Does circumcision promote sexual purity?

[John D. Brey]

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).

That word, "intertwined," is the crux (so to say) of the problem and the solution. At least where spirit, and, or, biology, are concerned (where we're concerned with how the two are "intertwined").



John

 

[John D. Brey]

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

Ramban (Nachmanides) will be sad to hear that:

And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin . . . The word "flesh" in the expression, uncircumcised in flesh, is a euphemism for the genital organ, just as in the verses great of flesh, and an issue of his flesh.​

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

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.

The Hebrew text is pretty clear that there's the covenant, and the sign of the covenant. So while there's nothing wrong with thinking of the sign (cutting the flesh of the penis) as the symbol of the pact between man (or Jew) and God, that understanding leaves the "symbolism" of the "sign" out of the equation.

The sign signifies the nature of the pact. It's some kind of a picture, or meaningful emblem, symbol, for the nature of the pact. In other words, even though it signifies the pact, it's also, secondarily, a sign, or symbol, of the nature of the pact. Not just the existence of the pact; but the nature of the pact. Something about cutting flesh there, and bleeding, sacrificing, that precise flesh, tells us something foundational to what the pact actually is.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

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.​

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

In Genesis 17, God says that all Abraham's spiritual offspring, not, mind you, his physical progeny, will be circumcised. It then implies his physical progeny, starting with Isaac, will be inscribed with the "sign" of the covenant. Being inscribed with the sign of the covenant is said to "guard" שמר the covenant until the spiritual seed arrives.

Exegeting the earlier part of the chapter, where Abram becomes Abraham, Rabbi Hirsch, Rashi, and many other sages, point out that Isaac was already promised to Abram in Genesis 15, such that the name change implies a different covenant, or a different element of the covenant, than what was already promised to "Abram" in Genesis chapter 15.

Isaac was already promised to Abram prior to the new covenant established in Genesis chapter 17. The Jewish sages (notably Rabbi Hirsch, Rashi, and Abarbanel) are aware that Isaac is not the primary focus of the covenant established in Genesis chapter 17. Isaac is Abraham's natural progeny. The covenant of circumcision implies a new, spiritual progeny.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Israel after them, are the guardians of the sign of the covenant (its mark is in their flesh). They are not necessarily the primary target of the covenant. They're supposed to "guard" שמר the sign, the emblem, until someone, or ones, arrive to show what the sign, guarded by Israel for all those centuries, signifies.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

How can God be a spirit?

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

What is spirit? What is God if not spirit?

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

Every image is experienced in the mind. But they generally come from, are generated by, something external to the mind. What is an image that has no parallel in the world? How can it be, or is it even, objective?

For instance, we could ask, what does God look like? "I can't tell you since I have only a mental image. But he looks pretty cool. Just trust me on that." ----- That's too subjective for most. Me included.

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

I'm pretty comfortable with the concept of flesh. How are you defining, or using, the term "spirit"?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

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?​

It will be the same as asking what is the image of gravity or electricity.

Gravity isn't a person. Is God? Electricity isn't sentient. Is God? The scripture doesn't say we're created in the image of gravity or electricity, but it does say we're created in the image of God.

If the scripture did say we're created in the image of gravity, since you gave that example, how would we manifest that image? How would we manifest the image of electricity? A lightning bolt with legs?

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.

What is the likeness of God?



John

 

[Segev Moran]

Ramban (Nachmanides) will be sad to hear that:

And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin . . . The word "flesh" in the expression, uncircumcised in flesh, is a euphemism for the genital organ, just as in the verses great of flesh, and an issue of his flesh.
​

Flesh of your foreskin, is only the meaning in this specific case.
The word "meat", can represent anything from a fraction of a body through an entire entity.
It has several meanings, depending on the context, but all are relating to a living beings parts.
בשר עורלה, is indeed a small portion of the foreskin.
​

The Hebrew text is pretty clear that there's the covenant, and the sign of the covenant.

Yep, as I stated, many accept that.

So while there's nothing wrong with thinking of the sign (cutting the flesh of the penis) as the symbol of the pact between man (or Jew) and God, that understanding leaves the "symbolism" of the "sign" out of the equation.

The sign signifies the nature of the pact. It's some kind of a picture, or meaningful emblem, symbol, for the nature of the pact. In other words, even though it signifies the pact, it's also, secondarily, a sign, or symbol, of the nature of the pact. Not just the existence of the pact; but the nature of the pact. Something about cutting flesh there, and bleeding, sacrificing, that precise flesh, tells us something foundational to what the pact actually is.



John

Gravity isn't a person. Is God? Electricity isn't sentient. Is God? The scripture doesn't say we're created in the image of gravity or electricity, but it does say we're created in the image of God.

If the scripture did say we're created in the image of gravity, since you gave that example, how would we manifest that image? How would we manifest the image of electricity? A lightning bolt with legs?



What is the likeness of God?



John

If you believe the old testament, us, mentally only. it is clearly stated in the story.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Circumcision doesn't neuter. It removes the foreskin around the penis. Germs and viruses dwell in the foreskin and can cause disease to the man and to the woman who has sexual intercourse with the man. It is a major source of diseases. It doesn't impair enjoyment of sex (much).

So because some don't know how to keep themselves clean, or can't do so perhaps, it's necessary to snip bits off? And if many can't, then blame it on the Creator - as to faulty production line. Great reason to sew up the mouths of many perhaps too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think it is required. I'm not sure if has benefits. Probably help the area remain clean. But if we take shower often then I don't see any benefit. If I had a son, Probably I wouldn't do it.

If hygiene is already an issue, doing unnecessary body modification surgery (with all the attendant opportunities for infection) strikes me as... unwise and unlikely to give a net benefit.

 

[John D. Brey]

If hygiene is already an issue, doing unnecessary body modification surgery (with all the attendant opportunities for infection) strikes me as... unwise and unlikely to give a net benefit.

According to orthodox Judaism, or at least the greatest sages of orthodox Judaism (exempting Maimonides) it's a grave sin to suggest that ritual circumcision is has anything to do with cleanliness, that it's a prophylactic against germs or disease, or that it lessens or furthers sexual desire. Those are all profane goals. Ritual circumcision is a sacred endeavor.



John