made up as are all religions and belief systems. There is no invisible man in the sky watching you. If there were a just, caring, empathetic god then he wouldn't send us a book with dick cutting of babies and punishments for thoughts of your mind (lust, disbelief, etc.) And he sure as hell wouldn't make a world where spilling fluid containing hemoglobin and glucose (blood) cancels out acts deemed unfavorable (sin) by societies interpretation of the rules laid out in the Bible.

In fact if Islam, Christianity, and Judaism did not inoculate our society with the concept of male circumcision, chances are we (USA) would view it as we do female circumcision.

But hey maybe there is an invisible man in the sky. AND...

He sees you when you are sleeping...
He knows if you're awake...
He knows if you've been good or bad...
So you'd better be good for goodness sake!

[Aspie]

The Bible is written by men. It is made up as are all religions and belief systems. There is no invisible man in the sky watching you. If there were a just, caring, empathetic god then he wouldn't send us a book with dick cutting of babies and punishments for thoughts of your mind (lust, disbelief, etc.) And he sure as hell wouldn't make a world where spilling fluid containing hemoglobin and glucose (blood) cancels out acts deemed unfavorable (sin) by societies interpretation of the rules laid out in the Bible.

In fact if Islam, Christianity, and Judaism did not inoculate our society with the concept of male circumcision, chances are we (USA) would view it as we do female circumcision.

But hey maybe there is an invisible man in the sky. AND...

He sees you when you are sleeping...
He knows if you're awake...
He knows if you've been good or bad...
So you'd better be good for goodness sake!

You talk real big and bad but is all your damning evidence there is no god hmmm? When you find that evidence let me know.

I would also like to remind you that attacking religious people is a real dumb ass thing to do because the intactavist movement needs their support if we are ever going to get rid of forced non-theraputic circumcision. So if you want to keep circumcision around then please keep attacking and acting like a jackass if not then learn respect or at the very least learn the ability to keep your hurtful opinions to yourself.

[Dasher]

You talk real big and bad but is all your damning evidence there is no god hmmm? When you find that evidence let me know.

I would also like to remind you that attacking religious people is a real dumb ass thing to do because the intactavist movement needs their support if we are ever going to get rid of forced non-theraputic circumcision. So if you want to keep circumcision around then please keep attacking and acting like a jackass if not then learn respect or at the very least learn the ability to keep your hurtful opinions to yourself.

I think this is a good point. We already have the support of Catholics Against Circumcision. This is a group of sincere, everday Catholics and they have no direct connection to any Catholic diocese, as far as I know.

On the Protestant side of things, I heard there is a fundamentalist pastor -- I think in Oklahoma, but I might be wrong about that -- who is delivering the message of the New Testament to his congregation, that circumcision is wrong and the Apostles were all against it, as was Jesus.

These are all good signs, and we need everyone's support.

[Aspie]

Dasher don't forget that we have the support of many Muslims and Jews who who sacrifice much when they stand up against those who wish to mutilate the boys in their communities.

[Terato]

In fact if Islam, Christianity, and Judaism did not inoculate our society with the concept of male circumcision, chances are we (USA) would view it as we do female circumcision.

1) Most circumcisions in America (the vast, vast majority, actually) are secular in nature and performed for entirely secular (or shall we say, carnal) reasons.

2) The Victorian injunction to purify the mind and body by cutting away or hampering the function of parts of the physical body is in direct opposition to the spiritual renewal and cleansing from sin that is preached in the New Testament. The only fault of Christians at that time is that they didn't recognize that and so didn't take a very strong stand against routine circ in America, which I CAN blame the Church for.

3) Insulting people's religious beliefs (if you want to insult people for believing in theism, not just the Abrahamic faiths, you're insulting everyone who believes in a god or gods of any sort... everyone from Christianity to Wicca) really gets your cause nowhere.

4) See point three when it comes to anti-Semitism.

5) This is the Safe Haven section and simply put, you're not supposed to do what you did in here. I'm not asking that your post be removed because it stands as a good monument to your way of thinking and one of the big PR problems that I feel the intactivism movement has, but do read the rules of this section of the forum more clearly next time.

[peterpink]

Insulting people's religious beliefs (if you want to insult people for believing in theism, not just the Abrahamic faiths, you're insulting everyone who believes in a god or gods of any sort... everyone from Christianity to Wicca) really gets your cause nowhere.

It is a pity that that theists and deists are so very,very easily insulted because of their irrational beliefs. Of course, to nonbelievers this indicates the religious fabrication is weak and will not stand up to close scrutiny. As soon as a nonbeliever points out the concrete evidence that negates their particular belief the believer plays the 'hurt card'. Their 'feelings' have been hurt - nothing to do with the intellect. This brings the conversation to a close so that the theist/deist does not have to justify their irrational belief. Christians usually refuse to name their god for fear that his track record in the OT will expose them to ridicule.

Genital mutilation by whichever religious name you wish to give it is still genital mutilation. ("... a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.") Do not let us hide behind 'religious hurt feelings' in order to justify the genital mutilation of children. Circumcision of children should not be used to embellish the religious feelings of their parents.

[Aspie]

It is a pity that that theists and deists are so very,very easily insulted because of their irrational beliefs. Of course, to nonbelievers this indicates the religious fabrication is weak and will not stand up to close scrutiny. As soon as a nonbeliever points out the concrete evidence that negates their particular belief the believer plays the 'hurt card'. Their 'feelings' have been hurt - nothing to do with the intellect. This brings the conversation to a close so that the theist/deist does not have to justify their irrational belief. Christians usually refuse to name their god for fear that his track record in the OT will expose them to ridicule.

Genital mutilation by whichever religious name you wish to give it is still genital mutilation. ("... a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.") Do not let us hide behind 'religious hurt feelings' in order to justify the genital mutilation of children. Circumcision of children should not be used to embellish the religious feelings of their parents.

1.) Wether you like it or not WE NEED ALL THE SUPPORT WE CAN GET EVEN FROM RELIGIOUS PEOPLE so going out and covering everything in vinegar isn't a good way to get support as honey works a hell of a lot better. I would like to point out that by pushing potential allies of our cause away sometimes turns them into enemies of our cause which most likely means that you are in a roundabout way most likely responsible for at least one boy being mutilated.
2.) As a devout Christian I do not speak my god's many names because God's names are not on my priority list, stuff like trying to fuck up as little as I can is on my priority list and helping others when I can is on my priority list and so on.
3.) Your an atheist so fucking what do you want prize hmm? Perhaps a cookie? Or perhaps a pat on the back? Sorry but being an atheist doesn't make you anymore good or evil or special than anyone else like it or not your equal to everyone else including religious people.
4.) Religious people have such extreme reactions to attacks such as yours because people like you attack us constantly and you the little saying "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" is a load of rubbish words hurt. To put this in perspective last night I was ready to kill myself, I was ready to slit my throat or slit my wrists, or position myself and son on and one of the smaller reasons was because of people spewing bullshit very much like the bullshit your spewing now.
5.) I would also like to point out there is no concrete proof that there isn't a god and we can go back and forth about this for all eternity so its pointless to argue about that which neither of us shall ever prove.

So grow and start acting like a man.

[Terato]

It is a pity that that theists and deists are so very,very easily insulted because of their irrational beliefs. Of course, to nonbelievers this indicates the religious fabrication is weak and will not stand up to close scrutiny.

Dude... Dude. Are we talking about genital mutilation here (which is NOT just practiced by theists, but also by atheists and agnostics as well, since, like I said, most circumcisions in America are not religious in nature), or the existence of God? Did you not even read my post about how circumcision is not just discouraged but essentially prohibited by the New Testament? The Christian Church in America needs to wake up to that fact, true, but an atheist/agnostic screaming at them that their very beliefs are irrational is not gonna help them do that. It's just gonna make people dig in their heels and refuse to listen to you.

Also, I find it rather amusing that you apparently think that my post was out of some wounded feelings, since you responded to it with what I quoted above. I thought it was a cogent reply to ayk1987 on why his assumptions about RIC in America was completely wrong. It's not because of the influences of Christianity (Europe existed for hundreds of years -- around 2,000, give or take a few centuries in some places of it -- with both a very strong Christian influence AND an intact male populace, and America was settled by people of European descent who were mostly Christian and also intact), Islam (Muslims are and always have been a tiny minority in America's population, so they have nothing to do with circumcision in popular American culture), or Judaism (more of an influence than Muslims, but still a tiny minority and Jews do not necessarily try to push circumcision on others, with exceptions).

Face it: circumcision in America is mostly a SECULAR-DRIVEN force. That doesn't mean that it didn't have some sort of quasi-religious, quasi-scientific beginning with the Victorian anti-masturbation campaigns, but it is mostly secular now. That's probably why it's survived so long within Catholic and Protestant communities in America, because they don't think about what they're doing and why they're doing it. It's just accepted.

[PlainandTall]

Terato's last paragraph is right on! There are people who happen to be Christians who circumcise for secular reasons... and they may feel a little bit guilty or confused about the fact that the secular reasons may be in conflict with fundamental Christian values- for example- "It looks better" and "to reduce STDs" and to "fit in"... which would be a pretty blaphemous way to be looking at the male body created in God's image and... duh... I think Christianity has the STD issue pretty well covered with all the other regulations on sexual behavior. The fact that circumcision is "in there" (never mind where or why or what happened next)... is all they need to know as long as it's in the Bible they assume it must be a good thing then. I call this the "Prego Christian" It's not a term I can use that anyone else would understand- but when I see their logic I always mutter to myself- "Prego it's in there!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYJjD7UF-6k

[Terato]

There are people who happen to be Christians who circumcise for secular reasons... and they may feel a little bit guilty or confused about the fact that the secular reasons may be in conflict with fundamental Christian values- for example- "It looks better" and "to reduce STDs" and to "fit in"... which would be a pretty blaphemous way to be looking at the male body created in God's image and... duh... I think Christianity has the STD issue pretty well covered with all the other regulations on sexual behavior.

Honestly, I think that most Christians who circumcise don't even think about these things other than in a very superficial way (just like a lot of people in American culture).

The fact that circumcision is "in there" (never mind where or why or what happened next)... is all they need to know as long as it's in the Bible they assume it must be a good thing then.

Which is ironic considering that the circumcision requirement in the Old Testament (let's lay aside the debate about whether or not it was in the oldest manuscripts or was inserted later, because I don't intend to debate that) was 1) given to a particular people, the Jews, 2) for a particular time and place -- e.i., the Old Covenant and the time of the Law, and 3) probably far less damaging (though still hella painful) than what's done today for circumcision.

So with that understanding there's no religious reason for Christians to circumcise their infants -- and with no pressing medical reasons, then why do it? (I think that if a Christian guy wanted to be circumcised as an adult, he could possibly make that decision and have it not be sin, as long as he clearly understood that what he was doing had NO bearing on his salvation. If he can look at it as just another body modification, like a tattoo, a piercing, or the like, then I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with it in and of itself, though I wouldn't encourage him to do it.)

[Yunus]

1) Most circumcisions in America (the vast, vast majority, actually) are secular in nature and performed for entirely secular (or shall we say, carnal) reasons.

2) The Victorian injunction to purify the mind and body by cutting away or hampering the function of parts of the physical body is in direct opposition to the spiritual renewal and cleansing from sin that is preached in the New Testament. The only fault of Christians at that time is that they didn't recognize that and so didn't take a very strong stand against routine circ in America, which I CAN blame the Church for.

3) Insulting people's religious beliefs (if you want to insult people for believing in theism, not just the Abrahamic faiths, you're insulting everyone who believes in a god or gods of any sort... everyone from Christianity to Wicca) really gets your cause nowhere.

4) See point three when it comes to anti-Semitism.

5) This is the Safe Haven section and simply put, you're not supposed to do what you did in here. I'm not asking that your post be removed because it stands as a good monument to your way of thinking and one of the big PR problems that I feel the intactivism movement has, but do read the rules of this section of the forum more clearly next time.

I think that the root of circumcision is from Abrahamic religions which told about circumcision covenant even though new testament is against circumcision.
Circumcision became popular as good practice,which its (medical) reasons are ridiculous for supporting religious reasons,because of these Abrahamic religions.
I ever think that circumcision was firstly brought to America by Jewish American.
Maybe,this discussion is suitable in Safe Heaven section.

[saturnclue]

I am unsure as to when circumcision was "Added" to the Bible, if it in fact was, but I actually asked my religion professor about this topic, and he explained that Christians (or gentiles) are NOT actually subject to circumcision by rule of the Bible.
God made the covenant with the Jewish people but as Paul says in Gallatians, Jesus is the new covenant for the gentiles. That is why it doesn't matter if you are circed or not since Jesus came around and is basically the same "hook up" to God that circ was for Jews.
Regardless I think religious reasons for circ are pretty weak, since how can you tell whether the child will grow up to share those beliefs? There is no way of knowing, and once you cut it off, there is no choice for the child when they decide how they feel.

[Yunus]

I am unsure as to when circumcision was "Added" to the Bible, if it in fact was, but I actually asked my religion professor about this topic, and he explained that Christians (or gentiles) are NOT actually subject to circumcision by rule of the Bible.
God made the covenant with the Jewish people but as Paul says in Gallatians, Jesus is the new covenant for the gentiles. That is why it doesn't matter if you are circed or not since Jesus came around and is basically the same "hook up" to God that circ was for Jews.
Regardless I think religious reasons for circ are pretty weak, since how can you tell whether the child will grow up to share those beliefs? There is no way of knowing, and once you cut it off, there is no choice for the child when they decide how they feel.

It may happen to your environment.
In the fact,Genesis 17 which is about circumcision covenant is used in Indonesia to scare boys and men and make them wished to be circumcised.
These boys and men are afraid that if not circumcised,God won't save them like what Genesis 17 said even though Paul said the contrary words.

In some religious countries,religion are often used to control other people by some people in order to make these people who control other people comfortable.

[GinoMan2440]

So...some weird and wondering thoughts pondering my mind tonight....my friend showed me Gensis 17 a couple weeks ago:



I just ask....WHY....why would "God" want this on someone? For what reason? If he wanted the children circumcised wouldn't he have made them be born like that? It seems circumcision was all over getting Sarah pregnant or something...how do we even know what circumcision REALLY meant back in those days? And why would God chose the penis? It's a part no one even see's. "Hey there, let me see if you're a son of Abraham, show me your penis." --...Really?... c'mon....just a little confused here.

First of all, according to the book "marked in your flesh" by Leonard Glick, Circumcision was likely a small nick in the foreskin creating a raised line along the top, or was simply a circular cut that excised no skin but left a ring of scar tissue which would have marked the Jews out from others. The reason God chose the Penis in that sense was that the Penis was a symbol of ones ability to produce posterity. If you were barren, you were seen as cursed by God which is why it was so terrible that Abram and Sarai had no offspring. Circumcision was a physical sign (which would be fulfilled as a blood sacrifice once and for all in Jesus' death on the cross) of Abraham's offspring's covenant with God. The Jews of 1st century Palestine who for the most part rejected their messiah had already converted the practice to the excision of the end of the foreskin and later changed it to full excision of the foreskin with a practice called "metizah" which means sucking blood from the infant's penis. Christianity should have been the abolishment of circumcision for both religions but instead only resulted to the temporary abolishment in christianity, and the continuing and worsening of the practice in Judaism. If you were looking for an apologetic answer as far as defending your faith from those who would I think that would be a good one. If you were just confused I'd say the takeaway is that Jesus sacrifice on the cross was a once for all event that satisfies the wrath of God and so the sacrifice of circumcision is no longer necessary.