Not to vaccinate is a sin

volkmare

You wrote, "So, you were driving your car.
please continue... "

And God the Father came into my heart, it was like God did it slowly and I did not even know that it was God the Father until I knew it.

He did not say a word, He did not have too.

One of the things that I have come to realize and at first it was kind of a revelation to me but now seems quite an established fact is that not many people are interested in hearing about God whether they believe in God or not.

It is really sad that some if not most people's "conception" of God, believers and non-believers alike, is not even remotely close to the Reality of God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas,

So, you were driving your car.

please continue... .

Mark
Always seek the truth.

I would like to pose that we good people may be obligated to avoid sinning on the basis of correct knowledge about vaccination theory, rather than blind trust.

Should we not, as non-sinners, at least PEEK into the notion that trusting vaccine information ultimately originating from pharmacuetical companies strongly linked to Nafariousness, and NOT from our consitutional government, may be the truly virtuous and righteous thing to do?

Salk testified before Congress in 1976 that he beleived the live-virus form of the polio vaccine was the principle if not sole cause of all cases of polio since 1961, a form used almost exclusively in the US from 1960 to 2000.

In 1992 the CDC confirmed this.

volkmare

You asked, "You said that your met our heavenly father. I would like to know the situation where this happened."

I was driving my car.

You wrote, "If everything that is happening is fore-ordained by his plan, then there is no freedom for us to prove our worthiness to return to his house."

Just because God knows, many try to "impose" their preconceived limits about God on God, does not in any way take away from us our choice in what we do.

As far as "proving our worthiness", have you ever thought that God has asked us to die for those that throw away his "free gift".

Is it "proving our worthiness" or is it saying YES to the "free gift" offered to us by God?

You then wrote, "Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understood your statement right, it is more in line with the devils plan. In that our freedom to choose between right and wrong is taken away."

Just as I have already stated, just because God knows what our choice will be does not in any way, shape or form take away our "free will" nor does it take away our "responsibility" that goes along with the gift of "free will".

As a matter of fact, that is why God came up with His Plan even before creation because He knew that not all would take it upon themselves to be responsible for their exercise of free will.

When I stated that God does not "react" but has a Plan, what I am referring to is that satan is all the time "reacting" to situations whereas God has a Plan and God will not fit into the limitations that some try to impose upon Him, the only "limitations" on God are those that are "self-imposed" and God has His reasons for these.

God is beyond our imaginings including the FACT that God Is Love, God's Very Being not an attribute, but this does not mean that God can not and does not reveal Himself in ways to His Creation.

You then wrote, "If everything that is happening is fore-ordained by his plan, then there is no freedom"

Just because God knows, does not make God a "puppet master" and if we think that, then we may be trying to make God in our image rather than us being made in God's Image.

You then wrote, "He does not cause earthquakes and hurricanes that take lives in these times, but he does however watch how we react to the random “acts of nature” of this planet."

God created absolutely everything so the "mechanisms", so to speak, of what causes earthquakes, hurricanes and whatever were created by God but it is not as if there is some "guy in the sky" behind some big console pressing buttons.

Creation, not just on this planet, is very dynamic, it is not some kind of bland thing that some seem to think that their "conception" of God should have created.

As you have pointed out, life is an ever changing set of circumstances to make decisions about.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Farnaz,

Do accept my apologies. I was on the wrong page. I was referring to George Weigels thread. Rolling to be done! and the kind of Christian brainwash that you love to hate!

Farnaz,

Clearly no answers to my last post to you are forthcoming. I am not moved. And though slightly surprised at the silence, as you are such a scrappy sort, I do understand it, (in my own way, of course).

Hey, we could come together on some things. Even here in this thread. We could go out an roll some Catholics, hey? Wouldn't that be fun?

Thomas,

You didn’t answer my question.

You said that your met our heavenly father. I would like to know the situation where this happened.

I am naturally a skeptic, but I also have no reason not to believe you. I just want to know more.

I do however have a problem with something you said.
“God does not "react" to situations, so to speak, always changing His Plan but His Plan is unfolding before our very eyes whether we believe it or not.”

If everything that is happening is fore-ordained by his plan, then there is no freedom for us to prove our worthiness to return to his house.
Therefore there would be no good reason for us to come here in the first place.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I understood your statement right, it is more in line with the devils plan. In that our freedom to choose between right and wrong is taken away.

Our heavenly father would not do that to us any more than we would do that to our own children. He does not cause earthquakes and hurricanes that take lives in these times, but he does however watch how we react to the random “acts of nature” of this planet.

Would we put ice on the road to cause our child to fall off his bike and skin his knee? No, but we would encourage him to learn from his mistake and keep riding.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

volkmare

You asked, "How was it that you came to meet our Heavenly Father?"

I would say that it was God the Father's choice.

I would also say that God chose me before creation itself, even tho I did not know it until I knew it, because God has had His Plan since before creation.

A lot of people, whether or not they believe in God, try to fit God into Something/Someone that they can get a grip on, so to speak.

One of the ways that I can put it, is that God's Plan is like a thread woven thru history.

God does not "react" to situations, so to speak, always changing His Plan but His Plan is unfolding before our very eyes whether we believe it or not.

This is not to say that I know exactly what to do and what to say. God's Plan, in my life, is unfolding even tho I don't know what to do and what to say beforehand, it is just my "job" to speak and I am giving it a shot, so to speak.

I hope that this has been helpful in trying to answer the question you asked, as I have said, I am not here to give any new "prophecies", just to say that not all of the ones already given have been fulfilled but they will be.

Have you noticed that it is written that, "Even the forces of evil are working toward the fulfillment of God's Plan even if inadvertantly"? This may not be the exact quote but satan is a loser.

And it is written, that it is "God's Will that ALL be saved" and may God's Will be Done.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Nobody believes the rabbi's stuff was
"accidentally" deleted from the system
over the weekend.

We first learned what "ON FAITH" was all about when Ghandi, one of the Panel,

critized Israeli warmongering. Lots of Jews screamed, he was fired.

Now then, do your stupid thing. Progandize all you like.

But don't suppose anyone with any sense believes it. My own post, lost in the
"inadvertancy" over the weekend, was

disgusted with the rabbi's snotty
stuff...

Thomas

How was it that you came to meet our Heavenly Father?

Mark
Always seek the truth.

volkmare

You wrote, "You said: “I've already mentioned it many times that God chose me to speak.”
Please expand on that."

A while after I met God the Father and the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus and met satan and experienced hell and spiritual death, I had a dream that I know was from God in which I was told that, "Only I could say it".

These are not the only things that have happened to me that I would call, to put it mildly, out of the ordinary.

I had no idea at the time what it was that "only I could say" so I had to plow ahead, so to speak.

When I met God the Father and the Holy Spirit, Neither said a word, Neither had to say a word.

When Jesus said, "I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father except thru Me", I, most definitely, take Jesus at His Word.

When Jesus also said, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you ...", I, also most definitely, take Jesus at His Word.

I can not tell you how God works in other people's life but in my life, God does NOT work like some kind of big dictation machine in the sky.

I have found that one of the ways that the Holy Spirit speaks to me is thru other people and at least some of the time, they do not have a clue that the Holy Spirit is speaking thru them.

Meeting God the Father and coming to the realization that God Is Love, God's Very Being rather than Love being an attribute of God, has made me look at things thru "different eyes", so to speak and to hear things thru "different ears", so to speak.

This is why I have repeatedly said that God has a Plan and that God has had His Plan since before creation and that God's Plan will come to Fruition and that God's Plan is for ALL, ultimately, to be in God's Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth.

I do not know all of the details but I do not need to know all of the details, this Plan is referred to, in the bible, as the "mysterious Plan of God", you have probably either heard of it or seen reference to it.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Paul Moses Baum

You said: “I've already mentioned it many times that God chose me to speak.”

Please expand on that.

Mark,
Always seek the truth.

Thomas Paul Moses Baum

You answered your own question.

Spiritually, we are all brothers and sisters.

Mark,
Always seek the truth.

"This is not the first time that a panelist's essay has been misinterpreted although I confess I've never before seen such such vitriol and disrespect among the comments."

"Moron" is mild compared to many sludgefests of the past, you being a noted slingger in them. Indeed you have been a prime example of that tactic, noted by posters and at least one panelist by name and repeatedly. "...never before seen such vitriol...?"

I will pass over the accusations of anti-semitism and references to me as Christian. Meaningless, at this point, and old turf. As I said, I am interested in the tendencies we have to maintain, or reject, tribal turf. It is to this that was my point. It seems that tribalism is a driving force for you.

As I have said before, I am not Christian and do not believe in that mythology. I would have to call myself Buddhist, and what practices I do are those. One could ask, (and you continue to assert), that I am still Christian. But then, I do not defend Christianity as home turf, or any religious base as such. It certainly is part of my self reflection, but so far I see a releasing of attachment to cultural and religious anchors in my upbringing.

These threads are full of people certain of themselves, and unwilling to receive contradictory messages...

Don't you think?

You have recently loved skewering Christianity in particular, but always defend the cultural home turf. I am studying this tendency in people, and note it in you, to maintain loyalty to tribalism.
--------------------------
I will say in response to this what I've said when you opine on your being "tired of the Jews."

I don't care what anyone worships, so long as they leave me alone. You and many of your co-religionists are antisemites, racists. When I strategically use the same language against your tribe, you are incensed. Get used to it. Shut up, or put up. I'm not alone, Justil. You're going to hear more and more backlash. It's taken us 2000 years, but we've learned from you.

Poor Christian thing.

Justil,

"As I said, I meant no insult but only to state what is obvious and true regarding your unwavering support of what is Jewish."

Though there's little point in my replying to you as the above quoted sentence indicates, I will anyway. First, it was I, not you who pointed out that this was not the original essay, hardly indicative of my "unwavering support of what is Jewish."

On the original essay: The rabbi's original post was quite clear to a number of bloggers although I think it could have been more explicit.

His argument, at least to some of us, was that witholding treatment, in this case, for religious reasons is, ironically, sinful.

Now, if you can show me a thread in which a priest or minister (a real one) was called a "moron," I'd be happy to look at it.

Hello Farnaz,

My points seemed quite clear.

The powers of panelists to edit is not it. If Susan has stated that she cannot edit threads then I did not hear that, and that is fine. But it was the editors comment, David Waters, that said the original post was deleted. You certainly recognized that, I just seconded it, with the addendum that it was 'completely' different. And the addition that Rabbi Wolpe must have been given, in the least, the green light to do a full rewrite. I found it unbelievable that his original was "lost" completely.

I question why you presumed that previous posters "misunderstood" Wolpe's original essay. This as an extension of the defense of the Rabbi. You have recently loved skewering Christianity in particular, but always defend the cultural home turf. I am studying this tendency in people, and note it in you, to maintain loyalty to tribalism.

Second to that was the question if you would have defended in the same way a Christian, (as an example), or any other religion for that matter, that had "lost" an original and controversial published opinion.

Further, the "vitriol" on Wolpes thread did not seem to be the worst seen by my eyes, so I question your motive for saying it was.

It does not matter, really, and I little attachment to the outcome. As I said, I meant no insult but only to state what is obvious and true regarding your unwavering support of what is Jewish.

I am sorry for the poser that put up that last comment, attributed to you, that Israel should bomb Iran. I'd like to bomb the computer screens of such people, when the keyboards are active.

Of course that goes against my faux passivist Buddhist nature. 'Tis hard sometimes to stay true to ones chosen beliefs... :-)

justil,

"do not know what panelists can and can't do in editing or controlling their thread,"

Susan Jacoby has many times stated that she does not control, cannot edit threads. Given some of what's appeared on her thread, the necessity of David Waters intervening, I believe her.

However, that isn't your point, is it? What is your point, do tell.

justilthen,

I'm sure there is a point in your comments to me, but I don't know what it is.

I, not you, identified the current post as different from the original.

What's with all the defense/aggression? Not the first time, Kali.

Hello Walter,

Yes, I understand that way, and I know that I prefer new comments on top, so far. Either way, they are near mirror images of each other.

Yeah, I've gotten the idea now and then that nobody asked for my opinion. But then, we all have debate tactics... :-) Rile 'em up, Walter! Jab with the left, bing bing, cross with the right. If nobody wanted the left, makes it easier for the right>..

JTTN,

"I FAR prefer that recent posts appear at the top of the list."

nobody asked for your opinion... ;-)

"Otherwise I am forced to scroll down to the bottom, and then rewind back topside to find my place, and then scroll back to the bottom."

but with new comments at the top, you have to scroll down to find your place, so it's the same either way. the advantage of "new at bottom" is in following a converstation - you just keep slowly scrolling down, then can see the last comment when you make a comment.

with "new at top", to follow a conversation, you have scroll down to your place, then up to the next comment, then down to read it, then up past two comments to start reading the next comment, and so on.

Webmasters,

For my input, I FAR prefer that recent posts appear at the top of the list. Otherwise I am forced to scroll down to the bottom, and then rewind back topside to find my place, and then scroll back to the bottom. This only works, in some ways, if I am regularly posting on that string so to be closer to posts that I am responding to. But it is a greater effort, hands down.

Sorry for the contrary vote Walter. A counter-pointer I am, perhaps.

Hello Farnaz,

I do not know what panelists can and can't do in editing or controlling their thread, their own essay included, but it is clear that the essay currently posted by Rabbi Wolpe is a complete re-write. It is not, and is nothing like, the original posted. He had to have, in the least, been asked to rewrite it. It does seem more than strange that there was no original copy of it, and hard to believe. One would have to believe that these essays are written by panelists from their own computers and emailed to the Post. It is easy to grab the copy there, if it is not extant on their hard drive.

I understand that you defend him, as you are consistently friendly with all Jewish based or friendly panelists. Not a criticism here, just a fact. Yet if a Christian Evangelist panelist had done the same thing, (whatever that is), would you defend?

"This is not the first time that a panelist's essay has been misinterpreted although I confess I've never before seen such such vitriol and disrespect among the comments."

Misinterpreted? By whose interpretation? As to the vitriol and disrespect you note, (clearly it was there), you have been around these Hollow Halls long enough to have seen well worse than that, I am sure. Indeed I do remember several times it got far hotter than that. Kali, is it, or has that shadow passed?

We all have our interests and defend what we judge as friendly. There are few that use a wide angle lens to take in a larger picture and include it in the greater whole.

Walter,

I wouldn't hold Wolpe responsible. He cannot remove his essays from this blog; no panelist can.

Something went wrong here. That, I suspect, is all.

Correction to previous posting: I see that R. Wolpe has indicated where he added comments. However, significant parts of the essay are missing. Somewhere, somehow, there has been an error.

really, farnaz?

you remember the original article and that's not it above! if true, that's quite a little scandal, huh? - and kind of a...um...cowardly way for david wolpe to handle it.

your idea about authors emulating waters' practice is great.

btw, WEBMASTERS:
it would be great if on ALL these threads the NEW comments went at the BOTTOM (like on the "under god" posts). that way, you are always scrolling down to follow a conversation. "flows" better.

can you do it? please??

Clarification to preceding post: I see that R. Wolpe has indicated where he responded. However, significant parts of the essay have been omitted. Somehow, somewhere, there has been an oversight.

This is not the article originally posted. It is a revision. Although I understand the motive for the replacement, I think all involved would have done better to have R. Wolpe pen a few additional remarks to his original essay by way of responding to those bloggers who had obviously misunderstood him.

This is not the first time that a panelist's essay has been misinterpreted although I confess I've never before seen such such vitriol and disrespect among the comments.

What to do in the future. Wnen his posts warrrant it, David Waters adds paragraphs, identified as addenda. To prevent further incidents such the one with which we are now dealing, I recommend that all OnFaith panelists be directed to follow David Waters' lead.

volkmare

You wrote, " to your spiritual brothers and sisters."

Who do you consider your "spiritual brothers and sisters"?

Considering the "fact" that God became One of us that means that ALL human beings are not just brothers and sisters of each other but also of God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"Sin" is a concept that was invented with the intent of preventing people from doing things that other people did not want them to do.

It has no basis in reality, and has no place in a discussion about medical care decisions.

Not to take a vaccination is a personal choice.

But if you catch the flu and do nothing to prevent its spread from you or your children is to actively do harm to your spiritual brothers and sisters.

That, is a sin.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

"Rabbi Wolpe's original post on this topic was inadvertently deleted from the system over the weekend, along with the dozens of comments made on the post. We apologize.

David Waters
editor, On Faith"

Inadvertently?

I rarely see that level of action on Rabbi Wolpe's essay, and it was sharply opinionated.

I am sure that it was convenient for the Rabbi, this inadvertent deletion, giving him the chance to respond without responding. Yet the flow of dialogue and debate is now ..... attenuated.

Farnaz1Mansouri1

Originally posted 10-17-9 @ 2:43 PM

You wrote, "One does not hear from Jews that Hashem (Hashem=Name) has a plan for them. Jews do not ask What Would Hashem Do? (LOL)"

In the Tanakh, Jeremiah 29:11, "11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith HaShem, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope."

In the New American Bible, Jeremiah 29:11, "11 For I know well the plans I have in mind for you, says the LORD, plans for your welfare, not for woe! plans to give you a future full of hope."

Seems as if the words straight out of the "Tanakh" and the Bible speak very plainly that God or the Lord or HaShem, One and the Same, most definitely has thoughts/plans, does it not?

This one example could be directed at an "individual" but is that not how God sometimes speaks to His People, thru a person?

By the way, ALL people are God's people even tho the Jews are the "Chosen People" for the simple reason that God chose and formed them.

You also wrote, "The Tanakh details certain periods during which Hashem interacted with singular figures. Neither Walter nor Thomas Baum is Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, MOses, etc. They are dead."

I've never said that I was anyone else but who I am. I would say that it is up to HaShem/God to personally "interact" with whomever HaShem/God choses to personally "interact" with, don't you?

You also wrote, "Hashem has an interest in humanity, some would say "needs" humanity."

Stands to reason that if HaShem's/God's Plan concerns "humanity", than HaShem/God would definitely "need" humanity for that Plan, does it not?

You also wrote, "Next time Hashem clues Walter or Thomas in on HIS plans for them, perhaps, they'll let us know."

I've already mentioned it many times that God chose me to speak.

God's Plan is for ALL to ultimately be in God's Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

walter-in-fallschurch

Originally posted 10-17-9 @ 9:56 AM

You asked, "what would you say to the notion that "there is NO concept of a 'personal god' in judaism"?"

I am not sure what you mean by 'personal god' but concerning what is written about God and the Old Testament Moses, how "personal" of an encounter with God are you talking about?

Not only does it refer to Them chatting but also that God referred to Moses as "a friend", does it not?

Whether or not anyone believes what is written, it seems to me that what is written is very much a "personal" encounter with God, how much more "personal" does it have to be for you or anyone else to consider it "personal"?

This is just "one example", what about the other "examples" of a "personal" encounter between God and others in the Old Testament?

It doesn't speak in some "vague philosophical terminology" but as an actual "personal" encounter between God and various personages in the Old Testament, does it not?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

EKBuddenhagen

Originally posted 10-14-9 @ 12:56 PM

You wrote, "Rabbi Wolpert of course is right."

This is merely your opinion but since God gave us the ability to think and to make decisions and along with that free will, than for some one to tell others that what is their opinion, which in this case is Rabbi Wolpert's opinion, is a binding "religious obligation" and a "sin" to boot, may not be the "height of arrogance" but is sure up there.

You then wrote, "Will it ever be possible for people to think of themselves as US instead of ME?"

Considering that God made each and every one of us as a individual than this line of "reasoning" goes against the "fact" that we are all individual people and that we are all individually responsible for what we do.

This is not to say that we should not think of the "other" or take the "other" into consideration or to reach out to the "other" or as the bible puts it (take care of widows and orphans), the "other", but we are not just some big blob but individual people.

You then wrote, "And when will people be able to think clearly about these issues?"

Seems to me that "lepidopteryx" did think about it and make an informed decision about it rather than letting the government make her decisions for her.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

I am appalled that after at least 8 years of Christian fundamentalists imposing their warped values into bio-medicine (e.g.-blocking stem cell research) that a prominent Los Angeles Rabbi would state that not giving child a flu vaccine is a "sin"

Fundamentalist religious dogma has no place in modern medicine. Healthy spirituality and non-sectarian ethical and moral values certainly do.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

Readers:

Rabbi Wolpe's original post on this topic was inadvertently deleted from the system over the weekend, along with the dozens of comments made on the post. We apologize.

David Waters
editor, On Faith