Difference between revisions of "Abrahamic covenant"
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (Add external link.) |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (→Questioning the Abrahamic Covenant: Add citation.) |
||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
Many have wondered why God would create men with a [[foreskin]] with documented protective, immunological, sensory, and sexual [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions| physiological functions]] only to require that it be cut off after eight days of life. | Many have wondered why God would create men with a [[foreskin]] with documented protective, immunological, sensory, and sexual [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions| physiological functions]] only to require that it be cut off after eight days of life. | ||
| − | Some contemporary Jewish parents feel that [[circumcision]] is a painful amputation that inflicts pain, physical, [[Sexual effects of circumcision| sexual]], and [[Psychological issues of male circumcision| psychological]] harm to a child. They wish to protect a son from such harm and so have adopted a peaceful, non-cutting naming ceremony usually called [[Brit Shalom]] instead of the traditional [[Brit Milah]]. | + | Some contemporary Jewish parents feel that [[circumcision]] is a painful amputation that inflicts pain, physical, [[Sexual effects of circumcision| sexual]], and [[Psychological issues of male circumcision| psychological]] harm to a child. They wish to protect a son from such harm and so have adopted a peaceful, non-cutting naming ceremony usually called [[Brit Shalom]] instead of the traditional [[Brit Milah]]. Goodman (1999) has called for an end to ritual cutting.{{REFjournal |
| + | |last=Goodman | ||
| + | |first= | ||
| + | |author-link= | ||
| + | |last2= | ||
| + | |first2= | ||
| + | |author2-link= | ||
| + | |last3= | ||
| + | |first3= | ||
| + | |author3-link= | ||
| + | |last4= | ||
| + | |first4= | ||
| + | |author4-link= | ||
| + | |last5= | ||
| + | |first5= | ||
| + | |author5-link= | ||
| + | |last6= | ||
| + | |first6= | ||
| + | |author6-link= | ||
| + | |last7= | ||
| + | |first7= | ||
| + | |author7-link= | ||
| + | |last8= | ||
| + | |first8= | ||
| + | |author8-link= | ||
| + | |last9= | ||
| + | |first9= | ||
| + | |author9-link= | ||
| + | |etal=yes | ||
| + | |title=Jewish circumcision: an alternative perspective | ||
| + | |trans-title= | ||
| + | |language= | ||
| + | |journal=BJU Int | ||
| + | |location= | ||
| + | |date=1999-01 | ||
| + | |volume=83 Suppl 1 | ||
| + | |issue= | ||
| + | |pages= | ||
| + | |url=https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1022.x | ||
| + | |archived= | ||
| + | |quote= | ||
| + | |pubmedID= | ||
| + | |pubmedCID= | ||
| + | |DOI= | ||
| + | |accessdate=2020-04-08 | ||
| + | }} | ||
==Debunking the Abrahamic Covenant== | ==Debunking the Abrahamic Covenant== | ||
Revision as of 01:07, 9 April 2020
Abrahamic covenant is the name given to the quid pro quo covenant that Chapter Seventeen of Genesis alleges exists between God and Abraham. According to Genesis 17, God promises Abraham:
Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.[1]
In return, Abraham is to:
Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
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 he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.[2]
The Scripture also says that God has changed Sarai’s name to Sarah (which suggests nobility) and that she shall bear Abraham a son.
Contents
Questioning the Abrahamic Covenant
DeMeo (1989), by geographical study, identifies East Africa and the Near East as the origin of male circumcision. He says it then spread to Egypt where the Jews learned about it.[3]
Many have wondered why God would create men with a foreskin with documented protective, immunological, sensory, and sexual physiological functions only to require that it be cut off after eight days of life.
Some contemporary Jewish parents feel that circumcision is a painful amputation that inflicts pain, physical, sexual, and psychological harm to a child. They wish to protect a son from such harm and so have adopted a peaceful, non-cutting naming ceremony usually called Brit Shalom instead of the traditional Brit Milah. Goodman (1999) has called for an end to ritual cutting.
Goodman, et al. Jewish circumcision: an alternative perspective. BJU Int. January 1999; 83 Suppl 1 Retrieved 8 April 2020.
Debunking the Abrahamic Covenant
Professor Leonard Glick (2005) observes that Genesis contains two covenants between God and Abraham. The first is in Genesis 15:18-21. It does not mention circumcision. The second covenant in Genesis 17 is a later addition by Judean priests.[4] Child circumcision did not become firmly established in Israel until after Gilgal in 1604 BCE, more than two centuries after the death of Abraham. According to Glick, the priests gained control after the Babylonian captivity, which ended in 538 BCE and at that time the changes were made to Genesis Chapter Seventeen. Glick suggests that the choice to require circumcision of infant boys may have been because the boys cannot put up resistance.[4] It is clear that the alleged covenant that required circumcision of male infants on the eighth day was a later fabrication by circumcised Judean priests and did not come from God.
Modern psychology offers an explanation for such behavior by the circumcised priests. Male circumcision is a highly traumatic surgical amputation that affects its victims for life.[5] Van der Kolk (1989) has shown that traumatized persons are compelled to repeat their trauma on themselves or others.[6] The compulsion of circumcised men to repeat the trauma of circumcision is seen in the huge numbers of men with adamant father syndrome. It appears that the circumcised priests ascribed their compulsion to an edict of God.
See also
External links
Chessler, Abbie J.. Justifying the Unjustifable: Rite v. Wrong. Buffalo Law Review. 1997; 45: 555 et seq. Retrieved 8 April 2020.
References
- ↑
(1611). Genesis 17:5-8
, Bible Gateway. Retrieved 28 February 2020. - ↑ (1611).
Genesis 17:9-13
, Bible Gateway. Retrieved 28 February 2020. - ↑
Demeo, James: The Geography of Genital Mutilations, 'The Truthseeker'. (March 1989). Retrieved 26 February 2020.
- ↑ a b
Glick, Leonard (2005): Chapter One
, in: Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America. Edition: First. Oxford University Press. Pp. 15-18. ISBN 9780195176742. Retrieved 2 March 2020. - ↑ Goldman, Ronald. The psychological impact of circumcision. BJU Int. 1999; 83 Suppl 1: 93-103. PMID. Retrieved 4 March 2020.
- ↑ van der Kolk, Bessel. The compulsion to repeat the trauma: re-enactment, revictimization, and masochism. Psychiatr Clin North Am. June 1989; 12(2): 389-411. PMID. Retrieved 3 March 2020.
.svg){kind=icon}
