no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Extremist Muslims Cut Their Children In Utterly BIZARRE “Blood Festival” … This Is D********g

From the Conservative Tribune

The Islamic religion just reached a new level of debasement Friday when, on the first day of the Day of Ashura festival, Muslim parents in Iraq began cutting their children on their heads.

The U.K. Daily Express explained that this 10-day holiday is designed to mourn the murder of the Prophet Mohammed’s grandson, whose body was mutilated after his death.

Apparently, the honoring is done via the spilling of cranial blood. And since kids can’t handle knives on their own, Muslim parents take it upon themselves to spill their own children’s blood.

Furthermore, parents of both Sunni and Shia sects of Islam participate in the ritual. Many Shia clerics reportedly oppose this self-f**gellation, however, because it makes Islam look violent.

You think?

Such clerics usually urge their followers to donate blood to a hospital instead, and the fact that there are Muslims who chose to cut their children instead of donating blood should tell you all you need to know about them.

This ceremony also tends to attract a lot of terrorist activity. A series of explosions in the Bangladeshi capital of Dhaka reportedly targeting Shia Muslims k**led one and injured dozens more. More attacks will likely occur before the ceremony reaches its conclusion.

It is rather odd how Muslims celebrate a “holiday” by inflicting self-harm. It is also strange that some Muslims choose to blow each other up on what should be a celebration.

If nothing else, this holiday just goes to show how incompatible the Islamic faith is with American culture. We prefer to celebrate by cutting pumpkins or blowing up fireworks instead

Some African tribes had this type of behavior as part of their culture, as did the Aztecs as I have read. The Romans slaughtered their children to sacrifice to the gods. Oh well, as moral relativists claim, all cultures are equally valuable and all are equally honorable, so HOW DARE we say anything against this, or female g*****l m********n, or rape of boys. Remember, the "progressives" use "judge not, lest you be judged" our of context any time we dare say anything against muslims.

Jeffhunter

Here is more d********g religion stories from the 'middle east' .
CONTROLLING DISSENTDIVIDE & CONQUERMURDER & GENOCIDEORGAN HARVESTINGP********APLANS & OPERATIONSTERRORISM
logo
HomeAboutAudioVideoJew ListsKosher TaxProtocols of ZionPromoteDonateContact
Subscribe: Posts | Comments | EmailSearch the site
O**h K****rs are a Fraud sharethis Another Rabbi Molests Young Boys – Gets Slap on Wrist
Jews Suck Baby Penises
119 comments
Posted by Subverted Nation on 11Jan10 in P********a | 119 comments
Jews Suck Baby Penises
These jews see babies as sex toys to be exploited at will. Note the look of lust in the eyes of the great f*ggot, bloody penis licking rabbi. How would you like this fella to circumcise your child?
The title pretty much says it all, but I’ll add a little commentary. How d********g do you think it would be to lick the blood off of a baby’s freshly circumcised penis? To most people, the mere thought of this is utterly repulsive, but not to jews. The t***h is, jews are heavily into p********a, bestiality, incest, rape, and all kinds of other sickness, but if you want a good look at how d********g jews really are, then watch the video below of a jew defending the process they call “metzizah bepeh”. Metzizah means “to suck”, and this is exactly what they do during their circumcision “ritual”. Have a look at this:
“There are three stages required for the performance of a ritually correct circumcision in Jewish law: the removal of the foreskin; the tearing of the underlying membraene so as to expose the glans completely; and the sucking away of the blood, m’tsitsah.” Roger V. Pavey. The Kindest Cut of All. Bognor Regis, W. Sussex: New Horizon. 1981. pp. 87-88.
“The method to be adopted is laid down thus: ‘One excises the foreskin, [that is] the entire skin covering the glans, so that the c****a is laid bare. Afterwards, one tears with the finger-nail the soft membrane underneath the skin, turning it to the sides until the flesh of the glans appears. Thereafter, one sucks the membrane until the blood is extracted from the [more] remote places, so that no danger [to the infant] may ensue; and any circumciser who does not carry out the sucking procedure is to be removed [from his office].’ . . . The operation itself, then, consists of three distinct acts: the excision of the prepuce; the laceration of the mucous membrane covering the glans; and the sucking of the blood from the interior of the wound.” Immanuel Jakobovits. Jewish Medical Ethics: A Comparative and Historical Study of the Jewish Religious Attitude to Medicine and Its Practice. New York: Bloch Publishing Company. 1959. pp. 193-194.
“The baby cried, blood flowed on to his penis and – as the rabbi had predicted – Graham [the godfather] did not faint. The rabbi then bent over the baby and sucked the wound. I know this sounds awful, but it is part of the Jewish tradition. It’s supposed to help the healing.” Jack Shamash. “My Son on the Cutting Edge.” Independent (London), no. 3,797 (Thursday, December 17, 1998): p. R8.
“And what of the practice of sucking the bleeding penis? While condemning the procedure, some physicians contend that it was used to stop bleeding.47 Not only is there little evidence for this theory, but it was also a largely ineffective method. Furthermore, even in antiquity, surgeons had better methods to stop bleeding, such as pressure, instruments, and medication.48 According to Dr. H. Speert (1953), Maimonides ‘staunchly supported this procedure [sucking the bleeding penis] as a prophylactic measure against inflammation.’”49 Edward Wallerstein. Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy. New York: Springer Publishing Company. 1980. p. 160.
“mezizah — Hebrew term for the third step in the Jewish circumcision ritual, in which the mohel applies his mouth to the freshly circumcised infant’s penis and sucks up the first drops of blood. In more recent times this procedure has been carried out via a tube, as infections, venereal disease, and tuberculosis, sometimes resulting in the death of the infant, have occurred due to contamination of the wound. Most Jewish circumcisors today have eliminated this step from the circumcision ritual. Critics have attributed sadistic and homosexual implications to this practice, while defenders claim that this was simply all that was known during ancient times to stop the bleeding.” Rosemary Romberg. Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma. South Hadley, Massachusetts: Bergin & Garvey, Publishers, Inc. 1985. p. 395.
“The traditional practice of metzitzah b’peh, which has its roots in the earliest history of the Jewish people and has survived unchanged to the present time, should be viewed with great respect. It is spoken of very positively in the Jewish literature on circumcision both as an essential part of the ritual and as a health measure which prevents infection and promotes healing.” Henry C. Romberg, M.D. Bris Milah: A book about the Jewish ritual of circumcision. Jerusalem/New York: Feldheim Publishers. 1982. pp. 57-58.

Caught in the act, this rabbi sucks the blood from a freshly circumcised baby penis. Other jews look on intently, only wishing they could be the one to do the deed. Metzizah means to suck, a practice jews are accustomed to from birth!
Seems the jews like to claim that this practice is to help the healing of the wound from circumcision. However, circumcision is a barbaric practice that has people lopping off the heads of their baby’s penises all over the world for no reason. Hope to hell your child isn’t circumcised by a jewish doctor, or you might just catch him sucking on your baby’s penis. It’s pathetic and d********g, but it’s a well known and revered practice amongst jews. You can see by the quotes above they defend this practice as necessary, but the circumcision itself is just g*****l m********n, and nothing more, so the blood sucking vampire ritual of licking a baby’s penis is completely unnecessary. To the jews, this is a ritual behavior, and has nothing to do with promoting healing. It has to do with welcoming another demon into their flock, by having his penis sucked by some d********g rabbi at eight days old.
No need to wonder if this has anything to do with p********a, because that is exactly where this practice stems from. These worthless creatures love to have sex with children, and this is a sort of initiation for baby jews to get their first taste of p********a, homosexuality, and incest. You have to realize what we’re dealing with isn’t some special “chosen people”, but instead is a tribe of raging homosexual p*******es. There is nothing good or great about these people, they are d********g and abhorrent to any non-jew with a conscience, or who doesn’t see p********a as acceptable. To the jew, sucking a baby’s penis is fun, and a celebrated ritual of filth. To the jew, someone who will NOT perform the ritual of sucking a baby’s penis is not good enough to mutilate their g*****lia either.
Shabbath 19:2
They may perform on the Sabbath all things that are needful for circumcision: excision, tearing, sucking [the wound], and putting thereon a bandage and cumin. If this had not been pounded up on the eve of the Sabbath a man may chew it with his teeth and then apply it.
The Mishnah
T***slated by Herbert Danby
Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1933. pp. 116-117.
Shabbat 133B
II.1.
A. Suck [out the wound]:
B. Said R. Pappa, “A Surgeon who didn’t suck out the wound – that is a source of danger, and we throw him out.”
C. So what else is new? Obviously, since we are prepared to desecrate the Sabbath on that account, it is certainly dangerous not to do it!
D. What might you have supposed? That this blood is stored up. So we are informed that it is the result of the wound, and in the status of a bandage and cumin: Just as when one doesn’t put on a bandage and cumin, there is danger, so here, too, if one doesn’t do it, there is danger.
The Talmud of Babylonia: An American T***slation
T***slated by Jacob Neusner
Number 275. Volume II.E: Shabbat Chapters 18-24.
Program in Judaic Studies Brown University
Atlanta: Scholars Press. 1993. p. 45.
Sanhedrin 55b . A Jew may marry a three year old girl. (specifically, three years “and a day” old).
Sanhedrin 54b . A Jew may have sex with a child as long as that child is over nine years old.
Kethuboth 11b . When a older man has intercourse with a girl it is nothing because her virginity will grow back.
Abhodah Zarah 22a: “A Jew must not associate himself with gentiles because they are given to the shedding of blood.”
I still hear people from time to time talking about good jews, which do not exist. Or I will hear them say how not all jews are a problem, but in order to be a jew, they must subscribe to beliefs like those quoted above, so how are they any better than the next jew? The t***h is, jews are a race of p*******es, misfits, homosexuals, d*****ts, and losers. Nothing more. They’ve tricked many of you into thinking they are super powerful and unstoppable, but p*******es in reality are usually pathetic, weak, d********g wimps. This defines the jew better than what anyone else is going to tell you. They’re a bunch of greasy, nasty, rotten bastards that think it’s OK to have sex with children, to mutilate their g*****ls, and to suck on their bloody penises after the m********n is complete.
It’s time to stop fearing the jews, and start exposing them for the weak, pedophilic scum that they are. It’s high time jews start being viewed as cock roaches or any other PEST to be EXTERMINATED without exception. Until you get to the point that you can’t stomach seeing, or listening to these creatures, they will continue to have a grasp on your lives. The moment you decide that they are nothing more than pathetic penis licking parasites, they will lose a major portion of their power. Help spread the word to everyone you meet about these d********g p*******es. It won’t take long before they are swinging from every tree in the land. Check out this f*ggot, baby penis licking jew defending the practice of g*****l m********n and p********a they call a “circumcision ritual”. The ritual is for old jew rabbis to get off on licking a bloody penis, a fantasy that makes human stomachs turn, while at the same time causing nothing more than arousal and erection for a jew.
UPDATE:
Thanks to Mike for pointing this out in the comments section below, because I left out an important part of this story, which is a rabbi who gave three babies herpes after sucking on their bloody circumcised penises. I had this link ready to go with this article, but failed to include it in my haste to show how pathetic and nasty jews are. In the story, one child died of herpes infection from the rabbis rabid mouth, and another tested positive for the herpes v***s. The story can be found HERE, for those who would like to see it. A third baby also had herpes from the loving rabbi, who had performed his circumcision in 2003. Note the article says “he uses his mouth to draw blood after cutting the foreskin”. The media attempts to marginalize grown men sucking on babies penises, and says that most jews would use a tube to suck the baby’s penis, but according to the ritual, all jew circumcisions are done in this fashion.
Type the words “bris ceremony” into google video search, and you will come up with tons of videos of this practice. In most, it’s difficult to see the rabbi perform the p*******e maneuver on the babies, but in a number it’s quite evident when the rabbi goes down for his taste of baby g*****lia. If I do find the one where you can clearly see the rabbi perform this d********g ritual, I will upload it to my server at a later date. Not that many people coming here will really want to see it in action, but you need to come to terms with how vile a jew is by it’s very nature
reply

reconreb Loc: America / Inglis Fla.

Pathatic pervert post!!

maryla

If this is what they do, Carson was exactly right and this cult has NO SPOT IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT!!!

Jeffhunter

Oh what's the matter? Does it expose a filthy jew tradition that you would rather have hidden from decent people? All those Middle East cultures are based on primitive outdated foolishness that has no place in MY COUNTRY. People need to be aware of these traditions so that we can educate the masses and eliminate them from society. We can make a difference if we expose these types of barbarism and m********ns for the complete stupidness that they are. It's embarassing that all the major religions of the world came from the Middle East ! I'm sure none of you good christians want to be associated with any of the dark sides of it, but as they say"THE T***H HURTS"

Singularity

http://www.fire.benton.wa.us/philosophy/easterisorisit.html

Nancy Sherer writes...
Easter festivities

"Take, eat, this is my body."
Dinner conversation at Donner's Pass? Nope.
Hannibal Lector humor? Wrong again.
These are the words that generate the Mystery of most sacred ritual of the Christian religion, t***substantiation

This Mystery defies laws of science, changing the chemical structure of bread and wine into flesh and blood. Christians cannot take Communion, according to 1st Corinthians, unless they have faith that they are eating Christ's flesh and blood. T***substantiation enables believers to dine on their deity.

It would be inaccurate to say that this is just a Christian mystery.

Comparative mythology shows that this same communal meal of god-flesh is found globally and throughout decipherable history.

It is no coincidence that the Last Supper was on the occasion of the Hebrew Passover and at the same time of year as the Dionysian Mysteries were celebrated.

Since the end of the 19th century when Sir James Frazier did his extensive research on comparative religion, mythographers have known that this sacrament was not introduced by Jesus Christ at his Last Supper with the Apostles, but rather was a prehistoric ritual and possibly universal to humankind.
However, mythographers, under the thumb of their Christian masters, remained amazed that the Christian ritual transcended other god-son rituals because they could not fit Jesus into the 'fertility cult' formula.

I suspect the riddle would be more easily solved
if the opposite line of logic had been followed - that, like the Jesus myth, Attis, Dionysus, Adonis et al, offered spiritual renewal to their followers as well as mark the beginning of the new vegetation cycle.

There is no evidence that the Christian myth doesn't fit exactly into the formula that humans have communed to since the dawn of history. Ancient myths tell us that for thousands of years, man has eaten flesh of his gods.

Jane Harrison writing in the late 19th Century explains the evolution of this practice in her book, "Themis." The communal feast, the renewal of group unity, and the definition of the individual reborn as part of the social group is a symbolic feast.

Christian Easter is not merely co-opting of fertility rites,
but a symbolic death and reincarnation
of Time, Community and the Individual as part of the community.

However, we are still left with the question of why this symbolic gesture would take the form of cannibalism.

Some mythographers insist that at one time man/gods were actually sacrificed. Only in more enlightened times were sacred animals substituted for the human victim.

Sir James Frazier gives many examples of this, but the best known is when Abraham, prepared to sacrifice Jacob, was instructed by god to sacrifice a sheep instead.

Students of ancient Greece will recognize that King Penteus, symbolically standing in for Dionysus, was a human sacrifice.

From Scandinavia to South America, stories of humans being sacrificed to placate god are taken at face value, and might be true. While theories are titillating, the conclusions drawn from them are beside the point.

Mythologists are meticulous in pointing out
that god-flesh is not part of the daily fare.
It is valuable only as sustenance for the spirit,
and is often taboo under normal circumstances.

Just as the Hebrews didn't consider unleavened bread of Passover daily fare, neither is the communal wafer and wine expected to replace Easter breakfast.

But there is reason to doubt whether the symbolic cannibalism originated as actual cannibalism. Symbolic thought is the single ability that differentiates us from all other animals. Inability to understand symbolism is a defining trait in some human brain disorders.


The symbolism of eating god-flesh may always, as it is now, have been sufficient to cleanse the community and usher in a new cycle.

Christians believe that Jesus was born, lived, was sacrificed, then resurrected with his original body after being dead for three days. (Although I can't make the math work out on that one - there aren't three days from Friday evening until Sunday morning. But then, we are talking magic here, so why expect it to make sense?)

Like other sacred kings, Jesus' death somehow saved his devout followers from supernatural harm. His blood symbolically washed away the guilt of those who broke divine laws.

Eating god-flesh, even symbolically, seems to be the necessary ritual to spiritual renewal. By consuming god-flesh symbolically, communers believe they become god-like. You are what you eat.

Food supply is of primary importance to religion, and the sacramental meal is of primary importance to the congregation. As Harrison points out in "Themis" the ancient word for god meant 'good to eat.'

This is significant when looking at the first passages of Genesis. God was creating food sources during those six days of creation. But sacred food is only for god to eat; like the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, the flesh and blood of the christ was only for god's consumption. Eating god-flesh, even symbolically seems to be the necessary ritual to spiritual renewal.


Worshippers reenact the ritual of Christ's sacrifice by substituting bread and wine, but the purpose of reenactment is achieved.

As Harrison sums it up, "Here the social fact is trembling on the very verge of godhead. She (Themis) is the force that brings and binds men together, she is 'herd instinct,' the collective conscience, the social sanction. She is... social imperative.... It is the emphasis and representation of herd instinct, of the collective conscience, that constitutes religion."

While some Christian sects regularly offer god-flesh to their members, it is the Easter communion at the beginning of the new vegetation cycle that brings all members together.

Believers who only go to church occasionally, go on Easter Sunday. That the sacred meal consists, if only symbolically, of the god-food, human flesh and blood is key to the drama.

Magic, awe, and breaking the taboo of eating human flesh take the communers into the realm of the supernatural.

By eating the food of gods, they can step outside of reality, beyond logic and reason, and believe that like the Year, they will overcome death.

This is the stuff of which religion is made.

For further reading:
"Themis" by Jane Harrison,
"Symbolic Species" by Terrence W. Deacon,
"The Golden Bough" by Sir James Frazier

Singularity

http://www.fire.benton.wa.us/philosophy/easterisorisit.html

Nancy Sherer writes...
Easter festivities

"Take, eat, this is my body."
Dinner conversation at Donner's Pass? Nope.
Hannibal Lector humor? Wrong again.
These are the words that generate the Mystery of most sacred ritual of the Christian religion, t***substantiation

This Mystery defies laws of science, changing the chemical structure of bread and wine into flesh and blood. Christians cannot take Communion, according to 1st Corinthians, unless they have faith that they are eating Christ's flesh and blood. T***substantiation enables believers to dine on their deity.

It would be inaccurate to say that this is just a Christian mystery.

Comparative mythology shows that this same communal meal of god-flesh is found globally and throughout decipherable history.

It is no coincidence that the Last Supper was on the occasion of the Hebrew Passover and at the same time of year as the Dionysian Mysteries were celebrated.

Since the end of the 19th century when Sir James Frazier did his extensive research on comparative religion, mythographers have known that this sacrament was not introduced by Jesus Christ at his Last Supper with the Apostles, but rather was a prehistoric ritual and possibly universal to humankind.
However, mythographers, under the thumb of their Christian masters, remained amazed that the Christian ritual transcended other god-son rituals because they could not fit Jesus into the 'fertility cult' formula.

I suspect the riddle would be more easily solved
if the opposite line of logic had been followed - that, like the Jesus myth, Attis, Dionysus, Adonis et al, offered spiritual renewal to their followers as well as mark the beginning of the new vegetation cycle.

There is no evidence that the Christian myth doesn't fit exactly into the formula that humans have communed to since the dawn of history. Ancient myths tell us that for thousands of years, man has eaten flesh of his gods.

Jane Harrison writing in the late 19th Century explains the evolution of this practice in her book, "Themis." The communal feast, the renewal of group unity, and the definition of the individual reborn as part of the social group is a symbolic feast.

Christian Easter is not merely co-opting of fertility rites,
but a symbolic death and reincarnation
of Time, Community and the Individual as part of the community.

However, we are still left with the question of why this symbolic gesture would take the form of cannibalism.

Some mythographers insist that at one time man/gods were actually sacrificed. Only in more enlightened times were sacred animals substituted for the human victim.

Sir James Frazier gives many examples of this, but the best known is when Abraham, prepared to sacrifice Jacob, was instructed by god to sacrifice a sheep instead.

Students of ancient Greece will recognize that King Penteus, symbolically standing in for Dionysus, was a human sacrifice.

From Scandinavia to South America, stories of humans being sacrificed to placate god are taken at face value, and might be true. While theories are titillating, the conclusions drawn from them are beside the point.

Mythologists are meticulous in pointing out
that god-flesh is not part of the daily fare.
It is valuable only as sustenance for the spirit,
and is often taboo under normal circumstances.

Just as the Hebrews didn't consider unleavened bread of Passover daily fare, neither is the communal wafer and wine expected to replace Easter breakfast.

But there is reason to doubt whether the symbolic cannibalism originated as actual cannibalism. Symbolic thought is the single ability that differentiates us from all other animals. Inability to understand symbolism is a defining trait in some human brain disorders.


The symbolism of eating god-flesh may always, as it is now, have been sufficient to cleanse the community and usher in a new cycle.

Christians believe that Jesus was born, lived, was sacrificed, then resurrected with his original body after being dead for three days. (Although I can't make the math work out on that one - there aren't three days from Friday evening until Sunday morning. But then, we are talking magic here, so why expect it to make sense?)

Like other sacred kings, Jesus' death somehow saved his devout followers from supernatural harm. His blood symbolically washed away the guilt of those who broke divine laws.

Eating god-flesh, even symbolically, seems to be the necessary ritual to spiritual renewal. By consuming god-flesh symbolically, communers believe they become god-like. You are what you eat.

Food supply is of primary importance to religion, and the sacramental meal is of primary importance to the congregation. As Harrison points out in "Themis" the ancient word for god meant 'good to eat.'

This is significant when looking at the first passages of Genesis. God was creating food sources during those six days of creation. But sacred food is only for god to eat; like the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, the flesh and blood of the christ was only for god's consumption. Eating god-flesh, even symbolically seems to be the necessary ritual to spiritual renewal.


Worshippers reenact the ritual of Christ's sacrifice by substituting bread and wine, but the purpose of reenactment is achieved.

As Harrison sums it up, "Here the social fact is trembling on the very verge of godhead. She (Themis) is the force that brings and binds men together, she is 'herd instinct,' the collective conscience, the social sanction. She is... social imperative.... It is the emphasis and representation of herd instinct, of the collective conscience, that constitutes religion."

While some Christian sects regularly offer god-flesh to their members, it is the Easter communion at the beginning of the new vegetation cycle that brings all members together.

Believers who only go to church occasionally, go on Easter Sunday. That the sacred meal consists, if only symbolically, of the god-food, human flesh and blood is key to the drama.

Magic, awe, and breaking the taboo of eating human flesh take the communers into the realm of the supernatural.

By eating the food of gods, they can step outside of reality, beyond logic and reason, and believe that like the Year, they will overcome death.

This is the stuff of which religion is made.

For further reading:
"Themis" by Jane Harrison,
"Symbolic Species" by Terrence W. Deacon,
"The Golden Bough" by Sir James Frazier

Singularity

Also consider:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/communion/communion.htm

CHRISTIAN CANNIBALS

An argument of why Christians are cannibals (and possibly vampires) from Christianity's own perspective
by Jim Walker (an ex-cannibal)
Originated: 07 January 2003
Additions: 10 July 2006
How many Christians realize that when they eat that wafer and drink the wine during communion service that they, in effect, practice cannibalism by the partaking in the eating of human flesh and blood?
I certainly did not know that when I underwent communion in my religious days. It sounds so innocent and benign; "Communion" imparts the concept of sharing thoughts and feelings, or so I thought. Oh how the priests fooled me. They used other obscure terms too, like "Eucharist" and "Sacrament of the Last Supper." At no time did a priest or deacon explain to me that I would share in the communal eating of the human flesh and blood of Jesus.
Cannibal: A person who eats the flesh of human beings.
Since Jesus represents an actual human being, and I ate him, that made me a cannibal. And if you have ever undergone communion, then you too fall into that category.
The Church tricked me and turned me into a cannibal!
Not only did I drink blood and eat flesh, but they made me do it in front of a statue of a bloody corpse h*****g by nails on two pieces of lumber, a representation of the human whom I had just eaten. (Imagine eating a hamburger in front of an image of a freshly slain cow.)
Eating flesh The Church indoctrinates cannibalism at an early age. Here we have a priest putting pieces of raw human flesh into the mouths of children.

Children eating flesh
While Popes and priests visit foreign countries, they also make sure to spread their cannibalism.

Did this priest tell this child that she would eat human meat before putting a slice of it into her mouth?


When I discovered the shocking realization that I had eaten human flesh, and drank human blood I felt like vomiting. Where in the world did this morbid practice begin, I wondered. I reread the Bible for clues. Could that explain the mystery of the empty tomb of Jesus (Luke 24:3)? Did the disciples eat him?
Several Christians tried to console me by explaining that Communion only represents the symbolic eating of flesh, not the real thing (I later discovered that many Protestant Christians don't believe in the literal eating of Jesus, although some do). I felt relieved for awhile until other Christians told me otherwise (virtually all Catholics and Episcopalians believe in the literal interpretation). I began to do a bit of research for myself from the Catholic Church's own position. My stomach began to churn again as I discovered what communion and the Eucharist really means.
Communion
Communion, or "Holy Communion" as the Church officially calls it, means the actual reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. As the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it, "For real reception of the Blessed Eucharist it is required that the sacred species be received into the stomach. For this alone is the eating referred to by our Lord (John 6:58)."
So you can't just put it in your mouth and spit it out. Oh no. You have to make sure you swallow it into your stomach!
I looked up the Biblical chapter in John 6 and found this diabolical revelation:
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (John 6:53-55)
Egads, I thought. Jesus really wants them to EAT HIM! It would make perfect sense if the disciples did eat his dead corpse. Of course you wouldn't want to admit your cannibalism to the unbelievers and you'd have to explain the missing body to the authorities. You might say something like, "He is not here, but is risen..." (Luke 24:6). Yeah, right, that's the ticket.
Disciples eating Christ If the disciples did eat Christ, it may have looked something like this.

Eucharist
Eucharist describes the name given to the "Blessed Sacrament of the Altar," (older religions also used blood sacrifices to an altar. Some used virgin humans, bulls, lambs, etc.). The Christians use it to mean an actual sacrifice by Jesus where they truly believe the bread and wine turns into the actual corporal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Christians also use other titles such as, "Table of the Lord" (Mensa Domini) or the morbid term, "Lord's Body" (Corpus Domini).
From the Catholic Church and as far back as the pronouncement from the Council of Trent, the quintessence of the Eucharist means that "the Body and Blood of the God-man ARE truly, really, and substantially present."
Christians eating Jesus
Here we have a community of Christians lining up to eat and swallow the uncooked flesh of Jesus in what Christianity calls the "Blessed sacrament of the Altar" or better known as the 'Eucharist' during a ceremony of communion. Looks innocent, doesn't it? Not at all the image of cannibalism as usually depicted in folklore.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), stresses the centrality of the Eucharist to Catholic life:

The Eucharist is 'the source and summit of the Christian life.' The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, or Pasch.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1324
So if you practice Catholicism, and wish to remain a Catholic, you must honor the connubiality of the Eucharist. Not only does it mean eating the flesh and blood of Christ as a sacrifice, it means a union with the gore:

In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be untied with his offering.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1368

Moreover, you must never deny the priesthoods power of consecrating the flesh and blood:

If any one shall say that in the New Testament there is no visible and external priesthood nor any power of consecrating and offering the Body and Blood of the Lord, as well as of remitting and retaining sins, but merely the office and bare ministry of preaching the Gospel, let him be anathema.
Council of Trent, No. 961

Note: anathema means cursed, a malediction on your soul.
So how does bread and wine turn into actual flesh, you may ask? The Christians believe it comes from the concept of t***substantiation.
T***substantiation

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Hildebert of Tours (~1079) probably first used the term t***substantiation and the Church later adopted the practice in the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) and the Council of Lyons (1274), and finally, the Council of Trent (1545-1563).
T***substantiation basically means, the t***sition or conversion of one thing into another in some aspect of being. Turning water into wine gives one example of t***substantiation, and turning bread into flesh and wine into blood gives another. T***substantiation, however, doesn't just describe a simple conversion of one thing into another but a substantial conversion (conversio substantialis). T***substantiation differs from every other substantial conversion in this, that only the substance gets converted into another.
[Advice to the Church: Before converting the wine into blood, why not also t***substantiate water into wine? No need for expensive grape orchards, harvesting, or processing because Jesus would do the entire conversion for you for free. That way, you could give (or better yet, sell) bottles of wine to your congregations (you could call it "Jesus Juice"). You could establish Catholic wineries around the world! Just imagine the new converts you would get and, oh how your coffer cups would overflow. Just a thought.]

In the Eucharist, two extremes of conversions occur, namely the bread and wine as the terminus a quo, and the Body and Blood of Christ as the terminus ad quem (before and after). In other words, the substance of the bread and wine departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ.
T***substantiation, as a conversion of the total substance, is the t***sition of the entire substance of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, comes as the express doctrine of the Church (Council of Trent, Sess. XIII, can. ii).
This theophagy (god eating) of course did not come first from the Catholics but had occurred throughout pagan religions long before Christianity. The notion that eating another living human being lies at the belief of absorbing his nature into his own, thus becoming, in some sense, more godlike, similar to the even more primitive belief that eating one's enemies makes one more powerful.
No true Christian should doubt it. Eating that wafer and drinking the wine in Church actually means truly and really eating human meat and blood. In fact, it's the entire body: eyes, brains, gall bladder, spleen, rectum, penis, testicles, etc. Everything. If you've ever watched the TV program, Fear Factor, that's nothing compared with eating the components of an entire human body. According to the Council of Trent, if you deny the T***substantiation, then you are accursed (anathema). You will also get to spend eternity in hell.
Bon appetit!
For the full reading of this official Church doctrine from the Council of Trent, click here.
How does t***substantiation work?

So how does t***substantiation actually work; what process does the Church use to t***sform bread and wine into human flesh and blood (and guts, etc.)? Apparently this remains a deep Church secret. However, we do know that the priests make verbal incantations, pass smoking incense about, and pray a lot during a rite they call "Offertory" (Offertorium). Apparently the actual t***sformation occurs during the Prayer of Consecration, by which the bread and wine cease to be bread and wine, and are converted into the flesh and blood of Christ. At just what miraculous moment during the prayer it turns into human flesh, I haven't a clue and I suspect the priests don't either. Apparently Jesus does the actual conversion, but I haven't discovered the method of how the priests know when this occurs or what test procedures they use to insure that Jesus made the t***substantiation (what if Jesus got lazy that day or just decided, enough is enough?).
In any case, by the time the priest places the wafer into your mouth, you can rest assured that you are actually eating Christ's meat. (It tastes like chicken.)
We do know that an industry exists to make the bread and wine. For example, S&M (I kid you not) stands as one of the companies that make official communion bread for the Church:
Communion Bread

If you don't know what S&M means, in colloquial terms it stands for sadomasochism or the practice of sadism (sadistic) and masochism (subjecting oneself to abuse or physical pain).
Now I doubt that this company's name means or intends a connection with sadomasochism, but it seems an appropriate term if you consider what the eating of human flesh means to the recipient or the giver of one's own flesh. I cannot think of another word than sadomasochism to better describe the act of consciously eating the flesh of a human from another person (a sadistic act) who willingly gives them their flesh and blood to eat (an extreme masochist act).
Frankwright Mundy & Co. Ltd. sells communical sets. They even offer briefcases and shoulder bags for carrying around the flesh and blood of Jesus. What next, I wondered; will they one day build fast food outlets where a Christian can get Jesus meat anytime of day? McJesus? Christ-In-A-Box?
Vampirism
Not only did I eat human flesh in my communion sacraments, but I also drank the "actual" blood of Jesus. Doesn't this make me a vampire also? Although vampires supposedly suck blood instead of drinking it, this seems an insignificant distinction. On the contrary, the drinking and the whole swallowing of blood as opposed to sucking seems to me a bit more bloodthirsty if you ask me.
If you consider the folklore surrounding vampire stories and compare them with the beliefs of Christianity, the claims appear similar. Vampire myths (see Dracula) and Christianity both believe that by drinking human blood, you will live forever. Actually Christianity goes one step further by requiring the eating of human flesh along with the blood (John 6:53-55). And of course you're also eating the penis of Jesus (does that make one gay, I wonder?) and the small and large intestines of Jesus, and the bladder of Jesus, etc. Only by this cannibalistic act can you achieve "eternal life."
Consider also that vampirism and their drinking of blood and immortality represent fiction, whereas Christians actually believe their communal drinking of blood and eating of Jesus' corpse will earn them eternal life. Doesn't this, at the very least, put Christian vampirism in a more deleterious light than fictional vampirism?
Note that the actual Dracula (not the fictional one) lived as a Christian. Click here for more information. No doubt the real Dracula thoroughly enjoyed his communal ingesting of human blood.
Addiction?
Now I don't know why just one eating of flesh and drinking of blood won't get you to heaven, but I've yet to get a good explanation of why Christians need to eat flesh and blood every week. This continual practice of ritual cannibalism and vampirism brings up even more pressing questions about this gruesome practice. Does the act of communion lead to habitual use or an addictive need for more flesh and blood? Consider that Christians have done more to promote bloody wars throughout history than any other group, and their insistence on evangelizing every human on earth to their faith, should non-believers fear that the Christians might turn them into human flesh eaters too?
Communion certificate
(Click to enlarge)
They start this addiction at the earliest possible age. For the first communion, they actually give a reward for remembering their first cannibalistic act, usually in the form of a certificate. (You'd think the promise of everlasting life would serve as enough reward.) Note that nowhere in the certificate does it say that you've just eaten the human meat of Jesus.

Boy eating Jesus


Here we have a Christian boy eagerly awaiting his fix of Jesus' flesh. (Note the extra large portion.)


Woman drinking blood
Christian Cannibalism and vampirism continues into elderly life.
How many glasses of Christ's blood has this woman drank over the years?

Another concern involves the length of time of t***substantiated bread and wine. Just how long does this conversion last? We now know that you must swallow it for its effect to work, but at what stage does it turn back into naturally digested bread and wine? Does it remain t***substantiated even after digestion? Does it ever reconvert? If not, consider what this means as we move our bowels. Should we not treat the remains of Christ as sacred, just as we do the remains of the bodies of dead saints? Perhaps we might consider a better form of elimination of the excrement made from our Redeemer than just thoughtlessly flushing Him down the toilet.
I find the practice of sacred cannibalism disturbing and potentially life threatening, regardless of how many of the addicted faithful tell us it will give us everlasting life. I humbly make the following proposal: that the FDA and the CDC get involved in the study of the composition of the T***substantiated bread and wine and the narcotic or addictive effects they may impose on the human body.
I hope that I have alarmed you enough to contact your local law enforcement office and state representative about this pressing matter. If you and I don't do it, who will?
Conclusion
Even if you still stubbornly cling to the belief that the Eucharist represents only a symbol of eating flesh and drinking blood, that still makes you a cannibal, if only a symbolic cannibal. If you partake in communion as a metaphorical representation of eating Christ's body, then that still makes you a metaphorical cannibal. You simply have no easy out of this predicament as a symbolic cannibal sits as a subset of cannibalism.
You might also want to question the metaphorical or symbolic stance because if the Eucharist presents metaphor, then what does that say for Jesus himself and what Jesus directly says from the Bible about eating his meat? Metaphorical also? How do you distinguish between metaphor and reality in the Bible when it treats all doctrines equally as the inspired words of God? Would you object to the title of Symbolic Christian or Metaphorical Christian? If you consider yourself a metaphorical or symbolic Christian, then you still fall under the label of Christian just as a symbolic cannibal falls under the label of cannibal.
There simply exists no way out for a Christian to escape the cannibal label, except of course to exit Christianity entirely. I did just that and by doing so, I escaped cannibalism along with all the other nonsense. I wrote this article as satire but if you live as one of the millions of faithful that believe in the Bible and the doctrines of Christianity then you must take this article as a serious argument.
Sources:

Catholic Encyclopedia

Holy Communion

The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

Offertory rite

The Council of Trent The Thirteenth Session
Jesus says Eat Me Soylent Green
HOME | BACK

Singularity

And Jews and Christians still engage in ritual sexual m********n.


Controversial Snip-N-Suck Circumcision Consent Form Put To V**e Today
BY GARTH JOHNSTON IN NEWS
ON SEP 13, 2012 10:01 AM

201206_circumcision.jpg
A Jewish circumcision being performed

(WikiCommons)
Today is a big day for Bloomberg's Board of Health. Not only is there that soda ban to reveal and approve but there is also the pesky issue of circumcision consent forms to consider. Yup, just in time for the Jewish New Year next week some Orthodox parts of our local Jewish population are getting all worked up over their mohel's right to snip and suck infant penis without necessarily mentioning possible health risks to the wee one's parents.
Somehow you've missed our exhaustive coverage of what some consider an attack on religious freedom? Well, let's have a quick recap then! Though it is not necessarily required by Jewish tradition, the practice of 'metzitzah b'peh'—in which a mohel sucks the blood off and drips wine on an infant's just circumcised penis—is still common in some Orthodox corners of Judaism. The city estimates that metzitzah b’peh is used in some 3,600 local circumcisions each year. And, after at least 11 boys contracted herpes from the procedure in the past 12 years (at least two fatally), that makes the city nervous.
But nobody (in the States) is talking about banning circumcision! What the Board of Health is v****g on today is simply asking that parents sign a consent form when their children undergo the ritual so that they know what is going on (and don't get upset later). Because they don't always! As the Times discovered this week when talking to a woman after she carried her grandson to be cut. She had no idea, despite having four sons! Why didn't she know about the mouth-to-g*****l contact? "I never watch it, I’m scared to watch it," she told the paper regarding the ritual. "I don’t know what they are doing there."
Still, many seem to see the consent form as an affront on their religious freedom rather than a common sense health move. If the consent form regulation passes today, some ultra Orthodox leaders have promised to sue the city over it.
Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.
circumcision intactivistis jews judiasm metzitzah b'peh

Singularity

This is why I think religions are BAD. They convince regular people to engage in bizarre practices. They make this kind of really weird d********g stuff into mainline thought and get people so used to the idea they can't even notice it. Note how many of the faithful will post angry denials of these posts of mine and vilefy ME because I point out this particular Emporer is naked!

Jeffhunter

It doesn't seem strange to me to watch a man in a dress have a person get down on there knees and open their mouth, stick out THIER tongue and have a f*g put a c*****r on it and say now you're eating jesus! :shock:

Jeffhunter

Jeffhunter

Metzibah pen, confession booth, glory holes, I'm seeing a pattern here 8-)

Orrie

This is what barbarians do! Even their own children become the objects of their sadistic acts of barbarism.

cesspool jones Loc: atlanta

Where do you live?