Both of your family names are Anglo-Celtic, the one and only language you speak is American-English (and you do that badly) and your appearance is that of an Anglo-Celt.
William Scott, my greatX7 grandfather, showed up in Maryland (USA) in 1654. He was from Scotland, not English culture. Scottish people are an entirely different kind of white than people from England.
Secondly, a person's name is only
given. A person's name does not embody the entire culture in which they have grown up in and identify with. I wasn't raised around Anglo culture, and I don't identify with it at all.
Also not every transgression or slight rises to the level of sin.
I already said that in the thread. Because, you know, the KF cult attempts to accuse me of sin, where there is none
You are impressively obtuse. No one said that the Torah states that humans can perform absolution. What was said was that anyone can choose to forgive someone that has hurt them by committing some act towards them which happens to be a sin. Also not every transgression or slight rises to the level of sin. The example of being cut-off on the road was offered to you. Surely you could have inferred from this that talk of forgiveness is not necessarily confined to sin. You can forgive someone that cuts you off rather than be resentful about it. That sort of forgiveness has nothing to do with propitiation.
Forgiveness is the pardon of one's sin. I wouldn't call "letting go of resentment" as "forgiveness". That falls more under the term of "emotional release". In the context of theology, "forgive" is usually meant to "pardon one's sin".
So what you have taken away from the Torah is that the ideal person is constantly seeking conflict, is misanthropic and malevolent?
No, what I have taken away from The Torah is that no one is entitled to a "peace, love and harmony" approach.
There is no evidence that ancient Israelite courts enforced Leviticus 24:19-20 literally. The consensus expert opinion is that the intention of Leviticus 24:19-20 is to communicate that matters of civil justice are to be adjudicated according to lex talionis and the punishment for injuring someone was monetary compensation.
I agree with that with regard to ancient Israelite courts
More eloquent than Hartley is
Professor Clifford S. Fishman, a Jewish professor of law that has spent most of his working life at The Catholic University of America:
I disagree here that "eye for eye" does not have an intrapersonal application too. Usually the kind of people who come up with those opinions are people who have wronged others and don't want it back on their head.
There are several examples of righteous people getting revenge on a personal level. The brothers of Dinah got revenge on a Goy male for raping her (Gen. 34). When the Goyim took Samson's wife and gave her to another man, he lit their fields on fire, among other things (Judges 15). "Shimshon said to them, “I will certainly have my revenge on you for doing such a thing; but after I do, I’ll stop." (Judges 15:7). Saul commanded David to get revenge on the Goyim (1 Samuel 18:25).
I dunno, must be something about Goyim attacking Israelites.
So John can't kick Jane but he can cause her pain in a different manner? What material difference would that make? If John punches Jane in the abdomen instead of kicking her in the shin what is happening that is essentially different? That is nonsensical.
Not nonsensical at all. If someone causes an injury through sin, one cannot just commit the sin in return, that would be evil. But inflicting the *injury* would not be evil, it's eye for eye.
When Jesus gave us the lord's prayer, a particular quote from it is "and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us." (Matthew 6:12)
God does expect us to forgive others. To not forgive leads to evil and sin as the grudge festers, and even
psychiatry studies demonstrate that ruminating about trespasses or previous slights has a negative effect on mental health.
The old testament repeatedly points out that man needs to "leave the issue for god to judge" in regards to conflicts. The new testament is more direct in this regard in that you need to forgive the person, and by forgiveness you leave the issue for God to address.
It doesn't say "forgive us our trespasses....". It saya "forgive us OUR DEBTS". Why? Because the only thing a human can release ("forgive" if you want) another person from is their restitution debt (Numb. 5:5-
In every place that The Messiah speaks about what is translated in English as "forgiveness", it is always in the context of financial debts:
Imagine being so failed, pathetic and empty that you brag about breastfeeding like it's some divine accomplishment, to boot, you do this at all hours in a forum where people come to laugh at you.
Even the most useless and dumb women can be known to breastfeed. Women in a fucking coma can breastfeed. It's just as much of an accomplishment as popping out 6 kids from a bunch of different men. Not impressive at all, even stupid women, hell mostly stupid women, can do this.
But not you of course, you're special and superior for it.
This from someone who has never breastfed. Doesn't mean much. You have no idea what you are talking about.
You sound like a bratty teenager who thinks they no better than adults who have actual life experience.
You're scared to even think of a situation where you might want to beg for forgiveness.
It's called self control. I don't put myself in that position to begin with
She expends a lot of effort rewriting and reinterpreting her "holy" book to justify her desire avoid repercussions and responsibility.
That's your hypothesis with unsupported FACTS
Also her hatred of goy and anglos, given she is both a goy, and undeniably an anglo, even if she wants to claim she wasn't raised one.
My father was an Ashkenazi Jew, born to an Ashkenazi mother. My mom was like something out of a white ghetto, wasn't Anglo at all.
I did... and the COVID-19 delays make stuff late after I pay for it to arrive at a certain date
Citacion, please. I know for certain that, for example, in the case of Greer v. Moon, the pro se litigant did include case law into his complaint, and it hasn't been tossed yet
4th District says not to put it
I'd say the fact they even considered AI is proof positive that no man finds them a good candidate to help them continue their genes at all and they should probably not engage in it, as clearly there's something wrong with the woman. Like in your case, schizophrenia is hereditary, so your children are likely in trouble.
Why do you assume that a heterosexual woman who opts for AI is being rejected by men (and not the other way around: she is rejecting men)?
Also for the sake of argument, where exactly does it say that a pro-se litigant can't cite/insert case law into their complaint or any other filing?
It says it on the filing form. Usually in the alternate they give you a chance to brief the case.
I wonder if she thinks a man giving a woman complete control of a home is codependency as well.
Yes, it's still codependency, regardless of the gender doing it.
It wasn't
sua sponte. I wrote a letter objecting to the extension of time and requested they vacate the order, which they did. They then proceeded to rule on my Motion to Compel (denial, but they addressed it nontheless).
