Question about the religious hindrance of foreskin

So I was talking to my girlfriend the other day, and I said "If we ever have a son, I'm not getting him circumcized." Her - "Excuse me, yes we are." I proceeded to explain to her the properties of the foreskin, the reason for it, the lack of evidence for cleanliness problems, etc. My main argument - I'm not going to mutilate my son without his prior knowledge and consent. If he wants to get that done later in life, I'd be happy to take him and his penis to the surgeon and get him cut.

We have religious differences. The conversation went something like this...

Her - "Well I'm not going to get him circumcized for religious reasons. It says not to in the Bible."
Me - "So you can't get into Heaven without foreskin?"
Her - "NO, God quit being a dick. You always do this. It just says it, OK?"
Me - "What does it say exactly? And do you not think it should be his choice?"
Her - "Look it says it in there. I don't know what or where, but I know it does. Quit trying to piss me off."
Me - "If God didn't want him to have his foreskin, why would he put in on there?"
Her - "I'm going home."

Does anyone in here have any idea to what she could be referencing? I'm about to Google it up, but what are YOUR preconcieved notions about the religious issues of foreskin?

For reference...

God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you; Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with money from any foreigner who is not your offspring. He that is born in your house, and he that is bought with your money both must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
Genesis 17: 9 to 14

Uh oh...

Other related biblical resources... take from

http://latter-rain.com/theology/circum.htm

Lots of good religious discussion on circumcision here.

Circumcision described:
Gen 17:11; Ex 4:25

Enforced by the law:
Lev 12:3; Jn 7:22

CALLED THE
Covenant of circumcision:
Acts 7:8

Circumcision in the flesh:
Eph 2:11

Concision:
Phil 3:2

A painful and bloody rite:
Ex 4:26; Josh 5:8

Promises to Abraham previous to:
Rom 4:9,13

A seal of the covenant:
Gen 17:11; Rom 4:11

Introductory Jewish ordinances:
Gal 5:3

Outward sign of:
Rom 2:28

Inward grace:
Rom 2:29

Necessary to enjoying the privileges of the Jewish State:
Ex 12:48; Ezek 44:7

WAS Penis EnlargementRFORMED:
On males home-born and bought
Gen 17:12,13

On the eighth day:
Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3

Even on the sabbath day:
Jn 7:22,23

With knives of flint:
Ex 4:25; Josh 5:3

By the heads of families:
Gen 17:23; Ex 4:25

By persons in authority:
Josh 5:3

In the presence of the family:
Lk 1:58-61

Accompanied with naming the child:
Gen 21:3,4; Lk 1:59; 2:21

First performed on Abraham and his family:
Gen 17:24-27

Not performed in the wilderness:
Josh 5:5

Performed by Joshua at Gilgal:
Josh 5:2,7

PunisHydromaxent for neglecting:
Gen 17:14; Ex 4:24,26

Without faith, vain:
Rom 3:30; Gal 5:6

Without obedience, vain:
Rom 2:25; 1Cor 7:19

THE JEWS
Denominated by:
Acts 10:45; Gal 2:9

Held it unlawful to intermarry with those not of the:
Gen 34:14; Jud 14:3

Held no intercourse with those not of the:
Acts 10:28; 11:3; Gal 2:12

Despised as unclean those not of the:
1Sam 14:6; 17:26; Mt 15:26,27; Eph 2:11,15

Sometimes performed on slain enemies:
1Sam 18:25-27; 2Sam 3:14

Abolished by the gospel:
Eph 2:11,15; Col 3:11

Performed on Timothy as a matter or expediency because of the Jews:
Acts 16:3

Necessity of, denied by Paul:
Gal 2:3-5

Necessity of, asserted by false teachers:
Acts 15:24; Gal 6:12; Ti 1:10

Trusting to, a denial of Christ:
Gal 3:3,4; 5:3,4

Paul denounced for opposing:
Acts 21:21

Saints the true spiritual:
Phil 3:3; Col 2:11

ILLUSTRATIVE OF
Readiness to hear and obey:
Jer 6:10

Purity of heart:
Dt 10:16; 30:6

Purity of speech:
Ex 6:12

Institution of:
Gen 17:10-14; Lev 12:3; Jn 7:22; Acts 7:8; Rom 4:11

A seal of righteousness:
Rom 2:25-29; 4:11

Performed on all males on the eighth day:
Gen 17:12,13; Lev 12:3; Phil 3:5

Rite of, observed on the Sabbath:
Jn 7:23

A prerequisite of the privileges of the passover:
Ex 12:48

Child named at the time of:
Gen 21:3,4; Lk 1:59; 2:21

Neglect of, punished:
Gen 17:14; Ex 4:24

Neglected:
Josh 5:7

Covenant promises of:
Gen 17:4-14; Acts 7:8; Rom 3:1; 4:11; 9:7-13; Gal 5:3

Necessity of, falsely taught by Judaizing Christians:
Acts 15:1

Paul's argument against the continuance of:
Rom 2:25,28; Gal 6:13

Characterized by Paul as a yoke:
Acts 15:10

Abrogated:
Acts 15:5-29; Rom 3:30; 4:9-11; 1Cor 7:18,19; Gal 2:3,4; 5:2-11; 6:12; Eph 2:11,15; Col 2:11; 3:11

INSTANCES OF:
Abraham
Gen 17:23-27; 21:3,4

Shechemites:
Gen 34:24

Moses:
Ex 4:25

Israelites at Gilgal:
Josh 5:2-9

John the Baptist:
Lk 1:59

Jesus:
Lk 2:21

Paul:
Phil 3:5

Timothy:
Acts 16:3

FIGURATIVE:
Ex 6:12; Dt 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; 6:10; 9:26; Rom 2:28,29; 15:8; Phil 3:3; Col 2:11; 3:11

A designation of the Jews:
Acts 10:45; 11:2; Gal 2:9; Eph 2:11; Col 4:11; Ti 1:10

A designation of Christians:
Phil 3:3

In the Old Testament, circumcision was a sign of a covenant with God. By becoming circumcised, you were, in effect, agreeing to be saved by your works (Jewish Laws), and not by grace. Fortunately, for those of us who were circed against our will, or as a baby, that does not apply to us. When Christ came, we were given the option to be saved by Grace. After Christ's ultimate act of contrition for mankind, we no longer needed to make ritual blood sacrifices, circumcision, etc. etc. etc. to be absolved of our sins. In fact, the Apostle Paul spoke out against circumcision and circumcisers quite vehemently in the New Testament. Christ's sacrifice insured that we could be forgiven for our sins and make it to Heaven without killing little baby lambs or cutting off peices of our penis. Since it was no longer necessary, I guess Paul figured, why should we have to mutilate ourselves?

Good answer Kong. That should put her in her place =)

Unfortunately, the final decision is hers. In the United States, the father has no say in the circ status of the male child. Just another thing that desperately needs to change! If you feel passionately about it-- and you should-- you need to let her know how important it is. Make sure she sees some anti-circumcision websites...and if all else fails, get her to watch a video online of a baby being circumcised. You should be able to find it easily on one of the anti-circ websites. It made my wife cry. It was so horrible that she changed her whole concept of circumcision (as a "painless" procedure)instantly. She couldn't believe she did that to her own sons for no reason. She's very anti-circ, by the way. Just as passionate about it as I am.

That's just the thing. Religious circumcision is not a part of Christianity, even though it is included in the Christian Bible. It was a Jewish law though. Part of their covenant with God. But with the crucifixion of Christ a new covenant was made and the old covenant is no longer applicable. The issue with the early Christians with circumcision was "since Christianity comes from Judaism, should Gentile converts be required to get circumcised?" A lot of people were very reluctant to convert because they didn't want to get their foreskins amputated (with good reason!). Paul's answer was no, that circumcision represents the old way. Christians are "circumcised in the Spirit" as he put it, and we need no outward sign of this.

9cyclops9 said:

That's just the thing. Religious circumcision is not a part of Christianity, even though it is included in the Christian Bible. It was a Jewish law though. Part of their covenant with God. But with the crucifixion of Christ a new covenant was made and the old covenant is no longer applicable. The issue with the early Christians with circumcision was "since Christianity comes from Judaism, should Gentile converts be required to get circumcised?" A lot of people were very reluctant to convert because they didn't want to get their foreskins amputated (with good reason!). Paul's answer was no, that circumcision represents the old way. Christians are "circumcised in the Spirit" as he put it, and we need no outward sign of this.

Click to expand...

Exactly. If you check out that link I put in the second post I believe, it goes into discussion about the history of circumcision. Very interesting.

Good input, by the way.

kong1971 said:

Unfortunately, the final decision is hers. In the United States, the father has no say in the circ status of the male child.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I was talking to an OB-GYN, arguing about circumcision as a matter of fact. She tried to embarass me, for denouncing circumcision, in front of my colleagues... anyhow her final words were "Well maybe being uncircumcised worked out for YOU. And it's going to be your wife's choice, not yours. Deal with it." I'm circumcised.

It's one of those funny conundrums. It's lame that a mother should have 100% of the say, though a reasonable solution is difficult to come up with.

AlloyCG said:

anyhow her final words were "Well maybe being uncircumcised worked out for YOU. And it's going to be your wife's choice, not yours. Deal with it."

Click to expand...

Dude I would have smacked her right then. Pulling that girl power BS. And what happened to the couple coming to some sort of agreement? That "it's your wife choice" is total crap. It's the mother's name on the paper, but this feminazi thinks it's solely the mother's choice? Man...I would have gone off on her like a cannon. It's really sad when "women's rights" has gone so far that they think their husbands don't have a say in certain things about their child, especially things the husband would know more about, like circumcision. I would like to go into my whole soapbox thing about feminism but I won't because I'm in Florida and I'm relaxing because I'm home with my fiance after not seeing her for 3 months. I don't want to get too worked up.

Yeah, and trying to embarass me by ACCUSING me of having foreskin. It's unfortunate. It reminds me of being at camp when I was a kid, a friend of mine told me he was uncut and almost crying about it. Is it so taboo?

Man, talk about the ultimate right of females. Having the power to mutilate our penises at birth...

AlloyCG said:

For reference...

God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you; Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with money from any foreigner who is not your offspring. He that is born in your house, and he that is bought with your money both must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
Genesis 17: 9 to 14

Uh oh...

Click to expand...

Does it say anywhere in there that people shouldn't have slaves?

AlloyCG said:

"Well maybe being uncircumcised worked out for YOU. And it's going to be your wife's choice, not yours. Deal with it."

Click to expand...

Argh! > I cannot believe there are feminazis like this. If I met one that was talking about circumcising men, I'd have to tell her "If you like circumcision so much, why don't you get one!"

While I do not accept the majority of the benefits being claimed as a result of foreskins and FR, I do think it is bullshit that the woman gets all the say in it. It should be something that is discussed between the man and woman in my humble opinion.

It is good to see the blinders coming off the eyes of some of you. I can sympathize with that first look around at the real world. You're going to have a "What the fuck? That ain't right!" feeling. Alot of anger. It gets better. As you get used to the new idea that we, as men, got fucked pretty hard by all this, you should be able to channel that energy into something useful...foreskin restoration, reaching out to other men and spreading the word...Good luck.

PS-- The reason women get all the say in circumcision is because 1) they don't know dick about dicks :D and 2) if the choice was left rightly to the fathers, there is bound to be quite a few who would wonder, "Hmmm...what exactly is circumcision and why should it be done?" That, ladies and gentlemen, would be bad for business.

Business, you say?

Do the math: 1.2 million circumcisions a year X $300 a pop. That's around $360,000,000 That's alot of moolah!~

AlloyCG said:

...
Her - "Well I'm not going to get him circumcized for religious reasons. It says not to in the Bible."
...

Does anyone in here have any idea to what she could be referencing? I'm about to Google it up, but what are YOUR preconcieved notions about the religious issues of foreskin?

Click to expand...

She's referring to the way the Early Church dealt with what is called the "Judaizer Heresy", where some believers like Peter thought converts to Christianity (who were not Jewish first) had to be circumcized and do other Jewish things in order to be saved, which of course is B.S. Read Galatians 2 and Acts 11. Paul was against forcing non-Jews to be circumcized, which spared Timothy's foreskin for one thing.

Hope that helps.

BG

Actually Timothy was circumsized before he went out with Paul. I was reading on that today. Paul's stance was not anti-circumsion/mutilation, but he was pointing to the law and saying this is not necessary anymore. He discusses the law as an identifier of sin, but yet through Christ we are dead to sin as well as to the Law. So he was simply speaking in terms of the law as it was required for the sons and daughters of Abraham to be circumsized by law. I find it very interesting that some Western churches feel it necessary to have in their doctrine that circumsision is a mandate to get into Heaven. Yet, Christ said if you believe in your heart and confess with your mouth that I am Lord you shall be saved. Anything about circumsision??? People are so ignorant about what they believe in and simply go with what they are told. Ohhh I want eight, Anything about not owning slaves....ummm the Jews were enslaved by the egyptians for a few hundred years till Moses came along as their deliverer. Then they continually were in and out of slavery because they wouold turn from God, and begin worshipping the Baals, and then once the subjugation got to be too much they called upon the Lord and were delivered. That's what the book of Judges is all about. Anyway, God is good....have a great weekend fellas...

The whole point of this thread is whether it says in the bible whether or not you HAVE to be circumcised to get to heaven.

THE ANSWER IS NO!!!

I'm sorry, alloy, but your GF needs to be brought down a peg or two. Does she always tell you to shut up and threaten to leave when you don't agree with her? And the OB-GYN ought to have her clitoris removed. Then she wouldn't be so quick to promote male mutilation!

From reading through this thread and others it seems so strange that circumcision is considered such a normal thing to do to a baby boy in the states,all the circumcisions ive heard of hear in the U.K have been done for medical reasons and never on babys.

last week one of my workmates was telling everyone in the rest area how his 8 yr old son was going to be circumcised because of a tight foreskin,there are 20 lads in our rest area and we were all joking saying the same sort of things,poor kid fancy loosing his nob skin,fuck me that must hurt,you can imagine the sort of thing with a room full of blokes.

Same here albert, only for medical reasons or if your a muslim or a jew.
Nobody really cares here if your cut or not, they dont see anything wrong with it.

If my wife wants my son to be cut, I'd say ok, because I dont see anything wrong in that. It's more clean that way and no worries about to thight foreskin later. And I also thinks that the womans word weigh the most in those cases.