Circumcision, is it a good thing? Is it really mandated by God?

ChristineM said:

If a rational adult wants to modify their body, fair enough.
If there is a medical reason circumcision is needed, fair enough
For circumcision to be imposed an infant in the name of "that's the way it is" is barbaric

Click to expand...

I was also circumcised as an infant for religious reasons, although according to the Bible it is no longer necessary. But to call it "barbaric" is very exaggerated. I have never condemned my parents for it, nor do I know anyone who has condemned his parents for it.

A Vestigial Mote said:

My best guess is that this "mandate" falls in the same category as things like "do not east shellfish" - whereby there was likely some physical detriment to be had when uncircumcised during a particularly youthful period of human history.

Click to expand...

My take on a lot of the rules for keeping kosher is that they deal with lifestyle, not so much health benefits.

The ancient Jews were a nomadic people surrounded by settled peoples. Their nomadic lifestyle would have been an integral part of their identify.

One big difference between shellfish and other fish is in how they're caught: shellfish aren't compatible with a nomadic lifestyle. They're caught with traps that stay in one place, sometimes for years or generations.

Same with pork: pigs can't graze. They need fixed pens, so they aren't compatible with a nomadic lifestyle. Also, in a pinch, humans can eat pretty much anything a pig can eat, so they're a luxury item that aren't sustainable for a people who find themselves on the edge of starvation on a regular basis.

I don't see much if any reason to assume there were any real or perceived health benefits with keeping kosher.

A Vestigial Mote said:

Believe me - I don't promote the idea of circumcision. It was asked "why" it would be mandated - that was the question I was answering. Apparently people took my meandering to be my answering the question of "is it a good thing?" I didn't even touch on that question, I don't think. At least... I certainly wasn't trying to.

Click to expand...

I know the feeling.
Often I need to explain myself more than I anticipated.

Teritos said:

I was also circumcised as an infant for religious reasons, although according to the Bible it is no longer necessary. But to call it "barbaric" is very exaggerated. I have never condemned my parents for it, nor do I know anyone who has condemned his parents for it.

Click to expand...

So mutilating a child, a child who cannot approve, cannot give informed consent for being mutilated is not barbaric. Of course that is your personal opinion, it is not mine.

Don't get me wrong here, if the person gives their informed approval (for that they should be at least the age of majority in their jurisdiction), or in medical need, that's cool, but to off cut a bit of an innocent child... Yes barbaric.

You should also be aware that i think a circumcised penis is aesthetically superior to an uncircumcised one. When it comes to mutilating a child my personal preference doesn't come into the equation

Revoltingest said:

What about female circumcision?
It can be done safely with modern medicine.
And the FGM-lite versions are comparable to male circumcision.
If boys can have genitalia cosmetically altered without consent, then why deny girls this benefit?

Click to expand...

Because female "circumcision" makes the woman unable to orgasm. It does not affect the man.

I'm against unconsented mutilation.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

My take on a lot of the rules for keeping kosher is that they deal with lifestyle, not so much health benefits.

The ancient Jews were a nomadic people surrounded by settled peoples. Their nomadic lifestyle would have been an integral part of their identify.

One big difference between shellfish and other fish is in how they're caught: shellfish aren't compatible with a nomadic lifestyle. They're caught with traps that stay in one place, sometimes for years or generations.

Same with pork: pigs can't graze. They need fixed pens, so they aren't compatible with a nomadic lifestyle. Also, in a pinch, humans can eat pretty much anything a pig can eat, so they're a luxury item that aren't sustainable for a people who find themselves on the edge of starvation on a regular basis.

I don't see much if any reason to assume there were any real or perceived health benefits with keeping kosher.

Click to expand...

The thing that I see that both pork and shellfish have in common is what can (pretty easily) happen upon ingestion when they aren't fully cooked. People consume undercooked red meat all the time - in fact it is considered a good attribute of the meal by some if the meat isn't fully cooked. But no one in their right mind would tell you to consume undercooked pork. The option for "medium" isn't even given for pork dishes. Same with shellfish.

I can far more easily imagine people of that time suffering the effects of eating raw or undercooked meats of those kinds (parasites, or bacteria-induced sickness incurring vomiting, etc.) feeling that THAT reaction was some kind of "Wrath of God" than I could imagine anyone thinking that God was punishing them by making it such that their pig couldn't follow along beside them as they walked a long trek, or that God was laying down the law by forcing them to keep traps in place over a long period to try and catch shellfish. I would think that nomadic living would just mean that you couldn't partake of certain things, but that wasn't the "fault" of anything in particular. However, these things are being attributed to God, as being items that will incur His wrath or make Him displeased - specifically.

Teritos said:

Do you deny the Old Testament?

Click to expand...

No. I'm unsure why that was a requirement under that covenant, but it's forbidden for Christians. Regardless of religious beliefs about it, I've always viewed it as genital mutilation.

ChristineM said:

So mutilating a child, a child who cannot approve, cannot give informed consent for being mutilated is not barbaric. Of course that is your personal opinion, it is not mine.

Don't get me wrong here, if the person gives their informed approval (for that they should be at least the age of majority in their jurisdiction), or in medical need, that's cool, but to off cut a bit of an innocent child... Yes barbaric.

You should also be aware that i think a circumcised penis is aesthetically superior to an uncircumcised one. When it comes to mutilating a child my personal preference doesn't come into the equation

Click to expand...

Do you know an affected person who has condemned his parents for this? I do not know any. So why are you making a drama about it? You are not even affected.

Teritos said:

Do you know an affected person who has condemned his parents for this? I do not know any. So why are you making a drama about it? You are not even affected.

Click to expand...

Actually yes i do, so now what?

Look, you have no problem with mutilating children, i do so what drama?

Saint Frankenstein said:

No. I'm unsure why that was a requirement under that covenant, but it's forbidden for Christians. Regardless of religious beliefs about it, I've always viewed it as genital mutilation.

Click to expand...

So according to you, Jesus was mutilated as an infant? The Apostles too?

Teritos said:

So according to you, Jesus was mutilated as an infant? The Apostles too?

Click to expand...

Basically. Circumcision isn't viewed as a positive thing in Christianity. It's seen as foreshadowing the circumcision of the heart, which matters the most to God.

ChristineM said:

Actually yes i do, so now what?

Click to expand...

really? What's his name?

ChristineM said:

Look, you have no problem with mutilating children, i do so what drama?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you are exaggerating, this is not a mutilation.

Saint Frankenstein said:

Basically. Circumcision isn't viewed as a positive thing in Christianity. It's seen as foreshadowing the circumcision of the heart, which matters the most to God.

Click to expand...

So Jesus' circumcision was nothing positive? Why? If he had not been circumcised, then according to the Torah he would have been an apostate and thus could never have died on the cross for the sins of others.

Teritos said:

So Jesus' circumcision was nothing positive? Why? If he had not been circumcised, then according to the Torah he would have been an apostate and thus could never have died on the cross for the sins of others.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. I view it as one of His sufferings, as part of His passion, which is an apparently old view I've come across before.

Orbit said:

Because female "circumcision" makes the woman unable to orgasm. It does not affect the man.

Click to expand...

Of course the severe FGM types are anti-pleasure.
But this is not so for the FGM-lite versions (listed in
the Wikipedia link I provided earlier).

Saint Frankenstein said:

Basically. Circumcision isn't viewed as a positive thing in Christianity. It's seen as foreshadowing the circumcision of the heart, which matters the most to God.

Click to expand...

What on earth can "circumcision of the heart" mean?

Frankly, I don’t care a wit about the religious or societal implications of male infant circumcisions, yet we had our son circumcised. And my parents felt the same way about all 4 of their sons.
It is done for health/sanitation reasons, and has nothing to do (in our lives) with religion.
Some have stated that in modern society, with showers and soap so readily available, along with medicines to treat yeast infections, we no longer need to circumcise boys,......BUT uncircumcised men are still significantly more likely to get a nasty yeast infection on their penis than circumcised men.
So I’ll stick with circumcision for boys; thank you very much.

firedragon said:

Actually, circumcision is taking place for females as well.

I respect your position.

Click to expand...

9-10ths_Penguin said:

Because female circumcision is worse.

Anatomically, the male rough equivalent of female circumcision would be chopping the head off the penis.

Click to expand...

There are many levels of female circumcision, but unfortunately, where it is being carried out, it is often used as an atrocious way to prevent girls from becoming sexual human adults, by removing the clitoris in the procedure. That is exactly as @9-10ths_Penguin describes. They are making eunuchs of the girls from infancy (for male pleasure and reproduction purposes only).
Such abusive zealots require extermination.

Daemon Sophic said:

Frankly, I don’t care a wit about the religious or societal implications of male infant circumcisions, yet we had our son circumcised. And my parents felt the same way about all 4 of their sons.
It is done for health/sanitation reasons, and has nothing to do (in our lives) with religion.
Some have stated that in modern society, with showers and soap so readily available, along with medicines to treat yeast infections, we no longer need to circumcise boys,......BUT uncircumcised men are still significantly more likely to get a nasty yeast infection on their penis than circumcised men.
So I’ll stick with circumcision for boys; thank you very much.


There are many levels of female circumcision, but unfortunately, where it is being carried out, it is often used as an atrocious way to prevent girls from becoming sexual human adults, by removing the clitoris in the procedure. That is exactly as @9-10ths_Penguin describes. They are making eunuchs of the girls from infancy (for male pleasure and reproduction purposes only).
Such abusive zealots require extermination.

Click to expand...

How does removing female genitalia enhance men's pleasure?
Any links showing medical evidence for significant benefit vs risk
for circumcision vs un-cut?

Evangelicalhumanist said:

What on earth can "circumcision of the heart" mean?

Click to expand...

A form of purification and repentance.