Why would God want man's foreskin ?

Why would he want it? He wouldn't. It's all complete nonsense and you only ask the question because you (apparently) belive in this non existent creature called 'god'. Get a life and stop wasting our time.

Here is a little bit of information that I learned long time ago and something to think about. First, Moses as a child was found by the Egyptians. Therefore we assume that he may have been circumcised later in life since being part of the royal family made him part of their culture and religion.

His knowledge of circumcision was brought forward to the sons of Abraham, we need to remember that a lot of the Jewish religion at the time was being put together from other religions of which the scribes had become slaves of.

Christians adopted the practice, since the original Christians were converted Jews. Therefore bringing forth the practices. This same Christians later become Catholics. And by the way, Jesus was not circumcised eight days after birth. It is believed he was well over that age when it was done.

Paul (Saint Paul to the Catholics) wrote to the father of Christianism at the time that the practice of circumcision needed to be relaxed because in his wanderings throughout the pagan world it was hard to get converts since no man wanted his penis defaced. He was given permission to gather converts even though they didn't want to get circumcised. He still preached circumcision. And you need remember that at that time a lot of doctors were the Shamans or Priests, so they, having extreme faith would practice circumcision and advocate it.

So therefore later on, still Practicing Catholics and later their offshoots (The Protestants like Lutherans, etcetera...) came to the new world and continued their rituals. For crying out loud Puritans were the first to arrive in the North with religious wisdom. And to the South it was Catholicism. So again, there is your sign. That is how and why we have circumcision in America. It is at any given date a religious decision more than a medical one. Doctors just perpetuate the ideology since they no longer are practicing Shamans or Priests.

I don't know why I was circumcised, as my family is not Jewish(hygiene?), but I'm glad I was. Foreskins are ugly. Most women have told me that non-cut guys won't cut it. One girl even told me that an uncircumcised member looks like an anthill, and she could never ever be a part of that. You barely even see non-circumcised men in porn nowadays.

Uses for re-cycled foreskin;

Foreskin Face Cream and Other Beauty Products of the Future The flesh trade isn't as elusive as people might think. Like porn, human body parts are easily available online for the right price. The Coriell Institute is only one of dozens of websites that offer foreskin fibroblast for sale. On its website, I put a foreskin fibroblast in a shopping cart and called its office, where a perky customer representative informed me that I can buy the flakes for a cost of $85.00 -- plus shipping and handling. In the end, I didn't buy, but it surprised me to find out how easily I could have.

www.alternet.org...

Waste not, want not!

I was reading about this in the bible this week, and I believe it was based on health reasons for people that didn't have soap and showers, or running water. God knew modern plumbing was coming to civilization, so he let it be done away with with the rest of the mosaic law, when Christ came.

That's one theory anyways.

But I do believe that circumcision helps a man down there health wise, WHEN you don't have adequate facilities to keep clean. For almost all people today we don't have that problem anymore. It's no longer an issue.

I don't understand what the facination is about getting circumsized (i know i spelt stuff wrong)

I heard that a circumsized penis is actually harder so it can hurt the woman some times,

reply to post by donwhite


My point was that there is no doctrinal support for your assertion that the body of Christ was impervious to damage.

Your point that there are differing accounts of the crucifixion is well taken, but all accounts agree that Christ was hung on the cross, he died, and his body was placed in a tomb.

Anyway, there is nothing to suggest that the Christ child could not have been circumcized, or that the circumcision would have been any different than that conducted for any other male child at the time.

I'll probably go to hell for this but I've heard you can make a nice his and hers wallet out if foreskin material.
If she doesn't like the wallet, just give it a lttle rub and it turns into an even nicer purse.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Kind of a valid point there, but I still don't see other animals following the same practice and they were here before us and are still here.

If everyone that didn't do that in the past had problems in that regard, only Jews would be living in this world, which isn't the case and kinda proves this practice as being pointless.

In my opinion it was and is, more of a way to state your beliefs and religion traditions than anything else.

Also if we take this whole "lack of water and plumbing" as an excuse for that practice we also have to take into account other related factors that were a reality by that time which for sure would create much worst health problems and would require similar practices.

Bottom line is... I can see the point of that being done by that time by certain individuals, but I don't see that coming from GOD's mouth

reply to post by TH3ON3


When a man is circumcised, he is reminded of his fathers vow to live as God has commanded, and it is there until death as a reminder.

And God needs his chewing gum at that too!

This silly practice of circumcision ends with me. If I have a son he won't be cut.

Originally posted by Alxandro
I'll probably go to hell for this but I've heard you can make a nice his and hers wallet out if foreskin material.
If she doesn't like the wallet, just give it a lttle rub and it turns into an even nicer purse.

Foreskin ointment is also good for bags under the eyes. Check out the my previous comment, it has a link.

reply to post by lunarminer

Your point that there are differing accounts of the crucifixion is well taken, but all accounts agree that Christ was hung on the cross, he died, and his body was placed in a tomb.

Maybe not. I am of the opinion that “Jesus Son of Mary” is a montage. That He was “compiled” after the 66 AD destruction of the Temple. (In deference to our Jewish friends, I should say, CE). Those who did follow whatever was “The Way” were expecting the imminent return of the Messiah. Jews had been looking for the ever elusive Messiah for a millennium. Judea was always a tumultuous place.

Early first century common era Jews looked with longing back to the short lived period of the Maccabees. Revolting against the successors of Alexander the Great, the Maccabees founded the Hasmonean dynasty and established a quasi independent Jewish state in the ill-defined “Land of Israel” lasting about one hundred years, from 164 BCE to 63 BCE when Rome conquered the land.

I offer as strong evidence that Jesus was not the Messiah looked for by referring to the later Simon bar Kokhba revolt of 132-135 CE. Bar Kokhba was acclaimed as the Messiah. That revolt established a Jewish state lasting a bit over two years. A massive Roman army finally crushed it. During bar Kokhba’s time no one ever mentioned Jesus. Modern scholars agree the references to Jesus in Josephus’ writings are spurious, added by an over-eager scribe in the 3rd or 4th century CE.

The story of the Jewish High Priest arranging for the crucifixion of Jesus is not believable for 2 reasons. 1) Rome was in charge, not the High Priest. 2) Crucifixion was a Roman punishment reserved for treason against Rome. You might also say a third reason was that Rome assigned most prisoners to row in their galleys. The Romans did not WASTE a valuable source of labor on trifles.

Lastly, the ancient Land of Palestine has been the subject of more archaeological digs and for a longer time than any place of equal size in the history of the world! Since the late 18th century and most especially in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the place we are now calling Israel was searched by 100s of Europeans looking for evidence of Jesus and the first 3 kings of Israel. They have all come up short. Which is to say, there is NO physical evidence any one of those characters were real. All are myths made up out of whole cloth.

I think this explains it really well as to what the symbolism of it was ...


Colossians 2:11
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:


Colossians 2:11

2:11 without hands. Paul, writing to the Gentile Christians at Colosse, would certainly not here be referring to literal circumcision, which he rejected as a ritual requirement for Gentiles (e.g., Galatians 5:2,6). The “circumcision made without hands” refers to the spiritual significance of circumcision, which applies to Gentiles as well as Jews. The covenant that God had made with Abraham (Genesis 17:9-14) was to be signified by the physical rite of circumcision (“cutting round”). It was a national and earthly covenant, applicable only to the chosen nation fathered by Abraham, and did not of itself assure personal salvation in heaven to those who submitted to it. However, it should have encouraged in them and symbolized to them a spiritual separation also, dedicating themselves to serve the Lord and to do His will. Similarly, God’s people in any nation and any age should so dedicate themselves, cutting themselves off from the natural sins of the flesh. In that sense, every true believer has submitted to spiritual circumcision.
www.icr.org... ans+2:11

The meaning behind circumcision has to do with making a contract. In order for any contract to be binding upon both parties, something has to be offered, it needs to be accepted, something of value needs to be exchanged, and terms need to be stated. For His part, God offered to protect and bless all the people who obeyed His laws and accepted His offer. For their part, the men (who were considered to be the head of each household at the time) cut off his foreskin as payment to enter into a binding contract. It was a part of himself literally, and each man could not forget the covenant as he still would see it when he had to relieve himself. This was a contract between God and the Jews. In Christianity, it is a circumcision of the heart. For Christians, God offers them forgiveness of sin past, present, and future, and gives them His Son as payment for that sin. The contract is made with shed blood. When a person accepts God's offer and what Jesus did, they are agreeing to serve God through Christ and not be the currupt person they were before. In other words, a life for a life. A Christian has given His life to God and God has given His Son for ours, and Christ made it all possible with His blood. This is a three way contract. It is binding on all three parties. The terms are simple. Forgive those that hurt you. Love others like you do yourself. Don't judge others unjustly. Once the death penalty has been taken away there is no more death for the Christian. So circumcision has to do with making a contract called a covenant.

reply to post by donwhite


Well, you make a couple of good points and you make a couple of historical errors.

The errors in you theory that I can see are thus. We know that the Epistles of Paul were written in the first century CE.

You will probably say that we don't know who wrote them. I would agree that there is some question as to how many of the books in the New Testament that bear Paul's name were actually written by him. However, they were written and they clearly mention Christ. Unlike many of the other books in the New Testament, we have very good evidence relating to the age of the Epistles.

You are correct that we have little evidence that Jesus Christ actually lived. Although we have very good evidence that Peter and Paul did live. We know where they went, we know where they died, and we know the how and why. There is corroborative evidence in Rome, that the Christians were there before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.

So, we have second hand evidence that Jesus was a real person. Because we know that Peter and Paul were very real persons.

reply to post by Fromabove

The meaning behind circumcision has to do with making a contract. This was a contract between God and the Jews. In Christianity, it is a circumcision of the heart. When a person accepts God's offer and what Jesus did, they are agreeing to serve God through Christ and not be the corrupt person they were before. In other words, a life for a life.

A Christian has given His life to God and God has given His Son for ours, and Christ made it all possible with His blood. This is a three way contract. It is binding on all three parties. The terms are simple. Forgive those that hurt you. Love others like you do yourself. Don't judge others unjustly. Once the death penalty has been taken away there is no more death for the Christian. So circumcision has to do with making a contract called a covenant.

Two remarks. First, I find your explanation of the root cause or source for the long time practice of circumcision compelling. Although I am a WASP I was born in our local Jewish Hospital and I can prove it! I really see no ISSUE over the practice. I have no children so I have never faced the issue personally. I do not feel abused nor would I undo it if I could.

Second. Whatever happened to make the 2 billion contemporary followers of Jesus amongst the most violent people ever seen on the planet? Rapacious cold blooded murderers. Not even limited to strangers but internecine murder was not only common but I’d guess it was very popular based on its intensity of practice and its long and enduring history.

Example 1. Following the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre of many 1000s of French Protestants (Huguenots), Pope Gregory XIII ordered a Te Deum to be sung as a special thanksgiving (a practice continued for many years after). The pope had a medal struck with the motto “Ugonottorum strages 1572" showing an angel bearing a cross and sword next to slaughtered Protestants. It was said of Phillip II, Spain’s Most Catholic King, that when he learned of the massacre that was the only time he ever smiled.

Example 2. French Cathars. The first Cathar heretics appeared between 1012 and 1020. Several were discovered and put to death at Toulouse in 1022. In 1147 Pope Eugenius III sent the legate Alberic of Ostia and St Bernard to the affected district to eradicate the Cathars. In 1245 the royal officers assisting the Inquisition seized the heretical citadel of Montsegur, and 200 Cathars were burned in one day.

It was here that the famous remark by the Bishop was made. After winning the battle, the Bishop’s general asked him, “How shall I know which are heretical and which are faithful Catholics?” To which question was given this famous reply: “Kill them all, God will know his own!”

I’m not knocking 2009 Catholics. They are no more responsible for what happened then than I am. But it did happen. Separation of church and state comes to us at a very high price. If we don’t know our history we are doomed to repeat it. It is today’s RIGHT wing Protestants - the so-called Born Agains - who pose the worst threat ever (?) to the First Amendment.

I don’t know much that recommends the Religion of Christ as it is practiced today by its 2 billion adherents.

reply to post by donwhite


Well satan and his wolves in sheeps clothing have certainly done a great job of setting up the real born again Christians by laying every evil deed done under the sun since Jesus Christ at their feet ...setting us all up for certain death in the very near future (Just like Jesus and the Apostles )
I can see now why all of that happened in history ...so that the world will detest and hate all christians and someday have them all rounded up and killed ....(scripture said that would happen someday).
Yall dont have to be satans minions and go with the hatred and the accusations you know ..and continue to blame the actions of a few on all .......

Originally posted by vonspurter
Well male humans are born with a foreskin so if you creationists believe we are created by God and then that God commands you to cut the foreskin off then it begs the question why did he create such a thing as a foreskin in the first place? Dumb God.

I wholeheartedly agree! Star.

reply to post by Simplynoone

I can see now why all of that happened in history ...so that the world will detest and hate all Christians and someday have them all rounded up and killed ....(scripture said that would happen someday). Y'all don't have to be Satan's minions and go with the hatred and the accusations you know ..and continue to blame the actions of a few on all .......

Jawohl mein Herr, das ende ist hier!



[edit on 2/1/2009 by donwhite]

I have not seen this answer written down towards the original post.

God makes circumcision the mark of the jewish covenant for a few reasons. The most important of these follows the explicit belief that man succumbs to the call of his testosterone over his morals. The act of cutting off the foreskin, which does warrant health safety benefits (another reason), also retards the pleasure a man feel during intercourse. The nerve endings which are all located within the foreskin, being removed, is symbolism that men who undergo circumcision choose wisdom, logic, and God, over physical pleasures. It's a practice, also full with the notion that by severing a central focus of our physical existence, we pay homage more to the spiritual, which in essence the Torah teaches us about.

Why is it decreed that men should receive their circumcision 8 days after birth?
Based off the above, there are a few possible answers. Man is evil from his very beginnings, and God foresaw that if a child had the choice of circumcision, their choice would be against it. No child willingly allows themselves to be mutilated, exceptions through persuasion. By decreeing that a child should be circumcised 8 days prior birth, that choice befalls those that begot the child, thusly, it's the parents choice what path they set their child on.
Rather than waiting weeks, months, or years, until the child is cognitive, the minor surgery is done early on, so the procedure is not remembered for years to come. I can promise you that it's not a pain free procedure, and not something easily forgotten lest your a baby.

And of the Mohel practically sucking on a child penis...
First, in response to this, late me state, shame on you. Bringing something you know naught about. This portion of the procedure, you forgot to mention, is a sterilizing procedure. The Mohel engulfs in his mouth a cupful of blessed wine, and douses the open wound should it get infected. Secondly; there is absolutely nothing sexual about the procedure. The Mohel isn't aroused doing something very holy, and neither does the baby. Neither did your mother get aroused when she washed you in the nude, sometimes completely cupping your genitalia. Why disservice a Mohel's obligation to his community, and not a mothers obligation to her child?

Anyway, that was a very crumby thing for you to take a jab at. Don't judge a book by it's cover.

[edit on 1-2-2009 by Crabmeat]