Leaderboard

Wouk's This is my God was highly recommended by the Jewish Chaplain at Cedars Sinai Medical Center. He said it was an excellent explanation of the Jewish religion. Interesting that Wouk started Talmud studies instead of Torah studies. At Cedars, the chaplain, Levi Meier, studied the Torah, which he knew mostly by heart, in Hebrew; consequently, when one would refer to a Torah passage in English, he would translate it back into Hebrew, so he could locate it. Isaac Singer's books are also an excellent source of insights into Judaism, especially "In my Father's Court".

HEY ALL MAY 27 in the UNITED STATES is Memorial Day ====this is the day we honor the men and women that have died dgrimm60

Little Rivkah Shpielman was a very polite young lady and liked spending time with her Zadie and having him teach her about proper etiquette. One day Rivkah said, "Zadie, I notice that when you sneeze, you put your hands in front of your mouth. Are you doing that because it’s the polite thing to do?” "No sweetheart," explained Zadie. "I’m doing it so I can catch my teeth!”

Little Moishie Rubin was caught by his teacher Mrs. Goldenberg using a bad word. "Moishie," Mrs. Goldenberg said, "you shouldn't use that kind of language. Where did you hear it?" "My Abba said it," Moishie responded. "Well, it doesn't matter," explained the teacher, "you don't even know what it means." "I do, so!" Moishie corrected. "It means the car won't start."

Chaim Yankel replaced all the windows in his house in Chelm. He had expensive, double-insulated energy efficient windows installed. Twelve months later Chaim Yankel gets a call from the contractor, complaining that the work has been done for a year but he hasn’t paid yet. Chaim Yankel replies, "Now don't try to pull a fast one on me. The salesman who sold me those told me that in one year they would pay for themselves"

JoeMo. That is an interesting observation that had not entered my mind. Literal Babylon (the area occupied by the original city state) is Islamic. Spiritual Babylon (religions that have left their first love because Christ has become a stumbling-block to them) i.e., Apostate religion. And as you will see, I have not yet looked at religions that are not linked to Abraham. And what I note in passing "political Babylon" (America comes to mind as an example of this) Thanks for sharing.

Narcah: You have asked a valid question that is well deserving of a response. In background, as I have stated before, for almost 20 years I served on hospital ethics comities, both governmental and private. We struggled with issues that sometimes had neither a simple nor a good answer. One of our guiding principles was that an adult, who was competent, and who understood the consequences of their decision had the right to decide on the clinical care that they would receive and to refuse clinical care that the did not want to receive. As a result, I have seen people die due to the choice that they made, when they could have chosen life free of pain and disability. The classic example of this, which I have previously posted is that of a woman, who was an informed clinical provider, and who had full medical coverage that would have paid all costs of her treatment, who died because she chose to reject recommended treatment and chose treatment that included vitamins, diet and other such. She was informed and understood the consequences of her decision. She was an adult and she was competent. I fully support her right to decide to reject the recommended treatment. In the hospital where I worked, we gave patients who had dementia the right to make decisions as to their care, when we believed that they understood the consequences of their decisions. Dementia does not mean that a person can never make a decision about their life. But, ethical decisions are not always easy. They are not easy when the decision involves another person. I have been involved in situations where daughter wanted to decide for a Father who could not make a decision about his care. They are not easy when the decision involves a child. A parent may not always have the right to decide on the care to be given to that child. As an example, recently the national news has reported on some parents who have pled guilty to criminal abuse of a child. Should such a parent have the right to make decisions as to how the child should be examined and treated for the abuse? Another decision is not easy when the care given to a person affects the health of other people. To what extent should a person with active TB be allowed to go out in public and infect others? This same issue is related to vaccines. Some vaccines can not be given to people below a specific age. Any person who is not vaccinated for such a disease may be a danger to others who could not have been vaccinated. In such cases the public has enacted laws to protect people who could not be vaccinated. To respond to your question: No, I would not want laws to be passed that required people with ARMD to receive injections into their eyes. There is no public safety interest involved. But, there is a general public safety interest involved in vaccines.

Sure! But you may be targeted by certain progressive liberals! Hanging out with either of them would be a lifetime experience; but either case is totally theoretical. I doubt that either one of them would want to hang out with either of us.

HEY ALL we honor the men and women of the ARMED SERVICES that have died dgrimm60

One of the required readings at Andrews for "Jewish Life and Thought" class was Wouk's "This is my God" and it became one of my favorite books. Sad to hear of his death, but grateful for his ministry and his love for God.

Should I post a picture wearing a MAGA hat?! Nah, I would rather hang out with the Donald. Sorry, but guys who spend their time groveling in front of foreign leaders don't impress me. So, yeah, Trump is kind of blunt at times, but I bet you never have to guess where you stand with him. As far as that dirtbag thing, he may have talked it, but he doesn't have a string of rape victims behind him like another president did and his wife worked to destroy the victims. Locker room talk is much different from actually doing things and also is not as bad as working for the killing of unborn babies. So, I guess we have different opinions of what a "dirtbag" really is.

? Better than gold ? Pro 8:19 My fruit is ? better than gold,? yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver.

Thanks.

This is the problem with discussions on internet forums in black & white. If I was having the same discussion with you in person, you would know that I disagree with you, but that also I am not insulting you. In black & white you miss the largest part of communication known as non-verbal communication. You may think I am insulting you, but you also come across as being insulting yourself. And we all have high mountains to climb. There is a reason why they are there. So, don't be hating on Trump supporters. The last election was dismal on so many levels regarding who was available to capture the publics attention. It is said that people are so used to Republicans showing up in golfing clothes with no heart for the struggle. Dems just aren't used to someone showing up with brass knuckles to get things done! Donald Trump has a long track record in his life of helping unfortunate people in tough situations. And he does not deserve the treatment he gets, especially from Christians.

It was both. There were required by law redactions (which the members of congress are free to go read, but they would rather just make a bunch of noise about it) and there was an emptiness of anything to charge the president with. Some complain that the report does not exonerate the president. Unfortunately, they should have stayed awake during civics class. Prosecutors do not exonerate people. They either charge with a crime or not. Simply put, a person (including the president) is innocent until proven guilty. Since there were no charges the president does not even need exoneration. Theoretically, we do not make up rules after the fact to suit our wild fantasies about how things should be. "Ex post facto" is prohibited in the constitution, but to the rabid members of congress, so what!

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck! Your comments regarding our President sounds pretty much like they were scripted by CNN. You have also at times expressed disdain for those who are church members who would vote for President Trump. Never mind the almost frenzied lies coming out of CNN for the last more than two years. And the even louder frenzy when the Mueller report came up empty. And then the Dem leaders went into overdrive to try and destroy someone else because he would not give into their demands to release the entire Mueller report un-redacted. (It would be illegal to do so.) So, for being for a certain set of principles, Donald Trump has been vilified from well before he even was elected. Given that proof exists that Trump was well liked by Dems before he ran for president, it is clear that if he had run and won as a Democrat and continued their leftist policies, he would have been well liked by the Dems. However, by moving to do things like protecting this country and protecting unborn babies, he has incurred the wrath of Dems. 13,000 fully survivable near term babies are murdered every year in this country. A very large percentage of them black. In several large American cities, more black babies are aborted than are born. Sounds like the current Dems are treating blacks even worse than slavery years and figured out how to get blacks to support them. You likely would not have seen blacks supporting the slave owners during the slavery years. You left out Obama from your list of presidents. And like many others, you probably believe in the near saint hood of Barak by claiming that never a scandal occurred during his regime. That is a blindness in itself. There were many. And POSSIBLY, when the current ongoing investigations are done, part of the blame will land squarely on him. It has already been established that Russian involvement was going on and which his Whitehouse DID NOTHING! Don't forget his most famous lie, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." And given that Hillary's campaign is now being looked at as the source of the dossier that was full of lies and much of the blame for the lies regarding Trump and for which lies were told to the FISA court to get approval for spying on the Trump campaign, you really think she was any better than Donald Trump? What this whole political fiasco boils down to is just an attempt at a political coup in American politics.

Why because I do not go along with your suppressive comments? I will not say things I really want to say about you. The reason is I love YAHWEH and in spite of your negative comment about me, I love you too. I not going to tell you it is easy! It easier to get in a spat with you, but is not what we come here for. It serves no purpose and we should be concentrating on truth and uplifting THE NAME of YAHWEH! Secondly, I do not have to prove or defend my degree to you. You have a right to your opinion of me and I will leave at that. Be Bless Photodude!

Morwenna, I will attempt to again responds to your question as to the central beliefs that are required to be considered as Seventh-day Adventist: * The central issue here is that the individual congregation decides who is a SDA member. The SDA denomination does not have a centralized authority that makes this decision. This decision is not made by SDA Clergy. It is made by the local congregation. * In actual fact, some SDA members believe that the decision as to member ship should be based upon compliance with the so-called 28 Fundamentals. These people may not want to allow any difference on even one of the 28. Others may be willing to allow some differences. This position, in my opinion is wrong. The intention of the people who wrote the so-called 28 was NOT to make it a test of fellowship. Those who believe that it should be such, are essentially making it a creed. This is wrong. * My practice, over many years of ministry is to see the so-call 13 statements in the Baptismal Covenant as being the basis for joining the SDA Church. Even this allows for some freedom and differences in understanding. Those 13 are not clear and explicit in every detail. It should be noted while this use of the 13, is not a statement of reasons for removal from membership. * In actual practice today, some SDA clergy and individual congregations admit people into SDA membership more freely that would be indicted by this 13. Morwenna, the bottom line is that a definitive answer to your question can not be given that applies to every congregation in the SDA Church.

Oh what a dark day, and the sun is still shining.