Who is smarter, man or God?

[Whispered]

I was just trying to think of body parts with little or no use. I could have suggested a toe nail or hair, but they're not made of skin, so probably not a fair comparison.

That's fair.

We do wear clothes these days, making that function somewhat redundant.

The body's protection layers preceded clothing.

My understanding is that female "circumcision" or Female Genital Mutilation, is totally different from circumcision, and not really comparable. While circumcision just removes excess skin, FGM removes the most sensitive part of the female anatomy.

The head of the penis is most sensitive. Without the foreskin there for protection the head and glans are exposed.

I think the argument that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure was debunked in 2015.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...Intact_Men_Using_Quantitative_Sensory_Testing

I fully agree. But I believe that after sin entered the world, things deteriorated. So as people started wearing clothes, the purpose of the excess skin on males wasn't so important, but the consequences of disease was moreso. I don't think this was the primary reason God gave circumcision, but I believe there may be health benefits, and certainly that God would not command something that was harmful.[/QUOTE]

 

[Moses_Young]

Is it too simple to believe that God created the foreskin and then commanding men in the OT to cut it off, merely to help drive home the truth of our natural sin state and our need to remove it through Christ?

Not at all. We were pondering though why only men, when women also have a natural sin state. Also, the topic came up because even though circumcision represents a spiritual lesson, I believe there may be physical benefits also.

Also, is it too simple to think the womens menstrual cycle and child bearing pain preach the fall and need for Christ as well?

The child-bearing pain yes, but menstrual cycle? How is that linked to the fall? I presumed that is just how God created females.

Everything about us points back to our King and Saviour, our hope...the Lord of Hosts.

The OT and NT points to Christ and so should we!!!

Amen!

 

[CharliRenee]

The supreme and exalted creator will always out rank, in every way, His creation, by far and above, and yet even His supreme humility brings Himself to us...whoa...how mind and heart boggling.

 

[Moses_Young]

That's fair.
The body's protection layers preceded clothing.
The head of the penis is most sensitive. Without the foreskin there for protection the head and glans are exposed.


I fully agree. But I believe that after sin entered the world, things deteriorated. So as people started wearing clothes, the purpose of the excess skin on males wasn't so important, but the consequences of disease was moreso. I don't think this was the primary reason God gave circumcision, but I believe there may be health benefits, and certainly that God would not command something that was harmful.

Sorry. The quotes on this seem a bit mixed up, and I don't understand what you are saying.

 

[Whispered]

I was just trying to think of body parts with little or no use. I could have suggested a toe nail or hair, but they're not made of skin, so probably not a fair comparison.

We do wear clothes these days, making that function somewhat redundant.

My understanding is that female "circumcision" or Female Genital Mutilation, is totally different from circumcision, and not really comparable. While circumcision just removes excess skin, FGM removes the most sensitive part of the female anatomy.

I think the argument that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure was debunked in 2015.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...Intact_Men_Using_Quantitative_Sensory_Testing

I fully agree. But I believe that after sin entered the world, things deteriorated. So as people started wearing clothes, the purpose of the excess skin on males wasn't so important, but the consequences of disease was moreso. I don't think this was the primary reason God gave circumcision, but I believe there may be health benefits, and certainly that God would not command something that was harmful.

As we know for every study there is a counter study. Largely because of funding.
Excerpted from this article.
Academia.EDU Medicine and circumcision, the foreskin, not guilty! (updated 08.07.2019)

"the destruction of the sexual function of the foreskin
Introduction: circumcision is mutilation

Diamonds are forever. ​

Mutilation is the ablation of a non auto-reproducible organ. If skin is an organ, the foreskin cannot be called a superfluous skin, for two reasons. On the one hand, it is a lip, warmly protective of the delicate mucosa of the glans, containing two arteries, veins and a smooth muscle. On the other hand, its erogenous sensitivity makes it comparable to the clitoris and, similar to excision, circumcision suppresses the specific, vaginal organ for masculine autosexuality...."


Concerning your observation about God's ordering of circumcision. If that were true, your position as ascribed to God, why then would God have simply just created man without foreskin? So that man does not tamper with what God created later in excising the foreskin? After God created all that he created including Humans, He deemed his creation very good. The Book of Genesis chapter 1.

The Saint Apostle Paul said circumcision was spiritual, not to be taken as literal. The Book of Romans chapter 2.
What if that is what God meant when speaking unto Abraham in the Old Testament?

 

[Whispered]

Sorry. The quotes on this seem a bit mixed up, and I don't understand what you are saying.

Sorry, the quote block error was my oversight.
I'll try again here. See below

I was just trying to think of body parts with little or no use. I could have suggested a toe nail or hair, but they're not made of skin, so probably not a fair comparison.

That's fair.

We do wear clothes these days, making that function somewhat redundant.

The body's protection layers preceded clothing. a

My understanding is that female "circumcision" or Female Genital Mutilation, is totally different from circumcision, and not really comparable. While circumcision just removes excess skin, FGM removes the most sensitive part of the female anatomy.

I think the argument that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure was debunked in 2015.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...Intact_Men_Using_Quantitative_Sensory_Testing

I fully agree. But I believe that after sin entered the world, things deteriorated. So as people started wearing clothes, the purpose of the excess skin on males wasn't so important, but the consequences of disease was moreso. I don't think this was the primary reason God gave circumcision, but I believe there may be health benefits, and certainly that God would not command something that was harmful.

The head of the penis is most sensitive. Without the foreskin there for protection the head and glans are exposed.

 

[CharliRenee]

@Moses_Young
The child-bearing pain yes, but menstrual cycle? How is that linked to the fall? I presumed that is just how God created females.

Thanks for asking... I am just speculating as I am not going to presume to understand His reasons but this link made sense to me.

https://www.thegoodbook.com/blog/interestingthoughts/2018/02/20/a-5-minute-theology-of-periods/

Thanks for the question and feedback. He and His patterns, ways, design, all of Him is so fascinating.

If you choose to read it, I'd welcome your response. If not, that is ok too.

 

[Whispered]

And now for a moment of humor to break the tension. (there's a pun there if you look for it. )

Old Monk

A young monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to helping the other monks in copying the old laws of the church by hand.

He notices, however, that all of the monks are copying from copies, not from the original manuscript. So, the new monk goes to the head monk to question this, pointing out that if someone made even a small error in the first copy, it would never be picked up! In fact, that error would be continued in all of the subsequent copies.

The head monk, says, "We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son."

He goes down into the dark caves underneath the monastery where the original manuscripts are held as archives in a locked vault that hasn't been opened for hundreds of years. Hours go by and nobody sees the head monk.

So, the young monk gets worried and goes down to look for him. He sees him banging his head against the wall and wailing.

"We missed the R!
We missed the R!
We missed the R!"

His forehead is all bloody and bruised and he is crying uncontrollably. The young monk asks the head monk, "What's wrong, father?"

The head monk with tears in his eyes replies, "The word is celebrate!"

 

[Moses_Young]

As we know for every study there is a counter study. Largely because of funding.
Excerpted from this article.
Academia.EDU Medicine and circumcision, the foreskin, not guilty! (updated 08.07.2019)

"the destruction of the sexual function of the foreskin
Introduction: circumcision is mutilation

Diamonds are forever. ​

Mutilation is the ablation of a non auto-reproducible organ. If skin is an organ, the foreskin cannot be called a superfluous skin, for two reasons. On the one hand, it is a lip, warmly protective of the delicate mucosa of the glans, containing two arteries, veins and a smooth muscle. On the other hand, its erogenous sensitivity makes it comparable to the clitoris and, similar to excision, circumcision suppresses the specific, vaginal organ for masculine autosexuality...."

Interesting. I hadn't heard about this study. I think it's unfair to compare foreskin to the clitoris, though, as that leads to comparing circumcision to FGM. My understanding is that the clitoris is comparable to the glans, rather than foreskin. Also interesting (if this study is true), how the previous one detected no difference in sensation between circed and uncirced.

Concerning your observation about God's ordering of circumcision. If that were true, your position as ascribed to God, why then would God have simply just created man without foreskin? So that man does not tamper with what God created later in excising the foreskin? After God created all that he created including Humans, He deemed his creation very good. The Book of Genesis chapter 1.

The Saint Apostle Paul said circumcision was spiritual, not to be taken as literal. The Book of Romans chapter 2.
What if that is what God meant when speaking unto Abraham in the Old Testament?

With the Genesis covenant, God was pretty explicit. Do you really think Abraham could talk to God like he did, but underwent something so painful and serious as circumcision in error? To me, it shows Abraham's faith in God, especially considering God had promised to make him the father of many nations.

Genesis 17:10-11 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

 

[stonesoffire]

The point of circumcision imo, is sensitivity to God. The word flesh is used in both the old and new testaments, and the Greek Sarx explains this well. The human nature. Flesh is a barrier between God and man for our nature is fallen. Cutting this off physically by the will of God but the work of man is OT. Spiritually, is the will of God through the work of the Cross of Jesus, anointed Son of God. NT.

KJV is great for study.

 

[Whispered]

Interesting. I hadn't heard about this study. I think it's unfair to compare foreskin to the clitoris, though, as that leads to comparing circumcision to FGM. My understanding is that the clitoris is comparable to the glans, rather than foreskin. Also interesting (if this study is true), how the previous one detected no difference in sensation between circed and uncirced.

They are comparable in that they are organs that protect the reproductive systems of both male and female. And they do produce sensation when introduced to stimuli during intercourse.

With the Genesis covenant, God was pretty explicit. Do you really think Abraham could talk to God like he did, but underwent something so painful and serious as circumcision in error? To me, it shows Abraham's faith in God, especially considering God had promised to make him the father of many nations.

And yet, in Leviticus the law under Moses started circumcision as a rite.
The Book of Leviticus chapter 12 and particularly verse 3.
And yet under the leadership of Moses circumcision had been abandoned during their journey to the promised land. See, the Book of Joshua chapter 5 verses 4 thru 7.
Even during the exodus out of Egypt Moses had not circumcised his own son. His wife did. See Exodus 4

And what of this? From one who was a Pharisee and knew the laws backward and forward?
The Book of 1st Corinthians 12 and particularly verse 18.
12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves[d] or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts,[e] yet one body.
Footnotes

• [d]1 Corinthians 12:13 For the contextual rendering of the Greek word doulos, see Preface
• [e]1 Corinthians 12:20 Or members; also verse 22

Genesis 17:10-11 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

And while all that is Old Testament what of we who are to abide in the new? And not be slaves to the law of Moses, the law of bondage , as the Saint Apostle Paul called it?
The Book of Galatians 5
Wouldn't circumcision for the converted Gentile unto Christ be remiss in being circumcised?

 

[Moses_Young]

@Moses_Young
The child-bearing pain yes, but menstrual cycle? How is that linked to the fall? I presumed that is just how God created females.

Thanks for asking... I am just speculating as I am not going to presume to understand His reasons but this link made sense to me.

https://www.thegoodbook.com/blog/interestingthoughts/2018/02/20/a-5-minute-theology-of-periods/

Thanks for the question and feedback. He and His patterns, ways, design, all of Him is so fascinating.

If you choose to read it, I'd welcome your response. If not, that is ok too.

I liked the link. The designs of our bodies do indeed cry out about a magnificent Creator. It's also true about people (or males at least) being generally reticent about menstrual cycles. Perhaps it's a cultural thing, perhaps just a lack of understanding. I do like the KJV wording, referring to "flowers".

And now for a moment of humor to break the tension. (there's a pun there if you look for it. )

Old Monk

A young monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to helping the other monks in copying the old laws of the church by hand.

He notices, however, that all of the monks are copying from copies, not from the original manuscript. So, the new monk goes to the head monk to question this, pointing out that if someone made even a small error in the first copy, it would never be picked up! In fact, that error would be continued in all of the subsequent copies.

The head monk, says, "We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son."

He goes down into the dark caves underneath the monastery where the original manuscripts are held as archives in a locked vault that hasn't been opened for hundreds of years. Hours go by and nobody sees the head monk.

So, the young monk gets worried and goes down to look for him. He sees him banging his head against the wall and wailing.

"We missed the R!
We missed the R!
We missed the R!"

His forehead is all bloody and bruised and he is crying uncontrollably. The young monk asks the head monk, "What's wrong, father?"

The head monk with tears in his eyes replies, "The word is celebrate!"

Lol. That would be funny. Circumcision for sin. Sin!!! Somebody slipped in a "k"!

Sorry, the quote block error was my oversight.
I'll try again here. See below

Thanks! That helped.

The body's protection layers preceded clothing.

I agree, but we had clothes when God commanded circumcision.

The head of the penis is most sensitive. Without the foreskin there for protection the head and glans are exposed.

But the clothes can now offer the protection the skin did, without the risk of providing a habitat for bacteria.

 

[Whispered]

The point of circumcision imo, is sensitivity to God. The word flesh is used in both the old and new testaments, and the Greek Sarx explains this well. The human nature. Flesh is a barrier between God and man for our nature is fallen. Cutting this off physically by the will of God but the work of man is OT. Spiritually, is the will of God through the work of the Cross of Jesus, anointed Son of God. NT.

KJV is great for study.

Great point. Flesh, definition and meaning in the Bible

 

[Yahshua]

I Just thought of this regarding circumcision and maybe it should be posted to the other thread. I dunno. But what do you all think...

(In America at least) in the 1960s 90% of babies were circumcised. Today it's dropped by nearly 60% but still as high as 33% according to US census

[...and there may be no correlation to this next part, but America was more Christian-centric in the 60s than it is now. But...]

Does anyone think all these babies were/are unknowingly being placed into a permanently rejection of Christ's Work, by their parents?

 

[Whispered]

I liked the link. The designs of our bodies do indeed cry out about a magnificent Creator. It's also true about people (or males at least) being generally reticent about menstrual cycles. Perhaps it's a cultural thing, perhaps just a lack of understanding. I do like the KJV wording, referring to "flowers".

me too.

Lol. That would be funny. Circumcision for sin. Sin!!! Somebody slipped in a "k"!

Thanks! That helped.

I agree, but we had clothes when God commanded circumcision.

True. And in the beginning, after God created Adam and Eve's physical bodies, he looked upon all things created and said it was good. Why then later call for excising a part of the male that was at first good. And, in reading the Book of 1st Corinthians referenced earlier, chapter 12 verse 18, how to reconcile what is said there? "18. But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, "

But the clothes can now offer the protection the skin did, without the risk of providing a habitat for bacteria.

Clothes don't fully insure protection from that.

 

[Whispered]

I Just thought of this regarding circumcision and maybe it should be posted to the other thread. I dunno. But what do you all think...

(In America at least) in the 1960s 90% of babies were circumcised. Today it's dropped by nearly 60% but still as high as 33% according to US census

[...and there may be no correlation to this next part, but America was more Christian-centric in the 60s than it is now. But...]

Does anyone think all these babies were/are unknowingly being placed into a permanently rejection of Christ's Work, by their parents?

More like by their doctors as it appears to be a standard practice for newborn males.
My cousin delivered a baby boy in the hospital and prior to that she was asked if she would prefer the circumcision in hospital.
It appears to be a standard of practice at least in the states. I'd wonder if there is a difference concerning that between hospitals designated as participating in the church, like Christian hospitals by name, Methodist Hospital, and the like. As compared to general hospitals with no indication of religious affiliation.

 

[Moses_Young]

They are comparable in that they are organs that protect the reproductive systems of both male and female. And they do produce sensation when introduced to stimuli during intercourse.

I thought the clitoris was for sensation (not protection), but the foreskin was more for protection (not sensation). But I know there are differing views on the matter.

And yet, in Leviticus the law under Moses started circumcision as a rite.
The Book of Leviticus chapter 12 and particularly verse 3.
And yet under the leadership of Moses circumcision had been abandoned during their journey to the promised land. See, the Book of Joshua chapter 5 verses 4 thru 7.
Even during the exodus out of Egypt Moses had not circumcised his own son. His wife did. See Exodus 4

Zipporah saved Moses life through the circumcision of her son. So I think this is evidence Abraham didn't make a mistake about which bit to circumcise.

And what of this? From one who was a Pharisee and knew the laws backward and forward?
The Book of 1st Corinthians 12 and particularly verse 18.
12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves[d] or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts,[e] yet one body.
Footnotes

• [d]1 Corinthians 12:13 For the contextual rendering of the Greek word doulos, see Preface
• [e]1 Corinthians 12:20 Or members; also verse 22

And while all that is Old Testament what of we who are to abide in the new? And not be slaves to the law of Moses, the law of bondage , as the Saint Apostle Paul called it?

Certainly not!
The Book of Galatians 5

Wouldn't circumcision for the converted Gentile unto Christ be remiss in being circumcised?

Yes. Galatians even makes this point. I don't think circumcision for medical reasons comes under the same curse (having to obey the whole law), as even Timothy was circumcised to preach to the Jews. It certainly doesn't give us any points with God. But I still think it probably has health benefits.

 

[Moses_Young]

I Just thought of this regarding circumcision and maybe it should be posted to the other thread. I dunno. But what do you all think...

(In America at least) in the 1960s 90% of babies were circumcised. Today it's dropped by nearly 60% but still as high as 33% according to US census

It seems strange to me, also. Perhaps people were confident with circumcision as God had commanded it, and wouldn't have commanded ill for His people, but as faith in God subsided, so did circumcision rates?

Does anyone think all these babies were/are unknowingly being placed into a permanently rejection of Christ's Work, by their parents?

No. Paul even circumcised Timothy, and indicates circumcision status would have no bearing on one's faith. 1 Cor 7:18. I was thinking it might be easier for them (circumcised males) to put faith in their works, though, especially if they had Jewish leanings. If the parents wanted to circumcise for health reasons, but didn't want the danger the child would later boast, perhaps they could do it on any other day than the 8th? That way, the commandment wouldn't have been carried out 100%, so the child couldn't boast in his works.

 

[Whispered]

I thought the clitoris was for sensation (not protection), but the foreskin was more for protection (not sensation). But I know there are differing views on the matter.

Speaking as female, the hood of the clitoris protects the rest. Don't want to get too graphic here.
As for men, it is commonly known that the foreskin brings great pleasure too.

Zipporah saved Moses life through the circumcision of her son. So I think this is evidence Abraham didn't make a mistake about which bit to circumcise.

And yet the conundrum of whether the order was physical or spiritual remains given God's decree in Genesis and the scripture given to Saint Apostle Paul in the Book of 1st Corinthians. (Already posted)

Certainly not!
The Book of Galatians 5

While circumcision of one's member is out of the control of the newborn that receives the procedure in the hospital.

Yes. Galatians even makes this point. I don't think circumcision for medical reasons comes under the same curse (having to obey the whole law), as even Timothy was circumcised to preach to the Jews. It certainly doesn't give us any points with God. But I still think it probably has health benefits.

Actually, from what I've read it is healthier to have it than to not. And as I've known such males who openly discuss this in Bible study circles, there is also no issue with hygiene as they are taught early on how to properly wash.
God made it, why would He then say to snip it off so as to be in a covenant with one's maker?

 

[FollowtheShepherd]

His ways are perfection! Seeking to learn them is always a good thing!

Isaiah 55:9-11, " 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. 10 “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, 11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

Proverbs 3:5-7, " 5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. 6 In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. 7 Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD, and turn away from evil.