Clivedurdle

It will take a while yet for it to disappear from this planet, but as a relative - a health visitor noted, it is extremely rare for there to be a medical reason for it.

My point is that we believe circumcision to be normal. Is it?

And therefore why are we reacting that a more extreme version is abnormal?

stephan huller

You're probably right. It's a shared cultural habit. To be honest our decision had more to do with him growing up to 'look like everyone else' than any religious significance. I know its not like that everywhere else in the world.

I personally find it strange when I see an uncircumcised penis. Shallow but true. When I see one at my favorite local bathhouse it distracts me from hearing the Bette Midler impersonator.

Modern circumcision really amounts to little more than a shared cosmetic surgery for infants. It's shallow but's the way it is over here.

bacht

"Normal" is a notoriously flexible word. I don't think cultural anthropologists would bat an eye at anything mentioned in this thread or forum.

The idea that a new person has to be initiated into society can take many forms. We don't usually use physical disfigurement any more, but the concept is still there: "This marks your recognition as a member of the community."

In the case of adolescent male circumcision there is also a mirror of menarche ie. a physical transition into adulthood, which happens automatically for the female but not the male.

maryhelena

Way to go Clive :thumbs:

The very least one can do is shout it from the rooftops - genital mutilation is a horrendous practice - and no amount of rationalization will change that fact.

Chili

Pardon me but my animal man is the regenerated rational animal no longer torn between good an bad wherein he was guided by angels that appeared to him only because of his of oblivion (fallen nature we called it). This is based on the basic premiss that man is basically good and that, perhaps more than anything, "sin seized the commandment to rouse in [us] every kind of evil desire" . . . until in the end 'when the law comes to life and[we] die' (Romans 7:9-10).

That may be so and it is true that there must be a stream of consciousness to define the norm, but it is also true that this same stream of consciousness must be given a chance to come alive in us so that we may be liberated from it and and thus 'sin is good' (Romans 7:10-11).

I disagree with the current 'hip' interpretation of Jacob who was brought to his knees on account of his 'stronghold' as sinner (fallen nature), being broken before God. This is what caused his 'metanoia' wherein he was shown to limp after that glorious night (kind of like Joseph who recalled his shepherds and converted them into apostels).

So no, I am not a 'good works' person but will encourage the reinforcement of virtue in children that they may know when lost is lost = faith only.

Chili

True, and I think that in the unspoken argument it makes for better lovers.

stephan huller

Don't know how to erase a mistake

stephan huller

Well after that digression I'd like to continue the examination of the underlying logic of the connection of the eunuch prophet Daniel to the early ritual castration ritual at the heart of Christianity. Here is what Jerome says in his Commentary on Daniel:

This is in disagreement with the Hebrew edition as it is accurately read; I have translated it as "rulers," especially because it is preceded by the words "of the seed royal." From this passage the Hebrews think that Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah were eunuchs, thus fulfilling that prophecy which is spoken by Isaiah regarding Hezekiah: "And they shall take of thy seed and make eunuchs of them in the house of the king of Babylon" (Isa. 37: 7). If however they were of the seed royal, there is no doubt but what they were of the line of David. But perhaps the following words are opposed to this interpretation: "... lads, or youths, who were free from all blemish, in order that he might teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans." Philo supposes that Chaldee is the same thing as the Hebrew language, because Abraham came from the Chaldeans. But if we accept this we must ask how the Hebrew lads could now be bidden to be taught a language which they already knew; unless, perchance, we should say, as some believe, that Abraham was acquainted with two languages.

Verse 7. "And the overseer of the eunuchs imposed names upon them, calling Daniel Belteshazzar (Balthasar), and Hananiah Shadrach, and Mishael Meshach, and Azariah Abednego." It was not only the overseer or master of the eunuchs (as others have rendered it, the "chief-eunuch") who changed the names of saints, but also Pharaoh called Joseph in Egypt (Gen. 41) (F) Somtonphanec [Heb.: Zaphenath-paaneah], for neither of them wished them to have Jewish names in the land of captivity. Wherefore the prophet says in the Psalm: "How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?" (Ps. 136:4). Furthermore the Lord Himself changes names benignly, and on the basis of events imposes names of special significance, so as to call Abram Abraham, and Sarai Sarah (Gen. 17). Also in the Gospel, the former Simon received the name of Peter (Mark 3), and the sons of Zebedee are called "sons of thunder"----which is not boanerges, as most people suppose, but is more correctly read benereem [a reading for which there is no manuscript support, but which would be the Hebrew for "sons of thunder"].

Verse 8. "Daniel, however, purposed in his heart that he would not be defiled by food from the king's table, nor by the wine which he drank, and he asked the chief of the eunuchs that he might not be polluted." He who would not eat or drink of the king's food or wine lest he be denied (especially if he should be aware that the wisdom and teaching of the Babylonians is mistaken), would never consent to utter what was wrong. On the contrary they [i.e., the Hebrew youths] speak it forth, not that they may follow it themselves, but in order to pass judgment upon it and refute it. Just as anyone would expose himself to ridicule if he being untrained in mathematics should desire to write in confutation of mathematicians, or, being ignorant of the teachings of philosophers should desire to write in opposition to philosophers. Hence they [i.e., the Hebrew youths] study the teaching of the Chaldeans with the same intention as Moses studied the wisdom of the Egyptians.[Jerome Commentary on Daniel]

Now what is so significant here is that Daniel isn't just understood by an ancient and early Jewish tradition to be a 'eunuch' but strangely - a castrated descendant of the Davidic line.

I think some of you can see where I am going with this.

The Christian conception is that becoming an initiated eunuch transforms the individual in such a way that he takes on a higher form of consciousness. He is now able to have visions and understanding not afforded the ordinary people of the flesh.

Yet Christianity is also built around Daniel's expectation of the end of Judaism after the appearance of the messiah. (Daniel 9:26) And the messiah will be 'cut off.' The Hebrew word here is karath. Take a guess what one of the shades of meaning of karath are:

Strong's Number: 3772 כרת "to cut, cut off, cut down, cut off a body part, cut out, eliminate, kill, cut a covenant."

And take a guess what one of the most frequent cut off body parts that 'karath' refers to? You guessed it. One possible interpretation of Dan 9:26's messiah who will be 'karathed' is that he will be castrated.

As I have noted many times before, the author of the original gospel uses Daniel 9:24 - 27 as the basis to Jesus's 'little Apocalypse.' LGM 1 of Secret Mark (according to my interpretation) has Jesus instruct his beloved neaniskos (who I have always believed ends up sitting enthroned at the end of the gospel as the Christ cf Irenaeus AH iii.10.5) to castrate himself before baptism (the Marcionite practice).

Could someone have connected with karathed messiah of Daniel 9:26 with LGM 1? Again, just a thought not meant in any way to be a 'definitive pronouncement' of the truth.

Chili

Wherever the blind lead the blind anything is possible but that does not mean that castration leads to the kind of enlightenment they were looking for.

Let me add here that this same dualism is what makes suicide an intuit urge except that they kill the wrong identity to achieve that.

charles

I don't think any of us believe that castration leads to enlightenment. I think we are trying to understand what ancient Christians believed and felt if in fact they underwent castration rituals.