Does circumcision promote sexual purity?

[Clara Tea]

After you saying God is a male, with a human like male genitalia, and this genitalia is Jesus himself, that's the end of the road. And you are absolutely wrong in what you say. Just bogus, made up things.

He would have been named after the apostle "Peter" or named "Richard," or named after the "Johnson and Johnson vaccine" if he was a penis. Instead, he was named Jesus.

 

[Clara Tea]

I think it depends how you do it.
I did this for my kids by a professional sergeant.
I think that doing such a thing in a non medical manner can be considered immoral and dangerous.

I think the purpose of circumcision is to promote sexual purity.
[/QUOTE]
What is "sexual purity"?

How so? We don't remove our 00, you realize that, right?

Lol, if that was the goal, they missed it by far.
I am going to take a wild guess and say you haven't met many Israeli's

Not even a little.

Where did you read that?

No.

There are many people who are not Jewish that are circumcised.
Recent studies actually suggest that there is a great health benefit to it, mainly relates to infectious diseases.
So far this process has not been proven to be out of the ordinary dangerous when executed correctly.
The Jewish belief claims it is a sort of a "pact" between one and God that symbolizes becoming whole.[/QUOTE]

Having had something cut off, it seems that they are "less whole." Some seek a holy mission for it.

 

[an anarchist]

How so? We don't remove our 00, you realize that, right

I used a bad example, but let me elaborate. Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the male organ. Circumcised men have problems remaining sexually pure, if sex felt a lot better (by being not circumcised) how much more trouble would a guy get into on account of his parts? It’s hard enough to keep it in as a circumcised guy, that’s what I mean.
When you neuter a dog, they stop humping the furniture. By removing our most sensitive part, this could reduce the chance of sinning in a sexual nature I think. It’s a lot of assuming base on anecdotal experience, and I could very well be wrong.

Where did you read that?

This is what I was taught in church, it makes sense to me. I’m gonna have to re read the OT to see, but is the teaching wrong?

 

[John53]

Could it just be a form of ritual mutilation that is common amongst many peoples in one form or another. A way they identify from others, a way of showing how tough they are, or trying to impress some God.

 

[firedragon]

He would have been named after the apostle "Peter" or named "Richard," or named after the "Johnson and Johnson vaccine" if he was a penis. Instead, he was named Jesus.

I just didnt want to use the word Penis. What this person argues is so absurd, and absolutely not scriptural. Its just made up. No point engaging with arguments just made out of thin air.

 

[Segev Moran]

I used a bad example, but let me elaborate.

Thanks

Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the male organ. Circumcised men have problems remaining sexually pure

What do you mean pure?
As "Initial"?

if sex felt a lot better (by being not circumcised)

What do you mean a lot better?
Physically was proven to be the same regardless if one is circumcised or not.
As for mentally, I don't think it has any affect on people mentally.

how much more trouble would a guy get into on account of his parts?

What do you mean?

It’s hard enough to keep it in as a circumcised guy, that’s what I mean.

???

When you neuter a dog, they stop humping the furniture. By removing our most sensitive part, this could reduce the chance of sinning in a sexual nature I think. It’s a lot of assuming base on anecdotal experience, and I could very well be wrong.

This is not how it works.
The removed part of the skin that is removed, removes some nerves. this nerves are indeed very sensitive, but have nothing to do with sexual urges.
When neutering an animal you remove its testicles, which means you prevent the ability to reproduce thus affecting the sexual "drive".

This is what I was taught in church, it makes sense to me.

I Wish more science was included in the churches teachings. It could open people to amazing understandings.

I’m gonna have to re read the OT to see, but is the teaching wrong?

If the teaching is that it lowers the sexual drive, than, yes. it was not proven to have any affect on this same as for pleasure form sex.

 

[an anarchist]

If the teaching is that it lowers the sexual drive, than, yes. it was not proven to have any affect on this same as for pleasure form sex.

I think we misunderstood each other here. I was taught that the Hebrew Law, in general, was put in place to keep the Jews pure for the Messiah.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I’ve wondered why God of Israel commanded circumcision. I know it’s a sign of the covenant between Abraham and God, but what does circumcision do? People in the present day often say that circumcision is immoral.
I think the purpose of circumcision is to promote sexual purity. I think the process of being circumcised is similar to neutering ones dog. When you neuter a dog, you take care of some behavioral issues that a tame animal shouldn’t have, right? Perhaps not the best comparison but that’s what I’m getting at. Circumcising a guy is in a way neutering him. Perhaps it makes it easier to control sexual urges and be pure. Israel was supposed to remain pure as they were the catalyst for the Messiah. That’s why they had all of their laws, right?
What do you guys think the purpose of circumcision is? Is it immoral?

The thing is, being circumcised doesn't stop a man from being a sexual being. He is just as capable of enjoying sex and creating dchildren with his wife. He is just as tempted to screw many women for the fun of it. I don't think you can argue that circumcision promotes sexual purity.

 

[Segev Moran]

I think we misunderstood each other here. I was taught that the Hebrew Law, in general, was put in place to keep the Jews pure for the Messiah.

Nope.

Based on the Jewish belief:

Jews are not the only ones who can be pure rather ones who accepted the "challenge" in the ancient days.
The entire bible is actually the story of trying to find the correct path. it is filled with errors and consequences.
Besides that, the Jewish belief suggest that Jews have to work much harder to become what you refer to as "pure".
Woman, are much more "pure" than man.
The idea of the "Mizvot", is claimed to assist one to be more God oriented.
It is much more complicated than that, but in a nut shell, the idea of the Jewish belief is that humans need to transform from a male "energy" to a female "energy".
The bible refers to what we call today Jews, as Israelites.
The word Israel (ישראל), means Straight with the power of God (ישר - Straight, אל - Power (of God))
So its not about becoming pure, rather become more fitting (or similar) to the "shape" of God (not physical shape, rather mental one).
In order to be able to become more fitting, one needs to balance the physical and the mental ("spiritual").

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think we misunderstood each other here. I was taught that the Hebrew Law, in general, was put in place to keep the Jews pure for the Messiah.

I don't know who taught you this, but I have never heard the idea before, even from Christians.

The Law is good and pure and true and perfect all by itself. It brings us closer to God. It gives us better quality lives. It doesn't have to have some secondary reason apart from that it was meant to be a blessing for us.

And actually, when the Law was given, there was no conception of a Messiah yet. It wasn't until Israel chose to have a king that a messiah even became possible, since the definition of the messiah is the one who will reign during hte messianic era.

 

[John D. Brey]

Woman, are much more "pure" than man.
The idea of the "Mizvot", is claimed to assist one to be more God oriented. It is much more complicated than that, but in a nut shell, the idea of the Jewish belief is that humans need to transform from a male "energy" to a female "energy".

The bible refers to what we call today Jews, as Israelites. The word Israel (ישראל), means Straight with the power of God (ישר - Straight, אל - Power (of God))
So its not about becoming pure, rather become more fitting (or similar) to the "shape" of God (not physical shape, rather mental one).

In order to be able to become more fitting, one needs to balance the physical and the mental ("spiritual").

In a general sense, Judaism doesn't accept a body/spirit duality like Christianity does. So balancing the physical and the spiritual would be foreign in some sense for standard Jewish thought.

Nowhere is this more clear than in the clarity of your suggestion that Judaism is more interested in female energy than male energy since the foundational symbol of Jewish faith is taking a knife and bleeding (sacrificing) the flesh most evidently associated with male energy (brit milah).

And this foundational ritual, symbolizing the sacrifice of the male part of the physical body, shows just how stubbornly Judaism adheres to their rejection of body/spirit duality since in Genesis chapter 17, where the ritual is established with Abraham, the text speaks of a spiritual circumcision, and a physical emblem of that spiritual condition. The text says all of Abraham's spiritual offspring will be circumcised, while all of his physical progeny will guard the spiritual covenant by producing a sign of it in their male flesh.

Even a thinker of Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch's stature is uncomfortable with how Judaism conflates the actuality of the covenant with the sign of the covenant (since conflating sign and signified as the same thing is at best problematic). In Genesis chapter 17 there are two things, the sign, and the actuality signified by the sign. But because of Judaism's rejection of body/spirit duality they assume cutting the sign in the body is the same as cutting the spiritual covenant. For many Jews, the fleshly sign is both the spirituality of the sign and the physicality of covenant (the fleshly/spiritual mark). The cut in the flesh is the spirit of the covenant. No need to balance the two since they're one and the same.

For this reason I would say the chasm between Judaism and Christianity resides most clearly in the difference between Judaism's rejection of spirit/flesh duality, and Christianity's requiring of spirit/flesh duality because of the incarnation of Christ. In this sense, your presentation of Judaism's balancing act seems to want to have it both ways whereas orthodox Judaism knows it can't without loosing the primary distinction which sets it apart from Christianity.

Christianity's balancing act between God (spiritual) and man (flesh) in the hypostatic-union, otherwise known as the incarnation, is a serious no no for Judaism such that they know they can't allow any kind of slippery slope like the one that exist when you speak of "balancing" the two things Christians assume is balanced perfectly in the person of Christ (body/spirit ---carnal/spiritual).



John

 

[Segev Moran]

In a general sense, Judaism doesn't accept a body/spirit duality like Christianity does. So balancing the physical and the spiritual would be foreign in some sense for standard Jewish thought.

That's is not true.
The Jewish teaching speaks of 5 "layers":
נפש - Nefesh (Body) -> The force that animates the physical body.
רוח - Rooach (Spirit) -> The force that relates to emotions.
נשמה - Neshama (Soul) -> The force that relates to mentality and mind.
חיה - Chaya (Life) -> A non physicals aspect that is "above" the first three.
יחידה - Yehida (Single) -> Sort of similar to "Singularity". A force that is a whole and connected to all others.

Nowhere is this more clear than in the clarity of your suggestion that Judaism is more interested in female energy than male energy since the foundational symbol of Jewish faith is taking a knife and bleeding (sacrificing) the flesh most evidently associated with male energy (brit milah).

And this foundational ritual, symbolizing the sacrifice of the male part of the physical body,

shows just how stubbornly Judaism adheres to their rejection of body/spirit duality since in Genesis chapter 17, where the ritual is established with Abraham, the text speaks of a spiritual circumcision, and a physical emblem of that spiritual condition. The text says all of Abraham's spiritual offspring will be circumcised, while all of his physical progeny will guard the spiritual covenant by producing a sign of it in their male flesh.
[/QUOTE]
Actually the text speaks about the actual flesh:
וּנְמַלְתֶּם, אֵת בְּשַׂר עָרְלַתְכֶם; וְהָיָה לְאוֹת בְּרִית, בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם.
the word בשר is meat.
in Hebrew, בשר is referred to meat.

Even a thinker of Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch's stature is uncomfortable with how Judaism conflates the actuality of the covenant with the sign of the covenant (since conflating sign and signified as the same thing is at best problematic). In Genesis chapter 17 there are two things, the sign, and the actuality signified by the sign. But because of Judaism's rejection of body/spirit duality they assume cutting the sign in the body is the same as cutting the spiritual covenant.

For many Jews, the fleshly sign is both the spirituality of the sign and the physicality of covenant (the fleshly/spiritual mark). The cut in the flesh is the spirit of the covenant. No need to balance the two since they're one and the same.

They are one of the same, but can easily become unbalanced.
The core idea is that each physical aspect affects the spiritual one and vice versa, thus too much physical or too much spiritual is not good.

For this reason I would say the chasm between Judaism and Christianity resides most clearly in the difference between Judaism's rejection of spirit/flesh duality, and Christianity's requiring of spirit/flesh duality because of the incarnation of Christ.

Not really. The main chasm is that Jewish people do not accept the possibility of God manifesting as a human and that it doesn't change its "mind".

In this sense, your presentation of Judaism's balancing act seems to want to have it both ways whereas orthodox Judaism knows it can't without loosing the primary distinction which sets it apart from Christianity.

What?

Christianity's balancing act between God (spiritual) and man (flesh) in the hypostatic-union, otherwise known as the incarnation, is a serious no no for Judaism such that they know they can't allow any kind of slippery slope like the one that exist when you speak of "balancing" the two things Christians assume is balanced perfectly in the person of Christ (body/spirit ---carnal/spiritual).

Not really. Jewish beliefs simply deny the idea of human manifesting god.

John

Hi John, I', Segev.

 

[John D. Brey]

That's is not true.
The Jewish teaching speaks of 5 "layers":
נפש - Nefesh (Body) -> The force that animates the physical body.
רוח - Rooach (Spirit) -> The force that relates to emotions.
נשמה - Neshama (Soul) -> The force that relates to mentality and mind.
חיה - Chaya (Life) -> A non physicals aspect that is "above" the first three.
יחידה - Yehida (Single) -> Sort of similar to "Singularity". A force that is a whole and connected to all others.

While it true that these concepts are part of Judaism, it's not true that generally speaking Judaism thinks of a body versus spirit duality like Christianity does. For instance, the New Testament often demonizes the body, the flesh, and encourages the believer to follow the spirit. The apostle John says love not this world, or the things that are in this world. St. Paul says it's better to not even marry since this world is corrupt and we should live for the spirit alone as much as is possible.

Generally speaking, this kind of spirit versus world, spirit versus body, duality isn't found in orthodox Judaism. The Jew glorifies marriage, having children, and making this world a better place. In traditional Jewish thought this world isn't directly opposed to a heavenly, or spiritual world.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Actually the text speaks about the actual flesh:
וּנְמַלְתֶּם, אֵת בְּשַׂר עָרְלַתְכֶם; וְהָיָה לְאוֹת בְּרִית, בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם.
the word בשר is meat.
in Hebrew, בשר is referred to meat.

בשר is said to represent the penis according to sages like Nachmanides. The "flesh" (בשר) is often a Hebrew euphemism for the penis.

The core idea is that each physical aspect affects the spiritual one and vice versa, thus too much physical or too much spiritual is not good.

In this very thread a Jewish responded noted that the Law isn't pointing to something outside the Law. For him the Law is complete. He's not necessarily looking for the spirit of the Law.

Same with ברית מילה. The Jew is rarely, from my understanding, looking for the spirit of what it means to remove that flesh. For him, it is what it is. The sign (removing the flesh) isn't pointing to a messianic birth conceived after the flesh בשר (penis) is emasculated (a virgin birth). For many Jews that fleshly cut affects all it needs to affect just by being performed: it is sign and signified unified in the flesh of the Jew so cut.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

The main chasm is that Jewish people do not accept the possibility of God manifesting as a human and that it doesn't change its "mind".

If God is spirit, and man is flesh, then a God/man is the quintessential example of the unity of spirit and flesh.

If God is the soul of spirit, and can't manifest, unify, with flesh, then the unification of spirit and flesh in any person seems questionable?

One might say we're being made in the image of God himself when we unify spirit and flesh. Which makes the nature of, and the means of attaining, the unity of spirit and flesh something every God fearing soul should be searching for.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Not really. Jewish beliefs simply deny the idea of human manifesting god.

What do you suppose the "image" and or "likeness" of God is? Would it be fair to say his image "manifests" him, or that his "likeness" is a manifestation of him?



John

 

[Segev Moran]

While it true that these concepts are part of Judaism, it's not true that generally speaking Judaism thinks of a body versus spirit duality like Christianity does.

Right, But there is indeed a concept of physical and spiritual.

For instance, the New Testament often demonizes the body, the flesh, and encourages the believer to follow the spirit.

Which is indeed in contradiction to the Jewish belief as you suggest.

The apostle John says love not this world, or the things that are in this world. St. Paul says it's better to not even marry since this world is corrupt and we should live for the spirit alone as much as is possible.

Imbalance is the key to all problems

Generally speaking, this kind of spirit versus world, spirit versus body, duality isn't found in orthodox Judaism.

Agreed.

The Jew glorifies marriage, having children, and making this world a better place. In traditional Jewish thought this world isn't directly opposed to a heavenly, or spiritual world.
John

Indeed. Not only it is not opposed rather the spiritual and physical are intertwined and affect each other (for better or for worse).

 

[Segev Moran]

בשר is said to represent the penis according to sages like Nachmanides. The "flesh" (בשר) is often a Hebrew euphemism for the penis.

Not it is not
Where did you see such refernces?
The word meat, means an actual physical substance of a living being (not only actual flesh)

In this very thread a Jewish responded noted that the Law isn't pointing to something outside the Law. For him the Law is complete. He's not necessarily looking for the spirit of the Law.

Make sense. This is what we refer to as נעשה ונשמע. This mean you "obey" the law without understanding the meaning of it.

Same with ברית מילה. The Jew is rarely, from my understanding, looking for the spirit of what it means to remove that flesh.

Half true
Although some do not think about the spiritual idea behind it, but many do in the sense that it represents a pact between one and god.

For him, it is what it is.

Maybe when young and not yet familiar with the concept.

The sign (removing the flesh) isn't pointing to a messianic birth conceived after the flesh בשר (penis) is emasculated (a virgin birth).

Of course.
First, nothing is emasculated , second, what has the messiah got to do with this?

For many Jews that fleshly cut affects all it needs to affect just by being performed: it is sign and signified unified in the flesh of the Jew so cut.
John

Not sure what you meant by "sign and signified unified in the flesh of the Jew"

 

[Segev Moran]

If God is spirit, and man is flesh, then a God/man is the quintessential example of the unity of spirit and flesh.

If God is the soul of spirit,

How can God be a spirit?

and can't manifest, unify, with flesh, then the unification of spirit and flesh in any person seems questionable?

As God is not a spirit, it is not relevant.

One might say we're being made in the image of God himself when we unify spirit and flesh.

The image is mental, not physical. God is not flesh.

Which makes the nature of, and the means of attaining, the unity of spirit and flesh something every God fearing soul should be searching for.

The spirit and flesh are there for each living being, regardless of its religion.

John

Segev

 

[Segev Moran]

What do you suppose the "image" and or "likeness" of God is? Would it be fair to say his image "manifests" him, or that his "likeness" is a manifestation of him?
John

It will be the same as asking what is the image of gravity or electricity.
God is not an entity. you cannot look like god, rather have the ability to understand "good" and "bad".
Meaning, that you have the ability to predict and understand consequences.
This is stated in the story as "Being like god, knowing good and bad". that's the concept of being in the image of god.