- Joined
- Jan 6, 2016
Scotland is part of Britain. Those family name origins I excerpted are from The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names in Britain and Ireland -- Volume 1. Leigh and Scott are Anglo-Celtic names. Anglo-Celtic encompasses those from Scotland.
No, but it is at the least indicative of part of their ancestry, especially if they haven't been adopted and and assumed the family name of their adoptive parents.
You were raised in the USA, don't belong to any ethnic minority, didn't belong to any religious minority but somehow weren't raised around Anglo culture? This is implausible. This sounds like more of your self-mythologizing. Did you live with the Yaqui Indians from northern Mexico like Carlos Castaneda?
I already said that in the thread. Because, you know, the KF cult attempts to accuse me of sin, where there is none
Every Christian, Jew and Muslim sins. This is acknowledged in Judaism by teshuva (repentance) which @Anonymus Fluhre has brought to your attention. Even the most pious of Jews admit they will sometimes sin, they are human and hence fallible. If this were not the case then why would there be so much (collective) text in Leviticus and Numbers, devoted to sacrificial offerings (korban) to be performed in the Temple for the purpose of atonement? Since the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD Jews have had to develop rituals of absolution of sin in the absence of a Temple and associated animal sacrifice.
But your narcissism as severe as it is drives you to make ludicrous claims such as that you are tamiym. If you declare you are tamiym then you aren't tamiym because you are being haughty and arrogant. It's the same as bragging about being humble, it's a self-negating utterance.
Arrogance is considered a sin in both Christianity and Judaism.
"Everyone who is proud in heart is detestable to the LORD; be assured that he will not go unpunished." (Proverbs 16:5)
Another problem with declaring yourself to be tamiym is that if you weren't tamiym you wouldn't ever be able to independently learn that you aren't. You wouldn't be able to see your actions clearly nor be able to introspect to analyse your thoughts and beliefs. The sin itself prevents you from seeing the sin. This is similar to the Reformed theology idea of the noetic effects of sin. It's a type of epistemic blindness.
I doubt you have told your life-coach/counsellor that you are morally perfect. What you and your diploma mill quack are doing is likely a social performance with by this stage delineated roles. By this stage both of you know what to say to each other. She knows what to say to keep you coming back: stroke your ego, agree with your lunatic ideas, tell you that everything bad that has happened to you is someone else's fault. You know to dial the crazy stuff a little down so no flat earth, no gravity is a myth, no secret messages from Yahweh, no 4th dimension quantum energy fields.
Look up forgive in a dictionary. It can mean both.
What's your problem with using an American-English dictionary so that you can communicate more clearly, avoid confusion, misunderstanding and embarrassment?
Use an online dictionary or buy a printed one. How do you teach your children English without a dictionary in the household? Do you just teach them your mistaken definitions? This thread is full of them and not all of them have been pointed out to you.
What does that mean? Approach to what?
Intrapersonal and interpersonal have two different meanings and this is where the dictionary I mentioned above would help you. The word you want is interpersonal. Intrapersonal means occurring within a person's mind or self.
I don't think an elderly professor of law and an elderly Torah scholar were driven in their scholarship by some wrongdoing they had committed. This is a paranoid line of thinking. You have no evidence so where does your "usually" come from? You can't make personal accusations instead of presenting arguments and evidence.
The problem with administering lex talionis on your own if you have been harmed is that you are not impartial, you are biased in your own favour. This is why courts with impartial judges (and sometimes juries) developed in most parts of the world.
Genesis 34 is perhaps the worst example you could have picked. Both the father of Simeon and Levi, Jacob, and Yahweh himself were displeased. Simeon and Levi's response was excessive.
30 Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, “You have brought trouble upon me by making me a stench to the Canaanites and Perizzites, the people of this land. We are few in number; if they unite against me and attack me, I and my household will be destroyed.”
31 But they replied, “Should he have treated our sister like a prostitute?” (Genesis 34:30-31)
1 Then Jacob called for his sons and said, “Gather around so that I can tell you what will happen to you in the days to come:
2 Come together and listen, O sons of Jacob; listen to your father Israel.
3 Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, excelling in honor, excelling in power.
4 Uncontrolled as the waters, you will no longer excel, because you went up to your father’s bed, onto my couch, and defiled it.
5 Simeon and Levi are brothers; their swords are weapons of violence.
6 May I never enter their council; may I never join their assembly. For they kill men in their anger, and hamstring oxen on a whim.
7 Cursed be their anger, for it is strong, and their wrath, for it is cruel! I will disperse them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel.
8 Judah, your brothers shall praise you. Your hand shall be on the necks of your enemies; your father’s sons shall bow down to you.
9 Judah is a young lion—my son, you return from the prey. Like a lion he crouches and lies down; like a lioness, who dares to rouse him?
10 The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the staff from between his feet, until Shilohd comes and the allegiance of the nations is his.
11 He ties his donkey to the vine, his colt to the choicest branch. He washes his garments in wine, his robes in the blood of grapes.
12 His eyes are darker than wine, and his teeth are whiter than milk.
13 Zebulun shall dwell by the seashore and become a harbor for ships; his border shall extend to Sidon.
14 Issachar is a strong donkey, lying down between the sheepfolds.
15 He saw that his resting place was good and that his land was pleasant, so he bent his shoulder to the burden and submitted to labor as a servant.
16 Dan shall provide justice for his people as one of the tribes of Israel.
17 He will be a snake by the road, a viper in the path that bites the horse’s heels so that its rider tumbles backward.
...
28 These are the tribes of Israel, twelve in all, and this was what their father said to them. He blessed them, and he blessed each one with a suitable blessing.
(Genesis 49:1-17)
Jacob's prophecy, which is understood to be the voice of Yahweh, comes to pass:
--Simeon's tribe is not blessed by Moses
--Simeone's tribe comes to be absorbed by the tribe of Judah and ceases to exist
--Levi's tribe too was scattered throughout Israel but perhaps because Mose's father was of the tribe of Levi was shown some mercy
--The Levites were chosen by Yahweh to be priests
Have you read Judges 13-16?
The story of Samson is not there as a moral exemplar for Jews to emulate. You are also distorting the story.
(1) Samson's wife was a Philistine (Judges 14:1-4)
(2) It was Samson's wife's father that gave her to one of Samson's companions, a Philistine (Judges 15:1-2), this is in agreement with Deuteronomy 7:3
(3) Samson's motivation in marrying a Philistine was not love but rather to provoke conflict (Judges 14:4)
(4) Samson killed 30 Philistine men because they solved his riddle (Judges 14:12-20), this was before he lost his wife (who he shouldn't have been married to)
(5) Samson visits a prostitute (Judges 16:1-3)
(6) Shimshon and Samson is the same person. Why are you using both names?
The story of Samson isn't being offered as a model to emulate. He was supposed to have superhuman strength. He's like an ancient superhero. He kills 1000 men with the jaw bone of a donkey (Judges 15:15). So the 1000 men must have queued up to fight him. He caught 300 foxes (Judges 15:4-5). How? If he was trapping them it would have taken many weeks to capture 300. He used them to set the crops of the Philistines alight. Why not not just do that himself?
The story of Samson is folklore. It is not an example of "righteous people getting revenge on a personal level".
You don't understand 1 Samuel either.
24 When Saul’s servants told him what David had said, 25 Saul replied, “Say to David, ‘The king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins, to take revenge on his enemies.’” Saul’s plan was to have David fall by the hands of the Philistines. (1 Samuel 18:24-25)
King Saul's intention in sending David to try and kill 100 Philistines is that he would hopefully be killed by them in battle.
Even before that King Saul's bad intentions are revealed:
20 Now Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 21 “I will give her to him,” he thought, “so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” So Saul said to David, “Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law.” (1 Samuel 18:20-21)
That's nonsensical. Repeating it doesn't change that.
@Anonymus Fluhre quoted you Micah 7:18 and not only did you not recognise it you called it gibberish. So scholarly are you.
Last edited:
