|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
July 11th 05, 07:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
African AIDS hoax? (#11): Baby testicles- and Darrin vs. God
AFRICAN AIDS HOAX? (#11): BABY TESTICLES - and DARRIN vs. GOD
For Baby Testicles info, see the very end of this post. Darrin no doubt sincerely believes that the Jewish God commands infant circumcision. Darrin referred to circumcision as, "...one simple & safe snip!..." Amy (Austin) replied: One simple and safe snip? Clearly you have NO idea what you're talking about. To any pregnant women...esp. Jewish pregnant women... DON'T BE FOOLED The Jewish God's circumcision IS simple: Just the "floppy tip" of the infant foreskin is sliced off - quickly - "in the flash of a flint knife." Most of the foreskin is left on the penis. In contrast, modern Jewish circumcisers ("mohelim") - and medical doctors - perform a TOTAL infant foreskin amputation which takes much longer; though I am told that mohelim do the total amputation much faster than medical doctors. Ancient rabbis switched to TOTAL infant foreskin amputationn when ancient Jews began stretching their foreskins to appear uncircumcised... In 1997, Hershel Shanks, PhD editor of Moment, noted that "the rabbis of the Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules" (emphasis added)... Here is the relevant excerpt: "A friend...[argued]...with regard to the Orthodox rabbis? pronouncement declaring Reform and Conservative not Judaism...[that]...[i]t's all traceable to the [U.S.] Reform decision nearly 15 years ago to adopt patrilineality - a child born of a Jewish father, if raised as a Jew, is Jewish.... "....[i]n Biblical times, Jewish descent was determined by the Jewishness of the father...The rabbis changed that 2,000 year-old tradition...Indeed the rabbis of the Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules (emphasis added)..." [Shanks H. Tolerance v. Halachah. Moment. (Jun)1997;22(3):6, 8-9] The late Edward Wallerstein won an American Medical Writers Award for his book, Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy [NY: Springer 1980]. Wallerstein wrote in a 1983 article: "Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip of the foreskin. This was changed in the Hellenic Period to prevent [Jews from] elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order to appear uncircumcised." [Wallerstein E. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46] See also: African AIDS penis hoax? (#4) - the Biblical rule was changed - two forms of the infant mutilation http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3693 In 2004, American medical priests (MDs) published the false notion that the American medical religion's TOTAL infant foreskin amputation is the same as leaving most of the foreskin on the penis as was originally/reportedly commanded by the Jewish God. See African AIDS hoax? (#10): Gesundheit! The ancient Jewish ritual is not the same... http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3705 TO AMY (AUSTIN): I suspect that Darrin, too, is intentionally promoting the false notion that the American medical religion's TOTAL infant foreskin amputation is the same as leaving most of the foreskin on the penis as was originally/reportedly commanded by the Jewish God. Todd Dr. Gastaldo Hillsboro, Oregon PS1 IT'S ILLEGAL. I know I'm repeating myself but American medical doctors are repeating THEMselves - making thousands of babies per day scream and writhe and bleed as their penises are senselessly ripped and sliced... In late 1987, after I exposed American medicine's phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology, I called for an exemption from the child abuse laws for the ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis... In the Jan 1988 issue of PEDIATRICS, American MDs opposed ALL religious exemptions. In the Feb 1988 issue of PEDIATRICS, American MDs came out in favor of anonymity for PERPETRATORS of child abuse. In March 1988 the California Medical Association House of Delegates ignored its own Scientific Board and by voice vote first decided that "no medical indiations" infant circumcision means "effective public health measure" that prevents transmission of HIV/AIDS. ANYTHING is possible when powerful cultural authorities stand to go to prison. NOTE: I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As medical students they are TRAINED perform obvious felonies. MORE SENSELESS GENITAL SURGERY...Mass infant penis ripping and slicing is "performed" by American obstetricians at about the same time they engage in mass VAGINA slicing - as they senselessly close birth canals up to 30%. PREGNANT WOMEN: By using semisitting and dorsal (woman-on-her-back/buttocks) delivery positions, obstetricians are closing birth canals up to 30%. UNNECESSARY SPINAL MANIPULATION OF BABIES Obstetricians are KEEPING birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% (keeping women semisitting or dorsal) when babies get stuck as they manipulate babies' spines - pulling with hands, forceps and vacuums - sometimes pulling so hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords. UNNECESSARY C-SECTION/UNNECESSARY EPISIOTOMY Obstetricians are slicing vaginas/abdomens en masse (episiotomy/c-section) - surgically/fraudulently inferring they are doing/have done everything possible to open birth canals - even as they close birth canals up to 30%. LADIES: It is easy to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%. See ACOG's 2005 edition: How NOT to birth http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3606 NOTE: Compelling obstetricians to allow birth canals to open the "extra" up to 30% is not going to prevent all episiotomies, c-sections and forceps deliveries; but obstetricians have no business closing birth canals the "extra' up to 30%. THINK ABOUT IT. If MDs can close birth canals up to 30% and say they are opening birth canals... If MDs can make babies scream and writhe and use phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology... Why couldn't they invent an HIV/AID hoax? The latest African AIDS penis study may be a hoax. The HIV/AIDS hypothesis itself may be a hoax. See again: African AIDS hoax? (#6): Nixon (also: HIV taking advantage of the foreskin?) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3695 ANYTHING is possible when powerful cultural authorities (MDs) stand to go to prison. The HIV/AIDS hypothesis. is shaky For a recent [2004] account of just how shaky the HIV/AIDS hypothesis really is... See James P. Hogan's Kicking the Sacred Cow: Questioning the Unquestionable and Thinking the Impermissible [July 2004]... http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/a...esy-hogan.html --EXCERPT Amy Austin concluded her reply to Darrin... Before you post another word, you really need to watch one of these videos: http://www.intact.ca/video.html If you have the guts, watch the 13 minute one. The night I watched it, it took me 20 minutes to calm my dog down. She couldn't stand to hear the baby scream. And the doctor in the video is (obviously) pro-c. It wasn't intended to be an anti-c video. One simple and safe snip, my ass. Watch the video, if you have the balls. snip BABY TESTICLES... Amy (Austin) said to Darrin: "Watch the video, if you have the balls." At least one boy (now a man) doesn't have balls because they were INTENTIONALLY cut off to make him into a "girl" - because the MD accidentally amputated his penis during routine infant circumcision. MOTIVATING MDs: Fear of prison as a consequence of death (and incredible pain and suffering) from unnecessary surgery inflicted on non-consenting, helpless infants... After I pointed out their phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology - American MDs suddenly declared their most frequent surgical behavior "an effective public health measure" that prevents AIDS... Ripping and slicing just ONE little boy's penis would send an ordinary citizen to prison for years. American MDs are committing the obvious battery/mayhem thousands of times per day! American MDs knew that it was either admit the mass child abuse crime and go to prison - or declare a new "public health measure" - so they made the obvious (albeit unconscionable) choice - declare the "public health measure" - and keep ripping and slicing infant penises. As suggested above, I think American MDs embraced the shaky HIV/AIDS hypothesis to stay out of prison. Again, for a recent [2004] account of just how shaky the HIV/AIDS hypothesis really is... See James P. Hogan's Kicking the Sacred Cow: Questioning the Unquestionable and Thinking the Impermissible [July 2004]... http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/a...esy-hogan.html --EXCERPT One final matter... MONEY. The infant screams should have ended BILLIONS of dollars of infant screams ago when I pointed out the phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology in 1987. Ending the infant screams NOW (finally) will instantly save America an estimated $400 million per year and PRESERVE the surgery as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood. Thanks for reading. Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo Hillsboro, Oregon Copied to: Kicking the Sacred Cow author James P. Hogan via This post will be archived for global access in the Google usenet archive. Search http://groups.google.com for "African AIDS hoax? (#11): Baby testicles - and Darrin vs. God" 
|
|
#2
July 11th 05, 11:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Todd Gastaldo wrote:
The Jewish God's circumcision IS simple: Just the "floppy tip" of the infant foreskin is sliced off - quickly - "in the flash of a flint knife." Most of the foreskin is left on the penis. Just out of interest, where do you get this idea and what makes you so sure of it? In my bible, god and the jews make a deal, or convenant. God gives the jews assorted privileges and goodies, notably a chunk of the middle east, for all eternity; and the jews get circumcised as their part of the bargain. I dont see anything there about floppy tips -- am I missing something? Heres what my bible says: Gen 17: 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. Gen 17:8 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. Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. Gen 17:10 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. Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. I am quoting from the King James version, of course, which is perhaps more admired for its sonorous cadences than for its accurate renditions from hebrew. But does this passage in fact mistranslate anything in the original -- or is the exact nature of jewish circumcision many thousands of years ago really just a matter of speculation? Either way, it is encouraging to note that almighty god, in his infinite wisdom, wanted foreskins cut off. He saw that they are, at best, superfluous, and at worst, thoroughly obnoxious. Who better than their maker to determine their fate? And who are we mere mortals (including that misogynistic, homophobic psychotic St Paul) to quibble with divine will? (I am not of a religious bent myself, but I offer these thoughts for those that are.)
|
|
#3
July 12th 05, 02:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message
oups.com... Todd Gastaldo wrote: The Jewish God's circumcision IS simple: Just the "floppy tip" of the infant foreskin is sliced off - quickly - "in the flash of a flint knife." Most of the foreskin is left on the penis. Just out of interest, where do you get this idea and what makes you so sure of it? In my bible, god and the jews make a deal, or convenant. God gives the jews assorted privileges and goodies, notably a chunk of the middle east, for all eternity; and the jews get circumcised as their part of the bargain. I dont see anything there about floppy tips -- am I missing something? Fair enough. Since we have no stake in the Middle East, you get to keep it and we get to keep our intact sons. So why do you keep suggesting circumcision become the norm? Is my title deed in the mail? -- Amy Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02, & Ana born screaming 30/06/04 barton . souto @ clear . net . nz http://www.freewebs.com/carlos2002/ http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/ana%5Fj%5F2004/
|
|
#4
July 12th 05, 05:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
MONEY. The infant screams should have ended BILLIONS of dollars of infant screams ago when I pointed out the phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology in 1987. Ending the infant screams NOW (finally) will instantly save America an estimated $400 million per year and PRESERVE the surgery as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood. See African AIDS hoax? (#11): Baby testicles- and Darrin vs. God http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3706 TWO BIBLES.... quoted me from African AIDS hoax? (#11): The Jewish God's circumcision IS simple: Just the "floppy tip" of the infant foreskin is sliced off - quickly - "in the flash of a flint knife." Most of the foreskin is left on the penis. He asked... Just out of interest, where do you get this idea [?] Windinghighway, you snipped what I wrote! Here it is again.... In contrast, modern Jewish circumcisers ("mohelim") and medical doctors perform a TOTAL infant foreskin amputation which takes much longer; though I am told that mohelim do the total amputation much faster than medical doctors. Ancient rabbis switched to TOTAL infant foreskin amputationn when ancient Jews began stretching their foreskins to appear uncircumcised... In 1997, Hershel Shanks, PhD editor of Moment, noted that "the rabbis of the Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules" (emphasis added)... Here is the relevant excerpt: "A friend...[argued]...with regard to the Orthodox rabbis? pronouncement declaring Reform and Conservative not Judaism...[that]...[i]t's all traceable to the [U.S.] Reform decision nearly 15 years ago to adopt patrilineality - a child born of a Jewish father, if raised as a Jew, is Jewish.... "....[i]n Biblical times, Jewish descent was determined by the Jewishness of the father...The rabbis changed that 2,000 year-old tradition...Indeed the rabbis of the Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules (emphasis added)..." [Shanks H. Tolerance v. Halachah. Moment. (Jun)1997;22(3):6, 8-9] The late Edward Wallerstein won an American Medical Writers Award for his book, Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy [NY: Springer 1980]. Wallerstein wrote in a 1983 article: "Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip of the foreskin. This was changed in the Hellenic Period to prevent [Jews from] elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order to appear uncircumcised." [Wallerstein E. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46] See also: African AIDS penis hoax? (#4) - the Biblical rule was changed - two forms of the infant mutilation http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3693 and what makes you so sure of it? I am NOT sure there is a God that commands that infant foreskins be amputated in whole or in part. I myself BELIEVE there is a God - but I do not imagine that He (or She) would mandate that babies should suffer. More to the point, I have no PROOF there is a God - which means of course that I have no proof that there is a God who commands that infant foreskins be amputated in whole or in part. To my knowledge NO one - Jewish or otherwise - has proof - other than their faith - that there is a God who commands that infant foreskins be amputated in whole or in part. They just believe it - because their family and/or friends believe it - because of the Bible... In my bible, god and the jews make a deal, or convenant. I think GOD made the deal - the Jews had to accept - but there is no way either of us can prove exactly what happened - if anything. God gives the jews assorted privileges and goodies, notably a chunk of the middle east, for all eternity; and the jews get circumcised as their part of the bargain. I dont see anything there about floppy tips -- am I missing something? I don't think you are missing anything in the Bible. There is nothing about "floppy tips" in the Bible - or so I say... As I noted in the post which you snipped... Wallerstein's statement (quoted above) is supported by The Jewish Encyclopedia, published in 1901, which indicates that a Jewish "rage for athletics" occurred around 175 BCE when the Seleucid king Antiochus IV offered citizenship to those who adopted the athletic Greek way of life. *Jason, high priest of Jerusalem, offered to increase his tribute to Antiochus IV if he would build a Greek-style gymnasium in Jerusalem. *The gymnasium was built. * As Jews began participating in the nude games, "devout Jews" (a minority of Jews) found to their horror that a partially exposed glans (i.e., a "mini"-circumcised penis) was considered vulgar. *Compounding the horror (of this minority of "devout Jews") was the fact that many Jews - including perhaps Jewish priests - were stretching their "mini" circumcisized foreskins so as not to appear circumcised. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia: "[D]evout Jews began to look upon the exercises with horror, especially because most of them were practised "in puris naturilibus" and the Covenant of Abraham had become an object of derision. *Nevertheless, for a time at least, the rage for Athletics spread even to the priests... [See Athletics in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Ktav 1901.] "...[T]he consequence was [the] attempt to appear like the Greeks by epispasm ('making themselves foreskins')... [See Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901] Forty years later (134 BCE), the high priest of Jerusalem, John Hyrcanus, forcibly circumcised the Idumeans, "leading them to think they were Jews." [Gribetz J, Greenstein EL, Stein RS. The Timetables of Jewish History. New York: Simon and Schuster 1993. *Judah Gribetz is president of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York.] It was during this period that Jewish priests apparently decided that stretching the foreskin was wrong and threatened the extermination of those Jews who stretched their foreskins: "The Book of Jubilee (xv. 26-27), written in the time of John Hyrcanus, has the following: *'...God's anger will be kindled against the children of the covenant if they make the members of their body appear like those of the Gentiles, and they will be expelled and exterminated from the earth.'" [Charles, The Book of Jubilees iv.-ix. iii. 190-192, under Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Ktav 1901.] But Jews of this period apparently construed the "no stretching" decree to mean that it was all right not to circumcise; for when the son of John Hyrcanus took power in 104 BCE (by imprisoning his mother and killing his brother), he forced circumcision on the residents of Galilee - "many of them Jews." [Gribetz 1993] The shift to total foreskin amputation is believed to have occurred one hundred years later, after the unsuccessful Bar Kokba uprising against the Roman Emperor Hadrian (who had completely outlawed circumcision): "In order to prevent the obliteration of the "seal of the covenant"...the Rabbis, probably after the war of Bar Kokba (see Yeb. l.c.; Gen. R. xivi.), instituted the 'peri'ah' (the laying bare of the glans), without which circumcision was declared to be of no value (Shab. xxx. 6)." [See Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901] "Thenceforward [total foreskin amputation - the laying bare of the glans] was the mark of Jewish loyalty." [See Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901] The notion that the penile mutilation originally/allegedly commanded by God left most of the foreskin on the penis is supported by the historical evidence that the ancient rabbis threatened to "exterminate" Jews who tried to appear uncircumcised and then made a switch to TOTAL foreskin amputations. END excerpt from the post that Windingroad snipped... There is this reference to Zipporah, Moses' wife circumcising her son with a flint knife - apparently quickly - as in: "(NIV Exodus 4:24-26) [T]he Lord met Moses and was about to kill him. But Zipporah, [Moses' wife, (2:22)] took a flint knife, cut off [karath] her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it...So the Lord let him alone." http://www.newwine.org/Studies/seventy7.htm Again, to my knowledge, Windingroad is correct - there is nothing about "floppy tips" in the Bible... But even if their were, it would NOT prove that there exists a God who commands that Jewish infants should suffer in perpetuity in exchange for land (and the people living thereon). See below.... Rabbi Michael Lerner writes: "The infliction of unnecessary pain is precisely what Judaism is designed to fight against, so it makes little sense for us to be the perpetrators on our children." [Rabbi Michael Lerner. Jewish Renewal NY: G.P. Putnam?s Sons 1994:387] And Rabbi MN Kertner says: "[Circumcision] is not a sacrament which inducts the infant into Judaism: his birth does that" [Rabbi MN Kertner. What is a Jew? New York: Macmillan, 1973,1993] * Also, adult Jews who wish to remain uncircumcised are accepted under Israel's Law of Return, which indicates that even "religious" circumcision is a CHOICE which may legitimately be postponed until adulthood and beyond... Of course, there are PLENTY of rabbis who would vehemently disagree - but they have no proof - except for their faith - that the Jewish God says if infant suffer Jews get land and the people living thereon. Windinghighway quoted his Bible... [I intersperse parts of the same passages from my Bible - from a previous post of mine...] Heres what my bible says: Gen 17: 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. [Genesis 17:7: *"And I will carry out my covenant between me and you...to time indefinite, to prove myself God to you and your seed..."] Gen 17:8 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. [ Genesis 17:8 *"And I will give to you and your seed...the land of your alien residences, even the entire land of Canaan, for a possession to time indefinite; and I will prove myself God to them."] Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. [ Genesis 17:9 *"And God said further to Abraham: 'As for you, you are to keep my covenant..." ] Gen 17:10 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. [ Genesis 17:10 *"This is my covenant...Every male of yours must get circumcised.] Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. [Genesis 17:11 *"And you must get circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it must serve as a sign of the covenant..."] Genesis 17:12 *"And every male of yours eight days old must be circumcised...[as well as]...anyone born in the house and anyone purchased with money..." Genesis 17:13 *"[M]y covenant in the flesh of you men must serve as a covenant to time indefinite." WHOOPS! You didn't include the evidence that Jews had slaves and had to circumcise THEM too - LOL! I am quoting from the King James version, of course, which is perhaps more admired for its sonorous cadences than for its accurate renditions from hebrew. My quotes above came from the Old Testament of a Bible that a frustrated Jehovah's Witnesses insisted on leaving with me. Here's the part where they get the people living on the land they will inherit... Genesis 15:18: *"On that day Jehovah concluded with Abram a covenant, saying: 'To your seed I will give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates: *the Kenites and the Kenizzites and the Kadmonites... Windinghighway continued... But does this passage in fact mistranslate anything in the original -- or is the exact nature of jewish circumcision many thousands of years ago really just a matter of speculation? EXACTLY! It's all SPECULATION - there is NO proof that a Jewish God (or any other God) exists - or wants infant foreskins in whole or in part - in exchange for land - or not! NO proof! Either way, it is encouraging to note that almighty god, in his infinite wisdom, wanted foreskins cut off. LOL! There's no proof of any God whatsoever - almighty or otherwise - LOL! He saw that they are, at best, superfluous, and at worst, thoroughly obnoxious. WHOA! Your "almighty god" thought infant foreskins were "obnoxious"??? Was this just the "floppy tip"? Or the whole thing? - LOL! Who better than their maker to determine their fate? Good point - NOT. LOL! You're joking, right? Maybe the most recent African AIDS penis researchers also cite "almighty god"!??? LOL! Can't wait till they publish! BTW, I thank Briar Rabbit (?) for starting this thread by mentioning that the Wall Street Journal announced their findings before publication. Similarly, I think the HIV/AIDS hypothesis got kicked off in a big way by DHHS Secretary Margaret Heckler with Bob Gallo standing by her side. As I've been noting, the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is quite shaky... For a recent [2004] account of just how shaky the HIV/AIDS hypothesis really is... See James P. Hogan's Kicking the Sacred Cow: Questioning the Unquestionable and Thinking the Impermissible [July 2004]... http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/a...esy-hogan.html --EXCERPT Again... MONEY. The infant screams should have ended BILLIONS of dollars of infant screams ago when I pointed out the phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology in 1987. Ending the infant screams NOW (finally) will instantly save America an estimated $400 million per year and PRESERVE the surgery as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood. And who are we mere mortals (including that misogynistic, homophobic psychotic St Paul) to quibble with divine will? Holy Moley, I no idea that St. Paul was homophobic and psychotic! I had always heard that the Bible was against homosexuals - but I didn't know it was St. Paul. Obviously, the Bible is proof that homosexuality is wrong, right? LOL! (I am not of a religious bent myself, but I offer these thoughts for those that are.) Not of a religious bent! LOL! I quote you from above... Either way, it is encouraging to note that almighty god, in his infinite wisdom, wanted foreskins cut off. And who are we mere mortals (including that misogynistic, homophobic psychotic St Paul) to quibble with divine will? The "psychotic St. Paul" remark - I thought maybe you were Jewish. No matter... Again, Hershel Shanks, PhD editor of Moment, noted that "the rabbis of the Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules" (emphasis added)... And then there is the fact (pointed out by Tom Paine?) that there are various interpretations of the Bible - and who knows whether the Bible itself was changed before it was interpreted from the original language... And then there is the MONEY (again)... MONEY. The infant screams should have ended BILLIONS of dollars of infant screams ago when I pointed out the phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology in 1987. Ending the infant screams NOW (finally) will instantly save America an estimated $400 million per year and PRESERVE the surgery as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood. See African AIDS hoax? (#11): Baby testicles- and Darrin vs. God http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3706 Thanks for reading, everyone. Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo Hillsboro, Oregon USA
|
|
#5
July 12th 05, 06:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
AFRICAN AIDS HOAX? (#13): LAND FOR INFANT FORESKINS - AND **MORE** MONEY -
**LOTS** MORE... MONEY. The infant screams should have ended BILLIONS of dollars of infant screams ago when I pointed out the phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology in 1987. Ending the infant screams NOW (finally) will instantly save America an estimated $400 million per year and PRESERVE the surgery as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood. We might also save the money being spent to buttress the shaky HIV/AIDS hypothesis... See African AIDS hoax? (#11): Baby testicles- and Darrin vs. God http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3706 MORE money below - a LOT more to be saved!! In African AIDS hoax? (#11), I noted the historical evidence that God originally/reportedly commanded leaving most of the foreskin on the penis after which ancient rabbis switched to TOTAL foreskin amputations because Jews were stretching their foreskins to appear uncircumcised... replied: Just out of interest, where do you get this idea and what makes you so sure of it? In my bible, god and the jews make a deal, or convenant. God gives the jews assorted privileges and goodies, notably a chunk of the middle east, for all eternity; and the jews get circumcised as their part of the bargain. I dont see anything there about floppy tips -- am I missing something? Amy (Mum of Two) replied: Fair enough. Since we have no stake in the Middle East, you get to keep it and we get to keep our intact sons. So why do you keep suggesting circumcision become the norm? Is my title deed in the mail? Amy, There was nothing "fair" about it - nothing democratic... "The Covenant idea is the polar opposite of democracy." [Cantor F. The Sacred Chain. NY: HarperCollins 1994:21] * The "four great powers" exploited the Covenant - and exploited Judaism - to control the Middle East. From a post I made in 2000.... NON-Jewish financial elites calling themselves "the four great powers" used this ancient surgical Covenant/real estate myth to hijack Judaism - by adopting Zionism "for better or worse" - making "the Covenant thing" happen - finally (see Mansfield quoted below)... The mythical notion that a God promised a people other peoples' land - in exchange for infant foreskins in perpetuity - is the ostensible Biblical "reason" the Allies gave the Zionists land in Palestine - instead of doing the more sensible thing, i.e., using Holocaust guilt to give the Jews a chunk of German land as their homeland. The Poles, after all, received a chunk of German land - to compensate them for Polish land given to Stalin. *("For the future peace of Europe here was a wrong beside which [the post WWI taking of Alsace-Lorrain and the Danzig Corridor from Germany] were but trifles. *One day the Germans would want their territory back and the Poles would not be able to stop them." [Churchill W. In deZayas AM: Nemesis at Potsdam. 1979, p. 187. *Harvard Law School graduate deZayas' book was republished in 1989, just before the Berlin Wall fell.]) "We are all Jews" wrote U.S. Justice Dept. Nazi Hunter John Loftus and Australian Mark Aarons in their book The Secret War Against the Jews [1994]... I agree with Loftus and Aarons who say that most people - including most Jews - do not know the history of the founding of the "Jewish" State of Israel... One influential Jew, Dennis Prager writes: "Orthodoxy is the home of most Jews who take Judaism seriously." [Prager D. Quoted disparagingly by Rabbi Kenneth D. Roseman, who apparently is not an orthodox Jew, in Moment *(Jun)1996;21(3):14. Moment is edited by Hershel Shanks, 4710 41st St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016] And according to another influential Jew, Eli D. Clark, the 'ultra-Orthodox' or 'right-wing' branch of Judaism views "the State of Israel as antagonistic to Orthodoxy." [Clark ED. Orthodoxy lurches to the right. Moment (Jun)1996;21(3):29-35,59-9..] Combining Pragerıs sentiment with Clarkıs, one arrives at the SEEMINGLY unlikely notion that most Jews who take Judaism seriously believe the State of Israel is antagonistic to taking Judaism seriously. One ultra-Orthodox Jewish sect, Neturey Karta, insists that Israel is "the enemy of the Jews" because Israel was founded before the coming of the Messiah. [Neturey Karta ad in the May 15, 1981 New York Times. Quoted in Rosten L: The Joys of Yinglish, 1989, McGraw-Hill: New York, p. 385] Clark [1996] quotes Rabbi Avi Shafran, editor of Agudath Israelıs quarterly Coalition in the March 1996 issue: "The Jewish State, of course, never really was one at all..." If the Jewish state "never really was one" - or even if Jews arenıt really sure, as Clark puts it, whether or not "re**** tzernihat geıulatenu, the beginning of the flowering of our [Messianic] redemption" has occurred...Americans - especially American Jews - will soon be thinking seriously about whether Palestinians are really terrorists - or just refugees from American-financed Israeli propaganda and aggression that stems from Balfourian Zionism... The birth of BALFOURIAN Zionism/obvious racism... In 1919, primarily as a consequence of the Biblical foreskins for (other peoples') land "Covenant", Lord Balfour committed "the four great powers" to Zionism "for better or worse"; and proclaimed that the needs of Palestinian Zionists were of "far greater import" than the needs of Palestinian Arabs. [Lord Balfour quoted in Mansfield The Arabs 1985] Lord Balfour's blatantly racist pronouncement should have been roundly criticized and rejected. *But it wasn't. According to Mansfield [1985], it is "astonishing" that the four great powers adopted Zionism, because prior to WWI, most Jews in Palestine "regarded Zionism...as sacrilege," and "the majority of prominent and influential Jews in Europe were unsympathetic to Zionism." "Indeed," continues Mansfield, "the two most representative bodies in British Jewry - the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Anglo-Jewish Association - had actually begun a campaign to persuade the British government to resist the demands of the Zionists." [Mansfield The Arabs 1985:181,175,175] Long before Hitler came into power, the Zionists began telling the British anti-Semitic things about German Jews - and Winston Churchill, of all people (quoted below), joined in the anti-Semitic chorus. In 190_, Weizmann (future first president of Israel) told the British, "[Zionists], too...believe that Germans of the Mosaic faith are an undesirable, demoralizing phenomenon" [Weizmann quoted in Reinharz Chaim Weizmann 1994]; Weizmann later wrote, "[T]here arises in me a terrible hatred towards 'Jews' who turn away from [Zionism]. *I perceive them as animals unworthy of the name homo sapiens." [Weizmann quoted in Rose Chaim Weizmann 1986] In 1920, Churchill went along with the anti-Semitic gag, telling the British that Jews created "the Antichrist" (Bolshevism) and that Zionism was "the antidote." [Churchill. Zionism vs. Bolshevism: a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people. Illustrated Sunday Herald, Feb. 8, 1920] This was the birth of Balfourian Zionism which is now sustained by billions of U.S. tax dollars... Balfourian Zionists claim (and many Jews innocently believe) that the U.S. Congress is "loaning" billions of dollars per year to Israel. Former-Congressman Paul Findley (23 years in Congress) notes in Deliberate Deceptions [1993] that the loan story was true prior to 1985; but "Since 1985, all money sent to Israel has been a grant, meaning that not a penny of it has to be repaid." Congressman Findley notes further that "when Israel pays interest and principal on loans made before 1985, it does so with U.S. tax dollars" - because the 1984 Cranston amendment "stipulates that economic aid to Israel each year will be at least equal to its annual repayments (principal and interest) of its debts to the United States." [Findley Deliberate Deceptions 1993:113. *Cong. Paul Findley, 1040 West College Avenue, Jacksonville, IL 62650.] Average Israelis, of course, never see most of Americaıs multi-billion dollar taxpayer gift because most of the billions are sent to defense contractors for the purchase of weaponry which is then sent to Israel. As noted above, even pro-Zionists admit "the essential accuracy" of author Aharon Megged's statement that "hundreds of [Israel's] leading writers, intellectuals, academics, authors and journalists" believe that Zionism amounts to "an evil colonialist conspiracy to exploit the people dwelling in Palestine, enslave them, and steal their land." [Halkin H. Israel against itself. Commentary 1994;98(5):33-39.] But who is conspiring? Not "the Jews" - or "the British" - or "the Americans" - or "the Russians"; though persons of all these descriptions seem to have participated - via the world of high finance... RELEVANT HISTORY... One of the more famous banking families are the Rothschilds. *They got their start in secret bank transactions by helping a German prince sell his citizens as mercenaries to fight the Americans. *According to Rothschild family biographer Frederick Morton [1962], the Rothschildıs became monied interests when in 1804 Prince William of Hesse secretly saved from bankruptcy his uncle and father-in-law, the King of Denmark - using Myer Anselm Rothschild as a secret go-between. [Morton F. The Rothschilds. NY: Atheneum 1962:22]) Prince William had plenty of money to secretly loan to his royal uncle, the King of Denmark, because he had grown wealthy selling Hessian citizens trained as military officers, to his cousin George III, Elector of Hanover (Germany) and King of England. *Indeed, the U.S. Declaration of Independence was precipitated when King George publicly declared he would be using cousin Williamıs Hessians to keep order in the American colonies. [Butterfield LH. Psychological warfare in 1776: The Jefferson-Franklin plan to cause Hessian desertions. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 1950;94(3):233-41.] According to Morton [1962], "Everytime a Hessian was killed, the prince received [from George III] extra compensation to soothe him for the victimıs trouble. *The casualties mounted, and therefore his cash..." It was this arrangement that Jefferson and Franklin exploited in their psychological warfare against the Hessians. *See Butterfield [1950] above. Morton [1962] notes that the Rothschilds made vast financial gains due to 19th century military exertions of Napoleon and Bismarck; but claims that the Rothschild family nearly lost everything during WWI and WWII. Significantly, however, Morton notes that the French Baron Edmond de Rothschild (the youngest son of the youngest son of old Mayer Anselm Rothschild) "special[ized in] dividing the worldıs oil with Shell and Standard Oil" [1962:197] even as he engaged in "ostensibly non-Zionist efforts toward the realization of Israel." [1962:205] Why would Baron Edmond Rothschild, initially "hostile" to Zionism, suddenly become so rabidly Zionist in 1914? *And why would he advise Weizmann to "secretly" prepare with the British government? Some prime real estate was coming available. *The Ottoman Empire was about to fall. *In exchange for ignoring the Turkish genocide of one million Armenians, the Allies got the Mosul oil fields [Simpson Splendid Blond Beast 1993] "The Covenant idea is the polar opposite of democracy." [Cantor F. The Sacred Chain. NY: HarperCollins 1994:21] *The "four great powers" exploited the Covenant - and exploited Judaism - to control the Middle East. One of the "four great powers" is still allowing MDs to make $200 million inflicting "the Covenant" on most male infants "because parents ask" - a clear violation of medical ethics... American pediatricians who perform routine infant circumcisions violate their own ethics: "[T]he pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires... "...A[n infant's screaming writhing and bleeding obviously constitutes the - TDG] patient's reluctance or refusal to assent [and - TDG] should...carry considerable weight when the proposed intervention is not essential to his or her welfare and/or can be deferred without substantial risk... "[T]hose who care for children need to provide for measures to solicit assent and to attend to possible abuses of 'raw' power over children when ethical conflicts occur." AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice(RE9510) Pediatrics Volume 95, Number 2 February, 1995, p. 314-317 http://www.aap.org/policy/0066 2.html Note also: "[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged hazard to health." [Katz M: Letter. AJDC, 1980] "What a terrible indictment...guilty of failing those for whom we have chosen to be advocates." [Finkel KC: The failure to report child abuse. AJDC, 1986;140:329-330] .... THE EVIL COLONIALIST CONSPIRACY - MOSTLY **NON**-JEWISH... Again quoting influential Jew Dennis Prager: *"Orthodoxy is the home of most Jews who take Judaism seriously." [Prager D. Quoted disparagingly by Rabbi Kenneth D. Roseman, who apparently is not an orthodox Jew, in Moment (Jun)1996;21(3):14. Moment is edited by Hershel Shanks, 4710 41st St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20016] Again quoting Eli D. Clark, the 'ultra-Orthodox or 'right-wing' branch of Judaism views Zionism as "a secular program and the State of Israel as antagonistic to Orthodoxy. [Clark ED. Orthodoxy lurches to the right. Moment (Jun)1996;21(3):29-35,59-9..] Again combining Pragerıs sentiment with Clarkıs, one comes up with the SEEMINGLY strange notion that most Jews who take Judaism seriously believe the State of Israel is antagonistic to...taking Judaism seriously. ORTHODOX JEWS UNDER ATTACK... A year 2000 issue of Moment magazine notes... "Tragically, the Orthodox have become the Jews' own Jews." http://www.momentmag.com/featu res/feat1b.html Quoting from a 1995 usenet post (URL below), Speaking of craziness: "In many ways," write Loftus and Aarons, "it was Western spies who indirectly started the [1967] war." [1994:259] This statement accords well with Cockburn and Cockburn's 1991 conclusion (in Dangerous Liaisons) that the CIA assisted the Zionists in STAGING the 1967 war.... http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp? AN=106776489 These just cited quotes from my 1995 usenet post accord with Suzanne F. Singer's recent report [2000] that similar "craziness" regarding the 1948 war is now being taught to Israeli children. ("Craziness" is my word.) According to Singer [2000]: "This year [2000], three new ninth-grade texts were introduced into Israeli high schools informing students that the familiar account of Israel's desperate *situation in 1948 was wrong. *Until this year, students learned that '[T]he numerical standoff between the two sides in the conflict was horrifyingly unbalanced'... "Here's what [Israeli students] learn today in a text by Tel Aviv University professor Eyal Naveh: 'On nearly every front and in nearly every battle, the Jewish side had the advantage over the Arabs...'" [Singer SF. The attack on Israel's pride and legitimacy. Moment: A Conversation on Jewish Culture, Politics, and Religion. (Feb)2000;25(1):10,12,14] Singer [2000:12] also reports: "In...the October 29, 1999 Ha'aretz, the favored newspaper of Israel's intellectuals, Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog debunks all of Israel's early history, claiming that the following conclusions must be drawn from recent archaeology: 'The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel..." Again quoting my 1995 usenet post... Even pro-Zionists are admitting "the essential accuracy" of author Aharon Megged's statement that "hundreds of [Israel's] leading writers, intellectuals, academics, authors and journalists" believe that Zionism amounts to "an evil colonialist conspiracy to exploit the people dwelling in Palestine, enslave them, and steal their land." [Halkin H. Israel against itself. Commentary 1994;98(5):33-39.] Further quoting from my 1995 post: Halkin [1994] claims that Zionists "sinned less" by robbing, enslaving and killing people in Palestine than by being embarrassed about it, because this embarassment led to the manufacture of myths "that could only breed disillusionment in the end." http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp? AN=106776489 The BASIS of all this disallusionment is the surgical Covenant... Again quoting Cantor, "the Covenant idea is the polar opposite of democracy" [Cantor F. The Sacred Chain. NY: HarperCollins 1994:21] The surgical Covenant is indistinguishable in outcome from American medicine's grisly most frequent surgical behavior toward males...and in this latter regard, it must be acknowledged that the late Morris Fishbein, MD (apparently a Jew; see Kingoff's remark above), editor of JAMA, DISHONESTLY helped to saddle American MDs (Jew and Gentile alike) with their grisly most frequent surgical behavior toward males... See my discussion of the dishonest behavior of JAMA Editor Fishbein in, Why American medicine qualifies as a religion... http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp? AN=590432966 Finally this... In 1989, American MDs/AAP deleted their explicit LEAVE IT ALONE advice thereby indirectly encouraging parents to cause the need for circumcision in their intact sons! See Dr. Poland suing Gastaldo??... http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp? AN=271086674 Mr. Kingoff, there is NO QUESTION that conspiracies are involved. I think mostly NON-Jews hijacked Judaism. *See above. Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. 8948 SW Barbur Blvd Box 6 Portland, OR 97219 FAX (815) 366-2814 TEL (503) 640-0456 http://www.egroups.com/group/c hiro-list MUTILATION QUOTES... Regarding the following mutilation quotes. I regard my own penis as quite normal - but it was mutilated. I want the mass mutilation of infants to end... As thousands of American infants scream and writhe and bleed, there are far too many euphemisms. (Yarrow/Carol recently said that infants are "done." See http://www.remarq.com/read/143 25/qAznNXgVDXKMAAAAA ) Here are encyclopedias referring to circumcision as mutilation... -----Original Message----- From: Todd Gastaldo To: Date: Wednesday, September 24, 1997 2:31 PM Subject: Mutilation wrote: Todd: Thanks to your prodding, I looked up the references myself. The library here had newer versions of some of the encyclopedias, so there were slight differences from what you posted. I thought that you might be interested in what I found. In any case, I certainly agree with you now that we have every right to refer to circumcision as "mutilation"--especially ritual circumcision. Don ----------- "MUTILATION AND DEFORMATION are permanent or long-lasting modifications of a living person's body. Mutilation usually involves cutting the body, whereas deformation results from altering its shape. . . . "Ritual circumcision is practiced by Jews and Muslims. Among many tribal peoples, circumcision is one of the procedures by which an individual is initiated into a new social role at puberty. Initiation rites may include ordeals involving other forms of mutilation . . . ." [Mutilation and deformation. The Encyclopedia Americana. Vol. 19, 1994:681] ----------- "MUTILATIONS. -- . . . "Thus in Hebrew history the mutilation of Abraham is the beginning of a religious rite which has continued through all subsequent periods (Gn 17) . . .[Listing of other such religious rights.] These are all religious rights; and side by side with them are practices which may properly be termed savage. ". . . religious mutilations are personal and voluntary in contradistinction to savage practice, where mutilations are imposed by compulsion upon conquered enemies or enslaved peoples or persons. . . . . . . "A list of the several kinds of mutilations adopted is not a cheerful contribution to the subject, but it is nevertheless well to have them in this form for purposes of reference. . . . It includes tails of hair, scalps, eyes, fingers, hands, thumbs, great toes, noses, ears, lips, jaws, teeth, hair, castration, circumcision, blood, cuts, and lacerations." [Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. IX, 62-3] ----------- "Body modifications and mutilations, intentional permanent or semipermanent modifications of the living human body for religious, aesthetic or social reasons. The methods of modification and mutilation used, either singly or in combination, are incision, perforation, complete or partial removal, . . . . "Motives for intentional changes are varied. Modifications are frequently performed for magical and medical purposes, but cosmetic (aesthetic) motives are perhaps equally common. . . . ritualistic motives for modifications are concerned with religion . . . . The practice of ritual mutilation is generally used to modify the social position os an individual in a manner visible to and recognized by other members of the society. . . . "The genitalia. The best known and most widespread genital modification is circumcision (q.v.) . . . Female modifications include excision (of part or all of the clitoris--clitoridectomy, female circumcision--and sometimes also of the labia, mons, or both) . . . . [Body modifications and mutilations. The New Encyclopedia Britannica. Vol. 2, 15th edition, 1993:317-318]
|
|
#6
July 12th 05, 08:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message
... AFRICAN AIDS HOAX? (#13): LAND FOR INFANT FORESKINS - AND **MORE** MONEY - **LOTS** MORE... MONEY. The infant screams should have ended BILLIONS of dollars of infant screams ago when I pointed out the phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology in 1987. Ending the infant screams NOW (finally) will instantly save America an estimated $400 million per year and PRESERVE the surgery as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood. We might also save the money being spent to buttress the shaky HIV/AIDS hypothesis... See African AIDS hoax? (#11): Baby testicles- and Darrin vs. God http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3706 MORE money below - a LOT more to be saved!! In African AIDS hoax? (#11), I noted the historical evidence that God originally/reportedly commanded leaving most of the foreskin on the penis after which ancient rabbis switched to TOTAL foreskin amputations because Jews were stretching their foreskins to appear uncircumcised... replied: Just out of interest, where do you get this idea and what makes you so sure of it? In my bible, god and the jews make a deal, or convenant. God gives the jews assorted privileges and goodies, notably a chunk of the middle east, for all eternity; and the jews get circumcised as their part of the bargain. I dont see anything there about floppy tips -- am I missing something? Amy (Mum of Two) replied: Fair enough. Since we have no stake in the Middle East, you get to keep it and we get to keep our intact sons. So why do you keep suggesting circumcision become the norm? Is my title deed in the mail? Amy, There was nothing "fair" about it - nothing democratic... I know. I was being facetious. I know you know that. Do you think I want to own a piece of the Middle East right now? -- Amy Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02, & Ana born screaming 30/06/04 barton . souto @ clear . net . nz http://www.freewebs.com/carlos2002/ http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/ana%5Fj%5F2004/
|
|
#7
July 12th 05, 03:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mum of Two wrote: Fair enough. Since we have no stake in the Middle East... I coudnt agree more. I suggest you drop a note to that ignorant, incoherent boob in the White House and let him know your views on this.
|
|
#8
July 12th 05, 07:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#9
July 12th 05, 07:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mum of Two wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... Todd Gastaldo wrote: The Jewish God's circumcision IS simple: Just the "floppy tip" of the infant foreskin is sliced off - quickly - "in the flash of a flint knife." Most of the foreskin is left on the penis. Just out of interest, where do you get this idea and what makes you so sure of it? In my bible, god and the jews make a deal, or convenant. God gives the jews assorted privileges and goodies, notably a chunk of the middle east, for all eternity; and the jews get circumcised as their part of the bargain. I dont see anything there about floppy tips -- am I missing something? Fair enough. Since we have no stake in the Middle East, you get to keep it and we get to keep our intact sons. So why do you keep suggesting circumcision become the norm? Is my title deed in the mail? What if any intrinsic value has the foreskin?
|
|
#10
July 12th 05, 07:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Todd Gastaldo wrote:
AFRICAN AIDS HOAX? (#11): BABY TESTICLES - and DARRIN vs. GOD For Baby Testicles info, see the very end of this post. Darrin no doubt sincerely believes that the Jewish God commands infant circumcision. Darrin referred to circumcision as, "...one simple & safe snip!..." Amy (Austin) replied: One simple and safe snip? Clearly you have NO idea what you're talking about. To any pregnant women...esp. Jewish pregnant women... DON'T BE FOOLED The Jewish God's circumcision IS simple: Just the "floppy tip" of the infant foreskin is sliced off - quickly - "in the flash of a flint knife." Most of the foreskin is left on the penis. In contrast, modern Jewish circumcisers ("mohelim") - and medical doctors= - perform a TOTAL infant foreskin amputation which takes much longer; thoug= h I am told that mohelim do the total amputation much faster than medical doctors. Ancient rabbis switched to TOTAL infant foreskin amputationn when ancient Jews began stretching their foreskins to appear uncircumcised... Todd, my very own name in lights!?ehehe You really shouldn't have!heehe Sorry, but I stand by my comments. Unlike Amy, I have attended my fair share of BRISSES in the Greatest Jewish City In The World (NYC - The Mother of American Judaism - more Jews than Jerusalem), and it was over faster than you can say: "Amy is a raving anti-circ wack packer!"eheee As for my religious beliefs!? I am a secular Jew who values spirituality above all else. As I had explained on alt.circimcision, every religion has centuries of customs that apply to both secular and religious denominations within that group. Jews have the SIT-SHIVA to honor the dead, Gentiles have the wake. Jews have the BAR/BAT-MITZVAH at age 13, Gentiles have the confirmation. Jews have the BRIS on the eighth day of life, Gentiles have the baptism. Jews are buried in Jewish cemeteries, Gentiles in Gentile cemeteries. Religious or not, this is what is! You do not F with thousands of years of customs!! As for the Biblical significance of circumcision? Ever ask yourself why are there so many Jewish doctors!? Even God himself wants to get into the act and identifies himself in the Book of Exodus, as "I am the Lord, your doctor." (15:26) Why does every Jewish mother want to be able to introduce her child as "my son the doctor?" Why do they say in YIDDISH that a rabbi is a Jewish boy who couldn't stand the sight of blood? It has to be more than coincidence. And the answer goes to the heart of a profound philosophic principle that is basic to Jewish religion and culture. In two words it is called TIKUN OLAM - the ideal constantly stressed by the rabbis and sages that means "fixing the world." Judaism teaches "My Kingdom is of this world," not the next one. God only does so much for us and then expects us to complete the task of creation. That's why some scholars suggest the act of circumcision is the defining ritual for a Jew. Performed on the eighth day and completing upon the body of a child what was left undone by His creator, Jews acknowledge that God may have finished the world in seven days but he left tasks for human beings to continue perfecting on the eighth day and onward. And that's why circumcision is called "a sign of the covenant" in the Bible. -D, NYC "The first American scientist ever awarded the Nobel prize was Jewish" - ALBERT ABRAHAM MICHAELSON.."This Jewish physician co-founded the AMA (American Medical Association) in 1847" - ISAAC HAYS..."I'm lost, I'm found, I'm up, I'm down, but somehow I survive - it's got to be the New York City rhythm in my life" - BARRY MANILOW (b. Pincus, umpteenth sweet Jewish NYer) In 1997, Hershel Shanks, PhD editor of Moment, noted that "the rabbis of = the[i] Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules" (emphasis added)... Here is the relevant excerpt: "A friend...[argued]...with regard to the Orthodox rabbis=8F pronouncement declaring Reform and Conservative not Judaism...[that]...[i]t's all traceable to the [U.S.] Reform decision nearly 15 years ago to adopt patrilineality - a child born of a Jewish father, if raised as a Jew, is Jewish.... "....n Biblical times, Jewish descent was determined by the Jewishness of the father...The rabbis changed that 2,000 year-old tradition...Indeed the rabbis of the Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules (emphasis added)..." [Shanks H. Tolerance v. Halachah. Moment. (Jun)1997;22(3):6, 8-9] The late Edward Wallerstein won an American Medical Writers Award for his book, Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy [NY: Springer 1980]. Wallerstein wrote in a 1983 article: "Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip of the foreskin. This was changed in the Hellenic Period to prevent [Jews from] elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order to appear uncircumcised." [Wallerstein E. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46] See also: African AIDS penis hoax? (#4) - the Biblical rule was changed - two forms of the infant mutilation http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3693 In 2004, American medical priests (MDs) published the false notion that t= he American medical religion's TOTAL infant foreskin amputation is the same = as leaving most of the foreskin on the penis as was originally/reportedly commanded by the Jewish God. See African AIDS hoax? (#10): Gesundheit! The ancient Jewish ritual is not the same... http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3705 TO AMY (AUSTIN): I suspect that Darrin, too, is intentionally promoting = the false notion that the American medical religion's TOTAL infant foreskin amputation is the same as leaving most of the foreskin on the penis as was originally/reportedly commanded by the Jewish God. Todd Dr. Gastaldo Hillsboro, Oregon PS1 IT'S ILLEGAL. I know I'm repeating myself but American medical docto= rs are repeating THEMselves - making thousands of babies per day scream and writhe and bleed as their penises are senselessly ripped and sliced... In late 1987, after I exposed American medicine's phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology, I called for an exemption from the child abuse laws for = the ancient Jewish ritual that leaves most of the foreskin on the penis... In the Jan 1988 issue of PEDIATRICS, American MDs opposed ALL religious exemptions. In the Feb 1988 issue of PEDIATRICS, American MDs came out in favor of anonymity for PERPETRATORS of child abuse. In March 1988 the California Medical Association House of Delegates ignor= ed its own Scientific Board and by voice vote first decided that "no medical indiations" infant circumcision means "effective public health measure" t= hat prevents transmission of HIV/AIDS. ANYTHING is possible when powerful cultural authorities stand to go to prison. NOTE: I am in favor of pardons in advance for MDs. As medical students they are TRAINED perform obvious felonies. MORE SENSELESS GENITAL SURGERY...Mass infant penis ripping and slicing is "performed" by American obstetricians at about the same time they engage = in mass VAGINA slicing - as they senselessly close birth canals up to 30%. PREGNANT WOMEN: By using semisitting and dorsal (woman-on-her-back/buttoc= ks) delivery positions, obstetricians are closing birth canals up to 30%. UNNECESSARY SPINAL MANIPULATION OF BABIES Obstetricians are KEEPING birth canals closed the "extra" up to 30% (keeping women semisitting or dorsal) when babies get stuck as they manipulate babies' spines - pulling with hands, forceps and vacuums - sometimes pulling so hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords. UNNECESSARY C-SECTION/UNNECESSARY EPISIOTOMY Obstetricians are slicing vaginas/abdomens en masse (episiotomy/c-section) - surgically/fraudulently inferring they are doing/have done everything possible to open birth cana= ls - even as they close birth canals up to 30%. LADIES: It is easy to allow your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 3= 0%. See ACOG's 2005 edition: How NOT to birth http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3606 NOTE: Compelling obstetricians to allow birth canals to open the "extra"= up to 30% is not going to prevent all episiotomies, c-sections and forceps deliveries; but obstetricians have no business closing birth canals the "extra' up to 30%. THINK ABOUT IT. If MDs can close birth canals up to 30% and say they are opening birth canals... If MDs can make babies scream and writhe and use phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology... Why couldn't they invent an HIV/AID hoax? The latest African AIDS penis study may be a hoax. The HIV/AIDS hypothesis itself may be a hoax. See again: African AIDS hoax? (#6): Nixon (also: HIV taking advantage of the foreskin?) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3695 ANYTHING is possible when powerful cultural authorities (MDs) stand to go= to prison. The HIV/AIDS hypothesis. is shaky For a recent [2004] account of just how shaky the HIV/AIDS hypothesis rea= lly is... See James P. Hogan's Kicking the Sacred Cow: Questioning the Unquestionab= le and Thinking the Impermissible [July 2004]... http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/a...esy-hogan.html --EXCERPT Amy Austin concluded her reply to Darrin... Before you post another word, you really need to watch one of these videos: http://www.intact.ca/video.html If you have the guts, watch the 13 minute one. The night I watched it, it took me 20 minutes to calm my dog down. She couldn't stand to hear the baby scream. And the doctor in the video is (obviously) pro-c. It wasn't intended to be an anti-c video. One simple and safe snip, my ass. Watch the video, if you have the balls. snip BABY TESTICLES... Amy (Austin) said to Darrin: "Watch the video, if you have the balls." At least one boy (now a man) doesn't have balls because they were INTENTIONALLY cut off to make him into a "girl" - because the MD accidentally amputated his penis during routine infant circumcision. MOTIVATING MDs: Fear of prison as a consequence of death (and incredible pain and suffering) from unnecessary surgery inflicted on non-consenting, helpless infants... After I pointed out their phony "babies can't feel pain" neurology - American MDs suddenly declared their most frequent surgical behavior "an effective public health measure" that prevents AIDS... Ripping and slicing just ONE little boy's penis would send an ordinary citizen to prison for years. American MDs are committing the obvious battery/mayhem thousands of times per day! American MDs knew that it was either admit the mass child abuse crime and= go to prison - or declare a new "public health measure" - so they made the obvious (albeit unconscionable) choice - declare the "public health measure" - and keep ripping and slicing infant penises. As suggested above, I think American MDs embraced the shaky HIV/AIDS hypothesis to stay out of prison. Again, for a recent [2004] account of just how shaky the HIV/AIDS hypothe= sis really is... See James P. Hogan's Kicking the Sacred Cow: Questioning the Unquestionab= le and Thinking the Impermissible [July 2004]... http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/a...esy-hogan.html --EXCERPT One final matter... MONEY. The infant screams should have ended BILLIONS of dollars of infant screams ago when I pointed out the phony "babies can't feel pain" neurolo= gy in 1987. Ending the infant screams NOW (finally) will instantly save America an estimated $400 million per year and PRESERVE the surgery as a CHOICE American males can make for themselves in adulthood. Thanks for reading. Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo Hillsboro, Oregon Copied to: Kicking the Sacred Cow author James P. Hogan via This post will be archived for global access in the Google usenet archive. Search http://groups.google.com for "African AIDS hoax? (#11): Baby testicles - and Darrin vs. God"
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
