Bible obsession with foreskin

[Zzyzx]

.
Bible obsession with foreskin

There are over a hundred mentions of circumcision in the Bible
https://www.openbible.info/topics/circumcision

There are thirteen mentions of foreskin specifically
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Foreskins

Including:

1 Samuel 18:27 David rose up and went, he and his men, and struck down two hundred men among the Philistines Then David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full number to the king, that he might become the king's son-in-law. So Saul gave him Michal his daughter for a wife.

Picture the aftermath of battle with Philistines . . .

WHY would a ‘god’ and his people be obsessed with foreskin and circumcision?

[Danmark]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

Castration is part of circumcision.

This is true if the foreskin and the testicles are the same body part.

If castration was the same as circumcision, the Jews would have died out 3000 years ago.

[Zzyzx]

.

If castration was the same as circumcision, the Jews would have died out 3000 years ago.

That may be a bit too scientific for the anti-science crowd.

I often wonder if some posts are attempted word play or whether people just do not know the meaning of words. It would seem as though those who use the Internet would have an ability to use on-line dictionaries. Is that overly optimistic?

Perhaps some just get wound up in flowery language and religious dogma.

Modern Christians do not seem enamored of circumcision -- yet some still attempt to defend or justify or 'explain' ancient Jewish practices; perhaps because their theology is derived from Judaism -- but did not make a clean break from the parent

[Danmark]

.

If castration was the same as circumcision, the Jews would have died out 3000 years ago.

That may be a bit too scientific for the anti-science crowd.

I often wonder if some posts are attempted word play or whether people just do not know the meaning of words. It would seem as though those who use the Internet would have an ability to use on-line dictionaries. Is that overly optimistic?

Perhaps some just get wound up in flowery language and religious dogma.

Modern Christians do not seem enamored of circumcision -- yet some still attempt to defend or justify or 'explain' ancient Jewish practices; perhaps because their theology is derived from Judaism -- but did not make a clean break from the parent

I cannot voice the likely explanation without getting a warning.
There seems to be an inverse relationship between religion and knowledge of science... or general knowledge.*

Sometimes the ref. is to symbolism, but speaking of symbols is not license to conflate those symbols or to use symbolism to attempt to mask fuzzy thinking.






___________________________
*I challenge any religionist to a game of 'Trivia Crack.' PM me and prepare to lose

[Tcg]

.

If castration was the same as circumcision, the Jews would have died out 3000 years ago.

That may be a bit too scientific for the anti-science crowd.

I often wonder if some posts are attempted word play or whether people just do not know the meaning of words. It would seem as though those who use the Internet would have an ability to use on-line dictionaries. Is that overly optimistic?

Perhaps some just get wound up in flowery language and religious dogma.

Modern Christians do not seem enamored of circumcision -- yet some still attempt to defend or justify or 'explain' ancient Jewish practices; perhaps because their theology is derived from Judaism -- but did not make a clean break from the parent

I cannot voice the likely explanation without getting a warning.
There seems to be an inverse relationship between religion and knowledge of science... or general knowledge.*

Sometimes the ref. is to symbolism, but speaking of symbols is not license to conflate those symbols or to use symbolism to attempt to mask fuzzy thinking.

I think in many cases, symbolic terms are used and those using them think they know what they mean, although in reality, they have only a vague notion of the concept. They've never been asked to detail the meaning in any concrete way, and when they are, they falter. It reveals the fact that they themselves don't really know what the term means.

This is not a Biblical term as far as I know, but the phrase, "Ask Jesus into your heart", is an example. What could that possibly mean? Is Jesus a nanobot who will circumcise my heart internally if I ask him? If so, what exactly is he doing in there?


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

Bible obsession with foreskin

There are over a hundred mentions of circumcision in the Bible
https://www.openbible.info/topics/circumcision

There are thirteen mentions of foreskin specifically
https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Foreskins

IS THERE A BIBLICAL OBSESSION WITH CIRCUMSISSION?


The word obsession implies an unhealthy unbalanced focus that impedes normal function. I doubt if strictly speaking an inanimate object (like a book) can rightly be refered to as "obsessed". If the question is why do the bible writers place so much emphasis* on foreskin/circumsission, I would say that for a good deal of their history, circumsission of the males was considered a physical sign between God and his chosen people of their personal dedication to Him. This tradition predated the Mosaic law and continued until the Christian era.

* Arguably circumsission is not mentioned any more frequently in scripture than other physical processes; washing (whether ceremonial or not) for example, is mentioned more than 150 times in scripture.

Why circumssion ?

• Firstly it should be noted that circumssion remained ultimately a personal sign of dedication and stood in contrast to other mandated signs that could easily be seen by others. For example Jewish males wore full beards and their clothing (prohibited from being woven from mixed materials) was bordered by a blue thread. Circumssion could arguably be considered a fitting symbol of the intimate relationship between a man and his God as it could not be perceived by outsiders.
  
  Further, the Mosiac law instituted several religious procedures related to sex and reproduction so that God's people recognised that reproduction, while a blessing, also brought one more sinner, in need of redemption, into the world . Perhaps the choice to circumcised male baby boys further drove home this point In any case it would remain an indelible physically irreversible sign that they were born to a dedicated nation and a constant reminder of the responsibilities that incurred.
  
  While arguments abound whether the removal of foreskin increases or decreases sensitivity during sexual encounters, the symbolism of removing a layer of skin from the penis does not go scripturally without note, as Jeremiah refers to a metaphoric "circumsission of the heart" ie removing a barrier of stubbornness in the minds of the Jews to increase their sensitivity to God's commands.

CONCLUSION It would be inaccurate to suggest a disproportionately large number of verses are dedicated to the subject of circumssion but it did remain for thousands of years a religious tradition that represented the special relationship certain people had with God. In view of this it is hardly surprising that Jewish Christians had a hard time adapting to the Christian system where no external physical symbols held religious significance in worship.




RELATED POSTS

Did Jesus promote self-mutilation?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 491#944491

Is the bible obsessed with sex?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 645#799645

What was the Jeaslousy curse?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 096#836096

[Wootah]

.

If castration was the same as circumcision, the Jews would have died out 3000 years ago.

That may be a bit too scientific for the anti-science crowd.

I often wonder if some posts are attempted word play or whether people just do not know the meaning of words. It would seem as though those who use the Internet would have an ability to use on-line dictionaries. Is that overly optimistic?

Perhaps some just get wound up in flowery language and religious dogma.

Modern Christians do not seem enamored of circumcision -- yet some still attempt to defend or justify or 'explain' ancient Jewish practices; perhaps because their theology is derived from Judaism -- but did not make a clean break from the parent

I cannot voice the likely explanation without getting a warning.
There seems to be an inverse relationship between religion and knowledge of science... or general knowledge.*

Sometimes the ref. is to symbolism, but speaking of symbols is not license to conflate those symbols or to use symbolism to attempt to mask fuzzy thinking.

Anything can be said civilily.

Civility is like circumcision of course. You could say anything and people do but we cut off the ones that go to far, far better to be circumspect and civil. Which I guess is the symbolism of circumcision in the Bible. Circumcision and the law are the same thing. They are both means or attempts to control our flesh. You might acknowledge the curbing influence of laws and punishments.

Paul points it out in Galatians chapter 5.


Freedom in Christ
5 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

7 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth? 8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.� 10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. 11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

Life by the Spirit
13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.� 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

16 So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever[c] you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

[Danmark]

I cannot voice the likely explanation without getting a warning.

Anything can be said civilily.

You missed the point by a mile and went careening off down a canyon of non sequiturs, despite the .
So, let me help.
The expression, " I cannot voice the likely explanation without getting a warning. " is an attempt at hyperbole, a way to inject the passion that accompanies an expletive without actually using the forbidden word.

And what do you mean by

Civility is like circumcision of course.

A) "of course" does not follow; B) Civility is not like circumcision at all. I'd say it is the opposite. Circumcision is a violent mutilation of the penis. Civility is a gentle manner of speech. Are you conflating 'circumcision' and 'circumspect?'