Considering not circumcising. No judgments please.

[chandni3]

It's kinda complicated for me because it's a struggle with my religious beliefs. My husband is intact so I don't think it's dirty and he doesn't have any problems with his parts or with what his son looks like either way. We're Messianic Jews, so kinda Christians who believe in keeping the Old Testament laws and follow many Jewish traditions, which would of course include circumcision. I also believe the Bible is the infallible word of God and that God's ways are the best. I know some intactivists think it's horrible to carry something out just because of religious beliefs, but I don't think they can understand how much a faith can mean to you and be a part of you, not that you do things without thinking, but that it's your framework. Also circumcision is a big part of the community. It's a special celebration, a tradition that links people together for generations, a symbol of belonging, of who you are, of how you live your life. Anyway, I know I can't make someone who is not religious understand, so I'll leave that, I'm just asking they you try to see where I'm coming from and why it's hard for me.
But now we've found out the baby has a cleft palate (it seems to be a minor one) and will need surgery to fix it. That got me to thinking that I didn't want him to have to suffer circumcision too though I don't think that it's as painful as some make out, and we would of course make sure proper pain relief was provided.
So anyway, I've been thinking a lot the last couple days about it and remembered that I had read that circumcision as done in Bible times is different than what they do today. Back then it was only a trimming of the skin at the end of the foreskin. The foreskin was pulled forward, not back, and trimmed off. This left a large amount of the foreskin still intact and it wasn't ripped away from the gland. Infact, there was so much intact that men during Roman (or Greek) times in the arena would pull their foreskin down so you couldn't tell they were circumcised. Because of this the religious leaders changed circumcision to be the removal of the whole foreskin so that people couldn't hide it. So what God ordained, and what is done today are two different things. God's way still allowed the gland to be protected so that pleasure wouldn't be lost. So, what I'm thinking is, unless I can find a trained person to perform a "Biblical" circumcision, which I probably won't be able to. I'd like to leave my boy intact. I'm still struggling if it's the right decision or not, and I might change my mind with more research, I don't even know why I"m writing all this, I just have no neutral people to talk to. All our friends circumcised their boys so I dont' want them to feel judged by me and other friends don't believe the same as us (in keeping Old Testament laws).

[~*~Sunflower~*~]

(((HUGS))) The bible states in the new testament that circumcision was no longer necessary or relevant. I am sure that it must be a hard decision for you, based on your religious community.

We did not circumcise our son (now an adult) & we never were unhappy with the decision, nor is he.

I hope that you will pray to God for peace regarding this decision.

[s@hmommy]

Momma, you need to do what is best for you and your family! I would not worry about what others think at the end of the day no matter what you choose! I completely understand you not wanting to, especially since he will already need surgery to repair his cleft. No one wants to put their baby through more than they think is necessary. If you choose not to, that's your choice to make. If you do, that is too and you shouldn't feel guilty for it. I totally get that sometimes it is hard not to feel obligated to stick to our religious beliefs even though we sometimes question them at the same time.

If you do choose to, do you think it could be done while he is under anesthesia for his other surgery, that way you know he doesn't feel any of it? Just a thought, I have no idea if that is even possible.

[FernHollow]

Absolutely not a bit a judgement here from me. I am a mama to 4 intact boys (my DH is circ'd though), but I do truly respect it being done for religious reasons. I would suggest that you pray on it and you and your DH come to a decision together. We personally chose not to have our boys circumcised because we are not Jewish and didn't have any specific good reasons to do it, so it felt like the right choice. It sounds like you have other things on your plate (like thinking about the cleft palate surgery), so maybe give it some time and prayer?

[Tris]

Originally Posted by FernHollow Absolutely not a bit a judgement here from me. I am a mama to 4 intact boys (my DH is circ'd though), but I do truly respect it being done for religious reasons. I would suggest that you pray on it and you and your DH come to a decision together. We personally chose not to have our boys circumcised because we are not Jewish and didn't have any specific good reasons to do it, so it felt like the right choice. It sounds like you have other things on your plate (like thinking about the cleft palate surgery), so maybe give it some time and prayer?

Very much this!

[MyLovely]

Okay, so I'm an atheist, but was raised Christian, almost converted to Judaism and have studied religion in extensive detail...

In all my readings and all the things I was taught, God was supposed to be jealous and righteous, but loving. You have a very valid reason to be second guessing this. Remember, like you said, most boys are very healthy newborns who had an entirely different procedure done than what's done today. Your baby will already have to undergo surgeries, and if he were circumcised, it would be much more extreme than in the old times. I may not be religious, but if I were, I would feel that this would be a totally justifiable excuse to skip it.

Not to mention, this isn't something as "big" spiritually as, say, baptism. It's a mitzvah, no more or less important than keeping kosher or not shaving a beard. It's not even a mitzvah that falls on your son himself, so he will be no different spiritually than a circumcised boy. The mitzvah falls on the parents, and as I said, I think you have a really good reason. I can't imagine a god who would punish parents for preventing pain, especially when it's just one of 613 mitzvahs...nobody can do them all perfectly

[marliah]

Actually the new testament goes into detail about how circumsiion was a shadow of something to come (the circumsiion of the heart) as the sacrifices of lambs and bulls was pointing to the sacrifice of Christ and wa are no longer required to perform animal sacrifices. The new testament seems to speak against circumsiion, see Galatians 5. I would be happy to talk to you more about his, I have studied it pretty heavily. Feel free to pm me

And we do not ignore the old testament either, what God hated then, He hates now, I don't believe we are to throw out the old testament, but I think the Levitical ordinances have been done away with (the animal sacrifices, circumsicion, the physical temple (as we, Gods people, are now the temple) the Levitical priesthood (Christ is our mediator now) ect.) the law was given as our schoolmaster to point us to Christ as we see we cannot keep it perfectly.

Would love to talk to you more if you desire.

Blessings in Yeshua our Savior!

[qsefthuko]

The circ God directed as you pointed out was only nipping a bit off the tip. It left the majority intact. In Genesis God says he looked at his creation and said it was good. This included man in his entirety. So it included his foreskin. He never directed for the entire foreskin to be removed. It did and still does serve a purpose. Maybe that helps. I believe in the whole bible. So for us this includes where it says man need no longer be circed. This makes it an easy decision for us.

[JustSomeChickVee]

Originally Posted by qsefthuko The circ God directed as you pointed out was only nipping a bit off the tip. It left the majority intact. In Genesis God says he looked at his creation and said it was good. This included man in his entirety. So it included his foreskin. He never directed for the entire foreskin to be removed. It did and still does serve a purpose. Maybe that helps. I believe in the whole bible. So for us this includes where it says man need no longer be circed. This makes it an easy decision for us.

This. OP, you are correct about the original circ not removing the entire, or even most of the foreskin. They also got the babies drunk. As far as pain, it is as painful as described, at least the way it is done today (I can link you to a few videos if you would like.) Anesthesia isn't effective according to this study: http://cpj.sagepub.com/content/25/8/412.abstract

You could also consider a Brit Shalom. It is a non-cutting naming ceremony.

[songbird516]

Originally Posted by qsefthuko The circ God directed as you pointed out was only nipping a bit off the tip. It left the majority intact. In Genesis God says he looked at his creation and said it was good. This included man in his entirety. So it included his foreskin. He never directed for the entire foreskin to be removed. It did and still does serve a purpose. Maybe that helps. I believe in the whole bible. So for us this includes where it says man need no longer be circed. This makes it an easy decision for us.

Yes, this. While I'm sure that there was a good reason for the command to circ (most likely to separate themselves from the other nations at the time), that was not God's original creation, and what's done now really wouldn't have worked back then, as it would have left way too much chance for infection. As a Bible reader I appreciate God's laws and follow them, but circumcision was removed as a requirement for God's favor. I don't know why it's such a big deal- there are pretty much no Jews left that follow the rest of the Mosaic Law, such as sacrificing animals for repentance or communion with God, so why stick so much to the command to circumcise? Even with the Jews, it was not the act of circumcsion that really guaranteed God's favor, but the doing of his will. Without that, they still showed themselves to not be his servants.