Talk:Ten Commandments/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The abolition of circumcision in the Decalogue

Sigismont 16:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The German (Frankfurt, 1843) Mosaicist movement of Reform Jews ^[1] (Abraham Geiger and his friends) was, in modern times, the first Judaist movement to refuse circumcision. They founded their argumentation upon several arguments: 1) Circumcision was ordered to Abraham, not to Moses. 2) It is absent in the Deuteronomy, 3) Moses circumcised his son only by force, 4) The generation of the desert was not circumcised, 5) Judaism does not initiate daughters.

The Orthodox rabbinical authorities answered these arguments and nowadays, most Reform Jews are circumcised (although, in the USA today, a growing number of Jews refuse circumcision). However, Geiger had not made the following analysis of the Second Commandment, to which the rabbinical authorities would be in difficulty to answer: —Preceding unsigned addition by Sigismont (talk • contribs) 16:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The orthodox commentators of the following verse:

“For I, the Eternal, your God, I am a jealous God, who prosecute the crime of fathers (circumcision) upon (committed upon) children ("בנים" (banim, plural of ben) usually means "sons") up to the third and fourth generation (grandfathers and great-grandfathers; going beyond is impossible).” (20: 5, French Rabbinate),

through an unlikely double-meaning, interpret it as if it said:

“… who prosecute children for the crime of fathers…”

But it does not say so and no less than thirteen inaccuracies or neglects of the rabbinic translation compel us to think that this interpretation is absurd and that the expression: "the crime of fathers upon sons" designates circumcision, which is thus condemned and abolished:

I - The common sense arguments

- first, God does not express himself in an ambiguous way; if the sentence had the meaning given by the rabbis, its construction would be the one seen above,

- second, it would be illogical that a command should be redundant with the “Thou shall not kill”. Now precisely, the Second Commandment puts aside pedo-sexual criminality as especially reprehensible; for the first time in history, a penalty is enacted imprescriptible. Moses was conscious of the gravity of crimes aiming at a whole part of the population, crimes against humanity – and very particularly children,

- third, the orthodox interpretation gives the term “jealous” the aberrant meaning of suspicious till injustice: castigating children for crimes they did not commit. If the matter were condemning common criminality, the idea of an unjust God, who would punish irresponsible children, is unwarrantable. Actually, a jealous God is jealous of his own creation and cannot stand its alteration by man taking himself for God. Mohammed shares this theological argument (cf. above),

- fourthly, a punishment abating at the fourth generation (Hitler’s madness disastrously copied from the rabbis, and amplified, their interpretation) would be contradictory with the idea of blind chastisement; why should such a cold-bloodedly resolute castigation stop at the fourth generation? On the other hand, it is only natural that the punishment of circumcising criminals must stop with great-grandfathers,

II - The linguistic and syntactic arguments

- fifthly, the singular: “the crime of fathers”, refers to a precise crime; if it were any crime, the original text would have used either the double plural (the crimes of fathers) or the double singular (the crime of the father),

- sixthly, translating the Hebrew “בנים” by “children” rather than “sons”, which is possible in some rare contexts (it is not the same in Arab), deliberately dismisses the idea of condemnation of circumcision,

- seventhly, one does not prosecute a crime upon a person but a person for a crime and “sons” is the indirect complement of “crime” and not of “prosecute” (several translators use “punish” in order to avoid this incorrectness),

III - The Biblical arguments

- (*) eighthly, the version of the Decalogue in the Book of Deuteronomy does not order circumcision,

- ninthly, the following verses, just a few lines below the Ten Commandments, strongly reinforce our interpretation:

“You will make an altar of earth (*) for me… 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.” (20: 21-22, French Rabbinate)

Moses affirms through this image that the pagan custom desecrates man’s body, offending God. Besides, these verses must be brought together with the following:

“God tilled man – a dust removed from the soil –…” (Genesis, 2: 7, French Rabbinate)

IV - The historical and cultural arguments

- (*) tenthly, circumcision was not practised during the reign of Moses,

- (*) in the eleventh place, the circumcision of Moses's son was made against his father's will (cf. above),

- (*) in the twelfth place, God does not make discrimination between sexes; as claimed by many Jewish feminists, it is impossible that he should have ordered Abraham a sign of alliance for boys to the exclusion of girls,

- (*) in the thirteenth place, Abraham also circumcised Ishmael and the circumcision of the Jews does not give them more right than the Arabs to the land of Canaan, it is as harmful and useless to the ones as to the others.

This range of convergent mistakes or negligences, likely voluntary, hides the right interpretation in order to conceal the condemnation of circumcision by the Second Commandment. The “crime of fathers upon sons” can only be circumcision that Moses deliberately classifies as crime. Therefore, God, or Moses, did not wrongly word the Second Commandment. The rabbis – very likely deliberately – did ill interpret it through introducing an inexistent double meaning, in order to conceal that “the crime of fathers upon sons” is circumcision perpetrated upon the person of the sons. The obvious mistake in the inadequate use of “prosecute” in the translation of the French Rabbinate can be analysed as an unconscious confession and denunciation of the falsification committed by the rabbinical ancestors.

For when he dictates his Commandments, the Eternal does not play with double meanings. Then here on the Sinai, the historical context is that of abandonment of circumcision until Gilgal. Therefore, only the bad faith of the fanatic victims of circumcision could twist the text in a misinterpretation that nobody should ever have imagined. For in order to restore circumcision, the rabbis were compelled to conceal the veritable meaning of the Second Com-mandment through falsifying the sense of the most sacred text of the Torah since directly written by God. The manipulation of the faithful is obvious. The sole attenuating circumstance would be pathological denial of the reality of the meaning of the Second Commandment, due to blind faith in Abraham’s commandment and to the deep psychological trauma its implementation provokes. It is indeed high time to put an end to it.

Besides, it is possible to word a hypothesis about the two versions of the Second Commandment, that which forbids circumcision and that which does not mention it. Until today, the authenticity of the Book of Deuteronomy has been considered warranted by the fact that the manuscript was found again buried in the temple of Jerusalem at the return from the exile in Babylon. But it is impossible that God should have varied in his formulation of the Ten Commandments; the Levite rabbis varied, not God. The redaction of the book of Deuteronomy has certainly been altered, truncated from the ban of circumcision. One must think that the discovery in the temple was a whole performance intended to warrant the return to circumcision. For the rabbis only knew the book of Deuteronomy, a book of rules of boring reading whilst the book of the Exodus was well-known to the people; it was the source of religious education and it was impossible to falsify it, only its interpretation could be changed. The version of the Book of the Exodus is both the authentic version and the one written at the intention of Nebuchadnezzar. Indeed, at the time of captivity, those who obeyed the divine will to respect the human body were likely still numerous. The Jews were divided about this point and the version of the Exodus enabled the rabbis to explain the fact to Nebuchadnezzar, while distinguishing the Jews from the Egyptians in order to avoid slaughter. The version of the Book of Deuteronomy was made up at the return from exile in order to warrant the new orthodox interpretation of the Second commandment of the Book of the Exodus.

Abolishing the commandment of Abraham, the Second Commandment makes the right to physical integrity the first of the rights of man. One can even think that in the Third Commandment that comes right after this condemnation of circumcision:

“You will not invoke the name of the Eternal your God to support lie...” (20: 7, French Rabbinate),

Moses reproaches Abraham for having perjured saying that God would have ascribed him circumcision. A shrewd reader of the Bible, Mohammed took up this accusation in verses 4: 118-119 of the Koran (see below). For if God ever ordered Abraham circumcision, he forbade Moses to do it. Either it was not the same God or he changed his mind between both Alliances, or still Abraham lied and no God ever ordered circumcision. The Book of the Deuteronomy confirms that God did not impose circumcision to Moses.

Read the whole article, including the exclusion of circumcision in the Book of Deuteronomy, at:

http://intactwiki.org/Image:The_Ten_Commandments_against_circumcision.doc

(This reading of the Bible brings a new interpretation of this heroic period of the Jewish people. Since no one criticizes it, it should be integrated into the main article) Sigismont 17:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a new interpretation. Please review WP:NOR, which explains why Wikipedia may not be the most suitable place to publish it. JFW | T@lk 16:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You are ill-informed; as I showed at the beginning, it is not actually a really new interpretation, but a little known one since it renews - and better arguments - that of the German Reform Jews of the middle of the nineteenth century.

Comparing the rabbis to Hitler will get you into trouble. Obviously, this little theory is immediately refuted by other Biblical sources. For instance, the concept that sins of the fathers will be exacted from their offspring recurs several times in the Torah; it presumes - according to Rabbinic commenary - that the children will follow in their parents' footsteps (which is not in itself a strange thing). Also, how does one then explain the fact that the commandment to circumcise recurs in Leviticus, and is mentioned further in the Prophets? JFW | T@lk 18:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No one compared the rabbis to Hitler; I learnt that Hitler jumped on this verse to do the same to the Jews. Actually the wrong interpretation was copied by Hitler, which is not comparison but mere fact.

Now if the concept that sins of the fathers will be exacted from their offspring recurs several times in the Torah, it may very well issue from this very rabbinical misinterpretation of the Second Commandment of the Book of the Exodus.

At last, Leviticus is posterior to the Book of the Exodus, as well as the Book of the Prophets.

Sigismont, it is very simple. Please demonstrate to me which source traces the abolition of circumcision to the second commandment (and a reliable source, not your wiki). Until you have done this, your contributions cannot be included into the article. Please read WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Those policies regulate tightly what can be included on Wikipedia. You would do well to read them closely (and please don't quote back bits to me to justify your deviation from these policies). JFW | T@lk 21:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

- Only one great source traces the abolition of circumcision to the Second Commandment:

- the Second Commandment (Exodus), plainly read by the first school boy ,as shown above!

- Accessorily, neither the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy neither the rest of the great legal Book order circumcision. Indeed, the Reform Jews grounded themselves on the fact that the Decalogue did not prescribe circumcision to Moses.

I dispute it, and I argue. You are really trying to force a meaning into the 10C that is simply not there. This is called original research and is inadmissible even in the "controversy" section. JFW | T@lk 23:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with Jfdwolff here. I don't think this view is common sence at all. Seems the reasoning is convoluted. Also, its not a view thats shared by many. No peer reviewed pulication, no academic research. No notable group holding this view. Think about it: if everyon who had a unique and interesting interpretation of a think had his own paragraph, how long would the article be? Maybe Wikipedia in not the best place for you to pursue this line of thought. Steve kap 13:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"You are really trying to force a meaning into the 10C that is simply not there." "I don't think this view is common sense at all. Seems the reasoning is convoluted." This is tipically unfounded, purely arbitrary, mere personal opinion, without any serious discussion.

Nevertheless, why did someone rub out from the main article, still without any explanation - which is extremely discourteous - the following very similar historical controversy:

" === Circumcision === A controversy about circumcision burst out in the middle of the nineteenth century in Germany, initiated by the Mosaicist movement of Reform rabbis [1] of Abraham Geiger and his friends (Frankfurt, 1843). After the Christian heresy who advocated baptism by water, it was the second Judaist movement to refuse circumcision. Their main argument was that circumcision was ordered to Abraham, not to Moses, who forbade it during his reign. Indeed, it is absent in the Book of Deuteronomy. However, the Orthodox rabbinical authorities answered their arguments and the abandonment of circumcision by the Reform Jews lasted only twenty years. However, this Jewish movement against circumcision is still alive in the USA (for a development of this topic, see the discussion). [1]: Encyclopaedia Judaïca. Jerusalem: Keter publishing house limited; 1972. t. V, p. 571."

? ? ?

Would the topic be so taboo that you simply "force" it out without discussion nor arguments? You create a title "CONTROVERSIES" and you refuse admitting a controversy that lasted around forty years between rabbis and still lasts in the USA? The only sensical term to designate this way of doing is censorship, I'm afraid! You behave like extreme-right Jews (? ). Sigismont (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It might belong in a discussion on why Jews object to circumcision. The Second Commandment claim is original research. Wikipedia is not the place to announce original research. The nineteenth century Jewish controversy about circumcision was not based upon the Ten Commandments per se, but upon a series of passages in the Torah. If contemporary Reform Judaism were to adopt the Second Commandment claim as the reason for not circumcising males, and proceed to not circumcise males, it could be included in this articles.jonathon 19:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about my 2nd Commandment discovery. I inserted the circumcision controversy of the German Jews in the main article because they stated that CIRCUMCISION WAS ORDERED TO MOSES, NOT TO ABRAHAM, which obviously refers to the Ten Commandments, this is why it should definitely be part of the section "CONTROVERSIES". It particularly issues from their reading of the Ten Commandments either in the Book of Deuteronomy or in the book of the Exodus. Sigismont (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, since no one objects, I put it back; this controversy of the Reform rabbis seems really worth while and of particular actuality. Sigismont 16:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that you've again reinserted your pet theory: the Ten Commandments do not mention circumcision. The addition is therefore off-topic. Even controversies about circumcision don't belong here, because there is NO direct link between circumcision and the Ten Commandments. Period. I urge you to address our concerns of WP:NOR, because I will be requesting community opinion about your repeated policy violations if you persist. JFW | T@lk 20:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This latter answer is confirmed by the following reason given in the main article: "- your pet theory does not belong on Wikipedia - when did the Reform movement base its abandonment of circumcision on the Ten Commandments? Also, don't refer to talk"

I'm afraid I had not repeated my so-called pet theory in the main article but the following:

"=== Circumcision ===

A controversy about circumcision burst out in the middle of the nineteenth century in Germany, initiated by the Mosaicist and democratic movement of Reform rabbis ^[2]: rabbi Abraham Geiger and his friends (Frankfurt, 1843). After the Christian heresy who advocated baptism by water, it was the second Judaist movement to oppose circumcision. Their main argument was that circumcision was ordered to Abraham, not to Moses, who indeed forbade it during his reign. Also, it is is absent from the Book of Deuteronomy. However, the orthodox rabbinical authorities answered their arguments and the abandonment of circumcision by the Reform Jews lasted only twenty years. However, this Jewish movement against circumcision is still alive in the USA (for a development of this topic, see the discussion). "

Since this is plain historical facts, attested by the Israeli Encyclopedia Judaïca, that have nothing to do with my demonstration, I suggest that "User:Jfdwolff" should stop his nonsensical agressions to my encyclopedist work, in spite of his unwarrantable attachment to the obscurantist custom of circumcision.

First, it is about time that he should be aware that love without foreskin is like motion picture in black and white instead of coulour.

Second, I was not the first to advocate the right of the child to physical integrity, rabbi Abraham Geiger was, wether he wants it or not!

Foremost, to answer exactly User:Jfdwolff's question, the Jewish Reform movement definitely BASED HIS ARGUMENTATION AGAINST CIRCUMCISION UPON THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SAYING THAT THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY, which includes a version of the Ten Commandments, DOES NOT ORDER CIRCUMCISION. User:Jfdwolff may check this, if he only cares to go and read the text of the "Circumcision" article in Encyclopedia Judaica, Keter editions, Jerusalem.

My material is thus highly asserted by the most authorized Jewish authorities, who obviously give us a direct link to include circumsion in the main article.

Consequently, I'm afraid that - whatever any next step my be - it is not only my right but foremost my duty to put back my work in the main article and ask wikipedia authorities to prevent User:Jfdwolff to undo it, which would now be an outrageous violation of the rule, unless wikipedia be just another procircumcision blog. 19:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Sigismont (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigismont, I'm not trying to be cruel or funny, but is there some medication that you should be taking that you're not? Steve kap 21:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Steve, please don't make personal attacks. I think that with sufficient explanation we will be able to show Sigismont that his contribution in its present form is not suitable for inclusion.

Sigismont (I presume 194.206.209.169 is you), you will need to elaborate what the Encyclopedia Judaica actually says about the link between circumcision and the Ten Commandments. I have no access to a copy. You are trying to make us read that the "sin committed by the fathers on their sons" is a veiled reference to the act of circumcision (לֹא-תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לָהֶם, וְלֹא תָעָבְדֵם: כִּי אָנֹכִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ, אֵל קַנָּא--פֹּקֵד עֲו‍ֹן אָבֹת עַל-בָּנִים עַל-שִׁלֵּשִׁים וְעַל-רִבֵּעִים, לְשֹׂנְאָי.). But you don't quote Geiger to this effect (or the EJ), and it is certainly not a classical interpretation of the verse, which is generally taken to be referring to the sin of idolatry.

You will also need to explain why the commandment of circumcision is repeated in Leviticus, which according to the classical chronology followed the Ten Commandments. It would be odd if Abraham was commanded to circumcise his male progeny, the commandment was rescinded and then given again to Moses. You cannot claim that just because Deuteronomy does not list circumcision it is not a binding commandment. There are 100s of commandments that are not listed in Deuteronomy (e.g. orlah, most of the sacrifices), yet they are regarded as eternally binding.

I find your comments about "love without foreskin" and "physical integrity" pretty off-topic, so I suggest you don't make your POV so glaringly obvious. We are not a pro- or anti-circumcision blog. Can we discuss only the question whether there is any source that actually proves your assertions? JFW | T@lk 10:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear JFW, Steve is indeed neither cruel nor funny, just far from the reality of what I wrote. But so are you too! This is why I - and especially because I have been specialized in psychoanalysis for thirty years now - am worried about both of you. I am worried because either you are so overburdenned with work that you simply do not read me, either the particular reality we are dealing with simply prevents you from understanding what you read. Then we can call this very particular reality the circumcising madness (a customary criminality, which is a very special form of the Munchausen syndrome, a form "by proxy", transgenerational and collective). Quite a thing indeed for psychiatrists!

Now let us come back to what I wrote that was taken off, not in this discussion but in the main article.

Contrary to your assertion, I did not speak at all of "the sin committed by the fathers", which is, let us say, my "pet theory", I developped it in this discussion, I will not come back to do it into the main article, pardon me for breaking your rule at first, I have an apology; as I told you, the work of encyclopedists is to tell the scientific truth. I am a scientist, I tell the truths I discovered. You tell me I may not do it here, OK, I agree. But when I am only reporting what I read in the Encyclopedia Judaica, I strongly disagree; if you do not believe me, please go and read its article "CIRCUMCISION" before going on in this discussion, otherwise you shall make me loose my time and you will loose yours also.

I hope you are honest and that you will put back in place my post when you will have read that Judaica Encyclopedia, which seems being the best, as for Jewish religion, to me. Now if you do not do it, I'll simply quit an inhospitable place and never come back.

Now, since you discuss my "pet theory" speaking about the Leviticus, as the name says, it was written by the Levites, a cast of Jewish priests who accompanied Moses going out of Egypt, but who were opponent to him concerning circumcision. Moses was a strong anti-circ personality (as every one knows from the Book of the Exodus), the Levites were traditional pro-circ and right-wing abrahamists. And this is the whole affair. Simple, isn't it?

I'm afraid that, being a French man, I do not understand the letters: "POV". The only source that does not specifically "prove" but obviously supports my assertions is the Second Commandment itself in the Book of the Exodus. If you are rational and honest you will acknowledge my discovery, if you are not rational but blinded by belief, you will not and I shall leave you to the repetitive repetitions of the everrepeting repetitors...

Now concerning the controversy mentionned in the Encyclopedia Judaica, is not my controversy; it is a Jewish rabbinic controversy that lasted for twenty years in Frankfurt.

I do not see by which right Wikipedia would blackout this controversy? —Preceding unsigned 16:29, 11 November 2007 Sigismont (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Until you provide evidence that the Ten Commandments are relevant to this controversy, I cannot see why we should include it. I asked you to quote verbatim from the Encyclopedia Judaica, rather than rehash your previous arguments. JFW | T@lk 18:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources. Reliable sources for articles on religion include notable academic scholars and journals, notable theological scholars and journals, and the like. Please do not use these talk pages to attempt to provide arguments for your position. Wikipedia is concerned with sources, not arguments. We can't put unsourced material in the encyclopedia, and it simply doesn't matter whether it's true or not or whether we agree with it or not. The talk page guidelines permit removal of talk page posts that attempt to debate the underlying topic. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"You are really trying to force a meaning into the 10C that is simply not there."

- Theis is the heart of the problem: who "forced a meaning" into the Second Commandment?

- I or the falsifier rabbis?

Do you mean that you blinly believe and quote an obviously falsified texts just because they are Orthodox interpretations? In other words, are you totally castrated, including guts, or simply circumcised???

I repeat my great source is the mere text of the Second Commandment and I say that the no WIKI rule shoiuld require a better source, so that any wikipedist may take the Second Commandment as specific reference, especially if this wikipedist chooses the Orhodox rabbis' translation (Paris: Editions Colbo; French Rabbinate) Sigismond Sigismont (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect we're dealing with a language barrier here, Sigismont. Unfortunately, we cannot read meanings into the second commandment apart from those that have been read into it by the major streams of thought. You need to demonstrate that you are not the first to read this meaning into the second commandment. The fact that you are calling classical sources "falsifier rabbis" is very much a display of your inability to understand WP:NOR and WP:WEIGHT.

I'm afraid my so-called research does not deserve the title of original research but merely that of obvious simple, straightforward, not distorted reading, the reading any well educated child would do. The adverse reading is merely false and lying. It does not deserve belonging any "stream of thought" but that of bunch of lies. Wikipedia may not indulge in spreading such plain alteration of the truth, and foremost an alteration of a sacred text.

... I urge you to read these official Wikipedia policies. Neither the French Rabbinate translation nor the Encyclopedia Judaica show in any way that the second commandment has anything to do with circumcision.

Wrong:

Quote from Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter publishing house limited, 1972) - - "In 1843, the clerical leaders of the Reform movement in Frankfort sought to abolish circumcision among their adherents; the controversy concerning its necessity in Judaism lasted 20 years and eventually spread to America. They based their objections to circumcision on five reasons: (1) It was commanded to Abraham and not to Moses. It is not distinctive of Israel since it is also practiced by the descendants of Ishmael; (2) It is only mentioned only once in the Mosaic law; it is not repeated in Deuteronomy; (3) Moses did not circumcise his own son; (4) The generation of the desert was not circumcised; (5) There is no initiation of daughters into Judaism. All these were answered by Orthodox rabbinical authorities. To counter this agitation, Leopold Zunz wrote his essay on circumcision (Gutachten ueber did Beschneidung, Frankfort, 184). Today, most Reform Jews have their children circumcised. It is, however, often done by a surgeon with a rabbi in attendance to say the prayers, or without any ceremony at all." (see discussion for more information)

"It was COMMANDed to Abraham and not to Moses" obviously refers to the Ten COMMANDments.

... Both myself and Shirahadasha have been trying to explain this to you, and your own publication clearly demonstrates that you are the originator of the interpretation you are advancing.

- Thanks, I never denied and I'm proud of it but here this is not the point. I'm now merely speaking of the Reform rabbis.

Could you please respond to these concerns before reinserting your paragraph, and await consensus? JFW | T@lk 20:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Wikipedia has a specific synthesis policy prohibiting using sources that are not directly and obviously stating the argument that is attributed to them. The Encyclopedia Judaica quote you provided never mentions the 10 commandments. The basis of your argument that this source has a relationship to the 10 commandments comes from synthesizing it with another idea, that "the crime of fathers upon sons" refers to circumcision. This type of synthetic argument represents a classic example of a violation of the synthesis policy. It's an original idea -- there's no evidence that anyone but you has ever combined these two streams of thought into one argument. Original ideas can't be published in Wikipedia. Good luck trying to publish it elsewhere. Best,--Shirahadasha (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

::Hi! Wikipedia has a specific synthesis policy prohibiting using sources that are not directly and obviously stating the argument that is attributed to them. The Encyclopedia Judaica quote you provided never mentions the 10 commandments.

- Wrong, as explicited above.

... The basis of your argument that this source has a relationship to the 10 commandments comes from synthesizing it with another idea, that "the crime of fathers upon sons" refers to circumcision.

- You sinthesize and amalgamate!

... This type of synthetic argument represents a classic example of a violation of the synthesis policy.

- This is a typical display of crooked interpretation.

...It's an original idea -- there's no evidence that anyone but you has ever combined these two streams of thought into one argument.

There is evidence above that I combined these thoughts into twelve arguments. But this is off the present topic. I am not bringing personal research into the main article, I only intend to say that the Reform rabbis did refer to the Ten Commandments to oppose circumcision, for the mere reason that "it was not ordered to Moses". As the only orders ever given to Moses were the Ten Commandments, it obviously refers to them.

...Original ideas can't be published in Wikipedia. Good luck trying to publish it elsewhere. Best,--Shirahadasha (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Good luck stopping your amalgams, mixing up and mingling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigismont (talk • contribs) 28 November 2007

As you note above, you are combining claims that (a) certain Reform rabbis said "it [circumcision] was not ordered to Moses" with an as yet unsourced claim that (b) the only "orders ever given to Moses were the Ten Commandments" to arrive at a claim that (c) the Ten commandment oppose circumcision. This is a synthesis prohibited by the WP:SYN policy. I do not intend to discuss this further except to remind you that editing privileges are dependent on compliance with policies. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems that either you do not understand, either you are of bad faith. Let's make it simple:

According to Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1972), not I, the great argument of the Reform rabbis in Frankfurt (1843) was "God ordered circumcision to Abraham, not to Moses"; in other words God's COMMANDMENT to Abraham is circumcision, God's COMMANDMENTS to Moses do not order circumcision; in other words:

- God's One Commandment to Abraham = circumcision.

- God's Ten Commandments to Moses = not even one for circumcision!

The rabbis, not I said so! Therefore, wholly and seriously documented, I wrote it into the main article but JFW and S rub it out. This is an insane violation of the wiki rules.

Now, in order to enlighten the main article, the 2nd Commandment topic of this "Discussion" introduces my "discovery" (a child would do it). It says:

- God's 2nd Commandment to Moses orders him: "Do not circumcise."

But, contrary to the saying of JFW and S, I never attributed this to the Reform rabbis.

Conclusion: who forgot to take their medicine, for several days now? Not I!

The ethical question involved about this discussion is: "How can the wiki support a very obviously childish lie just because this lie has been carried along for millennia?" Think about it! If you are responsible persons, you cannot publish an obvious lie without warning your readers, which I am doing.

Sigi's request to JFW and S: "Circumcise your heart, eyes, ears and pen, not your peco!" because yes, this criminal violation of Moses 2nd Commandment is being done every day in the USA to baby boys. It even has been done to an Oregon girl, in 1950 (see http://www.aesculapiuspress.com/ - Books – The rape of innocence); indeed a good American mother cannot want her beloved daughter be deprived from circumcision when her beloved son gets it, can she? Friendly yours, Sigismond 12:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You have not stated a source for the idea that the only thing ever commanded to Moses was the Ten Commandments. (also btw, God command more than one thing to Abraham). And even if you did find a source this kind of synthesis is prohibited by the WP:SYN policy. Jon513 (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You have not stated a source for the idea that the only thing ever commanded to Moses was the Ten Commandments.

- Oh well, if you do not acknowledge that God's Commandments to Moses were the Ten Commandments, better stop this discussion. If the administrators do not fire you for contra-truth and nonsense, I shall leave and never come back and you won't have anybody to argue.

May I remind you: "Thou shall not lie."

(also btw, God command more than one thing to Abraham).

- Your bad and paradoxical faith again! Would you mind going to express your sillynesses elsewhere. This is a serious place, not for warrying adolescents.

And even if you did find a source this kind of synthesis is prohibited by the WP:SYN policy.

- Get lost, you false and abusive lawyer!

I have reformatted the comments to put my statement back together and to make clear where you are quoting me and where you are commenting on it. In general it is not correct to move around another person's comment.

As for your statements themselves, I don't see any reason for continuing this conversation. Jon513 (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigismond, I notice you have repeatedly edited your arguments above to try to improve them. The improvements don't help. Your arguments are still original research and in particular an original research synthesis. As we've tried to explain, Wikipedia can't print content based on the result of an editor's own argument about the subject no matter how convincing editors may personally find the argument. It can only print content based on the result of an argument about the subject when the argument itself has been previously published in a reliable source. That what the WP:SYN policy requires. We're not going to discuss this one further. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)