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?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Whether Christians would like to admit it or not, one of the glaring problems in Christianity is the James, verses Paul debate. Now of course, the overwhelming majority of Christians have to attempt to defend the idea that Paul, and James were actually saying the same thing, but in different ways, and they are forced to do so, because they must, and have to defend the idea that, the Bible is inerrant, which means the Bible could not possibly contradict itself.

With this being the case, most Christians minds are confined in a box, they cannot possibly think outside of, and this box is called tradition. In other words, as soon as it may be mentioned that Paul, and James, may be saying different things, most Christians will certainly turn their mind off to this possibility, and refuse to think in this way.

However, we as Christians need to be willing to challenge tradition, and not be afraid to allow our minds to think outside of this box, in order to determine if there may be better answers. Once one has allowed their minds to think outside the box of tradition, they may well find out that tradition is correct, and then they will be better able to defend tradition, because they have allowed the mind to think in this way, and will be better able to answer the objections.

However, there may be times when one comes to the conclusion, that there are better answers outside of tradition, and we will never know this unless we allow folks to actually use their minds, and this is what I would like to argue, as far as this issue with James, verses Paul, faith, verses works.

Before we get to James, and Paul, I would first like to ask how you would defend the idea, that all that is contained in the New Testament, would be, "God breathed?" Notice, I am not arguing in any way that it would not be "God breathed". Rather, I am at this point simply asking how you may attempt to defend such an idea?

Of course many folks will appeal to where Paul says, "all Scripture is God breathed", but, we know that the letters contained in the NT were still in the process of being written at the time, and Paul could not have possibly known about any sort of Bible, which means he could not have known which letters would have been contained, and therefore we know, he could have only been referring to the Jewish Scriptures, which we all know now, as the Old Testament.

Also, more than likely some folks will appeal to where Peter says, referring to the writings of Paul, "The untaught and unstable will twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures". However, Peter is only comparing the letters of Paul with Scripture, and Peter could not have known about the Bible, and what would have been contained in the NT, and so Peter is certainly not comparing all which is contained in the NT, with Scripture.

So again, the question is, "how would you attempt to defend the idea that all of the NT, would be "God breathed?"

As and example, let us take a look at the author of the two letters to Theophilus. How would you defend the idea that these two letters were, "God breathed", or that the author would have been inspired by God in any way, to write these letters to Theophilus?

Again notice, I am not arguing, this would not be the case, I am simply asking, "how would you defend this idea?" In other words, if there were one who was truly searching for answers, and came to you, and ask the question, "how can we know this particular author wrote God breathed information, and that God certainly intended for these two letters to be in what we now call the NT?"

I am here to tell you, if you do not have a good answer for this, (and I do not have one) it is best to simply acknowledge, "I do not know". I will assure you this will be a far better answer, than a lame answer, to someone who is truly searching for answers, because more than likely they will surely be able to see through those lame answers, and this could cause greater damage than simply acknowledging the truth. This my friends, is truly what we need to think about.

However, before you begin to think about this, allow me to share with you some information that we can know about the author of these two letters, along with information we can know about the letters.

First, we can know beyond doubt, the author of, "The Gospel of Luke" would be one and the same, as the author of what we call, "The Actions of the Apostles"? How can we know this? Well, because the author actually addresses both letters to the same exact person, and in his second letter, he refers to the first letter, along with what would have been contained in that first letter. With this being the case, we can know beyond doubt that we are reading the same author in both of these letters addressed to, Theophilus.

Not only can we know who is addressed in these letters, we can also know why the author is writing these letters. The reason we can know this, is because the author actually tells Theophilus, (not us) why he is writing, and this can be found right at the beginning of the first letters where he say,

so that you may know the certainty of the things you were taught.

So here, we can see the clear reason for the writing of these letters, and remember the author refers to his first letter in the second, which tells us the author is writing both of these letters for the same purpose. So Theophilus, "may know the certainty of the things he has been taught." But this is not all we can know about these letters, and their author.

We can also know exactly how he claims to have obtained his information, because he tells Theophilus exactly where his information came from. He tells Theophilus,

"it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated, (or followed) everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;"

So here, we have the author himself, explaining exactly how he claims to have obtained his information, and the sad thing is for those who would like to bring God into the equation is the fact that, the author never once mentions God, when explaining how he obtained this information.

Of course there will be those who will attempt to argue, the author may not have been aware of such a thing, but in the end it was truly God who was behind the whole thing. Well, this may in fact be true, but I really do not know how in the world I, or anyone else would be able to demonstrate such a thing, when the author is clearly explaining to you, exactly where he got his information, and he never mentions God in any way at all?

It is almost like we as Christians are saying, "if this author was not inspired by God, and if what he is saying, is not God breathed, then we cannot trust what the author has to say"? Are we really under the impression that this author cannot be believed, unless he was inspired by God, and, or what he has to say would have to be, "God breathed"?

I mean lets think about this. With this author, we know we have someone in which it can be clearly demonstrated that he would have been alive during the life of Christ, who would have known, and spent a great deal of time with the original Apostles, which would mean he would have known the claims they were making first hand. We have the facts which clearly demonstrate beyond any doubt that this author spent a good number of years traveling around with Paul on his missionary journeys, all the way, and up until the point Paul stands trial in Rome, and he ends his second letter with Paul being under arrest, and we have direct evidence from one of Paul's letters, which would have clearly been written while Paul would have been arrest, that Luke was the only one with him.

Moreover, after this author goes through all these painful journeys with Paul, this author sits down to write not one, but two long and detailed letters to one individual, named Theophilus, and he tells Theophilus, the reason for his writing these letters, is our of concern for this individual.

So then, we have all these facts, that we can know, and we are concerned as to whether we can demonstrate if what this author writes would be, "God breathed", or that the author would have been inspired by God to write these letters? My question is, who is it that we would need to demonstrate these things to, when we have all these other facts, that we can know, and demonstrate?

Because you see, the fact of the matter is, the unbeliever, and critic surely does not believe the things this author writes, would be, "God breathed", and they also do not believe the author would have been inspired by God, since most of them do not even believe in God, and yet, they have more problems with this author, than any of the rest.

In fact, one of the arguments these critics have come up with, is the fact that the name Theophilus, means "lover of God", and it is the critical argument that this may in fact mean that Luke was not in any way addressing one particular individual, but may have well been addressing anyone at all, which may be a "lover of God."

Well I can absolutely assure that this argument is a very weak argument, but the main thing here is the fact that this argument indeed demonstrates desperation on the part of these critics. Because you see, the question really is, why would it matter to these critics who Luke may have been addressing, and why would it matter so much to them that, he may have been addressing one particular individual? Allow me to explain.

It is because, with the other Gospels, the authors do not address the audience they are writing to, and we also have no clues, other than tradition which would tell us exactly who the authors may have been. However, with the two letters to Theophilus, we know who is being addressed, and although the author never identifies himself, we can know that this author would have indeed been Luke, and that he did in fact spend much time traveling around with Paul, which clearly demonstrates this author would have indeed been alive during the lifetime of Jesus, and the Apostles.

Now let's think about this? There are critics who attempt to argue that, since we do not know who the authors of the Gospels may have been, then we cannot know when these things would have been written. They will go on to argue that this could very well mean that the "tale of the resurrection could have been something which came along much later, even decades after the alleged events, which means the author may not have even been around during the time of the alleged events, which would also mean that we do not have first hand, or even second hand accounts, but rather tales, which have been past down through the decades, with much of the events being added in, which the original Apostles were never claiming."

However, as we have seen, while we may not be able to demonstrate in what time frame the authors of Matthew, Mark, and John, would have wrote, there is no doubt that the author of the two letters to Theophilus would traveled around with Paul on his missionary journeys, which would absolutely mean this author would have not only had to be alive at the time of the crucifixion, he would have also known the original Apostles, along with the claims they were making, which would mean that it would also be a fact, this author would have been writing inside the lifetime of the Apostles, which would clearly demonstrate the claim of the resurrection, could not have possibly been any sort of tale which would have been past down through the years, and not something the original Apostles would have claimed, because we can demonstrate this author had, first hand testimony.

As we continue to look at what some of the critics have to say, there are those who attempt to make the argument that the authors may have copied each other. The usual argument is that, "The Gospel of Mark" would have been written first, and Matthew, and Luke simply copied from Mark, and went on to add other things to what Mark had to say.

Well, let's think about this. We have already established the fact that the author of the two letters to Theophilus, would have been alive during the life of Jesus, and the Apostles, and that he would have had first hand knowledge of what the Apostles were claiming. So then, why would he need a copy of what someone else may have authored?

Next, we know this authored wrote not one, but two letters to Theophilus, and in his second letter, he begins to use the words "we" and "us" as if he is there to witness the events, and the things he writes about in the second letter, is the only place we get this information. In other words, none of the other authors tell us of, "The Actions of the Apostles, besides this author.

The point is, this author did not need to copy anyone to give this information to Theophilus, which is contained in the second letter, and seeing as how the second letter ends with Paul being under arrest for some 2 years at that point, this demonstrates that at least this second letter could not have been written until Paul would have been well up in age.

Now, as we think about the fact that this author uses the words, "we", and "us", all the way, and up until Paul is arrested, coupled with the fact that Paul verifies to Timothy that Luke is with him in a letter that would have been clearly written while Paul would have been under arrest, we have pretty good evidence that Luke more than likely wrote at least his second letter with the time he had with the at least 2 years he had. With this being the case, it is certainly possible, and even likely that he used these two years to write both of these letters to Theophilus, since this would have given him ample time to write the letters consecutively, sending the first, while he wrote the second.

With all this being the case, we can know this author would have known, and spent a great deal of time with the original Apostles, and would have known the claims they were making first hand. Therefore, since the other Gospel writers tell us much of the same things as Luke, so much so the critics have accused the writers of actually copying from one original source, we can know at least this author would have had first hand accounts of the information he gives to, Theophilus.

Now, I have said all of these things, in order to demonstrate the fact that we have just refuted several of the objection which are made by the critics, simply by looking at the facts, and evidence we have available to us, and we have not mentioned anything at all about the what the author has to say a being inerrant, nor have we said a word about the author being inspired by God, which would not be convincing in the least to the critic, because we have no way to demonstrate such a thing. However, as already noted, we can, and have refuted the critics by sticking to the facts, which can be demonstrated.

The question then becomes, who needs the idea that these things would have been inspired by God, when we have no way to demonstrate such a thing, which means it cannot possibly be convincing to the critics.

Okay then, who is it really, who needs the idea that what the Gospel writers have to say would be inherent? The fact of the matter is, there are some Christian Apologist, who actually use, what certainly seem to be apparent discrepancies to argue against the idea that the Gospel writers copied one another, and this is something we really need to think about, because this is would be an argument the critics also use.

In other words, the critics will bring up these apparent discrepancies between the Gospel writers, as some sort of evidence that the stories must not be accurate, but the only way they can possibly do so, is because we as Christians insist the whole of the Bible would be inherent, which means we are the ones actually giving ammunition to the critic, and this is something we really need to think about carefully.

Because you see, when multiple witnesses testify truthfully about certain events, we expect them to report pretty much the same thing concerning the main events. However, we would also expect certain discrepancies between the witnesses, and if all of these witnesses give almost the same exact story, almost word, for word, the there is certainly reason to believe the testimonies were rehearsed, which would mean the witnesses may well be in collusion together.

Again, this is something we really need to think about. If we did not insist that what the Gospel writers had to say would necessarily to be inherent, then the critic would not have this ammunition, which would mean we would not have to waste time attempting to defend an idea which we cannot possibly defend, and these discrepancies would actually work to our advantage, because if a critic did in fact bring up these discrepancies, we could point out the fact that these discrepancies are exactly what we would expect from multiple witnesses, who report on the same exact events, and if the stories were almost exactly the same, with no discrepancies at all, this would be evidence of collusion.

So again, who is it really who needs the idea that the Gospel writers were inspired by God, and who needs the idea that what they wrote must, and has to be inspired by God? Well, as we have seen, it is certainly not the critic, because the critic will certainly be unimpressed by this idea, since we have no way to demonstrate such a thing.

So then, as bad as I hate to say this, it seems to be the lazy minded Christians who need this crutch for themselves, because if we can not demonstrate this idea to the critic, then we cannot possibly even demonstrate this idea to our own self. However, the lazy minded Christian, needs this crutch because it prevents them from actually having to use the mind in order to think through all the things we have above, and the lazy minded Christian can then simply say, "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it", which is no argument at all, even to one's own self.

The whole point which is being made is, we need to encourage Christians to actually begin to think, and one of the ways to do this is by giving them the ability to challenge ideas, and the only way this can happen, is if we allow them to think outside the box of tradition.

Is there danger in allowing our Christian brothers, and sisters to think outside the box of our traditions? Well, some will argue, allowing this will lead to all sorts of divisions, splinter groups, sects, cults, and if allowed, some may leave the Church all together, and even may become Atheist.

Well, isn't this already the case? In other words, we certainly have much division in Christianity. However, if you are not a Catholic, aren't you eternally grateful there was someone who was compelled to think outside the box of tradition? Of course, I am speaking of Martin Luther.

The life of Luther is certainly amazing, and intriguing. Luther was a man who struggled tremendously with his sin, and his eternal security. Of course when Luther was coming along, the common person was not able to read the Bible on their own, because the Bible was in the Latin language, and the common folk were dependent upon the priests, to explain to them exactly what the Scriptures had to say.

Luther was so terrified about his eternal security, that he decided to become a monk, thinking this would ensure his security. This would mean Luther would have to learn the Biblical languages. However, since Luther was such a brutally honest man with himself, he began to understand that becoming a monk, and behaving as a monk, did nothing whatsoever, to ensure his eternal security, because he understood, that even though his external behavior may have been pristine, inside he realize he was no better off than the worst of sinners. In other words, he rightly understood himself to be a, "whitewashed tomb". The outside may appear to be white, and glorious, but on the inside was the stench of death.

Luther was in turmoil, but then he was given the task of doing a series on the letter of Paul to the Romans. It was during this study that the lights turn on for Luther, and began to understand the true Gospel, (Good News). Can you not just imagine this man who was in all this turmoil over his eternal security, coming to finally understand the, "Good News", (Gospel)?

Think about it! The word "gospel" is the word that was used in ancient times, when a herald would return from the battlefield, announcing the '"gospel" (good news) of victory on the battlefield.

If this is hard for you to imagine, then let's use a more modern example that I certainly wish I could take credit for. As hard as it is to imagine, in WW2 Germany and it's allies were making significant advances, and the U.S. was in the war, and there were many American soldiers life that was at risk, and many did in fact lose there lives.

Now, imagine you were alive at this time, and you truly understood the consequences of losing this war, would in fact mean the end of your life, as you knew it. This is not something very easy to think about, but could you imagine living through such things, knowing American soldiers were losing their lives daily on the battlefield, and if victory was not obtained, this could mean the end of life as you know it now? Again, not something very easy to think about, but there were certainly those who lived, and died through, and because of it.

Now, I want you to think about what hopefully most of us have seen. In August 1945, "Time Magazine" depicted the imagines of folks celebrating in the streets of New York City when the announcement of victory in the war, and that the war was now over.

Think about this, all these folks just a short while earlier, were all more than likely caught up in the other cares of their life. Moms doing their shopping, maybe concerned about what to cook for dinner that night. Dads on the way back to the office for that important meeting. There may have been those with love ones illnesses which may have been fatal. There may have been some who had children that were causing them great grief. And most of these folks were probably passing each other on the streets, barely nodding their heads at each other, if they acknowledged each other at all.

But the this announcement is made, and anything else that is going on in their world pales in comparison. The shopping can wait. That very important meeting, all of the sudden is no longer important. That child that is causing so much grief is not thought about at the moment, because victory in this war would mean we at least have a chance to change things again. Dinner does not matter. And we may still grieve over that love one who is suffering with that fatal illness, knowing they will die, but if it were not for this victory, we all may be better off facing the same fate.

Can't you just see now how good news can have such a great affect? And this is exactly what happened to Luther, as he poured over Romans. It was then, and there, Luther discovered for himself, "The Good News", "The Gospel.

Think about this again, comparing this to the picture of those rejoicing in the streets of NY. Here was a man in anguish, over his justification, and though he tried all he knew how, he also realized his faults, and knew he could never do enough to justify himself.

And then in Romans, he discovers this victory had already been won. His days of anguish are over. The herald had arrived with the news, sin (Hitler) had been defeated, and could no longer condemn. Can you imagine the joy of Luther at this moment. "I am justified by faith in the work God has accomplished, and not by my own works". "This means, my justification rests on the One, and Only Promise Keeper, and not on my ability to keep promises.

And my friends, it was indeed this "Good News", "The Gospel" which compelled this man to stand up in the face of all those who were opposed, to defend this Good News, in order for it to be shared with all the world. Again, if you are not Catholic, aren't you so thankful that this man, was compelled to think outside the box, of tradition.

Luther then began to translate the Bible into the common languages so that the common person would read it for themselves, and not have to be dependent on others to explain it for them. And yes, this has caused all kind of divisions, splinter groups, cults, and sects, but you would not have the tradition you are in right now, without the sacrifice of Luther.

But, what of the idea that allowing folks to think outside the box of our traditions may cause them to make some serious errors, to the point they may even become Atheists?

Well, I want to assure you, this is already occurring, and on a grand scale, my friends. All one has to do is to look at the dwindling Church attendance here in America, and around the world. Of course many who are no longer attending Church would not necessarily consider themselves Atheists, and I know of some who even still continue to believe Christianity to be true, but they have been disillusioned by by a number of things, and one of those things would be tradition.

In other words, there are many folks, some of which I know well, who have some serious doubts about the beliefs, and practices of the tradition they were brought up in, but they understand the consequences of attempting to challenge these positions, which would cause much grief, and strife, since the overwhelming majority of Christians are settled in what they would like to believe, and do care to attempt to think through these issues, or attempt to defend them. With this being the case, they have simply decided to opt out of Church altogether.

However, I am here to tell you, a good many of these Christians, are now very outspoken, and proclaimed Atheists, and many of these are, very, very, angry. For the last seven years, and have spent the overwhelming majority of my free time debating with unbelievers, and Atheists, on a particular web site. What, we as Christians need to understand is, the overwhelming majority of these unbelievers, and Atheists, were at one time believers, and the overwhelming majority of these former Christians, once truly, and sincerely embraced Christianity.

Of course some to these former Christians were raised in the Church, and as they became adults and began to question some of the things they were taught, instead of getting answers, many of these folks received ridicule, mocking, and scare tactics in an attempt to keep them in line. However, when they realize these tactics for what they are, and there seem to be no real answers to their questions, they abandon the Church, and they are angry.

However, there is a surprising large number of these former Christians, who were not raised in the Church, and they came to truly embrace Christianity as an adult, and many of them were what would be called, "devout Christians" for years of their adult life, only to now reject Christianity out right, and for much the same reasons as above, and they are angry as well, and both of these former Christians I have described, spend an enormous amounts of time, debating this subject of different web sites, which are dedicated to such things.

It was never my intent to get involved with debating Atheists. Rather, I had been on one particular web site, debating one particular doctrine with other Christians for quite some time, and of course you run out of things to debate concerning simply one issue, and therefore I became board with this same thing over, and over.

But then, my wife told me she had run into actual Christian debate forums, and she said she thought I might be interested. So, I look this up, and found a debate site, which had Christian in the name, thinking I would be debating other Christians concerning our different beliefs. However, when I arrived, I quickly found out that there were not very many Christians at all on this site. In other words, I was face, to face with Atheists, and unbelievers, who were making a case against Christianity.

Well, at first I simply spent a few days reading what these unbelievers had to say, as they talked mostly among themselves, and I would have to say, I was quite embarrassed many times with what the few Christians would have to say in response. In other words, most of the time when Christians would respond, they would actually fuel the fire, and make the case for these unbelievers. This, is the bad news from this site.

With this being the case, I sat and thought carefully before I decided to dive in. In other words, instead of simply jumping right in, I decided to sit, read, and carefully consider the arguments which were being made. What I began to see is, many of these unbelievers, were not really rejecting Christianity at all, (even though this is what they would claim). Rather, they were rejecting the very bad, and reckless theology they were exposed to. And this is the good news!

In other words, most of these former Christians believe they have demonstrated Christianity to be false, simply because they believe they have demonstrated what they were exposed to, to be false. The point is, they have been exposed to reckless theology, and they are somehow convinced that this reckless theology is taught in Scripture, but they cannot even defend the position they hold, as even being taught in Scripture.

Allow me to give you one major example of this, that should scare us as Christians out of our wits. There is one particular member of this site who came to faith as a young teenager. As he went on to high school, he became obsessed with the idea that many of his friends, and classmate were not Christians, and were facing the possibility of hell, and we as Christians had been commanded to, "go into all the world, and preach the gospel."

Well, these things continued to press upon him, up and until he went to college. Once in college this young man began to wonder why he was even going to college, when there were so many in the world who did not know the Lord. With this being the case, not only did he drop out of college, he also talked a young girl, who later became his wife into dropping out, and they were both off to the mission field, on the account he was under the impression that this is what we as Christians were commanded to do, expecting that the Lord would take care of all of their needs, since they were obeying the command.

Well, this is exactly what they did, and to make a long story short, things did not turn out so well at all, and this man, and his wife lost all they had, to return home to absolutely nothing, other than this man now has very bad emotional problems, which involves what he refers to as some sort of tic, which is more than likely some sort of nerve disorder, and he blames it all on Christianity, and after actually being an overseas missionary for the cause of Christianity for years, he now rejects Christianity as being completely, and utterly false, all based upon the reckless interpretation of a passage of Scripture, which the majority of Christians hold, but was never meant to be a command for all Christians.

That's exactly right! The majority of Christians hold to the view, that the command to "go into all the world and preach the Gospel" is a command to all of us as Christians, but these same Christians can in no way defend this idea, all the while they are safe and snug in their own home towns, and very seldom if ever talk about their faith to others, other than the other Christians who may be in their communities, and those in their own Church, all the while seeming to ignore the damage this reckless theology may be, and is causing to those who may happen to actually take these things seriously.

This story I have just told you is absolutely true, and you can verify this by doing a search on the internet with the title, "How Christianity Stole Years of My Life", because this man now has a web site in which he is desperately attempting, out of true concern for others, to prevent them from making the same mistake as he did, and he is doing so by making the argument that Christianity is a fairy tale.

[Jagella]

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

I've often wondered about that same question. My best guess is that circumcision was a way to "brand' and then be able to identify a fellow Jew. Considering the difficulty and pain involved in circumcision, nobody could easily pass themselves off as Jews if they were not Jews.

Of course, the Jews put the words to mandate circumcision into the mouth of their god. No god would need such a primitive and barbaric practice to know his people, but people might need it.

So as always, we can see the indelible stamp of weak, petty, and frightened humans on the image of a supposedly all-powerful, all-wise, and invulnerable god. I'm just glad that I live in a society in which secularism protects me when I point it out.

[Zzyzx]

.

My best guess is that circumcision was a way to "brand' and then be able to identify a fellow Jew.

That suggests quite a spectacle -- men dropping their pants to prove to each other they are Jews. Would such 'show the badge' be a religious ritual -- or possibly a hook-up?

Isn't Catholicism similarly engaged in circumcision rituals?

[bjs]

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

Circumcision was the symbol of the Old Covenant.

Symbols matter.

[Zzyzx]

.

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

Circumcision was the symbol of the Old Covenant.

Symbols matter.

Of course. Circumcision fits right in with other symbolic mutilation of body parts, lip plugs, foot binding, neck stretching, female genital mutilation, etc.

Most of those practices seem to be dying out or becoming rare. Is circumcision still widely practiced? What does it symbolize with Non-Jews?

[Jagella]

That suggests quite a spectacle -- men dropping their pants to prove to each other they are Jews. Would such 'show the badge' be a religious ritual -- or possibly a hook-up?

My guess regarding circumcision as a way to identify Jews is partly based on the archaic Jewish practice of identifying girls ready to marry by the priests inspecting their vaginas for pubic hair. If inspecting genitals for marriage-readiness was good enough for God's people, then inspecting genitals to identify fellow Jews as Jews was good enough for God's people.

Isn't Catholicism similarly engaged in circumcision rituals?

I hope not! It's not their religion, after all.

[Jagella]

Circumcision was the symbol of the Old Covenant.

Symbols matter.

Can't God come up with a less drastic symbol involving less pain and mutilation?

[Wootah]

There is two main aspects circumcision and baptism.

They symbolise heaven / masculine / spiritual and earth / feminine / physical.

Christianity is about that unity between heaven and earth. Jesus makes a way for peace and relationship with God. Jesus fully God and fully man lived that perfect unity. When we are resurrected it is to a new heaven and a new earth. Humans will be like Jesus and both 100% heaven and earth

Baptism is about birth and like a return to the womb, a rebirth. Circumcision is about killing off our lusts and passions to the world. The penis is very symbolic of our desire for the world. We can observe the uncircumcised life in the way we treat the world or others or sex. Do we rape and pillage in life or do we limit our selves and control ourselves.

Circumcision is about moderation and ultimately we circumcise our heart, the real cause of our passions. Will I treat others as matter to be used or will I circumcise my heart, to live is Christ and to die to gain is the ultimate manifestation of circumcision.

Since we do not doubt the evil of our passions why would we be surprused for the Bible to focus on this?

[Jagella]

Of course. Circumcision fits right in with other symbolic mutilation of body parts, lip plugs, foot binding, neck stretching, female genital mutilation, etc.

Most of those practices seem to be dying out or becoming rare. Is circumcision still widely practiced? What does it symbolize with Non-Jews?

My doctor has told me he recommends circumcision for some men who are prone to urinary-tract infections. Bacteria can breed inside the foreskin and be passed into the urinary bladder. Circumcision removes the foreskin making such an infection less likely.

Some apologists might jump on this fact saying that God in his wisdom instructed the Jews to take up a healthy practice in circumcision. It won't work, however, because God would then be stupid giving men foreskin to begin with.