Reply With Quotewould u like me to show u were it is shown circumcision in bible?
BellyBelly Member
References to circumcision in religious text?
Can anybody help me with...
1. Which religions practise circumcision due to references in their texts and writings
2. What/where these references are specifically. It'd be great if you could post the reference, but if it's too long or you can't be bothered, a point in the general direction so I can look it up would be appreciated.
Please, I'm not after personal opinions/experiences at all, just some answers to the above questions.
Thanks so much.
Registered User
would u like me to show u were it is shown circumcision in bible?
BellyBelly Member
Yes please, that's the kind of information I'm after - for any religion.
Edit - Oh I have your PM, thanks. If I can get some non-modernized references, that would be good too.
Registered User
yep change it where it says "the message" to what version u would prefer
BellyBelly Member
In Genesis, cant think exactly where but near the start, look for the chapters on Arbraham, circumcision was a covenant God made with Abraham, that Abraham and all of his male ancestors be circumcised at i think 8 days of age. i think all of the males in Arbrahams house had to be circumcised too, the servants and so on. HTH
♥ BellyBelly's Creator ♥
In THIS article, references are made to several religions and what they state. It's controversial though, be warned
Kelly xx
Creator of BellyBelly.com.au, doula, writer and mother of three amazing children
Registered User
In THIS article, references are made to several religions and what they state. It's controversial though, be warned
the man who wrote that article is not a very good source for information.
I like this one under the Jewish circumsicion section:
"Deut 21:10:14 Rape is perfectly acceptable as long as it is an enemy woman you are raping."
This scripture is abour marriage....nothing about raping anyone. Talk about taking a scripture out of context!
Registered User
Actually, it's not about marriage. To consider a chapter about women captured in war to be be about marriage is like equating Guantanamo Bay to a holiday camp. This chapter and verse is about taking a woman captive, deciding to take her home and having sex with her. If you don't enjoy the sex then let her go. But if you do then you can be her husband (whether or not she likes the idea). Let me quote a longer portion of the chapter.
Deuteronomy 21
10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13 She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her.
Commandments like this show why Deuteronomy (and much of the Old Testament) is ignored. If you ignore this, then surely it's not a big step to ignore circumcision?
Oh my!
Can I respectfully ask please why this behaviour was thought as okay?
Registered User
It was war time in AD whatever.
Actually, this was good treatment for captives compared to some of the other practices around at the time. Given that you could take captives to be your slaves, this allows for them to marry said captives, rather than just enslave.
Not necessarily something that we'd condone today, but then again, I think most of my neighbours would think I was a nut if I suddenly set up an altar and started sacrificing in my backyard too.
I get what you are saying Jen - again gently and respectfully... How then does the policy of male circumscion get referenced as a religious practice when all of theother things are not followed?
Registered User
I think religious texts might have their own laws/principles to follow. My response purely came from what's written in the Old Testament.
If your religion doesn't accept the entire Bible, both Old and New Testament, as your text, then you would have to look at the other applicable documents.
The Old Testament talks about all of these practices mentioned, including circumcision, but then the New Testament provides Jesus' teachings, where he says that he has come in fulfilment of the old laws and the only remaining law is to love your neighbour as yourself. So for most Christian churches, the laws and practices governing the Jews/Israelites before Jesus are not applied/required. There was a crossover time when the first followers of the Christian church did practice circumcision, but that was mostly to be accepted by the early (predominantly Jewish-born) members of the church. It was no longer necessary, neither was it necessary for all 'priests' to be members of a certain tribe, etc, instead they could be from any nation and any background, circumcised or not.
Obviously the Jewish religion does not include the New Testament and the Quran would have its own teachings.
Registered User
so the raping begins a month after she has had time to mourn for her family?
I dont know about anyone else, but that doesnt sound like rape to me.
You know, the context of the times is important to take into consideration. In times of war, all nations took captives. Thats what ancient civilisations did. However, if you were taken captive by the Isrealites you fared much better then if you were taken captive by lets say the babylonians or the ninevites.
Once the captive woman became a wife, she was entitled to the same protection and benefits under the law as any other isrealite woman. They were not considered slaves, they were not beaten, they were not tortured and definately not raped...they were protected, clothed, fed and cared for.
Please explain how that amounts to rape?
Last edited by Peg; March 31st, 2010 at 02:32 PM.
Registered User
the circumsicion was a sign of the covenant between God and the Isrealite nation...the mosaic laws were the regulations of that covenant.
Once Jesus had arrived, then the covenant was made new and the new sign of the covenant would be a persons faith in Jesus, rather then following of any set regulations as set out in the mosaic law.
So christians were told that they did not need to be circumsiced because the mosaic covenant was not required any longer. But i guess becuase many of the jews did not put faith in Jesus, they continued to follow the mosaic law under the old covenant.
Then when the jewish priesthood was destroyed in 70ce by the romans, they no longer had a means of continuing to offer the sacrifices required under the mosaic law... so those sacrifices stopped due to necessity rather then choice while circumsision was something they could continue to perform with or without a priesthood.
Thankyou for explaining that Peg.
So, why do some Christians follow circumcsion still? I believe the WWCOG do... I also believe JW's do?
Registered User
i have no idea why some christians still follow it...perhaps its become a cultural thing??
JW's can choose to if they want, the teachings do not say that we must or must not...its an individual choice for us. My son is not cirumcised because there was no medical need to do it. My BIL had his son done for medical reasons as he was having infection problems.
Its really a personal choice and the New testament specifically says that it is not a requirement for christians.
Registered User
Definitely not JWs. Not required to, anyway.
Registered User
I believe Jews still follow because they do not believe Jesus has come to Earth yet - therefore the reasoning that other Christian religions use to NOT circumcise doesn't apply, as the person who said it wasn't Jesus in their opinion. Yael would be the best to ask I think...
And ditto to Peg and Jen
Bookmarks