Maybe he won't succeed? Maybe he'll change his mind? Nor does the law say anything about trying to run away. It says: If someone is coming to kill you, rise against him and kill him first. A person can choose to turn himself into a murderer — someone who is prepared to destroy life in order to achieve his aims. In which case he is no longer a life, but an anti-life.
Kill Resentment Before It Kills You
To kill an anti-life is not a life-destroying act, it is a life-preserving act. It is not a violation of the commandment "Do not kill," but its affirmation. Without the law, "If someone is coming to kill you, rise against him and kill him first," the principle of life's infinite value is nothing more than an empty slogan, a mere idea.
I by no means am a scholar in religion or of faith. Nor have I made the time to go study Talmud like I should or wished to. But I can and do read. However if you take the time to read what I am writing you might just learn that even a simple man such as myself can come to a very clear view of what G-d was trying to convey to us as a people. Murder is with evil intent and malice of the heart that started with ill will.
Examples are : Murdering a person during a robbery.
- How to "Kill Your Darlings" and Survive the Process.
- Wiedersehen mit Fun (Fab und Jay 1) (German Edition).
- What Is a “Darling” and Why Are They Dangerous?;
Murdering a person because of personal vendettas. Murdering a person because of rumors. Murdering a person for the love of another. Thats murder. There is a difference between murder and killing.
Killing is done in cases of defense of family , home , property or country as well as justice for crimes that must be answered for such as Murder. I have yet to figure out people that want to question G-d's word when he makes it so very clear. I thought the command was "do not murder".
Is there not a different meaning to "murder" and "kill"? I thought they were two different Hebrew words with two different meanings? I don't think we can blur the clear distinction between murder and kill, or else we do end up double minded. You are correct, the Hebrew translation is "You shall not murder". There is a difference between murder and killing someone. I actually just taught a lesson on this subject 2 weeks ago. It is all about unity! Some of that stuff in Genesis doesn't seem like much mercy to me. Well, in fact, I agree that we were not given free will. However, I think we never had it and don't now have it.
I believe life is random and that we live in a deterministic world; sort of like Einstein believed only I'm nowhere near as swift as he was. I think there is a "he" and there is a "she" and I have no idea what a root level is. As for gender determination, it seems to me that gender--if I understand its usage--occurs through the living world be it plant life or animal life. Hashem gave Torah so that each of us does not have to invent the wheel again.
It is a Law of mercy! The way it goes is that parents and teachers tell our youth how to behave according to the way we know the world works, and then as young adults they rebel and then hopefully they come back to traditional values. Woe is the teacher or parent who failed to bring back their youth to tradition. To Jerry: We were not given free will. We just obey your environment pressure, wherever we incarnate, and think we have free will.
Free will exists but is not given in the birth package. Takes a lot of toil just to discriminate the path to fee will. There is no "he" or "she" at the root level. Genders are a low differentiation occurring in this world. With respect to spirituality, we are all, males and females, females. A sign of this is the fact that every embryo develops an uterus. Then it regresses with males embryo. Samely, the male hormones metabolic chaining is just the female one, not reaching the end of metabolization.
Genders is a low, earthly differentiation. From there, the reason why He is a "He" and His daughter a "She": this can not be explained in a few lines. Why should that be if we were given free will? Can we not closely examine the world that was given us and determine for ourselves whether we can or should or will accept G-d on His terms; and by the way, how do we know G-d is a Him, instead of a Her or an It?
I don't see any slippery slope to atheism; but then, I don't see any slippery slope to a belief in Wicca, or Buddhism, Or Islam, or Catholicism or all other forms of Christianity or Judaism. And although I haven't read a lot of Dawkins' writings some but not a lot of them , from reading what you wrote, I am not able to spot the error in Dawkins' views. They're his views and he's holds them firmly, which is what I do with my views and what you do with yours. Fair enough. A Jew is a Jew Our Judaism exists on the essential level. It is in our soul. Therefore, regardless of one's level of observance or belief system, a Jew is a Jew.
Torah instructs us to align all parts of our faculties and actions with that which exists on the soul level, but even when that is sadly not in sync, the Neshama is always there and the Jew remains a Jew Atheism is a slippery slope. The atheists of this age, Dawkins for one, reject Gd because they all have an opinion of how Gd should be.
That is their first error. That should seem like a verifiable contradiction. He teaches that if there is no Gd, and something becomes created, then surely it is worthy of remarkable praise, but if Hashem creates the same thing, then it is backward and morally corrupt, all because there was that first a delusion about the nature of the activities of Gd. Re: Jerry — On Parenting Acceptance of Gd, as He is on His terms, and not on your opinion of how G-d should be, is one of most important acts anyone can do. Which is why I posted Mr Nice Guy needs therapy. My first therapy session left me quite despondent.
Kill your stress before it kills you
What kind of therapy is that? I reluctantly went to my second therapy session but not before I bitched and moaned to my friends and became even more resentful. Nice one.
My second session provided me with a life changing epiphany moment:. My therapist described my resentment as a narrative. One thing you can try doing, and you may not like it, is to:. Tell a different story. Take it right back to the bear facts.
What Is a “Darling” and Why Are They Dangerous?
Back then, one of dozens of pre-existing conditions and a lapse in coverage meant you were virtually un-insurable. For example, if you were pregnant and wanted insurance on the private market, you'd have to get an abortion first.
- The Rationale of Studying Comparative Education to Students in Tanzanian Educational Institutions: Challenges and Implications for the Future!
- Managing Creativity.
- More in this section.
- Killing the Practice Before it Kills You by Ron Arndt.
Even when insured people got sick, insurers would often fight tooth and nail to avoid paying, or even attempt "rescission" — the practice where, when someone gets severely ill, you cook up a bogus excuse to kick them off their coverage. ObamaCare, of course, was good to the private insurance industry.
You may also be interested in...
One of the first things Democrats did was pre-emptively buy the industry off along with all other interested parties. Indeed, the whole point of the signature ObamaCare exchanges is to create a functioning marketplace where individuals could buy private insurance that actually allowed access to care — part of which was a mandate and subsidies to buy insurance, and another part of which was massive subsidies direct to the insurers. One might think that TrumpCare, which is all but guaranteed to dynamite the exchange structure , would thus be opposed by the insurance industry.
But while they generally don't like it, they're barely lifting a finger to stop it — for utterly obscene reasons. When President Clinton tried and failed to pass health-care reform in the '90s, the health insurance industry mobilized furiously to stop the bill , lobbying like mad and running ads with a lot of scaremongering lies about what the bill would do.
The industry's tepid campaign against TrumpCare is nothing remotely close to that effort. AHIP: "We continue to analyze the bill, consistent with our previous positions. So why is Big Insurance sitting on its hands?