Originally on Reddit: Casual Sex and Spiritual Damage, With a Hypothetical Example

(“How do studies measure ‘spiritual damage’?”

(A hypothetical case study might give one an idea as to “how”.)

 In most religions and denominations/movement/sects thereof, casual sex is at least discouraged and at most condemned. Even in, e.g., Reform/Liberal/Progressive Judaism, premarital cohabitation is discussed as not ideal in a CCAR resolution. The impact that casual sex can have on one’s individual relationship with his or her professed deity (e.g., God), his or her individual and communal relationships within his or her congregation (e.g., at his or her local Reform temple or Liberal/Progressive synagogue), and his or her religious standing—both within and outside of his or her local congregation (e.g., within his or her local Reform temple and across the URJ)—can be impacted.

For example (hypothetical names, etc.), if supposedly-God-fearing Reform rabbi Pesah Minkowicz is known to be polyamorous and living with his equally-polyamorous fiancée, congregants at Qehjla Qadosz Reformi in Krakow are going to question whether they can trust him to lead the congregation and help them if they should ever deal with unfaithful spouses. If Rabbi Minkowicz understands how the congregation has a difficult time viewing him as a God-fearing and trustworthy rabbi, he might begin to understand how both his relationships with his congregation (not to mention the entire Reform community in Krakow and perhaps even across Poland) and his relationship with God might be damaged.

Rabbi Minkowicz might consider, “If my congregants view me as, quite candidly, a man-whore and a hypocrite, then the God that my ancestors may not view me in a favorable way, either. My congregants must also be wondering how I can be esteemed as a man whom helps one lead the self to God. I therefore imagine that God must view me as a rabbi whom is not shomer Torah [observant of Torah], no matter how much of it He gave at Sinai.”

Rabbi Minkowicz, based on reports that he receives on a frequent basis from trustworthy congregants, may conclude that God will eventually allow that Poland’s URJ equivalent revoke his semikha (rabbinical ordination) and permit QQR to put him under kherem (censure or excommunication) for (among other desecrations of God’s Name) playing the male harlot. If he were simply a congregant and perhaps only a layman’s capacity at most, the consequences of his actions might be less severe. Nonetheless, especially because he is a rabbi, his Torah- and God-defying behavior may well incur for him spiritual damage that might cause him to either:

1. ⁠do teszuwah (repent) and even be part of a monogamous couple with a fiancée-turned-rebicin (rabbi’s wife)

2. ⁠resign his rabbinical position and congregational membership, and even dissociate himself from Reform Judaism altogether.

(PS: Reform/Liberal/Progressive Judaism tends to be less secular in Eastern Europe, Canada, etc. than, e.g., the United States and the United Kingdom. Also, “w” in Polish is pronounced “v”; “c” as “ts” and “cz” as “ch” or “tsh”; “sz” as “sh”, and “j” as “i” or “y”. That’s why when Rabbi Minkowicz receives a letter that warns of “cherem” unless he does “teshuvah”, he needs to consult an English-speaking colleague as to what exactly a URJ representative in Warszawa meant.)

Commentary [Original Form; For Business Announcer]: AI and Technological Responsibility

 When I sat in on my first BA meeting, I found myself reminded of that which I know that I (and others) need to remind (still) others in the current AI panic. As you may have guessed, I (and others) need to remind (still) others to what you put into AI is exactly what AI gives you back (including with, per the example with the meeting attendees received, AI-generated images). I, after all, once used an AI generator for images on Twitter. 

As I recounted in the meeting, I found myself responsible for putting accurately into the AI generator what limited information I have about my paternal grandfather’s paternal grandmother. After all, I could not depend on AI to give me an estimate of what she may have looked like if I did not dependably give AI the information that I had. I needed to describe her as I knew her to have been: 

1) a frum Crypto Jew.

2) a 5’3” Sefardi-Ashkenazi daughter of a kohen whom was born in Bosse, Russia-occupied Poland, and died in Sugar Notch, Pennsylvania at the age of 51.

3) a woman whom was born on June 26, 1882 and died after a difficult life (which included rape and the loss of four children as well as a husband) on April 6, 1936. 

4) a grey-eyed brunette.  

Based on the information that I gave* and based on my knowledge of (as I explained in the meeting) what her son Anthony and grandson Jack looked like (as well as what, for example, other relatives of hers looked and look like), I chose this AI-generated image and (when I used it on my family tree and otherwise) explain at the image portrays what she may have looked like based on what process are utilized to come up with it.

Interestingly, if the AI generator did not generate a possible image of her with makeup, it could have well generated an image of her with nephritis-induced flushing (and you would have to know that she died of nephritis to speculate on that).

I would have to go back and find the original tweet thread, although – as Ancestry allows limited captions — I may have given more of a description than what is shown here. 

Conversely and for the same reasons—i.e., information input and discernment—I could not conclusively discern what my great-great-grandfather may have looked like.

Meanwhile, I hope that anyone that has an actual picture of her comes forward with it – partly, so that I can see if I correctly had an AI image generated and carefully chosen. Besides, mainly, I want to see what Great-Great-Grandma actually looked like.

*At the time of this writing, I did not have the original Twitter thread in front of me, as I generated the images with an AI Twitter bot.

Commentary [For Business Announcer] “United States v. Trump” and Lessons from “United States v. Maxwell”

 (Originally a Twitter thread. Edited slightly here.)

As Trump finally faces justice for—among other offenses—attempting to establish himself as a populist dictator and destroy conservatives in the process, I sincerely hope that “Georgia v. Trump” & “United States v. Trump” are closed-to-the-public trials. Of course, in the United States, to deliberately misrepresent one’s self as a conservative when he or she is a populist (or otherwise misrepresent one’s self politically) cannot be prosecuted. Nonetheless, Trump thankfully is finally facing justice for that offense as well. As someone else on Twitter put and as everybody else now knows (if anyone somehow didn’t know it before), one is willingly joining Trump in that offense if he or she as a supposed conservative votes for him.

As equally as I don’t want anyone holding up populist Trump as a pinnacle of conservatism, I don’t want Trump getting any attention, whether positive or negative. Any vote for Trump gives him undeserved positive attention, and opening “United States v. Trump” to the public and the media would give him negative attention. He is a narcissist, and narcissists like him thrive on especially undeserved attention which they try to turn in their victim-playing favors. 

Acutely aware of of how they can try to use undeserved attention, narcissists like him especially try to play the victim when they face prosecution. I therefore don’t want sensationalism getting that foothold for Trump and jeopardizing Georgia’s or the U.S.’ chances of securing convictions against Trump (Trump can be prosecuted twice: once at a state level, and once at a federal level. Georgia would therefore not be committing double jeopardy in any “Georgia v. Trump” trial.).

In a similarly-high-profile trial, “United States v. Maxwell”, the judge understood the need to limit the public as well as the media from being able to sit in on and cover the trial—and was probably well aware that one of Maxwell’s co-conspirators (clients) would try to jeopardize it. Of course, that client was Donald “I wish her well” Trump—and he was one of the six “Lolita Express” passengers whom Jeffrey Epstein’s and Ghislaine Maxwell’s pilot implicated.

Learn from history, then, and follow the historical pattern to see the current pattern. You will see that as a certain client would have tried to (and, with his “wish”, did try to) jeopardize the U.S.’ chances of securing a conviction against his late friend’s (Epstein’s) accomplice (Maxwell), he as a main defendant is already trying to jeopardize Georgia’s and the U.S.’ chances of securing convictions against him. 

You will then see the judges’ need to close “United States v. Trump” and “Georgia v. Trump”. You will thus conclude that any judge whom learned from “Maxwell” saw how the judge protected the United States (and especially Maxwell’s et. al.’s American cities) from letting Ghislaine Maxwell slip through the fingers of justice’s hands. You will thus hope that the judge in each “Trump” case will protect the prosecution from being unable to convict the attention-ravenous and injustice-pursuing defendant Donald John Trump.

Commentary [For “Business Announcer”]: What If the U.S. Had Given Israel the Most-Favored Nation Status Which It (Tried To Have) Bestowed On China?

 “ 1 Now the LORD said unto Abram: 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee. 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing. 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.' 4 So Abram went, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him; and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.” (From Genesis 12, JPS 1917)

This comes directly from the Bible¹ on which many throughout U.S. history have, at least to some extent, claimed that the foundational documents of the U.S. find their bases. Beginning with, for instance, George Washington in his letter to Sefardi Congregation Yeshuat Yisra’el (Jeshuat Israel) in Newport 

“It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

Go: Washington”

President Washington had a full cognizance of the fact that a nation that was one of “Nature and Nature’s God” could not and cannot prosper without acknowledging the favor that “Nature’s God” already bestowed upon Israel. Even if Washington himself was not a Christian (as what exactly his own religion was remains a matter of debate for some), he recognized what gentile pagan leaders before him recognized: i.e., that “Nature’s God” is the very God of Israel, Whom even hinges the destiny of all countries based on the destiny of Israel (as the following, among other, verses show):

“When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the children of men, He set the borders of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel. For the portion of the LORD is His people, Jacob the lot of His inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 32:8-9)

And

“ And it shall come to pass in the end of days, that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established as the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many peoples shall go and say: 'Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths.' For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” (Isaiah 2:2-3)

Professing himself to a modern-day Cyrus (despite that even the pagan Cyrus would come to recognize the God of Israel), President Harry S. Truman claimed to believe such. This means that he obviously implied professed agreement with President Washington before him, as he purported to agree with the Cyrus with whom Washington agreed: 

“ 1 Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying: 2'Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia: All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD, the God of heaven, given me; and He hath charged me to build Him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. 3 Whosoever there is among you of all His people--his God be with him--let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and build the house of the LORD, the God of Israel, He is the God who is in Jerusalem. 4 And whosoever is left, in any place where he sojourneth, let the men of his place help him with silver, and with gold, and with goods, and with beasts, beside the freewill-offering for the house of God which is in Jerusalem.” (From Ezra 1)

Of course, we now know that (and being a relative of victims and survivors of the Holocaust in Russia, I have mentioned several times that) Truman was no Cyrus or fellow Philosemitic POTUS of Washington. In fact, he disfavored Israel by (among committing other Antisemitic acts) lauding the main perpetrator of the Soviet-named “Doctor’s Plot” as “America’s Uncle Joe”, and doing nothing to help wrest the Temple Mount out of the hands of the Arabs (in which it still remains, and into which it first fell when the Dome of the Rock was first built). 

Conversely, per Ezra 4, Cyrus did not immediately tolerate or encourage that “the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin”—among whom were descendants of Edom and Ishmael—would even stop the Temple Mount from being back in Jewish hands. While “the adversaries…weakened the hands of the people of Judah…” in those days, they certainly did not have Cyrus’ tolerance or encouragement to do so. They also would not have had Washington’s tolerance or encouragement for— had Zionism as we know it occurred in his days—Anti-Zionist acts. 

For such a nation of “Nature and Nature’s God” as well as a Judeo-Christian nation, the United States and its presidents from Nixon (and officially on February 1, 1980 under Carter) to Clinton (with Congress’ approval) took its Antisemitism a step even further. It bestowed onto China what belongs to Israel, and thus tried to rob even from God by giving China what has belonged to Israel since ancient days: most-favored nation status. 

(Not only, then, was Carter the worst POTUS at that point: he was also the most Antisemitic. As if approving of Truman’s hypocrisy was not enough, Carter went as far as to try to steal from the people of Jesus of Nazareth what God the Father Himself gave Jesus’ people—including my mixed-blooded-Jewish self.) 

By now, one should conclude that the economic and other troubles that the United States has endured due to its relationship with China may as a direct result of it. In other words, one should begin to see that the U.S.’ defiance of God and favor of China may well be its cause for being cursed economically and otherwise over the past 53 years. He or she should also see as a miracle that Israel in the U.S. continues to do what we (yes, we) did for the U.S. in Washington’s day (which Washington as a gentile took to heart, and which I as a Jew born almost 300 years later take to heart): 

“ Build ye houses, and dwell in them, and plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them; take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; and multiply ye there, and be not diminished. And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray unto the LORD for it; for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.” (Jeremiah 29:5-7)

In His mercy, God would fully understand if we even stopped praying for a nation that is much like the Babylon which carried us into what eventually became the first global diaspora. Nonetheless, as we did for Assyria and did for the cities to which Babylon carried us, we seek the peace (and blessing) instead of the cursing of (and judgement against) Israel’s not-so-strongest ally. If only the United States of today would reciprocate like the United States of George Washington did, and if even one president in the future would be a true American Cyrus! If only a true American Cyrus (and the U.S. Congress with him or her) would also take back from China and return to Israel what God gave Israel in the first place: most-favored nation status!

¹ Here, the JPS 1917 translation via MechonMamre.org, as with all other quotations.

Personal Commentary: Not the Best Author’s Sales Pitch, Although….

While I grant that the following is not the best selling point, I can assure you of the painfully-honest following:

If you at least consider any of my books, you will consider helping me not have to depend on what I never want another person with disabilities to need—namely, certain kinds of assistance (and some people have actually been upset that I’ve disclosed that—never mind that God afflicted me to the point of needing such at this point!). I hope to get to a point at which I can help others never depend on what I’ve had to depend.

The painfully-honest part, of course, is that since I can’t yet drive and I am seen as my disabilities, I have to partially depend on the government that hates people like me and sees us as tokenizable disabilities whom otherwise aren’t worth anything (You try even having Cerebral Palsy—let alone having it comorbid with other disabilities, and then you can get back to me if you still disagree with my assessment!). 

Through my writing, etc., I hope to get off of the very things on which I despised being. When other people recommended that I fill out certain applications, I absolutely resisted doing so. I already knew that others (including taxpayers) view me as a burden. 

Being viewed as a burden is therefore crucial as to why I want to get to a point at which I can help to assure that other people with disabilities never again have to depend on governments and taxpayers whom absolutely despise us and see as tokenizable disabilities—they certainly don’t see us as human! 

In fact, I myself have even been called “lazy pig“ and “gimp” just because of my situation. I don’t want other people with disabilities to have to be victimized simply because we are people with disabilities. For whatever reasons, God afflicted us with disabilities as is. Why should we be victimized simply because God afflicted us with disabilities? I don’t dispute God’s right to have afflicted us with disabilities (and I dare not accuse God of victimizing us), by the way. I also despise that others are victimizing us for something outside of our controls. 

Anyway, as aforementioned, when you at least consider buying one of my books, you will consider helping me get out of a position in which I do depend on people whom despise me; and you also consider helping me get other people with disabilities out of having to depend on people whom despise them. 

I have no need or want to be a multimillionaire author with excessive temporal possessions that have little to nothing to do with my writing. I have certainly a need and a want for those with disabilities to not have depend on people whom want to tokenize us at best and do worse at worst. 

Thank you for your time, understanding, and consideration of buying my books. L’Erev Shabbat Shalom (that I were able enough to make aliyah and help others make aliyah, too, by the way! I even have looked into trying to make aliyah. Obviously, it has not worked.).

Originally A Reddit Reply: “ why did you change your faith, if you did?”

 TL:DR My testimony in short 

Jesus Christ changed it for me when I was six. I was baptized Catholic and raised Episcopalian, and I therefore had some exposure to the Gospel. All I remember about that day is the Episcopal priest and my mom, talking in the parking lot of the church while I was praying in the cemetery (and I later found out that it’s a Jewish custom in some circles to pray by the graves of those whom were considered righteous). I didn’t know that I am of Jewish heritage at the time, and I certainly was not raised in a church in which salvation by faith and grace alone was taught.

My mom later told me that when I told the pastor to diet that I accepted Jesus, she asked me if I was a good girl, and I told her “It doesn’t matter. He died for me.”

Now that I’ve since learned about eternal security, salvation by faith and grace alone, and my Jewish heritage, what I was able to say on the day has become more profound ever since—especially because I (maybe) believed that one could lose salvation and just get it back (although I could’ve come to accept the concept of eternal security earlier on, and just never had a term to put that), that faith was about me believing and not God choosing me first, and that I was chosen to be regrafted (not just grafted) in to the Olive Tree (Both of my parents are of Jewish heritage; and my father is an Ashkenazi Levite, although both of my parents have unfortunately chosen to not identify with their Jewish heritage—partly because my father comes from Crypto-Jewish families, and most of my mother’s ancestors were gentiles. The most-recent-fully-Jewish ancestors of my mother were, as far as I know, born in the 1700s and 1800s.).

Imagine this supposedly-Polish-and-Irish Catholic-turned-Episcopalian-turned-Presbyterian Christian finding out that she’s a Jewish believer in Jesus and getting kicked out of a Catholic college classroom for confronting the professor’s Antisemitism—that happened!

PS I now attend a non-denominational church and observe the holy days per the Biblical calendar—which the exception of holy days such as Chanukah, as that’s almost impossible to observe in any other way but the Rabbinic calendar. Sometimes, I will observe the holy day per one calendar and acknowledge it on the other per the other. As far as I know, none of my recent ancestors came from Karaite families, anyway.

Commentary: Scripture, Double Names, and Implications vs. Mistranslations, Lies, Failures To Critically Think

 (Full answer to a Reddit question)

The Scriptures themselves literally say that the Scriptures were breathed by God and/or given at Sinai. The apparent contradictions, etc. are not the fault of God, but of translators and/or people whom refuse to critically think. For example, we know that Yeter haYishma’eli (Jether the Ishmaelite) converted and became known as Yitra haYisra’eli (Jitra the Israelite). It is not explicitly stated, although it is implied in 2 Samuel 17:25 and 1 Chronicles 2:17. It is also possible that Yeter-Yitra had an Israelite ancestor, even though his immediate paternal ancestor was an Ishmaelite. 

Another example is Yitro-Re’u’el. By the way, the custom of double names is still done in Jewish culture today. In the Yiddish-speaking communities alone, there are (with women as examples this time) women named Ruchla Leya (Rachel Leah), Yehudis Chanah (Judith Ann), and Osnas Sore (Asenath Sarah). This is why in Jewish records, with hypothetical names, you might find Rukhle Leja bas Arj u’Mirjam Tarnopolsky listed as “Rukhle bas Arj” (Rachel the daughter of Ari) or “Rukhle bas Mirjam” (This would usually be in the context of a synagogue record and in asking for prayers for the person in question), or “Rukhle/Leja Tarnopolska” with her father and mother (if they had second names) listed as “Arj/Jehuda Tarnopolsky” and “Mirjam/Mara”. For her brother Jankiel Josel, you may find the parents listed as “Jehuda Tarnopolsky” and “Mara” and his name variously as “Jankiel ben Jehuda”, “Josel ben Mara”, or any of the other variations.

As with Yeter-Yitra and Yitro-Re’u’el, you have to understand that Rukhle is the same person as Leya, Arj the same as Jehuda, Mirjam as Mara, and Jankiel as Josel. This doesn’t even cover that their matzevot (gravestones) would most likely read: 

‎1) רחל בת ר׳ ארי (Rachel daughter of R’ Ari—often, the mother’s name is not included). 

‎2) אפרים יוסף בן ר׳ ארי יהודה ומרים מרע (Efrayim Josef son of R’ Ari Judah and Miriam Mara)—perhaps because he is a genealogist and wanted his descendants to be sure of whose matzevah (gravestone) they were locating, he made sure that his matzevah was made prior to his death and with both of his parents’ names included. He may have also wanted to honor his mother, to whom he was close—as he was her only son, and she was widowed early on in her marriage. 

Not everything is explicitly or even at all recorded in the Scriptures, just as not everything is recorded in records outside of the Scriptures. The belief that Scripture was not literally given by God in every way is unfortunately an old and a heretical belief, which is why God unequivocally reiterated the complete God-given nature of Scripture through (among others) Sha’ul Paulus (whom even had a secular name as his second name, as those such as David Stern—of blessed memory—pointed out: he retained “Sha’ul” and was called “Paulus”).

PS and personal example: My paternal grandfather’s grandfather used “Julian”, “Julius”, “Julias”, and “Ludwik” for “Yehudah” or “Leib”, and his paternal grandmother used “Alexandria Alice” for “Asenat Sarah” or “Osnes Sore”. Neither used Hebrew or Yiddish names openly. Two of their sons (ironically the shandes or shames) did: 

1) Jankie (for Felix or Efrayim—and that does not even cover how many times he tried to fool official record keepers. His obituary gave it away when he was listed as “John F.” and his father as “Felix”— unless his mother had an affair with her in-law brother, which I don’t think that she did; as he listed in all other records that “Julius” or “Ludwik” was his father). When I first heard it as apparently a simple and supposed nickname for “John”, I recorded it as “Johnkie”. His secular name was “John Felix”, and my granduncle Tony (of blessed memory) probably did not realize that the name was a short form of “Jankiel”.

2) Susi, which I wrote as “Suzy”. It would’ve been unexplained if I did not find the JewishGen Given Names Database. Their mother had roots in some shtetlach (majority-Jewish towns) in Ukraine (which explains the use of a Ukrainish Yidish name), and “Susi” is a Ukrainish Yidish diminutive of “Yosef”). His name was Joseph Paschal, so he lied to multiple recordkeepers and said that his mother had recycled the secular middle name of “Peter”, as a brother already had that middle name. He also had a cousin named Paschal Joseph Danilowicz (of blessed memory).  We are Ashkenazi and Sefardi, and we used both naming customs, though we never recycled secular middle names when it concerned living people unless we followed Sefardi custom and named for living relatives—and usually not siblings (I know of one case, and that’s on another side).

With that in mind, does that remove that Great-Granduncles Jankie and Susi were named as such with their secular names being “John Felix” and “Joseph Paschal”? If it does, then we would have to assume that Great-Great-Grandma was either lying or unintentionally inconsistent. 

My understanding is that even though she did not have much of a formal education, if one at all, she was intelligent and shrewd. She also sadly was not a believer and tried to cause my great-grandmother, whom she considered to be an apostate or meshumadah, to have “a mental breakdown”. She was known as “a tough cookie” and “holy terror”. Her misguided Anti-Messianic zeal plus Schizophrenia and her being called “Mary” in her son’s wedding notice for some reason made her last years Hell on Earth for my great-grandmother.

If Great-Great-Grandma was consistent, then, how much more was, is, and will be the Perfect, Righteous, Truthful, and Faithful God of Israel? Just because people are known by different names and/or—like the shandes Jankie and Susi—lie does not make the original source either maliciously or unintentionally errant, inconsistent, or dubious. 

PPS Why Jankie and Susi were shandes is not relevant to the discussion.