Charles

Cheryl talked about the male’s foreskin being the physical symbol of sin and that was a basic reason for God ordering it cut off. This image should on instinctive level suggest why cutting the foreskin off is still the right thing to do (image location removed by Cheryl as unnecessary graphic for the discussion).

Controversy over removing the foreskin from the penis is going to persist as long as people exist, especially due to the emotionalism concerning absence of choice on the part of the circumcised male. The moment will never arrive when there is universal consensus. The reason is that the old devil successfully misleads so many into defending a body part which has no acceptable place in decent society. Barbara Kay, a Jewish columnist from Canada, spoke of “excising a bacteria trap.” That is an acceptable description. Many Christians in the Philippines circumcise their males, and the emphasis is on sanitation rather than spirituality. I believe I’ve contributed enough to this discussion and leave the field to the rest of you.

Hank left out Titus chapter one where all appearances are that Paul said circumcision was an Egyptian invention retained by the Hebrews as a sign of tribal unity (instead of slavery) after escaping Egypt, then they attributed it to God to make it seem unquestionable—Titus 1:14 called it a “fable” a fable is indeed a story from the past which has no basis in fact. It is known that circumcision existed in Egypt before Abraham. Is that what we’re going to believe about male circumcision—that it’s a fable and was never commanded by God? In situations where sanitation is difficult circumcision is always the answer. To see what your son will endure in a typical hospital circumcision http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra5t0OsmWf0&feature=feedwll If it looks drastic remember it’s only skin and nonessential like an earlobe and he won’t remember it. It symbolizes obeying God, dying to the flesh and living to the spirit and medical benefits to both sexes of circumcising all males at birth are well established and only being challenged on emotional grounds—he’s losing a body part. But it’s an undesirable part! I can’t rewrite the Bible but if I could circumcision would still be an absolute commandment.

I read this commentary, apparently by an Islamic person, discussing Scripture of Genesis 17 and various New Testament scriptures. Not to stir up any hornet’s nest, but he/she makes interesting case concluding that physical circumcision of males was not set aside by the New Testament. I don’t feel I’m the most qualified to analyze this stuff, and would appreciate Cheryl or other reviewer to look at it and think it through http://mostmerciful.com/?p=76 Maybe this will give hope to comment #28 by Kerryn. Till I know otherwise I will strongly suggest circumcision for any male infant, certainly for cleanliness.

See link on United Nations organization endorsing male circumcision. Article was submitted by a woman and a woman authority was quoted. Are women conspiring to circumcise men? If so it’s a beneficial conspiracy.

To address medical misinformation presented by Lyndon, see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2422990/ by Anne Marie Houle MD of Canadian Urological Association for 8 compelling reasons males should be circumcised. As in court proceedings, both sides offer their “expert” witnesses. In this case, one side favors “natural,” the other favors surgical intervention. The fact that God at one time ordered it should suggest something about the medical issues. If immunizations are required, circumcision should be also. It’s derided as “immunization by amputation.” That is factual, so should not be faulted.

This subject seems like it will never be resolved, but eventually it will be, like all disputes, when the Almighty appears and says what and who is right. I have to side with views of Kerryn, Linda and Robin. The male’s foreskin is best subtracted from him at birth as a matter of medical routine. There is no right on his part to retain it. Parental consent suffices and if health authorities do the right thing and make it mandatory, even that won’t be required.

I will say this once, not twice! I won’t debate this fellow, because I can easily discern a reprobate when I encounter one! However, this is for the benefit of the fence-straddlers. I used to know someone who raved about how smart Bill Gates (Microsoft) is. That’s correct, Gates is one of history’s great geniuses. Gates has so far contributed $50 million funding to male circumcision programs overseas and he has access to panels of THE most informed scientists with over 1,000 academic degrees among them. This is not an “anti-male agenda.” It IS an “anti-foreskin agenda,” because like it or not, human health of both sexes is best served by circumcising males. And that’s best done at birth when he can be most easily “volunteered” for it. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17312-bill-gates-helps-fund-mass-circumcision-programme.html Physical health and spirituality I think are never totally separate concerns as the old adage has it “Cleanliness is next to godliness.”

The Jews regard circumcision as a symbol of eternity, because it’s a circle, a shape without beginning or end. It’s astonishing that so much meaning attaches to what today we correctly regard as a beneficial procedure for health. Circumcision doesn’t save because saving is what man can’t do for himself. However, since the foreskin was the symbol of sin, it could continue to be; and sin causes disease and death. No sin, no death. We should all favor circumcision for health purposes.

Commentary by male minister more historical insight on command to circumcise males, it was taken with all seriousness and has been carried out for thousands of years.

http://classprojects.kenyon.edu/wmns/Wmns36/bloodletting/brisfra.htm This is an interesting commentary on the spirituality of Jewish circumcision and validates what Cheryl says. The foreskin is the physical symbol of sin, remedied by circumcision.

Circumcision certainly has many symbolic and medical aspects; removal of the symbol of sin, the living cells of his foreskin die = sin causes death. Circumcision changes the appearance, permanently reminding the circumcised male (several times daily) of the seal of righteousness. Unfortunately circumcision isn’t 100% always in reference to a removal of sexual skin from males. That situation leads to another aspect—often when God does (or orders something be done, as circumcising all males), the devil has an immoral counterfeit; “female circumcision” which the U.S. Congress very correctly criminalized; while at the same time also very correctly refused to “protect” males. The 14th Amendment equal protection clause does not apply as male circumcision is a highly valid health measure, while cutting females is merely an insult to civilized ethics. The upshot is—circumcision is either moral and ethical (if imposed on males) or immoral, sinful and criminal (if inflicted on females). Some years ago the percent of female OBGYNs started rising in response to women being more comfortable with women MD’s (understandably). In that sense, with more baby boys receiving their circumcisions at the hands of females, there are more Zipporahs on the scene. A cheerful thought!

Circumcision is very popular in the Philippines and appears linked to Christian missionary activities who very thoughtfully provide mobile circumcision clinics. Regardless of what St. Paul said about circumcision I feel better knowing I’m circumcised and would have it done if I missed out at birth.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123802256715541879.html Dr. Susan Black chairs the American Academy of Pediatrics task force on infant male circumcision. She says evidence favoring routine circumcision is “very compelling.” AAP will announce recommendation of task force this year. PLEASE write AAP asking that they recommend in favor of circumcision for every baby boy. It’s what they WANT to recommend. They need some moral support!

The graphics make the point very “sharply!” And it’s amusing to realize that though circumcision isn’t necessarily a current requirement, on the health side, evidence is very heavily in favor of circumcising males, and there’s talk the Centers for Disease Control may recommend making it compulsory by law for all male infants. So if we don’t circumcise for one reason, we circumcise for another worthwhile reason, but in any case we do circumcise. Kind of like taking a trip by car, or taking a trip by train, same destination; and a very wholesome destination it is. The harvested foreskins from infant circumcisions are used to help burn victims, among other positive applications. Spiritually I think of the circumcision of Christ as the first shedding of His blood, way before being condemned at age 33.

Cheryl, I learned things about circumcision I never knew, by reading your investigation, and the topic is not a new one to me. I’d like to state that when people see the word “circumcision,” it’s tragic that it could ever appear in any context other than applying to males. It was a refresher to me about the Council of Jerusalem deciding that male converts need not have their foreskins cut off. I am thinking the decision was questionable at least on the basis of sanitation—the Middle East is a hot and arid region, and the foreskin makes cleanliness difficult. A tributary issue is how much skin was removed, and I have read that when Jews in Greece and Rome wanted to conceal their status, they could “lengthen” the remaining skin. That caused their leaders to circumcise more skin, so that no disguising of circumcised status could be accomplished. Main thing I learned is about the foreskin of the penis representing disobedience and sin, so it’s quite logical that God would command it has to be circumcised. I re-read everything and I feel your scholarly views are correct. I feel the church has not had nearly enough to say about circumcision and how important it was in God’s eyes for every male to be submitted to it. The references to women not needing, or having any comparable requirement, are deeply interesting. Who ever heard of the Virgin Mary being circumcised? The fact that Christ had to be circumcised on the 8th day should settle arguments. As to circumcision not being spiritually mandatory today, I feel more comfortable at some distance from that view. I am happy that my mother’s doctor addressed my foreskin by circumcising it. I believe God wants us to be clean physically as well as spiritually; campaigns against circumcision as routine for baby boys are misguided. Pat Robertson said years ago he “could not support a campaign against circumcision,” and medical authorities have well established that cutting off a male’s foreskin, while painful temporarily, confers health benefits for himself and his partner. Bernadine Healy M.D., (a cardiologist) had a nice article in US News & World Report, “Don’t Be Afraid To Circumcise Your Baby Boy.” Jill Stanek, who has a Christian website, says she is an advocate of male circumcision. If males lose sight of the value of circumcision, females should consider it appropriate to remind us. But may I suggest if you re-do the artwork in the “Restriction By Circumcision” illustration, replace the folding utility knife with a scalpel or a Gomco circumcision clamp. Still a very thoughtful—and correct—illustration. Very respectfully yours.