Why would God want man's foreskin ?

Originally posted by Terapin
Millions of years of evolution in mammals around the globe, prove that a foreskin is not going to kill you. It isn't going to make you get sick, die of cancer, or scare away turtles. Mutilating the foreskin is not a good thing. You can do anything you want to your body in the name of religion, but don't try and pretend that it is good for you.

Your point about mammals is significant in that man probably simply wanted to eliminate this last vestige of being an animal by removing the foreskin

reply to post by mclarenmp4


ok gotcha

This is a second line because if I did not write it the post would be only one line


res

Ofcourse it has to do with hygiene. The Jews only said that so that the people would listen. They knew what would happen to your willie if you didn't keep it clean. As they didn't have any so called soap in those days to clean anything. Also the foreskin can get very tight in some guys so the best option is to cut the foreskin off. Other than that please don't blame God for it.

reply to post by Mynaeris


Relic hungry Medieval Europe had quite a few " Jesus foreskins" doing the rounds .......
............. Allow me to preempt your next question .

No , if the man did exist, he probably got just the one ..... even if he was the son of god .

Apparently the "true" foreskin along with pieces of the "true cross" and his sandals ...no less, were presented to Pope Innocent III, after they were paraded through the streets of Rome.

And there was much rejoicing , that is until someone stole it.

Originally posted by mclarenmp4
To all the people saying that an uncircumsised penis is just as safe as a circumsised one if they clean it regularly are speaking rubbish.

They found that people with circumsised penis's are up to 8 times less likely to catch HIV from 1 on 1 sex.

They found evidence that the HIV virus targets specific cells from the inner surface of the foreskin. These cells possess HIV receptors, making this area particularly susceptible to infection.

External Link

The research was based on Ugandan Aids sufferers

Oh really? So 'they' found that Ugandan Aids sufferers who are not circumcised, may get diseased doodles?

Oh my, I'm off to the quack post haste, to have my wedding tackle shaved for the sake of humanity and the future of human kind...

reply to post by UmbraSumus


sounds like indy has a new quest,

Indiana Jone and the search for Jesus's Foreskin

Interesting to note, in case no one else has pointed this out... circumcision was a practice of the Ancient Egyptians. I do not think it had anything to do with G.d wanting a man's foreskin.. it was a sign as to those who helped (in a round about way) shape the children of Israel.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by justamomma]

reply to post by Mynaeris


Nice thread(for a foe). Especially the part where God advocates buying and selling children.

reply to post by mclarenmp4


Before you go calling something "rubbish" perhaps you should read and understand the data you point to.

Yes, in Uganda, where there is poor sanitation and virtually no health education, HIV transmission can be a problem for men with a foreskin who dont practise proper hygiene. If you are civilized, and keep it clean, there is no increased rate in HIV or STD transmission, in fact the foreskin produces natural antibiotics that help prevent infection.

Please, do not spread the myth about a foreskin being unhealthy. It is poor hygiene that is unhealthy.

In closing I'd like to lighten up tis discussion....

Did you hear about the Jewish boy who was born with no eyelids??? The Doctors corrected it at the moment of birth with an amazing plastic surgery operation that used his foreskin to create new eyelids from his own flesh. Sadly, it did not work very well because he is now cockeyed.

reply to post by Terapin


Actually, the reference to a circumcised male being less likely to contract HIV is based on the notion that sexual relations can sometimes be quite vigorous, causing tearing in the glans and allowing (possibly) infected fluids to enter the bloodstream through the penis. Those without a foreskin have less of these types of injuries during sex, thus lowering the overall risk of those without foreskin catching HIV.

Originally posted by NatureBoy
reply to post by sezsue

 

gosh, i'm guessing a lot of babies bled to death when they first started infant penis mutalation -i hope it didn't take too long before they realized it was better to wait a little over a week before chopping bit of their children off.

Uh, reading comprehension?

My quotes:

Abraham did not pick the eighth day after many centuries of trial-and-error experiments. Neither he nor any of his company from the ancient city of Ur in the Chaldees ever had been circumcised. It was a day picked by the Creator of vitamin K.

God knows what He's doing.

Oh give me a break. It isn't sinister or evil to whack off some excess skin. I'm going to have it done when I have boys. It's not the biblical connection so much as it's the fact that it's sanitary, and later on it life will make their member look larger. I'm doing them a favor! Hah!

And why shouldn't females have a say in this? Was this thread not started by a female? I want some real answers here, men of ATS, I'm talking to YOU! Post your thoughts on this entire thing. Did you have it done? Hate it? Love it? Or deep down do you think that your parents did it to you when you were a baby so they could make with their plan of having you mutilated by a whacko Rabbi?!?!

There isn't really a question as to why God wanted Abraham to start with circumcision. He stated that it was because of the covenant that he shared with the Jews. Abraham even asked him why didn't he just make everyone that way and it's because not everyone has a covenant like that. Religion or not that was the reason, do you think he keeps all cut off foreskin in a special heaven room where he then sells it off the black market? Either way it was not the only place it was practiced at the time so why don't I ask this. Why did Egyptians do circumcision? Was it cause they were crazy religious folks who read it in the Bible? Oh, that's right, they worshiped cats and snakes and all that. I'm sorry I'm being so sarcastic but I just cannot see the evil sinister ugly no good side about this. It's kind of ridiculous.

reply to post by Mynaeris


The sucking part is to stop the bleeding. There are an awful lot of blood vessels down there. It is possible to bleed to death if you're not carefull. Hope this helps.

reply to post by Dookzor


Indeed it is based on a notion, but statistical analysis has thus far refuted that notion. Infectious rates in uncircumcised males in a homogenous group studied in first world countries, is statistically no higher than circumcised males. Rates are only higher where health education and proper hygiene are lacking.

The only conclusive clinical trials were conducted in Sub-Saharan Africa. Analysis of HIV infection rates in the first world was inconclusive. Moral of the story, Don't have unprotected sex in Sub-Saharan Africa which has 68% of the worlds global total AIDS cases. (22.5 million)

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
I think...and I find it a bit disturbing that I had to ponder this...that maybe the sucking part is supposed to be a bit like cleaning the wound. You know, like when you cut your finger a little and you suck it to get rid of the blood?

Could be. But then, nobody ever got arrested for sucking their cut finger.

Given the amount of coincidences involving pedophilia and religious figures I'd say this procedure is "normal".

True circumcision story.

In the early 80's I was a religious missionary in Germany. We had a guy who was Yugoslavian and he was a fairly recent convert. Since Yugoslavia was a communist country at the time, he had never had any formal religious training.

So, he decided to try and catch up on the Bible and its doctrines. He starts by studying the Old Testament. He doesn't get very far into Genesis before he reads about circumcision, and he realized that he was not circumcised. So, he gets a book about the procedure, and carefully studies it. Late one night, while his mission partner was sleeping, he gets his stuff out and circumcises himself.

When the other guy wakes up the next morning, there is blood all over the kitchen, the bathroom, and the rest of the apartment. All of the towels are covered in blood, his mission partner is asleep. So, he's pretty shook up and he goes into the kitchen and opens the refrigerator, there on top of the ice tray is the foreskin. It seems the other guy decided to keep it.

So, this guy is so freaked out, he packs his stuff up and leaves the apartment. He gets on the train and heads to the Zone Leaders place. He refuses to go back to the apartment and so he ends up staying with the Zone Leaders until a replacement can be sent. This takes a couple of days, which is OK because the guy who circumcised himself could hardly move for about 3 days.

When I first heard this story (first hand),I laughed my butt off. I was wondering what the Yugoslavian guy was going to think once he got to the New Testament and read that circumcision is not required for Christians.

reply to post by Boogley


I have no problem if someone wishes to practice circumcision for religious or other reasons. It is their choice to make. One should consider however, that the foreskin has a specific biological purpose and is in no way a simple bit of extra skin like the earlobe.

...it also has a ridged band of peripenic muscles that protects the urinary tract from contaminants, and an undersurface lined with mucocutaneous tissue found nowhere else on the body, which contains ectopic glands that produce natural emollients and antibacterial proteins similar to those found in mother's milk. With its frenar ridges and its thousands of nerve endings, the foreskin not only protects the glans, which in an intact male is extremely sensitive, it also accounts for roughly one-third of the penis' sexual perceptivity.

I imagine you might feel different when it comes to the practice of female circumcision. Would you do that to your daughters?

I consider both to be ritual mutilation, but you are free to do as you choose. As to your comment that it makes a penis look bigger??? In fact circumcision reduces girth, to say nothing of the loss of male sensation. It is estimated that the male looses over 20,000 nerve endings through circumcision. Yes, that is doing your sons a favor for sure.

Being a circumcised male, I don't see it as barbaric at all! Personally, I'm glad I am. I don't carry any torment or bad memories of the procedure at all. I fail to see what all the fuss is about.

A couple of my mates had to be circumcised when they were in their early twenties because certain things can go terribly wrong down there that require the procedure - and I can assure you that it's far worse to have it done later in life.

It's also easier to maintain a hygienic regime and I haven't met a female (in my personal experience) that doesn't appreciate it. It certainly doesn't hinder sexual performance! *wink-wink*

I remember reading somewhere that circumcision was originally conceived for men that lived in hot climates such as the desert - and also helped protect males against infections and irritations brought about by sand under the foreskin.

Personally, I think a circumcised penis has a better aesthetic - but that's just my humble opinion.

IRM

Originally posted by BO XIAN
I don't recall Him answering such questions.

You'll be meeting Him one day . . . perhaps you'll have a few seconds to ask Him.

You can believe that all you like. I, personally, can't believe in the god of the Bible, Torah or Koran. I've tried...I've read them, my parents used to make me go to mass and catechism classes on Sundays. I can't subscribe to those belief systems. They're contradictory and every single one of them is guilty of having nonsensical rules...circumcision, for example.

I'm not an Atheist...by definition I'm really a Theist...I just don't believe the writings that have been edited and scrambled so much over the years.

Circumcision is barbaric in my eyes. It's downright awful and I would never do it to any child of mine. In any case, I think it's wrong to force your religious belief on your child, especially a baby 8 days old. My parents opened my eyes to all the doors and I thank them for that. They've only pushed their ways on my once...and even then, after outright refusing to take part they understood that I would never believe the way they did.

I think that circumcision should only be done if the child is in a dangerous health situation at the time. Otherwise it's an unnecessary mutilation.