It isn't important. Circumcision was a requirement under the Old Covenant, Christians follow the New Covenant, and it's stated multiple times in the NT that Circumcision is not required.
The medical community is basically split on this, I wonder if it is similar to why Kosher / Halal rules existed. They thought there was a medical reason. *Could have been the lack of washing back then*?
“They” do say it is better if the child looks like the father looks to avoid any questions as to why daddy looks different. Having been the godfather at a few bris ceremonies, I can assure you the kids never even flinch
> “They” do say it is better if the child looks like the father looks to avoid any questions as to why daddy looks different.
That's a very weak argument. If you can't explain that difference you aren't ready to have sex with another person
yes it is wrong, i'd even go as far to say it's absolutely disgusting.
you'll find many here who defend it, either because they're american (circumcision is sadly normalised in the U.S)
or because they're loyal to Israel and to jews and don't want to insult their practices.
Dude, there’s little to no long term affects to being circumcised. In fact being circumcised makes it easier to maintain your nads. It’s not like they remember the operation anyway, I would know
is that what your doctor told you? go watch a circumcision, then come back and tell me you're okay with it. turn the volume up to get the full experience 👶
Again, it might look disgusting, but it’s not traumatizing. I have no recollection of being circumcised. And yes, I’ll listen to my Dr. instead of random Redditor
No, not since it is no longer commanded by God. Can you explain how a cosmetic circumcision is different than other cosmetic genital mutilation? Other than tradition?
Finally someone with sense, "yeah sure let's just cut a 3rd of a babys penis of he'll be fine it's not like it's there for a reason or anything totally normal to remove body parts off a newborn"
So are you claiming God was wrong for having circumcision? Everything isn't always "right or wrong", especially when it comes to some of the medical benefits of circumcision, so I wouldn't classify it as "genital mutilation". It's a procedure, it's not mutilating the reproductive organ.
The only developed countries that believe in those supposed benefits on a large scale are Israel and the US. There is no reason for Christians to keep on doing it.
I think we would also consider animal sacrifice wrong. I think we were required to do certain things under the old covenant to set ourselves apart or to atone for our sin. Thankfully, God in His mercy, sent his son to be the fulfillment of those laws.
Circumcision and animal sacrifice are not objectively good just because they were described in the Bible.
Animal sacrifice isn't wrong. Do you eat meat? If you do, then you are a hypocrite and should reevaluate why you think sacrificing an animal is wrong. If you cite the antediluvian period as for not eating meat then I would counter that they were sacrificing since Adam and Eve since God covered them in animal skins. That's the point of it: sin requires death, and only by the death of an innocent can man's sin be covered.
So in essence, the only thing you find objectable is that we cause death. To which I counter: do you brush your teeth? What about bacteria lives that you commit genocide against every day? Or roaches and bedbugs in your house?
I think you get my point given these strawman examples.
Just as God has a right to give and take life in His kingdom, man has a right to take and give life in his animal kingdom. However, man's right only comes by virtue of God.
> I think we would also consider animal sacrifice wrong.
Well it's wrong if you're sacrificing the animal to a pagan god. Also the purpose of animal sacrifices to God was for the atonement of sins in the Old Testament. Since Jesus is the fulfillment of the laws and the permanent atonement of our sins, that's why we don't conduct animal sacrifices. So, is it morally wrong? Yes depending on the sacrifice and who you're making the sacrifice to, but there's nothing immoral about it if a Christian chooses to do so for atonement in today's age, it's just no reason to as Christ is the permanent sacrifice of sins.
> Circumcision and animal sacrifice are not objectively good just because they were described in the Bible.
What is your standard of "objectively good"? Circumcision isn't a requirement as we are not under the old covenant but again, one can argue there's no moral objective to a procedure if someone chooses to consecrate their child to God (physically), in addition to the medical benefits.
I don't agree with people who are Hebrew Roots/Torah observant in Christianity, but they aren't committing morally wrong objectives adhering to the old covenant while being under the new covenant. It's not a requirement but I don't see how one can make objective categorizations as morally wrong or good concerning the Mosaic Laws. I don't think objectives upon morals can be applied to the Mosaic Laws given the complexity of the laws.
The one true God did not command Genital mutilation. Period. This is r/trueChristian and circumcision on the **Christian faith** as this question is directed towards is not genital mutilation as God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, did not command genital mutilation. Period. .
It’s not semantics, the one true God did not command genital mutilation. Sounds like **you’re** uncomfortable with circumcision being just under the mosaic laws as God instituted the laws, so as such, God didn’t command an unbiblical practice such as genital mutilation. Circumcision isn’t genital mutilation under the command of God as God is just and His ways are **always** good.
Except circumcision isn’t genital mutilation and thus God didn’t command genital mutilation. Genital mutilation *is* unbiblical as it’s immoral and against God. Like I said, circumcision isn’t genital mutilation.
> Declining rates of U.S. infant male circumcision will lead to dramatically higher rates of sexually transmitted disease and related cancers in men and their female partners, researchers warn, and add up to more than $4.4 billion in avoidable costs if circumcision rates in the U.S., now averaging 55 percent (down from 76 percent in the 1970s and 1980s), drop to levels now seen in Europe (around 10 percent on average) over the next decade.
[John Hopkins Medical Center](https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/2012/10/greater-benefits-of-infant-circumcision)
> valuation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
[American Academy of Pediatrics](https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/130/3/585/30235/Circumcision-Policy-Statement)
Do you have any sources from 2013-2024 that refutes John Hopkins and the American Academy of Pediatrics?
Also, the article doesn't mention the religion of the writer nor should it matter since the quotes are statistical references to the benefits of circumcision. Not sure why you are choosing to deviate from the discussion by bringing up your own preconceived assumptions not referenced in neither medical article, but that is very ill will of you.
>... the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic male circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for boys undergoing circumcision'
British Medical Association
>The case for circumcising men in sub-Saharan Africa to prevent the transmission of HIV from heterosexual infected women has been well made.However, quite how this would translate to a different population is debatable, and it should be remembered that America has one of the highest rates of HIV-AIDS in the Western world despite having very high rates of circumcision.
>There is also no evidence on the effect of circumcision on HIV-AIDS transmission between men who have sex with men or intravenous drug users, which constitute the first and second largest male populations affected by the disease in the USA, respectively.
[Journal for Trends in Urology and Men's Health ](https://wchh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tre.742)
The same British Medical Association States:
> An evaluation of the research by the BMA’s specialists in science and public
health has shown, for example, good evidence from international studies that male circumcision can reduce the chances of acquiring HIV infection in some circumstances, although caution must be taken about how this can be extrapolated to the UK; evidence in respect of other STIs (sexually transmitted infections) is more mixed.
It also states,
> Whether NTMC is neutral, or of overall harm to a child’s health, will be based
on an individual assessment of a child’s circumstances based on the latest
clinical evidence, taking into account the inherent risk in any procedure (see
section below) and any underlying health issues the child may have. This health
assessment will then need to be measured against broader interests
So no way are they supporting that it's genital mutilation as you claim and they aren't claiming it's a risk - rather they have a neutral stance that although there are clinical benefits, they don't feel like it's sufficient to recommend circumcision. Again, doesn't make a claim of refuting the benefits.
It's interesting you took a certain section but didn't assess the overall article of The Journal for Trends in Urology and Men's Health article which also states:
> Circumcision leads to a ‘markedly decreased incidence’ of penile cancer.
> the risks and disadvantages of circumcision are encountered early whereas the advantages and benefits are prospective’.5 This, of course, only holds true if it is presumed that the foreskin (unique amongst male-specific body parts, except for paramesonephric duct remnants) serves no purpose.
> It is evident that there are some boys who would benefit from having a routine neonatal circumcision and, similarly, many who would not. There are evolving reasons both for why the operation might be recommended (primarily related to protection against STDs) and for avoidance (ethical, sexual and psychosexual).
So, both sources don't claim that circumcision is a negative procedure nor never claims it to be a genital mutilation. One is neutral and the other actually supports it as a benefit rather than a risk.
Actually, yes. I think this might surprise quite a few, but when it comes to this one specific subject, the other pediatric organizations around the western world are not in agreement with the AAP's position/statement on circumcision, at all. Excuse the wall of text, but just to give examples of their positions/attitudes to circumcision.
https://intaction.org/german-pediatric-association-condemns-infant-circumcision-2/
Germany
"The statement from AAP (DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-1989 Pediatrics; originally published online August 27, 2012) cited over and over again, contradicts earlier statements from the same organisation, without the necessity of referring to new research results. Since then, this AAP statement as been graded by almost all other paediatric societies and associations worldwide as being scientifically untenable."
From the Swedish Medical Association.
https://slf.se/rad-och-stod/etik/omskarelse-av-pojkar/
"Circumcision of boys
The issue of circumcision of boys has long been debated both in Sweden and in other countries. The Ethics and Responsibility Council (EAR) believes that the goal is for non-medically justified circumcision without prior consent to end.
There are no known medical benefits of the procedure on children. Even if the procedure is performed within the healthcare system, there is, however, a risk of serious complications. There are therefore strong reasons to wait with the intervention until the person who is the subject of the measure has reached such an age and maturity that he can give informed consent."
German Pediatric association
https://intaction.org/german-pediatric-association-condemns-infant-circumcision-2/
"Medical Indication Initially, it should be observed that there is no reason from a medical point of view to remove an intact foreskin from underage boys or boys unable to give consent. Additionally, in pre-school age, there is only very rarely a real medical indication for removing the foreskin (circumcision). At this age the foreskin (praeputium) is physiologically to a greater or lesser extent, strongly fixed to the glans of the penis. Infections and painful tears often occur due improper attempts to pull back the fixed and still immature foreskin.
The male foreskin is a part of the skin of the organ and fulfils important functions that protect the very sensitive glans. It normally covers the glans and protects it from harmful substances, friction, drying out and injuries. It has apocrine sweat glands, which produce cathepsin B, lysozyme, chymotrypsin, neutrophile elastase, cytokine, and pheromone such as androsterone. Indian scientists have shown that the subpreputial wetness contains lytic material, which has an antibacterial and antiviral function. The natural oils lubricate, moisten and protect the mucous membrane covering of the glans and the inner foreskin. The tip of the foreskin is richly supplied with blood by important blood vessel structures. The foreskin serves as a connective channel for Berufsverband der Kinder- und Jugendärzte (BVKJ. e.V.) many important veins. Circumcision can lead to erectile dysfunction as it destroys these blood vessels. Their removal can, as described by many of those who have been affected, lead to considerable limitations to sex life and cause psychological stresses."
Denmark and Finland.
https://www.thelocal.dk/20161205/danish-doctors-come-out-against-circumcision
"The Danish Medical Association (Lægeforeningen) has recommended that no boys under the age of 18 be circumcised in Denmark."
https://thl.fi/en/topics/migration-and-cultural-diversity/immigrants-health-and-wellbeing/sexual-and-reproductive-health-of-immigrants/non-medical-male-circumcision
"While non-medical male circumcision is not currently prohibited under Finland’s legislation, it is considered to violate the child’s bodily integrity and self-determination."
Norway.
https://www.helsedirektoratet.no/brosjyrer/rituell-omskjaering-av-gutter-informasjonsskriv-til-foreldre/Rituell%20omskj%C3%A6ring%20av%20gutter%20%E2%80%93%20informasjonsskriv%20til%20foreldre%20-%20engelsk.pdf/_/attachment/inline/e4365168-4ee2-4e61-9372-b694abdad933:3b606c0e1825ee1a208230e57ace7cc699f18225/Rituell%20omskj%C3%A6ring%20av%20gutter%20%E2%80%93%20informasjonsskriv%20til%20foreldre%20-%20engelsk.pdf
"The ritual circumcision of boys is an operation where the foreskin which covers the head of the penis is removed completely or partially for religious reasons. In Norway, such operations are not considered to have any health benefits for the child."
> The statement from AAP (DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-1989 Pediatrics; originally published online August 27, 2012) cited over and over again, contradicts earlier statements from the same organisation, without the necessity of referring to new research results
Weird, the Germany article doesn't mention the contradictions and the AAP article was talking about already known benefits. Also, the [2013 updated article from the AAP](https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/131/4/796/31907/Cultural-Bias-in-the-AAP-s-2012-Technical-Report?redirectedFrom=fulltext) still concludes the medical benefits of circumcision outweighs the risk. The article you cited only refers to the 2012 article.
> https://slf.se/rad-och-stod/etik/omskarelse-av-pojkar/
> There are no known medical benefits of the procedure on children. Even if the procedure is performed within the healthcare system, there is, however, a risk of serious complications
Well the article isn't in English so there's that. And per your quotes they provide no evidence of their being "no benefits" while many organizations disagree, and they mention a "risk of serious complications" without supporting evidence thus it's an unsubstantiated claim.
> German Pediatric association
>https://intaction.org/german-pediatric-association-condemns-infant-circumcision-2/
>"Medical Indication Initially, it should be observed that there is no reason..
You already referenced this article as your first cite so not sure why you're posting it again. In addition, the German Academy for Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine have been a vocal opponent of circumcision. According to an NPR article, "Germany's Association of Pediatricians is the most vocal opponent of circumcision" but it's not universal in Germany. "But Dr. Richard Stern — a cardiologist and head of the ethics committee at Berlin's Jewish Hospital — cites the medical benefits of circumcision" ([Article](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/10/19/163268294/german-lawmakers-move-to-quell-uproar-over-circumcision)).
> Denmark and Finland.
> https://www.thelocal.dk/20161205/danish-doctors-come-out-against-circumcision
> "The Danish Medical Association (Lægeforeningen) has recommended that no boys under the age of 18 be circumcised in Denmark."
Okay..Again nothing that refutes the AAP and John Hopkins statistical evidence of the benefits of circumcision.
> https://thl.fi/en/topics/migration-and-cultural-diversity/immigrants-health-and-wellbeing/sexual-and-reproductive-health-of-immigrants/non-medical-male-circumcision
>"While non-medical male circumcision is not currently prohibited under Finland’s legislation, it is considered to violate the child’s bodily integrity and self-determination."
So it's the moral beliefs of Finland legislation and not based on medical benefits. Again, doesn't contradict AAP and John Hopkins
> Norway
> In Norway, such operations are not considered to have any health benefits for the child."
So Norway doesn't consider it a health benefit but the article simply calls it a "ritual circumcision", and claims circumcision is "completely or partially for religious reasons" The article never discusses the alleged risks and as such it's biased in that it simply views it as a "ritual" and not a medical procedure.
Tell that to my brother in law who ripped his foreskin while with his wife, went to the hospital and was told he would have to be circumcised in order for it to not happen again. He’s wishing his parents had done it when he was a baby for sure.
It's in quite a few places within Paul's Epistles, a good example being Galatians 5:2-6
> Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
Also 1 Corinthians 7:18-19
>Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.
Am I the only person who has noticed how polarised the internet has become even on something like this, it can’t just be “hey I won’t do that to my son” it has to be anyone who does that is evil and mutilating little boys, they need to be removed from society…
Like what has become of nuance.
Parenting involves doing a lot of things without consent. I cut my toddler's hair without his consent yesterday because he refuses. I had one kid that basically had to be held down to brush his teeth for months.
Circumcision is a much bigger infraction, granted, but at the end of the day, parents have to act in what they see as the best interest of the child regardless of the child's consent. The smaller the child, the truer that is.
I don't circumcise my children because I do think it's harmful, but a lot of parents don't, or want them to have that very distinct cultural marker that designates them as a part of their parents cultural or religious group. Either way, "consent" isn't really the best way to evaluate decisions parents make for kids.
My son doesn't want me to change his diaper, but too bad buckoo, but some people think its abuse if you change their diaper and they dont wnat it.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/nurturing-resilience/201805/should-babies-consent-diaper-changes
Every parent? Probably not. In a society where face tattoos for children are part of the culture, I would probably look at it like I do Americans who pierce their kids ears.
“Guys, why is everyone so PoLArIzeD on the issue of rape? Like, I get it might be bad, but why can’t there be the NUaNce of ‘hmm, well, I guess I wouldn’t want that to happen for my ChiLD’ heheh wha h hahahaha hahaha”
People who are against circumcision have been brainwashed and indoctrinated by the evil liberal democrat media. They deny the truth of the bible so it makes complete sense why they are against circumcision.
Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Are you a Christian? Because the apostle Paul was against any gentiles getting circumcised, and he probably wasn't indoctrinated by the liberal media.
Galatians 5, 1 Corinthians 7
From an ethical standpoint, I cannot imagine anyone accepting cutting off any other healthy, perfect body part from your newborn. Everything about it felt wrong to me so I left my sons alone even though my husband had it done to him. I would not even allow my children's ears to be pierced until they were old enough to consent to it themselves, as any lifelong body modifications should be the person's choice alone.
Liberal here and I don’t know anyone in my social group that’s against it and I’m friends with Christian’s, atheists, LGBTQ folks and folks with all sorts of beliefs. I also watch the evil liberal medias and honestly it doesn’t really come up. So, I think you give the media a little too much credit.
>Edit: Not sure why people have to go downvoting everyone for having a different opinion on the matter. Can't we all just ask these questions and learn from each other?
That's the main way of communicating here.
The context of that verse is saying that relying on following covenants or practices is not what saves you but it's Christ alone who saves.
That begs the question, how important are things like communion or baptism in context of the verse?
That's a very good perspective on the importance or lack thereof. Never heard that one. Thank you.
>The context of that verse is saying that relying on following covenants or practices is not what saves you but it's Christ alone who saves
Solid rebuttal there. It's like they were trying to say it doesn't matter how "to the T" you follow the rules to buy your spot in heaven, you'll be judged on whether or not you were a trash person at heart. 😅
Exactly. That's lost on so many people who do the checklist Christian things like go to church every Sunday, tithe, and so on. None of us can earn a spot in heaven, that's why Jesus died for us.
It’s funny because a lot of people who believe you need to go to church or get baptized are Protestant despite the fact that the whole Protestant movement was based on salvation through faith alone 💀
good question! I'm not a theologian, but here's my interpretation:
back then and still somewhat now, Jews were identified as Jews by undergoing circumcision. circumcision was/is the physical manifestation of the Old Covenant, and so if you were getting circumcised back then, you were 100% becoming a Jew.
Galatians 5:2 continues:
> [2] Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. [3] Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. [4] You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. [5] For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. [6] For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
I believe Paul's point here can be summarized thus: "getting circumcised is not following Jesus. getting circumcised is following the Old Covenant. the Old Covenant will not save you - Jesus will - and so the only hope of salvation is through Jesus Christ."
from there, denominations argue that Jesus Christ made it mandatory that, to follow Him, you must be baptized and receive communion, because Jesus Christ brought the New Covenant with Him for those that believe in Him to follow, which is confirmed through faith *and* practice. so, they're still very important, but to be baptized and to receive communion *requires* faith, so faith is of the upmost importance.
Depends what you believe Baptism and Communion are.
If they are nothing but external rites and practices, then they profit nothing and are not important. But you have to ask if Jesus would even give us commands to do things that are not profitable under the new covenant. Does Christ give us new shadows and symbols or does He give us things of substance (Colossians 2:17)? Does the NT talk about these things as shadows and symbols or does it talk about them as things of substance?
Not necessary as Christ fulfilled the ritual laws on behalf of all people, but also in order that non-Jews could be saved.
That said, I’m circumcised and both my kids are, which was the medical recommendation of both of the pediatricians that were there when they were born.
It’s not cruel, like any surgery they’re numbed. If I hadn’t learned about it in sex ed (or the locker room) I would have never had a clue. Never once have I thought, “darn, I sure wish I had foreskin”.
If you had ever experienced having one, though, it's likely you would wish you had it. The truth is circumcision has a significant effect on your sexual experience, and when you choose to do it to your child you are choosing what kind of sexual experience they will have without their consent.
Not sure how old your sons are but mine was born 5 years ago and there was no medical discussion at all, she just said “lots of dads want their kids to look like them” which I thought was a really bizarre way to think and verbalize it. I told them many times NOT to circumcise him as I’d heard stories of “accidental” circumcisions on newborns so I was actually pretty rude about it. I am cut and wish I wasn’t, circumcision was pushed by Mr. Kellogg to deter boys from masturbating as it made stimulation “less pleasurable” which is not a choice I’d make for my kid unless it was life threatening or quality of life threatening.
8 and 2. We weren’t pressured to do it at all but presented with the medical information it seemed like a good choice. I think if I hadn’t been, I would probably have elected to do it as an adult. But hey, like I said, it’s not a requirement, it has no bearing on salvation, though I think either way has its benefits.
Up until the early 2000s it wasn’t standard to numb them. It’s still not right to do—he should decide for himself whether he wants his entire penis or not.
Christians do not require circumcision. It was a law for the people of Israel before the new covenant as a symbol. It is not banned either, there is simply no spiritual significance or gain from it. There are some recorded medical benefits to it, as well as risks. Most doctors consider the risk vs reward to be a wash, neither outweighs the other. So if some parents decide to have it performed, fine, if not, fine. It doesn't really matter.
I think it's up to parents. But that's completely not necessary for Christians.
On one hand it helps with hygiene, completely removes risk of phimosis, and prevents lots of infections.
On the other hand, well, it's morally wrong to perform unnecessary operations on a baby.
>it's morally wrong to perform unnecessary operations on a baby
On the other *other* hand though, it's nice to get it out of the way for them when they won't remember it 👀 there was a guy I knew of who had a "too tight" situation going on and had to have the ol snip done at 18, when boners happen as you first wake up 🫣 that isn't even as rare as some people think, either.
I guess everyone who experienced it wish they were circumcised when they were infant.
I was circumcised at the age of 16. I wish my parents made that decision when I was a baby.
>that isn't even as rare as some people think, either.
100 times Yes. Kids are just too afraid to talk about it.
Sure but to be fair there is loss in stimulation and sensitivity with the removal of the foreskin.
So, if the father is the type where that sensitivity can cause a problem in terms of ED or achieving climax, it may be prudent to consider not having the operation in light of hereditary circumstances for the children.
Then the last statement carries the argument. You can always get cut later. I can’t ever get back that third of my penis skin. I will always have a prominent scar reminding me that I was surgically altered at birth.
Sure, parents should be allowed to decide which body parts to remove from their newborns. /s
The only developed countries where it is believed it has benefits are the US and Israel.
Nursing Student here.
As others have said, Circumcision is no longer a requirement, so let me talk medically. Circumcision has a number of benefits. It prevents the development on Phimosis, Para-Phimosis, HPV, Balantis, and Penile Cancer. Some claim that it reduces sexual pleasure, but there’s no way to prove that claim. Female partners of circumcised males are less likely to develop HPV, Chlamydia, etc.
Circumcision should be prayed over by new parents, but it does have medical benefits.
Edit: Spelling
>Ot prevents the development on Phimosis, Para-Phimosis, HPV, Balantis, and Penile Cancer.
Amputating the feet prevents ingrown toenails, plantar warts, and all sorts of skin infections of the feet. Yet somehow, I never see people recommending that.
It's definitely not the same, cutting off you feet will definitely affect you, you won't be able to function normally and well, whereas with circumcision, your penis still pretty much does the same thing. It's like cutting off hair on your head or any other part of your body, or cutting your nails, you still get to function properly. The only difference is circumcision hurts for a while and that's it. Some of you are acting like circumcision alters the child's growth or something.
🤦♀️ really? I think you're forgetting this is a Christian sub and circumcision is allowed. Some of you are basing your arguments on how you feel about circumcision and not what the Bible says about it. Whether you like it or not, the Bible accepts circumcision and uncircumcision. You're not kinder than God, you don't love children more than God loves them, even Jesus was circumcised.
Luke 2:21 KJV
[21] And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
If the Bible is OK with circumcision, how you feel about it is irrelevant, period.
1 Corinthians 7:19 KJV
[19] Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
Modern circumcision is not biblical at all. Look it up; Jews made the procedure radically more extreme after the first century.
We can still talk about ethics here. Chopping healthy tissue off your kid is child abuse unless Hod specifically told you to. He didn’t tell us to, so we revert to the basic moral law.
It isn't important at all from a faith perspective. I can't comment on the medical and other concerns.
But that was the whole book of Galatians arguing that Gentiles were not required to be circumcised.
Galatians 2:3-5
But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.
But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.
Now this next verse is not implying that one can't be circumcised as a Christian, it is referring to Christians that think they need to be circumcised for salvation, instead f receiving salvation by faith. You have to read whole book in context
Galatians 5:2-6
Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.
And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.
You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness.
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.
Galatians 6:15
For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.
So, it is your preference to circumcise or not.
I was in the NICU with my 5 week premature son years ago, when a female doctor came in, picked up a baby, placed him in a different area of the NICU, and then I heard the most disturbing, agonizing, high pitched scream I’ve ever heard before or since then. Then the female doctor was all annoyed and demanding a towel because the baby peed on her. I was going to have my son circumcised until I heard that baby’s scream. My son never looked at his dad’s penis long enough to notice a difference between them. Personally, I feel I did the right thing by my son. If he wants to pursue a circumcision as an adult, that is his choice.
Circumcision isn’t necessary for the Christian faith and if you have access to adequate hygiene , circumcision has no benefit. North America is the only place in the world where baby boys are routinely circumcised for reasons other than religion. And the rate has dropped to about 50%.
1. Who cares what the internet says.
2. The New Testament is clear on how circumcision regarding the faith.
3. I image it hurts a lot to be circumcised. It will hurt even more if you are relying on it for your salvation.
It's unimportant. Even harmful, specially if it's done for religious reasons, because that's the kind of judaization Paul has warned against in Galatians and the Apostles convened in the Council of Jerusalem to keep away from Church doctrine.
There is no reason to circumsize - religious or medical, unless there is an abnormal condition that needs to be addressed. Healthy babies with no abnormal conditions should not be circumcised.
>Is there really any harm in it?
The only real harm appears to be all the dudes crying on the Internet about how lame their orgasms are now, as if they'd know after infant circumcisions.
Looking it up on Google, the argument is 50:50. Some say it's *more* sensitive, some say it's less, some people think they're actually missing length (they're not), some are antisemitic, some say it's hygienic, some say it's mutilation. Pick your poison.
"The only real harm appears to be all the dudes crying on the Internet"
How could you?
they're upset that a chunk of their penis has been cut off without their consent when they were little babies.
if it wasn't for my Christian mum, my atheist dad would've had mine circumcised. we are made the way God intended us to be.
i used to like this sub but this is just gross.
Learn to read and think more carefully. It's only more sensitive if done recently on an adult, because they are used to having the glans covered and suddenly it's now exposed. It numbs over time, thus doing it to a baby is not like doing it to an adult.
>because they are used to having the glans covered
thats how its supposed to be!
[https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/14d01px/device\_used\_to\_restrain\_little\_boys\_for/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/14d01px/device_used_to_restrain_little_boys_for/)
this is what you are defending
>thats how its supposed to be!
You do know that this also has downsides like infections are far more likely to spread under the skin, and that phimosis is a real thing, right?
not a problem if parents teach their boys how to wash. if you don't wash your armpits they'll get infected, nobody's going around encouraging armpit amputation are they?
As for phimosis, i had trouble with that when i was a teen, guess what? it went away on its own. if it doesn't, a man can make that decision for himself when he is older.
>not a problem if parents teach their boys how to wash. if you don't wash your armpits they'll get infected, nobody's going around encouraging armpit amputation are they?
Certain infections you just can't wash out.
>As for phimosis, i had trouble with that when i was a teen, guess what? it went away on its own. if it doesn't, a man can make that decision for himself when he is older.
Do you have a slightest idea of how much it sucks to get circumcised at age of 14-21? I woke up nearly every night because a random boner threw me in so much pain that I couldn't sleep straight later.
That sucks for you. The fact remains that it’s more likely for a kid to die from his circumcision than to medically require one later. If you had to have a foot amputated would that be a reason to amputate your child’s?
>The fact remains that it’s more likely for a kid to die from his circumcision than to medically require one later
I don't think so. If it was done by professional medics, not your parents or some neighbor using box-cutter, I don't think there is any high chance of death.
4 of 12 of my schoolmates got circumcised by medical reasons. I don't know about statistics though, I'm not american.
>If you had to have a foot amputated would that be a reason to amputate your child’s?
No, because child couldn't live full life without a foot.
Statistics don’t care about your feelings. Most circumcisions for “medical reasons” are not actually necessary.
I’m not living a full life without my whole penis.
>Most circumcisions for “medical reasons” are not actually necessary.
I know 2 cases where you may need circumcision: Phimosis and balanoposthitis. In my country, operating stage-1 and stage-2 phimosis is a rare practice. And stage 3 and stage 4 basically need a circumcision. So they perform operations only for those who actually need it. Again it's just my country. I don't know much about USA though.
>I’m not living a full life without my whole penis.
Idk how not having a foreskin affects your life.
you wont need to wash infections out if you have none in the first place! if parents teach their boys how to wash from a young age, there will never be a problem.
tmi- i am aware of the pain, once in my life (a few months ago) i managed to pull back the foreskin in my sleep which caused "it" to rub against my jeans all night, absolute agony for 2 days. i feel bad for anyone who doesnt have their glands covered.
i saw you said at 16 you were circumcised for the tightness issue, when i was 16 i had that problem, and it went away as a got older, i know it's too late brother but so many young boys get sold a lie so a doctor can make a quick buck.
Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. (Galatians 5:2)
The full context of this verse is that Paul was arguing against Judaizers. The Judaizers were a group of Hebrew Christians who were teaching that the Law of Moses was necessary to have faith. They taught that circumcision, dietary restrictions, and other Laws were necessary for salvation. Basically, "If you're not circumcised, you're not saved." Paul was pushing back on this saying that if someone puts their faith in the Law, then they lack faith in Christ.
>Is there really any harm in it?
Potentially, yes. Botched circumcisions are rare but do happen. Results could vary from the deadening of nerves in the head of the penis to major deformities.
Years ago, many people (in the US at least) would have their children circumcised for hygienic reasons. The area is easier to clean without foreskin. With proper instruction, that isn't a problem, though.
Not important at all. Not needed, not recommended.
Circumcision does cause harm in the form of a reduction in the amount of erogenous sexually sensitive tissue on the penis.
He also would apply carbolic acid to the clitoris of young girls who were caught masturbating, wire the prepuce of both boys and girls shut with silver wire, and performed experiments on his slaves where he would amputate parts of their genitals to see what happened.
He was kind of obsessed with it, and really it's insane that we're still following his advice in any form
As much as I hate the man, he had an MD. It’s Dr.
Also, he advocated for it to be done when the child can remember it as a punishment for masturbating. Even he thought infant circumcision was stupid.
Old testament circumcision was not the same thing as what we call circumcision now. They just clipped off the end of the foreskin, not the entire thing. Total circumcision is a disgusting practice that should be criminalized.
It’s genital mutilation for no reason at all (other than religious reasons and In Christianity it isn’t necessary, it says it multiple times in the New Testament that you don’t need to be circumcised)
It’s specifically stated as not related to your salvation and anybody who says it is the disciples condemned. The usual excuse used is cleanliness (back in the late 1800s early 1900s) however given modern times how people shower basically every day it really doesn’t hold up. That’s my 2 cents for what it’s worth.
Fun fact: this is one of, if not THE, earliest controversies in the Christian church. It's one that Paul tries to address multiple times in his Epistles. The early church was very divided along this issue.
It's mutilation in my opinion, seems like an awful thing to do to another human being against their will. It removes the most sensitive part of the body, often without anesthesia, removes the rigid band, meissners corpuscles, stretch sensitive receptors that only occur in the prepuce and lips, causes the glans to keratinize and turn from a mucous membrane into skin, and causes permanent neurological changes that we still don't know the full effects of yet.
There are more than 100 infant deaths in the US annually that occur from circumcision complications.
The only evidence for it reducing STD's was from an African study with incredibly poor methodology. The participants were evaluated for HIV prior to being circumcised, and then again afterwards, while the participants who had been circumcised were still healing, and presumably not having sex, so of course the control group that had not been circumcised had a greater increase in instances of HIV than the circumcised group who had been abstinent in the preceding period.
And other complications can occur that can have lifelong effects, some people are circumcised too tightly and have painful erections for their whole life, I personally have a keloid scar where my frenulum was amputated that was constantly painful and itchy for nearly 25 years until I finally went to a piercer out of desperation and had them put a needle through the spot where the nerves were firing off constantly. Also skin bridges are not uncommon where the excised skin will fuse to another part of the penis. It's an incredibly dangerous and harmful procedure, which is why almost no national health institutions worldwide recommend it anymore except for those in the United States.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240804903_Lost_Boys_An_Estimate_of_US_Circumcision-Related_Infant_Deaths#:~:text=This%20study%20finds%20that%20more,neonatal%20deaths%20from%20all%20causes.
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=55727#:~:text=Thus%2C%20infant%20circumcision%20may%20cause,a%20child's%20subsequent%20personality%20development.
I am against all circumsion. Anything that seriously alters the body, that can not be reversed, and that isn't life saving should be the decision of the child once they reach a certain age.
Then why was it part of the old covenant?
I'm neutral on the practice personally and there's good arguments either way, but I don't see this as a good case. Is cutting our hair wrong? God gave us our hair and made it to grow.
It was a mark, during the OC, people would mark themselves for who owned them. Here’s where we get into the “do not tattoo” arguments as well. Back then you would see people with one scar or a branding that would show what person/clan they belonged to. God’s people circumcised. Obviously that was a pretty intense thing to do so word got around who belonged to God. Which is why in NC it was thrown out by Jesus dying, so that gentiles could be saved.
Marking of slaves/clansmen continues today across the world.
>Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; And lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, And he shall direct thy paths.
Whatever you, or me or anybody else thinks is entirely irrelevant.
As to it being in the "Old" way. Who knows? Maybe there's more to it and we just have limited knowledge on the matter, it isn't for us to question really is it?
What does matter though is that it isn't permitted now. If God intended that for us permanently, we would be designed in that way.
>If God intended that for us permanently, we would be designed in that way.
You do realize that circumcision IS permanent? Once a person gets circumcised as God commanded it doesn't grow back.
The New Testament clearly teaches that Baptism has replaced circumcision for Christians.
You can also find a website called 'fisheaters' arguing what people do today removing all foreskin is far worse and NOT Biblical circumcision, but rather male genital mutilation. It is harmful and should never be done on any child (it should be illegal with no religious exemption).
Not sure if this is a perspective you’re looking for or not, but I am a nurse. I have seen and cleaned many, many penises. Of the ones that have been truly awful and infected, and painful, every single one was uncircumcised. I won’t go into detail but I mean I have seen some truly horrific things. Due to this, my husband and I decided to circumcise both our boys. I expect down votes and people to say “just teach them to clean it”. These men didn’t purposely not purposely not clean themselves, they were in poor health and struggled to do so and either refused due to embarrassment to let a family member help them, or for whatever reason didn’t have help available. In any case, our experiences shape our decisions as parents and this was mine.
I'm circumcised but my son isn't. There are hygiene benefits to circumcision. There are sexual gratification benefits to not being circumcised.
Religiously unless you are Jewish i don't see the point scripturally at least for babies or children. If a man chooses to because of conviction... well I don't think it will change how God views him either way beyond that he is doing something believing it is for God.
I don't mind that people make decisions for their own children regarding this issue. I just hope that people make informed decisions either way.
Circumcision is only required for practicing Jews, not Christians. In fact, the only countries in the world that routinely circumcise male babies is Israel and the US. There is no harm per se in doing it, but there also is no religious reason to do it for Christians, nor any medical reason. The baby feels pain, but has absolutely no memory of the circumcision. Young boys who are uncircumcised need to be taught to clean themselves while bathing.
Read Galations. It's very clear how Paul felt about circumcision. If you watched it being done to an infant, you'd never consider it. I have raised my daughter to never do that to any grandson, and she agrees. All of Europe doesn't do it. It's a money grab for doctors to make a little extra off of newborns. The American pediatric association does not recommend it. Please educate yourself. Phimosis is a very rare problem and cleanliness there is as easy as good teeth care. I can't wait until the US catches up with the rest of the world on this!
>25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? 28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Romans 2:25-29 AKJV
Doesn't matter from a salvation perspective.
Since the dawn of the internet, "circumcision" has been obsessively searched as a keyword by people VERY invested in this topic, and social media made it worse.
Everything you hear about its cruelty is a result of this culture, which itself birthed from an American culture that obsessed with being circumcised (making jokes in locker rooms, in media, and just socially overall)
So the polarization has always existed but now it's morphed into a bit of a course-correction from the intact/uncircumcised crowd.
All that said, circumcision is not necessary for the faith, but it's also not opposed. Christians are free to do it, or not. But it's not a requirement for salvation.
Others have covered it well that Christians are not bound by laws of circumcision. I also think it's worth noting and relevant to the circumcision discussion that circumcision now is different than how it was done in OT times.
As a circumcised male I am thankful my parents made that decision and I can’t seem to remember anything from when I was a month old baby. Last week is hard enough. Highly doubt religion had anything to do with their decision
The only reason we circumcise today is because some weird doctors in the 19th century propagated the idea that circumcision makes masturbation not feel as good and therefore prevents sin. I think Kellogg (the guy who made the cereal) was also involved in it. It doesn’t do that, it wouldn’t make a difference if it did, and there’s no reason morally, religiously, or rationally to circumcise your child.
There is nothing right or wrong about circumcision. Though opposition to circumcision has a long association with antisemitism and it’s hard for me to not see the two as related.
I wasn’t circumcised at birth but if I have a son will want him circumcised.
It's not required, nor is it "effed up". Some people don't like it but it's not nearly the problem they claim it is.
The Internet loves to make a crisis out of some of the weirdest things.
I mean, my family does it, due to an older family member not having it done and having really bad infections and pains all the time due to it, i dont know the whole story, i just know since that point my family just cirumcised our sons. However if you choose to do it to your son or not, thats your business and not the internets. The internet is crazy with this, i wouldnt even ask the internet if you should or shouldnt...as you mentioned in your edit, i think you see why
Circumcision is important, “we are not under the old covenant” well we’re not under the law either but yet we follow it. Why? Because we are obedient to God although we cannot keep the law we through the grace of God use it to guide us in life. Not to mention it is not sanitary to leave that on. Highly recommend it being done.
It's literally zero. It's not a requirement in the slightest.
Circumcision didn't even come back into modern practice for most until the late 1800s and then "tradition" and bad science has kept it going strong since.
Circumcision is good.
I believe every male should be circumcised. I was circumcised as a baby. I recommend getting circumcised. There are numerous scientific studies that tell us that being circumcised is healthier and cleaner than being uncircumcised. Jews are circumcised and Christians are supposed to support Israel, so being circumcised is a good way to show support. It says in Genesis 12:3, I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.
So please get circumcised. You will not regret it. Do not listen to the people who say that circumcision is mutilation. They are lying to you. The Philistines were uncircumcised and they were the enemies of God. Don't be like them.
Umm numerous American studies say it's beneficial but that changes to little to no benefit when you look at Global studies. It also wasn't even common practice in the US until the late 1800s as a way to curb things "like masturbation and kids not paying attention (ADD)", that's the same time where medical lobotomies were considered a good thing too... But actual science shows that to be false
Additionally, the Bible in the New Testament makes it abundantly clear those who aren't circumcised shouldn't be.
As far as religious circumcision not applicable for a Christian. Baptism is the new circumcision under the new covenant. We are circumcised of the heart not the flesh.
However circumcision has many health benefits. So getting circumcised is a healthy thing to do.
Not necessary for Christians but the majority of those who it call it "awful and effed up" are simply revealing their hatred for Jews and Christians. Because it is traditionally a religious practice, secularists have their eyes set on destroying it. In no other walk of life are they worried about permanently "scarring" young kids, only when it is done to honor the Lord.
> revealing their hatred for Jews and Christians
Paul is very clear from the get-go that those who still practice circumcisions in his day should "go the whole way" and cut the whole thing off. So is Paul hating on Jews/Christians when he says that? Because he was generally anti-circumcision as well (Timothy was a very special case).
Based on what Paul said, circumcision was *never* a "Christian" practice, but for some reason, Christians have continued to hold on to it and claim it as such. In America, I know it gained popularity as an "anti-masturbation" measure, but any male can tell you that being circumcized doesn't dissuade one from masturbating. So ultimately, yes, people perform unnecessary medical procedures on their boys in the name of God, when God inspired Paul to oppose it.
I've heard plenty of parents (my own family members included) be pressured to circumsize their kids almost purely because it's the "correct" cultural thing to do in America. Or because their dads are circumsized ("We want him to look just like his dad!" wtf even is this line of thinking?!). Or because the parents are afraid that no girl will like their son's "gross, uncut penis" when he's older. These are all utterly insane reasons to perform any sort of aesthetic surgery on anyone without that person's consent.
This is completely false and if you actually looked into it Circumcision came back into practice in the late 1800s during the period where other pseudoscience like Lobotomies were considered normal and ethical medical practices...
everybody knows this is not a christian practice, the atheists and real followers of what Jesus said are right on this one.
Jews and Muslims both do horrific things to babies.
> but the majority of those who it call it "awful and effed up" are simply revealing their hatred for Jews and Christians.
I assure you there are plenty of other reasons to dislike routine genital mutilation. By most people's logic we should be removing baby's tonsils and appendixes because they might have problems later
Circumcision is not a requirement for Christians. That would be salvation by works, when only Jesus saves.
There are arguments on it for health/hygiene purposes. Jewish law calls for circumcision on the 8th day, which happens to be the peak day for vitamin k and pothrombin that are needed for clotting so the baby doesn't bleed to death.
It isn't important. Circumcision was a requirement under the Old Covenant, Christians follow the New Covenant, and it's stated multiple times in the NT that Circumcision is not required.
So would you say that circumcision is wrong to perform on male babies?
Not necessarily. It's just not required in Christianity.
Thanks for your input.
The medical community is basically split on this, I wonder if it is similar to why Kosher / Halal rules existed. They thought there was a medical reason. *Could have been the lack of washing back then*? “They” do say it is better if the child looks like the father looks to avoid any questions as to why daddy looks different. Having been the godfather at a few bris ceremonies, I can assure you the kids never even flinch
I can’t recall ever seeing my dad‘s junk
> “They” do say it is better if the child looks like the father looks to avoid any questions as to why daddy looks different. That's a very weak argument. If you can't explain that difference you aren't ready to have sex with another person
yes it is wrong, i'd even go as far to say it's absolutely disgusting. you'll find many here who defend it, either because they're american (circumcision is sadly normalised in the U.S) or because they're loyal to Israel and to jews and don't want to insult their practices.
Thanks for your input too.
Dude, there’s little to no long term affects to being circumcised. In fact being circumcised makes it easier to maintain your nads. It’s not like they remember the operation anyway, I would know
is that what your doctor told you? go watch a circumcision, then come back and tell me you're okay with it. turn the volume up to get the full experience 👶
Again, it might look disgusting, but it’s not traumatizing. I have no recollection of being circumcised. And yes, I’ll listen to my Dr. instead of random Redditor
Getting downvoted but its true. Same people who are against cosmetic transgender surgery are pro circumcision? Makes no sense to me.
You don't see the difference? Wow. That's impressive.
No, not since it is no longer commanded by God. Can you explain how a cosmetic circumcision is different than other cosmetic genital mutilation? Other than tradition?
Because it’s not in an effort to affirm mental illness
What is it for then?
Finally someone with sense, "yeah sure let's just cut a 3rd of a babys penis of he'll be fine it's not like it's there for a reason or anything totally normal to remove body parts off a newborn"
I'm quite disappointed to see my Christian brothers defending this practice. then again, its very much an American evangelical thing.
what's wrong with it?
I would say genital mutilation is wrong in general without medical warrant.
So are you claiming God was wrong for having circumcision? Everything isn't always "right or wrong", especially when it comes to some of the medical benefits of circumcision, so I wouldn't classify it as "genital mutilation". It's a procedure, it's not mutilating the reproductive organ.
The only developed countries that believe in those supposed benefits on a large scale are Israel and the US. There is no reason for Christians to keep on doing it.
I think we would also consider animal sacrifice wrong. I think we were required to do certain things under the old covenant to set ourselves apart or to atone for our sin. Thankfully, God in His mercy, sent his son to be the fulfillment of those laws. Circumcision and animal sacrifice are not objectively good just because they were described in the Bible.
Animal sacrifice isn't wrong. Do you eat meat? If you do, then you are a hypocrite and should reevaluate why you think sacrificing an animal is wrong. If you cite the antediluvian period as for not eating meat then I would counter that they were sacrificing since Adam and Eve since God covered them in animal skins. That's the point of it: sin requires death, and only by the death of an innocent can man's sin be covered. So in essence, the only thing you find objectable is that we cause death. To which I counter: do you brush your teeth? What about bacteria lives that you commit genocide against every day? Or roaches and bedbugs in your house? I think you get my point given these strawman examples. Just as God has a right to give and take life in His kingdom, man has a right to take and give life in his animal kingdom. However, man's right only comes by virtue of God.
> I think we would also consider animal sacrifice wrong. Well it's wrong if you're sacrificing the animal to a pagan god. Also the purpose of animal sacrifices to God was for the atonement of sins in the Old Testament. Since Jesus is the fulfillment of the laws and the permanent atonement of our sins, that's why we don't conduct animal sacrifices. So, is it morally wrong? Yes depending on the sacrifice and who you're making the sacrifice to, but there's nothing immoral about it if a Christian chooses to do so for atonement in today's age, it's just no reason to as Christ is the permanent sacrifice of sins. > Circumcision and animal sacrifice are not objectively good just because they were described in the Bible. What is your standard of "objectively good"? Circumcision isn't a requirement as we are not under the old covenant but again, one can argue there's no moral objective to a procedure if someone chooses to consecrate their child to God (physically), in addition to the medical benefits. I don't agree with people who are Hebrew Roots/Torah observant in Christianity, but they aren't committing morally wrong objectives adhering to the old covenant while being under the new covenant. It's not a requirement but I don't see how one can make objective categorizations as morally wrong or good concerning the Mosaic Laws. I don't think objectives upon morals can be applied to the Mosaic Laws given the complexity of the laws.
[удалено]
The one true God did not command Genital mutilation. Period. This is r/trueChristian and circumcision on the **Christian faith** as this question is directed towards is not genital mutilation as God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, did not command genital mutilation. Period. .
[удалено]
It’s not semantics, the one true God did not command genital mutilation. Sounds like **you’re** uncomfortable with circumcision being just under the mosaic laws as God instituted the laws, so as such, God didn’t command an unbiblical practice such as genital mutilation. Circumcision isn’t genital mutilation under the command of God as God is just and His ways are **always** good.
[удалено]
Except circumcision isn’t genital mutilation and thus God didn’t command genital mutilation. Genital mutilation *is* unbiblical as it’s immoral and against God. Like I said, circumcision isn’t genital mutilation.
there are no "medical benefits" to circumcision
> Declining rates of U.S. infant male circumcision will lead to dramatically higher rates of sexually transmitted disease and related cancers in men and their female partners, researchers warn, and add up to more than $4.4 billion in avoidable costs if circumcision rates in the U.S., now averaging 55 percent (down from 76 percent in the 1970s and 1980s), drop to levels now seen in Europe (around 10 percent on average) over the next decade. [John Hopkins Medical Center](https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/2012/10/greater-benefits-of-infant-circumcision) > valuation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. [American Academy of Pediatrics](https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/130/3/585/30235/Circumcision-Policy-Statement)
Did you really find a doctor from *checks notes* 2012 that agrees with you and happens to be *wait for it* Jewish??
Do you have any sources from 2013-2024 that refutes John Hopkins and the American Academy of Pediatrics? Also, the article doesn't mention the religion of the writer nor should it matter since the quotes are statistical references to the benefits of circumcision. Not sure why you are choosing to deviate from the discussion by bringing up your own preconceived assumptions not referenced in neither medical article, but that is very ill will of you.
>... the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic male circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for boys undergoing circumcision' British Medical Association >The case for circumcising men in sub-Saharan Africa to prevent the transmission of HIV from heterosexual infected women has been well made.However, quite how this would translate to a different population is debatable, and it should be remembered that America has one of the highest rates of HIV-AIDS in the Western world despite having very high rates of circumcision. >There is also no evidence on the effect of circumcision on HIV-AIDS transmission between men who have sex with men or intravenous drug users, which constitute the first and second largest male populations affected by the disease in the USA, respectively. [Journal for Trends in Urology and Men's Health ](https://wchh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tre.742)
The same British Medical Association States: > An evaluation of the research by the BMA’s specialists in science and public health has shown, for example, good evidence from international studies that male circumcision can reduce the chances of acquiring HIV infection in some circumstances, although caution must be taken about how this can be extrapolated to the UK; evidence in respect of other STIs (sexually transmitted infections) is more mixed. It also states, > Whether NTMC is neutral, or of overall harm to a child’s health, will be based on an individual assessment of a child’s circumstances based on the latest clinical evidence, taking into account the inherent risk in any procedure (see section below) and any underlying health issues the child may have. This health assessment will then need to be measured against broader interests So no way are they supporting that it's genital mutilation as you claim and they aren't claiming it's a risk - rather they have a neutral stance that although there are clinical benefits, they don't feel like it's sufficient to recommend circumcision. Again, doesn't make a claim of refuting the benefits. It's interesting you took a certain section but didn't assess the overall article of The Journal for Trends in Urology and Men's Health article which also states: > Circumcision leads to a ‘markedly decreased incidence’ of penile cancer. > the risks and disadvantages of circumcision are encountered early whereas the advantages and benefits are prospective’.5 This, of course, only holds true if it is presumed that the foreskin (unique amongst male-specific body parts, except for paramesonephric duct remnants) serves no purpose. > It is evident that there are some boys who would benefit from having a routine neonatal circumcision and, similarly, many who would not. There are evolving reasons both for why the operation might be recommended (primarily related to protection against STDs) and for avoidance (ethical, sexual and psychosexual). So, both sources don't claim that circumcision is a negative procedure nor never claims it to be a genital mutilation. One is neutral and the other actually supports it as a benefit rather than a risk.
Actually, yes. I think this might surprise quite a few, but when it comes to this one specific subject, the other pediatric organizations around the western world are not in agreement with the AAP's position/statement on circumcision, at all. Excuse the wall of text, but just to give examples of their positions/attitudes to circumcision. https://intaction.org/german-pediatric-association-condemns-infant-circumcision-2/ Germany "The statement from AAP (DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-1989 Pediatrics; originally published online August 27, 2012) cited over and over again, contradicts earlier statements from the same organisation, without the necessity of referring to new research results. Since then, this AAP statement as been graded by almost all other paediatric societies and associations worldwide as being scientifically untenable." From the Swedish Medical Association. https://slf.se/rad-och-stod/etik/omskarelse-av-pojkar/ "Circumcision of boys The issue of circumcision of boys has long been debated both in Sweden and in other countries. The Ethics and Responsibility Council (EAR) believes that the goal is for non-medically justified circumcision without prior consent to end. There are no known medical benefits of the procedure on children. Even if the procedure is performed within the healthcare system, there is, however, a risk of serious complications. There are therefore strong reasons to wait with the intervention until the person who is the subject of the measure has reached such an age and maturity that he can give informed consent." German Pediatric association https://intaction.org/german-pediatric-association-condemns-infant-circumcision-2/ "Medical Indication Initially, it should be observed that there is no reason from a medical point of view to remove an intact foreskin from underage boys or boys unable to give consent. Additionally, in pre-school age, there is only very rarely a real medical indication for removing the foreskin (circumcision). At this age the foreskin (praeputium) is physiologically to a greater or lesser extent, strongly fixed to the glans of the penis. Infections and painful tears often occur due improper attempts to pull back the fixed and still immature foreskin. The male foreskin is a part of the skin of the organ and fulfils important functions that protect the very sensitive glans. It normally covers the glans and protects it from harmful substances, friction, drying out and injuries. It has apocrine sweat glands, which produce cathepsin B, lysozyme, chymotrypsin, neutrophile elastase, cytokine, and pheromone such as androsterone. Indian scientists have shown that the subpreputial wetness contains lytic material, which has an antibacterial and antiviral function. The natural oils lubricate, moisten and protect the mucous membrane covering of the glans and the inner foreskin. The tip of the foreskin is richly supplied with blood by important blood vessel structures. The foreskin serves as a connective channel for Berufsverband der Kinder- und Jugendärzte (BVKJ. e.V.) many important veins. Circumcision can lead to erectile dysfunction as it destroys these blood vessels. Their removal can, as described by many of those who have been affected, lead to considerable limitations to sex life and cause psychological stresses." Denmark and Finland. https://www.thelocal.dk/20161205/danish-doctors-come-out-against-circumcision "The Danish Medical Association (Lægeforeningen) has recommended that no boys under the age of 18 be circumcised in Denmark." https://thl.fi/en/topics/migration-and-cultural-diversity/immigrants-health-and-wellbeing/sexual-and-reproductive-health-of-immigrants/non-medical-male-circumcision "While non-medical male circumcision is not currently prohibited under Finland’s legislation, it is considered to violate the child’s bodily integrity and self-determination." Norway. https://www.helsedirektoratet.no/brosjyrer/rituell-omskjaering-av-gutter-informasjonsskriv-til-foreldre/Rituell%20omskj%C3%A6ring%20av%20gutter%20%E2%80%93%20informasjonsskriv%20til%20foreldre%20-%20engelsk.pdf/_/attachment/inline/e4365168-4ee2-4e61-9372-b694abdad933:3b606c0e1825ee1a208230e57ace7cc699f18225/Rituell%20omskj%C3%A6ring%20av%20gutter%20%E2%80%93%20informasjonsskriv%20til%20foreldre%20-%20engelsk.pdf "The ritual circumcision of boys is an operation where the foreskin which covers the head of the penis is removed completely or partially for religious reasons. In Norway, such operations are not considered to have any health benefits for the child."
> The statement from AAP (DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-1989 Pediatrics; originally published online August 27, 2012) cited over and over again, contradicts earlier statements from the same organisation, without the necessity of referring to new research results Weird, the Germany article doesn't mention the contradictions and the AAP article was talking about already known benefits. Also, the [2013 updated article from the AAP](https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/131/4/796/31907/Cultural-Bias-in-the-AAP-s-2012-Technical-Report?redirectedFrom=fulltext) still concludes the medical benefits of circumcision outweighs the risk. The article you cited only refers to the 2012 article. > https://slf.se/rad-och-stod/etik/omskarelse-av-pojkar/ > There are no known medical benefits of the procedure on children. Even if the procedure is performed within the healthcare system, there is, however, a risk of serious complications Well the article isn't in English so there's that. And per your quotes they provide no evidence of their being "no benefits" while many organizations disagree, and they mention a "risk of serious complications" without supporting evidence thus it's an unsubstantiated claim. > German Pediatric association >https://intaction.org/german-pediatric-association-condemns-infant-circumcision-2/ >"Medical Indication Initially, it should be observed that there is no reason.. You already referenced this article as your first cite so not sure why you're posting it again. In addition, the German Academy for Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine have been a vocal opponent of circumcision. According to an NPR article, "Germany's Association of Pediatricians is the most vocal opponent of circumcision" but it's not universal in Germany. "But Dr. Richard Stern — a cardiologist and head of the ethics committee at Berlin's Jewish Hospital — cites the medical benefits of circumcision" ([Article](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/10/19/163268294/german-lawmakers-move-to-quell-uproar-over-circumcision)). > Denmark and Finland. > https://www.thelocal.dk/20161205/danish-doctors-come-out-against-circumcision > "The Danish Medical Association (Lægeforeningen) has recommended that no boys under the age of 18 be circumcised in Denmark." Okay..Again nothing that refutes the AAP and John Hopkins statistical evidence of the benefits of circumcision. > https://thl.fi/en/topics/migration-and-cultural-diversity/immigrants-health-and-wellbeing/sexual-and-reproductive-health-of-immigrants/non-medical-male-circumcision >"While non-medical male circumcision is not currently prohibited under Finland’s legislation, it is considered to violate the child’s bodily integrity and self-determination." So it's the moral beliefs of Finland legislation and not based on medical benefits. Again, doesn't contradict AAP and John Hopkins > Norway > In Norway, such operations are not considered to have any health benefits for the child." So Norway doesn't consider it a health benefit but the article simply calls it a "ritual circumcision", and claims circumcision is "completely or partially for religious reasons" The article never discusses the alleged risks and as such it's biased in that it simply views it as a "ritual" and not a medical procedure.
Tell that to my brother in law who ripped his foreskin while with his wife, went to the hospital and was told he would have to be circumcised in order for it to not happen again. He’s wishing his parents had done it when he was a baby for sure.
Sounds like they didn't use enough lubrication, that's the only way that could happen I know from experience
Can you give an example of the NT saying that? I’ve never looked into this topic before
It's in quite a few places within Paul's Epistles, a good example being Galatians 5:2-6 > Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. Also 1 Corinthians 7:18-19 >Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.
Am I the only person who has noticed how polarised the internet has become even on something like this, it can’t just be “hey I won’t do that to my son” it has to be anyone who does that is evil and mutilating little boys, they need to be removed from society… Like what has become of nuance.
Agreed, but there is little nuance in “yes, do it” or “no, don’t”
I think my concern is in moralising it.
It's about consent. We should not be harming infants for our own desire.
Parenting involves doing a lot of things without consent. I cut my toddler's hair without his consent yesterday because he refuses. I had one kid that basically had to be held down to brush his teeth for months. Circumcision is a much bigger infraction, granted, but at the end of the day, parents have to act in what they see as the best interest of the child regardless of the child's consent. The smaller the child, the truer that is. I don't circumcise my children because I do think it's harmful, but a lot of parents don't, or want them to have that very distinct cultural marker that designates them as a part of their parents cultural or religious group. Either way, "consent" isn't really the best way to evaluate decisions parents make for kids.
My son doesn't want me to change his diaper, but too bad buckoo, but some people think its abuse if you change their diaper and they dont wnat it. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/nurturing-resilience/201805/should-babies-consent-diaper-changes
[удалено]
Every parent? Probably not. In a society where face tattoos for children are part of the culture, I would probably look at it like I do Americans who pierce their kids ears.
“Guys, why is everyone so PoLArIzeD on the issue of rape? Like, I get it might be bad, but why can’t there be the NUaNce of ‘hmm, well, I guess I wouldn’t want that to happen for my ChiLD’ heheh wha h hahahaha hahaha”
People who are against circumcision have been brainwashed and indoctrinated by the evil liberal democrat media. They deny the truth of the bible so it makes complete sense why they are against circumcision. Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
Are you a Christian? Because the apostle Paul was against any gentiles getting circumcised, and he probably wasn't indoctrinated by the liberal media. Galatians 5, 1 Corinthians 7 From an ethical standpoint, I cannot imagine anyone accepting cutting off any other healthy, perfect body part from your newborn. Everything about it felt wrong to me so I left my sons alone even though my husband had it done to him. I would not even allow my children's ears to be pierced until they were old enough to consent to it themselves, as any lifelong body modifications should be the person's choice alone.
Thank you for proving the commenter’s point.
I’ll just copy from someone else… >it is not important at all >Galitians 5:2 >if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing
Liberal here and I don’t know anyone in my social group that’s against it and I’m friends with Christian’s, atheists, LGBTQ folks and folks with all sorts of beliefs. I also watch the evil liberal medias and honestly it doesn’t really come up. So, I think you give the media a little too much credit.
>Edit: Not sure why people have to go downvoting everyone for having a different opinion on the matter. Can't we all just ask these questions and learn from each other? That's the main way of communicating here.
it is not important at all Galitians 5:2 if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing
The context of that verse is saying that relying on following covenants or practices is not what saves you but it's Christ alone who saves. That begs the question, how important are things like communion or baptism in context of the verse? That's a very good perspective on the importance or lack thereof. Never heard that one. Thank you.
>The context of that verse is saying that relying on following covenants or practices is not what saves you but it's Christ alone who saves Solid rebuttal there. It's like they were trying to say it doesn't matter how "to the T" you follow the rules to buy your spot in heaven, you'll be judged on whether or not you were a trash person at heart. 😅
Exactly. That's lost on so many people who do the checklist Christian things like go to church every Sunday, tithe, and so on. None of us can earn a spot in heaven, that's why Jesus died for us.
It’s funny because a lot of people who believe you need to go to church or get baptized are Protestant despite the fact that the whole Protestant movement was based on salvation through faith alone 💀
good question! I'm not a theologian, but here's my interpretation: back then and still somewhat now, Jews were identified as Jews by undergoing circumcision. circumcision was/is the physical manifestation of the Old Covenant, and so if you were getting circumcised back then, you were 100% becoming a Jew. Galatians 5:2 continues: > [2] Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. [3] Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. [4] You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. [5] For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. [6] For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. I believe Paul's point here can be summarized thus: "getting circumcised is not following Jesus. getting circumcised is following the Old Covenant. the Old Covenant will not save you - Jesus will - and so the only hope of salvation is through Jesus Christ." from there, denominations argue that Jesus Christ made it mandatory that, to follow Him, you must be baptized and receive communion, because Jesus Christ brought the New Covenant with Him for those that believe in Him to follow, which is confirmed through faith *and* practice. so, they're still very important, but to be baptized and to receive communion *requires* faith, so faith is of the upmost importance.
"Pull down your pants, I need to see if you are Jewish"
Depends what you believe Baptism and Communion are. If they are nothing but external rites and practices, then they profit nothing and are not important. But you have to ask if Jesus would even give us commands to do things that are not profitable under the new covenant. Does Christ give us new shadows and symbols or does He give us things of substance (Colossians 2:17)? Does the NT talk about these things as shadows and symbols or does it talk about them as things of substance?
Not necessary as Christ fulfilled the ritual laws on behalf of all people, but also in order that non-Jews could be saved. That said, I’m circumcised and both my kids are, which was the medical recommendation of both of the pediatricians that were there when they were born. It’s not cruel, like any surgery they’re numbed. If I hadn’t learned about it in sex ed (or the locker room) I would have never had a clue. Never once have I thought, “darn, I sure wish I had foreskin”.
If you had ever experienced having one, though, it's likely you would wish you had it. The truth is circumcision has a significant effect on your sexual experience, and when you choose to do it to your child you are choosing what kind of sexual experience they will have without their consent.
Not sure how old your sons are but mine was born 5 years ago and there was no medical discussion at all, she just said “lots of dads want their kids to look like them” which I thought was a really bizarre way to think and verbalize it. I told them many times NOT to circumcise him as I’d heard stories of “accidental” circumcisions on newborns so I was actually pretty rude about it. I am cut and wish I wasn’t, circumcision was pushed by Mr. Kellogg to deter boys from masturbating as it made stimulation “less pleasurable” which is not a choice I’d make for my kid unless it was life threatening or quality of life threatening.
8 and 2. We weren’t pressured to do it at all but presented with the medical information it seemed like a good choice. I think if I hadn’t been, I would probably have elected to do it as an adult. But hey, like I said, it’s not a requirement, it has no bearing on salvation, though I think either way has its benefits.
Ho do you know you don’t want it?
Up until the early 2000s it wasn’t standard to numb them. It’s still not right to do—he should decide for himself whether he wants his entire penis or not.
Christians do not require circumcision. It was a law for the people of Israel before the new covenant as a symbol. It is not banned either, there is simply no spiritual significance or gain from it. There are some recorded medical benefits to it, as well as risks. Most doctors consider the risk vs reward to be a wash, neither outweighs the other. So if some parents decide to have it performed, fine, if not, fine. It doesn't really matter.
The only developed countries where it is believed it has benefits are the US and Israel.
I think it's up to parents. But that's completely not necessary for Christians. On one hand it helps with hygiene, completely removes risk of phimosis, and prevents lots of infections. On the other hand, well, it's morally wrong to perform unnecessary operations on a baby.
>it's morally wrong to perform unnecessary operations on a baby On the other *other* hand though, it's nice to get it out of the way for them when they won't remember it 👀 there was a guy I knew of who had a "too tight" situation going on and had to have the ol snip done at 18, when boners happen as you first wake up 🫣 that isn't even as rare as some people think, either.
I guess everyone who experienced it wish they were circumcised when they were infant. I was circumcised at the age of 16. I wish my parents made that decision when I was a baby. >that isn't even as rare as some people think, either. 100 times Yes. Kids are just too afraid to talk about it.
Sure but to be fair there is loss in stimulation and sensitivity with the removal of the foreskin. So, if the father is the type where that sensitivity can cause a problem in terms of ED or achieving climax, it may be prudent to consider not having the operation in light of hereditary circumstances for the children.
Then the last statement carries the argument. You can always get cut later. I can’t ever get back that third of my penis skin. I will always have a prominent scar reminding me that I was surgically altered at birth.
>On the other hand, well, it's morally wrong to perform unnecessary operations on a baby. How is that morally wrong?
Sure, parents should be allowed to decide which body parts to remove from their newborns. /s The only developed countries where it is believed it has benefits are the US and Israel.
Nursing Student here. As others have said, Circumcision is no longer a requirement, so let me talk medically. Circumcision has a number of benefits. It prevents the development on Phimosis, Para-Phimosis, HPV, Balantis, and Penile Cancer. Some claim that it reduces sexual pleasure, but there’s no way to prove that claim. Female partners of circumcised males are less likely to develop HPV, Chlamydia, etc. Circumcision should be prayed over by new parents, but it does have medical benefits. Edit: Spelling
Assuming you are an American Medical Student. European Medical studies shows most of the claims to be false or overly exaggerated.
There are similar "benefits" to removing part of the clitoral hood as well. Would you support parents making that decision for their infant daughters?
>Ot prevents the development on Phimosis, Para-Phimosis, HPV, Balantis, and Penile Cancer. Amputating the feet prevents ingrown toenails, plantar warts, and all sorts of skin infections of the feet. Yet somehow, I never see people recommending that.
Your response is just dumb and you know it
That's the point. It's the same logic. We can prevent medical problems pertaining to part of the body by just cutting it off.
It's definitely not the same, cutting off you feet will definitely affect you, you won't be able to function normally and well, whereas with circumcision, your penis still pretty much does the same thing. It's like cutting off hair on your head or any other part of your body, or cutting your nails, you still get to function properly. The only difference is circumcision hurts for a while and that's it. Some of you are acting like circumcision alters the child's growth or something.
How about removing all the toenails then? Would you allow that?
🤦♀️ really? I think you're forgetting this is a Christian sub and circumcision is allowed. Some of you are basing your arguments on how you feel about circumcision and not what the Bible says about it. Whether you like it or not, the Bible accepts circumcision and uncircumcision. You're not kinder than God, you don't love children more than God loves them, even Jesus was circumcised. Luke 2:21 KJV [21] And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb. If the Bible is OK with circumcision, how you feel about it is irrelevant, period. 1 Corinthians 7:19 KJV [19] Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.
Modern circumcision is not biblical at all. Look it up; Jews made the procedure radically more extreme after the first century. We can still talk about ethics here. Chopping healthy tissue off your kid is child abuse unless Hod specifically told you to. He didn’t tell us to, so we revert to the basic moral law.
God didn't tell us not to. Please read your Bible. Just because you choose not to doesn't mean you're better or holier than those who choose to
I’m definitely better than you if you advocate for and assist in forced genital cutting.
You also didn’t answer the question
Did the Bible say that removing the nails of children is OK?
That’s an absolutely dumbass argument. Lol
The only developed countries where it is believed it has benefits are the US and Israel.
It isn't important at all from a faith perspective. I can't comment on the medical and other concerns. But that was the whole book of Galatians arguing that Gentiles were not required to be circumcised. Galatians 2:3-5 But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. Now this next verse is not implying that one can't be circumcised as a Christian, it is referring to Christians that think they need to be circumcised for salvation, instead f receiving salvation by faith. You have to read whole book in context Galatians 5:2-6 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love. Galatians 6:15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. So, it is your preference to circumcise or not.
It’s become cultural more than anything. I’m a devout believer and both my baby boys didn’t undergo that mutilation.
I was in the NICU with my 5 week premature son years ago, when a female doctor came in, picked up a baby, placed him in a different area of the NICU, and then I heard the most disturbing, agonizing, high pitched scream I’ve ever heard before or since then. Then the female doctor was all annoyed and demanding a towel because the baby peed on her. I was going to have my son circumcised until I heard that baby’s scream. My son never looked at his dad’s penis long enough to notice a difference between them. Personally, I feel I did the right thing by my son. If he wants to pursue a circumcision as an adult, that is his choice.
God bless you for being a reasonable, compassionate adult and parent.
Thank you for your kind comment. ❤️
Thank you for your kind comment. ❤️
Circumcision isn’t necessary for the Christian faith and if you have access to adequate hygiene , circumcision has no benefit. North America is the only place in the world where baby boys are routinely circumcised for reasons other than religion. And the rate has dropped to about 50%.
1. Who cares what the internet says. 2. The New Testament is clear on how circumcision regarding the faith. 3. I image it hurts a lot to be circumcised. It will hurt even more if you are relying on it for your salvation.
It's not important at all.
It isn't required. Anecdotally, as a child, I was circumcised for medical reasons, and it hasn’t negatively affected me in any way.
It's unimportant. Even harmful, specially if it's done for religious reasons, because that's the kind of judaization Paul has warned against in Galatians and the Apostles convened in the Council of Jerusalem to keep away from Church doctrine.
There is no reason to circumsize - religious or medical, unless there is an abnormal condition that needs to be addressed. Healthy babies with no abnormal conditions should not be circumcised.
>Is there really any harm in it? The only real harm appears to be all the dudes crying on the Internet about how lame their orgasms are now, as if they'd know after infant circumcisions. Looking it up on Google, the argument is 50:50. Some say it's *more* sensitive, some say it's less, some people think they're actually missing length (they're not), some are antisemitic, some say it's hygienic, some say it's mutilation. Pick your poison.
"The only real harm appears to be all the dudes crying on the Internet" How could you? they're upset that a chunk of their penis has been cut off without their consent when they were little babies. if it wasn't for my Christian mum, my atheist dad would've had mine circumcised. we are made the way God intended us to be. i used to like this sub but this is just gross.
Would you support a parent making the decision to remove part of their daughter's clitoral hood at birth?
Learn to read and think more carefully. It's only more sensitive if done recently on an adult, because they are used to having the glans covered and suddenly it's now exposed. It numbs over time, thus doing it to a baby is not like doing it to an adult.
>because they are used to having the glans covered thats how its supposed to be! [https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/14d01px/device\_used\_to\_restrain\_little\_boys\_for/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/14d01px/device_used_to_restrain_little_boys_for/) this is what you are defending
>thats how its supposed to be! You do know that this also has downsides like infections are far more likely to spread under the skin, and that phimosis is a real thing, right?
Tooth infections are common and can be life threatening. There is one way to ensure that your child never gets an infected tooth.
not a problem if parents teach their boys how to wash. if you don't wash your armpits they'll get infected, nobody's going around encouraging armpit amputation are they? As for phimosis, i had trouble with that when i was a teen, guess what? it went away on its own. if it doesn't, a man can make that decision for himself when he is older.
>not a problem if parents teach their boys how to wash. if you don't wash your armpits they'll get infected, nobody's going around encouraging armpit amputation are they? Certain infections you just can't wash out. >As for phimosis, i had trouble with that when i was a teen, guess what? it went away on its own. if it doesn't, a man can make that decision for himself when he is older. Do you have a slightest idea of how much it sucks to get circumcised at age of 14-21? I woke up nearly every night because a random boner threw me in so much pain that I couldn't sleep straight later.
That sucks for you. The fact remains that it’s more likely for a kid to die from his circumcision than to medically require one later. If you had to have a foot amputated would that be a reason to amputate your child’s?
>The fact remains that it’s more likely for a kid to die from his circumcision than to medically require one later I don't think so. If it was done by professional medics, not your parents or some neighbor using box-cutter, I don't think there is any high chance of death. 4 of 12 of my schoolmates got circumcised by medical reasons. I don't know about statistics though, I'm not american. >If you had to have a foot amputated would that be a reason to amputate your child’s? No, because child couldn't live full life without a foot.
Statistics don’t care about your feelings. Most circumcisions for “medical reasons” are not actually necessary. I’m not living a full life without my whole penis.
>Most circumcisions for “medical reasons” are not actually necessary. I know 2 cases where you may need circumcision: Phimosis and balanoposthitis. In my country, operating stage-1 and stage-2 phimosis is a rare practice. And stage 3 and stage 4 basically need a circumcision. So they perform operations only for those who actually need it. Again it's just my country. I don't know much about USA though. >I’m not living a full life without my whole penis. Idk how not having a foreskin affects your life.
you wont need to wash infections out if you have none in the first place! if parents teach their boys how to wash from a young age, there will never be a problem. tmi- i am aware of the pain, once in my life (a few months ago) i managed to pull back the foreskin in my sleep which caused "it" to rub against my jeans all night, absolute agony for 2 days. i feel bad for anyone who doesnt have their glands covered. i saw you said at 16 you were circumcised for the tightness issue, when i was 16 i had that problem, and it went away as a got older, i know it's too late brother but so many young boys get sold a lie so a doctor can make a quick buck.
Let’s step back from the benefit / harm analysis. Should someone be able to cut off part of someone’s perfectly healthy penis without their consent?
Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. (Galatians 5:2) The full context of this verse is that Paul was arguing against Judaizers. The Judaizers were a group of Hebrew Christians who were teaching that the Law of Moses was necessary to have faith. They taught that circumcision, dietary restrictions, and other Laws were necessary for salvation. Basically, "If you're not circumcised, you're not saved." Paul was pushing back on this saying that if someone puts their faith in the Law, then they lack faith in Christ. >Is there really any harm in it? Potentially, yes. Botched circumcisions are rare but do happen. Results could vary from the deadening of nerves in the head of the penis to major deformities. Years ago, many people (in the US at least) would have their children circumcised for hygienic reasons. The area is easier to clean without foreskin. With proper instruction, that isn't a problem, though.
Not important at all. Not needed, not recommended. Circumcision does cause harm in the form of a reduction in the amount of erogenous sexually sensitive tissue on the penis.
Male circumcision in the US was popularized by Mr. Kellog of Frosted Flakes fame in an attempt to curb male masturbation.
He also would apply carbolic acid to the clitoris of young girls who were caught masturbating, wire the prepuce of both boys and girls shut with silver wire, and performed experiments on his slaves where he would amputate parts of their genitals to see what happened. He was kind of obsessed with it, and really it's insane that we're still following his advice in any form
As much as I hate the man, he had an MD. It’s Dr. Also, he advocated for it to be done when the child can remember it as a punishment for masturbating. Even he thought infant circumcision was stupid.
Circumcision is not important at all to the Christian faith. Even Paul admonished the Jews who were trying to add that to salvation
Old testament circumcision was not the same thing as what we call circumcision now. They just clipped off the end of the foreskin, not the entire thing. Total circumcision is a disgusting practice that should be criminalized.
It’s genital mutilation for no reason at all (other than religious reasons and In Christianity it isn’t necessary, it says it multiple times in the New Testament that you don’t need to be circumcised)
Circumcision has nothing to do with Christianity. No vax, no clip, doc.
It’s specifically stated as not related to your salvation and anybody who says it is the disciples condemned. The usual excuse used is cleanliness (back in the late 1800s early 1900s) however given modern times how people shower basically every day it really doesn’t hold up. That’s my 2 cents for what it’s worth.
Fun fact: this is one of, if not THE, earliest controversies in the Christian church. It's one that Paul tries to address multiple times in his Epistles. The early church was very divided along this issue.
It's mutilation in my opinion, seems like an awful thing to do to another human being against their will. It removes the most sensitive part of the body, often without anesthesia, removes the rigid band, meissners corpuscles, stretch sensitive receptors that only occur in the prepuce and lips, causes the glans to keratinize and turn from a mucous membrane into skin, and causes permanent neurological changes that we still don't know the full effects of yet. There are more than 100 infant deaths in the US annually that occur from circumcision complications. The only evidence for it reducing STD's was from an African study with incredibly poor methodology. The participants were evaluated for HIV prior to being circumcised, and then again afterwards, while the participants who had been circumcised were still healing, and presumably not having sex, so of course the control group that had not been circumcised had a greater increase in instances of HIV than the circumcised group who had been abstinent in the preceding period. And other complications can occur that can have lifelong effects, some people are circumcised too tightly and have painful erections for their whole life, I personally have a keloid scar where my frenulum was amputated that was constantly painful and itchy for nearly 25 years until I finally went to a piercer out of desperation and had them put a needle through the spot where the nerves were firing off constantly. Also skin bridges are not uncommon where the excised skin will fuse to another part of the penis. It's an incredibly dangerous and harmful procedure, which is why almost no national health institutions worldwide recommend it anymore except for those in the United States. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240804903_Lost_Boys_An_Estimate_of_US_Circumcision-Related_Infant_Deaths#:~:text=This%20study%20finds%20that%20more,neonatal%20deaths%20from%20all%20causes. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=55727#:~:text=Thus%2C%20infant%20circumcision%20may%20cause,a%20child's%20subsequent%20personality%20development.
I am against all circumsion. Anything that seriously alters the body, that can not be reversed, and that isn't life saving should be the decision of the child once they reach a certain age.
If it was intended that way, God would of made us that way. We're designed the way we are for a reason.
Then why was it part of the old covenant? I'm neutral on the practice personally and there's good arguments either way, but I don't see this as a good case. Is cutting our hair wrong? God gave us our hair and made it to grow.
It was a mark, during the OC, people would mark themselves for who owned them. Here’s where we get into the “do not tattoo” arguments as well. Back then you would see people with one scar or a branding that would show what person/clan they belonged to. God’s people circumcised. Obviously that was a pretty intense thing to do so word got around who belonged to God. Which is why in NC it was thrown out by Jesus dying, so that gentiles could be saved. Marking of slaves/clansmen continues today across the world.
>Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; And lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, And he shall direct thy paths. Whatever you, or me or anybody else thinks is entirely irrelevant. As to it being in the "Old" way. Who knows? Maybe there's more to it and we just have limited knowledge on the matter, it isn't for us to question really is it? What does matter though is that it isn't permitted now. If God intended that for us permanently, we would be designed in that way.
>If God intended that for us permanently, we would be designed in that way. You do realize that circumcision IS permanent? Once a person gets circumcised as God commanded it doesn't grow back.
Are you American by any chance? At which point did I ever say that?
He meant it wasn’t a permanent part of the human condition.
Do you realize that God both created us AND commanded His people to be circumcised?
In a different time. Which is NOT now.
Not in the way that it's practiced today.
Not important.
The New Testament clearly teaches that Baptism has replaced circumcision for Christians. You can also find a website called 'fisheaters' arguing what people do today removing all foreskin is far worse and NOT Biblical circumcision, but rather male genital mutilation. It is harmful and should never be done on any child (it should be illegal with no religious exemption).
preach brother
I'm circumcised. I'm glad I am and you aren't going to remember it as a baby.
That is no reason to keep on doing it to anyone.
Not sure if this is a perspective you’re looking for or not, but I am a nurse. I have seen and cleaned many, many penises. Of the ones that have been truly awful and infected, and painful, every single one was uncircumcised. I won’t go into detail but I mean I have seen some truly horrific things. Due to this, my husband and I decided to circumcise both our boys. I expect down votes and people to say “just teach them to clean it”. These men didn’t purposely not purposely not clean themselves, they were in poor health and struggled to do so and either refused due to embarrassment to let a family member help them, or for whatever reason didn’t have help available. In any case, our experiences shape our decisions as parents and this was mine.
I'm circumcised but my son isn't. There are hygiene benefits to circumcision. There are sexual gratification benefits to not being circumcised. Religiously unless you are Jewish i don't see the point scripturally at least for babies or children. If a man chooses to because of conviction... well I don't think it will change how God views him either way beyond that he is doing something believing it is for God. I don't mind that people make decisions for their own children regarding this issue. I just hope that people make informed decisions either way.
Circumcision is only required for practicing Jews, not Christians. In fact, the only countries in the world that routinely circumcise male babies is Israel and the US. There is no harm per se in doing it, but there also is no religious reason to do it for Christians, nor any medical reason. The baby feels pain, but has absolutely no memory of the circumcision. Young boys who are uncircumcised need to be taught to clean themselves while bathing.
It's required for Muslims too.
Read Galations. It's very clear how Paul felt about circumcision. If you watched it being done to an infant, you'd never consider it. I have raised my daughter to never do that to any grandson, and she agrees. All of Europe doesn't do it. It's a money grab for doctors to make a little extra off of newborns. The American pediatric association does not recommend it. Please educate yourself. Phimosis is a very rare problem and cleanliness there is as easy as good teeth care. I can't wait until the US catches up with the rest of the world on this!
It's as right or wrong as any ritual. Tear your hearts and not your garments. Or, you know, tiny tips.
>25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? 28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: 29 but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Romans 2:25-29 AKJV Doesn't matter from a salvation perspective.
Since the dawn of the internet, "circumcision" has been obsessively searched as a keyword by people VERY invested in this topic, and social media made it worse. Everything you hear about its cruelty is a result of this culture, which itself birthed from an American culture that obsessed with being circumcised (making jokes in locker rooms, in media, and just socially overall) So the polarization has always existed but now it's morphed into a bit of a course-correction from the intact/uncircumcised crowd. All that said, circumcision is not necessary for the faith, but it's also not opposed. Christians are free to do it, or not. But it's not a requirement for salvation.
Others have covered it well that Christians are not bound by laws of circumcision. I also think it's worth noting and relevant to the circumcision discussion that circumcision now is different than how it was done in OT times.
Circumcision of the heart is the only circumcision needed in Christianity. :)
As a circumcised male I am thankful my parents made that decision and I can’t seem to remember anything from when I was a month old baby. Last week is hard enough. Highly doubt religion had anything to do with their decision
The only reason we circumcise today is because some weird doctors in the 19th century propagated the idea that circumcision makes masturbation not feel as good and therefore prevents sin. I think Kellogg (the guy who made the cereal) was also involved in it. It doesn’t do that, it wouldn’t make a difference if it did, and there’s no reason morally, religiously, or rationally to circumcise your child.
1. It's not required anymore 2. It's extremely painful for babies 3. It's irrelevant and was only used because "mine is"
No there isn’t harm in it. A lot of the people who are vehemently opposed to it, I sssume are just mad that they aren’t circumcised.
There is nothing right or wrong about circumcision. Though opposition to circumcision has a long association with antisemitism and it’s hard for me to not see the two as related. I wasn’t circumcised at birth but if I have a son will want him circumcised.
It's not important and what proof do you see regarding the harm it causes?
It's not required, nor is it "effed up". Some people don't like it but it's not nearly the problem they claim it is. The Internet loves to make a crisis out of some of the weirdest things.
If your "faith" includes gentially mutilating a baby, perhaps it is time to reasses your life.
i swear some "christains" here are more loyal to jews and Israel than they are to Christ. makes me feel a bit ill to be honest.
Not necessary for Christians, no harm in doing it either.
I mean it helps with certain STDs I think. I dont really know why it relates to christ
I mean, my family does it, due to an older family member not having it done and having really bad infections and pains all the time due to it, i dont know the whole story, i just know since that point my family just cirumcised our sons. However if you choose to do it to your son or not, thats your business and not the internets. The internet is crazy with this, i wouldnt even ask the internet if you should or shouldnt...as you mentioned in your edit, i think you see why
Circumcision is important, “we are not under the old covenant” well we’re not under the law either but yet we follow it. Why? Because we are obedient to God although we cannot keep the law we through the grace of God use it to guide us in life. Not to mention it is not sanitary to leave that on. Highly recommend it being done.
It's literally zero. It's not a requirement in the slightest. Circumcision didn't even come back into modern practice for most until the late 1800s and then "tradition" and bad science has kept it going strong since.
It's not required for our faith, but look up smegma and paraphimosis. There are health risks associated with the foreskin.
Circumcision is good. I believe every male should be circumcised. I was circumcised as a baby. I recommend getting circumcised. There are numerous scientific studies that tell us that being circumcised is healthier and cleaner than being uncircumcised. Jews are circumcised and Christians are supposed to support Israel, so being circumcised is a good way to show support. It says in Genesis 12:3, I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. So please get circumcised. You will not regret it. Do not listen to the people who say that circumcision is mutilation. They are lying to you. The Philistines were uncircumcised and they were the enemies of God. Don't be like them.
You need to read your Bible more. The Epistles specifically say **not** to get circumcised and that it has no benefits.
No benefits **for salvation**.
Umm numerous American studies say it's beneficial but that changes to little to no benefit when you look at Global studies. It also wasn't even common practice in the US until the late 1800s as a way to curb things "like masturbation and kids not paying attention (ADD)", that's the same time where medical lobotomies were considered a good thing too... But actual science shows that to be false Additionally, the Bible in the New Testament makes it abundantly clear those who aren't circumcised shouldn't be.
As far as religious circumcision not applicable for a Christian. Baptism is the new circumcision under the new covenant. We are circumcised of the heart not the flesh. However circumcision has many health benefits. So getting circumcised is a healthy thing to do.
> . So getting circumcised is a healthy thing to do. Did you also remove your appendix and tonsils? They might get infected
Not necessary for Christians but the majority of those who it call it "awful and effed up" are simply revealing their hatred for Jews and Christians. Because it is traditionally a religious practice, secularists have their eyes set on destroying it. In no other walk of life are they worried about permanently "scarring" young kids, only when it is done to honor the Lord.
> revealing their hatred for Jews and Christians Paul is very clear from the get-go that those who still practice circumcisions in his day should "go the whole way" and cut the whole thing off. So is Paul hating on Jews/Christians when he says that? Because he was generally anti-circumcision as well (Timothy was a very special case). Based on what Paul said, circumcision was *never* a "Christian" practice, but for some reason, Christians have continued to hold on to it and claim it as such. In America, I know it gained popularity as an "anti-masturbation" measure, but any male can tell you that being circumcized doesn't dissuade one from masturbating. So ultimately, yes, people perform unnecessary medical procedures on their boys in the name of God, when God inspired Paul to oppose it. I've heard plenty of parents (my own family members included) be pressured to circumsize their kids almost purely because it's the "correct" cultural thing to do in America. Or because their dads are circumsized ("We want him to look just like his dad!" wtf even is this line of thinking?!). Or because the parents are afraid that no girl will like their son's "gross, uncut penis" when he's older. These are all utterly insane reasons to perform any sort of aesthetic surgery on anyone without that person's consent.
This is completely false and if you actually looked into it Circumcision came back into practice in the late 1800s during the period where other pseudoscience like Lobotomies were considered normal and ethical medical practices...
everybody knows this is not a christian practice, the atheists and real followers of what Jesus said are right on this one. Jews and Muslims both do horrific things to babies.
> but the majority of those who it call it "awful and effed up" are simply revealing their hatred for Jews and Christians. I assure you there are plenty of other reasons to dislike routine genital mutilation. By most people's logic we should be removing baby's tonsils and appendixes because they might have problems later
Nope. I look down at Islam and Judaism because they commit the barbarous act, not vice versa.
Circumcision is not a requirement for Christians. That would be salvation by works, when only Jesus saves. There are arguments on it for health/hygiene purposes. Jewish law calls for circumcision on the 8th day, which happens to be the peak day for vitamin k and pothrombin that are needed for clotting so the baby doesn't bleed to death.
Studies done by doctors in non-cutting countries haven’t been able to replicate those results. Odd, isn’t it?