The real question is, 6000 years ago or whenever it was, before modern medicine or medical equipment or anaesthetic, would you have let anyone anywhere near your private parts with a knife? What excuse would they need?

Juggles them. It's a great party trick, trust me. Actually, a lot of historians believe that circumcisions in biblical times were more a gashing of the foreskin than a full removal, and the practice of hacking the whole thing off is a more modern development. :|

Even God needs a hobby...:)

He (God) did not need the foreskins; he made a way to declare who are inside the camp as believers vs. those that were out. To understand why God ordained this procedure, you need to know the value of the sacrifice. In a nutshell, a sacrifice must cost you something, otherwise is worthless. It has to be you, or yours that that you sacrifice. Little more than just a ‘word’ yes or “no”, wouldn’t you say? Promises don’t cut it here. If you are called today to prove what you believe in, let’s say Satanism, and to prove that you believe, would you really harm your self? (not others!, self) If you would, than you should understand your own question. God offered His own Son (Jesus Christ), as atonement for sins, of all man kind as a sacrifice, once and for all, so those that would believe in Him would become righteous. This is called the “circumcision of the heart” and the “foreskin” is “the life” of the believer… It’s OK not to believe in something, but it’s quite foolish to ridicule something you don’t know or understand and make light of it…

to make wallets.

Have you seen "Silence of the Lambs?" How bout "Chainsaw Massacre?"

Maybe He lost His own and needs replacements?

He uses them for eyelids for certain people - they are then blessed with the gift of foresight. Of course, some of them just turn out cockeyed...

"God" never needed an infant's foreskin. It is all a lie. Male genital mutilation was instituted by Jewish priests, as a means of establishing authority over the ordinary Jewish male, after conquering Persians allowed Priests to return to Jerusalem, following the Babylonian Captivity. If Priests could compel each father to mutilate the genitals of his infant sons, and pay for the privilege, they could get them to do almost anything. The original Biblical Covenant between Abram and "God" is found in Genesis 15. Nowhere does it mention genital mutilation. This "covenant", and the putative life of Abram, predates the institution of circumcision by some two thousand years. Thus, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that Abram lived and died genitally intact. Genesis 17, with its mention of the covenant of male genital mutilation, was inserted into the Bible by the returning Priesthood, around 500 years BCE. In the process the priests also renamed Abram, who became "Abraham". Today, two thousand five hundred years later, most people aren't aware of the cruel deception which the priests foisted upon innocent infants, though the Jewish priesthood was forever destroyed during the Roman Empire. So, to answer your question ... amputated foreskins of infants are typically tossed into the garbage, after the mohel sucks the blood from each circumcised infant's penis.

Maybe he smokes, then cooks them on some pizza with some pineapple. Hawaiian style.

thank goodness.. god didnt get he hands on mine..