• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Circumcision

Yes, I thought a big part of Paul's ministry was getting gentiles to join by saying, "Oh, alright, you can eat bacon, and yeah, keep your pecker tips." Jesus seemed pretty clear that stuff was meant for Jews.

So how in his name are we still doing this two thousand years later? I mean, it's routine here (USA), I think you have to sign forms that say "no, please don't shave my baby's penis. Yes, here's a notarized copy."

One possibility: those uncut anteater things are just gross-looking.
 
swilow said:
Meaning?
Click to expand...

This is not my thesis, but If i was to write one on the subject, it would be nearly identical. In my own words, circumcision of the heart signifies a spiritual covenant or devotion to God, much in the way the Jews circumcised as a physical sign of the covenant they were in with God.



GotQuestions.org lays out the meaning concisely and in a biblical way I can get behind.

For your consideration:

The idea of “circumcision of the heart” is found in Romans 2:29. It refers to having a pure heart, separated unto God. Paul writes, “A Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter.” These words conclude a sometimes confusing passage of Scripture regarding circumcision and the Christian. Verses 25-29 provide context:

“For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.”

Paul is discussing the role of the Old Testament Law as it relates to Christianity. He argues that Jewish circumcision is only an outward sign of being set apart to God. However, if the heart is sinful, then physical circumcision is of no avail. A circumcised body and a sinful heart are at odds with each other. Rather than focus on external rites, Paul focuses on the condition of the heart. Using circumcision as a metaphor, he says that only the Holy Spirit can purify a heart and set us apart to God. Ultimately, circumcision cannot make a person right with God; the Law is not enough. A person’s heart must change. Paul calls this change “circumcision of the heart.”

This concept was not original with the apostle Paul. As a Jew trained in the Law of Moses, he was certainly aware of this discussion from Deuteronomy 30. There, the Lord used the same metaphor to communicate His desire for a holy people: “And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live” (Deuteronomy 30:6). Physical circumcision was a sign of Israel’s covenant with God; circumcision of the heart, therefore, would indicate Israel’s being set apart to love God fully, inside and out.

John the Baptist warned the Pharisees against taking pride in their physical heritage and boasting in their circumcision: “Do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham” (Matthew 3:9).

True “children of Abraham” are those who follow Abraham’s example of believing God (Genesis 15:6). Physical circumcision does not make one a child of God; faith does. Believers in Jesus Christ can truly say they are children of “Father Abraham.” “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Galatians 3:29).

God has always wanted more from His people than just external conformity to a set of rules. He has always wanted them to possess a heart to love, know and follow Him. That’s why God is not concerned with a circumcision of the flesh. Even in the Old Testament, God’s priority was a spiritual circumcision of the heart: “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, circumcise your hearts, you men of Judah and people of Jerusalem, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done” (Jeremiah 4:4).

Both Testaments focus on the need for repentance and inward change in order to be right with God. In Jesus, the Law has been fulfilled (Matthew 5:17). Through Him, a person can be made right with God and receive eternal life (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9). As Paul said, true circumcision is a matter of the heart, performed by the Spirit of God.
 
^great post. I think the issue really cuts to the core issues with organized religion. People are more concerned with the outward appearance of piety than dealing with the inner struggles of being judgmental or unforgiving.

I don't think the default in the states is circumcision. My sister had a boy and they said 'we don't do that unless requested'. My sister asked if there was any reason why and the doctor said since the advent of running water and the ability for people to take frequent showers it's no longer a hygiene issue but a personal matter of opinion.
 
Except, Doc, that it's the same problem with a lot of sermons: it's a terrible metaphor, which is what SWILLOW meant, maybe

Because you can't circumcise a heart, not literally or figuratively in English. You could maybe get close by using a better Greek translation, but even then, an "incision that goes around" is a tough one to relate to a promise. And so in comparison, it makes the meaning of doing it to your penis even weirder, and does even less to then explain why Christians would still do it, if the idea is to "feel" the promise instead of showing it off.

I can see using the term "circumscribe" for the heart, and a separate circumcision for your pecker. Deuteronomy was translated to Hebrew after first being written in Greek, it probably originally said in the oral traditions: "You Israelites shall cut the tips of your penis for cleanliness and tell the Greeks some bullshit about God."

You could argue that Christians today could remind their newly born offspring of their spiritual connection to Abraham by instead searing a cross into their chests. A permanent scar to remind them of an opinion they couldn't form at the time.
 
Last edited:
Scrofula said:
Because you can't circumcise a heart, not literally or figuratively in English.
Click to expand...

Circumcise the heart is a figure of speech, its nearly the definition of what figurative language is. What is the circumcision figurative for? Covenant with God. Since the heart being referred to is not the literal muscle beating in the chest, but the manifest intent of the soul.

I see why you would be confused if you thought it was talking about the literal muscle, that is kinda funny when I think about it lol..
 
I was trying to say it's really BAD figurative language.

You can't literally make an incision around the entire heart (and expect the person to live). But what is the figurative interpretation of that?

It can't be the manifest intention of the soul, because it is hopefully NOT manifest. Maybe it was with the Aztecs? And then it sure wan't the intent of dude on the altar's soul.

It might have made figurative sense as "a promise" a couple millennia ago, although I'd hate to know how--did people set aside fresh game for a person by carving their initials in the heart or something? Like Bob, to you I promise this desert deer thing, watch as I seal the promise by carving around it's once beating heart; so like with God's promise to us, we carve around our baby's peckers.

I'm saying I'm pretty sure the heart sermon was meant as an after-the-fact explanation, and the real reason is lost.

But really, Deuteronomy shouldn't be used to justify medical procedures today even if they made excellent figurative sense to the contemporary surgeon.
 
Scrofula said:
You can't literally make an incision around the entire heart
Click to expand...

I dont think anyone was making that argument.

The heart is figurative for the manifest intent of the soul, or individual. When the heart is mentioned in this context in the bible, its not meant to mean your literal beating heart, the muscle that provides blood throughout the bodies vascular system.

If you neglect the context of the language, and why it is in fact figurative, then you will be confused as to the intent, necessarily.

I might even propose that making an argument that supposes that the heart being mentioned in scripture is literal, is nothing more than an attempt to attack a strawman.
 
You keep misusing "figurative".

A metaphor needs the literal and the abstract to work.

You can say a wedding ring represents your vows, for instance.
Just like you say your heart, or really, the center of your chest, represents your soul.

But you can't say your soul represents your vows. What does that mean? You can't write it off as "figurative".

What I meant all along is that it can't be that cutting your baby's penis represents doing the same to your heart.

ANY MORE than it represents doing it to your soul. You can not explain one with the other, whether you choose a literal or figurative heart.

It is bad language.
 
Scrofula said:
You keep misusing "figurative".

A metaphor needs the literal and the abstract to work.

You can say a wedding ring represents your vows, for instance.
Just like you say your heart, or really, the center of your chest, represents your soul.

But you can't say your soul represents your vows. What does that mean? You can't write it off as "figurative".

What I meant all along is that it can't be that cutting your baby's penis represents doing the same to your heart.

ANY MORE than it represents doing it to your soul. You can not explain one with the other, whether you choose a literal or figurative heart.

It is bad language.
Click to expand...

The heart being referred to in scripture is metaphorical, not literal..

The circumcision of the 'metaphorical heart' is a sign of the relationship between a person and God. Its an indication of the spiritual health of a person, much like the condition of the physical hearts condition is an indication of physical health.

Both the physical and figurative circumcisions mentioned in the bible are a consecration of oneself to the Lord.
 
Scrofula said:
I think you have to sign forms that say "no, please don't shave my baby's penis. Yes, here's a notarized copy."
Click to expand...

When my son was born, the topic of circumcision never came up until we asked.. We asked the doctor if it was a mandatory practice, the only thing she said was "if you want, but theres no reason to"

We didnt have to sign anything and it was a relatively short conversation.. As Christians, my wife and I understand that the physical circumcision is not a requirement and didnt want to have it done if we didnt have to.

I have twins on the way, and they wont be circumcised either.. The current scientific consensus according to our doctor is that its not an issue, but that consensus has 'ebbed and flowed' within the scientific community, they all have opinions, but never seem to agree entirely on its efficacy.
 
Your argument is what's known as an Appeal to Authority, with the lesser known look-a-baby fakeout.

I mean a figurative baby, I myself don't see any real babies.
 
Scrofula said:
Your argument is what's known as an Appeal to Authority, with the lesser known look-a-baby fakeout.

I mean a figurative baby, I myself don't see any real babies.
Click to expand...

I havent appealed to any authority to substantiate my argument. If I was to say its true because the greatest scholars say so, that would be an argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy, which is to say that my position was correct because those in a position of authority say so, which indeed is a fallacious form of argumentation.

The only time an argument from authority could rationally be made for example is in a conversation where one Christian corrects another Christian, with both accepting God as the objective authority on the matter. Telling someone who doesnt hold to our doctrinal beliefs that we are right because God says so means nothing if they dont believe in God. At that point its just a matter of sharing my beliefs, to which you could reply at best with, "cool story bro"..
 
I usually reply with even less, and it still doesn't shut you fuckers up.
 
Scrofula said:
Except, Doc, that it's the same problem with a lot of sermons: it's a terrible metaphor, which is what SWILLOW meant, maybe

Because you can't circumcise a heart, not literally or figuratively in English. You could maybe get close by using a better Greek translation, but even then, an "incision that goes around" is a tough one to relate to a promise. And so in comparison, it makes the meaning of doing it to your penis even weirder, and does even less to then explain why Christians would still do it, if the idea is to "feel" the promise instead of showing it off.
.
Click to expand...
A metaphor does not need to have both a literal and abstract. The very definition of a metaphor is
"a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable"
Perhaps you mean allegory? I too get confused about such things. I replied to the OP because I thought I had something to contribute to the thread, at least a historical approach to things. I'm not here as an apologist of any sorts, just wanted to highlight the issue is something the church has struggled with almost since its inception... and I get it, at the end of the day it is disfiguring your own child and ethically it's not ok. My parents circumcised me and I don't hate them, they acted in ignorance. Sadly ignorance is the the ultimate sin
 
Scrofula said:
I usually reply with even less, and it still doesn't shut you fuckers up.
Click to expand...
You're funny Scrofula, I like ya. You subconsciously want us to respond, not shut us up, cause how else would you have something to feel passionate about to take the time and write to us about. I would feel so alone if I actually changed your mind. Nobody to chat with.
 
I wrote to make a joke about how an uncircumcised penis looks like an anteater.

I wrote it after I noticed this wasn't the Christian Forum.

As usual, I was still respectful with you fuckwits, and here I am. I wish I could stoop to magic so I could get out of any argument or accountability.
 
Scrofula said:
I wrote to make a joke about how an uncircumcised penis looks like an anteater.

I wrote it after I noticed this wasn't the Christian Forum.

As usual, I was still respectful with you fuckwits, and here I am. I wish I could stoop to magic so I could get out of any argument or accountability.
Click to expand...
I feel I have been quite respectful to you as well fuckwit. No one is arguing your views aren't valid. The foreskin similar to antelers is hilarious. A little lightheartedness goes a long way.
 
One Thousand Words said:
Pleas show me where the research has debunked the health benefits of circumcism.

Only last month another study in Australia came to the consensus that it does indeed reduce the risk of disease.

I couldn't care about that. It looks better, 9/10 blow jobs agree
Click to expand...
If you think it looks better or 9/10 men you have given blow jobs that you have given to agree, or 9/10 men who you sucked off are cut, you don't understand how a penis functions, or how a penis with a foreskin works.

They both look the same while hard, and when the skin is pulled back, but a penis that's not cut has no gross scars, disfigurement, is not dried out and less sensitive, and has all the nerve endings and functions and looks like a penis is supposed to.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Him, I don't care too much about the issue, just wanted to say gay porn might disagree on the aesthetics. "Uncut" and "foreskin" are separate categories, although I admit sometimes more as a fetish--the extra skin is utilized sometimes.

I think it makes no sense that humans continue to do this at birth to show allegiance to an ancient deity that they might not even know about.

BUT, uncut dicks look like weird anteaters and are just generally gross. I wouldn't want to touch one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top