[jawns]

"My name would be Kenneth Luke Erickson. I'd be male. I'd like blue. I would be a Gemini. I would be Christian. They'd chop off some of my penis so I'd never forget that last one."

There's a common misconception that circumcision, for Christians, is a religious ritual or a religious requirement.

In fact, it's just the opposite. Many Christian denominations (e.g. Catholicism) specifically DISALLOW circumcision, if it's done for religious reasons.

[jmcqk6]

>In fact, it's just the opposite. Many Christian denominations (e.g. Catholicism) specifically DISALLOW circumcision, if it's done for religious reasons.

On the other hand, many christian denominations (e.g. esp pentecostals) circumcise precisely for religious reasons.

The simple fact is that while it might not be a religious ritual for some christians, it is for others christians.

Oh, look at that, christians not being consistent from one type to another. What a surprise.

[Domenic_S]

> Oh, look at that, people not being consistent from one type to another. What a surprise.

FTFY.

[jmcqk6]

I completely agree with what you're expressing here, but when you belong to an organization that claims to have a monopoly on meaning and truth in the universe, a higher level of consistency is not an unreasonable expectation.

[joelmichael]

Catholics and Pentecostals are different organizations. Back in the old days we used to purge non-orthodox views, but that's not as tenable anymore, so we have thousands of interpretations. In any event, the traditional Christian view is that circumcision is no longer necessary, as stated by Paul several times in the New Testament.

[jmcqk6]

>the traditional Christian view

There is no such thing as 'the traditional christian view.' There are many 'traditional christian views' and many times they contain mutually exclusive things. Even in the earliest records of the different churches, there are arguments and discussions about what is and isn't "christian." There sprung up groups that mostly agreed on things, and some of those tried to forcefully make others believe the same things, but they never succeeded.

[joelmichael]

The early church had many disagreements, especially over observance of Jewish law such as circumcision. But the Judaizers (as they are called) essentially lost the debate, which Paul was active in, and the Church became rather Gentile-oriented. Many other things were up for dispute as well, such as the exact nature of Jesus, but these were ultimately ironed out under ecumenical councils which ratified certain dogmatic truths such as the Trinity. Beginning with the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, convened by Constantine, Rome sought to define Christianity properly and began to eradicate all heretics, such as Arianism and Catharism, though some remote groups such as the Copts evaded them due to being out of their jurisdiction.

Christianity thus maintained relative internal consistency under the Roman Church, and spread throughout Europe, until around the year 1000 when the Greek Orthodox split off from the Catholics. However, they still maintain very similar dogmas (including that circumcision is unnecessary).

Martin Luther did his work in the 16th century which caused a great deal of schism in the Church; until this time Protestants did not exist. King Henry VIII abandoned Catholicism and invented Anglicanism. All of these people nonetheless still believed circumcision was not necessary and it was not generally practiced in Europe, and many of their liturgical beliefs were much more aligned with traditional Catholicism than modern evangelicals.

It wasn't until the US, with its enormous variety, lack of traditional oversight, and radical re-interpretation of the Bible by individuals, that circumcision regained some religious significance in fringe groups. Pentecostalism in particular did not start until the 19th century. However, after looking around, I can't find any evidence that even they universally see circumcision as a religious requirement for Christians. Some Christians practice it anyway, but not as a religious requirement. Incidentally, so do many atheists.

I think it can be said that not only the New Testament but almost the entire history of Christianity is against circumcision being a religious requirement. There was disagreement in the early church, and there is disagreement in some fringe groups today, but it was never a mainstream view.

[afterburner]

It is odd though to say circumcision is a Christian thing, when generally it is not, and for a long time in the past was considered definitely not Christian.

[jmcqk6]

If you're talking about christian beliefs, circumcision doesn't even make the top 10 ten odd things.

Just like most things with christianity, having a definite 'yes' or 'no' is not really possible. Christianity has a very mixed history with circumcision.

Wikipedia has a surprisingly good overview, though it doesn't address at all an overview of modern christian beliefs in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_male_circumcision#In_...

Of course, the fundamental premise of your statement is flawed. There isn't one single 'christian' thing. There are many christian things, and many of those contain mutually exclusive beliefs. Circumcision is one of them. There are many others.

[barkingcat]

Specifically, in many interpretations of Christianity, circumcision is not part of the observed religion (ie you don't need to have body parts chopped off or to have a certain type of diet to be a Christian)

[k-mcgrady]

The problem is the use of the word Christian. There are many different types each with vastly different views. When making a statement like that people need to be more specific.