8th day circumcision

123 posts / 0 new
Last post
Proud Jewish boy's picture
8th day circumcision

I'd like to present one of the period for the Torah, if you disagree, then plz explain why - and be reasonable:

A newborn male is to be circumcised on the eighth day from birth . But naturally one would ask, why on the eighth day? Wait at least until about thirty days when the baby gets stronger, or perform the ritual at puberty?
However, only recently did modern technology discover that a baby is born with significantly low vitamin K. Vitamin K is the vitamin responsible for congealing the blood after being exposed to the air from a cut. After a few days from birth, the levels of vitamin K start increasing. Ironically, it reaches its peak at the eighth day. After the eighth day, it lowers and stabilizes for life. To be more precise, on the eighth day, it's at 110% thereafter dropping to 100% and stabilizing for life.
How amazing that G-d sets up nature to fit his commandment! How in the world would anyone but G-d be able to know this scientific piece of information, only discovered in recent times, in primitive ages.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

rtmcdge's picture
There are many such biblical

There are many such biblical showering of knowledge that reveal heavenly intervention in the lives of man. And done so, so that salvation could have a chance to do its job, set up by God.

Proud Jewish boy's picture
What salvation are you

What salvation are you talking about?

LostLocke's picture
Or, it could just be simple

Or, it could just be simple trial and error. People who did this often enough would begin see that the potential to have or not have problems would occur during certain time frames.

Proud Jewish boy's picture
The difference is too slight

The difference is too slight for ancient primitives to observe. Besides, if it so simple to observe, why didn't any other cultures who had circumcision also make it on the eighth day?

MCDennis's picture
Fascinating assertion. What

Fascinating assertion. What proof do you have that the evidence was "so slight" that "primitives" could not observe this?

algebe's picture
Over many years, rabbis

Over many years, rabbis performing this operation would have noticed that babies cut on that day bled less and healed faster than younger or older babies.

More importantly, why is it necessary to mutilate the sex organs of infants?

MCDennis's picture
Sounds like some kind of

Sounds like some kind of strange penis fetish to me

Proud Jewish boy's picture
"More importantly, why is it

"More importantly, why is it necessary to mutilate the sex organs of infants?"

I didn't mention sex organs, I'm referring to vitamin k to clot the blood after a cut.

algebe's picture
"I didn't mention sex organs"

"I didn't mention sex organs"

You mentioned circumcision. Which part of the body does that involve?

Proud Jewish boy's picture
Oh, woops, I didn't get your

Oh, woops, I didn't get your question..
The exact reason of why God wants us to do certain things are sometimes known only to Him. God commands many laws that are beyond our understanding, for example the red heifer. Beyond understanding doesn't mean defies logic but that it's just as a parent tells a child to do something "bc I said so.."
For whatever reason, God wants us to do it. Now, I don't necessarily care what that reason is, bc all I know is that if I fulfill this law, amongst other laws, I will merit much reward in the World to Come.

algebe's picture
@Proud Jewish Boy: "For

@Proud Jewish Boy: "For whatever reason, God wants us to do it."

You really believe that, don't you? You sound like an intelligent person. Don't you question the rightness of this practice?

Why do you think god put foreskins on little boys so that you would have to remove them? How do you rationalize the pain, mutilation, and potential serious infections or complications suffered by the babies?

How is this mutilation of baby boys different or better from the mutilation of girls in some Muslim communities?

Proud Jewish boy's picture
I was circumcised, my

I was circumcised, my brothers were, my neighbors were - and there were no health complications. Many if not most of the laws are hard and often painful, but that is last of the challenge. If there was no pain or discomfort, then what would the point of the laws be? The point is to challenge us, so that we can ultimately get reward for litter effort in the World to Come. It's comparable to an investment, where it is indeed hard to give those last savings if yours into those sticks, but it ultimately will benefit you.

algebe's picture
Even if it were true that you

Even if it were true that you get this reward in the afterlife, shouldn't this "investment" be the result of a free and conscious decision by the individual concerned? An eight-day-old infant can't possibly make that decision. So really there's no challenge for the boys. They are just the victims. And in my opinion, that's immoral. There's no excuse for hurting a baby.

Proud Jewish boy's picture
No, the challenge is actually

No, the challenge is actually for the parents.

An atheist doesn't really have an opinion regarding morality as he doesn't believe in any absolute morality rather relative morality which based off your biological emotions and feelings towards specific acts...

algebe's picture
"An atheist doesn't really

"An atheist doesn't really have an opinion regarding morality"

And you have no answer to my legitimate questions about your mutilation practices other than to hurl insults. It's immoral to initiate force against another human being other than in self-defence. It's doubly immoral if the victim of that force is a helpless infant. That's not relative morality. That's absolute.

So the challenge is for the parents? Do the parents own the baby, or is the baby a human being in his own right?

Proud Jewish boy's picture
I thought you knew the

I thought you knew the concept of Absolute vs Relative Morality. Apparently, you don't and that's why you took it as an insult. Let me explain (I hope you have the patience to read this - it's important):

Absolute vs. Relative Morality
Precisely because G-d is the Ultimate Being, by default He embodies the very essence of moral behaviors and His very action defines what moral behaviors are (unless He tells us to do otherwise in the Torah, which would mean that for us the right moral act would be to act as He commands). The whole definition of "morality" is relative. "Pizza" is a defined object containing bread, sauce and cheese, and there's nothing "relative" about it. But how about defining "morality". Literally, it would be translated as "acts considered as right and appropriate". Yet who decides what is the right thing to do? Why should people be deciding what you or me should do? If you have the same feeling as the rest (or majority) of society, then fine; it is understood why you would listen - because you have that feeling of morality (not to murder for example). But if you disagree, why then should you listen to them? Is it they who decide right and wrong?!
To understand this profound idea a little better we will discuss the idea of "doing"; why a person does any action. Naturally, a person would lay as a lump of clay, doing absolutely nothing, despite the intellect we were granted. Because intellect on its own doesn't tell us to do anything, it is merely a calculator that makes calculations and an encyclopedia that provides us with information. It is only due to our desires, our feelings, that we do actions. Our desire is to satisfy our hunger. So the brain gets to work figuring out what calculation equals hunger-satisfaction. It tells us that getting food and eating it will do the job. Our desire is to feel good, so the brain tells us that playing, studying, conversing and entertainment will satisfy that natural yearning for a good feeling or happiness. Everything we do is in order to make ourselves feel good. Every action of ours traces back to this idea.
Our brain can comprehend that the greatest benefit for oneself is the ultimate reward which is granted in the World to Come for those who earn it in this world. Continuing its calculation it tells us to do the right acts that earn this reward. "Right acts" are those that were determined by Creator of heavens and earth and laid out for us in the Torah. His authority overrides common feelings of "morality". For example, if common feelings of compassion and morality feels that annihilating the entire nation of Amalek is wrong and Creator of the universe would differ, then His authority will prevail for two reasons. First, His existence and will is infinitely greater than the entire world's put together, thus more dominant (though this won't necessarily mean that we, from our perspective, must listen to Him). Secondly and mainly, His command will prevail because it is for our benefit (in the World to Come) that we do it over that command of general society.
So, was it the right and moral thing for the Jews to kill the nation of Amalek? Absolutely, yes. If that's G-d's will, then for the two aforementioned reasons it overrides societies perspective -or more like feelings- on the matter, and is therefore the most moral thing the Jews could have actually done!
If our brain would have told us there's something wrong with murdering Amalek, then that would be a whole new ball-game and discussion. But in reality it is our feelings that tell is telling us that something is wrong with murdering. It is only because we are uncomfortable with the action of murdering (usually because we mirror the action done to ourselves which causes a compassionate feeling towards the victim etc.). Feelings aren't an objective reality (as is an intellectual fact) but is a relative biological feeling that has consequences and is related only to those who have this biological feeling setup (which happens to be most people, with the exception of criminals and murderers). The fact that "why should that man get killed?" or "would you like to have been the victim?" are not valid logical objections to the act of murdering. The reason that man should get killed, from the murderers perspective (which everything a man does is from his perspective), is in order to achieve whatever goal it is that results from the murder (e.g. the repossession of his finances or an act of revenge). The fact that the murderer wouldn't like it to have been done to him isn't either a valid objection because in fact it's not happening to the him and will not in result of this action (in cases where the local authority won't find out about it). So if the murderer doesn't share this same biological feeling of "guilt" with murdering, then theoretically he would have zero reason indeed not to kill (in cases where the local authority won't find out about it). It is only because of G-d's command not to murder that he shouldn't murder - for his very own benefit (in the World to Come)!
We must thank the Lord for creating our emotional consciousness (our feeling's morality) in the likes of real absolute morality. He forbade murder and we feel guilty murdering. He forbade stealing and we feel guilty stealing. It is to our emotional comfort that we are not obligated to do acts that we feel guilty doing. As we shall soon explain, even the command of killing Amalek has moral basis that our minds can also rationalize. See upcoming subchapter "slavery, capital punishment and Amalek".
If there was no G-d, then morality would be relative to ones feelings. This concept is called "relative morality". But because there is a G-d, there is an absolute, non-relative morality that is not dependant on any human's feelings. This is called "absolute morality".
To explain the concept in practical terms, we will use an example. Let's use the act of killing. John decides to kill his enemy whom he fought with for quite some time. John, different than most humans, doesn't "feel guilty about the action he did, and on the contrary he actually justifies it. Was his act "immoral"? In a way yes; but it's not absolute morality, and technically it's not "wrong". He might be sentenced in court, but the court's decision is only relative to what they consider wrong (because their biological feelings happened to have the feeling of guilt of murdering).
Similarly, even if the vast-majority of mankind feels guilty about murdering - what if the murderer himself doesn't have that guilty feeling, is it still immoral for him? No! It is indeed relative and personal, and there's no reason John - from his perspective (which all actions are dependent on personal perspectives) - is expected to share the same feeling and "morality" as the rest of the world.
It is understood why humanity as a whole would legally prohibit murder, because for most people it is considered immoral. Additionally, humanity wouldn't survive if anyone killed he who he dislikes. But it is equally understood the fact that John doesn't have this feeling and therefore, from his perspective, there's nothing wrong with the act.
Theoretically, if I was an atheist, I would understand John despite the fact that I'm included in the first category of people (who feel guilty with the act of murder). So, even though I wouldn't like what John did, I wouldn't be able to logically prove that what he did was "wrong" or "immoral".
Am I justifying John's act? No, and that is only because I believe in G-d who prohibited the act - thus absolute morality. Consequently, if, theoretically, Judaism was to include "immoral" acts that are despised by most humans, it would, in fact, be the very "moral" thing to do - because G-d, the ultimate authority, decides morality! This might be emotionally hard to grasp, but is logically deduced, as we have explained.
Did I just permit Islam's terrorism? No, because I know that Islam is the epitome of falsehood. If I was to believe in Islam, then I would... (G-d forbid) despite my consciousness, because that would be the truth.

Regarding your point about if the patent owns the baby or it has it's own rights:
First of all, yes the parent does have the right to do to the baby what they know is in fact good for the baby.
Secondly, about 90% of people are happy that their parents circumcised them, thus a parent can rightfully assume the child will one day be happy about the act.

xenoview's picture
Way off OP!

Way off OP!

CyberLN's picture


Harry33Truman's picture
"First of all, yes the parent

"First of all, yes the parent does have the right to do to the baby what they know is in fact good for the baby.
Secondly, about 90% of people are happy that their parents circumcised them, thus a parent can rightfully assume the child will one day be happy about the act."

Parents do not have the right to mutilate their babies genitals you sick fuck. People in Islamic countries say that clitorectomies are good for their daughters, it doesn't change anything.

Proud Jewish boy's picture
If you haven't read any of my

If you haven't read any of my posts, you have zero rights to comment!

Harry33Truman's picture
"First of all, yes the parent

"First of all, yes the parent does have the right to do to the baby what they know is in fact good for the baby.
Secondly, about 90% of people are happy that their parents circumcised them, thus a parent can rightfully assume the child will one day be happy about the act."

Parents do not have the right to mutilate their babies genitals you sick fuck. People in Islamic countries say that clitorectomies are good for their daughters, it doesn't change anything.

algebe's picture
So your so-called "absolute"

So your so-called "absolute" morality is entirely based on the existence of a mythical bronze age tribal deity who identified the Jews as his chosen people? You said yourself that the Islamic god is false. Presumably the same applies to adherents of any other religion, and of course to atheists. That sounds pretty relative and ethnocentric to me. It's even more relative because your notion of god and god's will are based entirely on opinions and interpretations handed down in books written by men. Even within religions, there is dispute about doctrine.

I'm puzzled why you think the standard of morality should be based on the perpetrator's viewpoint. It's the victim's rights that have been violated. Concepts such as the non-initation of force, the inviolability of the person, and property rights aren't biological urges. They are intellectual ideals given force by the rule of law. If someone steals my property, I don't complain to the police about my hurt feelings. I assert my rights under the law.

"a parent can rightfully assume the child will one day be happy about the act."

Then why not wait until the child is old enough to make the decision for himself? There is no medical imperative for circumcision.

Proud Jewish boy's picture
What's absolute about my

What's absolute about my standards of morality is not my specific belief upholds it, rather that LOGIC AND THUS THE FACT upholds it. Facts aren't relative, their true whether the whole world agrees with them and when if the whole world disagrees. Same here.

Why not wait until older? Bc that's what God decided! Is his decision immoral? No, first of all bc he decides what moral is - Not man. Secondly, 90% of people are happy about it, and thus off the proper decision of the parents...

algebe's picture
"Secondly, 90% of people are

"Secondly, 90% of people are happy about it"

So the standard for your morality is acceptance by 90% of people? First you say your standard is absolute, and now you're saying it depends on a public opinion poll. Does the 90% acceptance rate make everything ok for the 10% who weren't happy about being mutilated? Or are they simply excluded from your "absolute" morality?

Tell me, how do you know what god decided? Do you have a direct line, or do you depend on what other men told you?

Proud Jewish boy's picture
You misunderstood what I said

You misunderstood what I said. I said that it's absolutely true and moral, and there even if 0% of people were happy about it, it would still be absolutely true.
Then I proceeded to say that even according to the general relative morality and standards, 90% of people are happy with it, and thus even a rational atheist should understand it.

algebe's picture
So if "god" told you take

So if "god" told you take ears or fingers instead of foreskins, would you do that? What's special about foreskins? Or is this just a matter of god moving in mysterious ways?

Thank you for saying that atheists are rational.

Proud Jewish boy's picture
I haven't said atheists are

I haven't said atheists are rational, I said that some atheists are rational.
In answer to your question: an absolute yes! It is worth it for me to lose a finger than lose my potential reward in the World to Come, something which is far greater than my finger and even my life. My grandparents sacrificed their lives just in order not to compromise religion!

I'm sorry for not addressing the question until now, I missed it. You asked how do I know what God wants? So I don't think I really understood your question, but just in case I did, the answer is simple: I look in the Torah.

LogicFTW's picture
I would be like you, or much

I would be like you, or much more... fanatical? if I had real proof of "heaven" but there is none.

It is one thing to lose a finger to get in heaven. Quite another to do so with zero evidence. Would you give me all your money if I promised you heaven? Why not?

algebe's picture
@PJB: "It is worth it for me

@PJB: "It is worth it for me to lose a finger than lose my potential reward in the World to Come"

That's fine for you personally. Your choice.

But what I meant to ask was would you cut off your own baby son's finger or ear if you thought god wanted you to?

Harry33Truman's picture
You are no different from

You are no different from those savages in the Islamic world who cut off their daughters clitorises- you're a horde of child molesters and rapists.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.