Forsaken the Foreskin

[Saint Frankenstein]

That's like a close friend of mine who refuses to fly, saying that if God wanted us to fly he would have given us wings instead of arms.

Sometimes He leaves some responsibility to us, and I do tend to believe that this is a constant theme in scripture.

Are you saying that God made a mistake in our anatomy and it's up to us to correct it? Having a foreskin isn't a health problem or some sort of deformity. All mammals have a prepuce.

 

[metis]

Are you saying that God made a mistake in our anatomy and it's up to us to correct it? Having a foreskin isn't a health problem or some sort of deformity. All mammals have a prepuce.

No, of course not. It's a ritual mandated in Torah that has both pros and cons from a health perspective (I've done the research on this, as you probably have, and it's a mixed-bag). Let me just add to this that following the Law, and let me add to that the Christian teachings as well, is not always that "natural". If one lusts, which is natural, should we just go for it even against another's will? If I get angry with you, should I go and grab a 2 X 4 and hit you across your skull because it feels natural to me because I'm so angry? Aren't both lusting and anger very natural?

But let me throw the question back at you in another form: since your scriptures are viewed by most Christians as a continuation from the "Old Testament", if you trash what's in the "O.T.", what is Christianity then going to be based on? Is there anything in it that you consider valid in any way? How about the Law-- any validity to any of it, including the Decalogue? Or is it all just some sort of joke? Should you and other Christians deal with the "N.T." in exactly the same way? Why not? How can anyone be certain of its validity?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, of course not. It's a ritual mandated in Torah that has both pros and cons from a health perspective (I've done the research on this, as you probably have, and it's a mixed-bag). Let me just add to this that following the Law, and let me add to that the Christian teachings as well, is not always that "natural". If one lusts, which is natural, should we just go for it even against another's will? If I get angry with you, should I go and grab a 2 X 4 and hit you across your skull because it feels natural to me because I'm so angry? Aren't both lusting and anger very natural?

So now you're comparing anatomy to negative behavioral traits? :areyoucra

But let me throw the question back at you in another form: since your scriptures are viewed by most Christians as a continuation from the "Old Testament", if you trash what's in the "O.T.", what is Christianity then going to be based on? Is there anything in it that you consider valid in any way? How about the Law-- any validity to any of it, including the Decalogue? Or is it all just some sort of joke? Should you and other Christians deal with the "N.T." in exactly the same way? Why not? How can anyone be certain of its validity?

I've given my opinion on that here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3808771-post32.html

 

[Smart_Guy]

Guys, you can always discuss things without using provocative tones. I personally think, after reading all the posts, that some of you could have been convinced by some opinions but what prevented that from happening was the tone used which could make anyone stubborn. That includes me.

My humble opinion is that circumcision is a good thing simply because it makes cleaning the private part way much easier, and because it prevents the foreskin from catching stuff (like the secretions from private part) that might create bad smell because of the skin and the private part sticking together in the state of the latter shrinking down because of for example an ejaculation. It is known that having skin sticking to each other is one cause for bad smell. The armpit is a good example.

I'm not saying that keeping the foreskin is a serious problem by itself, but for cleanliness I see that circumcision is really very helpful. We all know the saying that goes, or sound like; cleanliness is next to faithfulness, or something like that.

Out of my personal observation, sometimes I get some kinda pimples on my private part, have pre-cum come out because of something arousing I saw or at some very little cases a very small drop of urine I feel comes out (for various reasons). At those times it comes to my mind how it would feel down there if I was not circumcised.

In summary, my humble opinion is that circumcision is ultimately good for cleanliness.

Just my thought and I hope it does not offend any one.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Guys, you can always discuss things without using provocative tones. I personally think, after reading all the posts, that some of you could have been convinced by some opinions but what prevented that from happening was the tone used which could make anyone stubborn. That includes me.

My humble opinion is that circumcision is a good thing simply because it makes cleaning the private part way much easier, and because it prevents the foreskin from catching stuff (like the secretions from private part) that might create bad smell because of the skin and the private part sticking together in the state of the latter shrinking down because of for example an ejaculation. It is known that having skin sticking to each other is one cause for bad smell. The armpit is a good example.

I'm not saying that keeping the foreskin is a serious problem by itself, but for cleanliness I see that circumcision is really very helpful. We all know the saying that goes, or sound like; cleanliness is next to faithfulness, or something like that.

Out of my personal observation, sometimes I get some kinda pimples on my private part, have pre-cum come out because of something arousing I saw or at some very little cases a very small drop of urine I feel comes out (for various reasons). At those times it comes to my mind how it would feel down there if I was not circumcised.

In summary, my humble opinion is that circumcision is ultimately good for cleanliness.

Just my thought and I hope it does not offend any one.

I always found the cleanliness argument to be a bad one and one that would only apply to people who have completely horrible hygiene practices in the first place.

 

[Smart_Guy]

one that would only apply to people who have completely horrible hygiene practices in the first place.

Good point!

But I personally see that cleaning a circumcised private part is always faster and more effective. I also have the experience that taught me we can't be sure that we can always live with the availability of what's needed to provide good hygiene. And also we don't always have full control of it considering we sleep for long some times or get sick and stay in bed for example.

In other words, I personally prefer minimizing any possibility of unwanted effects specially if it was against the expense of something simple.

You can call it a personal preference (before being an argument), and I mean no disrespect to those disagreeing with circumcision.

 

[metis]

So now you're comparing anatomy to negative behavioral traits? :areyoucra

Since behavioral traits are at least partially genetic, yes. If you believe God put foreskins on us, did He not also have it that we also lust? And between circumcision and the results of lust, which has had the greatest negative implications? If being circumcised was the greatest trauma I ever went through in my life of 69 years, I would have led a most privileged life.

Ever actually seen a bris (circumcision)? Generally speaking, the baby boy will maybe cry for a minute or two, and then that's pretty much it. Hell, as I child, I was far more traumatized getting my vaccination shots, and for some reason I can't remember being circumcised.

I've given my opinion on that here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3808771-post32.html

I read it before, but I noticed you did not attempt to even answer my questions on my previous post dealing with the "O.T." vis-a-vis the "N.T." and the issue of validity. Let me put it in the form of a very simple question: do you believe that God had anything to do with establishing what we Jews are supposed to do or not do?

 

[metis]

So now you're comparing anatomy to negative behavioral traits? :areyoucra

BTW, do you honestly believe demeaning another is really that ethical? In Judaism, we are forbidden by halacha from doing so, and if we do so we must deal with it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Since behavioral traits are at least partially genetic, yes. If you believe God put foreskins on us, did He not also have it that we also lust? And between circumcision and the results of lust, which has had the greatest negative implications? If being circumcised was the greatest trauma I ever went through in my life of 69 years, I would have led a most privileged life.

Ever actually seen a bris (circumcision)? Generally speaking, the baby boy will maybe cry for a minute or two, and then that's pretty much it. Hell, as I child, I was far more traumatized getting my vaccination shots, and for some reason I can't remember being circumcised.

I'm just not seeing the sense or the logic in comparing anatomy to behavior. I also didn't say that circumcision was the greatest trauma a person will go through. Yes, I've seen videos and pictures of male infants being circumcised. I don't see the point or ethics of putting a child through a surgery that is medically unnecessary and irreversible. I think such decisions about the body should be left up to the person.

I read it before, but I noticed you did not attempt to even answer my questions on my previous post dealing with the "O.T." vis-a-vis the "N.T." and the issue of validity. Let me put it in the form of a very simple question: do you believe that God had anything to do with establishing what we Jews are supposed to do or not do?

I did answer it. I said I'm unsure, because there's the purely religious way of looking at it and the socio-cultural way of looking at it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

BTW, do you honestly believe demeaning another is really that ethical? In Judaism, we are forbidden by halacha from doing so, and if we do so we must deal with it.

I use that smiley when someone says something that is weird or doesn't make sense to me. I didn't name the smiley. If I did, I'd probably name it "whatthehell".

 

[metis]

I use that smiley when someone says something that is weird or doesn't make sense to me. I didn't name the smiley. If I did, I'd probably name it "whatthehell".

But it shows up as "Are you crazy?". Does you computer show the words as mine does?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Circumcision is a religious-cultural or in tradition, religious-etnic.

I think why the subject upsets some non- Judaism/Islam-->people who practice it, is partly because it was 'encouraged', it seems, for a long time in the u.s., and I guess a lot of Christian/atheist/ whatever made it part of their culture. I think those who practice it might feel an obligation to 'justify' it with 'modern science' etc etc but in reality it is just a religious/etnnic/cultural act.
Whats puzzling is that it was never forced in America, americans always had the choice, and yet so many americans 'chose' the practice.

It became an accepted practice in America because it was viewed as a way to inhibit male sexual desire. John Harvey Kellogg (yes, of cereal fame) promoted it as a way to prevent masturbation: John Harvey Kellogg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The rate of circumcision in the US also varies widely depending on region and ethnicity: Prevalence of circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The health excuses are all recent developments. The arguments before that were all based on religion or strict anti-sex ideas.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

But it shows up as "Are you crazy?". Does you computer show the words as mine does?

Yes, I know. Like I said, I didn't name the smileys. I use them for the expressions, not because of what they're labeled. I rarely type them out.

 

[metis]

I'm just not seeing the sense or the logic in comparing anatomy to behavior.

"Lust" is not behavior but is a genetic impulse that is intrinsic to us on reaching puberty.

I don't see the point or ethics of putting a child through a surgery that is medically unnecessary and irreversible. I think such decisions about the body should be left up to the person.

Then don't do it. Are you going to tell others not to have their ears pieced or to get tattoos, the latter of which is probably far more potentially problematic than being circumcised? Since circumcision may provide some benefits, and since we have it as a rite that is voluntary with the parents, I do believe we should have the right to make our own decisions with our own children unless someone can show real harm.

I did answer it. I said I'm unsure, because there's the purely religious way of looking at it and the socio-cultural way of looking at it.

No, you didn't because you still haven't identified whether the Law, including even the Decalogue, is from God, or that you subject the "N.T." to exactly the same scrutiny as you do to the "O.T."?

Anyhow, I've made my point of disagreement, and I seems that you're not willing to actually deal with the questions I've repeatedly asked, so I guess it's time for me to move on-- unless you wish to continue.

 

[metis]

The arguments before that were all based on religion or strict anti-sex ideas.

Absolutely false, at least when it comes to us Jews. We are told we must "go forth and multiply", and sex is not considered to be a sin between husband and wife. Matter of fact, it is considered to be a mitzvah (good deed), especially on the Sabbath, and that it is mandatory for us husbands to make it as certain as possible that our wives are sexually satisfied.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

"Lust" is not behavior but is a genetic impulse that is intrinsic to us on reaching puberty.

You're talking about people who are so lustful that they are out of control. Regardless, I still fail to see the point of this. Are going to compare having ears to being hateful next? Lets move on. It's a failed analogy.

Then don't do it. Are you going to tell others not to have their ears pieced or to get tattoos, the latter of which is probably far more potentially problematic than being circumcised? Since circumcision may provide some benefits, and since we have it as a rite that is voluntary with the parents, I do believe we should have the right to make our own decisions with our own children unless someone can show real harm.

Yes, I would object to someone having their child tattooed or pierced. I had my ears pierced as a baby, but at least I could've taken them out and the hole would've closed as if I never had it done, if I wanted. Like I said, I don't see how it is ethical to perform a medically unnecessary and irreversible surgery on a baby that has no say on it. Sure, parents have a say in the lives of their children but they're not property to do with as the parents please. Children have, or should have, rights, too. Why not let them choose if they're going to have a part of their body removed or not?

No, you didn't because you still haven't identified whether the Law, including even the Decalogue, is from God, or that you subject the "N.T." to exactly the same scrutiny as you do to the "O.T."?

I have a different view of the OT than I do of the NT. I mostly view the OT as background for the NT. How I read the Bible is with Jesus in mind first and then go back from there. However, as I said before, even if the Law was from God, as a Christian, I do not believe that that was how God originally intended it and nor was it meant to be forever as laid out in the OT. In Christ, we have a new and eternal Covenant brought to us by Jesus Christ, Who we believe is the full revelation of God.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Absolutely false, at least when it comes to us Jews. We are told we must "go forth and multiply", and sex is not considered to be a sin between husband and wife. Matter of fact, it is considered to be a mitzvah (good deed), especially on the Sabbath, and that it is mandatory for us husbands to make it as certain as possible that our wives are sexually satisfied.

Did you notice I said or? In that people either used religious or anti-sex arguments (sometimes both, I guess) to argue for circumcision. The anti-sex stuff was a development in the late 19th century due to Victorian morals.

 

[Desert Snake]

What I want to know is it purely coincidental to why circumcision was done, or did they know the health and sexual benefits, or what the heck.

I cant see some deity really giving a hoot about it, or was it because Jewish people were advanced to understand why we do it and because the Gentiles did not, it was something the deemed spiritual, after all they all prayed to the same deity?
The scripture really says nothing beyond exclusiveness that man felt, when writing the scripture.

What was actually going on and where the circumcision act even came from is what I want to know.

It is clearly a religious/cultural practice. You can have related groups who don't follow all the same customs. It doesn't serve any 'practical' purpose, if you look at Scripture, it was never intended to.

 

[Desert Snake]

What was actually going on and where the circumcision act even came from is what I want to know.

It seems to be an ancient somewhat regional act that differs as to 'why' certain groups follow it.

You'll see some Egyptians, etc. practicing it, it isn't exclusive to Judaism or Islam. Apparently not all Israelites practiced it either, so I do believe it is being 'hyped' to an extent by proponents.

 

[metis]

There are 30 times in the Tanakh whereas "circumcised" is used, and that doesn't include references to it using different terms: Bible, Revised Standard Version

Also, a reminder that Jesus and Paul, along with the apostles, were assumingly all circumcised, and yet none of them appear to condemn the act. Paul states that it is unnecessary for gentiles to be circumcised in order to join the Way, however. Matter of fact Acts 16 [3]: "Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek."