Circumcision and God

[Heresis]

According to the Bible and other religious texts in the Judeo-Christian vein of theology (and elsewhere), humans were created in the image of the almighty creator. Assuming that the god in this example is omniscient and perfect in every way, as is also stated in the Bible, one can assume that the human body is free of flaws. But apparently, this is not the case, according to Genesis 17:10:

"This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised."

So, granting the premise that there is a god and that humans were made in his image, why must this supposed perfect creation be altered at all, never mind in such a horrendous way as hacking away at the genitals of young children?

This idea seems very illogical to me.

[pax]

According to the Bible and other religious texts in the Judeo-Christian vein of theology (and elsewhere), humans were created in the image of the almighty creator. Assuming that the god in this example is omniscient and perfect in every way, as is also stated in the Bible, one can assume that the human body is free of flaws. But apparently, this is not the case, according to Genesis 17:10:

"This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised."

So, granting the premise that there is a god and that humans were made in his image, why must this supposed perfect creation be altered at all, never mind in such a horrendous way as hacking away at the genitals of young children?

This idea seems very illogical to me.

Yes. Your idea seems very illogical to me as well.

[I AM ALL I AM]

According to the Bible and other religious texts in the Judeo-Christian vein of theology (and elsewhere), humans were created in the image of the almighty creator. Assuming that the god in this example is omniscient and perfect in every way, as is also stated in the Bible, one can assume that the human body is free of flaws. But apparently, this is not the case, according to Genesis 17:10:

"This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised."

So, granting the premise that there is a god and that humans were made in his image, why must this supposed perfect creation be altered at all, never mind in such a horrendous way as hacking away at the genitals of young children?

This idea seems very illogical to me.

G'day Heresis.

1. 'God' is supposedly perfect.

2. By definition, that which is perfect creates perfectly.

If humans are apparently imperfect, then either 'God' is imperfect, or 'God' apparently chose to perfectly create imperfect humans (for whatever reason this could possibly be ).

Now, if 'God' is imperfect, then the description of 'God' as given by christianity is also imperfect.

If 'God' is perfect and perfectly created imperfect humans, then NO human can be held responsible for their imperfectness.

Personally, I think that the whole imperfect humans argument put forward by christianity is the ultimate 'poor me' excuse used to avoid personal responsibility ... "It's not my fault because I'm imperfect".

Another example of contradictory messages is making nature illegal (some plants, cannabis being one among others). If 'God' is perfect, how could any christian judge part of 'God's' creation by making it illegal ?

Doesn't christianity claim that which 'God' created is 'good' (from the bible) ?

If it is 'good', why make it illegal ?

Did 'God' make a mistake when creating specific plants ?

If so, then 'God' is imperfect.

Christians, by their belief about 'God', should not be against anything that 'God' supposedly created. Yet this obviously isn't the case for the majority of christians.

[bluethread]

According to the Bible and other religious texts in the Judeo-Christian vein of theology (and elsewhere), humans were created in the image of the almighty creator. Assuming that the god in this example is omniscient and perfect in every way, as is also stated in the Bible, one can assume that the human body is free of flaws. But apparently, this is not the case, according to Genesis 17:10:

"This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised."

So, granting the premise that there is a god and that humans were made in his image, why must this supposed perfect creation be altered at all, never mind in such a horrendous way as hacking away at the genitals of young children?

This idea seems very illogical to me.

There are two problems here.

First, there is much debate regarding what is meant by "created in the image of the almighty creator". However, practically no one believes it referes to man's physical appearance.

Second, the purpose of circumcision is not to make one any more or less perfect, but rather to provide a memorable sign of the covenant with Avraham. By the way, do you find all removal of the flesh to be "hacking away" or just circumcision?

[cnorman18]

Just for the record; it is also taught, in the Jewish tradition, that God intentionally left the Universe unfinished and imperfect, so that humans could participate in Creation by finishing and perfecting it. Indeed, the Hebrew phrase Tikkun Olam, meaning "Repair of the World," is said to signify the very meaning and reason for human existence.

There is a thread of Jewish teaching which holds that circumcision is a symbol of that concept; that the foreskin is a slight imperfection, or unfinished aspect, of the human body that it is up to us to correct -- and that, besides being a sign of the Covenant, it is a reminder that that is our job where the entire Universe is concerned.

The idea that "God is perfect, and must therefore create only perfect things" is NOT a teaching of the Jewish religion. In fact, "God is perfect" isn't part of Jewish teachings either. We have virtually nothing to say about the nature of God, and historically little interest in "proving" His existence. Belief, you see, is not a central concern of the religion. Some who have been here for a while might remember this from some of my old posts.

I don't really care to get into the debate otherwise; in my experience, some people rail about circumcision because they can't find anything else about Judaism to complain about, when attempts to connect the policies of Israel to Jewish teachings don't work (as we have seen elsewhere this very day). In my humble opinion; it's a very ancient and long-cherished rite of the Jewish people, it has no particular medical significance either way, and is optional for modern Jews anyway. I also think it's a matter for Jews to decide, and I don't think it's anyone else's business.

[brandonbutterworth98@yaho]

In the very beginning God made us in his image and we were "perfect". But he also gave us free will, and when we chose wrongly and disobeyed God's command, we fell from the graces which God had imposed on us. At this time we fell from our perfection.

(Genesis 3:17-19) Shows we are now susceptible to disease and death.
It has been shown scientifically that a man who is circumcised is less susceptible of infection than a man that is uncircumcised.

If we had not fallen from our perfection then we wouldn't be susceptible to disease.
Since God is all knowing, he realizes that we would have less infections being circumcised.

[Heresis]

There are two problems here.

First, there is much debate regarding what is meant by "created in the image of the almighty creator". However, practically no one believes it referes to man's physical appearance.

Second, the purpose of circumcision is not to make one any more or less perfect, but rather to provide a memorable sign of the covenant with Avraham. By the way, do you find all removal of the flesh to be "hacking away" or just circumcision?

Well, we definitely aren't god-like in our mental abilities, if that's what you're suggesting.

To say "practically no one believes that it refers to man's physical appearance" is speculation, as there are people that do believe that, so, what is your point here?

To your second point: that's the best way god could come up with for making the covenant memorable? By having grown men restrain a child, perforate his foreskin with a sharp rock, and then have another grown man suck the foreskin off with his mouth? Seriously?

By god declaring that unless the foreskin of males is removed, they cannot actually be part of his "family", then yes, he is implying that his creation doesn't meet his own specifications. How hard would it have been for him to just create us sans foreskin?

[Haven]

Just for the record; it is also taught, in the Jewish tradition, that God intentionally left the Universe unfinished and imperfect, so that humans could participate in Creation by finishing and perfecting it. Indeed, the Hebrew phrase Tikkun Olam, meaning "Repair of the World," is said to signify the very meaning and reason for human existence.

That is a really interesting concept! I actually never knew that about the Jewish concept of God, but it seems to make sense in a way that most God-concepts do not.

You know, it seems the more I learn about Judaism the more I like.

There is a thread of Jewish teaching which holds that circumcision is a symbol of that concept; that the foreskin is a slight imperfection, or unfinished aspect, of the human body that it is up to us to correct -- and that, besides being a sign of the Covenant, it is a reminder that that is our job where the entire Universe is concerned.

Makes sense.

I don't really care to get into the debate otherwise; in my experience, some people rail about circumcision because they can't find anything else about Judaism to complain about, when attempts to connect the policies of Israel to Jewish teachings don't work (as we have seen elsewhere this very day). In my humble opinion; it's a very ancient and long-cherished rite of the Jewish people, it has no particular medical significance either way, and is optional for modern Jews anyway. I also think it's a matter for Jews to decide, and I don't think it's anyone else's business.

I agree with this. As there is no evidence that circumcision causes physical harm, tolerance and respect are needed. As you said, it's a matter for practicing Jews to decide.


Peace and Reason,

Haven

[pax]

There are two problems here.

First, there is much debate regarding what is meant by "created in the image of the almighty creator". However, practically no one believes it referes to man's physical appearance.

Second, the purpose of circumcision is not to make one any more or less perfect, but rather to provide a memorable sign of the covenant with Avraham. By the way, do you find all removal of the flesh to be "hacking away" or just circumcision?

Well, we definitely aren't god-like in our mental abilities, if that's what you're suggesting.

To say "practically no one believes that it refers to man's physical appearance" is speculation, as there are people that do believe that, so, what is your point here?

To your second point: that's the best way god could come up with for making the covenant memorable? By having grown men restrain a child, perforate his foreskin with a sharp rock, and then have another grown man suck the foreskin off with his mouth? Seriously?

By god declaring that unless the foreskin of males is removed, they cannot actually be part of his "family", then yes, he is implying that his creation doesn't meet his own specifications. How hard would it have been for him to just create us sans foreskin?

Does it not occur to you that God purposely put the foreskin there so that you would not have to cut off something else?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I agree with this. As there is no evidence that circumcision causes physical harm, tolerance and respect are needed. As you said, it's a matter for practicing Jews to decide.

Well, this article mentions a couple of dead infants who would probably disagree with you.

Subjecting infants to unnecessary surgery is exposing them to unnecessary risk, even without the "ultra-orthodox" rituals that introduce the risk of contracting herpes. Not to mention we're talking about surgically removing a body part without consent. Let the child wait until they are old enough to make an informed decision on genital modification surgery.