Dravin Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) Okay, I was having a conversation the other day with someone and the question came up, "Why circumcision?" Now the immediate answers that came to mind was that it was a marker of the covenant the people of Israel had with the Lord, and that it set them apart physically from the people around them. The question was clarified with, "Yes but why circumcision as a sign of the covenant and something to set them apart, and why not something for the women as well*?" *They weren't arguing for female circumcision, just why not an alternative symbol of the covenant that both men and women partook of. Now I suspect there isn't a real answer to that and that it's similar to the LDS response concerning drinking tea, "We're commanded/have covenanted such." If anyone knows of and particular reason why circumcision and not some other procedure in either LDS or Judaic theology/thought though it'd be appreciated. P.S. I'm aware that circumcision is not religiously practiced by LDS, its requirement having been done away with. Edited July 25, 2011 by Dravin
Dravin Posted July 25, 2011 Author Report Posted July 25, 2011 I've got nothin'.That was pretty much my response. I really don't like having to give that response.
Dravin Posted July 25, 2011 Author Report Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) Sexism?The reason the Lord chose circumcision as a token of the House of Israel's covenant with him is because he's sexist? Or are you trying to attribute the sexism to those such as Abraham and Moses (or others) and that scriptures indicating it token of the covenant are incorrect or working through/around such sexism? Edited July 25, 2011 by Dravin
RescueMom Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 The reason the Lord chose circumcision as a reminder of the House of Israel's covenant with him is because he's sexist? Or are you saying circumcision wasn't a commandment of the Lord and the House of Israel made it up and that's where the sexism lays?It was a joke. I should know better.but perhaps women didn't need physical reminders as such.
Dravin Posted July 25, 2011 Author Report Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) It was a joke. I should know better.but perhaps women didn't need physical reminders as such.Or their reminders were different. They got a reminder once a month of Levitical prescriptions when they became ritually unclean during menses. Doesn't really answer why snipping off part of the penis though except possibly that guys tend to baby that body part a little. Sacrificing part of it is a rather significant commitment and reminder to a sex that winces in sympathy when someone catches a baseball in a soft spot.Edit: It just occurred to me that the menses thing only applies to the Law of Moses and circumcision predates the Law of Moses. Edited July 25, 2011 by Dravin
mnn727 Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 It one of those unanswerables that can potentially cause problems with people faith. Why circumscism? Why animal sacrifice? Why did Jesus need to die? Why was sacrifice the way to atone for sins, why not something else?
Dravin Posted July 25, 2011 Author Report Posted July 25, 2011 It one of those unanswerables that can potentially cause problems with people faith.Pretty much any question, answerable or not can potential cause problems with people's faith if you aren't willing to accept the answer (which in the case of the unanswerables is "We/I don't know.").Actually the case of animal sacrifice is a good example, I was wondering if there was an explanation (there are explanations of why animal sacrifice was performed) before the "I don't know" even if there is ultimately an "I don't know" at the end of the rainbow. I was wondering if circumcision was a similar circumstance or if it didn't pass go, did not collect $200 and went directly to "I dunno."
RescueMom Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 I put it in the I really don't need to know category. I'm good with sometimes God has us do things, and I don't really need to know why. Maybe it's to see if we will, if we are that committed. Whatever the reasoning, perhaps one day I will know, but right here and now, I don't need to know. I guess to me it's one of those "I've seen the bosses job....and I don't want it" He's got to do things I don't know about, but I'm glad he's doing them...wouldn't want to do them myself though.
MarginOfError Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 I guess to me it's one of those "I've seen the bosses job....and I don't want it"Then there's me...I want the boss's job--but this is one case where I'm not going to attempt a mutiny.
Dravin Posted July 25, 2011 Author Report Posted July 25, 2011 (edited) I put it in the I really don't need to know category. See my categories are:I need to know.I want to know.I would like to know.It'd be neat to know.It wouldn't hurt to know.I don't care if I know.I don't want to know. <- I'm not sure that applies to knowledge but rather experiences.I put this question in the "It'd be neat to know" category but that's only because the question was asked of me. Before that it would be sitting in "wouldn't hurt", or "don't care" (if I'd thought of it) and after this thread has run its course is probably where it'll go until I forget it. Edited July 25, 2011 by Dravin
RescueMom Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 Mutiny never works out in these types of things.
Suzie Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 Like so many Jewish commandments, the brit milah is commonly perceived to be a hygienic measure; however the biblical text states the reason for this commandment quite clearly: Circumcision is an outward physical sign of the eternal covenant between G-d and the Jewish people. It is also a sign that the Jewish people will be perpetuated through the circumcised man. The health benefits of this practice are merely incidental. It is worth noting, however, that circumcised males have a lower risk of certain cancers, and the sexual partners of circumcised males also have a lower risk of certain cancers.Judaism 101
rameumptom Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 Israel was a male-based society. Women held a slightly different position. The covenant was with the men, not the women of Israel, therefore the outward symbol of the covenant had to be with the males. The reason for circumcision is it represented a sacrifice. Anciently one "cut" a covenant, killing the animal by slicing its throat, and having the sacrifice as a testimony between the two parties. Life was symbolized by the genitals, as they brought forth life. It therefore made sense to cut a covenant by circumcising the child, versus sacrificing the child as other nations did to their gods (such as Molech). This also set Israel apart from other nations. It symbolized that Israel had been made clean and separated from other nations who did not follow the covenant of Israel. Circumcised Israel = clean, uncircumcised Gentile nations = unclean.
rameumptom Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 And to add what Suzie wrote, circumcised males also have a lower chance at getting or passing on HIV and other STDs.
Dravin Posted July 25, 2011 Author Report Posted July 25, 2011 Thank you Suzie. That's something I'd never considered before and it does in a way at least answer the question of why the genitalia. Maybe women weren't given something similar because you can't mark the womb, though under the law of Moses they were ritually unclean during menses and I've heard it explained that it was because the potential for life was being loss (not sure how accurately that represents Jewish belief but it was a Jew explaining it) which would be a loss of that perpetuation of seed and covenant. I reiterate, thank you.
Dravin Posted July 25, 2011 Author Report Posted July 25, 2011 Israel was a male-based society. Women held a slightly different position. The covenant was with the men, not the women of Israel, therefore the outward symbol of the covenant had to be with the males.I suppose one of the issues to understanding is the huge cultural gap involved. Makes it hard not to look back and think, "Well, why not the women too?" but I suppose while LDS women make covenants you still only have men being ordained to the Priesthood but since I live it there isn't a cultural block.
RescueMom Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 Male circumcision works out well for women too, but that aspect is probably too explict for this board.
Suzie Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 Thank you Suzie. That's something I'd never considered before and it does in a way at least answer the question of why the genitalia. Maybe women weren't given something similar because you can't mark the womb, though under the law of Moses they were ritually unclean during menses and I've heard it explained that it was because the potential for life was being loss (not sure how accurately that represents Jewish belief but it was a Jew explaining it) which would be a loss of that perpetuation of seed and covenant.I reiterate, thank you.You should check online if you can get the book of Shaye J.D. Cohen called "Why Aren't Jewish Women Circumcised?" Lots of research done there.
Seminarysnoozer Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 Okay, I was having a conversation the other day with someone and the question came up, "Why circumcision?"Now the immediate answers that came to mind was that it was a marker of the covenant the people of Israel had with the Lord, and that it set them apart physically from the people around them. The question was clarified with, "Yes buy why circumcision as a sign of the covenant and something to set them apart, and why not something for the women as well*?"*They weren't arguing for female circumcision, just why not an alternative symbol of the covenant that both men and women partook of.Now I suspect there isn't a real answer to that and that it's similar to the LDS response concerning drinking tea, "We're commanded/have covenanted such." If anyone knows of and particular reason why circumcision and not some other procedure in either LDS or Judaic theology/thought though it'd be appreciated.P.S. I'm aware that circumcision is not religiously practiced by LDS, its requirement having been done away with.I, in my limited knowledge about this subject, didn't think this was done as something to set them apart from others as I am not sure that would be something checked. (maybe it was, I don't know) I think it was more of a "token" to the covenant as it states in the Bible dictionary. A token is something of value. I think that was the purpose from the givers standpoint.
Dravin Posted July 25, 2011 Author Report Posted July 25, 2011 I, in my limited knowledge about this subject, didn't think this was done as something to set them apart from others as I am not sure that would be something checked. (maybe it was, I don't know) I think it was more of a "token" to the covenant as it states in the Bible dictionary. A token is something of value. I think that was the purpose from the givers standpoint.You make sense in as much as I don't suspect it was supposed to be a "Here be a Jew" sign but it's a physical change to the body that set them apart from Canaanite neighbors, in the practice more so than the actual appearance I imagine.Curiously enough some Jews went through a procedure called epispasm (to try and recreate a foreskin) to assimilate into Greek culture so at least in some circumstances it was noticed.
trubludru Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 You make sense in as much as I don't suspect it was supposed to be a "Here be a Jew" sign but it's a physical change to the body that set them apart from Canaanite neighbors, in the practice more so than the actual appearance I imagine.Curiously enough some Jews went through a procedure called epispasm (to try and recreate a foreskin) to assimilate into Greek culture so at least in some circumstances it was noticed.From my knowledge once Greek culture became the thing in the Mediterranean area, everyone wanted to be Greek. Well Greeks did things like went to public baths and participated in athletics in the nude. So this tended to make Jewish men stand out. And I may be totally incorrect but it seems like I heard somewhere that circumcision up to this point (at least in token of the covenant with God) was probably more like a snip at the end just taking off some of the foreskin rather a complete removal of it. And that to try and keep the young men faithful to their culture/religion that it was at this time (when Greek culture became popular) that complete removal starting taking place making it extremely difficult for a Jew to pass himself off as Greek no matter what he did. Again I'm not sure whether that is correct or not though.
Guest Sachi001 Posted July 25, 2011 Report Posted July 25, 2011 Judaism 101 Wouldn't you know it. It took a mother to give the correct insight on circumscion.
Recommended Posts