> When you literally create a religion to call yourselves as the chosen people and a political system to maintain a higher standard for you(i.e a different standard from other ethnicities) then you are narcissistic in nature.

This is not what happened. You're making this up.

> If a holy God really exists then he will chose people based on their character, but not based on their ethnicity

He didn't choose them on their ethnicity. He chose Abraham because Abraham was responsive and teachable. Abraham's progeny, then, continued in the plan of God's revelation. All of the "nations" of that day were the progeny of a tribal leader: Moabites, Edomites, Jebusites, Canaanites, Perizzites—that's the way biology works. But God didn't choose Abraham to isolate and privilege a specific ethnic group. You're making that up. Instead, He revealed Himself to a man who was responsive, just as you are hoping a holy God would do.

> And I certainly don't know why you consider it narcissistic.

When you literally create a religion to call yourselves as the chosen people and a political system to maintain a higher standard for you(i.e a different standard from other ethnicities) then you are narcissistic in nature.

If a holy God really exists then he will chose people based on their character, but not based on their ethnicity.

As I mentioned, it doesn't matter that the practice was common in the region. So what if they adopted the tradition from others? It doesn't make a shred of difference.

> You are mixing history with myths, there is no historic evidence for the existence of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

You can't know this. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There's very little way to go about proving that those three existed. Even if we found a shard that said "Abraham" on it, people would say, "How do you know it's YOUR Abraham?" Even if they found an inscription that said, "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" on it, people would say, "How to you know it's YOUR Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?" I don't know how anyone would ever accept proof for them. Since Abraham was a Bedouin, and not a king, and never lived in a city, nor held an official position of any kind, and lived 4,000 years ago, why would you expect there were any artifacts for him? But that doesn't prove they didn't exist. We know almost no one from that era, but there will many people around. That we are lacking a record and proof doesn't mean they didn't exist. You must realize that the further we go back in time, the fewer artifacts we have (especially specific ones [names, places, and events]). And what would you expect those artifacts would be? But I believe there's credible evidence in the veracity of the Genesis text about them, with its corroboratable cultural information.

The other side of the issue is that you are completely fabricating that they didn't exist and were mythological. You have no evidence to support your claim.

> this child abuse was likely copied by ancient Judeans from other cultures.

I can see you have no interest in actual dialogue. There's no reason to interpret the practice of circumcision in the ancient world as child abuse. It may have been for hygienic reasons, as I've said and you ignore.

Can you give me ANY evidence from their writings or artifacts that circumcision was done because their interest was nothing more than child abuse?

> It may or may not have been copied. Circumcision was widely practiced by the Phoenicians, Edomites, Ammonites, Moabites, Ethiopians, and Arabian populations. The practice is known in Egypt's Old Kingdom (3000 - 2000 BC). It was not practiced in Assyrian, Babylon, the Canaanites or the Philistines. According to the Bible, however, Abraham circumcised his family and staff in about 2000 BC, before he had much contact with Egypt. It's impossible to say that he copied the Egyptians. It was common in cultures all around him.

It strongly indicates that the ancient Judeans adopted the tradition of circumcision from their neighboring populations.

You are mixing history with myths, there is no historic evidence for the existence of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Circumcision was practiced in the region long before the first book of the Bible was written and, this child abuse was likely copied by ancient Judeans from other cultures.

(Thats the real answer here)

Israel was sandwiched in between Egypt and Babylon. It should come as no surprise that they collected most of their rituals from their neighbors.

No, God does not favor some ethnicities over others. God chose Israel to bear His message to the world (Gn. 12.3), but He doesn't favor them because of their ethnicity. You'll notice that He judges Israel for their sin just as much as any other nation. Israel doesn't get a free pass, nor does He turn a blind eye. People of other ethnicities—any ethnicity, actually—were welcome to become part of His people. There was no favoritism.

> Circumcision was a sign for Israel, a symbol of a special nation

Does God favor some ethnicities over others?

> What about Egypt?

Egypt practiced circumcision, as did many other ancient cultures. Like many other of their religious practices, the ancient Hebrews redefined and repurposed it to have religious symbolism. So it was with the rainbow in Gn. 9. The Ark of the Covenant was very similar to a chest that was known in Egypt, and the Tabernacle was also like an Egyptian structure. It's lack of uniqueness is not detrimental to the meaning they gave it.

> It's almost like ancient Judeans have copied an ancient practice of a neighboring culture.

It may or may not have been copied. Circumcision was widely practiced by the Phoenicians, Edomites, Ammonites, Moabites, Ethiopians, and Arabian populations. The practice is known in Egypt's Old Kingdom (3000 - 2000 BC). It was not practiced in Assyrian, Babylon, the Canaanites or the Philistines. According to the Bible, however, Abraham circumcised his family and staff in about 2000 BC, before he had much contact with Egypt. It's impossible to say that he copied the Egyptians. It was common in cultures all around him.

> what kind of God would recommend such a gross child abusing practice in the name of being "special", a narcissist self identification trait?

I think you are being rash to consider it as child abuse and narcissistic. As you yourself said, there may have been a hygienic motive behind it in the ancient world. Even hygienic practices like ritual washing and cooking meat thoroughly (sacrifice) were part of religious rituals. God may have recommended it because there were certain health benefits in a population so easily vulnerable to infections and diseases.

And I certainly don't know why you consider it narcissistic. There is no indication it anything to do with the vanity of appearance.

> Circumcision was a sign for Israel, a symbol of a special nation. I

What about Egypt? Circumcision isn't unique to Juadism and Islam. History says Egyptians were the first people to practice male Circumcision, they did it to supposedly reduce people's sexual activity and sometimes, for hygienic purposes. Egyptians practiced male circumcision for centuries before Judeans adopted(copied) it. Many cultures also practiced male (and female) circumcision for various cultural reasons.

It's almost like ancient Judeans have copied an ancient practice of a neighboring culture.

Also, what kind of God would recommend such a gross child abusing practice in the name of being "special", a narcissist self identification trait?

Very well said.