Circumcision is sinful

Christianity QA » Christian Church » Circumcision is sinful

Christian Church

Question:

Your truth, of course. So, were you to invent a word to describe this process, brainwashing would fit the bill. socode

Response:

Your childish assumptions/allegations/accusations indicate you are of inferior intellect. DW Suiter Son of God

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You are seeing and thinking carnally. The mind is not the brain. The mind is nonphysical, the brain is physical. To "circumcise" is to cut away and remove. It pertains to removing nonsense from the mind and establishing truth in its place. Your truth, of course. So, were you to invent a word to describe this process, brainwashing would fit the bill. socode

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – alt.atheism CIRCUMCISION Gen_17:10-14 Circumcision was the primary sign of a covenant relationship between God and Abraham’s chosen descendants. Whether or not it’s sinful is a moot point, given that theological opinion differs on this between religions and sects as much as on anything else. That said, it seems silly to subject anyone to any form of unnecessary surgical procedure, and immoral to inflict irreversible body modification where the patient is in no position to consent to it and the modification is generally speaking required by social constraints and not medical necessity.

That depends on what you base *your* "morality" on – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -[snip] — "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You." – Attrib: Pauline Reage. Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion? See: <http://www.Video2CD.com. 35.00 gets your video on DVD. all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read. ** atheist poster child #1 **

Response:

Snip the long story, read it elsewhere. There are about half a billion men in the world who are circumsized, and about two billion that are not. Most of both groups do not complain. I would support the view with wich this threath opens, if it can be shown that boys who are circumsized are complaining about it and making lawsuits against their parents. I have not yet heard of any such trial. By the way by the age of 40 I decided to have my penis circumsized, because I had never ever seen it before. The foreskin was to narrow. I have no regrets.

Since routine neonatal circumcisoon has no medical benefit and is thus ultimately a cosmetic procedure (despite urban legends and old wives tales), it should be a decision made by the owner of the penis. Call me weird, but I’m a strong supporter of the belief parental rights end where a child’s genitals begin. — ___ _ ___ , , __ _ ______ / / (_) ()(_| | () / (_)/| |/|/ | | ()(_) | | | __ / | | / | |___| |___/ | | / | | | / / | | / | | || _ |/ / _ | /| FALSE CHRISTIANS (failed the Luke 6:30 test): | Pastor Frank M. Clark CaptainKIRKusa1

Response:

You are seeing and thinking carnally. The mind is not the brain.

The brain makes the mind. The mind is nonphysical,

No, the mind is physical. the brain is physical.

And the brain makes the mind which is also physical. To "circumcise" is to cut away and remove. It pertains to removing nonsense from the mind and establishing truth in its place.

I.e. brainwashing people to believe your particular brand of The Truth ™, – Wayne

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I think it’s hedonistic, obsessive and immature to try to replace the foreskin on the penis merely to gain some pleasure. It’s gone. So what. Grow up and live with it. And there should not be laws regulating this procedure. If people want to do it, they should be allowed to do it. It’s their child, and until the child is 18, the child has to do what the parent wants. That said: I don’t agree that circumcision is a good thing. The main reason I don’t like it is because it traumatizes the baby. Adults should be more educated about the mental damage done to the baby around circumcision. This might make them less likely to have it done to their child. Mental trauma to the baby is the only good reason not to do it. To avoid the procedure so the baby will have a better feeling penis is hedonistic, too. What if the parent wanted to burn the skin on the babies fingertips? Would repairing that damage be hedonistic also?

Only if you are a fundamentalist. You see, fundies seem to think that any pleasure is bad. Weird, I know. – Wayne

Response:

I think it’s hedonistic, obsessive and immature to try to replace the foreskin on the penis merely to gain some pleasure. It’s gone. So what. Grow up and live with it.

Fortunately, noone gives a shit what you think. And there should not be laws regulating this procedure. If people want to do it, they should be allowed to do it. It’s their child, and until the child is 18, the child has to do what the parent wants.

Um, no it doesn’t. That said: I don’t agree that circumcision is a good thing. The main reason I don’t like it is because it traumatizes the baby.

And should be banned. Adults should be more educated about the mental damage done to the baby around circumcision.

And should ban it. This might make them less likely to have it done to their child. Mental trauma to the baby is the only good reason not to do it.

And a good reason to ban it. To avoid the procedure so the baby will have a better feeling penis is hedonistic, too.

Bullshit. – Wayne

Response:

Why should respect be given to belief systems which condone physical mutilation? Beliefs which don’t deserve respect should not be respected. – Wayne

Response:

You are seeing and thinking carnally. The mind is not the brain. The mind is nonphysical, the brain is physical. To "circumcise" is to cut away and remove. It pertains to removing nonsense from the mind and establishing truth in its place. Followers of Judaism are carnally minded and are as many others, who have interpreted what Moses said to pertain to the physical body. The law and principles of God do not pertain to the physical body but to the mind and spirit. DW Suiter Son of God

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – True circumcision, as scripture relates, is of the heart, or mind. Only carnally minded religionists believe the matters of God pertain to the physical body. Physical circumcision of the penis foreskin has nothing to do with God. However, it’s a great money maker for a lot of doctors. DW Suiter Son of God JERRY I see. So what you are saying is that "true christians" endure circumcision of the mind, cutting away the foreskin of their brains in order to be closer to god? It explains a lot.

Response:

True circumcision, as scripture relates, is of the heart, or mind. Only carnally minded religionists believe the matters of God pertain to the physical body. Physical circumcision of the penis foreskin has nothing to do with God. However, it’s a great money maker for a lot of doctors. DW Suiter Son of God

JERRY I see. So what you are saying is that "true christians" endure circumcision of the mind, cutting away the foreskin of their brains in order to be closer to god? It explains a lot.

Response:

Yes, an excellent analogy. The evils of circumcision http://mwillett.org/mind/circumcise.htm compared to the evils of Christian mind control. I like it. Martin Willett http://mwillett.org/

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – CIRCUMCISION Gen_17:10-14 Circumcision was the primary sign of a covenant relationship between God and Abraham’s chosen descendants. Act_15:1-10 Act_15:11-20 The early church disputes about circumcision (for an entire chapter) The result was that "Gentiles" were not commanded to do so but: Act_16:1-3 Timothy (in the very next chapter) who was the son of a Jewess and a Greek was circumcised by Paul. Uncircumcised in heart: Lev_26:41, Jer_9:26, Eze_44:7-9, Act_7:51 As the scripture passage above (Gen_17:10-14) describes, circumcision was/is the primary sign or emblem of a blood covenant relationship between God and the blessed descendants of Abraham. Lev_17:11 states that "life is in the blood." and blood was the chosen medium "to make atonement for the soul." It was also necessary for Christ’s life blood to be shed to seal the New Covenant as an atonement for all mankind’s sins. (Luk_22:20) Circumcision was God’s way of separating a certain race unto Himself (note the many references to "the uncircumcised Philistines, heathen etc.") as a clear line of demarcation between the heathen and Israelite cultures. As a man lays a legitimate claim to his wife’s entire body, the Lord is often said to be married to His People. God specifically chose to select the location of the incision to draw blood to seal this special covenant in very private, personal and sensitive area for reasons of His own. Perhaps, it was because He in His infinite wisdom recognized just how much that particular sexual organ would be responsible for stimulating men’s desire for both good (procreation of the species and to further marital bliss) and for evil (unrestrained sexual lust and inordinate perversion). Since circumcision was to be administered on the eighth day of a male Israelite’s life, it was therefore a significant sign of the godly _parents_ religious devotion that they were willing to follow God’s commands and submit their most cherished possession of life under the hands of the high priest’s knife at such a tender age. The pious parents knew it would be a temporary, though acutely painful, experience for the young infant to endure. Jos_4:13 40,000 Israelite soldiers, first, ALL had to be sure they were prepared spiritually by circumcision with flint knives before they entered into battle. Jos_5:1-9 Circumcision unites the body of believers into a single-mindedness of servitude unto the Supreme Commander and prepares them for battle. The matter of circumcision was a hotly contested topic for the early Christian Church (see Acts 15:1-20). The conclusion of the synod of church leaders was that Gentile believers in Christ would not be subject to mandatory circumcision but "that they (Gentile believers) abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood." (Acts 15:20). It is my opinion that the other Ten Commandments were still binding upon the Gentile as well as Israelite Christians though they are not specifically delineated as such in that particular chapter in Acts. As a further aside, it may be inferred by those decrees in Acts 15 that circumcision, though not binding on Gentiles, should still be considered as applicable to Israelite Christians. As immediately after the convening of that church council, Paul commences to have Timothy (a half Jew/ half Greek) proselyte circumcised (Acts 16:1-3) under certain pressure by the Jews in Lystra, a city in Asia Minor. Though not recognized by any major medical association as a necessary or universally recommended surgical practice, circumcision is still advised by many personal physicians as a clinical procedure which may limit infection. An uncircumcised member does require more care and scrupulous cleaning than its circumcised counterpart. There have been numerous cases where infection has developed where thorough cleanliness and sanitary conditions were not regularly maintained. Frankly, as far as I’m concerned if circumcision was performed under the auspices of God Almighty on His only begotten Son Jesus, as a humble follower of Christ’s ministry, I find little harm in emulating His righteous lifestyle as much as humanly possible. Lastly, circumcision is a symbolic spiritual act of the "cutting away" of sinful flesh. There are a number of scriptures which speak of "circumcision of the heart" in both Testaments (Lev_26:41, Jer_9:26, Eze_44:7-9, Act_7:51, Rom_2:29) Hope this clears up some controversy regarding this delicate matter. Graham Thomas Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 –

http://www.uncensored-news.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <<<<<<< The Worlds Uncensored News Source <<<<<<<<

Response:

alt.atheism CIRCUMCISION Gen_17:10-14 Circumcision was the primary sign of a covenant relationship between God and Abraham’s chosen descendants.

Whether or not it’s sinful is a moot point, given that theological opinion differs on this between religions and sects as much as on anything else. That said, it seems silly to subject anyone to any form of unnecessary surgical procedure, and immoral to inflict irreversible body modification where the patient is in no position to consent to it and the modification is generally speaking required by social constraints and not medical necessity. [snip] — "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You." – Attrib: Pauline Reage. Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion? See: <http://www.Video2CD.com. 35.00 gets your video on DVD. all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read. ** atheist poster child #1 **

Response:

CIRCUMCISION Gen_17:10-14 Circumcision was the primary sign of a covenant relationship between God and Abraham’s chosen descendants. Act_15:1-10 Act_15:11-20 The early church disputes about circumcision (for an entire chapter) The result was that "Gentiles" were not commanded to do so but: Act_16:1-3 Timothy (in the very next chapter) who was the son of a Jewess and a Greek was circumcised by Paul. Uncircumcised in heart: Lev_26:41, Jer_9:26, Eze_44:7-9, Act_7:51 As the scripture passage above (Gen_17:10-14) describes, circumcision was/is the primary sign or emblem of a blood covenant relationship between God and the blessed descendants of Abraham. Lev_17:11 states that "life is in the blood." and blood was the chosen medium "to make atonement for the soul." It was also necessary for Christ’s life blood to be shed to seal the New Covenant as an atonement for all mankind’s sins. (Luk_22:20) Circumcision was God’s way of separating a certain race unto Himself (note the many references to "the uncircumcised Philistines, heathen etc.") as a clear line of demarcation between the heathen and Israelite cultures. As a man lays a legitimate claim to his wife’s entire body, the Lord is often said to be married to His People. God specifically chose to select the location of the incision to draw blood to seal this special covenant in very private, personal and sensitive area for reasons of His own. Perhaps, it was because He in His infinite wisdom recognized just how much that particular sexual organ would be responsible for stimulating men’s desire for both good (procreation of the species and to further marital bliss) and for evil (unrestrained sexual lust and inordinate perversion). Since circumcision was to be administered on the eighth day of a male Israelite’s life, it was therefore a significant sign of the godly _parents_ religious devotion that they were willing to follow God’s commands and submit their most cherished possession of life under the hands of the high priest’s knife at such a tender age. The pious parents knew it would be a temporary, though acutely painful, experience for the young infant to endure. Jos_4:13 40,000 Israelite soldiers, first, ALL had to be sure they were prepared spiritually by circumcision with flint knives before they entered into battle. Jos_5:1-9 Circumcision unites the body of believers into a single-mindedness of servitude unto the Supreme Commander and prepares them for battle. The matter of circumcision was a hotly contested topic for the early Christian Church (see Acts 15:1-20). The conclusion of the synod of church leaders was that Gentile believers in Christ would not be subject to mandatory circumcision but "that they (Gentile believers) abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood." (Acts 15:20). It is my opinion that the other Ten Commandments were still binding upon the Gentile as well as Israelite Christians though they are not specifically delineated as such in that particular chapter in Acts. As a further aside, it may be inferred by those decrees in Acts 15 that circumcision, though not binding on Gentiles, should still be considered as applicable to Israelite Christians. As immediately after the convening of that church council, Paul commences to have Timothy (a half Jew/ half Greek) proselyte circumcised (Acts 16:1-3) under certain pressure by the Jews in Lystra, a city in Asia Minor. Though not recognized by any major medical association as a necessary or universally recommended surgical practice, circumcision is still advised by many personal physicians as a clinical procedure which may limit infection. An uncircumcised member does require more care and scrupulous cleaning than its circumcised counterpart. There have been numerous cases where infection has developed where thorough cleanliness and sanitary conditions were not regularly maintained. Frankly, as far as I’m concerned if circumcision was performed under the auspices of God Almighty on His only begotten Son Jesus, as a humble follower of Christ’s ministry, I find little harm in emulating His righteous lifestyle as much as humanly possible. Lastly, circumcision is a symbolic spiritual act of the "cutting away" of sinful flesh. There are a number of scriptures which speak of "circumcision of the heart" in both Testaments (Lev_26:41, Jer_9:26, Eze_44:7-9, Act_7:51, Rom_2:29) Hope this clears up some controversy regarding this delicate matter. Graham Thomas Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com <<<<<<< The Worlds Uncensored News Source <<<<<<<<

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I think it’s hedonistic, obsessive and immature to try to replace the foreskin on the penis merely to gain some pleasure. It’s gone. So what. Grow up and live with it. And there should not be laws regulating this procedure. If people want to do it, they should be allowed to do it. It’s their child, and until the child is 18, the child has to do what the parent wants. That said: I don’t agree that circumcision is a good thing. The main reason I don’t like it is because it traumatizes the baby. Adults should be more educated about the mental damage done to the baby around circumcision. This might make them less likely to have it done to their child. Mental trauma to the baby is the only good reason not to do it. To avoid the procedure so the baby will have a better feeling penis is hedonistic, too.

What if the parent wanted to burn the skin on the babies fingertips? Would repairing that damage be hedonistic also?

Response:

snip The state has a right to protect children from unnecessary surgery but in this case it decides not to. In this lawsuit happy country I think its just a matter of time before children start suing their parents over such elective surgery when they grow up. Lane

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – alt.atheism: Before I start I just want to make it clear that I do not believe in circumcision… However, while it may not be everyone’s belief that children should be circumcised you should respect the beliefs of other people when they believe that it should be allowed. Although by all means disagree and argue your point. I add that last statement so as not to appear hypocritical since I am completely against abortions, and will argue to the bitter end on that matter regardless of why people believe it is acceptable. Making you a hypocrite … —

Ummm, no.

Response:

… I don’t agree that circumcision is a good thing. The main reason I don’t like it is because it traumatizes the baby. Adults should be more educated about the mental damage done to the baby around circumcision. This might make them less likely to have it done to their child. Mental trauma to the baby is the only good reason not to do it.

There are many good reasons not to do it. Among those reasons are the functions of the anatomy of a healthy intact penis. What we consider to be "foreskin" serves a purpose in the newborn and in the adult. http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/second/denniston2.html http://www.circumcision.org/foreskin.htm And this one redefines "family jewels:" http://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.html To avoid the procedure so the baby will have a better feeling penis is hedonistic, too.

That doesn’t make any sense.

Response:

Before I start I just want to make it clear that I do

not believe in circumcision… You should. It happens- whether or not you believe it is right is a different matter. However, while it may not be everyone’s belief that

children should be circumcised you should respect the beliefs of other people when they believe that it should be allowed.

No, you shouldn’t. socode

Response:

I think it’s hedonistic, obsessive and immature to try to replace the foreskin on the penis merely to gain some pleasure. It’s gone. So what. Grow up and live with it. And there should not be laws regulating this procedure. If people want to do it, they should be allowed to do it. It’s their child, and until the child is 18, the child has to do what the parent wants. That said: I don’t agree that circumcision is a good thing. The main reason I don’t like it is because it traumatizes the baby. Adults should be more educated about the mental damage done to the baby around circumcision. This might make them less likely to have it done to their child. Mental trauma to the baby is the only good reason not to do it. To avoid the procedure so the baby will have a better feeling penis is hedonistic, too. Shuggy

Response:

alt.atheism: Before I start I just want to make it clear that I do not believe in circumcision… However, while it may not be everyone’s belief that children should be circumcised you should respect the beliefs of other people when they believe that it should be allowed. Although by all means disagree and argue your point. I add that last statement so as not to appear hypocritical since I am completely against abortions, and will argue to the bitter end on that matter regardless of why people believe it is acceptable.

Making you a hypocrite … — "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension,…; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls." – Albert Einstein rukbat at optonline dot net

Response:

It is not your place to dictate to others your morality, some of us have beliefs which disagree with your own – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I strongly believe that all elective circumcisions should be outlawed in the United States and other countries. The human rights of newborn infants are being violated when they’re forced to undergo a detrimental procedure without their express consent. Recently a psychologist named Jim Bigelow came to my city (Salt Lake, Utah) and spoke on a local radio station (KTKK) about the evils of elective circumcision, and described briefly some techniques available to partially reverse the process. I found what he said to be both enlightening and disturbing. Mr. Bigelow mentioned that once a circumcision is performed, a major sensory loss occurs which [at present] cannot be replaced by later surgery. He also mentioned that harm does in fact come to the penis as a result of being exposed in an unnatural manner. He did cite a recent U.S. study which seemed to show that male circumcision is good practice since it supposedly helps reduce the chances of urinary tract infection during the first year of life. However, he noted that some Swiss researchers have refuted this and other related claims about circumcision, which is a very uncommon procedure in their country (with none of the supposed negative effects occurring at notable levels.) The book he wrote on the subject, The Joy of Uncircumcising…, was reviewed in the January 27, 1993 issue of JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) on pages 529-30. Another related book was also mentioned. The two books are: The Joy of Uncircumcising: Restore Your Birthright and Maximize Sexual Pleasure, by Jim Bigelow, 239 pp, with illustrations, paper $16.95. ISBN 0-9630482-1-X, Aptos, California, Hourglass Book Publishing, 1992. Say No to Circumcision: 40 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Respect His Birthright and Keep Your Son Whole, by Thomas J. Ritter, various pagination with illustrations, paper $10.95, ISBN 0-9630482-0-1, Aptos, California, Hourglass Book Publishing, 1992. (Dr. Ritter is supposedly the first physician to write a book on anticircumcision.) The review mentions that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has as current policy: "Newborn circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks." In my view, the AAP policy is inadequate, and does not speak to the needs and basic rights of young males of America, or of children in general of this world. If you want to help stop circumcision as an elective procedure and help restore the human rights of children in this area, I urge you to gain access to the books mentioned in this posting and contact the organizations mentioned therein. I’ve not read the books yet myself, but was very impressed and depressed by what I heard Mr. Bigelow mention on the radio. Mr. Bigelow also mentioned that he is the director of UNCIRC (Uncircumcising Information Resources Center), a national support group for men wanting to redevelop their foreskin. I do not yet have the address for the national UNCIRC or any local chapters. Information about this group should be obtainable in his book though, and I should personally know more about them in the next few days and will post what I find out. If anyone else has information about UNCIRC, you may consider posting it, as well as emailing a copy to me. The elective circumcision of our youth must stop, and the medical and insurance community must be more willing to assist in reconstructing as much as possible a part of the human anatomy which is essential and good. The medical community in the "West" has rejected for many years the intrinsic value of what nature indicates as the proper course for our existence. Hundreds of millions of years of evolution (or if you prefer: the original work of God) is not something to be discarded, figuratively and literally. Sincerely, John Black —

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I strongly believe that all elective circumcisions should be outlawed in the United States and other countries. The human rights of newborn infants are being violated when they’re forced to undergo a detrimental procedure without their express consent. Recently a psychologist named Jim Bigelow came to my city (Salt Lake, Utah) and spoke on a local radio station (KTKK) about the evils of elective circumcision, and described briefly some techniques available to partially reverse the process. I found what he said to be both enlightening and disturbing. Mr. Bigelow mentioned that once a circumcision is performed, a major sensory loss occurs which [at present] cannot be replaced by later surgery. He also mentioned that harm does in fact come to the penis as a result of being exposed in an unnatural manner. He did cite a recent U.S. study which seemed to show that male circumcision is good practice since it supposedly helps reduce the chances of urinary tract infection during the first year of life. However, he noted that some Swiss researchers have refuted this and other related claims about circumcision, which is a very uncommon procedure in their country (with none of the supposed negative effects occurring at notable levels.) The book he wrote on the subject, The Joy of Uncircumcising…, was reviewed in the January 27, 1993 issue of JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) on pages 529-30. Another related book was also mentioned. The two books are: The Joy of Uncircumcising: Restore Your Birthright and Maximize Sexual Pleasure, by Jim Bigelow, 239 pp, with illustrations, paper $16.95. ISBN 0-9630482-1-X, Aptos, California, Hourglass Book Publishing, 1992. Say No to Circumcision: 40 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Respect His Birthright and Keep Your Son Whole, by Thomas J. Ritter, various pagination with illustrations, paper $10.95, ISBN 0-9630482-0-1, Aptos, California, Hourglass Book Publishing, 1992. (Dr. Ritter is supposedly the first physician to write a book on anticircumcision.) The review mentions that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has as current policy: "Newborn circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks." In my view, the AAP policy is inadequate, and does not speak to the needs and basic rights of young males of America, or of children in general of this world. If you want to help stop circumcision as an elective procedure and help restore the human rights of children in this area, I urge you to gain access to the books mentioned in this posting and contact the organizations mentioned therein. I’ve not read the books yet myself, but was very impressed and depressed by what I heard Mr. Bigelow mention on the radio. Mr. Bigelow also mentioned that he is the director of UNCIRC (Uncircumcising Information Resources Center), a national support group for men wanting to redevelop their foreskin. I do not yet have the address for the national UNCIRC or any local chapters. Information about this group should be obtainable in his book though, and I should personally know more about them in the next few days and will post what I find out. If anyone else has information about UNCIRC, you may consider posting it, as well as emailing a copy to me. The elective circumcision of our youth must stop, and the medical and insurance community must be more willing to assist in reconstructing as much as possible a part of the human anatomy which is essential and good. The medical community in the "West" has rejected for many years the intrinsic value of what nature indicates as the proper course for our existence. Hundreds of millions of years of evolution (or if you prefer: the original work of God) is not something to be discarded, figuratively and literally. Sincerely, John Black —

Before I start I just want to make it clear that I do not believe in circumcision… However, while it may not be everyone’s belief that children should be circumcised you should respect the beliefs of other people when they believe that it should be allowed. Although by all means disagree and argue your point. I add that last statement so as not to appear hypocritical since I am completely against abortions, and will argue to the bitter end on that matter regardless of why people believe it is acceptable.

Response:

I strongly believe that all elective circumcisions should be outlawed in the United States and other countries. The human rights of newborn infants are being violated when they’re forced to undergo a detrimental procedure without their express consent. Recently a psychologist named Jim Bigelow came to my city (Salt Lake, Utah) and spoke on a local radio station (KTKK) about the evils of elective circumcision, and described briefly some techniques available to partially reverse the process. I found what he said to be both enlightening and disturbing. Mr. Bigelow mentioned that once a circumcision is performed, a major sensory loss occurs which [at present] cannot be replaced by later surgery. He also mentioned that harm does in fact come to the penis as a result of being exposed in an unnatural manner. He did cite a recent U.S. study which seemed to show that male circumcision is good practice since it supposedly helps reduce the chances of urinary tract infection during the first year of life. However, he noted that some Swiss researchers have refuted this and other related claims about circumcision, which is a very uncommon procedure in their country (with none of the supposed negative effects occurring at notable levels.) The book he wrote on the subject, The Joy of Uncircumcising…, was reviewed in the January 27, 1993 issue of JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) on pages 529-30. Another related book was also mentioned. The two books are: The Joy of Uncircumcising: Restore Your Birthright and Maximize Sexual Pleasure, by Jim Bigelow, 239 pp, with illustrations, paper $16.95. ISBN 0-9630482-1-X, Aptos, California, Hourglass Book Publishing, 1992. Say No to Circumcision: 40 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Respect His Birthright and Keep Your Son Whole, by Thomas J. Ritter, various pagination with illustrations, paper $10.95, ISBN 0-9630482-0-1, Aptos, California, Hourglass Book Publishing, 1992. (Dr. Ritter is supposedly the first physician to write a book on anticircumcision.) The review mentions that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has as current policy: "Newborn circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks." In my view, the AAP policy is inadequate, and does not speak to the needs and basic rights of young males of America, or of children in general of this world. If you want to help stop circumcision as an elective procedure and help restore the human rights of children in this area, I urge you to gain access to the books mentioned in this posting and contact the organizations mentioned therein. I’ve not read the books yet myself, but was very impressed and depressed by what I heard Mr. Bigelow mention on the radio. Mr. Bigelow also mentioned that he is the director of UNCIRC (Uncircumcising Information Resources Center), a national support group for men wanting to redevelop their foreskin. I do not yet have the address for the national UNCIRC or any local chapters. Information about this group should be obtainable in his book though, and I should personally know more about them in the next few days and will post what I find out. If anyone else has information about UNCIRC, you may consider posting it, as well as emailing a copy to me. The elective circumcision of our youth must stop, and the medical and insurance community must be more willing to assist in reconstructing as much as possible a part of the human anatomy which is essential and good. The medical community in the "West" has rejected for many years the intrinsic value of what nature indicates as the proper course for our existence. Hundreds of millions of years of evolution (or if you prefer: the original work of God) is not something to be discarded, figuratively and literally. Sincerely, John Black —

Response:

Address: http://christianityqa.com/christian-church/circumcision-is-sinful-917576.html

Christianity QA

Questions & Answers about Christianity