• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

1213

Well-Known Member
Well, as you see there are two questions in this topic.

1. Is circumcision a good thing? I have heard many people say that circumcision is very important to people, and even in a country like the United States, people perform circumcision on babies without their permission. I have also seen some documentary that shows it is not such a good thing.

How could it be a bad thing, if even abortion that takes the whole life of a child is not considered a bad thing?

2. If you take the so called abrahamic theologies, the Bible clearly mandates circumcision. In the New Testament of course there is a dispute, and it is disputed. The Quran has no verse speaking of circumcision. Zilch, but for Muslims though they call it Sunnath, it is almost mandatory. So considering each theology, is it mandated by God? And why??

What thoughts do you have on this?

Circumcision was part of the covenant God made with Abraham (Genesis 17). If person wants to take part of that covenant, circumcision is necessary. But, God made a new covenant through Jesus. In that there are not the same conditions, but it has also circumcision, of heart. I think the new covenant is enough for me, that is why I don’t see it necessary to participate in the old.

He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, "All of you drink it, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins.
Matthew 26:27-28

Yahweh your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live. Yahweh your God will put all these curses on your enemies, and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. You shall return and obey the voice of Yahweh, and do all his commandments which I command you this day. Yahweh your God will make you plenteous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your body, and in the fruit of your cattle, and in the fruit of your ground, for good: for Yahweh will again rejoice over you for good, as he rejoiced over your fathers;
Deuteronomy 30:6-9

For finding fault with them, he said, "Behold, the days come," says the Lord, "That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they didn't continue in my covenant, And I disregarded them," says the Lord. "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days," says the Lord; "I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart. I will be to them a God, And they will be to me a people. They will not teach every man his fellow citizen, Every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' For all will know me, From the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more."
Hebrews 8:8-12 (Jeremiah 31:31-34)
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
How does removing female genitalia enhance men's pleasure?
Any links showing medical evidence for significant benefit vs risk
for circumcision vs un-cut?
No, it doesn’t enhance men’s pleasure during sex, it simply assures that the female’s body exists only for the man’s pleasure and for reproduction. Nothing else. Nothing for the woman as a normal sexual human being, no pleasure, as that would be considered to be foul and sinful. :rolleyes:
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Sensitive indeed, so without wearing any clothes a foreskin is useful.
However when wearing clothes, the penis and foreskin move about touching the cloth.
So that is why in yoga you fix the penis in a tight position (pointing upwards) with the foreskin fixed in the withdrawn position.
Circumcision just makes things easier.
But the tight underwear is still needed for this prevention of sexual stimuli.

So the origins of circumcision are not religious but tantric.
What? Female parts rub against the clothes, too, and are far more sensitive than a male's. I find all these excuses for circumcision to be laughable as they can equally apply to female genitals (hard to keep clean, infections, sensitivity, blah blah blah). It's honestly sounding like people are just nasty and don't want to bathe or use protection when it comes to STDs. The STD thing is why they started recommending circumcision in Africa to combat HIV/AIDS, and it always looked like a copout to me because they couldn't get the men to take care of themselves, use condoms and stop sleeping around. Of course, doctors make money from the procedure so they're not likely to want to it to go away. The American medical "authorities" love to promote it, and are the only ones in the West who do. Don't want that money to stop flowing in.
 
Last edited:

We Never Know

No Slack
The 'benefits' are minimal and better curbed by good hygiene practices than circumcision. Which didn't arise out of health reasons but to deliberately control the sexual experience of men, same as female genital mutilation. Even if you made the argument that removal of part of the clitoral hood reduced urinary tract infections, it wouldn't excuse the purpose of doing so.

Being in not medical expert or scientist that study it, I can only go with what they say.

The scientific evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, it adds. This is a stronger statement regarding the medical benefits of circumcision than was included in the 1999 statement, reflecting the scientific evidence that has emerged since then.

Female genital cutting is mutilation and is not circumcision. The scientific evidence of female genital cutting indicates only harm and no health benefits.

Greater Benefits of Infant Circumcision
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Being in not medical expert or scientist that study it, I can only go with what they say.

The scientific evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, it adds. This is a stronger statement regarding the medical benefits of circumcision than was included in the 1999 statement, reflecting the scientific evidence that has emerged since then.

Female genital cutting is mutilation and is not circumcision. The scientific evidence of female genital cutting indicates only harm and no health benefits.

Greater Benefits of Infant Circumcision
There are plenty of medical organizations which do not support infant circumcision. Especially routine circumcision, which even some big internationals like WHO and NIH say are unnecessary.

It is akin to, say there was a culture which culturally removed one breast off infant females. We find this abhorrent but the reality is it would drastically reduce rates of breast cancer, mastitis, fibroids and cysts. But that alone isn't reason enough to allow the practice.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
1. Is circumcision a good thing? I have heard many people say that circumcision is very important to people, and even in a country like the United States, people perform circumcision on babies without their permission.

Slightly personal, but I only realized I was a couple years ago.. I am 35. I am not going to ask anyone why. Was there a rash of this kind of thing being done in the 80's ?
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Europeans are baffled at the US affinity for infant circumcision. It's not really done here unless one is in a religious group that mandates it. I can't see the biological benefit to cutting off something that serves a purpose.

I don't know if you noticed, but americans often present themselves as a sort of pseudo-holy people.. We represent ourselves falsely as the 'leaders of the world,' or the 'greatest nation on earth' and stuff like that.. Our political leaders say the words 'freedom' and 'hope' with such vigor, it's as if they just saw god himself or something. I suspect that the practice might have been tangled in with the general hubris ? Not to imply that such is the case for religions that require it: for them it is legitimate in my view.. But for americanism to to suddenly want to adopt that tradition out of the blue is sort of suspect
 
Last edited:

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
I wonder if there is some way to know just how many times this topic has been brought up.

Despite that, it always seems to draw a crowd. You’ve opened the floodgates, flung wide the barn doors, unlocked the corral.

For my personal safety, and because I’ve seen this movie too many times already, I’m going to stand aside and avoid being engulfed or trampled upon.

Have fun!

But this specific angle of it hasn't been brought up.. why am I circumcised, and why is it apparently a common american practice? I am not Jewish, there is no reason for it?
 

We Never Know

No Slack
There are plenty of medical organizations which do not support infant circumcision. Especially routine circumcision, which even some big internationals like WHO and NIH say are unnecessary.

It is akin to, say there was a culture which culturally removed one breast off infant females. We find this abhorrent but the reality is it would drastically reduce rates of breast cancer, mastitis, fibroids and cysts. But that alone isn't reason enough to allow the practice.
Its not cutting off the penis so comparing it to cutting a female breasts off is a little extreme.
I was circumcised as an infant. I have never had a problem. But I can only speak for myself.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
No, it doesn’t enhance men’s pleasure during sex, it simply assures that the female’s body exists only for the man’s pleasure and for reproduction. Nothing else. Nothing for the woman as a normal sexual human being, no pleasure, as that would be considered to be foul and sinful. :rolleyes:
Well, that seems a very bad idea....extremely oppressive.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
I notice that many religious beliefs aren't specifically stated
in scripture.

Religious mandates are subject to culture & laws.

I know that in some other thread, I tried to argue to you or someone there , that americanism is actually a nascent religion. A piece in the puzzle might relate to why I and many of us are circumcised, though we be merely american. Perhaps they were trying to adopt a tradition with supposed metaphysical significance, and just didn't tell that many people about it
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I know that in some other thread, I tried to argue to you or someone there that americanism is actually a nascent religion. That might be a piece in the puzzle as to why I and many of us are circumcised, though we be merely american. Perhaps they were trying to adopt a tradition with supposed metaphysical significance, and just didn't tell that many people about it
How is "Americanism" a religion?
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
How is "Americanism" a religion?

I think that when our leaders talk about us being 'the greatest nation on earth,' or talk about what liberty supposedly means, or 'individual sovereignty,' they might be participating in a similar sort of teleological method that any ancient nation took, that is said to have an idiosyncratic religion. These to me, seem like metaphysical claims , if they be unique claims , possibly. Therefore , could it be that the populace is participating in spirituality it might not be fully aware of
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
For the same reason we leave other decisions that are decidedly not harmful to them

This is a distinct kind of decision though. It is on the same level as allowing parents to tattoo their babies. Just so I understand where you are coming from, are you alright with parents drawing a tattoo on their babies?
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
This is a distinct kind of decision though. It is on the same level as allowing parents to tattoo their babies. Just so I understand where you are coming from, are you alright with parents drawing a tattoo on their babies?

I am not so certain it is the same. It was conceded that the benefits outweigh the harm or at least equal the harm. Can the same be said for tattoos.
 
Top