Why would we sacrifice anything in the temple when the ultimate sacrifice has already been made on our behalf? The fact that Jesus offered sacrifices in the temple and we do not doesn't have any relevence to whether or not a child should be circumcised. Doesn't Paul Circumcise Timothy in Acts 16:3?
The whole point in this thread and the idea that Cleveland points out is: If you want to be circumcised, you can be circumcised, if you don't want to be circumcised, you don't get circumcised. End of story. People who are vehemently one way or the other are kinda creepy, especially those who are so profusely against it.
Well then, you might as well be calling the Coptic church creeps since it's customary! And it's the parent's decision, not the child's, so how can you say, "If you want to be circumcised, you can be circumcised, if you don't want to be circumcised"?? That makes no sense. Also, if I'm against female circumcision, am I a creep?? If I was for it, I'm sure everyone would be calling me a creep. How can you call me a creep for being against circumcision man, that's offensive.
If I'm against torturing others, am I a creep??
What I meant to say about offering sacrifices, is that Jesus did it because
He was a Jew, same with circumcision, and since we are Christians, there is no point to it. It should be illegal like it is with female circumcision because it is barbaric torture.