tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5193745359560427451.post4978315248429038354..comments2024-03-28T17:07:27.195-07:00Comments on The Refiner's Fire Blog: Will an uncircumcised man go to hell?Carmenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14998146626031186940noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5193745359560427451.post-52239623469893311732016-06-21T18:32:25.975-07:002016-06-21T18:32:25.975-07:00Whoa! Time out! You have posed two completely sepa...Whoa! Time out! You have posed two completely separate issues here! 1st, there is "What is 'circumcision' by the scriptural meaning?", and the 2nd is "Does the modern circumcision go beyond scripture?". Then you actually posed a 3rd issue: "And does the 'more complete' modern circumcision need to be 'reversed' and would it be a sin to do so?" Zowie! Chill! Don't do anything rash!<br /><br />Let's get to some common ground: I don't have the space here to be thorough, but the "Brit Milah" is the Biblical circumcision. At the risk of being inaccurate, the "foreskin" consists of the "prepuce" which extends beyond the glans of the penis (inner prepuce), and the foreskin of the prepuce which is in contact with the glans (outer prepuce). A Biblical circumcision removes only the part of the prepuce which extends beyond the glans, while a modern circumcision remove all the prepuce. The issue of circumcision is not that one is more harmful or the other, rather, it is whether the circumcision was done for God or not!<br /><br />Many of us, born in the 1950's and 1960's were circumcised due to the prevailing medical preference, and all the foreskin was removed. While this is beyond the scriptural circumcision, those of us who grew up recognizing we were circumcised means we were circumcised! Beyond that, it is up to us to recognize it as the blessing it is! This is true whether we were circumcised by inner prepuce alone or by the outer prepuce which removed the whole foreskin.<br /><br />But "reversing" or "restoring" the foreskin is actually impossible! The foreskin which was removed contained sensitive tissue which cannot be restored. That means that any restoration is cosmetic only and completely unnecessary. <br /><br />So would it be a sin to "restore" a circumcision? Well: "Yes and No!" Yes, it would be a sin (if the man is a believer) to restore a circumcision to attempt to restore the "natural" appearance. After all, once the circumcision was reversed, the believing male is no longer circumcised so the scriptural circumcision is once again required! But, "No", if only the outer prepuce was being restored, leaving the penis in the same condition that it would have been in if only a scriptural circumcision had been done. But why do that? Absolutely nothing is gained!<br /><br />The bottom line is that if the man is circumcised, he is circumcised. It matters not if it was "scriptural" or "modern". The important factor is what the man does next. Does he recognize his blessing an grow in obedience to YHWH, or does he bow to society and try to "reverse" the circumcision to look like his godless buddies? What he does speaks volumes about whom he serves.Liamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00281049645175102119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5193745359560427451.post-74671490986430089492016-06-21T09:49:50.191-07:002016-06-21T09:49:50.191-07:00Would it be a sin to try and restore foreskin afte...Would it be a sin to try and restore foreskin after being circumcised? I feel like, and I could be wrong, but circumcision in Biblical times wasn't as harmful as it is today because it was just a snip of foreskin where as circumcision today takes most of the foreskin off. Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12847189724570989588noreply@blogger.com