Messianic Jews say they are persecute...

Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

There are 72045 comments on the Newsday story from Jun 21, 2008, titled Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel. In it, Newsday reports that:

Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

former res

Cheshire, CT

#72423 Apr 24, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
theology: agreed
Wiki: Theology is the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious truths http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology
Is it a religion? Thats another discussion. I define religion as mans response to a perceived reality (or calling) of God (or in this case god concept). However, with the exception of some people who are trying to divorce Kaballah from the Jewish religion, the religion which includes panentheism et al is simply Judaism. Its not a specific unique religion, rather those who share these theologies tend to observe Jewish practices no differently than the more strict theistically inclined.
"The teachings of Hasidism are founded on two theoretical conceptions:(1) religious Panentheism, or the omnipresence of God, and..."

It did say "religious pantheism..." from the link that you gave my kudos for!:))

So you go to the synagogue, you pray, your read from ancient, texts, observe holidays....are you religious? are you a theist? You seem to walk and talk like that duck.
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
"...nature is awe-inspiring and certainly some of god's best work..." A strict nondualist would argue that nature is not Gods work but god itself.
re personalizing: I thought you were questioning where I stood on the issue of theism, and I felt that was a tangent.
Yes, that was pretty much my point because I believed you indicated you were not a theist and this I had an issue with as indicated above.

So what you saw as a tangent due to a previous question that I asked, did actually become the thing I was most interested in exploring. I think that's where our wires got crossed.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72424 Apr 24, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
"The teachings of Hasidism are founded on two theoretical conceptions:(1) religious Panentheism, or the omnipresence of God, and..."
It did say "religious pantheism..." from the link that you gave my kudos for!:))
So you go to the synagogue, you pray, your read from ancient, texts, observe holidays....are you religious? are you a theist? You seem to walk and talk like that duck.
<quoted text>
Yes, that was pretty much my point because I believed you indicated you were not a theist and this I had an issue with as indicated above.
So what you saw as a tangent due to a previous question that I asked, did actually become the thing I was most interested in exploring. I think that's where our wires got crossed.
well, if you want to detour back to what I believe - I have no problem with that.

first off - to quote someone else "its not what about you believe, its about what you see - what you discern in the world and how you understand your experience".

second - I never like these labels of theist vs atheist anyhow, because they assume a static personality - which is inconsistent with my personal existence. In the course of a typical day, I might have leanings that are theistic, atheistic, and agnostic, depending on what I am doing. And I doubt I am alone with this.

My own God concept is more panentheistic than theistic, and more theistic than pantheist.

However, my concept arises when I think of God as an object. But in the course of experiencing my God concept, it is not an object, it is an experience. Its no more an object than you experiencing the wind, or the rain. Sure, there is a rain, and perhaps a wind - but thinking/reflecting about it, and experiencing it are two different categories of perception.

And finally, and I have mentioned this a few times before, since we are humans with a self-constructed sense of self, in order to be able to worship, we have no choice but to construct an "it" to worship "to". Thats the theistic part of my belief system- its a necessary construction on my behalf in order to worship. I invent it out of practicality, however if I was to describe my god concept more in depth, "it" would not be an "it" - i.e. we are not external to the system to grant it "it-hood". We only grant it "it-hood" out of necessity since we have already constructed our "I", and during prayer (when using language) we function on this level of creating objects and identities.

And finally finally, I view Torah as mans perceived idea of what God might have wanted to say rather than divine revelation - i.e. someone meditated on God and received this in the man's own words as a response (a liberal position more in line with perhaps the Reform movement), however I also view Torah as inseparable from God (a position more in line with Hasidism) and view the world as Torah as well.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#72426 Apr 24, 2014
TORAH FOR BARBARIANS

TORAH is a set of petty teachings that encompass a state of high barbarism and so in this sense Torah is the worldview of those persons who cling to the unregenerate aspects of life.

The higher ranges of existence where greater harmony prevails are way beyond Torah and far above all the shallow rules that're based on cheap bargaining whether Platinum, Golden or Silver.

MOSES, the author of the TORAH or CHUMASH, was a barbarian of an extremely high order.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#72427 Apr 24, 2014
STRING THEORY AND OMNIJECTIVE RESEARCH

1) String theory is an intellectual dead-end but it keeps draws funding from lobbies with vested interest who wish to keep the rarefied physics discipline alive.

2) The intellectual basis of strings is sound and borrowed from Vedanta - matter, say its proponents, is not made up of small dot-like entities such as neutrons or quarks but of incredibly small threads of energy that vibrate. A string that vibrates one way becomes an electron. Another, vibrating differently, becomes a neutron. And another becomes one of the carriers of the force of gravity. So, in brief, it means that a field of energy vibrates at different frequencies with each frequency of vibration manifesting as a particular entity. The difficulty with strings is that it works on a scale of 10 spatio-temporal dimensions which makes it subtle to investigate using known physical means or to make useful and verifiable predictions.

3) Imagine the colossal amount of energy that would be required to probe deep into the heart of matter to investigate the higher dimensions.

4) The problem with most people is that they easily tend to dismiss anything that cannot be readily tested by known physical means despite the model being strong in its hypothetical aspect. As such strings is increasingly being described as a theoretical cul-de-sac since the scientists cannot generate those huge amounts of energy on a small scale needed to make practical inferences of its workings. The particle smasher could spread out almost over the whole globe thereby making it impractical to verify the esoteric claims of strings.

5) Strings has been quite successful in explaining both the very small and the incredibly large, yet it is being dismissed as a bogus hypothesis because of the formidable challenge it presents to researchers who need to smash open atoms to observe the workings of strings in the higher dimensions stretching up to the 10th. It implies a failure of human effort and not of the hypothesis.

6) The ordinary human effort encompasses relatively small scales of energy that it effectively puts to use. To examine the subtler dimensions of the energy field, one needs the mystical consciousness based on omnijectiveness.

7) The mystics use their awakened consciousness as the only instrument to investigate the higher dimensions of the universal field of energy which includes strings and goes far beyond.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#72428 Apr 24, 2014
CAUSATION

1) The cause becomes the effect.

2) The effect is nothing else but the cause in partial or in complete manifestation.

3) The cause should be at least as great as its effect in terms of information content.

4) A particular state of existence corresponds to a commensurate degree of information in terms of matter energy and consciousness.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#72429 Apr 24, 2014
NORMAL & SUPERNORMAL:

1) The words physical and non-physical are mere conventions and in many ways they're misnomers.

2) There exists a cosmic field of energy with an innate intelligent principle that upon manifestation vibrates at different frequencies.

3) Each frequency of vibration of the energy field in manifestation denotes a particular state of existence. Thus, we have matter, life, emotions, mind and intuitive states of existence that're simply the different frequencies of vibration of the cosmic field of energy.

4) Science investigates the lowest frequency of vibration of the cosmic energy field that's known as matter, while yoga goes beyond to the higher frequencies.

5) These different ranges of frequencies of vibration of the universal energy field interact among themselves in feeble or in potent ways depending on their proximity to each other thus giving rise to effects..

6) The temporary hybridization, brought about by an act of the heightened will of the mystic, of a certain number of frequencies of vibration of the energy field gives rise to super-normal effects that in popular parlance are known as paranormal phenomena.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#72430 Apr 24, 2014
IS THE COSMOS A BIG MACHINE?

It is reasonable to assume that the creation of the universe with the Big Bang, as well as the emergence of Life and Mind in Matter from a state of involution, and its final dissolution with a Big Crunch are all aspects of a completely self-evolving, self-perpetuating and self-sufficient process. Science views everything in strictly material terms. This does not, however, mean that the cosmos is but a big machine. Rather, it increasingly appears to be an autonomous self-organizing and adaptable system with an immanent intelligence, power and will at its disposal with a high degree of non-equilibrium necessary for dynamic stability.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#72431 Apr 24, 2014
GOD, COSMOS, ENTROPY & BOOTSTRAP

1) If religion posits a divine being for bringing about all these changes of self-organization and self-adaptability then it must be in-built or immanent in the cosmos itself as there is nothing outside it (cosmos). In the systems approach God is not a crude tribalist anthropopathic creator but the innate Mind of the universe and represents the self-organizing dynamics of the cosmos.

2) Scientists are afraid that such a perpetual mechanism will violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics according to which the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy (disorder). There is, however, nothing sacrosanct about physical laws, all of which are but tentative approximations of the behavior of natural phenomena. Man does not make the laws, he only discovers them to explain natural phenomena. Besides, every law must have some exception and the cosmic process is undoubtedly an extraordinarily exceptional one. It involves the total cosmic energy and has a near eternity of time at its disposal to complete it. According to metaphysics, it also has the total cosmic intelligence behind it.

3) The 2nd law of thermodynamics cannot be applicable to dynamic living systems where balance and flexibility are achieved through self-transcendence to counteract any instability. Self-renewal is an essential aspect of self-organizing systems. Order can be produced from disorder only by intelligence as anyone knows who has tried to put his room in order. Finally, gravity is the force which plays a prominent part in the process and science is doubtful if the 2nd law of thermodynamics is applicable to gravitational entropy.

4) The working substance of the cosmic process is the proton, the most stable of all elementary particles. Even if modern experiments seem to indicate that the proton itself may be subject to disintegration in 10^32 years, it is sufficiently stable for a huge amount of time and besides it is possible that the creation of protons may be taking place simultaneously with their disintegration in some corner of this vast universe. Thus, the universe being a vast eco-system, conditions are ideal for its elf-evolving nature.

5) The quantum theory has revealed the basic oneness of the universe. The Bootstrap and the S-matrix theories have finally rejected the reductionistic doctrine. They lay emphasis on the fundamental interconnectedness of all cosmic phenomena as well as their self-consistency as parts of a hierarchy of wholes. The cosmic pattern is not designed by an extra-cosmic creator but is intrinsically intelligent which as a result forms a web of inter-related events.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#72432 Apr 24, 2014
SELF-CONTAINED UNIVERSE & HOLON

1) The basic unity of the universe and its intrinsically dynamic nature derives from the fact that all cosmic phenomena like space and time, matter and energy, mind and consciousness are effects produced by an underlying causal field via the Big Bang.

2) Mystics hold that all things contain one another, so that by knowing one fully, you know all. Particle physics is approaching the same conclusion. Even poets intuitively see the whole world contained in a grain of sand and eternity in a moment of time.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#72433 Apr 24, 2014
SCIENTIFIC LAWS - APPROXIMATIONS OF REALITY

1) Scientific laws and theories are creations of the human mind and as such can only be approximations of reality. In this respect, there are no fundamental laws nor universal constants (not even c). They're all tentative and subject to change as natural circumstances necessitate it.

2) In the illumined words of an ancient Jain sutra:

"Reality negates all law; it can be comprehended only by the awareness of the exception."

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#72434 Apr 24, 2014
The next stage of emergence after mind in the terrestrial nature - the manifestation of the supramental consciousness in matter from a state of involution!

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#72435 Apr 24, 2014
SUPRACOSMIC SOURCE

1) By supracosmic is meant something that includes as well as exceeds what it includes in its scope.

2) The source of the cosmos is a field of potentiality in terms of consciousness, energy and matter.

3) The source is supracosmic since it exceeds in terms of information content the information that is needed to bring about the manifestation of the cosmos from its own essence.

JOEL COOL DUDE

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#72436 Apr 24, 2014
SUPRACOSMIC CAUSE EXCEEDS ITS EFFECT IN TERMS OF INFORMATION

1) The supracosmic source of the cosmos is the overlying cause and its manifested effect is the cosmos.

2) As seen in the case of the supracosmic cause which brings forth the effect from its own essence by an act of self-manifestation, the cause (supracosmic source) should be at least as great (if not greater) as its effect (cosmos) in terms of information content.

THUMB RULE: Cause should be at least as great (if not greater) as its effect in terms of information content.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72441 Apr 25, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
well, if you want to detour back to what I believe - I have no problem with that.
first off - to quote someone else "its not what about you believe, its about what you see - what you discern in the world and how you understand your experience".
second - I never like these labels of theist vs atheist anyhow, because they assume a static personality - which is inconsistent with my personal existence. In the course of a typical day, I might have leanings that are theistic, atheistic, and agnostic, depending on what I am doing. And I doubt I am alone with this.
My own God concept is more panentheistic than theistic, and more theistic than pantheist.
However, my concept arises when I think of God as an object. But in the course of experiencing my God concept, it is not an object, it is an experience. Its no more an object than you experiencing the wind, or the rain. Sure, there is a rain, and perhaps a wind - but thinking/reflecting about it, and experiencing it are two different categories of perception.
And finally, and I have mentioned this a few times before, since we are humans with a self-constructed sense of self, in order to be able to worship, we have no choice but to construct an "it" to worship "to". Thats the theistic part of my belief system- its a necessary construction on my behalf in order to worship. I invent it out of practicality, however if I was to describe my god concept more in depth, "it" would not be an "it" - i.e. we are not external to the system to grant it "it-hood". We only grant it "it-hood" out of necessity since we have already constructed our "I", and during prayer (when using language) we function on this level of creating objects and identities.
And finally finally, I view Torah as mans perceived idea of what God might have wanted to say rather than divine revelation - i.e. someone meditated on God and received this in the man's own words as a response (a liberal position more in line with perhaps the Reform movement), however I also view Torah as inseparable from God (a position more in line with Hasidism) and view the world as Torah as well.
I responded "15 hours ago" and I can see it but get that sneaking feeling no one else.(I can tell because the overall topix status shows a post from 5 hours ago as being last post despite multiple re-posting of my response this morning) May have picked up a piece of bad code in a copy and paste from something. Tried posting several more times, hence the gap in post numbers.

Won't give it up. Happy Friday. Nice day! Rain tomorrow :(

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72442 Apr 25, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
I responded "15 hours ago" and I can see it but get that sneaking feeling no one else.(I can tell because the overall topix status shows a post from 5 hours ago as being last post despite multiple re-posting of my response this morning) May have picked up a piece of bad code in a copy and paste from something. Tried posting several more times, hence the gap in post numbers.
Won't give it up. Happy Friday. Nice day! Rain tomorrow :(
sorry - there is a huge gap in numbers - nothing since Joel 9 hrs ago at #36....

for now, if you can still see it yourself, copy and paste it onto a doc or an email for safekeeping, and then try again later to repost.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72443 Apr 25, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
sorry - there is a huge gap in numbers - nothing since Joel 9 hrs ago at #36....
for now, if you can still see it yourself, copy and paste it onto a doc or an email for safekeeping, and then try again later to repost.
Thanks for letting me.

Seeing that I could post this
shows there is something within the other post.

I took you up on your suggestion, email.

It was far too pithy and insightful to waste!

;)

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72444 Apr 25, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for letting me.
Seeing that I could post this
shows there is something within the other post.
I took you up on your suggestion, email.
It was far too pithy and insightful to waste!;)
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
second - I never like these labels of theist vs atheist anyhow, because they assume a static personality - which is inconsistent with my personal existence. In the course of a typical day, I might have leanings that are theistic, atheistic, and agnostic, depending on what I am doing. And I doubt I am alone with this.
FR: I can see how the whole experience is dynamic rather than static, like any relationship.
However one views it, a relationship with god, a relationship with one conscience, or good vs evil. A journey, not a destination.
I would think that being a theist would be an ongoing struggle. They say folks "struggle with their faith." It came out later the Mother Teresa struggled with her faith, and she's fastracked for sainthood.
But I don't think this supports the case not calling oneself a theist.
To me, the struggle is almost assumed.


Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
My own God concept is more panentheistic than theistic, and more theistic than pantheist.
However, my concept arises when I think of God as an object. But in the course of experiencing my God concept, it is not an object, it is an experience. Its no more an object than you experiencing the wind, or the rain. Sure, there is a rain, and perhaps a wind - but thinking/reflecting about it, and experiencing it are two different categories of perception.

FR: Again, agreed, it's an active process. Belief is a verb.
I think one experiences holiness, god, divinity etc.

Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
And finally, and I have mentioned this a few times before, since we are humans with a self-constructed sense of self, in order to be able to worship, we have no choice but to construct an "it" to worship "to". Thats the theistic part of my belief system- its a necessary construction on my behalf in order to worship. I invent it out of practicality, however if I was to describe my god concept more in depth, "it" would not be an "it" - i.e. we are not external to the system to grant it "it-hood". We only grant it "it-hood" out of necessity since we have already constructed our "I", and during prayer (when using language) we function on this level of creating objects and identities.

FR: And the god construct. To me it goes without saying that we constructed god.
:)) I can't read this without reiterating my favorite Voltaire quote:
“If god created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated.”

Frijoles wrote:
And finally finally, I view Torah as mans perceived idea of what God might have wanted to say rather than divine revelation - i.e. someone meditated on God and received this in the man's own words as a response (a liberal position more in line with perhaps the Reform movement), however I also view Torah as inseparable from God (a position more in line with Hasidism) and view the world as Torah as well.

FR The most interesting part for me.
You say a scribe took these words down. That god did not write this himself.
What if the scribe was having a bad day and took it down incorrectly? For thousand of years people were working off incorrect text?

"I also view Torah as inseparable from God...."
This I don't understand. If you created god as your own construct to pray to; or as an experience more than a real object - then how can a book written by another man or men, interpreting god's words....be the SAME as god.
And how can a book be the same as the world?
Or is everything just simply, everything???

see if this works
former res

Cheshire, CT

#72445 Apr 25, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
second - I never like these labels of theist vs atheist anyhow, because they assume a static personality - which is inconsistent with my personal existence. In the course of a typical day, I might have leanings that are theistic, atheistic, and agnostic, depending on what I am doing. And I doubt I am alone with this.
FR: I can see how the whole experience is dynamic rather than static, like any relationship.
However one views it, a relationship with god, a relationship with one conscience, or good vs evil. A journey, not a destination.
I would think that being a theist would be an ongoing struggle. They say folks "struggle with their faith." It came out later the Mother Teresa struggled with her faith, and she's fastracked for sainthood.
But I don't think this supports the case not calling oneself a theist.
To me, the struggle is almost assumed.
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
My own God concept is more panentheistic than theistic, and more theistic than pantheist.
However, my concept arises when I think of God as an object. But in the course of experiencing my God concept, it is not an object, it is an experience. Its no more an object than you experiencing the wind, or the rain. Sure, there is a rain, and perhaps a wind - but thinking/reflecting about it, and experiencing it are two different categories of perception.
FR: Again, agreed, it's an active process. Belief is a verb.
I think one experiences holiness, god, divinity etc.
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
And finally, and I have mentioned this a few times before, since we are humans with a self-constructed sense of self, in order to be able to worship, we have no choice but to construct an "it" to worship "to". Thats the theistic part of my belief system- its a necessary construction on my behalf in order to worship. I invent it out of practicality, however if I was to describe my god concept more in depth, "it" would not be an "it" - i.e. we are not external to the system to grant it "it-hood". We only grant it "it-hood" out of necessity since we have already constructed our "I", and during prayer (when using language) we function on this level of creating objects and identities.
FR: And the god construct. To me it goes without saying that we constructed god.
:)) I can't read this without reiterating my favorite Voltaire quote:
“If god created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated.”
Frijoles wrote:
And finally finally, I view Torah as mans perceived idea of what God might have wanted to say rather than divine revelation - i.e. someone meditated on God and received this in the man's own words as a response (a liberal position more in line with perhaps the Reform movement), however I also view Torah as inseparable from God (a position more in line with Hasidism) and view the world as Torah as well.
FR The most interesting part for me.
You say a scribe took these words down. That god did not write this himself.
What if the scribe was having a bad day and took it down incorrectly? For thousand of years people were working off incorrect text?
"I also view Torah as inseparable from God...."
This I don't understand. If you created god as your own construct to pray to; or as an experience more than a real object - then how can a book written by another man or men, interpreting god's words....be the SAME as god.
And how can a book be the same as the world?
Or is everything just simply, everything???
see if this works
I see it.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72446 Apr 25, 2014
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
second - I never like these labels of theist vs atheist anyhow, because they assume a static personality - which is inconsistent with my personal existence. In the course of a typical day, I might have leanings that are theistic, atheistic, and agnostic, depending on what I am doing. And I doubt I am alone with this.

FR: I can see how the whole experience is dynamic rather than static, like any relationship.
However one views it, a relationship with god, a relationship with one conscience, or good vs evil. A journey, not a destination.
I would think that being a theist would be an ongoing struggle. They say folks "struggle with their faith." It came out later the Mother Teresa struggled with her faith, and she's fastracked for sainthood.
But I don't think this supports the case not calling oneself a theist.
To me, the struggle is almost assumed.

;)
But if someone asks you if you believe the world is round, do you struggle to articulate that belief? From a strict epistemeological perspective, why wouldnt one require the same degree of certainty of belief? Since you already indicated that you would not require this, I think that shows more about the limits of boxing someone into a absolute position on a concept that isnt so susceptible to "belief language" and perhaps best described using other types of language that isnt so binary.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#72447 Apr 25, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Frijoles wrote:
My own God concept is more panentheistic than theistic, and more theistic than pantheist.
However, my concept arises when I think of God as an object. But in the course of experiencing my God concept, it is not an object, it is an experience. Its no more an object than you experiencing the wind, or the rain. Sure, there is a rain, and perhaps a wind - but thinking/reflecting about it, and experiencing it are two different categories of perception.

FR: Again, agreed, it's an active process. Belief is a verb.
I think one experiences holiness, god, divinity etc.
On that note, one of the core values of Judaism is to "create holiness".

When I was in college I became intrigued by that directive, and started to research, in my own way, what that meant, from the perspective of the traditional religion (not from the perspective necessarily of me). Naively I thought I could answer that question with a few hours of books, and now 25+ years later I am still pondering this. Its a core question.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 min loose cannon 243,254
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Injudgement 1,684,792
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 19 min RACE 105,432
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr Alain Vain 11,784
Sick of commercials with mix couples 2 hr KIDS WAKE UP 14
Trump is A 4 hr Bad deal 386
Little Dicky Durbin needs to know this. 12 hr DurbinDicksAmerica 2

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages