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

"you should have your child circumcised. Why? 1) It is helpful in hygene"

For a person with normal hygene, circumcised or not is not an issue. Why be circumcised, when you can just take a shower instead??


"2) Yes, it is "aesthetically pleasing".

Honestly, what kind of argument is this?
It's like saying that blue is a prettier color than green.


"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."

Well, I would not call it civilized to inflict gender mutilation upon innocent children, according to my standards that's barbaric!

Why not leave the decision to child when it has grown up, if he wan't to be circumcised for hygenic reasons rather than practise normal hygene, or if he himself considers circumcision to be "aesthetical pleasening", let him do it.

If he want to have his nipples surgically removed, let him do it. But don't inflict it upon helpless children!

[ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxSWE ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by OrthodoxSWE:

<<Well, I would not call it civilized to inflict gender mutilation upon innocent children, according to my standards that's barbaric!>>

Speaking as a Muslim, I regret that you believe the Virgin Mary is an uncivilized person who inflicted gender mutilation upon her precious son, Jesus.

I would never blaspheme the Virgin by implying that she is a "barbarian."

Salaam,

Abdur

[ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: Abdur Islamovic ]

Abdur,

"Speaking as a Muslim, I regret that you believe the Virgin Mary is an uncivilized person who inflicted gender mutilation upon her precious son, Jesus.

I would never blaspheme the Virgin by implying that she is a "barbarian."

In the culture Jesus grew up in, death penalty was inflicted for a wide number of sins.
Does this mean that it is blasphemy to oppose capital punishment???

Yes, under certain circumstances.

Peace and Justice!

Abdur

"Yes, under certain circumstances."

Then we disagree, I'm opposed to death penalty under ANY circumstances!

Well, we will disagree on the death penalty, then.

But, Circumcision is a Covenant sign with Divine Sanction.

It certainly is much more than a mere cultural rite.

I suppose one could say the same about the Covenant of Christ: " Why, it is just a cultural rite--His sacrifice--and is limited in time and space and, since it is merely a cultural rite, is not of universal significance." Correct? I ask rhetorically and sarcastically.

When one begins to whittle away at scripture--Jewish, Christian, or Muslim--one begins a journey leading to a dead end and tragedy, since nothing can be spared the hand of the redactor, if scriptural content and its origins is watered down to mere "culture."

The pick and choose method of scriptural analysis is the Protestant way which the Orthodox--like my cousins--recognize is pregnant with danger. I am guilty of the same error relative to Islam and the Quran.

And what about the "Feast of the Circumcision?" Is that the commemoration of a barbaric, cultural rite?

Nothing personal: I am just trying to tickle your brain cells, as well as force myself to re-evaluate my own views of scripture and the analysis of scripture.

Salaam,

Abdur

PS-I try to adhere to Bonhoeffer's understanding of the death penalty and the tradition of my faith:

"Mercy before punishment; doubt before conviction." Muslim judicial aphorism

[ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: Abdur Islamovic ]

Abdur, but for Christians the old law was fulfilled in the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ. We are no longer obliged to the that law. We have been been given a new law...a law of love. And I believe we were told to "circumsise your hearts and not your flesh" or something to that effect. If parents choose to circumsise their children that is fine..not necessary but their choice. Personally, as one who is circumsised, I would not do it were I to have a son. My parents did what they considered best and I have to accept that..not matter that I would rather have not have had it done. But the bottom line is as Christians we have no obligation to perform this operation.

Don

You got me on the color thing. I suppose beauty IS in the eye of the beholder. But for the record I like blue.

***

I would be curious to know though? Does anyone know how well the uncircumcised fair in the "field" enviroment - militarialy training or in combat - with "noraml" hygene? I mean since many times the person is washing himself via a canteen.

Just curious, but for you medical experts out there, doesn't bacterial infection often draw back up in a person? Would then, the uncircumcised be at a higher risk of infection if not washed well do to their design? Where as we cut-and-prouds are less likely due to our corvette like design?

Yes, I agree that circumcision is not a Christian rite or sacrament.

My argument is directed to those who would refer to the covenant rite of circumcision as a barbaric rite.

It is obvious to anyone with even only a minimal knowledge of the Bible that God Almighty is the author of circumcision. Is the Author of Circumcision--The Master of the Universe--a barbarian? Is the Almighty and All-Knowing One "uncivilized?"

I do not object to Christians who reject circumcision. But I do object to those who would lift circumcision from its biblical content and context; deny its place in salvation history; and mischaracterize it as merely a barbaric rite practiced by the uncivilized.

After all, not only was Jesus "of the circumcision," but so were the Apostles, including Paul.

Again: The Author of that rite is the Almighty One.

Ethiopian Christians, Jews, and Muslims all practice circumcision and all have produced great and sophisticated civilizations.

Besides: If I ever convert to Judaism--my second favorite religion--I will save myself a great deal of personal pain since my parents had the good common sense to follow our Islamic tradition of circumcision, of which I have no personal pain-filled memory or flash-backs, whatsoever!

Salaam,

Abdur

[ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: Abdur Islamovic ]

Excuse me for interrupting this male bonding but I'm surprised that men are really this obsessed with their genitalia. As far as being "aesthetically pleasing", come on, get over yourself. Aesthetically pleasing to whom? Yourself? Problem there. To other men? Problem there? To women? Well, shouldn't it just matter to one woman?
I'm sorry to burst your bubble but it's not "aesthetically pleasing" either way.

[ 04-28-2002: Message edited by: Xenia ]

Dear Friends,

Circumcision is practiced in the Ethiopian Church as a religious rite along with Baptism.

Both Testaments are honoured together, as are both Saturday and Sunday, the Ark of the Covenant and the Chalice etc.

This is a rite that recalls Abraham and his role in God's plan etc.

The Apostles certainly taught that the Mosaic Law has been supplanted, of course, by the Salvation of Christ and His New Law.

But that didn't cancel out the Judaic Rites and traditions - by no means. St Paul taught that circumcision was not to be imposed on the Gentiles - not that Jewish Christians were not to practise it. Those who chose to practise this rite as Christians just had a different perspective on its meaning in Christ.

Let's also remember that the Apostles were also very scrupulous about observing their Judaic Rite in Jerusalem, participated in Temple Worship and that St James of Jerusalem was taken for an observant Jew until his martyrdom.

Alex

I believe Xenia has spoken!

***

No really, I suppose men do to some small degree have a relation to their genitals that can be percieved to some extent as "obsessed".

In all ways we understand our identity first and foremost by our male genitals, and it is our intimate friend in pleasure and in inpregnating women. And we share this bond with all other male creatures of the earth. Because of this all men will flinch at the idea of cutting off the testicals of another animal. [Kind of like a betrayal of fraternal brotherhood bond]. We believing all males (of any animal) having the right to the ability to inpregnate the opposite sex.

Any ways our relation to our genitals are no more greater an obsession or bond then that relationship to which women have with nature - the want to frolic through the forest barefoot. And seek mystical enchantments.

Any which way, if I was a woman and wife, I would prefer the corvette to an old beater any day.

Thank you, Maximus, for that look into the psyche of men. It was enlightening. I'm thankful every day that I have a husband who is more interested in being a loving husband and father than in what kind of "car" he has. And - as long as it's parked in my garage - I don't have any complaints.
Joy and peace,
Xenia

Marshall
Please do not do that barbaric thing to your son.
As others have noted
1. There is no religious reason and 2. Cleanliness will take care of the other one.

Stephanos I

Dear Joseph and Moshe,
I would suggest that you take the statement of the Council of Florence in its true context.

It still stands for a Christian.
Let me remind you that it has its origin in St Paul, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles
"Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved!"

The Church of the Apostles then as did the Church of the Apostles at the time of Florence condemns those who maintain the circuscision is neceressary for salvattion.
It was not prohibiting circumcision for health reasons.
St Paul says, "Listen! I Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you!"

Now what does that have to do with the Infalbility of the Oecumenical Council of Florence?

Stephanos I

[ 04-29-2002: Message edited by: Stephanos I ]