tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19643444558326283482024-03-13T22:57:03.730-07:00Nothing TechnicalEverything Technical is at JavaRules - not here. This blog is for everything except those things technical. Political, religious, social, you name it. Nothing foul, nothing slanderous, nothing racial, nothing illegal. All comments are moderated.James Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-75924612479390965812015-03-10T13:14:00.002-07:002015-03-10T13:37:06.780-07:00PM Benjamin Netanyahu's SpeechBenjamin Netenyahu gave these quotes at the end of his speech to the combined houses of Congress on Tuesday last.<br />
<br />
<b>Deuteronomy 31:6</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b> חִזְקוּ וְאִמְצוּ, אַל-תִּירְאוּ וְאַל-תַּעַרְצוּ מִפְּנֵיהֶם:</b> <br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>"Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them"</b><br />
<br />
The full video of the speech can be found at<br />
https://www.youtube.com/embed/wRf1cdw4IAY?autoplay=1<br />
<br />
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to Congress Tuesday about the emerging nuclear deal with Iran.<br />
<br />
Thank you <br />
Thank you…<br />
… Speaker of the House John Boehner, President Pro Tem Senator Orrin
Hatch, Senator Minority — Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.<br />
I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Harry, it’s good to see you back on your feet.<br />
I guess it’s true what they say, you can’t keep a good man down.<br />
My friends, I’m deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a
third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the
U.S. Congress.<br />
I want to thank you all for being here today. I know that
my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that
some perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention.<br />
I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade.<br />
I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.<br />
The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has
always been above politics. It must always remain above politics.<br />
Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of
promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful
for the support of American — of America’s people and of America’s
presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.<br />
We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel.<br />
Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation
and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.<br />
Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well- known.<br />
I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid.<br />
In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment.<br />
Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists.<br />
In each of those moments, I called the president, and he was there.<br />
And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be
known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic
issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime
minister.<br />
But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.<br />
And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for
your support, for supporting us in so many <br />
Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of
Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome.<br />
Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you’ve done for Israel.<br />
My friends, I’ve come here today because, as prime minister of
Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that
could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my
people: Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.<br />
We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many
have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on
the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the Book of Esther. We’ll read
of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the
Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen
Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to
defend themselves against their enemies. The plot was foiled.
Our people were saved.<br />
Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian
potentate to destroy us. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews
the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest
technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated — he tweets. You
know, in Iran, there isn’t exactly free Internet. But he tweets in
English that Israel must be destroyed.<br />
For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not
the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah,
Iran’s chief terrorist proxy. He said: If all the Jews gather in Israel,
it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world.<br />
But Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the
Nazi regime was merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by
the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World
War II. So, too, Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel,
but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how
dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand
the nature of the regime.<br />
The people of Iran are very talented people. They’re heirs
to one of the world’s great civilizations. But in 1979, they were
hijacked by religious zealots — religious zealots who imposed on them
immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship.<br />
That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It
directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran’s borders,
but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime’s
founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to “export the
revolution throughout the world.”<br />
I’m standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark.
America’s founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the
pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East,
Iran is charging into the void to do just that.<br />
Iran’s goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary
guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of
terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back by Iran,
Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back by Iran, Houthis are
seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth
of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a
second choke-point on the world’s oil supply.<br />
Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military
exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That’s just last week,
while they’re having nuclear talks with the United States. But
unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran’s attacks against the United
States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too
real.<br />
Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of
American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing
and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and
Afghanistan.<br />
Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through
its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and
the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S.
embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi
ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C.<br />
In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad,
Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked,
more will surely follow.<br />
So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.<br />
We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.<br />
Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and
Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran.
Some change! Some moderation! Rouhani’s government hangs gays,
persecutes Christians, jails journalists and executes even more
prisoners than before.<br />
Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath
at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist
mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist
besides Osama bin Laden. I’d like to see someone ask him a question
about that.<br />
Iran’s regime is as radical as ever, its cries of “Death to America,”
that same America that it calls the “Great Satan,” as loud as ever.<br />
Now, this shouldn’t be surprising, because the ideology of Iran’s
revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why
this regime will always be an enemy of America.<br />
Don’t be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn’t turn Iran into a friend of America.<br />
Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One
calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic
State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region
and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who
will be the ruler of that empire.<br />
In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for
Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share the
Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for
anyone. So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your
enemy is your enemy.<br />
The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured
weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with
intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always
remember — I’ll say it one more time — the greatest dangers facing our
world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat
ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but
lose the war. We can’t let that happen.<br />
But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now
being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran
from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran
gets those weapons, lots of them.<br />
Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed,
certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public
record. You don’t need intelligence agencies and secret information to
know this. You can Google it.<br />
Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.<br />
The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear
infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb.
Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade
uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.<br />
According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be
demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be
left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not
destroyed.<br />
Because Iran’s nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran’s
break-out time would be very short — about a year by U.S. assessment,
even shorter by Israel’s.<br />
And if — if Iran’s work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster
centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter,
a lot shorter.<br />
True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran’s nuclear program
and Iran’s adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by
international inspectors. But here’s the problem. You see, inspectors
document violations; they don’t stop them.<br />
Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn’t
stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the
inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.<br />
Now, we’re warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.<br />
Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors.
It’s done that on at least three separate occasions — 2005, 2006, 2010.
Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras.<br />
Now, I know this is not gonna come a shock — as a shock to
any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty
good game of hide-and-cheat with them.<br />
The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday
that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear
program. Iran was also caught — caught twice, not once, twice —
operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that
inspectors didn’t even know existed.<br />
Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don’t know
about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the
IAEA said in 2013, he said, “If there’s no undeclared installation today
in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn’t have
one.” Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And
that’s why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It
leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors
to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran
could get to the bomb by violating the deal.<br />
But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that
Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all
the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will automatically expire in
about a decade.<br />
Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life,
but it’s the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It’s a blink of
an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to
consider what will happen when Iran’s nuclear capabilities are virtually
unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would
then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could product many,
many nuclear bombs.<br />
Iran’s Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have
190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today,
but 10 times that amount — 190,000 centrifuges enriching uranium. With
this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear
arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.<br />
My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last
week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge
capacity when the deal expires.<br />
Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global
terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an
entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international
legitimacy.<br />
And by the way, if Iran’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program
is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the
negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that
nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the Earth, including to
every part of the United States.<br />
So you see, my friends, this deal has two major
concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two,
lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That’s why
this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves
Iran’s path to the bomb.<br />
So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will
change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the
alternative to this deal is worse?<br />
Well, I disagree. I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will
change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for
36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each
passing year. This deal would wet appetite — would only wet Iran’s
appetite for more.<br />
Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its
economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now
while it’s under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour
when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has
mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?<br />
Why should Iran’s radical regime change for the better when it can
enjoy the best of both world’s: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?<br />
This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel’s
neighbors — Iran’s neighbors know that Iran will become even more
aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is
unshackled and it’s been given a clear path to the bomb.<br />
And many of these neighbors say they’ll respond by racing
to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won’t change Iran for
the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal
that’s supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a
nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.<br />
This deal won’t be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms
control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear
tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would
turn into a nuclear tinderbox.<br />
If anyone thinks — if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the
road, think again. When we get down that road, we’ll face a much more
dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a
countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.<br />
Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve come here today to tell you we don’t have
to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for
the better. We don’t have to gamble with our future and with our
children’s future.<br />
We can insist that restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program not be
lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in
the world.<br />
Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand
that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its
neighbors in the Middle East. Second…<br />
Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.<br />
And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.<br />
Thank you.<br />
If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its
behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist
that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.<br />
If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If
Iran doesn’t change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted.<br />
If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.<br />
My friends, what about the argument that there’s no
alternative to this deal, that Iran’s nuclear know-how cannot be erased,
that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is
delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks
to do?<br />
Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn’t get you
very much. A racecar driver without a car can’t drive. A pilot without a
plan can’t fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched
uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can’t make nuclear weapons.<br />
Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current
proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a
very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the
price of oil.<br />
Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table — and this often
happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff. They’ll be back, because
they need the deal a lot more than you do.<br />
And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business
with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more. My
friends, for over a year, we’ve been told that no deal is better than
a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re
better off without it.<br />
Now we’re being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That’s just not true.<br />
The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.<br />
A better deal that doesn’t leave Iran with a vast nuclear
infrastructure and such a short break-out time. A better deal that keeps
the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in place until Iran’s
aggression ends.<br />
A better deal that won’t give Iran an easy path to the bomb. A better
deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we
could live, literally. And no country…<br />
… no country has a greater stake — no country has a greater stake
than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat.<br />
Ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us at a fateful crossroads.
We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that
will at best curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will
inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will
inevitably lead to war. The second path, however difficult,
could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed
Iran, a nuclearized Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to
all of humanity.<br />
You don’t have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to
know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it
will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security
of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire.<br />
My friend, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and
murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and
Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel.<br />
Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, “never again.”<br />
And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history
have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to
repeat the mistakes of the past.<br />
Not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.<br />
But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people
remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are
over.<br />
We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to
defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And
the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first
time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.<br />
This is why — this is why, as a prime minister of Israel, I can
promise you one more thing: Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel
will stand.<br />
But I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel.<br />
I know that you stand with Israel.<br />
You stand with Israel, because you know that the story of Israel is
not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that
refuses again and again to succumb to history’s horrors.<br />
Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in
this (inaudible) chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people
from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land.<br />
And before the people of Israel entered the land of
Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for
thousands of years. I leave you with his message today, (SPEAKING IN
HEBREW - SEE ABOVE.), “Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.”<br />
My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and
resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we
face the future with confidence, strength and hope.<br />
May God bless the state of Israel and may God bless the United States of America.<br />
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all.<br />
You’re wonderful.<br />
Thank you, America. Thank you.<br />
Thank you.<br />
<br />
ENDJames Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-64674547479596622832015-01-16T15:14:00.001-08:002015-01-19T08:48:12.800-08:00TaNaKh and Animal SacrificeShalom:<br />
<br />
[This blog posting was written for most Christians .]<br />
<br />
A question was asked of me the other night. It went as follows: "If animal sacrifice is not necessary, they killed many animals needlessly. Unless the bible is just baloney like they believe over there. Just saying."<br />
<br />
Proper English and grammar aside for now, let's consider this and reason together. TaNaKh (prounounced "Tah-<u>Nahkh</u>" and meaning Torah, Prophets and Writings in Hebrew) is the "Old Testament" in Christian bibles. Torah contains most, if not all, of the law for Jews. In fact, the word "Torah" itself means "Law" in Hebrew. Torah contains about 613 laws by which Jews should live their lives. This includes the laws dealing with sacrifices.<br />
<br />
HaShem says in Lev 17:11, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life. [12] Therefore I said unto the children of Israel: No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourn among you eat blood. [13] And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that taketh in hunting any beast or fowl that may be eaten, he shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. [14] For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof; therefore I said unto the children of Israel: Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh; for the life of al flesh is the blood; whosoever eateth it shall be cutoff. "<br />
<br />
You will also find "... the blood upon the altar... " mentioned many times in the TaNaKh. A short listing is:<br />
<ul>
<li>Ex 29:20</li>
<li>Lev 3:2</li>
<li>Lev 4:30 </li>
<li>Lev 5:9</li>
<li>Lev 8:19</li>
<li>Lev 8:24</li>
<li>Lev 9:9</li>
<li>Lev 17:6</li>
<li>Dt 12:27</li>
<li>II Chr 29:22</li>
<li>etc, etc. </li>
</ul>
So then, some will ask, "Why are the Jews NOT sacrificing animals today? Answer, "... the blood is given to you upon the altar..." meaning, the altar in the temple of Solomon or the 2nd Temple, not just any pile of stones that someone might want to set up. Worshiping somewhere other than the temple in Jerusalem was also forbidden but with the destruction of the Temple in about 69 CE, the Jews had to build other places to worship HaShem. Some think that this was the beginning of the Synagogue that we have today. Anyway, until that altar is restored to the Jews, sacrifices have been put on hold.<br />
<br />
Now, I am not sure where "over there" is except maybe at some Reform Judaism synagogues or at some concervative Christian churches. Most Liberal Christians don't really seem to care who believes what so long as the are properly "churched." Some Reform Jews, most Conservative Jews and/or all Orthodox Jews attending their own particular synagogues actually believe that TaNaKh is the written word of G-d, not just campfire tales that were eventually written down. (Nor do most conservatives and/or Orthodox believe in the JEPD theory that teaches basically the same thing but in a different context.)<br />
<br />
Shalom,<br />
Ya'akovJames Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-909089609380065392015-01-16T14:44:00.001-08:002015-01-16T14:44:05.082-08:00A US Navy Pilot - MaybeGreetings:<br />
<br />
The following is purported to be from a US Navy pilot. Most of those who read my blog know that I am a Jew, American by birth, Southern by the grace of G-d, patriotic and fairly conservative. However, the following email (following this blog), while it sounds good to most right-wing Southerners of the SBC Baptist persuasion, leaves a lot to be desired. Some points to be considered are:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>He flies at night when the enemy cannot see him.</li>
<li>He fires "smart" missiles designed by others - all he has to do is point and aim from a VERY safe distance.</li>
<li>He does nothing to prevent civilians from being hurt - he is told to hit a target and he obeys his orders.</li>
<li>If he ever did meet one of these guys up close and in person he probably would wet his pants.</li>
<li>The initial rant about "All American Boy" could be said about thousands (millions?) of other USA men. They do, or did, the same things in their youth.</li>
</ul>
<br />
So, really now, who is the hero and who is the coward? Someone who fights for his country using unconventional methods (the bit about hiding behind women and children aside for now) or the guy who flies miles overhead, unseen in the dark, firing "smart" bombs against an enemy who cannot fire back because they have no weapons that will reach that high? My bet is that the real heroes are those ground troops, Army, Marine and Navy Seals, who fight up close and personal every day, facing probable death or maiming on every patrol. They are the ones who get "up close and personal"with the enemy. Not some Air Ranger dropping bombs on an unarmed enemy. <br />
<br />
Here is the email that I received. And remember, I am a conservative Jew who loves his country and his G-d but fails to blindly accept government propaganda. (Note: Added emphasis and bold print are mine to show the parts that are really weird.)<br />
<br />
===========================<br />
I Am Coming!<br />
<br />
<br />
Dear Terrorists, <br />
<br />
I am a Navy Aviator. I was born and raised in a small town in New England . I come from a family of five. I was raised in a middle class home and taught my values by my mother and father.<br />
My dad worked a series of jobs in finance and my mom took care of us kids. We were not an overly religious family but attended church most Sundays. It was a nice small Episcopal Church. I have a brother andsister and I am the youngest in my family. I was the first in many generations to attend college.<br />
<br />
I have flown Naval aircraft for 16 years. For me the flying was never a lifelong dream or a "calling," it just happened. I needed a job and I liked the challenge. I continue to do it today because I feel it is important to give back to a nation which has given so much to me. I do it because, although I will never be rich, my family will be comfortable.<br />
<br />
I do it because many of my friends have left for the airlines and someone has to do it. My government has spent millions to train me to fly the small multi-milliondollar aircraft. I make about 70,000 dollars a year and after 20 years will be offered a pension.<br />
<br />
I like baseball but think the players make too much money. I am in awe of firemen and policemen and what they do each day for my community, and like teachers, they just don't get paid enough.<br />
I respect my elders and always use sir or ma'am when addressing a stranger. I'm not sure about kids these days but I think that's normal for every generation.<br />
<br />
I tell you all this because when I come for you, I want you to know me. I won't be hiding behind a woman or a child. I won't be disguised or pretending to be something I am not. I will be in a U.S. issue flight suit. I will be wearing standard US issue flight gear, and I will be flying a navy aircraft clearly marked as a US warplane. <u><b>I wish we could meet up close in a small room where I could wrap my hands around your throat and slowly squeeze the life out of you, but unfortunately, you're hiding in a hole in the ground, so we will have to do this a different way</b></u>.<br />
<br />
I want you to know also that I am very good at what I do. <u><b>I can put a 2,000 lb weapon through a window from 10,000 feet up. I generally only fly at night, </b></u>so you may want to start sleeping during the day. I am not eager to die for my country but I am willing to sacrifice my life to protect it from animals like you.<br />
<br />
<b>I will do everything in my power to ensure no civilians are hurt as I take aim at you</b>.<br />
<br />
My countrymen are a forgiving bunch. Many are already forgetting what you did on Sept 11th. But I will not forget!!<br />
<br />
I am coming. I hope you know me a little bit better, see you soon...sleep tight.<br />
<br />
Signed<br />
A U.S. Navy Pilot<br />
Our Soldiers are one<br />
of our greatest assets!<br />
God Bless<br />
<br />
============================<br />
<br />
Shalom,<br />
Ya'akovJames Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-74869881277391015912014-07-07T15:02:00.002-07:002014-07-07T15:02:34.830-07:00Do WHAT you can WHEN you canGreetings:<br />
<br />
From my friend in Pittsburgh:<b> </b><br />
<b></b><br />
<b></b><br />
<b></b><br />
<b><br /></b>Sometimes it's not really just luck Elmer Bendiner was a navigator in a B-17 during WW II.<br /><br />He tells this story of a World War II bombing run over Kassel , Germany , and the unexpected result of a direct hit on their gas tanks.<br /><br />"Our B-17, the Tondelayo, was barraged by flak from Nazi antiaircraft guns.<br /><br />That was not unusual, but on this particular occasion our gas tanks were hit.<br /><br />Later, as I reflected on the miracle of a 20 millimeter shell piercing the fuel tank without touching off an explosion, our pilot, Bohn Fawkes, told me it was not quite that simple.<br /><br />"On the morning following the raid, Bohn had gone down to ask our crew chief for that shell as a souvenir of unbelievable luck.<br /><br />The crew chief told Bohn that not just one shell but 11 had been found in the gas tanks. 11 unexploded shells where only one was sufficient to blast us out of the sky.<br /><br />It was as if the sea had been parted for us. A near-miracle, I thought. Even after 35 years, so awesome an event leaves me shaken, especially after I heard the rest of the story from Bohn.<br /><br />"He was told that the shells had been sent to the armorers to be defused. The armorers told him that Intelligence had picked them up. They could not say why at the time, but Bohn eventually sought out the answer.<br /><br />"Apparently when the armorers opened each of those shells, they found no explosive charge. They were as clean as a whistle and just as harmless. Empty? Not all of them! One contained a carefully rolled piece of paper. On it was a scrawl in Czech.<br /><br />The Intelligence people scoured our base for a man who could read Czech. Eventually they found one to decipher the note. It set us marveling. Translated, the note read:<br /><br /> "This is all we can do for you now. Using Jewish slave labor is never a good idea."<br />
<br />
Lesson: Do WHAT you can WHEN you can. You never know when it might be sufficient.<br />
<br />
Shalom<br />
Ya'akov<br />
<br />James Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-51674787371133869762014-03-08T17:56:00.001-08:002014-03-08T17:56:08.747-08:00Torah- 5774, 6 Adar IIToday is 8 March 2014, Gregorian. Our reading comes from<br />
<br />
Annual Torah Portion: Leviticus 1:1-5:26<br />
Triennial Torah Portion: Leviticus 1:1-2:6<br />
Haftarah: Isaiah 43:21-44:23<br />
<br />
After reading this portion of Torah today and listening to Rabbi Mecklenberger last night at Erev Shabbos services, I became aware of something that I had not thought about for a while; mainly that we can be forgive through sacrifices. Christians teach that we cannot be forgiven through the sacrifice of blood from bulls, goats, sheep and pigeons, but Torah teaches that not only can we be forgive through the blood of those animals but, if we are too poor to sacrifice even an pigeon, then we can be forgive through the sacrifice of a fine meal offering with oil and frankincense.<br />
<br />
The poor should not sacrifice even a pigeon if they cannot afford it. And the rich cannot sacrifice a pigeon if they can afford a sheep or bull. HaShem is most merciful for He has made it possible for us to live a life that might have some sins BUT when we become aware of those sins the we should atone for them according to Torah. Today, we give money to a Temple fund of some kind rather than sacrificing an animal or bird or a fine flour offering. (This is because we no longer have a Temple and a sacrificial altar. When the Temple is restored, then we will return to a sacrificial offering system - or so I have been told.)<br />
<br />
Anyway, for many years I was taught that the Christ was necessary because the blood of bulls and goats could not atone for our sins. But, HaShem says in his Torah that our sins WOULD be forgiven if we offered our proper sacrifice. I have to believe Torah, not the preaching of some Christian pastors and evangelists. So should we all. <br />
<br />
Not only that, but if we defraud another person, or deal deceitfully with another person, or rob another person, we are to restore all of what was lost PLUS a 20% penalty. Then we have to go to HaShem and offer a sin sacrifice in addition to that restoration. There is no mention of jail time. His plan is that we restore what we did wrong. As soon as we are made aware of our sin. <br />
<br />
Truly, the Jews are called to a higher level of behavior than the rest of the world. And truly we are not only a Chosen People, but we are a Holy People, called out of the world to to the will of HaShem. May HaShem forgive us should we forget His Torah (Law) and His Mitzvot (commandments.) <br />
<br />
Until next week,<br />
Shalom<br />
<br />
PS: I might change some things later but this is the posting as of 8 March 2014 - 6 Adar II 5774.James Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-26513165324616868822014-03-08T17:22:00.001-08:002014-03-12T12:33:02.307-07:00Haftarah- 5774, 6 Adar IIToday is 8 March 2014, Gregorian. Our reading comes from<br />
<br />
Annual Torah Portion: Leviticus 1:1-5:26<br />
Triennial Torah Portion: Leviticus 1:1-2:6<br />
Haftarah: Isaiah 43:21-44:23<br />
<br />
Is 44:24,25p "<b>You
have burdened Me with your sins, you have wearied Me with your
iniquities. It is I, I who - for My own sake - wipe your transgressions
away and remember your sins no more</b>."<br />
<br />
This goes
along with the Torah reading for today. HaShem wipes away our sins, as
far as the East is from the West, and remembers them no more.<br />
<br />
Is 44:6 "T<b>hus
said HaShem, the King of Israel, their Redeemer, HaShem of Hosts: I am
the first and I am the last, and there is no god but me</b>."<br />
<br />
Is 43:10,11 "<b>Before Me no god was formed and after Me none shall exist. None but me, HaShem. Beside Me, none can grant triumph</b>."<br />
<br />
This is like unto the Shemah: "<b>Hear, O Israel! HaShem is our God. HaShem is One</b>." <br />
<br />
There
is but one HaShem, one God. And He is ONE GOD, not two, not three, not
five. This is something that has sustained the Jews for many
centuries. HaShem is our God, and He has give us His Torah, his Law,
for all time. It is through His Torah that we strive for perfection,
which we can never have, but we strive for it. And when we fail, he
forgives us. Our hope is in HaShem, not in the blood of bulls, goats
and pigeons and not in a fine flour offering. It is in HaShem who
forgives us because he wants to forgive us. All we have to do is ask.
We do not need anyone else to forgive us.<br />
<br />
Until next week,<br />
Shalom<br />
<br />
PS: I might change some things later but this is the posting as of 8 March 2014 - 6 Adar II 5774.James Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-89423292899698410312014-01-25T12:24:00.001-08:002014-01-25T12:24:09.624-08:00My PreciousGreetings:<br />
<br />
It seems that there has been a lot of
attention focused lately on Munoz Family problems with John Peter Smith
(JPS) hospital in Fort Worth. It seems that about 8 weeks ago Eric
Munoz found his wife, Marlise Munoz, lying unconscious on the kitchen
floor. She was 14 weeks pregnant then and is about 22 weeks pregnant
now. But, here's the kicker; she has been pronounced "brain dead" and
the family wants JPS to take her off of life support. In effect,
killing the baby as well. JPS has refused citing a 1999 law that
requires a hospital to keep a woman on life support if she is pregnant.<br />
<br />
Eric's lawyers say that this law was never intended to apply to someone who is "brain dead." Question: To whom <u><b><i>would</i></b></u> this law apply? A woman who is fully conscious does not need life support. I would think that this is<u><i><b> exactly</b></i></u> the kind of situation to which this law would apply. Anyway, according to the <a href="http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2014/01/fort-worth-hospital-acknowledges-pregnant-woman-is-brain-dead.html/">Dallas Morning New</a>s,
on Friday afternoon (yesterday) a local judge ruled that JPS had to
remove all life support from Marlise Munoz by Monday afternoon,
presumably by 6:00 p.m. or before. In effect, killing the baby as well
as killing Marlise's brain-dead body. The baby is now 22 weeks old and
will be what is called by the press a "viable fetus" in another two
weeks. So, since the baby could be delivered by Ceaseran section in two
or three weeks the family is, effectively, having an abortion for
Marlise. Remember, she was 14 weeks pregnant when she slipped into a
coma and could have had an abortion at any time before that had she
chosen to do so. Apparently she did want the baby before the accident
and subsequent hospital stay.<br />
<br />
But the family says that
had she known that the baby was deformed she would have chosen
abortion. And the family says that the baby is not only deformed (legs)
but also has heart problems and water on the brain. Something that JPS
has neither confirmed nor denied. My question is this: If the baby
were "viable" at this time could you perform an abortion? Not on your
Nelly! It would be the same as killing a three-year-old baby because it
was deformed, had brain damage and heart problems. The first question
is, "At what point is the beginning of life?" The local and national
press, as well as the family, believe that life begins at 24 weeks when
the baby can be delivered <u><b>but</b></u> that Marlise is only 22 weeks pregnant now and should have the abortion by effectively killling her brain-dead body.<br />
<br />
In
Torah study on the past Monday, one of the gentlemen (obviously of the
more "Liberal Jew" classification) in the class protested that,"What if
the fetus is deformed and/or has brain damage?" He is of that class
that does not understand that life begins when G-d creates it, at
conception, not some "legalese" definition of life such as that
determined in our courts. Obviously I am in the more "Conservative" or
"Orthodox"Jewish belief that G-d's court has already determined that the
baby is alive. It is funny that people in the USA have been convicted
(legally, in court) of murder for causing a woman to miscarry, even
before the magical 24-week statute of "viability" period. Yet, this
judge had determined that the baby is still a fetus and not yet alive
since it is not 24-weeks old. In two more weeks, it will be what they
call a "viable fetus" and re-classified a "baby" by law. I am not sure
but it seems that if the "fetus" were not brain damaged and/or deformed
that the family would want Marlise kept alive. Or so it seems. They
have not publicly stated one way or the other except to declare that the
baby is deformed and has brain damage. I am still waiting for JPS to
confirm or deny that report. But it does not really matter, does it?<br />
<br />
So,
feel free to comment, for or against killing Marlise's brain-dead body
and her baby. Or not. I will publish anything that is "readable" one
way or the other. Meaning, no name calling, no angry anti-abortion or
pro-abortion rants but something intelligent and readable by high-school
students or college freshmen. (College FreshLadies?) No profane nor
vulgar language, please.<br />
<br />
Shalom,<br />
Yaakov James Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-41170792691508567882014-01-23T10:58:00.000-08:002014-01-23T11:06:48.868-08:00PIC - What About Wendy Davis ?Greetings:<br />
<br />
The title above is all about being Politically-Incorrect. For those who do not follow Texas Politics, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_Davis_%28politician%29">Wendy Davis</a> is a Texas State Senator from the Fort Worth area of the country. She made national headlines last year by filibustering for 11 hours (while wearing a catheter connected to a plastic bag on her leg so she would not have to stop to go to the restroom) in protest to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Senate_Bill_5">Senate Bill 5</a> that dealt with health-care restrictions on abortion clinics. This bill would have greatly restricted poorly designed and maintained clinics by forcing clinic doctors to be within 35 miles of an accredited hospital and the doctor would have to be on the approved doctors list at that hospital. Wendy was successful at blocking the bill for that term of the Senate because time ran out at midnight. She finished up about 9:00 p.m. and the left-wing, liberal gallery of her supporters kept cheering and disrupting the Senate until after midnight. But Governor Perry called a special session within a week and the bill not only passed a few weeks later but but the bill was upheld by the Supreme Court of the USA when it was challenged later.<br />
<br />
Wendy became an instant national celebrity and appeared within the week on several national talk shows as an abortions champion. Riding that national recognition for her "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" stunt, she decided that if the Democratic Party of Texas was to ever regain a foothold that they should do it with her. So Wendy now has switched allegiances from Republican (which she supported for years) and is now a Democrat. Personally, this is much like deserting her husband and two children so that she could be a full-time lawyer and politician. If a man did this, the press would be all over him for moral turpitude - and, indeed, even some of the more liberal press are taking her to task about her "little white lies" in her early campaigning days a few weeks ago.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/us/accused-of-blurring-facts-of-stirring-life-story-texas-lawmaker-offers-chronology.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0">Little White Lies</a>:<br />
<ul>
<li>“After I graduated I got married and divorced, and by the time I was 19 I
was a single parent and I was living in a mobile home in southeast Fort
Worth, and I was destined to live the life that I watched my mother
live," </li>
<li>Actually, she got a divorce when she was 21.</li>
<li>She only lived in her parent's mobile home for a few months while she got a divorce from her first husband and father of her daughter conceived out of wedlock at 18.</li>
<li>While married to her first husband, Frank Underwood, she dated and later married Jeff Davis, a local attorney that she had met while working as a waitress at night at her father's theater and supper club.</li>
<li>Jeff Davis cashed in his 401(k) retirement to pay for her to finish at a community college as a para-legal and then go on to TCU and Harvard. He also took out loans to finance her education, something on which she rarely comments.</li>
<li>She raised her two daughters. Actually, while attending TCU and Harvard, her mother and her husband kept the two daughters so the Wendy could devote full-time to her education. When they divorced in 2005, Jeff Davis gained full custody of the two girls so that Wendy could be free to pursue her career and job. (Shades of Jimmy Johnson, former coach of the Dallas Cowboys, who did the same thing to his spouse!) But, Wendy is paying Jeff $1,200 per month for child support.</li>
<li> Under terms of the divorce from her first husband, he got a boat, the mobile home and the
responsibility for the mortgage on it. She got a 3-year-old Pontiac
Grand Prix, a 1972 Firebird and a 1967 Chevy pickup. Davis was 21. Quite a haul for someone without any hopes of going anywhere or doing anything with her life.</li>
</ul>
OK, that's just the surface of Wendy Davis. And, no, I am NOT a Republican nor a member of the TEA Party. I am not a turn-coat Democrat either. I am an Independent Texan who just does not care for lying politicians. (Is there any other kind today?) So, just to be politically incorrect around most of my liberal friends who all gah-gah about Wendy, "Learn to READ before you vote!" Or at least find a friend who can read the newspapers to you.<br />
<br />
Oh, yes; the Republican candidate running against her is not much better from my viewpoint. We have not had a decent candidate for any political office in over 50 years. Texas politics are a lot like politics anywhere else, only down here at least they pretend to be "Good Guys" who are looking out for your benefit. But they are just like all of the politicians in CA, NY, NJ and Chicago; crooked as a dog's hind leg. When they die, usually they are so crooked that you have to screw them into the ground like a carnival tent-peg. <br />
<br />
Shalom<br />
Yaakov<br />
<br />
Some relevant links:<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/21/wendy-davis-story_n_4636538.html">Wendy Davis Misstated Details Of Personal Story</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20140118-as-wendy-davis-touts-life-story-in-race-for-governor-key-facts-blurred.ece">As Wendy Davis touts life story in race for governor, key facts blurred </a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.statesman.com/weblogs/first-reading/2014/jan/21/wendy-davis-bio-how-i-didnt-get-story/">On Wendy Davis' bio: How I didn't get that story</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/19/Liar-in-Pink-Shoes-Wendy-Davis-s-Composite-Life">Single Teen Mom? Texas's Wendy Davis Lied About Life Story</a></li>
<li><a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/20/report-wendy-davis-life-story-more-complicated-than-compelling-narrative/">Report: Wendy Davis' life story more complicated than compelling narrative</a></li>
</ul>
<div id="content_0_headlineimage_0_h1Headline">
<br /></div>
<div class="cmLargerH1">
<br /></div>
<br /><br />James Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-10501325534881420032014-01-14T10:52:00.003-08:002014-03-08T17:24:28.189-08:00Friends and FriendshipsGreetings:<br />
<br />
Ever since childhood I have had friends who come into my life and add to my experience as a person. Some are more lasting, some are more important than others, some are just acquaintances and not what you might call a friend but certainly not an enemy. The juvenile BFF concept of recent days is not what is being discussed here. I remember a quote from Hamlet that goes:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar:
<br />Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
<br />Grapple them unto thy soul with hoops of steel; </i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
[Hamlet, Act 1, Scene3, Polonius speaking to Laertes..]</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Lately, I have often thought of those words. Friends (not family) are important. Family is important, but sometimes your family members are not friends like the ones described below. Throughout life I have grouped my friends into one of several classes:<br />
<ul>
<li>Acquaintances (+3,000)</li>
<li>Working Friends (+500)</li>
<li>Friends (+50)</li>
<li>Good Friends (5 or so)</li>
<li>Best Friends (1)</li>
</ul>
<b>Acquaintances:</b> These are those people that you meet from time to time, chat with, and find that you might have one or two things in common. I have many of those kinds of friends in the business world. These folks could become Friends or they could become an Enemy.<br />
<br />
<b>Working Friends:</b> These are just bit more than an Acquaintance. They are friends from work with whom you have developed a bit of trust - usually NOT your boss or supervisor, but it could be in some circumstances. I might describe these as those friends with whom you might go out to supper now and then, have a drink after work and maybe go to lunch now and then. Usually they would be those on your working team that you can support or they support you on various concepts.<br />
<br />
<b>Friends: </b> These are about the same as Working Friends except that you do not work with these folks on a daily basis. These are friends from church or temple, next door neighbors or neighbors down the street, friends from social groups such as Masons or those on working committees on various activities, such as conferences or neighborhood action groups.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Good Friends:</b> These folks are those who "kind of" meet the description below about Best Friends but have not been "tried in the fire" as it were - but who have proven to be supportive over the years, who would come pick up if you had a car wreck, who would give you $50 if you needed it (and they had it) without any questions - not even ask you to pay it back. And you would do the same because you do not have many of these kinds of friends. I am now down to only a few persons of that caliber who could be called a Good Friend. After all these years...<br />
<br />
<b>Best Friends:</b> This is the person of whom Polonius is speaking above. Friends who have been there for you when you needed them and their own safety or job might be in danger if they supported your position or activity. These are those friends with whom you would leave your children or wife. I would trust these friends with my password to my computer, with my bank account, with my wife or with my life.<br />
<br />
So - how about you? Who (outside of your family) could you call a Best Friend - or even a Good Friend? Careful. Do not be hasty about this.<br />
<br />
Good Friends: Have you known them for more than 10 years? Have they been called upon to help and actually did it with willingness, not just because they had to do it? Did you have to help them out of some situation or volunteer to help them? Did they volunteer or jump into the fray for you? Yes, I am down to only three or four of those persons now. There have been others, but I have long since lost contact with them and now, even though I am sure that we could be Good Friends again, we do not contact each other any more.<br />
<br />
Best Friends: Would you trust this person so save your life if it meant that he/she might lose theirs? I am down to only one person in my life with whom I would share my password on my computer or bank account. At my age, that is really sad but true. A person with whom you could trust you money, your life or your wife is rare indeed. If you have at least one, then you are blessed. If you have as many as five, then your life has been full indeed. <br />
<br />
Until next time,<br />
Shalom<br />
YaakovJames Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-48781709065898154902013-11-22T08:18:00.000-08:002014-03-08T17:01:50.946-08:00SuthanuhsI received this in an email from a Texas Suthanuh and decided that the best way to handle it was to post it and just send the link to my friends. :-) <br />
<br />
Southerners know the movies that speak to their hearts:<br />
<ul>
<li>Fried Green Tomatoes</li>
<li>Driving Miss Daisy</li>
<li>Steel Magnolias</li>
<li>Gone With The Wind</li>
</ul>
<br />
Southerners know their religions:<br />
<ul>
<li>Bapdiss</li>
<li>Methdiss</li>
<li>Football</li>
</ul>
<br />
Southerners know their cities dripping with Southern charm:<br />
<ul>
<li>Chawl'stn</li>
<li>S'vanah</li>
<li>Foat Wuth</li>
<li>N'awlins</li>
<li>Addlanna</li>
</ul>
<br />
Southerners know their elegant gentlemen:<br />
<ul>
<li>Men in uniform</li>
<li>Men in tuxedos</li>
<li>Rhett Butler</li>
</ul>
<br />
Only a Southerner knows the difference between a <u>hissie fit</u> and a <u>conniption fit</u>, and that you don't "HAVE" them; you "PITCH" them.<br />
<br />
Only a Southerner knows how many fish, collard greens, turnip greens, peas, beans, etc., make up "a mess."<br />
<br />
Only a Southerner can show or point out to you the general direction of "yonder."<br />
<br />
Only a Southerner knows exactly how long "directly" is, as in: "Going to town, be back directly."<br />
<br />
Even Southern babies know that "Gimme some sugar" is not a request for the white, granular, sweet substance that sits in a pretty little bowl in the middle of the table.<br />
<br />
All Southerners know exactly when "by and by" is. They might not use the term, but they know the concept well.<br />
<br />
Only a Southerner knows instinctively that the best gesture of solace for a neighbor who's got trouble is a plate of hot fried chicken and a big bowl of cold potato salad. If the neighbor's trouble is a real crisis, they also know to add a large banana puddin'!<br />
<br />
Only Southerners grow up knowing the difference between "right near" and "a right far piece." They also know that"just down the road" can be 1 mile or 20 miles.<br />
<br />
Only a Southerner both knows and understands the difference between a redneck, a good ol' boy, and po' white trash.<br />
<br />
No true Southerner would ever assume that the car with the flashing turn signal is actually going to make a turn.<br />
<br />
A Southerner knows that "fixin" can be used as a noun, a verb, or an adverb.<br />
<br />
Only Southerners make friends while standing in lines, ... and when we're "in line,"... we talk to everybody!<br />
<br />
Put 100 Southerners in a room and half of them will discover they're related, even if only by marriage.<br />
<br />
In the South, “y'all” is singular, “all y'all” is plural.<br />
<br />
Southerners know grits come from corn and how to eat them.<br />
<br />
Every Southerner knows that tomatoes with eggs, bacon, grits, and coffee are perfectly wonderful; that red eye gravy is also a breakfast food and that fried green tomatoes are not a breakfast food.<br />
<br />
When you hear someone say, "Well, I caught myself lookin", you know you are in the presence of a genuine Southerner!<br />
<br />
Only true Southerners say "sweet tea" and "sweet milk." Sweet tea indicates the need for sugar and lots of it -- we do not like our tea unsweetened. "Sweet milk" means you don't want buttermilk.<br />
<br />
And a true Southerner knows you don't scream obscenities at little old ladies who drive 30 MPH on the freeway. You just say, "Bless her sweet little heart"... and go your own way.<br />
<br />
To those of you who are still a little embarrassed by your Southernness: "Take two tent revivals and a dose of sausage gravy and call me in the morning. Bless your little heart!"<br />
<br />
And to those of you who are still having a hard time understanding all this Southern stuff....bless your hearts, I hear they’re fixin' to have classes on Southernness as a second language!<br />
<br />
Southern girls know men may come and go, but friends are<br />
<br />
fahevah!<br />
<br />
There ain't no magazine named "Northern Living" for good reason. There ain't nobody interested in livin' up north, nobody would buy the magazine!<br />
<br />
Now Shugah, send this to someone who was raised in the South or wish they had a’been! If you're a Northern transplant, bless your little heart, fake it. We know you got here as fast as you could.<br />
<br />
Enjoy,<br />
YaakovJames Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-9690749357245589632013-11-19T12:17:00.000-08:002013-11-19T21:05:11.700-08:00Gunfight Rules<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-align: center; text-autospace: none;">
<b><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt;">Gunfight
Rules 101</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<b><span style="font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt;">The “unwritten rule” of Gunfight Rules
is, of course, <u>always have a gun</u>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>What is locked up and away from you is of no use.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What is unloaded and cannot be loaded
in 1 or 2 seconds is of no use in a panic situation.</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<b><span style="font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt;">A: Guns have only three enemies: rust,
liberal politicians, and unthinking wives. </span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<b><span style="font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt;">B: It is always better to be judged by 12
than carried by 6. </span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<b><span style="font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt;">C: Cops carry guns to protect themselves,
not you. </span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<b><span style="font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt;">D: Never let someone or something that
threatens you get inside arm's length </span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<b><span style="font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt;">E: Never say, "I've got a gun!",
without being prepared to use it. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you need to use deadly force, the next sound that
they hear should be the safety on your gun clicking off.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My Dear Old Dad always taught me, “If
you pull the gun you had better be pulling the trigger.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Otherwise do not pull the gun.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Never pull a gun just to threaten
someone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It doesn’t work.”</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<b><span style="font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt;">F: The average response time of a 911
call is 23 minutes, the response time of a .357 is 1400 feet per second or 1150
fps for a 9mm.</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<b><span style="font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt;">G: The most important rule in a gunfight
is: If you absolutely can't avoid it, <u>Always Win</u>! </span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<b><span style="font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt;">H: Make your attacker advance through a
wall of bullets. . . <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You may get
killed with your own gun, but he'll have to beat you to death with it because
it'll be empty .</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<b><span style="font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt;">I: If you are in a gun fight: <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you are not shooting, you should be
loading. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you are not loading,
you should be moving, If you are not moving, you're probably dead. </span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<b><span style="font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt;">J: In a life and death situation, do
something. . . <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Liberals may argue,
but do something! </span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<b><span style="font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt;">K: If you carry a gun, people call you
paranoid. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nonsense! <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you have a gun, what do you have to
be paranoid about? </span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<b><span style="font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt;">L: You can say 'stop' or 'alto' or any
other word, but a large bore muzzle pointed at someone's head is pretty much a
universal language. </span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<b><span style="font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt;">M: You cannot save the planet, but you
must do everything you can do to responsibly save yourself and your family</span></b><span style="font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt;">.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt;">Shalom, </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; mso-pagination: none; text-autospace: none;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-size: 18.0pt;">Yaakov </span></div>
James Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-38040557712235811412013-08-11T11:25:00.003-07:002013-08-15T11:26:12.116-07:00TV Grammar Bloopers 130815Greetings:<br />
<br />
This is a continuing blog and will
be re-posted (with previous bloopers) from time to time, just with a new dateline. It is,
mostly, observances of TV "bloopers" of poor grammar construction
observed on TV programs. If you see (and document) another one please
let me know.<br />
<br />
2013 08 14 1830 NBC National News: Lester
Holt, "We're back in a moment with a question that every parent can
relate to." Better might have been, "We will be back in a moment with a
question to which every parent can relate." or, better, "We will be
back in a moment with a question that every parent has heard before." The first version definitely was wrong.<br />
<br />
2013
08 11 1422: CBS Coverage of PGA Golf Tournament: Jim Nantz said,
"Today's championship winners; where do you think they're coming from?"
Better construction would have been, "Where do you think we are going
to get today's championship winners?" Or something along those lines.
After all, Nantz is neither English nor Irish so ending a sentence with
an uplifting "from" just does not sound quite right, does it?<br />
<br />
2013
08 10 1650: CBS Coverage of PGA Golf Tournament: Nick Faldo (?) said,
"Just a little more 'oomph' and that ball would have got there." More
correctly would have been, "Just a little more 'oomph' and that ball
would have gotten there."<br />
<br />
2013
08 10 1650: CBS Coverage of PGA Golf Tournament: David Feherty said,
"Another one of those two or three foot putts that he's struggled
with." Properly said would have been, "Another one of those two or
three foot putts that with which he's struggled."<br />
<br />
2013 08 10: Advantek Commercial on TNT
coverage of the PGA Golf Tournament, "This is what you have been working
for your whole life." Actually would be better as, "This is for what
you have been working your whole life." Really awkward so a good writer
would have said, "You have been working your whole life for this!" James Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-75855712090030435892013-08-11T10:17:00.000-07:002013-08-11T10:17:15.289-07:00Points to Ponder 130811Shalom:<br />
<br />
This is another of those continuing blogs wherein we will consider various points of scripture from time to time whose title will vary only on date. The main point will be to give us some things to think about that, possibly, we might not have considered before. Hopefully we will come back and re-publish should we get enough comments and have to re-write the blog. Anyway, today's blog concerns "The New Jerusalem" as described in both TaNaKh (what Christians call 'The Old Testament' - it isn't old at all) and the New Testament. Let us begin with some scripture references to this and then move on to a discussion:<br />
<br />
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Blackmoor LET";
panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Zechariah 2:5-9 I looked up, and I saw a man
holding a measuring line. <sup>6</sup>”Where are you going?” I asked.<span> </span>“To measure Jerusalem,’ he replied, “to
see how long and wide it is to be.” <sup>7</sup>But the angel who talked with
me came forward, and another angel came forward to meet him.<span> </span><sup>8The</sup> former said to him,
“Run to that young man and tell him: “Jerusalem shall be peopled as a city
without walls, so many shall be the men and cattle it contains.<span> </span><sup>9</sup>And I Myself – declares
HaShem – will be a wall of fire all around it, and I will be a glory inside
it.”</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";">Revelation
22:10-21 the New Jerusalem is square, each wall is 12,000 furlongs (about 1,500
miles), 144 cubits thick (about 65 meters) and with 12 gates, three on each
side with the names of the 12 apostles on the 12 gates, each gate made from a
single pearl, with streets of pure gold.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The rest of Chapters 22 and 23 finish with the description of the New
Jerusalem and its inhabitants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">There are a couple of Wikipedia passages on the subject, neither of which were obviously written by Jewish authors but are, nevertheless, fairly informative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_eschatology#New_Jerusalem both are fairly well written and, if printed out, might take a few pages. On the other hand, both also have quite a few links should you have any questions. What I have found interesting is that TaNaKh teaches that the New Jerusalem will not have walls while most (all?) other sources seem to say that it will have walls of varying lengths and depths. Being a Jew I follow TaNaKh and I have to wonder why the New Testament would change Zechariah's prophecy and say that there would be a walled city.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">Joseph Smith (Mormonism) goes even further and declares that only 144,000 Mormons would be in that city, not the original 144,000 from the 12 tribes of Israel as stated in The Revelation to John in The New Testament. This has proven to be a bit of a problem since there are now way more than 144,000 Mormons in the world and all of them want in the New Jerusalem. So they have had to come up with an explanation that says something like the founders and the most holy Mormons would be there and that "some" of the newbies would be there if they give enough money and live a righteous life and all of that. After all, there has to be some kind of bait to get new fish on the hook.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">OK, enough smarm and back to the topic. Why did John the Apostle change the original prophecy in the first place? Truth? I have no idea and can only guess and that would not even be and educated guess. But, on the surface, it would be that almost everyone else did the same thing; a city with walls was the accepted thought process. If you have any ideas, let me know.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">Shalom,</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">Yaakov</span></span></div>
James Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-11673037718151322652013-08-10T16:21:00.000-07:002013-08-10T16:21:09.339-07:00TV Grammer Bloopers 130810Greetings:<br />
<br />
This will be a continuing blog and will be re-posted from time to time, just with a new dateline. It will be, mostly, observances of TV "bloopers" of poor grammar construction observed on TV programs. If you see (and document) another one please let me know.<br />
<br />
2013 08 10: Advantek Commercial on TNT coverage of the PGA Golf Tournament, "This is what you have been working for your whole life." Actually would be better as, "This is for what you have been working your whole life." Really awkward so a good writer would have said, "You have been working your whole life for this!"<br />
<br />
2013 08 10 1650: CBS Coverage of PGA Golf Tournament: David Feherty said, "Another one of those two or three foot putts that he's struggled with." Properly said would have been, "Another one of those two or three foot putts that with which he's struggled."<br />
<br />
2013 08 10 1650: CBS Coverage of PGA Golf Tournament: Nick Faldo (?) said, "Just a little more 'oomph' and that ball would have got there." More correctly would have been, "Just a little more 'oomph' and that ball would have gotten there."<br />
<br />
James Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-90451329778823927922013-07-27T13:04:00.000-07:002013-07-27T13:04:35.362-07:00Musings on Maimonides: 130727, 13 PrinciplesMusings on Maimonides: 27 July 2013<br />
13 Principles of Faith<br />
<br />
Every week we close Friday Erev Shabbos with the Short Amidah of 13 Principles of Faith. In English these are<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">1. I believe with perfect faith that G-d is the Creator and Ruler of
all things. He alone has made, does make, and will make all things. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">2. I believe with perfect faith that G-d is One. There is no unity
that is in any way like His. He alone is our G-d He was, He is, and He will be. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">3. I believe with perfect faith that G-d does not have a body.
physical concepts do not apply to Him. There is nothing whatsoever that resembles Him at
all. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">4. I believe with perfect faith that G-d is first and last. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">5. I believe with perfect faith that it is only proper to pray to
G-d. One may not pray to anyone or anything else. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">6. I believe with perfect faith that all the words of the prophets
are true. </span><br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Arial;">7. I believe with perfect faith that the prophecy of Moses is
absolutely true. He was the chief of all prophets, both before and after Him. </span></b><br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Arial;">8. I believe with perfect faith that the entire Torah that we now
have is that which was given to Moses. </span></b><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><b>9. I believe with perfect faith that this Torah will not be changed,
and that there will never be another given by G-d.</b> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">10. I believe with perfect faith that G-d knows all of man's deeds
and thoughts. It is thus written (Psalm 33:15), "He has molded every heart together,
He understands what each one does." </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">11. I believe with perfect faith that G-d rewards those who keep His
commandments, and punishes those who transgress Him.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">12. I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah. How
long it takes, I will await His coming every day. </span><br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Arial;">13. I believe with perfect faith that the dead will be brought back
to life when G-d wills it to happen.</span></b><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Having been accepted into Judaism in a Reform Shul (Synagogue) I have often wondered whether Reform Judaism accepts these principles, especially the ones concerning Torah, Messiah and resurrection. (Those in bold are the ones with which Reform Judaism has problems.) Some of these are covered at http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML/faq/18-04-19.html and, while Rabbi Mecklenburger may or may not agree with the link, I do not agree. I tend to agree with RaMBaM and the 13 Principles as stated. Fortunately, Reform Judaism accepts me as I am and will not kick me out for my non-Reform thoughts. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Mainly, Reform and Conservative Judism has changed, or modified, some of the principles and Amidah to be "Politically Correct" and "get along" with the rest of the modern world. In particular, with the world stance on individual groups, wherein Judaism is a separated people, chosen by G-d to be a particular people, beloved of G-d above all others. If we maintain this stance, then we might be seen as "holier than thou" attitude. Well, so be it. After all, those are the words of HaShem, not mine. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">The other problems are the world stance on adultery, sexuality and homosexuality. The world seems to accept adultery, pre-marital sex, abortion and homosexuality as part of today's culture whereas G-d has condemned them. If G-d has condemned them, then we should as well. True, we can not carry out his punishment but we should not have fellowship with those who practice those things.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">There, it has now been said. Agree or disagree is not important. That is between you and HaShem, not you and me. But it should give you something to think about. Maimonides laid out these principles many years ago and we repeat them every Erev Shabbos and every Amidah Prayer. Maybe we should give more thought to the things that we say in prayer and think about them, especially if we are praying in Hebrew, a most holy language.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Shalom</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">Yaakov On</span>James Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-89347332298841600112013-07-21T09:34:00.001-07:002013-07-23T19:27:06.162-07:00GOLF Still is a Four Letter WordGreetings -<br />
<br />
Watching the British Open right now - and my favorite golfer (after Jack) is Phil Mickelson. He has had a bad year until last week when he won the Scottish Open. Then this week he came from behind today and shot a 66, 5 under par, and, right now, leads by 3 and nobody can catch him. He will win the British Open for the first time. What a guy, what a family guy, what a great person. He has always put his family first, not second, to golf. Golf has always been a job (a great job) and a way to provide for his family.<br />
<br />
I am sure that a lot of guys would swap places today with him but I am not so sure that they would swap places when he has had to go to bed at 7:00 in the evening or get up at 4:00 in the morning or when he had to drive five hours to get to the next tournament and then practice three hours before he could play that day. And his wife could not join him that week because he was just starting the tour and finances were short. Now, today, he has his own plane and he can get there and back to see his daughter graduate and then on to the next tournament and get four hours sleep before the first day of practice. But it has been a long journey and he has worked hard without sacrificing his family to get there. And he has been a perfect gentleman doing it.<br />
<br />
Lee Westwood led going into today's round. He would have been the first Englishman in many a year to have won the British Open and, after Andy Murray (the first Scotsman EVER to win Wimbledon, BTW) won the British Tennis Open, it would have been nice for England if he had won, all of the USA is celebrating for Phil. If Zach Johnson had won, well, that would have been great for the USA as well but Zach had already won the Masters earlier this year so I was really pulling for Mick. Sorry Lee, but, after all, Mick <u>is</u> one of ours. Maybe next year. <br />
<br />
So, congratulations Phil Mickelson for a job well done!<br />
<br />
<updated Wednesday, 23 July 2013><br />
<br />
Just re-read USA Today from Monday, page 3C: "Victory thrilling, fulfilling" - "With skill and class, Mickelson wins one for the good guys" Christine Brennan wrote up an article on Phil that pointed that while other golfers (who are not named here but were named there) cursed openly when making bad shots, Phil not only maintained his cool but blamed only himself for poor shots. Even on the 16th par-3 when his shot hit the green and rolled back down and off the green several feet (about 15 or 20 feet to be exact) onto the fairway and he said, "Wow! That's as good as I got!" Meaning that he had hit everything that he had in the shot and it still did not go far enough. But he did not swear nor blame anyone else. And he still made par on the hole. And went on to make birdie on the 17th and again on the 18th. Then he tearfully fell into the arms of his wife and three children. Even his big old 6'6" caddie was crying. Shoot! Lots of folks were crying for joy with him. I know I was! Phil had won Number Five!! And I was there to see it. <br />
<br />
Maybe I will be there next year for the U.S. Open when he wins Number Six and does the real "Number Six": The sixth golfer to win all four major golf events; the Masters, the U.S. Open, the British Open and the PGA. Only Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods, Gary Player, Gene Sarazen and Ben Hogan have done it so far. Right now only 19 players have EVER won five or more major championships so that in itself is pretty rare company. Tiger has 14 majors and ranks number two in the category. Jack has the all-time record at 18 but he has retired so that record is set in concrete and is not going anywhere. Only Tiger or Phil would have a chance at Jack's record and Phil is 43. But Tiger is getting on up in years as well - he is 37 now so he has to hurry if he is going to catch Jack. Jack won his 15th major at 38 so Tiger is right on track if he wins one this year or next. <br />
<br />
Shalom,<br />
Yaakov OnJames Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-89486711304164844462013-07-20T17:45:00.002-07:002013-07-27T09:56:19.695-07:00Musings on Maimonides: 130720 - Chapter I - III of GftPMusings on Maimonides - 20 July 2013<br />
The Guide for the Perplexed - GftP <br />
<br />
"<i>Open ye the gates, that the righteous nation which keepth the truth may enter in.</i>" [Isiah 36:2] Such is the introduction to Part I of GftP.<br />
<br />
[Chapter I] Gen 1:26 says, "Let Us make man in Our <i>zelem</i>" where <i>zelem</i> is translated as image. Men have for millennium translated <i>zelem</i>
as meaning that G-d looked like a man and some even took that to mean
that G-d had a corporeal body like man. They went so far at to say that
G-d looked like man except that He excelled in greatness and splendor
and that He was not flesh and blood and bone. WHAT, exactly, He was or
is has not been said.<br />
<br />
This chapter also explains that G-d is not corporeal at all by explaining the true meaning of <i>zelem</i> and <i>demut</i>. The ordinary shape and form of a thing can be <i>toår</i> (Gen 30:6, Sam 28:14, Judges 8:18). This term is not applicable to G-d. The term <i>zelem</i>, according to RaMBaM, however, does apply to G-D. Gen 1:27, "In the <i>zelem</i> of G-d He created him." <br />
<br />
<i>Demut</i>
comes from the term "he is like unto...". This denotes a general
abstract term that means in agreement with something as regards an
abstract relationship. For example, "I am like a pelican in the
wilderness." (Ps 102;7) David does not mean that he has feathers,
claws and a beak but rather that he is sad like a pelican that is lost
without the rivers and lakes to the point of sadness.<br />
<br />
[Chapter II] RaMBaM points out the <i>Elohim</i> (mighty ones, lords, angels, judges, rulers, etc.) is the plural form of <i>Eloha</i>. <i>Elohim</i>
also is the singular form of G-d Almighty. This was properly pointed
out by Onkelos the Proselyte where he explained that Gen 3:5 "And ye
shall be like <i>Elohim "</i> is properly translated as "Ye shall be
like princes " or "Ye shall be like kings " rather than "Ye shall be
like G-d ". The rest of Chapter II deals with explaining that mankind
should study and not just read the TaNaKh (the Bible) now and then. It
is only by deep insight that we can understand the simple words that G-d
has llaid out before us.<br />
<br />
The words of <i>emet</i> and <i>sheker</i>, of true and false, of morally right and wrong, the <i>tov</i> and <i>ra'</i>
- distinctions that are applied to all arguments. Also, RaMBaM covers
the passage in Psalms 8:6, "Thou has made him (man) a little lower than
the angels."<br />
<br />
<-- Begin Commentary --><br />
Personally, because of
the right of any Jew to interpret TaNaKh according to what he sees fit
so long as it does not conflict with the TaNaKh itself, I have always
seen this as passage as, "Thou has made him a little lower than God."
where <i>Elohim</i> is interpreted as G-d. That would put mankind above the angles but lower than G-d. Now, back to Maimonides.<br />
<-- End Commentary --><br />
<br />
After
Adam transgressed in the Garden of Eden and he fully understood what he
had lost he understood the passage, "ye shall be like <i>elohim</i>
knowing good and evil " but not in the sense of discerning the true and
false. It was then that the eyes of Adam and Eve were opened and they
both knew that they were naked. After that, Adam had to sweat to make
the Earth produce her fruit and bread and thorns and thistles grew where
pleasant foods had grown before.<br />
<br />
[Chapter III] This chapter deals with the Hebrew Homonym words words <i>temunah</i> and <i>tabnit</i> that many think are the same, but they are not. <i>Tabnit</i> is derived from <i>banah</i>, meaning "he built" and signifies to build or construct a thing. Compare this with the <i>tabnit</i> of the Tabernacle and the <i>tabnit</i> or pattern of its vessels (Ex 35:40). On the other hand, <i>temunah</i> is used in three different senses.<br />
<ul>
<li>the outlines of things are perceived by our bodily senses, their shape or form. "And ye make an image the form (<i>temunat</i>) of some likeness " (Dt 4:16)</li>
<li>the forms of our imagination, or the impressions retained in our
imagination when the objects no longer affect our senses. For example,
"in thoughts from the visions of the night" in Job 4:13, which concludes
"it remained but I could not recognize its sight, only an image (<i>temunah</i>) was before my eyes, "</li>
<li>the true form of an object that is perceived only by the intellect.
it is this term that is applied to G-d. The words "And the similitude
of the HaShem shall he behold" (Num 12:8) means "he shall comprehend the
true essence of HaShem."</li>
</ul>
Next week I shall try and cover another three chapters or so.
Hang around, comment if you like. If you can find a way to put Hebrew
letters into a blog like this let me know and I will do it. I really
hate having to transliterate into English.<br />
<br />
Shalom<br />
Yaakov OnJames Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-581732029273506082013-07-14T08:19:00.001-07:002013-07-14T08:19:33.988-07:00What's The Rush Already ??Shalom:<br />
<br />
I have been to a few Friday evening services where the Rabbi seemed to try and get through the passages extremely quickly, as though there were a fire behind the altar and he (or she, as the case may be) were trying to get through quickly and get the congregation out of the building before it spread any further. Another analogy? OK, she is going so fast it is as though she has a cake in the oven that is burning. Enough already! We get the point. <br />
<br />
So! What's the rush? Last Erev Shabbos I was privileged to attend my very first Erev Shabbos in the home of one of the members' home. It was a pot-luck supper before services but, even then, the gentleman who led services (it was at his home) seemed in a hurry to get through. It seemed that everyone wanted to get home early that evening for something or the other.<br />
<br />
Way back in my youth I remember that there was an old black Christian pastor who used to remark about the white Christian churches who started at 11:00 sharp and quit at 12:00 dull, "You know, those folks don't realize that sometimes the Holy Spirit don't get there until 2 or 3 O'clock in the afternoon." Maybe we could take a hint from that old gentleman. Reading in TaNaKh I remember that some of the celebrations of the High Holy Days went on at the Temple for days, some of the regular Shabbos services lasted from Friday evening until Saturday evening, not for an hour or so but for 24 hours straight. Those folks knew how to just praise G-d. To them, HaShem was not just a name in a book, a word that one said during a prayer. He was a living G-D, <u>The</u> Living G-D of Israel, a very personal G-d, a Personal G-d who cared about Israel, a G-d who cared about everyone in Israel and Judah, right down the the smallest baby. If only we could get back to that rapport with Him.<br />
<br />
So, when we say our prayers to G-d, why not emphasize the words as though they came from the heart every time? When we say, "Magnified and Glorified", why not mean it? When we say, "Holy G-d", why not mean it and emphasize the "Holy" as though even the word itself was holy?<br />
<br />
Just a thought...<br />
<br />
Shalom.<br />
<br />
Yaakov OnJames Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-59340683737797289552013-07-13T18:14:00.002-07:002013-07-27T09:55:13.620-07:00Musings on Maimonides: 130713 - Introduction to GftPShalom:<br />
<br />
Musings on Maimonides<br />
6 Av 5773 [13 July 2013]<br />
Introduction to <i><u>Guide for the Perplexed</u></i><br />
<br />
During the introduction in <i><u>Guide for the Perplexed</u></i> RaMBaM (Maimonides) gets off into two subjects; prophecy and how to teach. RaMBaM feels, as did his mentors, that teachers should never give the truth of the scriptures to more than one person without cloaking it the obscurity of metaphors and allegories, much like the Christ taught the masses with examples (called parables in the New Testament) while he taught his disciples more directly. It comes from the adage, "The <i><b>Ma'aseh Bereshith</b></i> must not be expounded in the presence of two."<br />
<br />
The other principle that he covers is also covered later in a chapters on prophesy. RaMBaM feels that prophesy is a gift from HaShem BUT that HaShem gives true prophesy only to those who have studied hard and long and have proven themselves worthy of the gift. RaMBaM says that prophesy comes in several forms, all of which may be akin to flashes of lightning that light up the darkness of our lives. That person is able to see through the veil of darkness for a moment much as person is able to see in a moonless night when lightning flashes across the plains of Jericho. But, to each prophet is given only what that person needs as a prophet. RaMBaM describes it as follows :<br />
<ul>
<li>A flash of lightning where a person gives a prophesy once and never gives another. (Num 11:25)</li>
<li>Many flashes of lighting so that a long vision is seen or a few really long flashes separated by many years wherein the prophet is given many visions over the years. This is similar to the prophets of old, like Isiah or Jeremiah or Daniel.</li>
<li>For some, such as Moshe, the lightening is continuous and night seems like day. Indeed, the skin of his face shone during the day. (Ex 34:29) </li>
<li>For others it flickers as the light of a rotating sword in candle light. Just now and then as a candle in the wind.</li>
</ul>
But, even for these, HaShem does not give anything unless that person is prepared. And even if prepared, that person may never see through the night in a single prophesy. Indeed, many aspiring prophets during the days of Samuel prepared diligently but never received the gift of prophesy.<br />
<br />
Now, you might ask, why would the sages <u>not</u> want to divluge the truths of scripture plainly and openly rather than cloaking them in riddles and allegories? Why did the Christ do this? Simple. Because we have been taught from the scripture to do this:<br />
<ul>
<li>Hosea 12:10 - "I hae also spoken in similies by the Prophets."</li>
<li>Ezekiel 17:2 - "Put forth a riddle and speak a parable."</li>
<li>Ezekiel 21:5 - "Does He (meaning HaShem) not speak parables?"</li>
<li>Proverbs 1:6 - "To understand a proverb and figurative speech, the words of the wise and their dark sayings..." </li>
<li>Midrash, <i>Shir ha-shirim Rabba</i>; "To what were the words of the Law to be compared before the time of Solomon? To a well the waters of which are at a great depth, and though cool and fresh, yet no man could drink of them. A clever man joined cord with cord, and roope with rope, and drew up and drank. so Solomon went from figure to figure, and from subject to subject, till he obtained the true sense of the Law."</li>
</ul>
There is a parable of the Sages: "If a man loses in his house a sela, or a pearl,
he can find it by lighting a taper worth only one issar. Thus the
parables in themselves are of no great value, but through them the words
of the holy Law are rendered intelligible." This is the way of Maimonides and the Sages of the past. But RaMBaM chose to break with tradition and write some books wherein he disclosed some of the truth to the world; not all of it but just a glimmer of the truth. A crack in the Temple Wall but he leaves it up the reader to dig out the rest of the truth. For example, he may give the meaning of a word, but he leaves it up the reader to disclose the truth of the meaning of the word.<br />
<br />
An example this is given: Solomon once said, "A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in vessels of silver." (Proverbs 25:11) The word <i><b>maskiyoth</b></i>, the Hebrew equivalent for "vessels," denotes "filigree network" , meaning things in which there are very small apertures, such as are frequently wrought by silversmiths. These are called in Hebrew <i><b>maskiyyoth</b></i>, or literally, "transpicuous", from the verb <i><b>sakah</b></i>, meaning "he saw", a root word which occurs also in the Targum of Onkelos, Genesis 36:8, because the eye penetrates through them. Thus Solomon might be interpreted to say, "Just as apples of gold in silver filigree with small apertures, so is a word fitly spoken." Not quite word-for-word from RaMBaM but close.<br />
<br />
<Begin my personal commentary. Skip if you like.><br />
<br />
In the Targum and other writings you will note that scripture interpretation sometimes takes off into wild and unruly directions that often <b><i>seem</i></b> conflict with the original meanings. Personally, I hold that ANY interpretation given by anyone should NEVER conflict with the plain meaning that is given. When HaShem says, "Do NOT commit adultery." then no interpretation can ever be given that would permit adultery under any circumstances. Period. End of discussion. HaShem has said that neither you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your wife, nor your man servant, nor your female servant, nor any of your slaves, nor your ox, nor your ass, nor stranger within your gates shall do any work on the Shabbos. So, in my house, we do no work on the Shabbos. Nothing. We do not go to movies, we do not eat out at restaurants, we do not go to ball games, we buy nothing, we do no commercial business whatsoever. But, we might go to the rifle range since it is a club <u>and</u> is supported totally by dues of the members <u>and</u> there are no paid employees - none. We go to Shabbos services on Friday evening or Saturday morning or both. We enjoy meals together that are Kosher. We enjoy movies and snacks and the company of friends and family. My son might even go play music with his friends. But no work whatsoever. No studies for school, no studies for work, reading only of TaNaKh or reading books and/or magazines for pleasure. TV is permitted but usually we watch movies or TCM just to be on the "safe side" and not so that we are the cause of others having to work.<br />
<br />
When HaShem says, "You shall not light a fire on Shabbos." that means that you shall not light a fire on the Shabbos. Period. End of discussion. Now, some have said that turning on a light switch causes a fire in light bulb. Others say that the bulb does not burn and is not consumed and is, therefore, not a fire. That is between them and HaShem. Personally, I hold to the second opinion that the bulb glows but is not consumed, that throwing the switch is not work, that since the bulb is "ignited" from another glowing source that the fire has not been "lighted" but ignited from anther source and therefore scripture has not been broken. However, there are times when I do not turn on lights because I feel that if I do that it might be breaking the commandments. Maybe... But if and when I do turn on the switch, I never feel guilty afterwards since I do not think that turning on the switch is a sin. Strange, huh? I have learned to live it.<br />
<br />
All of the last two paragraphs to say this: RaMBaM had to rationalize in his day just as we have to rationalize in our day. The commandments of HaShem were give to LIVE BY and so we shall. We shall follow all of the ones that are humanly possible. Those which we cannot follow, such as stoning those who commit adultery or who use the name of HaShem in vain, we will leave for HaShem to punish. But we do not have to fellowship with those persons in the synagogue, our version of the Temple of HaShem today, until those person repent of their sins and return to the commandments of HaShem, blessed be His Name.<br />
<br />
<And, so ends my personal commentary.><br />
<br />
Maimonides felt that there are seven causes of inconsistencies and contradictions that have to be met an any literary work. These are listed here:<br />
<ol>
<li>The author collects opinions from various sources but does not give credit to those various sources nor mention the names of the other authors. Because of this, various conflicting opinions may be stated but the reader does not know which author said which.</li>
<li>The author holds first one opinion and then another that conflicts with the first. </li>
<li>Some passages should be taken literally and some figuratively but the author is never really clear which is which. This leads to seemingly conflicting statements that, while not meant that way, might seem that way to the normal reader.</li>
<li>The premises are not fully stated in conflicting statements leading to apparent contradictions that are not really contradictions but only contradictions in appearance.</li>
<li>The teacher assumes that the student understands a theorem or clause that is given in a class but does not fully explain that theorem or clause. If the teacher does not go back and explain then the student is left in a confused state of mind.</li>
<li>The contradiction is not immediately evident but only becomes evident over time and with a series of premises and through later studies. The larger the number of premises the larger the probability that this will happen.</li>
<li>The author, or teacher, has to introduce metaphysical problems that can be disclosed only partly at the time. Later these are discussed more fully and may seem, to the student or reader, contradictory but, in reality, are complementary. The author, or teacher, must endeavor, by concealing the fact as much as possible, to prevent the uneducated reader from perceiving the seeming contradiction.</li>
</ol>
RaMBaM says that, "Inconsistencies occuring in the Mishnah and Boraitot are traceable to the first caue. You meet frequently in the Gemara with passages like the following:- 'Does not the beginning of the passage contradict the end? No; the beginning is the dictum of a certain Rabbi; the end that of another' ; or, "Rabbi (Jehudah ha-Nasi) approved of the opinion of a certain rabbi in one case and gave it therefore anonymously, and having acceptated that of another rabbi in that of another in the other case he introduced that view without naming the authority.' ; or 'Who is he author of this anonymous dictum? Rabbi A.' 'Who is the author of that aragraph in the Mishnah? Rabbi B.' Instances of this kind are innumerable." [Note: I did not obtain permission for this quote but I am sure that the original author, RaMBaM, would not mind.] There are many more instances of seemingly apparent contradictions and inconsistencies in Talmud and Gemara but you need to read these for yourself.<br />
<br />
Next week we shall begin with Part I and hopefully get through the first few chapters. I went over the page hits and, so far, nobody is looking so I do not have much to worry about on screaming comments. I seem to be writing for self-edification. But, that is good too. :-)<br />
<br />
Shalom<br />
Yaakov On<br />
<br />
<br />James Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-45103117305369069452013-07-06T20:47:00.001-07:002013-07-27T09:54:36.356-07:00Musings on Maimonides: 130607 - Analysis of Guide for the PerplexedMusings on Maimonides, 6 July 2013<br />
Analysis of the Guide for the Perplexed<br />
<br />
This part of the blog deals with the introduction of "Guide to the Perplexed" - or GttP - as given by RaMBaM himself and as explained by the author. Part I of the book deals with the exposition of the esoteric ideas contained in the books of the Prophets, part II with a treatment of certain metaphysical problems and part III with an examination of the system and methods of Islam, or the Kalam, as he calls them. It has been said that RaMBaM was a zealous disciple of Aristotle which might explain many of his strange ideas with regard to trying to reconcile G-d with the universe. Aristotle proposed the theory of the eternity of the universe which is contrary to the teaching of the scriptures. The scriptures teach that only G-d is eternal and that He created the universe from nothing. This is the same trap of many modern-day so-called scholars who try to reconcile the scriptures with modern science theories and the Big Bang Theory. I have asked several of them what existed before the Big Bang and most answer that they either do not know or that the question is a nonsense question. So much for "modern science." Unfortunately you can believe one or the other but not both at the same time. Supposedly Maimonides does expose the fundamental weaknesses of the Kalam with regards to their theories of the universe. Please note that I do not capitalize Universe as Maimonides but use the more modern version of universe.<br />
<br />
Maimonides goes to great lengths to show that G-d is not a corporeal being and that references to His hands, His ears and mouth etc do not refer to a corporeal being but to attributes so that we can understand him. He also deals with<br />
<ul>
<li>The existence of Evil</li>
<li>Omniscience and Providence of G-d</li>
<li>Temptations</li>
<li>Design in Nature, in the Law and in the Biblical Narratives</li>
<li>True Worship of G-d</li>
</ul>
Any one of these subjects would be an excellent topic for any Friday evening or Saturday morning sermon or lecture for a Rabbi. Or for a Christian pastor, for that matter. They could preach for a month on any one of those topics and not cover the subject. Maimonides also dealt with the conflict between science and religion, something with which we still struggle today. His take on this seemed to be that we misinterpret the anthropomorphisms in the Holy Writ. <br />
<br />
Prior to the time of Maimonides Jewish writers had taken the position that the Torah (the first five books of the TaNaKh, the Bible) spoke in the language of man. Maimonides thought that all of TaNaKh was written for the more educated persons to explain to the less educated persons, or, in other words, a riddle that, on the surface, seemed simple but contained a much deeper explanation that could be understood only by those sufficiently trained over the years in the mysteries of the language and science. For now we will deal with GftP as RaMBaM dealt with them. Indeed, Maimonides pleads with the reader not to be hasty with criticism since he has carefully considered every sentence and every word before it was written down. Often he closes a thought with the admonition to consider carefully what has been said and go and think about it. Much like some of the passages of scripture end with the expression of <i><b>"Selah."</b></i> meaning, "Pause and meditate."<br />
<br />
I shall, before each section of the GftP, attempt to give an overview before jumping into the deep end. I have found each section more exciting than the section before. However, before jumping into GftP I would like to discuss the Thirteen Principles as an overview. Most are pretty simple if you are Jewish, Christian or Muslim. If not, they might not appear so simple but I shall explain anyway.<br />
<br />
So, for now, let us leave off with what I have done and next week I shall go on to the Thirteen Principles of Maimonides that we say every Friday evening as the Yigdal. Then on to a brief weekly discussion of "Guide for the Perplexed."<br />
<br />
Shalom,<br />
Yaakov On<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />James Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-75749145689914523062013-07-06T13:26:00.001-07:002013-07-27T09:53:59.807-07:00Musings on Maimonides: 130706, IntroMusings on Maimonides, 7 July 2013, Introduction<br />
<br />
This is, what I hope to be, the beginnings of a series of a group of writings, or musings, if you will, on one of the greatest writers in Jewish history, maybe of the world, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides"><b>R</b>abbi <b>M</b>osheh <b>B</b>en <b>M</b>aimon</a>, , or <b>R</b>a<b>MB</b>a<b>M</b> for short, who is often called Moses Maimonides in English. He lived from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover">Passover</a> Eve (erev Passover) in 1135 until 12 December 1204. In Arabic he was known as Musa Ibn Ben Maimon. He was the most preeminent medieval Spanish Jewish philosopher, medical doctor, astronomer and scientist of his time. It has been said in Judaism that, "From Moses to Moses there has never been another like Moses." Meaning, of course, that only Maimonides was anything like the original <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses">Moses</a>, the first prophet, law-giver and brother of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron">Aaron</a> the High Priest. Born in Corboda (present-day Spain) he rose to be head of the Jewish community in Egypt and his writings were met with acclaim as far off a Yemen and Israel. His fourteen-volumn <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishneh_Torah">Mishneh Torah</a> is still the foundation of Jewish thought and became the cornerstone of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud">Talmud</a>, considered the "Oral Torah" for most of Judaism. His <a href="http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/48923722.html">Thirteen Principles</a> of faith are the foundation of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yigdal">Yigdal</a> for final part of erev Shabbos services every Friday evening services in most Synagogues.<br />
<br />
Most in Judaism already know all of that and the first paragraph was intended for everyone else. So what I have to say now is for everyone including my fellow Jews. :-) Too often we talk of Moshe without reading his works. His most famous work is "The Guide for the Perplexed", a work that can be found in paperback from almost any bookstore, even Amazon or B&N. The one that I have is the 2nd edition and was translated from the original Arabic text by Dr. M. Friedlander back in 1956 so it is not a very modern book at all - but quite good. The first edition was in three volumes and contained many more notes and Hebrew words and translations which would have been far more helpful. The second edition is more concise and maybe more readable to the casual reader.<br />
<br />
The first book that I read from Maimonides was "Guide for the Perplexed" and it took quite a while to absorb everything. It is dedicated to one of his students, Joseph, the son of Jehudah Ibn Aknin, a diciple of Maimonides, and it is addressed to him as an example of this kind of student. It is "for him and for those like him." RaMBaM assumed that those who would read - and understand - his work would be those who had already studied sufficiently to comprehend scientific thought, mathematical concepts and philosophical treatises. He never considered that anyone else was worthy of reading his works. To say that Maimonides was conceited would be a bit of an understatement but, all things considered, he did not want the uneducated to read his works and comment on them. The book is divided into three parts: Part I has 76 short chapters, rarely exceeding a page or so in length, dealing mostly with word definitions and explanations but also dealing with divine names, terms, emotions, heaven and earth, and the the twelve propositions of the Kalam. Part II has 47 chapters dealing with the 26 propositions employed by the philosophers to prove the existence of G-d among other things and true prophesy. Part III has 49 chapters that deal with his introduction and apology for publishing, contrary to the teaching of the Mishnah, an interpretation of Ezekiel. Since that covers, by my count, 172 chapters - I will not take an entire post for each chapter but will try and deal with several chapters with each post or I might even skip a few chapters along the way - with an explanation, of course.<br />
<br />
So! On to Introduction to MoM 101: A Guide for the Perplexed for the Curious...<br />
<br />
Maimonides, the son of Maimon, started his first work at the age of 23 in Spain under the tyranny of King Ibn Tamurt who proclaimed that anyone who did not accept Islam, called Muslemim by the Jews of those days, would be put to death. The Jews did everything that they could to dissuade the King but to no avail. Some died, some converted for show, some fled. Pappa Maimon chose to flee with his family to Egypt where he settled to his son's future fame and fortune. King Ibn Tamurt died within a month after the proclamation but Pappa Maimon had already fled. Moses went on board his ship on on the 4th of Iyyar, 4925 (1165) and arrived in Acco on the 3rd of Sivan and was thus rescued from apostasy. On Tuesday, the 4th of Marheshvan, 4926, he left Acco and arrived at Yirushalayim (my transliterative) spelling of Jerusalem) shortly thereafter. On the 9th he visited the cave of Machpelah in Hebron. From those accounts we know that he and his family did not seek to protect their lives nor property by abandoning their their faith. His brother David carried on the trade in precious stones while Moses occupied himself with is studies in Medicine, philosophy, mathematics and worked in the community with the other Jews.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, when reading Maimonides, I am reminded somewhat of the Sheldon character on the TV series, "Big Bang Theory." He is right 99% of the time but terribly conceited and unconscionably condescending to everyone else. For the purposes of these MoM blogs I shall NOT consider his scientific writings that are so terribly wrong and so terribly misguided. Neither shall I consider his writings on astronomy which, while possibly correct at the time, and I am not an authority but I do know that there are more than five or six planets to consider these days, even with the degrading of Pluto from a planet to something less. His views on Medicine are those of the 12th and 13th century so these also shall be dis regarded for this blog. However, his view on religion is far more attuned to being closer to the original Moses than anyone of today so I would like to follow those and comment on those. So, dear reader, please bear with me and we shall, in the following weeks and months, discover what RaMBaM has laid out for us in the following centuries. I think that we shall discover many wonderful things together.<br />
<br />
Here are the questions that we shall attempt to answer as RaMBaM answered them:<br />
<ul>
<li>Who is G-d? </li>
<li>Who are we with respect to G-d?</li>
<li>What does G-d expect from us?</li>
<li>What did G-d tell us to do?</li>
</ul>
Next posting: Analysis of "Guide for the Perplexed" by Maimondes...<br />
<br />
Shalom,<br />
Yaakov On<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />James Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-82061033506500204252013-06-12T12:19:00.003-07:002013-06-12T12:19:45.779-07:00California Dreaming[Note: This was originally written way back in 2007 or so]<br />
<br />
Did you ever have a dream where you know that you're in a dream. Not bad at first. I'm working with Jack Nicholson who is my sales manager, who is a fighter for anything and everything. What a guy! (I had watched the movie "Hoffa" just before going to bed.")<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Well, anyway, we're in NYC (why not Chicago?) and Jack Nicholson is the Sales Manager for my firm that makes, of all things, zippers. I'm a older guy in the dream, about 40 or 50, who really needs to keep the job so that I can stay in NYC. I didn't think about moving down South; you have to make a lot of money before you leave to go South and be really happy there. You have to make the money in NYC and you have to make it big - maybe a couple of million or more.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My attitude is a lot like like Danny De Vito's attitude in "Hoffa." I love Jack but I finally realized that we're both going to die today. My first assignment is to get the order from Levi Strauss and we think that we are the only ones who can fill it because we're the only ones with a zipper that expands to fit the woman - nobody, and I mean NOBODY, had a zipper like this. This is the zipper of all zippers.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
To top it all off, Levi is going to sell a new line of jeans and tight skirts for ladies who are size 5+. (As well as 4+ and 6+ and all of the other pluses in the lineup.) If they are size 5, the jeans fit perfectly. Skin tight and vah-vah-voom! If the lady is size 5+ then the zipper, the tabs, etc. let out automatically so that they still think that they are wearing a size 5 and all of their friends see the tag (like the little red tag on Levi jeans) and believe that they are wearing a size 5. For some reason, nobody can figure out that Levi is lying and pulling the wool over their eyes because they don't WANT to believe it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But, Levi is beating everyone over the head with a price from an Indian company out of Bombay that is making the stuff cheaper than we can make it or buy it - somehow I lost sight of the fact that we were the only ones who had this particular zipper. And the one from Bombay isn't even an expandable zipper but we aren't supposed to know that part. If we lose this order then we'll lose all of the Levi orders in the future with it and never get another Levi order. So we have to take it, lose our bazongas with it just to keep the line of business from Levi. And you HAVE to keep Levi happy</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
My snoring is in concert with the buses starting up from the busstop where I'm sitting at a wooden picnic table and wooden bench-style chairs that are cold. Everything is cold. Not snow-blowing cold but just miserable cold with wet rainy days and nights where it isn't raining but it either just rained or is about to rain.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I remember that I'm sitting at a cold, snowy bus stop drinking coffee and waiting for Jack to show up so I can explain it to him - lukewarm (not quite cold) coffee since you can't keep coffee hot in NYC on a March afternoon. Jack shows up and wants to know what happened. I tell him but he doesn't understand that Levi is using the Indian order to beat everyone over the head to get the price down. He wants my pistol (De Vito carried one in "Hoffa") to go inside and shoot somebody but I have to talk him out of that because I know that this will just mess everything up for everyone.</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As I begin to wake up, and I know that I'm waking up, but I don't really care, I struggle to get out of the cover. Somehow I know I'm waking up and that this dream means something. I don't know what yet - but I'll figure it out later. So finally I wake up to a darkened room and the sound of a fan slightly blowing. The dream is still there, I'm still wanting the order, Jack is still sitting on the bench but I'm gone and I'll never get back to help him get the order. Strange... What was so important about that order? And why Levi and women's jeans. See? This is why I don't let Freud inside my head. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Now I have a migraine. Maybe that's what woke me up. I need some ice for the back of my neck (which is one of the treatments for migraines that I use) and I can't get out of the chair (which is where I was sleeping) because the sheet is caught up in the corners of the chair and my feet are all warped up in the bottom of the sheet.. Not only that, the back pack is too hot for my back and I know if I just let out a primal scream it will wake up everyone in the house and I'll get committed to the funny farm for old coots who dream strange things at night.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I really hate the business world - I think I'm going to join Jesse Owens (a far-distant-removed cousin from Sweetwater - not the Olympic star from 1938) and go on out west somewhere. Jesse is about 6 foot ten something and just kind of ambles through life. We'll just get the heck away from all of this stress. The ride out there will be half the fun and being there will be the other half. Maybe we'll just sit on the dock of the bay in San Francisco, play guitars, sing soft French ballads about full, moonlit nights, drink Dos XX and watch the sun go down in the Pacific ocean every night. One night, we'll join the Sun and go down with it. Vaya con Dios amigos.<br />
<br />
Shalom<br />
jco</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
James Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-72345522331431964032013-04-13T12:13:00.000-07:002013-04-13T12:29:29.493-07:00Where Are Our Prophets Today?Where, Oh Where! Are Our Prophets Today?<br />
<br />
I have been told that I read TaNaKh way too literally. But sometimes I wonder which is the greater sin: to read TaNaKh too literally or to read it too liberally. Both are probably wrong. Somewhere in the middle is maybe the best approach. But where in the middle?<br />
<br />
Anyway, back to the main subject line. Where are our Prophets TODAY??? When we need them so much! HaShem told us in His Torah NOT to change his laws. HaShem told us in His Torah that if anyone came to us and told us that it was OK to do such a thing that we should take that person outside of the camp or city walls and stone them. (See Deut 13 for a full explanation of both these things.) His Torah is a holy thing, not something to be explained away and set aside.<br />
<br />
Yes, I know that we are not in control of certain things and we cannot control the public laws like murder trials and rape trials etc. But we CAN control our attitudes about other things. Today, unfortunately, some of our Rabbis (Rabbim?) have decided that it is OK to allow homosexual members and some congregations have even ordained homosexual Rabbis in some of the more liberal Reformed Synagogues. At first the Conservative synagogues condemned the Reformed synagogues and refused to have anything to do with them. Now, some of the Conservative temples have even come over to the Reformed side and are admitting homosexuals. Some are even posting their "openess" on their web sites.<br />
<br />
So? "What's wrong with that?" you might ask. Well, Torah has said in Lev 20:13 that if a man sleeps with another man as a man sleeps with a woman, then both men are to be taken out and stoned for such a thing is an abomination. Maybe we can't actually take folks out and stone them, by civil and criminal law of the land in which we live, but we should NOT condone such terrible acts against the Torah. Can we? But we, the Jewish community, not only condone homosexuality but advertise it as a "good thing" and as part of our attempt to integrate ourselves into the "modern community." Shades of Sodom and Gomorrah! Having been brought up in modern times I probably could not take part in stoning either. Not today. Maybe next year. Or ten years from now after it had gotten to be more common. Maybe...<br />
<br />
Going on up the scale just a bit, what about adultery? Everyone does it, right? And, in some cases, as Rabboni pointed out, it might even be OK in certain circumstances. But not according to HaShem. One of the Big Ten Commandments says, Thou Shalt NOT commit adultery. No IFs. No Ands. No Butts. That is a direct commandment. NOT a suggestion. There was a time in the USA (yes, here in the good old USA) when adultery was a crime just like any other crime. Yet, today, in our modern age, we treat adultery as something at which one might wink. Monty Python style: "Nudge-nudge. Wink-wink." It's OK if no one knows about it and, even if they do know, it's just a bit dirty, eh wot? Something to be expected after 7 or 10 years of marriage. Couples who get married and stay married or 40 or 50 years and remain faithful to each other are so rare that they are celebrated within communities with great parties and public demonstrations of joy. These couples should be the rule, not the exception.<br />
<br />
OK, enough self-righteous exhortations. Everyone, or most everyone, hates a do-gooder and, for some weird reason, loves a do-badder. Human nature, I suppose. And, as we get older, we tend to become strange do-gooders or really bad do-badders. As we age, we tend to leave the namby-pamby middle-of-the-road, liberal, feel-good path and drift either toward being bitter old dry twigs of hatred and disgust or we try to, well, buy our way into heaven. OK, some stay on their original path but not many. I would like to think that I am one of the original pathfinders. But I'm not. I'm always finding a new path, a new way, a new light. And I would like to think that this is part of the growth process - that a person can find new thoughts and change. But NOT to change G-d's laws. Some things are eternal. Some things are not. Our task is to read, study, learn and recognize which things are set in concrete and which things can be changed. So, go and study. Learn. And may G-d be with you. Always and forever.<br />
<br />
Shalom... James Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-43922190379356142842013-04-13T11:52:00.002-07:002017-08-09T07:59:27.373-07:00Christians and JewsOK, here goes... I have been young and now I am old and all my life I have been told certain things about Christians and Jews. Most of them have been wrong because Jews have told me things about Christians and Christians have told me things about Jews. So, lets review a few things that Christians have said about Jews and why Christians think that Christ was necessary. <br />
<ul>
<li>Jews depend on their obedience to the law (Torah) for salvation</li>
<li>Jews depend on their good works for salvation</li>
</ul>
This is really interesting since<br />
<ul>
<li>If any Christian had ever attended a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_kippur">Yom Kippur</a> service they would have understood how Jews feel about repentance. The words Yom Kippur mean "Day of Repentance."</li>
<li>Deut 24:16 teaches that parents shall not be put to death for the sins of their children nor children for the sins of their parents. Ergo, to teach that one person can be put to death for the sins of all mankind is anathema to a Jew.</li>
<li>All of Ezekiel 18 teaches that repentance is part of Judaism. If anyone repents then HaShem will forgive that person regardless of their past. The death or life of another person is not mentioned here and neither is the blood of bulls nor goats as is preached in Christianity. </li>
<li>The sacrifice of a person's son to ANY god is an abomination to HaShem. This is stated over and over when HaShem says this in reference to Molech. See Deut 12:31.</li>
<li>HaShem specifically warned Jews in Deut 13:2+ about following prophets or dream-diviners who come to you with signs and wonders, whether these signs and wonders come true or not, and try to get you to follow other gods. HaShem is testing you. It goes on to say what you are to do with such people or even with such towns.</li>
<li>In Isaiah 42:8, 43:10b and 42:12b HaShem says that He alone is G-d and He does not share His glory with anyone else, not even this Christ person.</li>
</ul>
By the way, a Jew should not even mention the name of this Christ person, nor the name of any other false god. See Ex 23:13b for more on this. That is why Tevyeh ("Fiddler on the Roof") always said, "... that man..." when referring to "the Christ".<br />
<br />
All of that just to say this: Jews did not need the Christ to redeem them. They were redeemed from Egypt over three thousand years ago by the mighty hand of G-d himself. And we can be forgiven from our sins just by asking HaShem for forgiveness. We don't need the blood of Christ nor anyone else as an intermediary - not Mary, not a saint, not a redeemer. We need only HaShem as our G-d.<br />
<br />
So, what do Jews say about Christians? That's a subject for another post at a later time when my son gets involved. Maybe next year. :-)<br />
<br />
Shalom<br />
<br />
[BTW, if you leave a comment, all comments are moderated so make it clean and tasteful or they won't be published. However, all comments that are clean and tasteful and/or thoughtful will be published however contradictory to my own theological leanings.]James Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1964344455832628348.post-19320154313132160112013-01-16T18:03:00.001-08:002013-06-12T05:44:42.758-07:00I'm ConfusedGreetings:<br />
<br />
OK - I talked with Rabbi M. today. As some of you may know, I went through the process of "converting" to Judaism some time ago with a Bet Din composed of Rabbi M., Rabbi B. and Cantor R. just before I was to have my Mitzvah (similar to a Christian Baptism). About five minutes into the interrogation Rabbi B. asked, "Do you believe in the Oral Torah?" What a question! How many people coming into Judaism even KNOW what is an Oral Torah??<br />
<br />
Anyway, not to play games, I just said, "No." and then told him why. There are way too many contradictions from various Rabbim about what is kosher and what is not kosher in the Mishnah, Talmud, etc. In the original Torah, Moses never contradicts himself - he only says what G-d tells him to tell the Jewish people. And what he says in one place never contradicts what he says in another place. Is what we have today infallible? Probably not - but the Massoretic text is about as close as we can get to G-d's original words so I accept it for now. And the various translations (JPS and KJV) are pretty close to what the original Hebrew says but I use the JPS for my dissertations.<br />
<br />
Anyway, back to the problem. When Rabbi M. says that if the Oral Torah contradicts the written Torah then the Oral Torah is correct, I have a real problem. (And, yes, I taped the whole thing so I can prove it all.) So, here is my question: If the Oral Torah says that adultery is OK, does that make it OK with HaShem? I don't think so. If the Oral Torah says that homosexuality is OK, does that make it OK with HaShem? I don't think so. But, it seems that since I follow the written Torah as having precedence over the Oral Torah, I cannot convert to Judaism - not with this particular Beth Din. And, apparently not with any other Beth Din today. <br />
<br />
This is really perplexing. I know many Jews who believe that the TaNaKh (Bible) is nothing more than a codification of campfire tales and not really the Word of G-d. Others attend just to be part of their heritage. But, because they were born Jews, they are accepted and no questions are asked. But, because I am trying to become part of the Jewish faith, I am being questioned and told that I HAVE to believe that the Oral Torah takes precedence over the written Torah. If something that Rabbi M. says today eventually becomes part of the Oral Torah, and it contradicts written Torah, then I have to believe it if I am to be part of the congregation. I can't do that. <br />
<br />
Yet, other Orthodox congregations tell me that I have to accept Oral Torah as well in order to become a Jew. I can accept it on the same level as I would accept Christian Commentary, but not on the same level as I accept Torah. While Torah as we have it today may not be infallible and without question, it would be most difficult to question something in it without some really substantial reasoning. (If my son is a drunkard and a sluggard should I take him to the elders and have him stoned?) Anyway, there are things that I can accept and things I cannot accept right now, but to say that Talmud and Mishnah - and even sermons - take precedence over Torah would seem to be way out of line. <br />
<br />
I'm confused.<br />
<br />
Shalom<br />
Yaakov<br />
(aka, James)James Owenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09329916624230570826noreply@blogger.com0