Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Doesn't circumcision as a sign of God's Covenant People imply nudity?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Doesn't circumcision as a sign of God's Covenant People imply nudity?

    For those who insist that the Bible teaches that it is wrong to be seen naked, here is food for thought from the latest issue of Fig leaf Forum...

    quote:
    .. I would like to hear why readers think God chose circumcision as a mark of covenant for Abraham if people were never seen naked at home and in society. Wouldn't a mark on the back of the hand or on the forehead be more open? Or perhaps God could have had covenant men wear some special facial hair -- one side shaved, no beard, no mustache, etc., or a tattoo or brand. Or for that matter, God could have instituted some special or distinctive clothing if the body is to be hidden as textile people and most Christians insist. Certainly God was not trying to hide the mark of covenant, was He?

  • #2
    Not necessarily. The majority of ancient Israelites lived not in cities, but in villages or in the country. And country folk know what happens in their own neighborhood; they would know who was circumcised and who wasn't.

    It was probably a cleanliness issue. Circumcised penises are easier to keep clean than uncircumcised ones and would seem to be less prone to infection when constantly covered by garments. But later on too many people thought it was more important to keep the law's fine points than to be just, merciful, and loving. In his teachings Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth put everything back into perspective.

    Comment


    • #3
      I agree with Jochanaan,

      Coming across soap and sterile water wasn't as easy as jumping in the shower. Poor hygeine mixed with an uncircumcised penis can be more of a problem this way. In some third world countries the problems are more evident.

      Fresh Air

      Comment


      • #4
        Circumcision is a commandment from Yahweh (God). Thus, if you believe, then you are obligated to follow the commandment with your son when he is born.
        Paul said in short, if you are an adult convert who was not from a believing family, that a ohysical circumcision is not necessary. However, once a beleiver, you are then required to follow Yahwehs word.

        None of this implies nudism.

        Comment


        • #5
          Many of you say that God created Man in his own image, and then declared that creation to be good. This is offered as indication that our bodies need no alterations and/or embellishments, and that doing so refutes God's will, i.e., that which he called good.

          Many now also say that God instructed us to alter the creation he once called good! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/img]

          How is one supposed to reconcile this? When/why did God change?

          Comment


          • #6
            MOBoy, Circumcision began with Abraham, some 2000 years after the fall of Man. Enoch, Noah, and many others were redeemed sinners without it.

            Circumcision is now optional. Mosaic law is superseded by a higher law, and our hearts are circumcised. It is up to you if you want to circumcise your foreskin as a testimony.

            Comment


            • #7
              Boomhousedriver,

              Are we saved by works then?

              In my oppinion, things like submerged baptism and circumcision are given to us in the bible and maybe God still wants us to do them, but neiter of them is what saves us. And somebody not doing them, I don't think, will keep them from having an eternal loving relationship with God.

              Fresh Air

              Comment


              • #8
                Fresh Air: Baptism is a public decloration of your committment (salvatiuon in) to Christ. It, in itself, can not save because if you made your committment to Christ you are already saved. Baptism will not make you MORE saved then what you already are.
                As for its necessity, we who are saved through Christ are asked to, but not commanded to make this public decloration. The thief on the cross next to Christ was saved because of his repentence and committment. He was not baptized, yet Jesus said that he would be in paridise that very day. You don't need to be baptized to be saved!
                Moboy: You said it right, "Many now say." People are always trying to add to or reinterpet scripture so as to support their own adgendas. God DID NOT say of His creations, "It is good, and O by the way, I did not get around to finishing my work on mankind. Would somebody please finish up for me?" NO, He said, "It is good." For Him nothing was left to be done by others. He was completely satisfied with His creation of mankind as it originally was done. Sawdust

                Comment


                • #9
                  quote:
                  Originally posted by sawdust:
                  [qb] Baptism is a public decloration of your committment (salvatiuon in) to Christ. It, in itself, can not save because if you made your committment to Christ you are already saved. Baptism will not make you MORE saved then what you already are. [/qb]
                  I thought baptists believe that you must be baptized to truly be saved? Am I wrong or are there maybe different beliefs among baptists? It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. LOL!

                  Melissa

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    There are christian denominations that do believe that to trully be saved you must be baptized. The Baptist traditionally do not hold to that belief and use as the proof the thief on the cross and his salvation without baptism. Sawdust

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      No, Melissa! I can tell you are from a part of the country where there aren't many Baptists. They are on a dozen radio stations every day here and by the time I was 10 years old I knew that Baptists teach that baptism is an act of obedience for people who are already Christian, It is not a salvific act. As a consequence, you will NEVER see them baptise infants because they are incapable of understanding the act. The thing that distinguishes them from many other denominations is that they believe that the only correct method of baptism is total immersion (not sprinkling). All Baptists share these beliefs.

                      The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the Church of Christ teach Baptismal regeneration, that is, they hold the view that salvation cannot occur unless one is baptized and that the moment of baptism is the moment of one's salvation. They do not believe that the water saves you, otherwise anyone who has ever taken a bath will be saved. The Church of Christ teaches that they are the only Christians, that the baptisms received by members of the Disciples of Christ, Baptist, etc. are invalid.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I knew SOMEONE believed that you had to be baptized to be saved... I guess I just got the denomination wrong! LOL

                        Melissa

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          O.K. somebody please educate me on this matter of circumcision. Was this solely a practice amongst the Jewish faith or was this a practice with other religions as well? Richinoregon mentions above that this practice was a covenant between God and Abraham. Was this the sole purpose for circumcision? Could someone point me to where in the Bible it refers to this? I am not sure I buy the hygiene point (albeit a good one) since this evidently did not occur prior to the time of Abraham.

                          Thanks!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            FLTony -
                            Paul said circumcision was not needed for a Christian. He pointed out that some Jews were trying to add various Jewish laws that people had to follow to become Christians. Timothy was not cirucmcised and he was one of the writers of the books in the New Testment.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Circumcision is entirely done as a spiritual covenant. It would be interesting to speculate as to why God required it rather than piercing the ear or tongue. It seems to me that the foreskin of the penis is the portal of all subsequent generations. As if one were making an intergenerational covenant.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X