Circumcision today - biblical or barbaric?

[kaylagrl]

The difference is that when scripture mentions unpleasant things, it does it to convey a message, not to gross people out. I appreciate you not commenting further, as this is a mixed message board and women (not to mention men) should not be subject to reading base jokes.

Crossnote is not one for making base jokes. I think that may be a bit of an overreaction. When an uncomfortable subject like this is raised people try to diffuse it with humor. But I think you have your answer. It was commanded for the Jews.If one thinks God would be barbaric then they dont understand God. And that is a whole different issue.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

.
Do you have any examples of Christians calling circumcision barbarism? I've never heard of such a thing. I know there's a movement against circumcision amongst some progressives, but have never heard of such among Christians.

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.

 

[Cleanedinside]

.
Do you have any examples of Christians calling circumcision barbarism? I've never heard of such a thing. I know there's a movement against circumcision amongst some progressives, but have never heard of such among Christians.

Usually comments in articles made by people claiming to be Christians. I have read it several times, by several people claiming to be Christians, so wanted to get some Christan answers. Ihope its not against the rules, but I have posted a link to an old aritcle. There are many other articles like it.

Modern Circumcision is Not Necessary, Natural, or Biblical

 

[Cleanedinside]

Crossnote is not one for making base jokes. I think that may be a bit of an overreaction. When an uncomfortable subject like this is raised people try to diffuse it with humor. But I think you have your answer. It was commanded for the Jews.If one thinks God would be barbaric then they dont understand God. And that is a whole different issue.

I am sorry for over-reacting to Crossnote. Please accept my apologise, Crossnote. I just have a sense of humour that is different, and could understand people being grossed out, and wanted serious answers rahter than people being disgusted and ending the discussion.

 

[Spark]

If you live in a hot climate it is probably a good thing. In the bible it was the eighth day after the baby was born that they circumcised their babies and if done by a Dr with hygienic equipment and carried out professionally, I think it is a personal decision.
Two of my babies had tongue tie and they needed the skin which holds their tongue to there mouth cut so they could feed properly, in the first week of them being born and the mid wife told me that new born babies don't have the same pain thresh hold just after birth. That develops after that time. So circumcision if done just after birth, although uncomfortable, is not as pain full as if it would be done later.
Circumcision in girls is barbaric and is just religious custom and is not in the bible .
You do not have to be circumcised to be a Christian. Circumcision has nothing to do with salvation. It is one of many Old Testament requirements that ended the moment that Jesus Christ died for our sins. Circumcision had to do with the Old Testament relationship between God and the Jews. It has never been a requirement for Christians.
Philippians 3:3 For we who worship by the Spirit of God are the ones who are truly circumcised. We rely on what Christ Jesus has done for us. We put no confidence in human effort,

 

[Spark]

also ... as i put above... If it is unclean and needing to be cut off then why did God make it?It is there for protection. The only way I can see it being unclean is when people live in the desert away from water to wash in and circumcision was brought in to help keep infection down in babies. Just a thought.

 

[Cleanedinside]

If you live in a hot climate it is probably a good thing. In the bible it was the eighth day after the baby was born that they circumcised their babies and if done by a Dr with hygienic equipment and carried out professionally, I think it is a personal decision.
Two of my babies had tongue tie and they needed the skin which holds their tongue to there mouth cut so they could feed properly, in the first week of them being born and the mid wife told me that new born babies don't have the same pain thresh hold just after birth. That develops after that time. So circumcision if done just after birth, although uncomfortable, is not as pain full as if it would be done later.
Circumcision in girls is barbaric and is just religious custom and is not in the bible .
You do not have to be circumcised to be a Christian. Circumcision has nothing to do with salvation. It is one of many Old Testament requirements that ended the moment that Jesus Christ died for our sins. Circumcision had to do with the Old Testament relationship between God and the Jews. It has never been a requirement for Christians.
Philippians 3:3 For we who worship by the Spirit of God are the ones who are truly circumcised. We rely on what Christ Jesus has done for us. We put no confidence in human effort,

I agree with most of what you say, but mutilating girls organs is not circumcision. Circumcision is just removal of foreskin (and since girls don't have this excess skin, you could even say girls are born circumcised already).

From what you say, am I correct in saying you think there is no change from bible circumcision to circumcision today? (And therefore that circumcision is not barbaric?)

 

[Cleanedinside]

also ... as i put above... If it is unclean and needing to be cut off then why did God make it?It is there for protection. The only way I can see it being unclean is when people live in the desert away from water to wash in and circumcision was brought in to help keep infection down in babies. Just a thought.

But if not unclean or needing to be cut off or for protection, why does the bible use symbolism of circumcision for hearts, ears and in general for being clean? (and uncircumcision/excess skin of hearts, ears for being unclean, or sinful)

(I certainly don't say that it is necessary for salvationby the way. Just don't think Christians should say that what God commanded was cruel or barbaric, even if we don't need to do it anymore).

 

[sparkman]

I don't think it's barbaric and there may be health or hygiene reasons for it (I believe this is questionable), but requiring it for believers is condemned by Paul in Galatians 5:1-11.

Jewish Christians continued to be circumcised after the Cross per Acts 21. They continued to do many things that related to the Old Covenant, probably to relate to their culture in a mission-effective manner.

Here's a gotquestions.org response on that topic:

What does the Bible say about circumcision? What is the Christian view of circumcision?

To be honest, if I could afford it and didn't have psoriasis, I would get a Christian theme tattoo on my upper arm for such a reminder. It's obvious that the tattoos and markings the Old Covenant was forbidding related to pagan worship. In addition, the Old Covenant isn't in effect anymore anyways for New Covenant believers, despite what some try to teach.

I bet most of the guys who talk about this subject are already circumcised, and it doesn't have an impact on their lives practically..

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.

 

[sparkman]

The poll choices on this topic are not very good. By giving only two choices, biblical or barbaric, you are omitting the possibility that it is not biblical and not barbaric.

The choices could be framed better as someone who is reviewing the results might think that the majority believe it is a requirement, condition, or necessary fruit of salvation.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I don't think the original purpose for circumcision has anything to do with physical cleanliness or health. It was merely a sign and a symbol. If it was for health reasons, surely the inhabitants of those regions would have figured out its benefits (if there are any) and practiced it (but they didn't).

Circumcision was simply the sign of the covenant that set Israel apart from the world, and symbolized the cutting away of the body of flesh. It was no more significant than, and quite similar to, cleaning one's house of leaven before Unleavened Bread.

An interesting sidenote: Many Jews were so embarrassed when they were mocked and ridiculed for being circumcised when they competed naked during Roman games, that they had their foreskins stretched to become uncircumcised. That gives a meaningful context to:

Was anyone called being circumcised? He must not undo his circumcision. Was anyone called in uncircumcision? He must not become circumcised. 1 Corinthians 7:18​

 

[Cleanedinside]

I don't think it's barbaric and there may be health or hygiene reasons for it (I believe this is questionable), but requiring it for believers is condemned by Paul in Galatians 5:1-11.

Jewish Christians continued to be circumcised after the Cross per Acts 21. They continued to do many things that related to the Old Covenant, probably to relate to their culture in a mission-effective manner.

Here's a gotquestions.org response on that topic:

What does the Bible say about circumcision? What is the Christian view of circumcision?

To be honest, if I could afford it and didn't have psoriasis, I would get a Christian theme tattoo on my upper arm for such a reminder. It's obvious that the tattoos and markings the Old Covenant was forbidding related to pagan worship. In addition, the Old Covenant isn't in effect anymore anyways for New Covenant believers, despite what some try to teach.

I bet most of the guys who talk about this subject are already circumcised, and it doesn't have an impact on their lives practically..

I think its good to have opinions from women on this topic, as on this subject, women can't be biased on personal opinion.

 

[Cleanedinside]

The poll choices on this topic are not very good. By giving only two choices, biblical or barbaric, you are omitting the possibility that it is not biblical and not barbaric.

The choices could be framed better as someone who is reviewing the results might think that the majority believe it is a requirement, condition, or necessary fruit of salvation.

I didn't mean to make it sound like that, as its something I certainly don't believe (and Paul actually condemns such beliefs).

I don't think there's a way I can change the poll now its in place - I could create another one with an additional option, but I think that is generally frowned upon as spam on many places.

So you don't think the circumcision practiced today is the biblical one, when you say you don't think it is biblical?

 

[Cleanedinside]

I don't think the original purpose for circumcision has anything to do with physical cleanliness or health. It was merely a sign and a symbol.

But then why the association of uncircumcision with unclean and disgrace/reproach?

If it was for health reasons, surely the inhabitants of those regions would have figured out its benefits (if there are any) and practiced it (but they didn't).

I thought some of them did (e.g. Egyptians).

Circumcision was simply the sign of the covenant that set Israel apart from the world, and symbolized the cutting away of the body of flesh. It was no more significant than, and quite similar to, cleaning one's house of leaven before Unleavened Bread.

But then why all the negative comparisons to uncircumsion (heart, lips, daughters of, fruit), and so few (or none) to leaven in the house? I think circumcision was probably one of the most significant (external) things for Israelites, whether men or women.

An interesting sidenote: Many Jews were so embarrassed when they were mocked and ridiculed for being circumcised when they competed naked during Roman games, that they had their foreskins stretched to become uncircumcised. That gives a meaningful context to:

Was anyone called being circumcised? He must not undo his circumcision. Was anyone called in uncircumcision? He must not become circumcised. 1 Corinthians 7:18​

This is what some of the Christians argue, who say circumcision is different today. They say after some of the Jews started to become uncircumcised, the Jewish leaders started a new form of circumcision that removed the entire foreskin, to prevent future Jews becomming uncircumcised in the same way. The same christians say it is this complete circumcision that is practiced today (both for religious and medical reasons).

If the above is true, then how does that explain the Jews (in the Roman games) obedience to God's covenant with Abraham, because doesn't it mean the entire foreskin should be circumcised (God doesn't say to Abraham only part should be circumcised).

If it is true, though, then it probably does mean that circumcision today is different to that in the bible, and therefore I can understand (and not take offense) at Christians arguing that today's circumcision is barbaric (even if I don't agree), if it wasn't what God originally commanded.

 

[Cleanedinside]

Dated news, but only here in California

San Francisco Circumcision Ban To Appear On Ballot

This is almost evidence in itself that there is benefit to circumcision, as it seems the good things (certain fresh food) are banned, but the poisonous bad things that nobody wants (vaccinations) are forced onto all.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

But then why the association of uncircumcision with unclean and disgrace/reproach?

There's no question of the association of physical uncleanness with uncircumcision, but that was not the purpose for circumcision. Circumcision was a shadow of the reality of the cutting away of the body of flesh through Christ.

I thought some of them did (e.g. Egyptians).

It wasn't practiced universally by Egyptians, and many cultures didn't, so obviously cleanliness wasn't an overriding concern.

But then why all the negative comparisons to uncircumsion (heart, lips, daughters of, fruit), and so few (or none) to leaven in the house? I think circumcision was probably one of the most significant (external) things for Israelites, whether men or women.

To most Jews circumcision was extremely important, so much so that they thought it ensured their salvation. But in reality it didn't, and as Paul said, circumcision is nothing.

This is what some of the Christians argue, who say circumcision is different today. They say after some of the Jews started to become uncircumcised, the Jewish leaders started a new form of circumcision that removed the entire foreskin, to prevent future Jews becomming uncircumcised in the same way. The same christians say it is this complete circumcision that is practiced today (both for religious and medical reasons).

They may be right.

If the above is true, then how does that explain the Jews (in the Roman games) obedience to God's covenant with Abraham, because doesn't it mean the entire foreskin should be circumcised (God doesn't say to Abraham only part should be circumcised).

They weren't obedient to GOD's covenant; they were Hellenized. They wanted to be like the world.

If it is true, though, then it probably does mean that circumcision today is different to that in the bible, and therefore I can understand (and not take offense) at Christians arguing that today's circumcision is barbaric (even if I don't agree), if it wasn't what God originally commanded.

You're making an assumption that the entire foreskin had to be removed to be circumcised in GOD's eyes. You don't know.

 

[Cleanedinside]

You're making an assumption that the entire foreskin had to be removed to be circumcised in GOD's eyes. You don't know.

Okay. So, those Christians who say that the practice of circumcision today is different to that commanded by God in the bible could be right.

And if this is true, stating that circumcision is harmful or even barbaric is not necessarily an attack on God or His commands, as the circumcision God commanded may well have been different.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Okay. So, those Christians who say that the practice of circumcision today is different to that commanded by God in the bible could be right.

And if this is true, stating that circumcision is harmful or even barbaric is not necessarily an attack on God or His commands, as the circumcision God commanded may well have been different.

I knew a Jewish lady once who was visibly outraged at the practice of circumcision. I was taken aback by her hatred of it.

 

[Cleanedinside]

But why? Did she believe it had been changed from what God commanded?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Okay. So, those Christians who say that the practice of circumcision today is different to that commanded by God in the bible could be right.

And if this is true, stating that circumcision is harmful or even barbaric is not necessarily an attack on God or His commands, as the circumcision God commanded may well have been different.

I was just checking out a hi-def photo of the statue of David by Michelangelo. His wiener appears to be uncircumcised or partially circumcised. I know that doesn't mean anything regarding what Israel practiced, but I do know that doctors used to do something called partial circumcsion. Don't know what that entailed.