The New Testament repeatedly says that circumcision is not required...?

Question

...so why is it traditional for Christians to do it anyway?

There are no significant health benefits of circumcision:

http://www.askdrsears.com/html/10/t101500.asp

There are risks associated with it:
http://children.webmd.com/tc/Circumcision-Risks

Answer 1

There is no excuse for mutilating an infant's genitals.

http://www.circumcision.org/
Circumcision Resource Center
"Based on a review of medical and psychological literature and our own research and experience, we conclude that circumcision is not advisable."

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/
DOCTORS OPPOSING CIRCUMCISION (D.O.C.)
Physicians for Genital Integrity
"D.O.C. is an organization of physicians, and others who are opposed to non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision. D.O.C. has members in 50 States, 12 Canadian Provinces and Territories, and in nations on six continents. These doctors recognize that no one has the right to forcibly remove sexual body parts from another individual. They also believe that doctors should have no role in this painful, unnecessary procedure inflicted on the newborn."

Answer 2

Brian8907 is exactly right...and succinct when he says that tradition does not equal doctrine!

Here is an interesting read on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision

-
In the medical field, for 50+ years there has been quite a controversy as to whether circumcision is "better". Several studies have shown contradicting views as to whether an uncircumcised man is likely to have more infections while growing up.

It is certainly true that elderly men who have not been circumcised tend to run into more problems. But, of course, this has not led to the justification of circumcision of male babies...and nor could it.

There is also a controversy as to whether being circumcised or not enhances sexual pleasure. A recent scientific study seems to suggest there is no difference, although many men who are circumcised as an adult frequently complain of less sensation after they are circumcised.

In the distant past, circumcision has been done with the attempt of "enhancing" pleasure...BUT it has also been done to "suppress" pleasure...

So there you have it...
-

In the U.S. today, it is not strongly recommended (as it use to be) or strongly opposed...from a medical standpoint. Parents are given a choice...and usually, this choice has nothing to do with religion, but parents almost uniformly choose whatever dad had done (so the son is similar to dad, etc...).

Some Christians still do this...because of religious "tradition", but it is not required by God. But then again, neither is it considered wrong by God...

Christians should apply the spiritual principle of circumcision, though..."putting off the flesh" - even through the mortification of sin, and the misdeeds of the body, as Paul speaks of in Romans!

Grace and peace in Christ!

-

Answer 3

I am not aware of any traction with Christians that lead to this practice. What became known in world war II was that cleanliness of an uncircumcized penis is hard to do in battle conditions. It became common practice in the babies of returning service men to have their boys circumcized. 90% or so males have been circumcized in this country until the mid 90s. It then became a factor of money. Many states stopped paying for circumcision when a child was born to a mother on welfare. So for the last 15 years or so many more guys have missed this surgery because it was considered not something to afford. Doctors generally will tell you it is best for health reasons to have the procedure done. For it to have any religious purpose only a set apart "Priest" would perform it if it were an actual tradition. Again it was a practice of the House of Israel to make it a mark of the separate calling of them to be God's people. Once God made it known that His word was to be taught to all, there was no longer a need to mark one as separate. So that is why circumcism is no longer a religous tradition among Christians.

Answer 4

Actually allot of guys are circumcised even when there parents aren't Christians. I think allot of times it is a matter of, the facther was, so the son ends up being as well. Honestly, it is considered by some to be easier to clean when one has had their forskin removed.

While it isn't that much of a difference, I think allot of Dads go ahead and have thier sons end up like them. Though that is less and less of an issue. Used to be, boys grew up shaving, tying our ties, etc. like Dad cause he showed us how. Now that this is more of a rarity, it could mean that the number who are against or for skin=)) will change.

Answer 5

You want the short answer?

Money!

There is no reason to circumcise baby boys in this day and age but it is a quick, short operation that makes the medical profession lots of money.

Answer 6

As a christian myself I can tell you that it is not a christian tradition to cut their children. my family is christian and I am natural, my brother is and so is my son. It is only a American, Jewish and Muslim tradition. The new testament does say that we no longer need to get circumcised.

Answer 7

I think it's more a custom of the society, not specifically Christians, based on the idea of improving cleanliness of that area, but people in recent years have been "cutting back" on circumcision.

Answer 8

This is only common in the US and, in the US, is COMPLETELY unnecessary suffering for the child.

For once, I think religion has little to do with it and it is more a 'wanting sons to look like Dad' thing.

A circumcision is a barbaric procedure, done without general anesthetic and without pain relief. The child screams throughout the whole procedure in obvious pain and discomfort.

Then the resulting wound sometimes gets infected causing further problems, and the penis becomes much less sensitive than an uncircumcised penis thanks to the constant chafing of the head against clothing.

Sex is reportedly better with an uncircumcised penis and there is no proof that either way is cleaner than the other.

The only time circumcision is called for is in developing countries where HIV is rife, where circumcision has reduced the occurrence of HIV infection in males. Although a better way to prevent HIV is contraception although that's a whole new argument.

Answer 9

It's not required, and while it may make hygiene easier, it is not necessary, nor are there any health impacts for remaining uncircumcised.

It's just that most chicks don't like anteaters.

And as far as pain for the newborn: it doesn't matter. Until their language ability begins to form, they do not retain memories, so once they heal up, it's like it never happened. The same principle is applied all the time in hospitals and so called"sedation dentistry". For many procedures they don't use any real anesthetic, they simply use Versed. Versed doesn't numb anything - it just wipes out your ability to remember what happened.

I had pyloric stenosis as a newborn. As was typical in 1960 - they operated to correct it using Curare only - a paralytic which does nothing to anesthetize.

Answer 10

Get educated- it is only common in the united states, not just by Christians. People do it because it is common, traditional, it is cleaner, et cetera

Edit: There actually are health concerns with it- not huge ones but there are some concerning cleanliness. It is a proven fact that sex partners of uncircumsized males are more likely to have infections. I read about it just the other day on MSN.com.