God does not ask people to do morally wrong things period.
It could be argued that it wasn't morally wrong because God asked it of them but could be morally wrong otherwise. Kind of like wiping out Canaanites; generally genocide is morally wrong, but if God tells you to it's morally wrong not to.
Agreed. Assuming that the Bible is a 100% accurate record of human events and God's interaction with those humans, circumcision was a commandment for a very specific tribe for a very specific period of time. It cannot be extrapolated to refer to the whole human race.
It could also have been morally correct in a time where it would improve quality of life and safety, wherein the progression of technology and knowledge has removed those from being the case rendering it simple mutilation with no benefit.
God ain't spoken to us in a long time, his teachings can in fact have become outdated by the passage of time. In fact, its even possible that he has sent people out to argue against it as his new messengers to remove the need for his direct intervention.
And I'm guessing the basic ass knowledge necessary to not die of horrible diseases and untold suffering wasn't considered "need to know." He'd give us all that in cryptic verses like "chop up your dick" and "eat fish, not pork" and we were supposed to just keep doing it cuz reasons after we managed to beat them on our own.
I was just making up arguments about new messengers and outdated to give you an out in which the two can be allowed to coexist. But you seem committed to mutilating children based on nothing but "yeah but my daddy said so, so give me your son!" so fuck you and your religion my guy.
Actually the circumcision that was practiced in Biblical times was significantly different from the form of circumcision that is practiced today. In Biblical times, circumcision just referred to cutting off the part of the foreskin that overhangs off the glans, leaving the glans largely covered. This preserves most of the functions of the foreskin.
The Rabinical leadership changed circumcision to be more radical, removing more tissue roughly around the year 140 A.D. This was changed because Jewish men were stretching their foreskin remnants to totally cover their glanses, in order to assimilate with the dominant Greek society. Greek culture embraced nudity, but saw the exposed glans as indicating an erection, and therefor obscene to show in public.
It could be argued that it wasn't morally wrong because God asked it of them but could be morally wrong otherwise. Kind of like wiping out Canaanites; generally genocide is morally wrong, but if God tells you to it's morally wrong not to.
Agreed. Assuming that the Bible is a 100% accurate record of human events and God's interaction with those humans, circumcision was a commandment for a very specific tribe for a very specific period of time. It cannot be extrapolated to refer to the whole human race.
It could also have been morally correct in a time where it would improve quality of life and safety, wherein the progression of technology and knowledge has removed those from being the case rendering it simple mutilation with no benefit.
God ain't spoken to us in a long time, his teachings can in fact have become outdated by the passage of time. In fact, its even possible that he has sent people out to argue against it as his new messengers to remove the need for his direct intervention.
And I'm guessing the basic ass knowledge necessary to not die of horrible diseases and untold suffering wasn't considered "need to know." He'd give us all that in cryptic verses like "chop up your dick" and "eat fish, not pork" and we were supposed to just keep doing it cuz reasons after we managed to beat them on our own.
I was just making up arguments about new messengers and outdated to give you an out in which the two can be allowed to coexist. But you seem committed to mutilating children based on nothing but "yeah but my daddy said so, so give me your son!" so fuck you and your religion my guy.
I consider cosmetic mutilation wrong. Nothing else needs to be said. That's all there is to it.
Actually the circumcision that was practiced in Biblical times was significantly different from the form of circumcision that is practiced today. In Biblical times, circumcision just referred to cutting off the part of the foreskin that overhangs off the glans, leaving the glans largely covered. This preserves most of the functions of the foreskin.
The Rabinical leadership changed circumcision to be more radical, removing more tissue roughly around the year 140 A.D. This was changed because Jewish men were stretching their foreskin remnants to totally cover their glanses, in order to assimilate with the dominant Greek society. Greek culture embraced nudity, but saw the exposed glans as indicating an erection, and therefor obscene to show in public.
Here's an illustration of the difference between the forms of circumcision