Circumcision today - biblical or barbaric?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Circumcision today - biblical or barbaric?


  • Total voters
    4
C

Cleanedinside

Guest
#1
I have noticed a trend over the past few years in news and articles I read, and it seems as if there is a deliberate trend to demonise circumcision. While I can understand this from the (spiritually) uncircumcised, I don't understand when Christians malign the covenant sign that was once mandated by God. Even if some Christians are opposed to circumcision, I find it offensive when these Christians claim that circumcision is barbaric, as I don't believe God would command something barbaric for his people (I'm not saying it doesn't hurt - giving birth hurts also, but I don't think its barbaric).

I know that circumcision is not necessary for Christian men today, but I also understand that many Christian guys are still circumcised for a number of reasons. Common reasons include reminding the man of to whom he belongs, and improving the health (and peace of mind) of his future wife.

One of the most recent (Christian) arguments I have read against circumcision is that in bible times, only the tip of the foreskin was removed, but today (due to improved techniques) most of the foreskin can be removed, and this is sometimes (somehow) harmful to the man. This doesn't make sense to me - in Genesis, God commanded Abraham to "circumcise the flesh of his foreskin" and of his descendents, not just the tips of their foreskins. In Exodus, Zipporah threw the foreskin she had circumcised (not just the tip of it) at Moses feet (and so much for the argument that "circumcision is sexist"). In Joshua, the hill where the sons of Israel were circumcised was called the hill of foreskins, not hill of foreskin tips.

Just as (physical) foreskin is (physically) unclean, it is also used metaphorically in the Old Testament for spiritual uncleanness and sinful nature (e.g. Deut 10:16 "circumcise the foreskin of your hearts"). If only a tip of the unneeded foreskin was removed during circumcision, does that mean only part of the sinful nature and spiritual filth (foreskin of our hearts) should be circumcised?

I apologise to any ladies who may have read more about uncircumcision in this post than they ever wanted, but I do want to get more Christian views on the claims made by some Christians, to see if there is any truth, or if it is just a sneaky way of accusing our God of barbarism.
 

Nautilus

Senior Member
Jun 29, 2012
6,488
53
48
#2
ONe you don't include an option for neither. Personally circumcision was a commandment for the jews not the christians. Second most get it done aesthetically now, not because of some ancient writing.
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
30,095
6,479
113
#3
Neither........but can be a medical advantage.......
 
C

Cleanedinside

Guest
#4
I guess what I find offensive is that if it is barbaric today (as some claim), it was barbaric in Old Testament times. But I don't like God being accused of barbaric pratices. This said, I know He ordered the annihilation of entire cities, but again, I believe this was for the good of His people.
 
W

wwjd_kilden

Guest
#5
The obvious problem in today's society is that is is to happen while the child is way too young to say yes or no to anything. If it was something that was done later in life, they'd have a choice.

As for it being biblical vs barbaric, not only Jews had this tradition, it has been practiced several places in Africa, often as a rite of passage into adulthood.
 
C

Cleanedinside

Guest
#6
So this idea that the circumcision in biblical times was somehow different to the circumcision today is baseless?
 
Feb 1, 2015
1,198
15
0
#7
Neither

Galatians 5:

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

3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

God is not into the circumcision racket (respectfully) anymore. It is not the sign of his New Covenant as it were the sign of the Old Covenant.
 
Last edited:

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
124
63
#8
It is barbaric for someone today to suggest circumcision for religious reasons unless it is for historic reasons..
 

KohenMatt

Senior Member
Jun 28, 2013
4,011
212
63
#9
Both of my boys (9 and 6 y/o) were circumcised. We're pregnant again and if it's a boy he'll be circumcised as well.

Barbaric? No. Painful? Heck, yes. That's why an entire city was wiped out by 2 men. Can you imagine how much pain you'd have to be in for an entire city to say, "Yes, please kill us all." Ladies, I'll give you childbirth as the most painful thing in the world, but circumcision is definitely 2nd.

The argument that it was only for the Jews or under the Old Covenant is debatable and the topic of numerous threads already, so I'm not going to go there. But it is a sign and a reminder of God's covenant with His people. My decision to let my sons go through the pain of it is a reminder of my submission to God no matter what. It is a sign and a reminder to my sons for the rest of their life that their parents committed them to God from the beginning and that they are set apart as God's for the rest of their lives.

Submission to God is rarely easy. It hurts our "flesh", a lot. But it also provides a very good pictures of what it means to have God circumcise our heart.
 

valiant

Senior Member
Mar 22, 2015
8,025
124
63
#10
Barbaric? No. Painful? Heck, yes. That's why an entire city was wiped out by 2 men. Can you imagine how much pain you'd have to be in for an entire city to say, "Yes, please kill us all."
Do you really think that two men wiped out the city? LOL they had young male family servants who would have gone with them (Abraham had 318 of them)
 

KohenMatt

Senior Member
Jun 28, 2013
4,011
212
63
#11
Do you really think that two men wiped out the city? LOL they had young male family servants who would have gone with them (Abraham had 318 of them)
Genesis 34:25-29
"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.
26 They put Hamor and his son Shechem to the sword and took Dinah from Shechem’s house and left.27 The sons of Jacob came upon the dead bodies and looted the city where their sister had been defiled.28 They seized their flocks and herds and donkeys and everything else of theirs in the city and out in the fields.29 They carried off all their wealth and all their women and children, taking as plunder everything in the houses."


It doesn't say otherwise. To believe differently is purely conjecture on your part. Regardless, that's beside the point.
 
C

Cleanedinside

Guest
#12
Do you really think that two men wiped out the city? LOL they had young male family servants who would have gone with them (Abraham had 318 of them)
Gen 34:25 "And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males."

I think the scripture is clear the two sons wiped out the city.
 
Dec 18, 2013
6,733
45
0
#13
The obvious problem in today's society is that is is to happen while the child is way too young to say yes or no to anything. If it was something that was done later in life, they'd have a choice.

As for it being biblical vs barbaric, not only Jews had this tradition, it has been practiced several places in Africa, often as a rite of passage into adulthood.
Lol not to be too embarrassing of myself but reminds me that when I was a kid I had no idea what circumcision was or that I had even all ready been circumsized. I think it's commonly done when we're babies, at least over here.

As far as the OP and poll goes, hard to vote on it. I don't find it barbaric; what am I a barbarian?! Biblically in the OT it was a sign of the covenant of the law with Abraham, so yea something about that. It is no requirement though to loving God, nor is it a problem at all if you all ready are. In Christianity it is more important to circumcise the heart, the ting-ting ain't as sensitive as the heart.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
55,247
25,716
113
#14
God circumcises our hearts.

In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, (Col 2:11)

***
Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands-- 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall,… Eph 2
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,704
3,649
113
#15
Barbaric? No.
Biblical? Optional.
Healthy? Probably.
 
S

sassylady

Guest
#16
Not necessary perhaps but it is known medically to be an advantage. I've also heard of men having problems later if the foreskin is not removed, it won't retract and it is painful or uncomfortable and needs to be done later in life anyway.
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
689
113
#17
Not necessary perhaps but it is known medically to be an advantage. I've also heard of men having problems later if the foreskin is not removed, it won't retract and it is painful or uncomfortable and needs to be done later in life anyway.
I have never heard of this. N.e.v.e.r.
 

blue_ladybug

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2014
70,862
9,579
113
#18
This topic makes me highly uncomfortable.. :/ lol
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
689
113
#19
Do you really think that two men wiped out the city? LOL they had young male family servants who would have gone with them (Abraham had 318 of them)
It is very doubtful that Jacob had many, if any, servants. At the time Shechem was wiped out, Jacob had just left Haran, and had not yet received Isaac's inheritance.