Why would God want man's foreskin ?

Good question. Since all the bible says is that this is a sign of the covenant and we don't know the specifics of why from God's own mouth, I'll offer an opinion.

1) First, the 8 day question. You'll notice in Exodus and Numbers especially that elective participation as a son of Abraham or even a member of his household isn't an option. This seems most clear when you get to the Levites in Numbers who are taken in a swap for those God saved in Egypt. So, it's not an elective because God has in a sense 'claimed' Abraham's people. You can renounce Abraham and his God, but you aren't putting the foreskin back.
2) Why the foreskin? Two conjectures. First, it's something all males have to look at at least once per day if for no other reason than relieving themselves. It's a handy (forgive the pun) reminder of the covenant and it doesn't limit you like removing some other appendage might. Second, immoral sexual relations is a major stumbling block for most males. Maybe it's a reminder to be obedient and to remember who you are.
3) It's not exactly an external sign, for everyone else to see. So, it's a private relationship between God and the cicumcisee.
4) Since Moses later refers to God desiring a circumcision of the heart, one has to wonder if this is the most direct approach to reminding one of that, admittedly rather graphic, but direct.

As far as all the pragmatic practices of circumcision that were developed, I find it all rather disgusting but I don't know of anyone who would claim that these details are part of the biblical command. People dream up all kinds of elaborations of God's commands. Some of these are pragmatic, for instance, keeping a person far from possible sin.

reply to post by Scurvy


That reminds me, anyone know the bible story where i think a member of davids tribe wanted to marry a girl from another tribe, sot of romeo and juliet love across a divide, well after some arguments they said because God only wants curcumsized men and the other tribe said 'well, love is a great thing lets do it so they can get married!' and they all mutalated their penis's to please the jews, who being cunning were sneaking into camp and as they lay around in pain because of their penis's the Jews slaughtered them all -and the two people got married and lived ha... oh no sorry, of course they didn't that would be impure and terrible god would hate it -everyone that wasn't in Davids gang was dead anyway at this point, just like how bible stories end.

And then of course we need to look at the botched attempts at circumcision. I think most people know about poor John/Joan, if not here is part of his story with a link. He killed himself.

"David Reimer was born an identical (non-intersex) twin boy in 1965. At the age of 8 months, David and his brother each had a minor medical problem involving his penis, and a doctor decided to treat the problem with circumcision. The doctor botched the circumcision on David, using an inappropriate method and accidentally burning off virtually all of David’s penis. At the advice of psychologist John Money at Johns Hopkins University, David’s parents agreed to have him “sex reassigned” and made into a girl via surgical, hormonal, and psychological treatments—i.e., via the system Money advocated for intersex children"

John/Joan

reply to post by Soloman Kane


Genesis says Ishmael was 13 when he was circumcised and Abraham himself was 99 years old!

Shocker for modern day teenage rebels, I know!

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Well my guess would be that since America was colonized by Europeans during a time when religion was rampant that this tradition was brought over and normalized. Since it was normal for so long I think it has just become one of those things that people "should do". I think it fair to say circumcision also became more widely used due to it being said STD risks are lowered and life span is increased.

No wonder why priests are no wait that must be Rabba's that are sucking after cutting you gotting be kidding me . I call hoax.

reply to post by Mynaeris


You know, there was a time when I would have found that John/Joan story shocking, awful and absolutely horrifying. That time has long gone, and now I can simply say that I am NOT surprised in the least and am absolutely disgusted.

reply to post by NatureBoy



Jacob's daughter Dinah had been date-raped.
But, the man fell in love with her and wanted to make it right.
Dinah's brothers did kill them, but Jacob was against it!

Gen 34:2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.


Gen 34:3 And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.


Gen 34:4 And Shechem spake unto his father Hamor, saying, Get me this damsel to wife.


Gen 34:5 And Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter: now his sons were with his cattle in the field: and Jacob held his peace until they were come.


Gen 34:6 And Hamor the father of Shechem went out unto Jacob to commune with him.


Gen 34:7 And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard [it]: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter; which thing ought not to be done.


Gen 34:8 And Hamor communed with them, saying, The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter: I pray you give her him to wife.


Gen 34:9 And make ye marriages with us, [and] give your daughters unto us, and take our daughters unto you.


Gen 34:10 And ye shall dwell with us: and the land shall be before you; dwell and trade ye therein, and get you possessions therein.


Gen 34:11 And Shechem said unto her father and unto her brethren, Let me find grace in your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me I will give.


Gen 34:12 Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife.


Gen 34:13 And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father deceitfully, and said, because he had defiled Dinah their sister:


Gen 34:14 And they said unto them, We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one that is uncircumcised; for that [were] a reproach unto us:


Gen 34:15 But in this will we consent unto you: If ye will be as we [be], that every male of you be circumcised;


Gen 34:16 Then will we give our daughters unto you, and we will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one people.


Gen 34:17 But if ye will not hearken unto us, to be circumcised; then will we take our daughter, and we will be gone.


Gen 34:18 And their words pleased Hamor, and Shechem Hamor's son.


Gen 34:19 And the young man deferred not to do the thing, because he had delight in Jacob's daughter: and he [was] more honourable than all the house of his father.


Gen 34:20 And Hamor and Shechem his son came unto the gate of their city, and communed with the men of their city, saying,


Gen 34:21 These men [are] peaceable with us; therefore let them dwell in the land, and trade therein; for the land, behold, [it is] large enough for them; let us take their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters.


Gen 34:22 Only herein will the men consent unto us for to dwell with us, to be one people, if every male among us be circumcised, as they [are] circumcised.


Gen 34:23 [Shall] not their cattle and their substance and every beast of theirs [be] ours? only let us consent unto them, and they will dwell with us.


Gen 34:24 And unto Hamor and unto Shechem his son hearkened all that went out of the gate of his city; and every male was circumcised, all that went out of the gate of his city.


Gen 34:25 And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.


Gen 34:26 And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out.


Gen 34:27 The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister.


Gen 34:28 They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which [was] in the city, and that which [was] in the field,


Gen 34:29 And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all that [was] in the house.


Gen 34:30 And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I [being] few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.


Gen 34:31 And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot?

reply to post by NatureBoy

This the "story"........

David buys a wife with 200 Philistine foreskins....

1Sa 18:25-27 And Saul said, So you shall say to David, There is no delight to the king in dowry, but in a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged on the king's enemies. And Saul thought to cause David to fall by the hand of the Philistines. And his servants told David these words. And the thing was right in David's eyes, to be son-in-law to the king. And the days had not been fulfilled. And David rose up and went out, he and his men. And they struck two hundred men of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, and he gave them in full to the king, in order to be son-in-law to the king. And Saul gave him his daughter Michal for a wife. And Saul saw and knew that Jehovah was with David, and that Saul's daughter Michal loved him.

Bravo Mina for a such a very good point!

and as much as I am down on men for various reasons, women who will not listen and prefer mutilating their newborns for whatever reason or excuse are unevolved and should refrain from reproducing, stick to shopping and nice clean plastic things.

reply to post by Scurvy


You've got to be wrong there. Circumcision isn't widely practiced in Europe so it can't have been that.

I would imagine it was the influx of Jews that brought the barbaric practice to your shores?

reply to post by Soloman Kane


No hoax at all - do a google search and you will find any number of reputable sources who will confirm this practise. Wait till those pervy priests get a load of this practise!!

In all seriousness though very few catholic priests are pedophiles.

reply to post by NatureBoy


Dinah and the Shechemites - Genesis 34. It's an interesting story of foolishness, love, deceit, and intrigue. Rather than spoil it, I'll let others here read it.

Great story.

Originally posted by vonspurter
reply to post by Scurvy

 

You've got to be wrong there. Circumcision isn't widely practiced in Europe so it can't have been that.

I would imagine it was the influx of Jews that brought the barbaric practice to your shores?

But that wouldn't cause non Jews to circumcise their sons. There was a huge influx of Irish and Italians too, but that isnt widely practiced in those cultures.

Barbaric to the extreme.

Funny how so many "civilized" nations are so against the ritualistic female genital mutilation practiced in other countries, and yet they refuse to acknowledge that they do precisely the same thing to their children.

Unless there is an immediate risk to health, this should not be practiced, ever.

And for those suggesting it "helps prevent" disease, I'm 31, and I've never had any problems. All of my male friends are intact, and none of them have ever had any problems.

To suggest that removing a part of the body is a good way to prevent disease is completely insane. We don't remove the appendix from children as routine do we? And that causes injury and death far more often than any genital disease.
And hey, why don't we all go and have a lung removed? It'll halve our chances of getting lung cancer!
Anything else we can do? Maybe cut a few fingers off so we we're less likely to get them caught in farm machinery (hey, it could happen right!?)

Go and ask around, see how many men have had their appendix try to kill them, and then see how many have had their foreskin try to kill them.

None of it makes sense. It's nothing more than a lot of people following a ridiculously unfounded set of lies, and dare I say pushed by a religious section of society on people who can't think for themselves and just believe what they're told by "medical professionals" who should also know better.

I would never have a child of mine mutilated in this way. And I would have been angry at my parents if they had allowed it to be done to me.

reply to post by Scurvy


Once again, I'd like to clear up the misconception that circumcision lowers the risk of STD's. That is only true in an individual with poor hygiene. If you practice proper hygiene, and wash, then being circumcised offers no medical advantage in relation to STD's

Ritualized Mutiliation is not an accepted medical procedure for the prevention of STD's

I've found a lot of the stuff in the O.T. - that God supposedly put down as law - really were just health things.

No shellfish. No pork. No foreskin. etc etc. Things that are actually healthier for the body somehow became 'God's Law'. - just an observation.

reply to post by vonspurter


It probably became widespread in America because of all the dogma and rumors that surrounded the practice. People thought that you would live longer if it was done, or that it would keep you from getting sicknesses. People STILL think that and it makes sense that it spread a long time ago because of the same old wives tales.

reply to post by Scurvy


Actually medical science doesn't teach that not having a protective hood over the male member is a health benefit - in fact the only effect of exposing the sensitive membrane on the head of the penis is a decreased enjoyment of sex, the usaly more sensitive skin soon loses sensitivity and in some circles of erotic endeavor it's taught that people with no foreskin can't reach the highest form of orgasm -it is said that because once pleasure center is blocked a complete and balanced sensation is unobtainable.

I personally don't buy that, i think sexual enjoyment is mostly a mental thing and as the body shuts down one area it intensifies the others - however i do buy the notion that they wanted to stop people fully enjoying their biology and feeling at piece with the world -the huge tabo against the prostate perineum convinces me of this. Maybe they hoped or knew that people who were sexually repressed were more likely to obey their edicts and woshship thier gods.

reply to post by NatureBoy


Actually, the doctors in the hospital when my mother had my little brother told her it was a medical benefit. They told her that it was cleaner and helped ward away disease. These were DOCTORS that said these things.

I do, however, like your take on the situation.