Sigismond
January 18th, 2010, 08:23
"THOU SHALL NOT CIRCUMCISE."
A THREE-MILLENIAL FALSIFICATION (*):
THE 2nd COMMANDMENT BANS SEXUAL MUTILATION
John the Baptist and Jesus gave their lives for baptism by water rather than by the trauma of the “original” punishment, conceived to prevent “sin”. Nu-merous other Jewish criticisms of circumcision occurred, for socio-political and juridical reasons (the criminal and segregationist custom is the deep cause of Judeophobia and of the Nazi genocide): Spinoza, Olry Terquem, Bernard Lazare, Freud, sometimes quelled by blood (Machabees). The most elaborated one came from German Reform rabbis, in the 19th century; it was also based on religion: circumcision was ordered to Abraham, not to Moses, the Book of Deuteronomy (the Book of Moses, and the Ten Commandments) does not prescribe it, Moses opposed that of his son (Exodus, 4: 24-26), it was not practised under his reign (it was set back into practice in Gilgal, for men only, after his death – Joshua, 5: 2-9), there is no (no longer) equivalent for girls. (cf. Encyclopaedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Keter publishing house limited; 1972. t. V, p. 571).
Prior to Moses, worshipers of the masculine phallus and contemptuous of the feminine one, the Egyptians practised, and still do, upon children, the most terrible repression that can be imagined of infantile sexuality. Spanking hits behind what is so gently done in front. As shown by Ernst's painting: “The Virgin thrashing the Child Jesus” (Ludwig Museum, Köln), where the fallen halo hints at the cut off foreskin, sexual mutilation accompanies it. It castrates the youth from the specific organs of autosexuality. Whereas it had been imposed on the Jews as a measure of enslavement, Moses the liberator could not tolerate it. The 2nd Commandment considers that these ablations make the phallus a fetish and that a “jealous” God cannot admit such idolatry. He thus denounces chapter 17 of the Book of Genesis. In the same vein, after having killed the Egyptian murderer (Exodus, 2: 11-12), the son of Bedouins chooses nomadism praised by nowadays Jewish writers, rather than the genocide of his Canaanite brothers. This was fatal to him; according to Freud and a few Egyptologists, keeping his skin whole could not save it from the Levites.
Similarly qualifying circumcision “a barbarous and bleeding rite” (quoted by the Dictionnaire encyclopédique du judaïsme. Paris: Editions du cerf; 1993. p. 433), Abraham Geiger and his mosaicist, democrat and feminist friends founded the first post-Renaissance Jewish movement refusing circumcision. It was an outcry in the community, orchestrated by Hirsh (one of the founders of Zionism). Though having perfectly understood Moses, the reformist could not believe their eyes of the falsification of one of the Ten Commandments. When the rabbinical authorities answered their arguments, most dissidents, after twenty years resistance, came back to circumcision. But the “heresy” had gained the United States where many practise non-mutilating nomi-nation.
The falsification here denounced hides that the 2nd Commandment forbids circumcision and that God seems to have changed his mind between both Covenants. Indeed, the following verses:
“You shall not make yourself idols, nor whatever image... for... I am a jealous God, who prosecute the crime of fathers upon children up to the third and fourth generations for those who offend me, and who extends my benevolence up to the thousandth for those who love me and keep my commandments.” (Exodus, 20: 4-6, French Rabbinate translation (literally translated). Paris: Les éditions Colbo; 1999),
are read as if they said: “… who punish children for the crimes of fathers” but,
- if the sentence had this meaning, it would also have this construction,
- the conjunction “for” marks the link of cause to effect between the ban of idols and images and the punishment of “the crime of fathers upon children” that precisely alters the image of the human body,
- according to the orthodox interpretation, “the crime of fathers” designates criminality in general. But the text would then use either the double singular: the crime of the father, or the double plural: the crimes of fathers. “The crime of fathers” can only be the well-known crime upon children: sexual mutila-tion,
- this interpretation gives the term jealous” the immoderate meaning of suspicious till the injustice of condemning irresponsible ones. A jealous God is very plainly jealous of his own creation, which man cannot alter without usurping God's place,
- the dissymmetry between a boundless reward and a limited in time punish-ment is due to the dissymmetry between ascendants and descendants,
- it would be unlikely that there should be two commandments, the 2nd and the 6th (“Do not commit homicide.”) for condemning common criminality,
- the 2nd Commandment brings out paedo-sexual criminality because it is very particularly reprehensible. Moses was aware of the gravity of mass crimes, striking a whole part of the population, and above all children. Stigmatizing sexual mutilation as crime against creation (humanity), he punishes it in an imprescriptible way, hitting the elderly decades after their crime,
- the version of the 2nd Commandment in the Book of Deuteronomy (5: 9), a book of priests easy to modify, rubs the terms: “upon children” out. But how could the most sacred text of the Torah, carved in stone by God in person, have varied?! This physical falsification aimed at favouring the above described intellectual falsification of the Book of the Exodus, well-known to the people and impossible to alter. The blue-pencilling could be operated at the return from the exile in Babylon, at the time of the alleged discovery of the manuscript buried in the temple. It enabled setting circumcision, which had had to be given up in the jails of Nebuchadnezzar, back into force; it was a custom of the Egyptians, his worst enemies from whom it was vital to be distinguished (cf. Sabbah M. and R. The secrets of the Exodus. London: Thorsons Ltd; 2002),
- a few verses below the 2nd Commandment, the Bible enlighqtens it:
“If however you build a stone altar for me, do not build it with carved stones for by touching them with the iron, you made them lay. You must not either walk up my altar through de-grees so that your nudity does not uncover itself there.” (the latter touch makes Moses a shrewd sexologist, advocating capped penetration) (Exodus, 20: 21-23)
- at last, through abolishing sexual mutilation, Moses tolls the bell for the inhuman “exclusion from the people” inflicted to opponents of sexual mutilation; it instituted the worst discrimination and segregation, since allegedly conferring collective identity through a so-called divine order.
The divine periphrasis was therefore denatured. In order to hide that the expression: “the crime of fathers” aims at sexual mutilation, the victims of Abraham's lie twisted it through introducing a nonexistent double meaning. Moses abolished Abraham’s commandment because law may not speak against life. His 2nd and 6th Commandments make the Decalogue, the first historical declaration of the duties and rights of man, a declaration of the human person’s very first, indivisible, inalienable and sacred right: the right to the body. It forbids the death penalty and mutilation without grave and strictly medical motive. We are requiring its inscription as article 1st of the Universal declaration of the rights of the human person.
A THREE-MILLENIAL FALSIFICATION (*):
THE 2nd COMMANDMENT BANS SEXUAL MUTILATION
John the Baptist and Jesus gave their lives for baptism by water rather than by the trauma of the “original” punishment, conceived to prevent “sin”. Nu-merous other Jewish criticisms of circumcision occurred, for socio-political and juridical reasons (the criminal and segregationist custom is the deep cause of Judeophobia and of the Nazi genocide): Spinoza, Olry Terquem, Bernard Lazare, Freud, sometimes quelled by blood (Machabees). The most elaborated one came from German Reform rabbis, in the 19th century; it was also based on religion: circumcision was ordered to Abraham, not to Moses, the Book of Deuteronomy (the Book of Moses, and the Ten Commandments) does not prescribe it, Moses opposed that of his son (Exodus, 4: 24-26), it was not practised under his reign (it was set back into practice in Gilgal, for men only, after his death – Joshua, 5: 2-9), there is no (no longer) equivalent for girls. (cf. Encyclopaedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Keter publishing house limited; 1972. t. V, p. 571).
Prior to Moses, worshipers of the masculine phallus and contemptuous of the feminine one, the Egyptians practised, and still do, upon children, the most terrible repression that can be imagined of infantile sexuality. Spanking hits behind what is so gently done in front. As shown by Ernst's painting: “The Virgin thrashing the Child Jesus” (Ludwig Museum, Köln), where the fallen halo hints at the cut off foreskin, sexual mutilation accompanies it. It castrates the youth from the specific organs of autosexuality. Whereas it had been imposed on the Jews as a measure of enslavement, Moses the liberator could not tolerate it. The 2nd Commandment considers that these ablations make the phallus a fetish and that a “jealous” God cannot admit such idolatry. He thus denounces chapter 17 of the Book of Genesis. In the same vein, after having killed the Egyptian murderer (Exodus, 2: 11-12), the son of Bedouins chooses nomadism praised by nowadays Jewish writers, rather than the genocide of his Canaanite brothers. This was fatal to him; according to Freud and a few Egyptologists, keeping his skin whole could not save it from the Levites.
Similarly qualifying circumcision “a barbarous and bleeding rite” (quoted by the Dictionnaire encyclopédique du judaïsme. Paris: Editions du cerf; 1993. p. 433), Abraham Geiger and his mosaicist, democrat and feminist friends founded the first post-Renaissance Jewish movement refusing circumcision. It was an outcry in the community, orchestrated by Hirsh (one of the founders of Zionism). Though having perfectly understood Moses, the reformist could not believe their eyes of the falsification of one of the Ten Commandments. When the rabbinical authorities answered their arguments, most dissidents, after twenty years resistance, came back to circumcision. But the “heresy” had gained the United States where many practise non-mutilating nomi-nation.
The falsification here denounced hides that the 2nd Commandment forbids circumcision and that God seems to have changed his mind between both Covenants. Indeed, the following verses:
“You shall not make yourself idols, nor whatever image... for... I am a jealous God, who prosecute the crime of fathers upon children up to the third and fourth generations for those who offend me, and who extends my benevolence up to the thousandth for those who love me and keep my commandments.” (Exodus, 20: 4-6, French Rabbinate translation (literally translated). Paris: Les éditions Colbo; 1999),
are read as if they said: “… who punish children for the crimes of fathers” but,
- if the sentence had this meaning, it would also have this construction,
- the conjunction “for” marks the link of cause to effect between the ban of idols and images and the punishment of “the crime of fathers upon children” that precisely alters the image of the human body,
- according to the orthodox interpretation, “the crime of fathers” designates criminality in general. But the text would then use either the double singular: the crime of the father, or the double plural: the crimes of fathers. “The crime of fathers” can only be the well-known crime upon children: sexual mutila-tion,
- this interpretation gives the term jealous” the immoderate meaning of suspicious till the injustice of condemning irresponsible ones. A jealous God is very plainly jealous of his own creation, which man cannot alter without usurping God's place,
- the dissymmetry between a boundless reward and a limited in time punish-ment is due to the dissymmetry between ascendants and descendants,
- it would be unlikely that there should be two commandments, the 2nd and the 6th (“Do not commit homicide.”) for condemning common criminality,
- the 2nd Commandment brings out paedo-sexual criminality because it is very particularly reprehensible. Moses was aware of the gravity of mass crimes, striking a whole part of the population, and above all children. Stigmatizing sexual mutilation as crime against creation (humanity), he punishes it in an imprescriptible way, hitting the elderly decades after their crime,
- the version of the 2nd Commandment in the Book of Deuteronomy (5: 9), a book of priests easy to modify, rubs the terms: “upon children” out. But how could the most sacred text of the Torah, carved in stone by God in person, have varied?! This physical falsification aimed at favouring the above described intellectual falsification of the Book of the Exodus, well-known to the people and impossible to alter. The blue-pencilling could be operated at the return from the exile in Babylon, at the time of the alleged discovery of the manuscript buried in the temple. It enabled setting circumcision, which had had to be given up in the jails of Nebuchadnezzar, back into force; it was a custom of the Egyptians, his worst enemies from whom it was vital to be distinguished (cf. Sabbah M. and R. The secrets of the Exodus. London: Thorsons Ltd; 2002),
- a few verses below the 2nd Commandment, the Bible enlighqtens it:
“If however you build a stone altar for me, do not build it with carved stones for by touching them with the iron, you made them lay. You must not either walk up my altar through de-grees so that your nudity does not uncover itself there.” (the latter touch makes Moses a shrewd sexologist, advocating capped penetration) (Exodus, 20: 21-23)
- at last, through abolishing sexual mutilation, Moses tolls the bell for the inhuman “exclusion from the people” inflicted to opponents of sexual mutilation; it instituted the worst discrimination and segregation, since allegedly conferring collective identity through a so-called divine order.
The divine periphrasis was therefore denatured. In order to hide that the expression: “the crime of fathers” aims at sexual mutilation, the victims of Abraham's lie twisted it through introducing a nonexistent double meaning. Moses abolished Abraham’s commandment because law may not speak against life. His 2nd and 6th Commandments make the Decalogue, the first historical declaration of the duties and rights of man, a declaration of the human person’s very first, indivisible, inalienable and sacred right: the right to the body. It forbids the death penalty and mutilation without grave and strictly medical motive. We are requiring its inscription as article 1st of the Universal declaration of the rights of the human person.