There are plenty of people who would disagree with your “only” reason at least in as much as it being the only reason. There are plenty of reasons whether you or I think they're valid or not being a different kettle of fish.

Personally I can't imagine getting it done as a teen.

And yes, the only reason to circumcise a child would be so when he's taking a shower at school he won't get laughed at. Kids did that when I was in school to those who were left uncut. They got the procedure done as teens. From what I hear, it's a life changer in more ways than one.

As far as your specific questions go, the removal of the foreskin isn't an admission that God made the penis wrong. If they were removing it in order to make it work better you'd have a point.

As I understand it, it's all got to do with the power of blood, which is something that resonated through most ancient religions I'm aware of. It was almost definitely a practice before God ordained it for the Jews.

So is the act godly? Absent from any religious belief, no. Nothing inherent in the act itself is godly. Specifically in the Jewish religion, it's a symbol of the Covenant between God and Abraham. It also wasn't limited to children if I read correctly. Since God apparently called for it in the case of the people he chose, it is by definition godly under those circumstances.

Personally I don't think anyone outside of the Jewish religion is required by God to circumcise anyone. Apparently Orthodox Jews still practice it for religious reasons. Culturally it's practiced for a number of aesthetic reasons and believe it or not (and this might be TMI) my wife and I talked long and hard about this very topic when our son was born. We opted to go with the procedure. I assume since I have no memory of when it was done to me that he has no memory of it being done to hom and so I don't think there's any lasting trauma as their might be with actual torture.

There was a point in all of this somewhere. I seem to have lost it.

Baptism: Sprinkling water on an infants head or immersion.

Circumcision: Strapping a baby down, putting a device on his most sensitive area of his body, putting the child into shock (this has been proven) then taking a knife to the most sensitive part of his sensitive parts and cutting it away without the use of any anesthesia all in an effort to sexually mutilate the child by cutting away a piece of skin that God put there in the first place? Isn't that just saying God made man wrong? Or is it saying that infants need to suffer mutilation in order to correct God's little mistake?

This act has always horrified me as something society has seen as useful but only serves to torture infants. If you've never seen an infant go through this procedure, watch it once and you'll change your mind that this is something godly.

Just my opinion.

On the surface at least I would argue that there's not a whole lot of difference between the baby dedications I saw and the infant baptisms I see. If I recall correctly the infant dedications I saw in my past made the child a member of the visible church (at least until they were of an accountable age) and the parents were exhorted “to bring up the child in the knowledge of the grounds of the Christian religion, and in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and to let him know the danger of God’s wrath to himself and child, if he be negligent; requiring his solemn promise for the performance of his duty.”

And evidently as a Methodist I wasn't a very good one apparently Methodist don't dedicate their babies, they also baptize them and view it pretty seriously. http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid…

And as I said I'm not arguing against the practice or trying to diminish it in any way. I'm just saying that the practice itself is a sign as much as it's a seal. If you're baptized and you break covenant then it's as though it didn't happen. At least that's how I read it.

Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world. (WCF Chap. XXVIII)