Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Male Circumcision: Concious Science or Coincidence?
Share:
by BelaynehKassaWubie | June 26, 2010 at 09:32 pm
459 views | 4 Recommendations | 8 comments
It is written in the Bible that males be circumcised in the eighth days of birth. On the eighth day of a birth of a child, blood clots. Was this a conscious science in the Bible? If it is conscious why religion is said to be contrary to science?
We can say that the Bible’s premise is scientific as, for example, circumcision for male is necessary for reasons that if not circumcised will be vulnerable for dirt and diseases and also cannot satisfy female partners.
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most Recommended Comment
concerned_about_your_writers (not verified)
Crowd Power
BelaynehKassaWubie
Addis Abeba, Ethiopia
Most Recommended Stories in Culture
Recommendations (4)
utilaeastwind
East Harbour, The Bay Islands, Honduras
Clotee Allochuku
Sherman Oaks, CA, California, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (8)
at 23:48 on June 26th, 2010
unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. Circumcision is just a sadistic genital mutilation that tries to pass it off as scientific proven health benefits. Circumcision doesn't decrease any kind of disease. In Europe males aren't circumcised and they are just doing fine, they have in fact lessd disease than in the US (STDs, penile cancer).
at 06:15 on June 27th, 2010
whomever wrote this article is furiously uneducated and severely blind to any objective views on science and religion. now public just lost it's credibility in it's entirety with this hilarious excuse of an article. I AM CIRCUMCISED, I WAS MUTILATED IN THE VANITY OF CHRIST. When you lose that skin on your dick, so goes 30 of your nerve endings.MAYBE THIS HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT SEEING AS THEY DON'T WANT YOU TOUCHING YOUR DISCO STICK.no wonder why Brazilians have so much more sex and have larger members.watch the real history of religion, you have lot's to learn:ZEITGEIST RELIGEON: www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw
at 06:47 on June 27th, 2010
Now really? Just how primitive can you get?
at 10:53 on June 27th, 2010
No, NowPublic did not lose its credibility because it invited you to teach me which is expecyed from a nice educated person to teach the illiterate.
Regarding the sexual satisfaction from uncircumcised man, it would have been good if a witness is heard from the ladies!
at 08:54 on June 29th, 2010
I am sure you are on your way to being the #1 writer on Nowpublic.
Your insight into religion, logic and humanity is uncanny.
Maybe you could talk sense to other great leaders in the area. Mugabe and Gaddafi should hire you as an advisor to bridge the differences between your culture and the West.
Seriously, you would be great... The Pulitzer Prize awaits!
at 11:40 on June 27th, 2010
I think Now Public needs more contributors from Ethiopia, and other countries. Citizen Journalism should not just for North America and Europe.
Bring on new writers.
at 19:08 on June 27th, 2010
It is also written in the Bible that one's slaves should be circumcised. So slavekeeping must be okay?It is simply not true that "On the eighth day of a birth of a child, blood clots." There is one blood-clotting factor that is said to peak about the eighth day, but it would be interesting if this claim has ever been verified by any impartial observer, rather than someone who wants to make the same point as BelaynehKassaWubie. And if it is true, the probability is that it was discovered by trial and (fatal) error before the eighth day was settled on, and then codified into the Bible as "God's word".The claim that men who are not circumcised are "vulnerable for dirt and diseases" will come as a surprise to the 2/3 of the world's men who are intact, and that they "cannot satisfy female partners" as a surprise to their partners.
at 08:31 on June 28th, 2010
The Bible says not to circumcise:
Galatians 5:2 (New American Standard Bible)
"Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you."
Corinthians 7:18-19 (New American Standard Bible)
"Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.
Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God."
The thing about the blood clotting is bogus anyway. It's different for every child, and there's nothing special about the eighth day.
Funny how Christians didn't circumcise for the best part of two millennia, and yet because of some seriously bad *medical* opinions in the late 19th century, some Christians are looking for reasons to do it today.
90% of Christians worldwide do *not* circumcise, and the Catholic church has been opposed for centuries:
The Holy Roman Church "...commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation."
From Cantate Domino, re-affirmed by Pope Pius XII in 1952
"From a moral point of view, circumcision is permissible if, in accordance with therapeutic principles, it prevents a disease that cannot be countered in any other way." Pope Pius XII in 1952
The form of circumcision undergone by Christ was nothing like a modern day circumcision anyway. He would have looked more like an intact man than like someone who has had a typical American circumcision. The most common form of circumcision today was only introduced by rabbis (not Christians) over a century after the crucifixion to stop Jewish men from pretending to be gentile.
Male circumcision is not medically necessary or even advisable:
You might also want to check out the following:
Canadian Paediatric Society
http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/fn/fn96-01.htm
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancy&babies/circumcision.htm
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."
Royal Australasian College of Physicians
http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=B5610716-9E3E-6C97-A8D87880FD002E3B
"After extensive review of the literature, the Paediatrics & Child Health Division of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has concluded that there is no medical reason for routine newborn male circumcision."
(almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)
British Medical Association
http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/consent_and_capacity/malecircumcision2006.jsp#Circumcisionformedicalpurposes
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."
The Royal Dutch Medical Association
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm
"The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."