Abigail

"I had a similar experience about 5 years after I left TWI-It took me about that long to even consider going to a church. I found a Vineyard Church " Which proves what someone else was saying - that even within a denomination there will be differences. I went to a Vineyard Church right out of TWI and had no problems with the pastor. He knew my background - in fact I chose that church because I knew the pastor before I left TWI. He was very aware of TWI - his college roommate had made it his life's mission to help get people out.

"When they went out of town, I was over there every hour because I was scared to death that he might fall and hurt himself while I was gone." Belle, that is one of our concerns. We usually travel to the U.P. in the summer without our dogs. I have a neighbor who takes care of them when we are gone, but Scrappy always is miserable when we go on our summer trip. I am worried about how he will do without us this summer and how we and our neighbor would feel if something happened while we were away. "oh i know folks who carried their doggies up and down the stairs because doggie wasn't in pain, he just couldn't do the steps anymore" That's one of the things we are struggling with too ExC. There was a time when he used to groan when getting up - we knew it was his hips. But he seemed fine other than that one groan while getting up from laying down. He doesn't grown anymore, which is part of what makes us think he's not really in pain - that he's basically just not feeling much of anything at all on his back end. But we aren't totally sure either. " A Great Dane/Aussie Mix sounds like a big dog - and to be 15 years old. I often hear big dogs don't live as long...We had a Lab/Springer Spaniel. Sweetest dog in the world - when getting shots at the Vet's office she'd lick him....SHe got to be 14 years old, had tumors, problems controlling bowels, " Yeah - he's big - was nearly 80 pounds once - now is only about 65 give or take a couple. He has tumors too, but not cancerous ones - just fatty tissue. The vet said if he does have a degenerative nerve disorder he will start having problems controlling his bowels at some point too.

I wonder if it's going to take years for Cathy to post the answer...........

to put an animal to sleep. We have a Great Dane/Assue Mix - he's about 15 years old. In this past 6 months or so he has lost a lot of weight. We have done everything we can think of to get him to eat more, including trying canned and dry mixed, as well as straight up canned. He just doesn't seem that interested in food. He will eat, just not very much. He has been the the vet, who says his blood work all comes back great, but he too is concerned by the weight loss. In addition he is having problems with his hips/back legs. He walks funny - don't know how to describe it but its weird. Sometimes he doesn't really walk at all, he sort of hops. He can't get up the stairs by the back door, we have to lift his back legs for him - they just don't seem to support him. He doesn't seem to be in pain - though it is hard to gauge because he never has been much of a complainer. The vet wasn't sure about his hips - if it was arthritis or a degenerative nerve disorder. We tried a couple of different medications and they didn't really seem to help, plus they are very very expensive. When my dad came to visit a week or so again, he took one look at our Scrappy and told me it was time to put him out of his misery. Part of me agrees with him - but part of me isn't sure. So how do you know when it is time?

Care to share some factoids from the book, Safari? Call me a skeptic = heck call me cyncial, but I am not quick to get off my money for diet books. No offense. I just tend to think if you make healthy food choices, eat healthy proportions, and get in some physical activity throughout the day - you are doing good regardless of what your weight is.

Oldies - you left out the "rest of the story" - also from wikipedia - "On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Israel, requiring the inhabitants of Israel to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable. Thus members and representatives of the Jews of Palestine and of the Zionist movement upon the end of the British Mandate, by virtue of "natural and historic right" and based on the United Nations resolution: ... Hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in the land of Israel to be known as the State of Israel. "The Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel was publicly read in Tel Aviv on May 14, 1948, before the expiration of the British Mandate of Palestine at midnight. It was drafted during the preceding months, and the final version was a result of a compromise between the various parts of the Israeli public of that time. On May 14, 1948, the Vaad Leumi (Jewish National Council) gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum of Art, and approved the proclamation." When the British said they wanted to terminate the mandate - they were not doing so in support of a Jewish State - they simply wanted the U.N. to take responsibility/control of Palenstine and figure out what to do regarding the Jewish Refugees and the pressue to create a Jewish state vs. the Palenstinian objection to it. However, the U.N. was never able to negotiate a peaceful compromise with all parties. Instead, the Jews drew up their own declaration creating Israel as a Jewish state. Now, our government, as well as the British, and/or any other of the major players of the day could have decided NOT to recognize Israel, but instead this is what happened. . . . "The new state and its government was recognized de facto minutes later by the United States and three days later de jure by the Soviet Union (Stalin thought a communist or communist-oriented Jewish state could be a useful "thorn in the back" to his capitalist rivals in the Middle East). It was however opposed by many others, particularly Arabs (both the surrounding Arab states and the Palestinian Arabs) who noticed it was being established at their expense." On Truman . . . . "Truman, who had been a supporter of the Zionist movement as early as 1939, was a key figure in the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. In 1946, an Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry recommended the gradual establishment of two states in Palestine, with neither Jews nor Arabs dominating. However, there was little public support for the two-state proposal, and Britain was under pressure to withdraw from Palestine quickly due to attacks on British forces by armed Zionist groups. At the urging of the British, a special U.N. committee recommended the immediate partitioning of Palestine into two states, and with Truman's support, it was approved by the General Assembly in 1947. The British announced that they would leave Palestine by May 15, 1948, and the Arab League Council nations began moving troops to Palestine's borders. There was significant disagreement between Truman and the State Department about how to handle the situation, and meanwhile, tensions were rising between the U.S. and Soviet Union. In the end, Truman, amid controversy both at home and abroad, recognized the State of Israel 11 minutes after it declared itself a nation" I would recommend the link below if you are interested in more information on the U.S. history regarding Jews and Israel - you will see that the U.S. has supported the notion for a Jewish Israel dating all the way back to John Adams. So yes, given the above - I do believe the U.S. played a large role in the events that have lead to the situation as it is today. here

"Abigail, I don't think the U.S. played such a huge role in all of this... if you really want to blame a past country you could historically blame the Brits, who through their "British Mandate of Palestine" created this mess. We, as Americans, are now involved, because of globalists in our country who got us involved and are trying to keep us involved. (And I do not believe this is a "Jewish Globalist Conspiracy"... but, there ARE Globalists out there... Jewish and otherwise.) " I am aware of the history and the "British Mandate of Palestine". I am also aware that the U.S. put its share of pressure on the British to do what they did. The U.S. is not "now" involved because of . . . The U.S. has been involved since the beginning, and the reasoning wasn't Globalization. If you read the history you will find that a number of high powered politicians, including the then President, supported the concept of a Jewish Israel for Christian based religious reasons. I said earlier that to some extent I agreed with WTH on that issue - though I fail to understand why Jewish people are blamed for what the Christians believe and do. "But I suppose there is this idea out there that we must continue to "pay for the sins of our forefathers" and therefore acquiese to the continued support of Israel and Zionism. Well, I just disagree with this concept as a freedom loving American who wants to get out of these deadly entanglements with other countries. Rather, I'd invite all Jews here (did somebody mention the State of Texas? ) so we can save huge amounts of money and lives." I do not believe that is a feasable or even reasonable solution. 1) Given the history of persecution COMBINED with the continued efforts of anti-semites, I think it would be damned foolish to put all of the Jews in one place. In other words, I believe our traditions/beliefs have a better chance of survival if we are spread out around the world. 2) I think you would be hard pressed to convince all of the Jews to move to any one location, as many are perfectly happy where they are. 3) As I believe we created the mess in Iraq and are therefore obligated to see the mess through to a conclusion, so I believe we played a substantial role in creating the mess in Israel/Palestine and are therefore morally obligated to play a role in the solution. With regard to the link you posted - I will get back to you on that, because I prefer to do some further research before forming and opinion.

"What do people (those who were involved with TWI) still think about the gathering together?" Honestly, I simply don't think about it much. In part, because I am no longer certain what I believe with regards to the next life. But mostly, because I have enough to think about just dealing with the here and now and I don't care to spend much time on thinking about something that I cannot even "see" down the road. And finally, because regardless of what I believe about it, I may be right and I may be wrong - no one will know until the time comes. As for LCM and VPW - well I am mostly indifferent about VPW, probably because he died long before I ever got involved with TWI. LCM I have a tougher time with and how I would feel would probably depend on the day. How would I respond though - would probably be with politeness and courtesy as long as he treated me with the same.

Mo, I think we are straining nats. The Hebrew/Jewish people have by and large always been somewhat nomadic. Even when they had a "homeland" they couldn't hang on to it! And so yes, we are spread out all over the world. Yet, it was done via communities. By and large Jewish people did not marry outside their faith until the 1970's and later. Heck, even my own family, which was far from orthodox, did not marry non-Jews until my generation. Now, were there converts, yes? Were there those who did take wives from outside the 12 tribes? Sure, the Bible makes that quite plain. But there were also many who did not. So there are probably those who have fairly pure bloodlines and there are probably those who have no "Jewish DNA" (for lack of a better term) in their bloodlines. But in either case - you will find that even modern day Jews see it as both an ethnicity and a religion. In fact, you will find there are Jewish people who gather on at temples not for religious reasons, but for cultural ones. Here's some more information from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi: "In an ethnic sense, an Ashkenazi Jew is one whose ancestry can be traced to the Jews of central and eastern Europe. For roughly a thousand years, the Ashkenazi Jews were a reproductively isolated population in Europe, despite living in many countries, with little inflow or outflow from migration, conversion, or intermarriage with other groups, including other Jews. Human geneticists have identified certain haplotypes in Y-Chromosome and mitochondrial studies that have high frequencies among Ashkenazi Jews, but not in the general European population." "But since the middle of the 20th century, many Ashkenazi Jews have intermarried, both with members of other Jewish communities and with people of other nations and faiths. Jews have also adopted children from around the world and raised them as Jews. Conversion to Judaism, rare for nearly 1500 years, has once again become common. Jewish women and families that choose artifical insemination often choose a biological father who is not Jewish, to avoid common autosomal recessive genetic diseases. Orthodox religous authorities actually encourage this, because of the danger that a Jewish donor could be a momzer. Thus, the concept of Ashkenazi Jews as a distinct ethnic people, especially in ways that can be defined genetically or ancestrally, has also blurred considerably" The genetic disease is called Tay-Sachs. It is found not only primarily in Ashkenazi Jews, but most specifically those from a particular tribe (I can't recall now if it is Reuben or Benjamin). You may also keep in mind that of the 12 tribes - the Bible deals largely only with two of them (Judah and Benjamin) and what became of the rest is not entirely known, although theories abound.

Okay, I was going to ignore this, but what the hell . . . . . . "Why is it that the non-Jewish victims of genocide, oppression and war do not merit the same consideration as do the Holocaust’s Jewish victims? There are no comparable museums, memorials or solemn ceremonies to commemorate, for example, the vastly greater number of victims of Soviet and Chinese Communism" 1. Because apparently no one has bothered to organize and gather funding for such memorials? Why? I don't know - why haven't you? "The Holocaust remembrance campaign deserves scorn, not support because it is an insincere and one-sided effort that serves Israeli interests and bolsters Jewish-Zionist power, an ungodly alliance between Israeli extremists and Christian fundamentalists. Their siren call and amplified bullhorn masks the greater scandal, this peculiar mixture of prophecy and politics." Here I see an opinion, but absolutly no supporting facts to back it up. Therefore, it carries no weight with me. "What is the message of the Christian Zionist? Simply stated it is this: Every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us. "Never mind what Israel does," say the Christian Zionists. "God wants this to happen." " Which 'Christian Zionists' have said this? Can you provide me with links to the quotes? Just who are the 'Christian Zionists'? Don't misunderstand - I get the concept and am not refuting that there are those who hold beliefs similar to what the author propounds - but I am questioning who they are, what positions of power they hold, how many of them there are, etc. "The answer, unfortunately, lies in the belief system of Christian Zionists: They believe that what Israel wants is what God wants. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to give the green light to whatever it is Israel wants and then conceal this from the American people. Anything, including lies, theft, even murder, is justified as long as Israel wants it. " Again I see an opinion, but no facts to support it. In fact - it would seem to me that lying, theft, and murder would all be contradictory to any Christian faith. Therefore, I would suggest such things may be motivated out political and monetary gain, but find it unlikely they are motivated out of a Christian belief system. "Indeed, I hold that Christian Zionism threatens not just the lives of Palestinians and other Arabs, but the very existence of the United States. Because of the cult of Israel, we have become a nation that does not have its own Middle East policy, but the policy the government of Israel tells us to have. " I find it interesting that the author uses the derogatory term "cult" in reference to Israel, but not in reference to the "Christian Zionists". I find it even more interesting that Israel is being blamed for what the "Christian Zionists" of their own free will choose to do. Sounds like a little rascism creeping in to me. Sounds like there me be another agenda here beyond exposing the truth. . . . "These Christians do not endorse either the cult of Israel or its killings and beatings of Palestinians. " Would these be the very same Christian organizations who would like to see the Muslem relgion wiped from the face of this earth? And while I do not support the killings and beatings of Palestinians, I do not support the Palestinians suicide bombings of Israel citizens either. I think our country as well as England did a great disservice in how they handled the Palestinian nation in the aftermath of WWII. However, I think blaming all of this on the Jews and/or 'Christian Zionists' does absolutely nothing to further the goal of peace in the middle east. If anything, it futher polarizes the issue and promotes yet more bloodshed on all sides. "Butz disputes the usual understanding of what the Final Solution was, when he writes from his book: QUOTE The "Final Solution" spoken of in the German documents was a program of evacuation, resettlement and deportation of Jews with the ultimate objective of expulsion from Europe. During the war Jews of various nationalities were being moved east, as one stage in this Final Solution. The legend claims that the motion was mainly for extermination purposes." Oldies - have you ever spoken with anyone who was a survivor of a concentration camp? Because I have family members who are such survivors. Therefore, when I say the extermination was taking place, that the Jews weren't simplpy being 'moved east' I can say so, because I heard it from 'the horses mouth'.

Holy Crud Oldiesman! We may be close to agreeing or at least semi-agreeing twice in one morning!!! "It seems to me the root of the difficulty has been Israel's inability first to admit the Palestinians have been treated unfairly and, second, to figure out what to do about it. Now here goes a big fat generalization, but I think many Jews are so accustomed (by reality) to thinking of themselves as victims, it is especially difficult for them to admit they have victimized others. " I would take this a step further, It isn't just that Israel has treated the Palestinians unfairly, but so has the U.S., England, and the large number of middle eastern countries who refused to take in refugees way back when, when all of this began. On the other hand, it does beg the question - - why would the middle easterners NOT come to the aide of their own? I have no idea - but in trying very hard to look at this issue objectively, I would say that often the Palestinians are also their own worst enemy. "But the Mearsheimer-Walt paper is not about the basic conflict, but its effect on American foreign policy, and it appears to me their arguments are unexceptional. Israel is the No. 1 recipient of American foreign aid, and it seems an easy case can be made that the United States has subjugated its own interests to those of Israel in the past." I don't know if this statement is true or false. But I would point out, because it is a piece of history/logic that I find very interesting - by and large it was the Christian ideology of who the Jews are and what the Bible says with regard to Israel and the future that had brought about this situation, at least back in the days following WWII. "Whether you agree or not, it is a discussion well worth having and one that should not be shut down before it can start by unfair accusations of ''anti-Semitism.'' In a very equal sense, none of this is academic. The Israel lobby was overwhelmingly in favor of starting the war with Iraq and is now among the leading hawks on Iran. " Of course they are - because they face the greatest risk of being attacked by these countries. If England were at the greatest risk, for example, then they would be the ones who were overwhelmingly in favor of starting the war - I see this as a no brainer statement that is somewhat misleading. But I would dare say the United States is perhaps a close second. In either case, I guess I feel that because the U.S. played such a HUGE role in creating this mess in the middle east in the first place, we are obligated to try to clean it up in some fashion. Not that I am a proponent of war mind you, as I was opposed to the war on Iraq in the first place.

Mostly I just kept breathing deeply and moving forward. Though on an emotional level I had a tremendous amount going on, my rational mind knew that the "greasespot by midnight stuff" was complete crap.

I dunno - I tend to think that the majority of the time, people are relatively respectful of each other. Yes, there are times when emotions run high and things become more heated and personal. However, I don't think that is the case the majority of the time. What perhaps is the case, the majority of the time, is that those threads where things are heated are the more "popular" threads - the ones that get read the most. Human nature being what it is - the fights add "excitement". I also think that lately there has been a few relatively new posters, whose intent appears to be only to stir up s**t. I'm not talking about those who hold the minority view regarding VPW, such as Oldies, Mike, or JohnIam. I think they are usually respectful in communicating their opinions - at least until emotions begin to run high. I'm talking about people like Allen and CK - who rarely appear to add anything to a conversation beyond insults or statements that are clearly meant to harrass, cause pain, or instigate a fight.

"How did the Third Reich ascertain who was Jewish?? Was it by ethnicity? I know they considered you a Jew if you were 1/4 or more. But was the foundational decision based on ethnicity or was it based on what religion you or said ancestor practiced? I always understood it was from synagogue records , but Lord knows , it won't be the first time I understood wrong So help me out here, any one know the right answer? " There wasn't just one method, Mo, but a number of them. Yes synagogue records was a part of that. And if my memory is correct, those records would have included family trees. Also, prior to the killings, Jews were required to register as being Jewish. Where one lived and worked would also have been a huge indicator - in that there would have been "Jewish communities" not unlike we have today with various ethnic groups. Then there would have been things like last names and even did one "look" Jewish. As Garth pointed out, for the most part, the Nazi's weren't really overly concerned about being correct in their assessment as to whether or not one was really Jewish - if they thought you were, that was good enough for them. They really had no value on human life, so what difference would it make to them if they were wrong? Here's some places where you argument/logic fails, Mo: 1. "Because early Christians were Identified with the Jews -just one more Jewish offshoot--It wasn't until Paul that the Gentiles were even preached to. Christ didn't preach to them --remember the Greek woman in Mark? Heck, remember the parable about the Good Samaritan? Samaritans were descended from Manasseh! There was a serious conflict between Paul and the apostles when he advanced the idea that in order to become Christian one didn't first have to accept Judaism (the circumcision issue) ' Yes, many early Christians were Jewish, but not all Jews became Christian. As it was while Christ was alive, so it was after his death that many did not believe he was the son of God. In addition, Many people from many ethnic groups converted to Christianity after Paul. 2. "Lets face it by 1940 there weren't pure anything in Germany, heck, by 1492 there weren't pure anything in that whole region, Germany and the surrounding countries having been the bridge from here to there, and the "lets fight here" spot, for all of Europe for centuries starting with Charlemange. But that was Hitler's whole focus wasn't it? trying to make "pure" that which inherently wasn't and would never be again." Yes, that was Hitler's whole focus, which is precisely why ethnicity did play a role. In fact, you sort of prove the point you are trying to disprove - because one could be "religously Jewish" but if one were NOT ethnically Jewish (as in did not have a Jewish sounding name or physically look Jewish) one could more easily deny their "faith" and sneak past the Natzis. and here: "Because if ethnicity isn't an issue but it's about religion, Jesus Christ, the apostles, the disciples, Mary, Mary Magdalene, Paul, Priscilla, Aquila, John the Baptist, Elizabeth, all of them, would have ended up in one of those camps had they been alive during Hitlers Reich." I am entirely missing your point. Because had they been alive during WWII they would have been gonners either way - for being ethnically and religously Jewish.

Had my first mammogram today. It wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be. In fact, I've had dental appointments that were worse. So have you had yours yet? If not - GO GET IT DONE

I am so glad you are still here CK. Everytime I read one of your posts I thank God I got out of TWI while my kids were still babies. I can't help but read them and think, there but for the grace of God goes one of my boys.

I could care less if you are fat or thin, because what comes through loud and clear on this thread and many others is that you are a donkey's behind. In fact, you assholiness detracts from any credibility you might otherwise have had.

"Jews or Jewish refers to a religion you were Jewish, even in the Old Testement, because you adhered to the God and religious tenets of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Actually, I believe it can refer to both ethnicity and/or relgion.

Goey, you don't really expect a little thing like DNA tests to pursuade CK, now do you? Afterall, VPW said it - that settles it - it's the truth :blink:

Well RickyG - Martindale would have taught you that those standing with TWI are the "Israel/Jews" of today. So I guess you can take that for what it's worth - which imnsho isn't very much. Beyond that, I haven't studied it much for a number of years. I have been having far too much fun studying the Jewish religion itsself - which I have found to be very rich in practical applications for "our day and time". Very full of charity (in EVERY sense of the word). And with FAR FAR less bigotry than anything I've experienced elsewhere. I might also add, that a true understanding of Jewish teachings regarding the Old Testiment would give you a much richer and deeper understanding of the New Testiment.

Yeah, the bloodline wasn't pure anyway, so who cares how many really died - might just as well kill them all. :blink: CK, I have to tell you, you are a perfect witness for TWI and VPW - keep up the good work. The truth shall certainly set us free.

Amen, Belle "I am trying to focus on what is going on right now! You correct error with what is right. So by putting on that which is correct you eliminate error. " Part of doing what is correct is to apologize too those you've harmed and make amends for the wrongs you have done, no? Am I inccorrect in my understanding RickyG? So, where is that happening in TWI? I know it sure isn't happening in my area. Has Rosalee apologized for covering up LCM's many many affairs? Has she even acknowledged her role in it? If not, then it sounds to me more like they are trying to sweep it under the rug, not correct error.

To quote my mother, who once overheard a similar coversation about how Jews have all the money . . . "Yes, we do have all the money, and I will now give you what I think you are worth" She then handed the man a penny.

So, God would allow 1 or 2 million to die, but not six million? Where is the logic in that? Is there a specific cut off to how many people god will allow to die during a particular event/war/natural disaster? VP said, it that settles it :blink: Oy Vey (yeah, yeah, I am one of those "non Jewish" Jews)

Shellon, If the school will better meet her needs then I say "go for it". As for your concerns regarding relgion - I think the two of you have a solid enough relationship that you will be able to handle anything that comes your way in that regard.