Now for a Bible Lesson. (See 1 below.)
And:
Savannah grows:http://forum.skyscraperpage.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Trump's barring a plane for "Hissy's" foreign trip was inelegant but exquisite. I applaud anything that stiffs" Schiff as well.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Did Beto bomb? (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.
The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.
A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9.
The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++(It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian)
2) Beto bombs bigly in long interview with the Washington Post
When a CNN anchor warns that "it's a fine line to walk between being a blank canvas and an empty vessel," a pretty-boy, Kennedyesque empty-suit progressive candidate, already recognizable by his first name alone, is in trouble.
Beto looks like a beta, if we are to judge by the Washington Post's account of his "lengthy" interview with Post writer Jenna Johnson. The title gives away the verdict: "Beto O'Rourke's immigration plan: No wall but no specifics." The lead paragraphs are no kinder. Jenna Johnson wrote:
In a digital ad that recently went viral, Beto O'Rourke tore into President Trump's desired border wall with soaring footage of the Rio Grande Valley and an explanation of what the wall would do: cut off access to the river, shrink the size of the United States and force the seizure of privately-held land.
It noted that most undocumented immigrants [sic] who arrived in the United States in the past decade came not over the border but on visas that then expired.
So what should be done to address visa overstays?
"I don't know," O'Rourke said, pausing in a lengthy interview.
The vacuity was so obvious that even CNN anchor Brianna Keilar felt compelled to raise the alarm. The segment is embedded below, but Tommy Christopher of Mediaite cuts to the chase:
Keilar brought up O'Rourke's recent interview with The Washington Post's Jenna Johnson, during which O'Rourke seemed to have trouble answering several questions.
"He was asked how he would handle immigrants who overstay their Visas, and he said 'I don't know'," Keilar said. "On withdrawing troops from Syria, he said there may be a good reason, but he doesn't necessarily understand. He seemed to be passing on a lot of stuff, the Constitution, he questioned whether a 230 year-old document can be used as a guide for today's issues, especially international issues.
Tucker Carlson seized on that appalling indication that he doesn't grasp the meaning of the presidential oath of office "to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." More on that below. But Keilar continued her discussion with CNN political director David Chalian:
"Is he ready?" Keilar asked Chalian. "I mean, you have to be able to have something of substance and have formed opinions on these things."
Chalian agreed it was a valid question, but added "remember, we've seen that question asked before, I mean, Barack Obama in 2007 was getting criticized from many in the Democratic Party for not issuing white papers. And he made clear I wasn't going to be the candidate of white papers."
Chalian suggested that O'Rourke is "trying to preserve as much flexibility as possible, be a blank canvas," but added "you better believe that is going to raise questions in Democratic circles of does he have what it takes? And only Beto O'Rourke is going to be able to answer that in a future interviews with how he conducts himself."
"It's a fine line to walk between being a blank canvas and an empty vessel, right, as someone will accuse you of being," Keilar said[.] ...
Wow! A CNN anchor speaking to the network's political director said that. Keilar seems to have realized the impact of the words that slipped from her lips, because:
... then [she] hastily added "Not you, you know, collectively, the 'you.' Just to be clear, you are a very full vessel full, of very important knowledge."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment