My wife and I just had a son. I'm circumcised but don't want our son to go under the knife. My wife does though and uses the excuses that she wants him to look like dad (bad argument cause we are different races so he looks more like Mom then me) and that we have to follow the biblical example.
But I told her we are under a new covenant and that Christians aren't required to follow old testament laws when it comes to circumcision.
My question to you is what is your opinion regarding this matter? Male and female answers encouraged.
2006-09-26 11:17:06 · 21 answers · asked by James C 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I told my wife when he is 13 or older that he can make that decision himself and I would be 100% behind him no matter what he decided. But I would still give him my perspective and experience on why I don't think it should be done.
2006-09-26 11:58:16 · update #1
i think you should make the decision in this matter, you know better than she does. my son is not, at the request of his father. and if you "have to follow the biblical example" then tell her you also have to keep kosher and celebrate jewish holidays. any how often is he going to be looking "down there"? i think the man knows better than the woman how it would be emotionally. and anyway, its like 50/50 now all births, so he wont be unique. (i wouldnt want a man deciding what i should do with my body, he doesnt know how it feels) if he wants it when he's older, then he can make that choice himself.
2006-09-26 11:22:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Many Christians do have their sons circumcised, but you are correct, this is not a religious requirement under the New Covenant for gentiles. Actually, circumcision has never been a requirement for gentiles, except for those becoming "proselyte Jews." Under the New Covenant, physical circumcision is now understood to be a "shadow" or "type" of the sign of God's true Covenant with human kind.
God tells Abraham at Genesis 17:10-11 that circumcision is "a sign of the covenant between Me and you." This sign is painful when first performed, permanent and carried out on a private part of the body.
In Deut. 10:16, Deut, 30:6 and Jer. 4:4, God tells us it is His true wish for us to "take away the foreskins of your hearts." How can this be done? Jeremiah 31:31 tells us it is God's intention to make a "New Covenant" among His believers, beginning with the Jews. This necessitates another kind of circumcision.
Col. 2:11 tells us: "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ ..." The spirit is also a private, hidden part within us; by cutting off our spiritual foreskins, both men and women experience pain, but it is this cutting that proves we have entered into God's New Covenant. So, for those under the New Covenant, physical circumcision is NOT required, although some still do for allegedly hygienic or asthetic reasons.
My son wasn't circumcized until he was 5 and even then it was because of phimosis. In the absence of any religious requirement (which I certainly do not dispute), I view it as senseless mutilation.
I hope this helps. Peace.
2006-09-26 18:27:10 · answer #2 · answered by Suzanne: YPA 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well I been having the same issue as you and I was sitting chruch one day when member from the congregation ask the pastor about whether she should get her son circumcised or not and she told the whole congregation if they was having the same problem to read Acts chapter 15,7,11 and if you still feel confuse ask god and do what you feel in your heart to do. They say it is better to circumcised because of sanitary reasons. But I still didn't circumcised my son and he is two now and I also didn't get around to reading those chapters but after I do I know I will find the answer I need to make an decision.
2006-09-26 18:32:40 · answer #3 · answered by PurpleMoon031 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
since your not jewish you have no reason to religiously do it.
but medically its a good idea, its just easier and safer, with no serious drawbacks when its done properly.
people claim this "well now we have soap and stuff" thing... but why make it more difficult than neccesary?
>>"Take two toys, and decide that one of them represents circumcision, the other represents no circumcision. Give him a choice of selecting one of the two toys. If he selects the one representing circumcision, circumcise him; if he selects the other one, don't circumcise him. Let him decide his path."<<
actually, I think this is an ABSOLUTELY wonderful idea, for the circumstances. neither parent can reasonably insist either direction.
if letting the baby pick the path was good enough for moses, it aughta be good enough for your kid, ;-)
the people who see it as barbaric or mutilation or whatever are just... ignorant. when done properly it makes it massively easier to keep decent sanitation, prevents quite a few different infections, both as an infant and grown, and many people (I've read) find it asthetically better.
far more people get it done and have NO negative effects, and NO problems, and don't even know its possible for males to get things like yeast infections, than people who have it done, and regret it, or wish it hadn't been done to them. this is like... hundreds if not thousands to one ratio of good vs bad experiences.
some people see it as a big deal, some don't. personally for this situation I think the idea of letting the kid pick is a wonderful solution.
maybe it be a giraffe and turtle stuffed animals! lol.
2006-09-26 18:47:27 · answer #4 · answered by RW 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is a jewish tradition and only because they use it as a type of sacrifice to god. The only biblical example is because the people back then were jewish. Christianity has no leaning either way. You do have to ethically wonder though, if you have the right to cut off part of his penis. He will most likely wish he had it later. It serves a purpose and is there for a reason. Leave him the way god made him.
2006-09-26 18:21:18 · answer #5 · answered by Kaiser32 3 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Ritual infant circumcision is barbaric and immoral. Your son is the only one who can decide whether he wants to lose a valuable part of his body. It's monstrous that anyone could think of doing this to an innocent baby, for such trivial, ridiculous, non-medical reasons.
2006-09-26 18:27:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No worries, i have the solution that will please you both. When your son gets a little older, on regular basics ( once a week) start to pull back his foreskin, back as far as it will go, to stretch but not force it. Eventually the skin will come away from the head naturally and leave his penis clear for scrubbing up. Check with you doc too. Best of luck.
2006-09-26 18:34:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes Paul said that circumcision is not required for salvation in The New Covenant, but there is a good medical reason for circumcision. The extra for skin tends to become infected, and swell up massively. Circumcision prevents it. Listen to your wife.
2006-09-26 18:23:34 · answer #8 · answered by Minister 4 · 2⤊ 4⤋
i agree with u
"And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." also much in Romans about this.
but for cleanliness u might want to allow it
2006-09-26 18:26:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The child might look more like mom when it comes to eyes, nose, skin tone, etc....but she meant that she wants your child to be circumcised like you. She doesnt have a penis, so if your child looks more like mom in that area, its probably a girl and circumcision shouldnt even be an important topic to you.
I agree with your wife that your child should follow in your footsteps.
2006-09-26 18:23:03 · answer #10 · answered by BoredomStrikes 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋