Howdy all, I'm new to the forum but have read portions of YY and QP and appreciate Craig's (among others') willingness to consider that which is alleged to be Scripture much more candidly than the average Christian/Jew/unbeliever. In other words, I know enough to know that I know fairly little ;) . I'm thoroughly confused regarding the merits of circumcision, however, and the material that I've read on the forum hasn't answered my questions at all. Likewise, in the portion of Craig's & James' podcast on the matter, my questions weren't even addressed.

While reiterating the imprecision of my understanding of the information available to us regarding YHWH, I do suspect that the DSS, LXX, and Masoretic texts all endorse circumcision for those desirous of entering YHWH's Covenant of Israel, not just for those who are to reside in the Land before MessiYah returns. However, as Craig himself correctly states in the first book (first chapter, too, I think) of YY, while the DSS is probably superior to the Masoretic, it isn't a panacea. Consider that the text was prepared long after the Babylonian captivity (wherein it isn't inconceivable to a conspiracy theorist like myself that Babylonian doctrines could have corrupted most of the descendants of Yahudah that found themselves in Babylon), and that (AFAIK) we don't have any hard assurance that the Qumran community didn't make modifications of its own. Sure, the fact that they preserved worn-out texts because they had the Name YHWH written on them would *suggest* that they valued His word, but there are plausible explanations for this: just as the average fundamentalist Christian has a zeal without knowledge, perhaps well-meaning scribes were deceived by the leaders of this probably-Essene group. But I digress ;)

Anyways, since I'm not aware of perfect evidence that male circumcision is required by YHWH, I think it reasonable to attempt to evaluate the practice based on its physical and mental effects, its secular history (i.e. that outside Yisrael), its implications for free will, its supposed analogue-female pain in childbirth, and the reasons for which it has become popular in the US (hint: it's not because the elite that introduced it had a particular love for YHWH & His Torah!). I would like to emphasize that, despite the sensitivity of the topic and my own suspicions, I do not positively aver that the practice is evil; rather, I freely confess to possible ignorance of morals or facts regarding the practice. Likewise, I do not condemn those who choose themselves to become circumcised, neither them that circumcise their sons for religious reasons.

It is my understanding that the foreskin is a highly erogenous and sensitive piece of tissue in itself (with a very high concentration of nerve endings and plenty of blood flow to boot), and the loss thereof no doubt reduces sexual pleasure in the male. Likewise, it serves to protect the sensitive glans head from asperity of environment, whether scratchy clothing or cold. In intercourse, it softens penetration, rendering it more pleasant to the female, and also reduces the amount per unit time of histamine produced, thereby making premature ejaculation less likely on average. Statistically, circumcision is strongly correlated with that performance issue, and while correlation isn't causation, the practice is common enough in the US (among Whites, at least; it's less common, though not rare by any means, amongst Blacks and Hispanics) to infer some sort of causation, I think. On the other end of the spectrum, its effects deleterious effects upon sensitivity can result in rather prolonged if less-pleasurable-than-ideal sex; I think any student of statistics will see analogous "stretching of the bell curve". KP (and I know people on this board don't universally agree with him) says that the practice results in a very slight loss of sensitivity; I think that the results are much more severe (especially considering the reasons for which it was popularized in the US and UK), and we should be more precise in our qualifications of the practice in general.

(Incidentally, I would be happy to cite my sources and elaborate, if these sexual effects of circumcision are questioned by any).

Now we must ask ourselves what, if any, might the psychological effects upon a typical 8-day old (or younger) boy, particularly in the US, where he is ripped away from his mother and under blinding lights cut by strangers? I am even less knowledgable concerning the intricacies of psychology than of Scriptural criticism, but a reasonable person might suspect that this would lead to feelings of powerlessness. Is it inconceivable that the satanic elite that rules our world wants males in particular to think themselves powerless against authority?

As for the secular history of circumcision, I'm no cultural anthropologist, either, but it's clear that the practice has existed not just concurrently with Israel, but independently. For instance, circumcision for boys and clitoridectomy for girls are important parts of adulthood rituals in Samoa, a country that probably had no contact with the descendants of Abraham (could it have had contact with much older Nimrodian Babylon?). It's rather common in Muslim-influenced cultures, although the koran is absolutely silent on the practice. These Islamic cultures are not generally known for their love of YHWH, their support of freedom, their respect for the rights of the individual, or even moral sexual practices (consider the frequency of rape of boys in Afghanistan, or the custom of female circumcision, a very barbaric practice indeed)...

Craig asserts (without any explicit support from the DSS and other texts, as they do not ever attempt to justify or explain the practice) that the practice is an unlisted punishment for humanity's (or an individual's - not trying to start an argument re: original sin) sin, just as the curse of pain in childbearing is (for women). However, childbearing is, save in the case of rape, a voluntary activity not incumbent upon women (but desired at least by normal ones, and a good way to reduce female narcissism too...), and its intense pain (admittedly much greater than that of circumcision) isn't felt immediately after birth, but when the woman has attained at least unto some maturity (save in presently-rare cases of pre-teen birth). Moreover, males' punishments are to have to work hard for sustenance, let alone luxury, and to defend himself & family from enemy animals and humans. While both of these punishments are certainly exacerbated by mankind's satanic Statist schemes, it should be noted that men are always regarded as expendable, women relatively (at least) biologically valuable. No society of import that sends its women off to have their lives thrown away in war whilst men keep house has ever existed.

In the Middle Ages, circumcision was very rare in Europe, practiced almost exclusively by Jews. I'm no defender of the RCC, of course, and this fact would appear suspicious, but I would advise them that would read too much into it that the enemy loves to establish false dichotomies (see: Republican vs. Democrat), and no doubt the average Catholic would have been no better off spiritually were he circumcised, regardless of whether or not the practice is itself moral. Babylonian Protestants weren't too enthusiastic about the practice as a whole until the Victorian age, when, first in Britain, sexual puritans came to advocate it in order to prevent masturbation in particular, and to generally inhibit sexual desires in boys. (Some also pushed for female circumcision, but thankfully that barbaric practice didn't take hold in the West. At the rate that Muslims are taking over, however, who knows what will happen vis-a-viz that iniquity?) Circumcision was later popularized in the US by the Seventh-Day Adventist John H Kellogg, who advocated it in order to reduce sexual feelings (he also recommended sewing foreskins shut, electroshock 'therapy', and carbolic acid applications for the less compliant; no keeper of Torah was he).

Finally, we have the question of free will: why would YHWH, Who clearly values free will in them that love Him, demand an involuntary performance such as this, without even an explanation?

Incidentally, I'm 100% pro-life, so (unlike some anti-circumcision activists, who are just playing into a false paradigm and will not do anything to effect the abolition of circumcision) I cannot be accused of hypocrisy on this issue. Personally, I'm circumcised (because it was the "middle cla$$" thing to do), and fairly young (no offense, but I haven't heard any young guys defending circumcision; it's either the already-circumcised or the relatively old).

Thank y'all for listening; I welcome future debate and hope I neither posters nor YHWH with my questions. Feel free to just reply to some of my points; I know I wrote a lot there.

RebelLibertarian

Ha!

James said crux!

He has to put a dollar in the box now!