www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Christians and Circumcision

"Leaving the decision regarding circumcision until later" equates as Mor Ephrem stated, with it not happening. The Gospel accounts of "God fearers" (Centurion & others) all involved men who had accepted and believed the tenets of Pharisaic Judaism but would not take the last step to conversion according to halacha (Jewish law) because they did not want to be circumcised as adults (wimps?) and instead, though they contributed financially to the synagouge they stood at the rear and denied themselves participation in the liturgy. Scratch the surface of opposition to circumcision and, as stated before, it usually stems from something other than "pain" (which is really non-sensical given what young children go through in normal life - particularly if done at 8 days of age as was our Lord's circumcision) or "medical trends" etc. often being based upon its religious import for many people (a billion Moslems) and Jews and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians i.e. the "religious" connection is what bothers them. Since the Council of Jerusalem in 49 AD or so it is certainly true that there is no religious need for followers of Christ, but at the same time there is no prohibition. Jewish tradition can be found for the notion that circumcision lessens sexual sensitivity which is why gentiles are by and large more troubled by lack of self control sexually in their lives with attendant sin, such as adultery, fornication, etc., than observant Jews. Of course, for Jews it is not subject to debate, you circumcise your son on the eighth day because God told you to do so, period!(Jesus earthly father, St. Joseph obeyed). FatherDeacon Moshe Zorea

Ah, Maximus, but I have my wisdom teeth...

I can truthfully say: "I never felt a thing."

And I have never known of a psychological disorder known as, "Post Infantile Circumcision Stress Disorder," although if there is money to be made some swift thinker of a psychologist will add such a monster to his or her menu of treatable--and lucrative--mental disorders.

And what is that in the Bible about, "uncircumcised dogs....?" :rolleyes:
Salaam,

Abdur

Father Moshe,

"Scratch the surface of opposition to circumcision and, as stated before, it usually stems from something other than "pain"..."

And so? Why endure pain or inflict in on your children if there's no religious obligatin, and no proven medical benefits?

"circumcision lessens sexual sensitivity which is why gentiles are by and large more troubled by lack of self control sexually in their lives with attendant sin, such as adultery, fornication, etc., than observant Jews."

This is pure RACISM!!!
Just like the white racists who claimed that "Negroes can't controle their sexual desires".

Judging from your two posts, in first one referring to Europeans as "pagans", I get a feeling that you consider yourself superior to Christians of gentile ancestry...

It is true that in the Balkans, Christians did eschew circumcision because they desperately avoided any practice that would link them to the "Turk."

However, ancient church documents--canon laws of the various councils--use some very stern language that actually forbids the practice of circumcision by Christians. Certainly, there is much more to the refusal by some Christians to practice circumcision than a perceived anti-semitism.

My cousins, who are Greek Orthodox Christians, are not circumcised; not because they despise any practice that could be associated with Jews or Muslims, but because circumcision has never been the norm for Greek Orthodox males.

Also, the pre-Christian Greeks considered circumcision to be a form of physical defilement, at least according to the aesthetic tradition of the pagan Greeks.

All of these facts must be taken into account--in my opinion--before a black or white blanket statement can be made about the practice of circumcision, or the lack of the practice of that ancient tradition.

Salaam,

Abdur

Abdur,
When one makes and assertion such as this it is customary to provide at least a link to the documents.

I would be interested in reading them, if you know where they are.

David

Dear OrthodoxSWE: I certainly do not agree with or believe your statement "Judging from your two posts, in first one referring to Europeans as "pagans", I get a feeling that you consider yourself superior to Christians of gentile ancestry...". I indicated that "most" Europeans are neither Jewish, Moslem or Christian in their faith practice = pagan, that is not defiling them as people but merely stating something true about what they believe and practice in their life. The information about lessening sexual sensitivity can be verified by asking people in the medical community, the lessening of "adultery, fornication et al" while certainly not directly related to circumcision or no circumcision is a factor in a person's relative fixation on sexual relations of one type or another. Without a doubt, based on their respective scriptures, Judaism (Orthodox to distinguish it from more recent aberattional developments such as Reform, Reconstructionist etc.) and Islam, proscribe more directly fornication and inappropriate sexual practices than the New Testament, this happens to coincide with Judaism and Islam insistence, per revelation, of the need for circumcision. Nascent Christianity brought to Christ (and Thanks be to God for it) many groups lacking religious restrictions on sexual activity (cf. pagan Greek homosexuality glorification). Please do not be offended by the discussion as that is not my intent. FatherDeacon Moshe Zorea

Actually it's in the Decree to the Jacobites from the "infallible and ecumenical" Council of Florence.

"But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

link [dailycatholic.org]

Joseph,
Please explain "infallible and ecumenical", as this council does not show up on my list of the seven ecumenical councils.

David

[ 04-26-2002: Message edited by: DavidB ]

Joseph wrote "Actually it's in the Decree to the Jacobites from the "infallible and ecumenical" Council of Florence." As an Orthodox Christian you know that the Council of Florence was not accepted (save briefly) by Orthodoxy, those hierarch's who did accept it had their tenure cut short! Perhaps this is why the Orthodox Church has always accepted the "Sabbath" and as a result does not fast on the Sabbath except on Holy Saturday. This was/is a point of difference with the Roman Church where fasting on Saturday was condoned generally. Orthodoxy and the Roman Church (as well as Judaism) are in agreement that the Sabbath runs from Friday sundown until Saturday sundown and Sunday, is not, never has been, and never will be, the Sabbath (laws in Bible belt states notwithstanding). It would be interesting to learn whether any Christian was ever ex-communicated or other action taken against them (in last Century or so - they did many nutty things in earlier years) for circumcising their son as our Lord was circumcised? The most salient thought to me when I read that circumcision results in "loss of eternal salvation" is "rubbish" and thank God Orthodoxy did not accept it! FatherDeacon Moshe Zorea

Well I did use "infallible and ecumenical" in quotes. If I was coding it in XML, I would have written <sarcasm value="on">infallible and ecumenical<sarcasm value="off">. The church of Rome declares that that council is "infallible and ecumenical". Most of your Latin brethren will tell you what you ought to believe about it.

Personally, councils like Florence and Constance showed me that Rome wasn't infallible. I'm Orthodox--what can I say?

Mor Ephrem and others:

If:

1. "I don't know one guy who wasn't circumcised at birth who opted for the scalpel later in life...just the thought makes me shudder," and

2. it is not comanded by God,

then why do it now? What's your hurry? Do you suppose that your child will not make a rational decision about his own body later in life? If you don't know of anyone who would have it done later, then why do it now? Because they can't object? Is your infant at risk for STDs? Will it hurt their partners? That seems to me to be questions that needs to be answered by the individual and his spouse, not the parents of the groom at the grooms birth.

I love the "I don't remember it" argument. I've got a nasty scar on my back. I got it when I was a baby and I don't remember the pain. Does that mean that it didn't hurt? I should become an attorney and work for child abusers. "Heck, your honor, he's just an infant. He won't remember the pain." Great logic, guys.

I can't understand why we are actually discussing whether or not it is better to be circumcised or uncircumcised. This was CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY dealt with by the apostles. Not only is it not required, but is discouraged.

Dear Cizinec,

I don't quite know what to make of your post. I'm not advocating circumcision at all, if that's what you thought.

Personally, I agree with those who feel it is not necessary. Does it hurt the kid who undergoes it after birth, even if he doesn't remember it? Of course! Those are reasons enough against it.

As far as the apostles' discouraging of it, there's another great reason not to. But I think they mainly had intent in mind. They didn't want circumcision because it meant you were placing yourself under the Mosaic Law and the Old Covenant, when now, Christ is our circumcision, He is the New Covenant.

But it can and is done for hygenic reasons. I am not circumcised, and neither are any of my male relatives, save my little cousin. He had a nasty infection develop, and he got it cut. His family never intended by circumcising him to place him under the Mosaic covenant...they intended on preventing a nasty infection like that from happening again. I personally think it's all about intent.

I don't think that the very act of circumcision in and of itself makes you subject to the Old Covenant, anymore than I think that an atheist actor in a movie who is "baptised" in a certain scene actually becomes a Christian and subject to all that that entails by the water flowing over him and the proper words. These things aren't magic. Intentions are important too.

So if a Christian wants to get circumcised for hygenic purposes, or to lessen sexual sensitivity, or because it's more aesthetically pleasing to him, or for whatever, I don't think it's a matter of losing much sleep over, unless they intend on entering the Mosaic covenant.

All I meant in my post is that of all the uncircumcised people I know, none has ever told me they *now* want to be circumcised, or that they ever thought about it. None of them would want it done now. Of those who are circumcised, most are alright with it, although some want their stuff back. I personally think that no parent should make that decision on behalf of a son unless it's a religious thing.

Father Moshe,

"The information about lessening sexual sensitivity can be verified by asking people in the medical community..."

Yes, and this is also the reason why female circumcision is the norm in many cultures, to prevent the girls from having sexual relations prior to marriage.

But the Christian way to regain self-control is spiritual struggle to subordinate the body to the soul, not mutilation and disfigurment of the body.

"Without a doubt, based on their respective scriptures, Judaism (Orthodox to distinguish it from more recent aberattional developments such as Reform, Reconstructionist etc.) and Islam, proscribe more directly fornication and inappropriate sexual practices than the New Testament, this happens to coincide with Judaism and Islam insistence, per revelation, of the need for circumcision."

But don't you think this has to do with them being observant, not the fact that they are circumcised, or do you belive a non-observant Jew has more sexual self-control than a "gentile".

Does Europeans in general have greater difficulties in exercising sexual self-control than Americans in general???

"Please do not be offended by the discussion as that is not my intent."

Then you should be more careful in your choice of words...

WARNING: Prepare for the Law According To Justin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Look. Mosaic covenant aside, you should have your child circumcised. Why? 1) It is helpful in hygene 2) Yes, it is "aesthetically pleasing".

A woman doesn't have to have her ears peirced, but she looks better with them, she doesn't have to shave her legs or armpits either - but she would save us all from vomiting. Same thing with a man - cut is better, it looks better, it's the freaken Mona Lisa of the penis.

This maybe insulting to some who are uncircumcised - but take it on the chin: Let's remember that Canines are uncircumcised. -- At least that's my feelings on the matter.

And I don't know what you all are talking about with the "lessing of sexual sensitivity". If there is such it only works for the greater good of the marriage for marital wife pleasure.

I have my own standards for what consitutes a civilized people. frequency of bathing is one. And I think I might have to add circumcised males on to the list.

Finally, who cares if the infant sucks up some pain in this greater good. He's just recieved his bonafides. And besides, it'll prepare him for his future relations with the female sex - which is both curse and blessing