Perhaps right now while you are reading this article some parents out there follow some celebrity’s example and decide to circumcise their boys. Copying genital state like everything else happens all the time. But traditional religious circumcision is not a result of frivolous spontaneous imitation. It is a deliberate standardization.
Assuming that religious circumcision mimics famous people is offensive to both the believers and their religion. It implies that believers either thoughtlessly ape everything that has something to do with sexuality or consider the leaders’ anomaly advantageous. These options describe the devotees as either inane perverts or unscrupulous opportunists who know that the lack of foreskin gets closer to the Universal Provider. They also describe religion either as a mass sexual obsession or a self-seeking timeserving.
Paul, l Corinthians 2:14
Does circumcision seek to benefit from external resemblance? Or does it aim deeper? Only the latter supposition is logical because religion as any other institution needs followers, not leaders. It seems that ancients knew pretty well that the foreskin distracts you away from God and therefore its removal brings you closer to Him. To them the shortage of foreskin was a shortcut to God. Sheepishness has always been pleasing to the highest authorities.
Theological writs say that circumcision benefits spirituality at the cost of carnality. They maintain that circumcision refines man toward holiness by reducing sexual temptation. Therefore circumcision helps develop religiousness internally and not just externally. It is not meant to simulate piousness but to generate it.
God to Israel, Deuteronomy 10:16
Circumcision is not intended to foster the egocentrism, determination and careerism of devotees but their self-denial, humbleness and submission. It is not an imitation of holiness but a method for implanting it. Religion is not interested in sanctimony but in devotion and dependence. paedocircumcision may appear an imitation of virtue but actually it is a spiritual transformation. It is a spiritually transforming imitation.
In the olden days one’s propensities were easier to spot because people were less cultivated and not so equalized by religion and education. Aposthia is a very rare inborn anomaly and ancients must have noticed that it goes along with certain mental attitudes or abilities. If the founders of ancient religions were aposthic or circumcised this could indicate that the absence of foreskin affects mentality and inclines to spirituality. An inescapable conclusion is that foreskin and sexuality distract men’s attention away from God. This makes aposthia interpretable as a sign of god. A god-pleasing mutation, we could say nowadays.
Clearly, since foreskin is an erogenous appendage it serves sexuality but not God. Its removal must inevitably reduce sexuality, leave room for other asexual activities and for faith. Considering sexuality a vice automatically makes circumcision that reduces it a virtue. In this simplistic short-sighted understanding circumcision has only positive side-effects. According to it circumcision is more than simulation of godliness; it really shifts mentality toward it.
The thesis that circumcision imitates holy men is surficial and one-sided. It presents the practice as an innocent fashion aiming at external resemblance to famous or virtuous people. Portraying circumcision as a well-intentioned imitation makes it appear an inconsequential, harmless and ever-positive habit. Assertions that circumcision is imitation conceal its deeper effects and real objective. They only simulate explanation and justify the practice.
paedocircumcision only appears as a faithful imitation to those who like to see it this way whilst its secret influence is at work. If paedocircumcision is an imitation it is a functioning one.
Virtual reality of the pre-computer age
Religions associate spirituality with virtue, piety, temperance, self-denial, asceticism and obedience, and carnality with unrestraint, excess, violence, riotousness, egocentrism and vice. Briefly, restraint is good and lack of restraint is evil. Self-denial is good while desire is wicked. God punishes people so He is good. Circumcision restrains sex-lust so it is good and godlike. So holy men must be aposthic. The ascetic religious moral needs an illustrative example of prophets’ holiness. It requires that their pleasure tentacles be absent. And it does not matter what the real story is. Aposthia of patriarchs and religious circumcision is a matter of moral principle. And the same must be valid also for the penalizing god. Religion requires them and no rational argument can refute them.
Are god, religion, aposthia of prophets and religious paedocircumcision man-made? Religion insists that only circumcision is. But if paedocircumcision produces devotion we are caught in the vicious circle of a real self-made hallucination. If circumcision strengthened faith, as asserted by religion, the circumcised inhabit a virtual reality. As far as circumcision facilitates simulative or abstract thinking we are all living a genuine make-believe.
The neurophysiological reality simulation of the ancients is perfect because it uses biological hardware. No man-made things are able to outdo it and it thrives in the computer age.