Today, circumcision in the West, outside of Judaism, is pretty much meaningless except for the (debatable and questionable) health benefits.
It seems that infant curcumcision in the West among non Jews became prevalent in Victorian time as a "cure" for the sin of masturbation.
According to surgeon and sexaphobic Dr. E.J. Spratling ( 1895):
quote:"To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and mucous membrane to rather put it on the stretch when erections come later. There must be no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis, for should there be any play the patient will be found to readily resume his practice not begrudging the time and extra energy required to produce the orgasm... We may not be sure that we have done away with the possibility of masturbation, but we may feel confident that we have limited it to within the danger lines."
Doctors like Spratling, believed that male masturbation caused everything from TB to heart disease - not to mention blindness and those pesky hairs growing on the palms.
Here's another Doctors assessment of the situation in 1888:
quote:Interestingly, Messrs. John Harvey Kellogg and Sylvester Graham (advocates of fibre, of both the moral and dietary varieties) were involved in this movement. Here's what Dr. Kellogg recommended:
A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.(John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., "Treatment for Self-Abuse and its Effects," Plain Fact for Old and Young
Of course there is also the "hygenic" argument which I think is just an afterthought and excuse for continuing the practice.
So now to the actual topic - Is it possible that the Jews "invented" the story of Abraham and the covenant God made with him, in order to spread the same kind of ignorance that Western culture did begining in the Victorian era? Possible I suppose, but I kind of doubt it.
What about Sky4it's specualtion concerning OT circumcision as being "God's way of saying, don't commit adultry, don't defile yourself or your neighbor." Possible maybe, but I think that is reading a bit too much into it as well. As I read the OT after Abraham, it doesn't seem to me that male circumcision did much at all to prevent the Jewish men from commiting adultery, or defiling themselves or their neighbors. So if God instituted it for that reason - it doesn't seem to have worked. I see nothing in the scripture that implies that circumcision had anything specifically to do with sexual purity. I do not see this as "insanely obvious" at all.
Insanely obvious? Isn't that kind of like saying if you don't see what I see and understand it my way that you are insanely ignorant?
Anyway, If it were God's way of saying to folks to be sexually pure, then it would seem to me that it would have been commanded done at an age where the person had a sense of morality, rather than upon infants with no absolutely no sense of morality whatsoever.
It also seems to me that if there were a sexual moral lesson involved with circumcision that it would at least be hinted at in the scripture if not spelled out plainly that this were the reason.
Apparently Rabbis do not "whip off" anything like as much skin as is commonly done by doctors.
Have you heard about the guy who applied to be a Rabbi?
He was told that the pay was awful but that the tips were good! ;)-->
These days it is a barbarically pointless ritual, physical abuse of infants who have no say in the matter, one of those "cultural traditions" which fortunately are now being heavily questioned, even in the USA.
It should be left for adults to decide, after all it's their body, not their parents or anybody else's.
The foreskin is far from being "a useless piece of skin." It contains one third of the total skin area of the penis, is a unigue type of tissue not found anywhere else on the human body and contains many sensitive nerve endings. It provides protection from infection during the early years of life also.
Circumcision was declared to be redundant 2000 years ago, that people still defend it in the twenty first century is to me incredulous.
I thank God I was born in a more enlightened age and country...
The truth is, there is no "logical" argument for cutting a piece of flesh off a helpless baby.
Yet circumcision has been practiced on Jewish males for close to 4,000 years, ever since Abraham was so commanded by God. Why does the foreskin need to be removed?
In Kabbalistic terms, the foreskin symbolizes a barrier which prevents growth. For example, when the Torah speaks about getting close to God, it calls upon us to "remove the Orlah, the foreskin of your heart" (Deut. 10:16).
Nowhere does a person have more potential for expressing "barbaric" behavior than in the sex drive.
When Abraham circumcised himself at age 99, God added the letter "heh" to his name. "Heh" is part of God's own name, signifying that through Bris Milah, the human being adds a dimension of spirituality to the physical body.
It is a foundation of Judaism that we are to control our animal desires and direct them into spiritual pursuits. Nowhere does a person have more potential for expressing "barbaric" behavior than in the sex drive. That's why the Bris is done on this specific organ. If we bring holiness into our life there, then all other areas will follow.
IDENTIFYING THE JEW
Another aspect of circumcision is that it is integral to Jewish identity. This point was made quite powerfully by a movie called "Europa Europa," It is the true story about a young Jewish boy trying to escape detection by the Nazis. The boy resembles an Aryan and speaks German fluently, so he poses as a non-Jew and is eventually recruited into an elite training program for the next generation of SS officers.
This boy was on his way to a fully non-Jewish life, except for one thing: His circumcision. He couldn't hide it. And that is what kept him Jewish throughout the entire ordeal.
Bris is the sign of the covenant. So a boy who is not circumcised has basically lost his spiritual attachment to the Jewish people.
The man survived the war, and made a new life for himself in Israel. Instead, he may have ended up becoming a Nazi officer. It all depended on the Bris.
MEDICAL DATA
It is a principle of Jewish life that our decision to perform mitzvot is not based on the "practical benefit." At the same time, the mitzvot frequently have positive observable effects in our everyday life.
Regarding the medical issues, Rabbi Yonason Binyomin Goldberger writes in "Sanctity and Science":
As an operation, circumcision has an extremely small complication rate. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine (1990) reported a complication rate of 0.19 percent when circumcision is performed by a physician. When performed by a trained mohel, the rate falls to 0.13 percent or about 1 in 1000. When a complication occurs, it is usually excessive bleeding, which is easily correctable. No other surgical procedure can boast such figures for complication-free operations.
One study showed that by the eighth day, prothrombin levels reach 110 percent of normal.
One reason why there are so few complications involving bleeding may be that the major clotting agents, prothrombin and vitamin K, do not reach peak levels in the blood until the eighth day of life. Prothrombin levels are normal at birth, drop to very low levels in the next few days, and return to normal at the end of the first week. One study showed that by the eighth day, prothrombin levels reach 110 percent of normal. In the words of Dr. Armand J. Quick, author of several works on the control of bleeding, "It hardly seems accidental that the rite of circumcision was postponed until the eighth day by the Mosaic law."
Furthermore, circumcision has been known to offer virtually complete protection from penile cancer. According to a recent review article in the New England Journal of Medicine, none of the over 1,600 persons studied with this cancer had been circumcised in infancy. In the words of researchers Cochen and McCurdy, the incidence of penile cancer in the U.S. is "essentially zero" among circumcised men.
The incidence of penile cancer in the U.S. is "essentially zero" among circumcised men.
Also, research at Johns Hopkins University Medical School in Baltimore have shown that circumcised men are six to eight times less likely to become infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Researchers believe that protection is due to the removal of the foreskin, which contains cells that have HIV receptors which scientists suspect are the primary entry point for the HIV virus. (Reuters, March 25, 2004)
Several studies reported that circumcised boys were between 10-to-39 times less likely to develop urinary tract infections during infancy than uncircumcised boys. In addition, circumcision protects against bacterial, fungal, and parasitic infections and a variety of other conditions related to hygiene. The extremely low rate of cervical cancer in Jewish women (nine-to-22 times less than among non-Jewish women) is thought to be related to the practice of circumcision.
As a result of studies like these, a number of prestigious medical organizations have recognized the benefits of circumcision, and the California Medical Association has endorsed circumcision as an "effective public health measure."
BRIS IN THE HOLOCAUST
Bris has been the hallmark of Jewish identification for millennia. The following powerful story appears in "Hassidic Tales of the Holocaust" by Yaffa Eliach:
One of the forced laborers in the camps relates that one day he heard frightening cries of anguish the likes of which he had never heard before. Later he learned that on that very day a selection had been made -- of infants to be sent to the ovens. We continued working, tears rolling down our faces, and suddenly I hear the voice of a Jewish woman: "Give me a knife."
I thought she wanted to take her own life. I said to her, "Why are you hurrying so quickly to the world of truth..." All of a sudden the German soldier called out, "Dog, what did you say to the woman?"
"She requested a pocketknife and I explained to her that it was prohibited to commit suicide."
The woman took the pocketknife, pronounced the blessing -- and circumcised the child.
The woman looked at the German with inflamed eyes, and stared spellbound at his coat pocket where she saw the shape of his pocketknife. "Give it to me," she requested. She bent down and picked up a package of old rags. Hidden among them, on a pillow as white as snow, lay a tender infant. The woman took the pocketknife, pronounced the blessing -- and circumcised the child. "Master of the Universe," she cried, "You gave me a healthy child, I return him to You a worthy Jew."
The medieval Jewish philosophers, with their strong rationalizing tendencies, were moved to ask why, granted that circumcision is a sign of the covenant, the sign had to be on this particular organ of the body. Maimonides (Guide of the Perplexed, 3.49) advances two reasons. The first (which Maimonides considers to be the best) is that circumcision weakens, without actually harming, the organ of generation so that the sexual desires of the circumcised man are moderated. (Maimonides, more than any other medieval Jewish thinker, had an aversion to sex.) The bodily injury caused to that organ, he says, does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of generation, but it does counteract excessive lust.
Maimionides' second reason is that the sign of the covenant had to be in that particular organ in order to prevent those who did not believe in the unity of God claiming to be members of the covenant for reasons of their own. The operation is so difficult and so disagreeable that no one would undergo it unless he sincerely wished to belong to the people of faith.
Philo of Alexandria was the first to advance the hygienic reason. The foreskin is literally unclean and can be a cause of disease. The more usual reason given by Jewish thinkers is the obvious one that the sign of the covenant through all the generations has to be in the very organ of generation. But, whatever the origin and the reasons for the practice, faithful Jews have circumcised their male children as the most distinctive sign of their loyalty to God. Even Spinoza [the unorthodox 17th-century Dutch Jewish thinker] can remark: “Such great importance do I attach to the sign of the Covenant, that I am persuaded that it is sufficient by itself to maintain the separate existence of the nation for ever.”
Insanely obvious? Isn't that kind of like saying if you don't see what I see and understand it my way that you are insanely ignorant?
Anyway, If it were God's way of saying to folks to be sexually pure, then it would seem to me that it would have been commanded done at an age where the person had a sense of morality, rather than upon infants with no absolutely no sense of morality whatsoever.
There is some scriptural basis for it. Right prior to the circumcision covenent, God said to Abraham to be perfect in his walk before him. Walking perfect before God would seem to encompass quite a few things no?In addition God said of Abraham, that he knew him and that he would order his children after him. Futhermore Abraham after the circumcision, was very much involved in preaching righteousness to the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain that God overthrew. Therefore one might reasonably say that Abraham had a well developed sense of righteousness when it came to matters of sexual purity.
By saying it was insanely obvious I was not infering anyone was ignorant. Simply that the placement of the actual act is "insanely obvious". For if the only theme was the circumcision of the heart refered to in the new testament why not have men cut off a piece of flesh on there chest. Goey, I really don't think by saying that I was trying to be condescending, sorry if it appeared that way.
Look , as a practical matter it shouldn't matter whether one thinks the circumcision was about moral purity or not; as long as one adheres to the new testament doctrine of the Apostles or the Apostle Paul. That doctrine was that one "should abstain from pollutions of idols and from fornication and things strangled, and from blood." (Acts 15:20) By the Apostle Paul restated, "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that you should abstain from fornication."
(I Thessalonians 4:3)
Was my commentary about the moral meaning of the circumcision unpractical then? No, I don't think it was. Furthermore, my argument was chiefly to those who state that the plurality of religions was due to God being deliberately unclear. Ie.(Why Christianity thread) I simply stated that there were clear parallels between the two covenants, that reconcile religions to the true meaning and that God has not been obtuse but has been direct.
In my mind the topic of the circumcision brings up some real fun stuff to talk about. The Lord himself clearly describes Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as sitting down in the kingdom of heaven.
(Matt.: 8:11, Luke 13:28) The bible describes Jacob as a "plain man". (Gen 25:7) Jacob was not a complex sort of guy. (Interesting that the covenant of the true circumcision was in Jacob and not in Esau, and presumably both were literally circumcised. ) The true covenant then is one of promises , not one of the literal act of the circumcision. (The fact that they were twins may also be indicative of how false religions can mimic the true.) There is also an intriguing question in this. If the circumcision was good enough for Abraham, Issac and Jacob, ( that is to make it into the kingdom of heaven), why did God give us more than what they simply had? One can only speculate and perhaps this is a good question for another topic.
The concept that I mention about moral purity, was therefore I think directed to "plain men" problems.It's not overly complex and I simply stated that the true doctrine of God is pretty "plain" stuff.
I apologize to some of you for scriptural recitations. I did it bearing in mind that some always assert engaging in "private interpretation", so the recitations were made and directed to those whose reasoning are such.
Lastly, I said the concept of "circumcise"parallels new testament thinking. For example, circumcise your lips (not literally ok?), isn't a whole lot unlike the Apostle Paul saying, "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouths." (Eph 4:29) Yes, I deliberately avoided talking about "sexual purity", because that ground has already been covered.
quote:There is some scriptural basis for it. Right prior to the circumcision covenent, God said to Abraham to be perfect in his walk before him. Walking perfect before God would seem to encompass quite a few things no?In addition God said of Abraham, that he knew him and that he would order his children after him.
Agreed. To walk perfectly encompases a lot of things which would indeed *include* sexual purity, but would not be limited to things sexual as you speculated in your opening post.
By saying it was insanely obvious I was not infering anyone was ignorant. Simply that the placement of the actual act is "insanely obvious". For if the only theme was the circumcision of the heart refered to in the new testament why not have men cut off a piece of flesh on there chest. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "the placement of the actual act is insanely obvious". Maybe if you explain why this is "insanely obvious" to you, I might better understand what you are trying to say here. Stating that something is obvious does not make it so. What may seem obvious to one person may be not so obvious or may even seem nonsensical to another.
My take on OT circumscision is this. It was a mark of nationality and possibly a *type* of baptism. On a practical level it was a reqiurement for citizenship in the Jewish nation. I do not think that it would have mattered much if it had been the removal of a piece of flesh on the chest (left nipple maybe?) or the foreskin - the covenant would have been the same. It was necessary for Jewish citizenship and even required for foreigners who resided among the Jews. However, the fact that it was the foreskin is quite interesting.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "the placement of the actual act is insanely obvious". Maybe if you explain why this is "insanely obvious" to you, I might better understand what you are trying to say here. Stating that something is obvious does not make it so. What may seem obvious to one person may be not so obvious or may even seem nonsensical to another.
I mean that the placement of the actual circumcision on the male genitalia is insanely or ridiculous inferred or obvious. Perhaps , I ought to have said ridiculously inferred. The ridiculous or insane part being that it is in fact the male body part which I perhaps was poking fun at. I did not mean this comment, however , in deferance to peoples knowledge or as you said "suggested ignorance" of the matter. Therefore I fail to see how the comment was condescending. I simply say that because the placement of the circumcision is on that area, that ought to make the concept of sexual purity, more obvious. ok? In addition and somewhat insanely,
talking about sexual things has always been rather difficult for folks to do, yet God kinda let his intentions be rather well known on the subject. Also when I say insanely, I mean we are always kind of wild on the subject.
Also Goey, I agree with you that the circumcision has some parallels to the new testament babtism stuff. The other odd thing about it Goey, was that it was commanded to be performed on the 8th day of birth (no I didnt look it up , I think it says that tho). Since there were only 7 days in a week, we can certainly know that God was looking for more from this act than the literal circumcision itself.
Your comment:
However, the fact that it was the foreskin is quite interesting.
Yea, I agree. Thats kinda why I brought it up. That and the stuff in the Why Christianity thread.
the bible is rich and deep , with meaning. Our teacher is the Lord and we learn as disciples of His ways. that said I rather believe the major concern was with off spring in which they knew came from the penisand cutting away the useless skin allowing the( father, seed) of the nation itself and down through the ages to the Saviour of mankind .
In the new testiment God talks about the Grafting IN (gentiles) which also involves cutting away the dead and planting a new life into a plant. same type of lesson used etc.
so not funny , how about those in Africa with HIV half the country is dead or dying of aids do you think they get surgery to stop the spread of what is destoying now three generations and most probably the entire country if something isnt done soon?
that kind of information is just dangerous.. I can see it now heck im circumsized I can be risky in my behaviours Im safe..
Anyways, this brings up another "issue" along the same theme.
That issue is the one of masturbation and wether it is wrong or not. Some of said that the Bible does not address the issue. I think it does, both in the new testament and in the old, however it is not in doctrinal format and I think wisely so. Weather (as in climate) or not to discuss it is the cliff hanger, because if the concept of "circumcise" draws ire, this one may draw a mad house.
He accepted his elder brother's widow [fullfiling Leviticus law], also according to Leviticus law her first son would inherit all that the elder brother had owned. But not wanting her to have a son, he 'spilled his seed out from within her so if spilled onto the ground'. He was attempting to violate inheritance laws. This wife reported the occurance, and he felt the penalty of his crime.
Many would say that this occurance of 'couitus interuptus' was masterbation, and thus unlawful; however a contextual reading of the chapter easily reveals that it had nothing to do with mawterbation but rather greed.
I have had many debates on this one topic, the most recent was about 2 weeks ago, with another foster parent, she is R. Catholic and her church's doctrine holds that the "Sin of Onan" is masterbation regardless of what Onan did.
I read leviticus 16 and 17 as a record of being clean, it also refers to a womans mestruation.
this is not neccesarily saying masturbation is bad.. if a man does not have sex for awhile their body will eject this fluid. (wet dreams) it is common in some young males . I believe the issue with the Lord in this passage is about staying clean from germs and bacteria and being clean on your SKIN.
are you saying a wet dream or menus is sinful ? both have to do with body mechanics and not a choice of an individual .
I see God as being very tender hearted towards his people and addressing issues that may come up with a person body they might not understand , so he educates His children on what to do as any parent would .
I see nothing at all in Mathew concerning masturbation that is about the marriage promise and sex before marriage. SEx is sex and fornication is intercourse . no one can tell if someone has maturbated.. yet if a woman does not have the token of virginity or is pregnate it would be cause for divorce both can be recognized clearly by a husband that is not true of masturbation.. this verse says NOTHING about maturbation altogether.
Galen
the verse you speak may not be maturbation either, it could be the man ejected his seed on the ground during the sex act itself not neccesarily during masturbation.. of course that is about not wanting a child it is still used as a method of birth control today.
this is not neccesarily saying masturbation is bad.. if a man does not have sex for awhile their body will eject this fluid. (wet dreams) it is common in some young males . I believe the issue with the Lord in this passage is about staying clean from germs and bacteria and being clean on your SKIN.
are you saying a wet dream or menus is sinful ? both have to do with body mechanics and not a choice of an individual .
No I am not saying what you said above is sinful. I also agree with some of what you said above.
If thy right eye offend thee pluck it out.......... V.29
If thy right hand offend thee cut it off V30
The subject matter is sexual topics, lust bieng descibed in verses above and divorce and fornication below. What does the eye and hand have in connection with sex if it wasnt masterbation?
IMO, it doesnt rise to the level of offense of adultry or fornication. It does however rise to the level of lust, and I would say is an act of uncleanness as described in Leviticus. That there is no doctrine about it was wise or many people would feel condemned. It is therefore certainly at a minimum, something that God frowns upon. I think one could successfully make the arguement that it is a precursor to adultry and fornication. First lust, second - masterbation , third, fornication. Also consider the word offend in the verses, it doesn't say if your right hand sin against thee but if your right hand offend thee. Therefore I think thats precisely what the Lord was reffering to.
Leviticus 15:16 And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash his flesh with water and be unclean until even.
As you stated, and I agree, there would be no wrong doing in "wet dreams", I would say that if it go out from him (by him) that is different and therefore means masterbation. Interestingly, the bible says he is unclean, a concept well developed in the Lord's ministry. How that relates to sin exactly I cannot say. There is however in the law various degrees of offenses, which is why I cited in the opening post: tresspass, iniquity etc. Personally, I think it unwise to try and conceptualize these things in doctrinal format, for the law is complex and deals with many shadows of the true.
Leviticus 15:32 "This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him whose seed goeth from him and is defiled therewith." While the law may have been discussing bacterial things from issues of blood products, clearly this chapter was also descibing things that defile a man. The Lord himself said that out of the mouth and heart are the things that defile us. Therefore this chapter must have meaning along that line as well. This chapter describes "masterbation" as an act of uncleanness.
Perhaps there was no such word to describe this behavior during the Lord's ministry. One could easily visualize however, the local brothels keeping the local tribes busy with eye hand acts, especially and in order to avoid disease.
Lastly, I am having some difficulty posting at GS. I cannot easily navigate between screens so it may take me some time to figure out the problem, because I am not having this problem on other sites.
God says it is wise for a man to not touch a virgin. He says if you burn for one another you must be comminted and marry and stop fooling around sexualy .
he is talking about sex without actual intercourse here like lap dances and making out and dancing and stripping , bj, thing of that nature. God is saying do not get involved in the orgies and sexual habits that lead to SIN . to not use one another sexualy in any way . again he does not address masturbation.
many people think as long as one does not have intercourse they must be ok and without sin .. like child molesters for example or the back seat of the car make out sessions etc..
the point is to have concern for your virgin and love one another and to make a commintment and not use one another for sexual lust which leads to heart break and sin . nothing to do with masturbation at all.
I would say that the thing with Onan doesn't even qualify, after all he had sex with the woman."
I agree.
but like I said:
"Many would say that this occurance of 'couitus interuptus' was masterbation, and thus unlawful; however a contextual reading of the chapter easily reveals that it had nothing to do with mawterbation but rather greed."
The Catholic church teaches that masterbation is a sin and they use Onan as the example of the Bible saying it is a sin. Obviously anyone who reads the context would understand that it was not talking about masterbation, nor does it say that such is a sin.
I recall attending a church once in Virginia, I think it was called "The Rock church" kind of Baptist - Four Square kind of thing, a really BIG church with dozens of TV cameras in the balcony to broadcast the services on TV. They were going off about masterbation being a sin as well, and they used this passage as proof.
As far as 'un-cleanness' is concerned. Some things are 'un-clean' which is sin to eat or to do. But other things are simply 'un-clean' you and need to wash. A woman issuing blood, is a matter of health; living in the desert without indoor plumbing, I can understand that she needs to wash after the issue and pay attention to how long the issue flows and cleanse herself even after the issue has stopped.
As for the man who has seed spilled on his body, duh! WASH. Otherwise he is un-clean. Both Blood and spegma [semenal fluid] can carry disease. Wash.
Does that make either a 'sin'?
In the case of going to the temple preist, telling him and paying a single turtle dove for him to pronounce you clean again. I see the priest as filling the roll as 'community health and sanitation' department. If you had a strange boil or possibly a spot, you went to the priest for him to inspect it, and he had to declare whether or not you were 'clean'. This is a totally different issue frm that of 'sin'.
My point exactly, the entire context of the passage is lust before and fornication after.
And now your telling me what do eyes and hands have to do with sex? I said they have to do with masterbation and I dont think I have to explain why.
Again your comment:
again he does not address masturbation.
I disagree with you. I think it clearly does.
your comment:
the point is to have concern for your virgin and love one another and to make a commintment and not use one another for sexual lust which leads to heart break and sin .
I agree.
your comment:
nothing to do with masturbation at all.
I disagree.
you also asked me if I am for real. Therefore I think that will be my last comment to you on the topic.
Conceptually of course there were issues of cleanliness as far as making the skin clean.
The context of the passages in Leviticus is clearly about things that defile a man.
Therefore it must mean more than just skin issues, for the Lord wasnt real big on washing his hands himself. All I am saying is that there is more to it than skin issues in that chapter of Leviticus.
Much of the OT deals with shadows of the true as we know from Hebrews, Interestingly shadows depending on the direction of light can appear different. Shadows only give us the outline of the true, they do not give the detail on specific objects. Read a little closer, I think this chapter in Leviticus clearly discusses masterbation in that light.
it does not say a thing about masturbation unless you chose to think it does. .
I asked if you are for real because you asked what eyes and hands have to do with sex suggesting it MUST be mastubation when clearly most would think everything eles but that! eyes and hands have much to do with sex acts.
two problems with your ideals
#1 it does not imply or state anything about a person touching himself other than to wash away the defiled skin.
#2 I doubt masterbation is considered sex or is menstration or semen sinful any more than blood is sinfull it is a fluid which we were created with in Gods image .
where do you see anything remotely implying masturbation much less it is a sin?
you state your conclusion is clear so where is it clearly written in any of these verses?
if you chose to think beyond what they say go ahead but that is not a clear scripture stating masturbation is sin or even wrong.
#2 I doubt masterbation is considered sex or is menstration or semen sinful any more than blood is sinfull it is a fluid which we were created with in Gods image .
I never said it was sex.
Your comment:
#1 it does not imply or state anything about a person touching himself other than to wash away the defiled skin.
Leviticus 15:32 This is the law, etc etc etc, and is defiled therewith.
Matt 15:11-20 "to eat with unwashen hands defileth not"
In no place in the text in Leviticus does it say that the skin is unclean and not the man. It says "His issue and she shall be unclean. " Therefore I disagree with you. Furthermore it is about what defiles a man.
Your comment:
mastubation when clearly most would think everything eles but that! eyes and hands have much to do with sex acts.
Ok MJ thats fine, but at least admit that eyes and hands have to do with both sex and masturbation.
Your comment:
it does not say a thing about masturbation unless you chose to think it does. .
I doobt they had a word to describe the act, so I dont know about that.
Your comment:
if you chose to think beyond what they say go ahead but that is not a clear scripture stating masturbation is sin or even wrong.
I think it is clear and I stated why in the previous post. I do not know how the scripture regards this particular "offense". As I stated previously, the scriptures don't give us a clear doctrinal position on the matter and wisely so. I do believe that it is an act that at the minimum God frowns upon. It is not consistent with the concept of "self control" in the bible or the concept of crucifying the lust of the flesh. I disagree with you that these scriptures I recited are not related to that matter.
MJ, yah know, I have some different views on the concept of the "original sin" and other things.
The format here at GS allows variances of opinion. Perhaps some times we should just expect to disagree. :)-->
God likes love he likes people he likes the way we are. We are His fellowship He enjoys us.
We are what we are and this concept of "self control" and lust can be taken out of controland turn into a religous prison . God likes his children to look good, to be healthy to have fun . How many records in the book talk about how a spoksman for God lady or gent fixing themselves up and looking good to meet another? many relationships in the bible refer to somone being handsome(david for one) or beautiful this would meanthey were attractive to the opposite sex which is for what purpose? do you think that is lustful in Gods eyes as well?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
24
10
2
3
Popular Days
Aug 15
14
Aug 16
9
Aug 18
9
Aug 19
8
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 24 posts
mj412 10 posts
Darrell Bailey 2 posts
Trefor Heywood 3 posts
Popular Days
Aug 15 2004
14 posts
Aug 16 2004
9 posts
Aug 18 2004
9 posts
Aug 19 2004
8 posts
Goey
Today, circumcision in the West, outside of Judaism, is pretty much meaningless except for the (debatable and questionable) health benefits.
It seems that infant curcumcision in the West among non Jews became prevalent in Victorian time as a "cure" for the sin of masturbation.
According to surgeon and sexaphobic Dr. E.J. Spratling ( 1895):
Doctors like Spratling, believed that male masturbation caused everything from TB to heart disease - not to mention blindness and those pesky hairs growing on the palms.
Here's another Doctors assessment of the situation in 1888:
Of course there is also the "hygenic" argument which I think is just an afterthought and excuse for continuing the practice.
So now to the actual topic - Is it possible that the Jews "invented" the story of Abraham and the covenant God made with him, in order to spread the same kind of ignorance that Western culture did begining in the Victorian era? Possible I suppose, but I kind of doubt it.
What about Sky4it's specualtion concerning OT circumcision as being "God's way of saying, don't commit adultry, don't defile yourself or your neighbor." Possible maybe, but I think that is reading a bit too much into it as well. As I read the OT after Abraham, it doesn't seem to me that male circumcision did much at all to prevent the Jewish men from commiting adultery, or defiling themselves or their neighbors. So if God instituted it for that reason - it doesn't seem to have worked. I see nothing in the scripture that implies that circumcision had anything specifically to do with sexual purity. I do not see this as "insanely obvious" at all.
Insanely obvious? Isn't that kind of like saying if you don't see what I see and understand it my way that you are insanely ignorant?
Anyway, If it were God's way of saying to folks to be sexually pure, then it would seem to me that it would have been commanded done at an age where the person had a sense of morality, rather than upon infants with no absolutely no sense of morality whatsoever.
It also seems to me that if there were a sexual moral lesson involved with circumcision that it would at least be hinted at in the scripture if not spelled out plainly that this were the reason.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Apparently Rabbis do not "whip off" anything like as much skin as is commonly done by doctors.
Have you heard about the guy who applied to be a Rabbi?
He was told that the pay was awful but that the tips were good!
;)-->
These days it is a barbarically pointless ritual, physical abuse of infants who have no say in the matter, one of those "cultural traditions" which fortunately are now being heavily questioned, even in the USA.
It should be left for adults to decide, after all it's their body, not their parents or anybody else's.
The foreskin is far from being "a useless piece of skin." It contains one third of the total skin area of the penis, is a unigue type of tissue not found anywhere else on the human body and contains many sensitive nerve endings. It provides protection from infection during the early years of life also.
Circumcision was declared to be redundant 2000 years ago, that people still defend it in the twenty first century is to me incredulous.
I thank God I was born in a more enlightened age and country...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
A Jewish perspective (though this is just two perspectives from two websites and you could probably find as many pov's as you can Jews - lol)
here
JEWISH REASONS
The truth is, there is no "logical" argument for cutting a piece of flesh off a helpless baby.
Yet circumcision has been practiced on Jewish males for close to 4,000 years, ever since Abraham was so commanded by God. Why does the foreskin need to be removed?
In Kabbalistic terms, the foreskin symbolizes a barrier which prevents growth. For example, when the Torah speaks about getting close to God, it calls upon us to "remove the Orlah, the foreskin of your heart" (Deut. 10:16).
Nowhere does a person have more potential for expressing "barbaric" behavior than in the sex drive.
When Abraham circumcised himself at age 99, God added the letter "heh" to his name. "Heh" is part of God's own name, signifying that through Bris Milah, the human being adds a dimension of spirituality to the physical body.
It is a foundation of Judaism that we are to control our animal desires and direct them into spiritual pursuits. Nowhere does a person have more potential for expressing "barbaric" behavior than in the sex drive. That's why the Bris is done on this specific organ. If we bring holiness into our life there, then all other areas will follow.
IDENTIFYING THE JEW
Another aspect of circumcision is that it is integral to Jewish identity. This point was made quite powerfully by a movie called "Europa Europa," It is the true story about a young Jewish boy trying to escape detection by the Nazis. The boy resembles an Aryan and speaks German fluently, so he poses as a non-Jew and is eventually recruited into an elite training program for the next generation of SS officers.
This boy was on his way to a fully non-Jewish life, except for one thing: His circumcision. He couldn't hide it. And that is what kept him Jewish throughout the entire ordeal.
Bris is the sign of the covenant. So a boy who is not circumcised has basically lost his spiritual attachment to the Jewish people.
The man survived the war, and made a new life for himself in Israel. Instead, he may have ended up becoming a Nazi officer. It all depended on the Bris.
MEDICAL DATA
It is a principle of Jewish life that our decision to perform mitzvot is not based on the "practical benefit." At the same time, the mitzvot frequently have positive observable effects in our everyday life.
Regarding the medical issues, Rabbi Yonason Binyomin Goldberger writes in "Sanctity and Science":
As an operation, circumcision has an extremely small complication rate. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine (1990) reported a complication rate of 0.19 percent when circumcision is performed by a physician. When performed by a trained mohel, the rate falls to 0.13 percent or about 1 in 1000. When a complication occurs, it is usually excessive bleeding, which is easily correctable. No other surgical procedure can boast such figures for complication-free operations.
One study showed that by the eighth day, prothrombin levels reach 110 percent of normal.
One reason why there are so few complications involving bleeding may be that the major clotting agents, prothrombin and vitamin K, do not reach peak levels in the blood until the eighth day of life. Prothrombin levels are normal at birth, drop to very low levels in the next few days, and return to normal at the end of the first week. One study showed that by the eighth day, prothrombin levels reach 110 percent of normal. In the words of Dr. Armand J. Quick, author of several works on the control of bleeding, "It hardly seems accidental that the rite of circumcision was postponed until the eighth day by the Mosaic law."
Furthermore, circumcision has been known to offer virtually complete protection from penile cancer. According to a recent review article in the New England Journal of Medicine, none of the over 1,600 persons studied with this cancer had been circumcised in infancy. In the words of researchers Cochen and McCurdy, the incidence of penile cancer in the U.S. is "essentially zero" among circumcised men.
The incidence of penile cancer in the U.S. is "essentially zero" among circumcised men.
Also, research at Johns Hopkins University Medical School in Baltimore have shown that circumcised men are six to eight times less likely to become infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Researchers believe that protection is due to the removal of the foreskin, which contains cells that have HIV receptors which scientists suspect are the primary entry point for the HIV virus. (Reuters, March 25, 2004)
Several studies reported that circumcised boys were between 10-to-39 times less likely to develop urinary tract infections during infancy than uncircumcised boys. In addition, circumcision protects against bacterial, fungal, and parasitic infections and a variety of other conditions related to hygiene. The extremely low rate of cervical cancer in Jewish women (nine-to-22 times less than among non-Jewish women) is thought to be related to the practice of circumcision.
As a result of studies like these, a number of prestigious medical organizations have recognized the benefits of circumcision, and the California Medical Association has endorsed circumcision as an "effective public health measure."
BRIS IN THE HOLOCAUST
Bris has been the hallmark of Jewish identification for millennia. The following powerful story appears in "Hassidic Tales of the Holocaust" by Yaffa Eliach:
One of the forced laborers in the camps relates that one day he heard frightening cries of anguish the likes of which he had never heard before. Later he learned that on that very day a selection had been made -- of infants to be sent to the ovens. We continued working, tears rolling down our faces, and suddenly I hear the voice of a Jewish woman: "Give me a knife."
I thought she wanted to take her own life. I said to her, "Why are you hurrying so quickly to the world of truth..." All of a sudden the German soldier called out, "Dog, what did you say to the woman?"
"She requested a pocketknife and I explained to her that it was prohibited to commit suicide."
The woman took the pocketknife, pronounced the blessing -- and circumcised the child.
The woman looked at the German with inflamed eyes, and stared spellbound at his coat pocket where she saw the shape of his pocketknife. "Give it to me," she requested. She bent down and picked up a package of old rags. Hidden among them, on a pillow as white as snow, lay a tender infant. The woman took the pocketknife, pronounced the blessing -- and circumcised the child. "Master of the Universe," she cried, "You gave me a healthy child, I return him to You a worthy Jew."
and
here
The medieval Jewish philosophers, with their strong rationalizing tendencies, were moved to ask why, granted that circumcision is a sign of the covenant, the sign had to be on this particular organ of the body. Maimonides (Guide of the Perplexed, 3.49) advances two reasons. The first (which Maimonides considers to be the best) is that circumcision weakens, without actually harming, the organ of generation so that the sexual desires of the circumcised man are moderated. (Maimonides, more than any other medieval Jewish thinker, had an aversion to sex.) The bodily injury caused to that organ, he says, does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of generation, but it does counteract excessive lust.
Maimionides' second reason is that the sign of the covenant had to be in that particular organ in order to prevent those who did not believe in the unity of God claiming to be members of the covenant for reasons of their own. The operation is so difficult and so disagreeable that no one would undergo it unless he sincerely wished to belong to the people of faith.
Philo of Alexandria was the first to advance the hygienic reason. The foreskin is literally unclean and can be a cause of disease. The more usual reason given by Jewish thinkers is the obvious one that the sign of the covenant through all the generations has to be in the very organ of generation. But, whatever the origin and the reasons for the practice, faithful Jews have circumcised their male children as the most distinctive sign of their loyalty to God. Even Spinoza [the unorthodox 17th-century Dutch Jewish thinker] can remark: “Such great importance do I attach to the sign of the Covenant, that I am persuaded that it is sufficient by itself to maintain the separate existence of the nation for ever.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Goey:
your comment:
Insanely obvious? Isn't that kind of like saying if you don't see what I see and understand it my way that you are insanely ignorant?
Anyway, If it were God's way of saying to folks to be sexually pure, then it would seem to me that it would have been commanded done at an age where the person had a sense of morality, rather than upon infants with no absolutely no sense of morality whatsoever.
There is some scriptural basis for it. Right prior to the circumcision covenent, God said to Abraham to be perfect in his walk before him. Walking perfect before God would seem to encompass quite a few things no?In addition God said of Abraham, that he knew him and that he would order his children after him. Futhermore Abraham after the circumcision, was very much involved in preaching righteousness to the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain that God overthrew. Therefore one might reasonably say that Abraham had a well developed sense of righteousness when it came to matters of sexual purity.
By saying it was insanely obvious I was not infering anyone was ignorant. Simply that the placement of the actual act is "insanely obvious". For if the only theme was the circumcision of the heart refered to in the new testament why not have men cut off a piece of flesh on there chest. Goey, I really don't think by saying that I was trying to be condescending, sorry if it appeared that way.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Look , as a practical matter it shouldn't matter whether one thinks the circumcision was about moral purity or not; as long as one adheres to the new testament doctrine of the Apostles or the Apostle Paul. That doctrine was that one "should abstain from pollutions of idols and from fornication and things strangled, and from blood." (Acts 15:20) By the Apostle Paul restated, "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that you should abstain from fornication."
(I Thessalonians 4:3)
Was my commentary about the moral meaning of the circumcision unpractical then? No, I don't think it was. Furthermore, my argument was chiefly to those who state that the plurality of religions was due to God being deliberately unclear. Ie.(Why Christianity thread) I simply stated that there were clear parallels between the two covenants, that reconcile religions to the true meaning and that God has not been obtuse but has been direct.
In my mind the topic of the circumcision brings up some real fun stuff to talk about. The Lord himself clearly describes Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as sitting down in the kingdom of heaven.
(Matt.: 8:11, Luke 13:28) The bible describes Jacob as a "plain man". (Gen 25:7) Jacob was not a complex sort of guy. (Interesting that the covenant of the true circumcision was in Jacob and not in Esau, and presumably both were literally circumcised. ) The true covenant then is one of promises , not one of the literal act of the circumcision. (The fact that they were twins may also be indicative of how false religions can mimic the true.) There is also an intriguing question in this. If the circumcision was good enough for Abraham, Issac and Jacob, ( that is to make it into the kingdom of heaven), why did God give us more than what they simply had? One can only speculate and perhaps this is a good question for another topic.
The concept that I mention about moral purity, was therefore I think directed to "plain men" problems.It's not overly complex and I simply stated that the true doctrine of God is pretty "plain" stuff.
I apologize to some of you for scriptural recitations. I did it bearing in mind that some always assert engaging in "private interpretation", so the recitations were made and directed to those whose reasoning are such.
Lastly, I said the concept of "circumcise"parallels new testament thinking. For example, circumcise your lips (not literally ok?), isn't a whole lot unlike the Apostle Paul saying, "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouths." (Eph 4:29) Yes, I deliberately avoided talking about "sexual purity", because that ground has already been covered.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Posted by Sky4It:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Goey:
Your comment:
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "the placement of the actual act is insanely obvious". Maybe if you explain why this is "insanely obvious" to you, I might better understand what you are trying to say here. Stating that something is obvious does not make it so. What may seem obvious to one person may be not so obvious or may even seem nonsensical to another.
I mean that the placement of the actual circumcision on the male genitalia is insanely or ridiculous inferred or obvious. Perhaps , I ought to have said ridiculously inferred. The ridiculous or insane part being that it is in fact the male body part which I perhaps was poking fun at. I did not mean this comment, however , in deferance to peoples knowledge or as you said "suggested ignorance" of the matter. Therefore I fail to see how the comment was condescending. I simply say that because the placement of the circumcision is on that area, that ought to make the concept of sexual purity, more obvious. ok? In addition and somewhat insanely,
talking about sexual things has always been rather difficult for folks to do, yet God kinda let his intentions be rather well known on the subject. Also when I say insanely, I mean we are always kind of wild on the subject.
Also Goey, I agree with you that the circumcision has some parallels to the new testament babtism stuff. The other odd thing about it Goey, was that it was commanded to be performed on the 8th day of birth (no I didnt look it up , I think it says that tho). Since there were only 7 days in a week, we can certainly know that God was looking for more from this act than the literal circumcision itself.
Your comment:
However, the fact that it was the foreskin is quite interesting.
Yea, I agree. Thats kinda why I brought it up. That and the stuff in the Why Christianity thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
the bible is rich and deep , with meaning. Our teacher is the Lord and we learn as disciples of His ways. that said I rather believe the major concern was with off spring in which they knew came from the penisand cutting away the useless skin allowing the( father, seed) of the nation itself and down through the ages to the Saviour of mankind .
In the new testiment God talks about the Grafting IN (gentiles) which also involves cutting away the dead and planting a new life into a plant. same type of lesson used etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Oh, please.
The penile cancer argument is completely irrelevant and comes from being uninformed.
Saying that all men should be circumcised to avoid penile cancer is similar to saying that all women should have mastectomies to avoid breast cancer.
The incidence of penile cancer among UNcircumcised men is negligent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
so not funny , how about those in Africa with HIV half the country is dead or dying of aids do you think they get surgery to stop the spread of what is destoying now three generations and most probably the entire country if something isnt done soon?
that kind of information is just dangerous.. I can see it now heck im circumsized I can be risky in my behaviours Im safe..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Anyways, this brings up another "issue" along the same theme.
That issue is the one of masturbation and wether it is wrong or not. Some of said that the Bible does not address the issue. I think it does, both in the new testament and in the old, however it is not in doctrinal format and I think wisely so. Weather (as in climate) or not to discuss it is the cliff hanger, because if the concept of "circumcise" draws ire, this one may draw a mad house.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
sky4
where does the bible address masturbation?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
mj412:
"where does the bible address masturbation?"
Onan
He accepted his elder brother's widow [fullfiling Leviticus law], also according to Leviticus law her first son would inherit all that the elder brother had owned. But not wanting her to have a son, he 'spilled his seed out from within her so if spilled onto the ground'. He was attempting to violate inheritance laws. This wife reported the occurance, and he felt the penalty of his crime.
Many would say that this occurance of 'couitus interuptus' was masterbation, and thus unlawful; however a contextual reading of the chapter easily reveals that it had nothing to do with mawterbation but rather greed.
I have had many debates on this one topic, the most recent was about 2 weeks ago, with another foster parent, she is R. Catholic and her church's doctrine holds that the "Sin of Onan" is masterbation regardless of what Onan did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
MJ:
Your comment:
sky4
where does the bible address masturbation?
Matthew 5:29-30
Leviticus 15: 16-17, 31-33.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Galen:
I would say that the thing with Onan doesn't even qualify, after all he had sex with the woman.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
I read leviticus 16 and 17 as a record of being clean, it also refers to a womans mestruation.
this is not neccesarily saying masturbation is bad.. if a man does not have sex for awhile their body will eject this fluid. (wet dreams) it is common in some young males . I believe the issue with the Lord in this passage is about staying clean from germs and bacteria and being clean on your SKIN.
are you saying a wet dream or menus is sinful ? both have to do with body mechanics and not a choice of an individual .
I see God as being very tender hearted towards his people and addressing issues that may come up with a person body they might not understand , so he educates His children on what to do as any parent would .
I see nothing at all in Mathew concerning masturbation that is about the marriage promise and sex before marriage. SEx is sex and fornication is intercourse . no one can tell if someone has maturbated.. yet if a woman does not have the token of virginity or is pregnate it would be cause for divorce both can be recognized clearly by a husband that is not true of masturbation.. this verse says NOTHING about maturbation altogether.
Galen
the verse you speak may not be maturbation either, it could be the man ejected his seed on the ground during the sex act itself not neccesarily during masturbation.. of course that is about not wanting a child it is still used as a method of birth control today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
MJ:
Your comment:
this is not neccesarily saying masturbation is bad.. if a man does not have sex for awhile their body will eject this fluid. (wet dreams) it is common in some young males . I believe the issue with the Lord in this passage is about staying clean from germs and bacteria and being clean on your SKIN.
are you saying a wet dream or menus is sinful ? both have to do with body mechanics and not a choice of an individual .
No I am not saying what you said above is sinful. I also agree with some of what you said above.
If thy right eye offend thee pluck it out.......... V.29
If thy right hand offend thee cut it off V30
The subject matter is sexual topics, lust bieng descibed in verses above and divorce and fornication below. What does the eye and hand have in connection with sex if it wasnt masterbation?
IMO, it doesnt rise to the level of offense of adultry or fornication. It does however rise to the level of lust, and I would say is an act of uncleanness as described in Leviticus. That there is no doctrine about it was wise or many people would feel condemned. It is therefore certainly at a minimum, something that God frowns upon. I think one could successfully make the arguement that it is a precursor to adultry and fornication. First lust, second - masterbation , third, fornication. Also consider the word offend in the verses, it doesn't say if your right hand sin against thee but if your right hand offend thee. Therefore I think thats precisely what the Lord was reffering to.
Leviticus 15:16 And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash his flesh with water and be unclean until even.
As you stated, and I agree, there would be no wrong doing in "wet dreams", I would say that if it go out from him (by him) that is different and therefore means masterbation. Interestingly, the bible says he is unclean, a concept well developed in the Lord's ministry. How that relates to sin exactly I cannot say. There is however in the law various degrees of offenses, which is why I cited in the opening post: tresspass, iniquity etc. Personally, I think it unwise to try and conceptualize these things in doctrinal format, for the law is complex and deals with many shadows of the true.
Leviticus 15:32 "This is the law of him that hath an issue, and of him whose seed goeth from him and is defiled therewith." While the law may have been discussing bacterial things from issues of blood products, clearly this chapter was also descibing things that defile a man. The Lord himself said that out of the mouth and heart are the things that defile us. Therefore this chapter must have meaning along that line as well. This chapter describes "masterbation" as an act of uncleanness.
Perhaps there was no such word to describe this behavior during the Lord's ministry. One could easily visualize however, the local brothels keeping the local tribes busy with eye hand acts, especially and in order to avoid disease.
Lastly, I am having some difficulty posting at GS. I cannot easily navigate between screens so it may take me some time to figure out the problem, because I am not having this problem on other sites.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
what does hands or eyes have to do with sex?
are you for real? what kind of question is that?
God says it is wise for a man to not touch a virgin. He says if you burn for one another you must be comminted and marry and stop fooling around sexualy .
he is talking about sex without actual intercourse here like lap dances and making out and dancing and stripping , bj, thing of that nature. God is saying do not get involved in the orgies and sexual habits that lead to SIN . to not use one another sexualy in any way . again he does not address masturbation.
many people think as long as one does not have intercourse they must be ok and without sin .. like child molesters for example or the back seat of the car make out sessions etc..
the point is to have concern for your virgin and love one another and to make a commintment and not use one another for sexual lust which leads to heart break and sin . nothing to do with masturbation at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
sky4it:
"Galen:
I would say that the thing with Onan doesn't even qualify, after all he had sex with the woman."
I agree.
but like I said:
"Many would say that this occurance of 'couitus interuptus' was masterbation, and thus unlawful; however a contextual reading of the chapter easily reveals that it had nothing to do with mawterbation but rather greed."
The Catholic church teaches that masterbation is a sin and they use Onan as the example of the Bible saying it is a sin. Obviously anyone who reads the context would understand that it was not talking about masterbation, nor does it say that such is a sin.
I recall attending a church once in Virginia, I think it was called "The Rock church" kind of Baptist - Four Square kind of thing, a really BIG church with dozens of TV cameras in the balcony to broadcast the services on TV. They were going off about masterbation being a sin as well, and they used this passage as proof.
As far as 'un-cleanness' is concerned. Some things are 'un-clean' which is sin to eat or to do. But other things are simply 'un-clean' you and need to wash. A woman issuing blood, is a matter of health; living in the desert without indoor plumbing, I can understand that she needs to wash after the issue and pay attention to how long the issue flows and cleanse herself even after the issue has stopped.
As for the man who has seed spilled on his body, duh! WASH. Otherwise he is un-clean. Both Blood and spegma [semenal fluid] can carry disease. Wash.
Does that make either a 'sin'?
In the case of going to the temple preist, telling him and paying a single turtle dove for him to pronounce you clean again. I see the priest as filling the roll as 'community health and sanitation' department. If you had a strange boil or possibly a spot, you went to the priest for him to inspect it, and he had to declare whether or not you were 'clean'. This is a totally different issue frm that of 'sin'.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
MJ:
your comment:
what does hands or eyes have to do with sex?
are you for real? what kind of question is that?
My point exactly, the entire context of the passage is lust before and fornication after.
And now your telling me what do eyes and hands have to do with sex? I said they have to do with masterbation and I dont think I have to explain why.
Again your comment:
again he does not address masturbation.
I disagree with you. I think it clearly does.
your comment:
the point is to have concern for your virgin and love one another and to make a commintment and not use one another for sexual lust which leads to heart break and sin .
I agree.
your comment:
nothing to do with masturbation at all.
I disagree.
you also asked me if I am for real. Therefore I think that will be my last comment to you on the topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Galen:
Conceptually of course there were issues of cleanliness as far as making the skin clean.
The context of the passages in Leviticus is clearly about things that defile a man.
Therefore it must mean more than just skin issues, for the Lord wasnt real big on washing his hands himself. All I am saying is that there is more to it than skin issues in that chapter of Leviticus.
Much of the OT deals with shadows of the true as we know from Hebrews, Interestingly shadows depending on the direction of light can appear different. Shadows only give us the outline of the true, they do not give the detail on specific objects. Read a little closer, I think this chapter in Leviticus clearly discusses masterbation in that light.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
it does not say a thing about masturbation unless you chose to think it does. .
I asked if you are for real because you asked what eyes and hands have to do with sex suggesting it MUST be mastubation when clearly most would think everything eles but that! eyes and hands have much to do with sex acts.
two problems with your ideals
#1 it does not imply or state anything about a person touching himself other than to wash away the defiled skin.
#2 I doubt masterbation is considered sex or is menstration or semen sinful any more than blood is sinfull it is a fluid which we were created with in Gods image .
where do you see anything remotely implying masturbation much less it is a sin?
you state your conclusion is clear so where is it clearly written in any of these verses?
if you chose to think beyond what they say go ahead but that is not a clear scripture stating masturbation is sin or even wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
MJ:
Your comment:
#2 I doubt masterbation is considered sex or is menstration or semen sinful any more than blood is sinfull it is a fluid which we were created with in Gods image .
I never said it was sex.
Your comment:
#1 it does not imply or state anything about a person touching himself other than to wash away the defiled skin.
Leviticus 15:32 This is the law, etc etc etc, and is defiled therewith.
Matt 15:11-20 "to eat with unwashen hands defileth not"
In no place in the text in Leviticus does it say that the skin is unclean and not the man. It says "His issue and she shall be unclean. " Therefore I disagree with you. Furthermore it is about what defiles a man.
Your comment:
mastubation when clearly most would think everything eles but that! eyes and hands have much to do with sex acts.
Ok MJ thats fine, but at least admit that eyes and hands have to do with both sex and masturbation.
Your comment:
it does not say a thing about masturbation unless you chose to think it does. .
I doobt they had a word to describe the act, so I dont know about that.
Your comment:
if you chose to think beyond what they say go ahead but that is not a clear scripture stating masturbation is sin or even wrong.
I think it is clear and I stated why in the previous post. I do not know how the scripture regards this particular "offense". As I stated previously, the scriptures don't give us a clear doctrinal position on the matter and wisely so. I do believe that it is an act that at the minimum God frowns upon. It is not consistent with the concept of "self control" in the bible or the concept of crucifying the lust of the flesh. I disagree with you that these scriptures I recited are not related to that matter.
MJ, yah know, I have some different views on the concept of the "original sin" and other things.
The format here at GS allows variances of opinion. Perhaps some times we should just expect to disagree.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
God likes love he likes people he likes the way we are. We are His fellowship He enjoys us.
We are what we are and this concept of "self control" and lust can be taken out of controland turn into a religous prison . God likes his children to look good, to be healthy to have fun . How many records in the book talk about how a spoksman for God lady or gent fixing themselves up and looking good to meet another? many relationships in the bible refer to somone being handsome(david for one) or beautiful this would meanthey were attractive to the opposite sex which is for what purpose? do you think that is lustful in Gods eyes as well?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.