A cutting question ?

A cutting question ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Aneirin -> A cutting question ? (1/18/2009 10:42:02 PM)
Circumcision of males, I understand it is done for religious reasons by followers of Judeo/Christian beliefs, what I would like to know, is , does anyone know the origin of the practice and could offer any information as to why it became incorporated in belief ? Further to that can anyone suggest why it was deemed necessary to mutilate a functional part of a perfect form created by the Maker ?

blacksword404 -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/18/2009 11:05:08 PM)
Read your Bible.

Aneirin -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/18/2009 11:07:53 PM)
Perhaps I wouldn't understand, as I am pagan in spirituality.

GimpinDenial -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/18/2009 11:11:08 PM)
Even if you did.... Unless I am mistaken... there is no reference in the bible about penile circumcision and... I'm wrong The circumcision that Abraham and his descendants practiced was something entirely different from modern circumcision. It merely involved cutting the tip of the foreskin, not removing it.

blacksword404 -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/18/2009 11:19:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Perhaps I wouldn't understand, as I am pagan in spirituality. I was not aware that prevented you from reading.

GimpinDenial -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/18/2009 11:23:42 PM)
But... http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass2/ Now, I am not a Bible thumper (in fact I doubt the existence of a "Higher Power") so, I am not gonna post anymore on this subject....

blacksword404 -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 12:41:56 AM)
Try these. Acts 7:8, Genesis 17: 1-14 Genesis 34:14-17, 22 Exodus 12:48

MissMorrigan -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 1:13:25 AM)
According to Wiki, earliest references depicting male circumcision (we should get onto female circumcision later on) have been observed in cave drawings and Egyptian tombs but states that they're ambiguous. My own personal recollection of circumcision dates back to Judaism and is embodied in the Tanakh (someone correct me if I am wrong). Whatever its roots, it is affiliated with many religions and thankfully, today at least, parents in the US (considerably fewer men in the UK are circumcised) are given the choice. You may consider it mutilation and that it violates a basic human right, but you cannot denigrate people for practising their religions, for they existed long before you were given life, and will prevail long after you exit this world.

Aneirin -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 3:45:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissMorrigan According to Wiki, earliest references depicting male circumcision (we should get onto female circumcision later on) have been observed in cave drawings and Egyptian tombs but states that they're ambiguous. My own personal recollection of circumcision dates back to Judaism and is embodied in the Tanakh (someone correct me if I am wrong). Whatever its roots, it is affiliated with many religions and thankfully, today at least, parents in the US (considerably fewer men in the UK are circumcised) are given the choice. You may consider it mutilation and that it violates a basic human right, but you cannot denigrate people for practising their religions, for they existed long before you were given life, and will prevail long after you exit this world. Mutilation on the aspect that if a maker provided one with a perfectly designed vessel for living on this planet, (every part of us has a reason for being there and though we may be a compromise, we are perfectly adapted for living in our enviroment), what maker would demand or the believers feel that they should cut a bit off themselves, a bit that has a use. If a maker demanded it, then surely it is a mistake and over time that bit would have evolved out of us, if it is by the will of man to remove an item, thus leaving open to infection a part which is most useful in the furthering of our species, is he not insulting a maker in giving that bit back ? What is the real reason, it smells perhaps, it looks ugly even, surely if it is a man proked action, then it must be due to vanity.

MissMorrigan -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 4:22:58 AM)
You are omitting some facts, Aneirin... you think in modern times, assuming that every person can observe a high level of personal hygiene. Think in practical terms of countries (undeveloped and thousands of years ago - three to be precise) where (another reason why the dead are always buried on the same day of death) water was scarce - this, however, is NOT the reason for circumcision of males even though the brit milah is frequently seen as a means of personal hygiene and to ensure a healthier male. In Judaism, it clearly states that circumcision is a display of the infinite covenant between god and his people and that new life is continued through a circumcised male. This is conducted on the eighth day of life and performed on Shabbat. A male that does not observe this is guilty of kareit. You may disagree with this thinking, but people will continue to believe and observe their religious practices regardless of whether you are in agreement with them or not. One possible reason for the removal is, as we know, an uncircumcised penis is far more sensitive and more susceptible to stimulation, therefore making it more an act of gratification than the act of procreating for the purpose of continuing life, if you see what I mean. My grandfather was a russian jew, my mother speaks fluent hebrew. I, however, am not Jewish. I have my own belief system and respect others' observances of their religious practices. I would not insult them by referring to it as mutilation. quote: quote: Mutilation on the aspect that if a maker provided one with a perfectly designed vessel for living on this planet, (every part of us has a reason for being there and though we may be a compromise, we are perfectly adapted for living in our enviroment), what maker would demand or the believers feel that they should cut a bit off themselves, a bit that has a use. If a maker demanded it, then surely it is a mistake and over time that bit would have evolved out of us, if it is by the will of man to remove an item, thus leaving open to infection a part which is most useful in the furthering of our species, is he not insulting a maker in giving that bit back ? What is the real reason, it smells perhaps, it looks ugly even, surely if it is a man proked action, then it must be due to vanity.

RCdc -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 5:16:01 AM)
Feeling angsty and provoking today A?[;)] Not entirely sure why your asking an age old question when google is your friend - or are you just feeling too lazy to study it yourself? This is a done over and over subject that CM has a zillion links for. And why suddenly pagan again? And what does that have to do with reading the bible or in fact any other book? Your not banned from it, nor incapable of understanding it just because you are identifying as pagan again? It's for religious reasons. It's for health reasons. It's for initiation rights. All depend on the area you live. It's ancient, spans and records back further than biblical. Does that answer your question? the.dark.

CatdeMedici -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 5:19:06 AM)
There are written references at as far back as the Greeks and Romans and even the Egyptians----doctors in more modern times felt it was a means to prevent infection in boyswho didn't wipe after peeing,(you know that two shakes and its dry, doesn't work) and could maintain holding sexual juices---also leading to potential infection due to lack of cleanliness--today as has been stated---parents are given the option--as long as the boy it taught to wipe well and keep all the skin clean, infection can be avoided.

RCdc -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 5:20:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissMorrigan My grandfather was a russian jew, my mother speaks fluent hebrew. I, however, am not Jewish. I have my own belief system and respect others' observances of their religious practices. I would not insult them by referring to it as mutilation. Not to sound callous MissM, however if someone is going to feel insulted by the word mutilation, they have bigger issues IMO. Personally I dig that it is mutilation and have said so before on the numerous threads on circumcision. However I also call any types of piercing mutilation also, as well as tattoos, nails and any other plastic surgery. It's no biggie really, its just an alteration of what is there. I'm not intentionally insulting someone when I say something is mutilation - that is just how I perceive it. If someone wants to second guess me, they have bigger issues. the.dark.

MissMorrigan -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 5:39:46 AM)
That, in my opinion, is not callousness, but a disrespect of others' religious observances/practicses, the.dark, and to suggest people grow a thicker skinis insulting, not to me, but I can see how it would be to others, afterall, why be so sensitive over such a little thing, eh? That's why so many crimes are committed by people in the name of religion. I would no more tell a Jew they are mutilating their children when circumcising them, than I would tell a male Muslim that 'fard' is some silly notion that they could well do without. People can ask questions regarding religious practices without being disrespectful. Perhaps instead of thinking others would be best served at growing a thicker skin, we could become a little more sensitive toward others? On another note, the.dark. Most tattoos we see today are of western origin, which have no spiritual/religious affiliation - they are just skin decoration, the same with piercings. The same cannot be said of traditional Japanese/Maui whose life stories/spiritual journeys are etched into their skins, where each is unique. quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Not to sound callous MissM, however if someone is going to feel insulted by the word mutilation, they have bigger issues IMO. Personally I dig that it is mutilation and have said so before on the numerous threads on circumcision. However I also call any types of piercing mutilation also, as well as tattoos, nails and any other plastic surgery. It's no biggie really, its just an alteration of what is there. I'm not intentionally insulting someone when I say something is mutilation - that is just how I perceive it. If someone wants to second guess me, they have bigger issues. the.dark.

colouredin -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 5:44:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissMorrigan On another note, the.dark. Most tattoos we see today are of western origin, which have no spiritual/religious affiliation - they are just skin decoration, the same with piercings. The same cannot be said of traditional Japanese/Maui whose life stories/spiritual journeys are etched into their skins, where each is unique. So when its got religious basis we have to be sensitive whereas when its a personal choice we dont? None of my tattoos have religious reasoning but they are to me more than 'just skin decoration'. Sometimes I wonder, when someone has a belief that is theirs then we are allowed to argue it but when that belief is shrouded in religion we have to be more wary. I wonder why?

MissMorrigan -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 5:57:41 AM)
Many western tattoos have little significance, Coloured, and usually are a form of skin decoration which were chosen b/c they looked cute and the wearer wanted to 'fit in' - the same tattoo can be seen on thousands of others who paid their monies and looked at the various artistry on the wall in a tattoo parlour. Your tats have significance to you and would you personally respond any more favourably to someone who suggested you have mutilated yourself than to my suggestion that they were just 'skin decoration'? For the record, I don't personally consider them to have any less significance, but wanted to (temporarily) adopt a more thicker skin towards others' beliefs/practices as it was suggested and in by doing so, hopefully showed that it's fine to have our own beliefs, but we also need to be respectful of others. quote: ORIGINAL: colouredin So when its got religious basis we have to be sensitive whereas when its a personal choice we dont? None of my tattoos have religious reasoning but they are to me more than 'just skin decoration'. Sometimes I wonder, when someone has a belief that is theirs then we are allowed to argue it but when that belief is shrouded in religion we have to be more wary. I wonder why?

RCdc -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 6:15:56 AM)
My spiritual and religious practises have nothing to do with anyone else and if someone calls them something that I don't understand or feel slighted by, I ask them. I don't second guess them by assuming it's a negative thing. I'll talk it through. And are you suggesting that just because someone has a spiritual practise that their feelings are more important than someone who had a tattoo for another reason? And what about slighting me? If I choose to use a word that has meaning and intensity to me, I have to not use it because to someone else believes incorrectly that I am insulting them? Just because someone has a negative association with a word, doesn't mean I have to follow like a sheep. Mutilation isn't a bad thing but at leasts it's honest ,an alteration that deprives you of something - in this case the foreskin - and the whole covenant is a reminder and a promise. I don't see how that is a bad thing either. It's a visual reminder and an identifier (understanding the whole historical thing of different 'tribes' helps as well as the whole clean/unclean purity issues). the.dark.

Aneirin -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 7:48:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Darcyandthedark Feeling angsty and provoking today A?[;)] Not entirely sure why your asking an age old question when google is your friend - or are you just feeling too lazy to study it yourself? This is a done over and over subject that CM has a zillion links for. Yes, I have researched in ways that I can, but the thing that eludes is why, and you know me, I question everything to find my own understanding, (the mechanic in me). I understand all the arguments for and against, but what I am asking, is the origin, I am asking people to speculate on a possible reason other than scripture, a 'what if' situation if you like. As to specfic religious beliefs, my belief is if a belief cannot be questioned and analysed, then for me, it is not worth believing in, I seek answers to questions is all and am not in my questioning intending to provoke or ridicule. And why suddenly pagan again? And what does that have to do with reading the bible or in fact any other book? Your not banned from it, nor incapable of understanding it just because you are identifying as pagan again? I am pagan whether I like it or not, as I do not believe wholeheartedly in the Judeo/Christian beliefs, although I do take on board truths from many beliefs, including those deemed 'pagan' as not being of the Judeo/Christian origin by definition. A mixed belief to include Gods and Goddesses to one of the Judeo/Christian is a pagan, but like all beliefs, I constantly question to seek my own truth. As to reading a holy scripture, that I can do, but I am of the belief that if I have not the knowledge of the original language and culture, then much is lost, definition and intonation by the very concept that much is lost in translation, I am not of the culture, therefore I may not understand. It's for religious reasons. It's for health reasons. It's for initiation rights. All depend on the area you live. It's ancient, spans and records back further than biblical. Does that answer your question? the.dark.

RCdc -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 8:37:00 AM)
quote: Yes, I have researched in ways that I can, but the thing that eludes is why, and you know me, I question everything to find my own understanding, (the mechanic in me). I understand all the arguments for and against, but what I am asking, is the origin, I am asking people to speculate on a possible reason other than scripture, a 'what if' situation if you like. As to specfic religious beliefs, my belief is if a belief cannot be questioned and analysed, then for me, it is not worth believing in, I seek answers to questions is all and am not in my questioning intending to provoke or ridicule. I get that you want answers, I just don't see why you didn't use the search functin on circumcision here on cc, because it's a thread that comes up as often as the slave v. sub debate. quote: I am pagan whether I like it or not, as I do not believe wholeheartedly in the Judeo/Christian beliefs, although I do take on board truths from many beliefs, including those deemed 'pagan' as not being of the Judeo/Christian origin by definition. A mixed belief to include Gods and Goddesses to one of the Judeo/Christian is a pagan, but like all beliefs, I constantly question to seek my own truth. But you have insisted that paganism isn't what it is in the now, that is why I asked. That too many suggest paganism as something that it isn't. Not to deny your faith A, but your boxing yourself again - in a few weeks it will be something else. quote: As to reading a holy scripture, that I can do, but I am of the belief that if I have not the knowledge of the original language and culture, then much is lost, definition and intonation by the very concept that much is lost in translation, I am not of the culture, therefore I may not understand. I don't get this at all knowing you the way I do A. Your constantly searching, which is cool, so why don't you take the time to learn the translations and original language instead of asking second hand accounts that you cannot confirm are correct or not? Why passively shrug off that you 'don't know so can't know' and learn instead? You like learning, so I know for a fact you could do it. the.dark.

beargonewild -> RE: A cutting question ? (1/19/2009 9:07:40 AM)
Just offering this link for info which gores into the history of circumcision. By the looks of it, it is informative and all through he article it contains footnotes to the sources the author gleamed their info.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625