Cosa??we have already determined that stealing can be justified though right, to some extent anyway
Please explain.
You mean, like, if someone's hungry?
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Cosa??we have already determined that stealing can be justified though right, to some extent anyway
that would be one example, yes, but this might even be extended to murder, by extrapolation.Cosa??
Please explain.
You mean, like, if someone's hungry?
Hmmm. I doubt it is if one is hungry.that would be one example, yes, but this might even be extended to murder, by extrapolation.
Now don't get me wrong here though, stealing bread is still a sin
yes, just like that. Unfortunately the only term that really describes this behavior is Codependency, and that is a hard term to define. But picture like a little old lady coming to you as you are comfortably reclining and herding you to sit up so she can fluff your pillow, or something like that. i could set up a more pertinent codependent scenario but it would take a half a page, but the point is to see the manip, codependents are alternately manipulative and...arg, obsequious, sorry, there just isn't a better word, passive-aggressives are just codependents, being codependent.
these are invariably--well not narcissists, also a codependency, anti-codependency--so quite often at least very big hearted people, ok, they are not meaning to do anything but serve, and anyone in their orbit just better get ready to get served, that's all. Now we have an expression "get served" that we openly apply to narcissistic behavior, but i am applying it to non-narcissists, even though standard codependents are also quite narcissistic as well, and there are usually/always self-esteem issues too.
Him
It's a deterministic way of maintaining one's ego while playing at service, is prolly a good def, tho i never thought to express it in terms of determinism before, nice. Someone who is considered more of a narcissist would just have no interest in playing at actual service, but instead prefers "you got served" in the current slang
ob·se·qui·ous
əbˈsēkwēəs/
adjective
understand most or all of this is subconscious; no one aspires to be a codependent when they grow up, it just happens, especially in first-world societies; we mostly all have a friend or adversary like this, the non-narcissist codependent i mean.
- obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree.
"they were served by obsequious waiters"
synonyms: servile, ingratiating, sycophantic, fawning, unctuous, oily, oleaginous, groveling, cringing, subservient, submissive, slavish; More
Try having this convo with them lol, as lovingly as you may, and let the vehement denial be your guide imo. Try suggesting a better MO for a specific situation, that allows the "victim" to...arg, "retain their sovereignty" is how i would put it, but...allows the victim to choose or whatever, retain their free will, and observe how it is rejected; bc in the Coda mind this person needs to be served, we are talking about helping this poor guy, right, and gracefully allowing him room to decline or deny would not be serving them.
Codas will not take a hint, and you can like slowly escalate the hint to comical proportions, you can even start laughing, don't worry, they are not going to get it. Try being baldly honest; imo this is the best therapy.
They are then going to go emo on you, get offended or superior, usually with lots of antics, and they know how to push buttons, ok, so imo don't go into this unprepared, but if you are able to retain your composure and understand that they are doing this bc it is the MO that they have been trained into, just think of them as like a younger sibling that is being willful that you unfortunately can't just beat them up, which is how kids get trained out of that i guess, or at least one way.
forgiven maybe, but a sin nonetheless imo. If you're hungry, fastHmmm. I doubt it is if one is hungry.
yet the road to hell is paved with good intentionsA sin has to have an evil motive behind it
um, is there any other kind?Murder....you mean killing?
i had more in mind justifying killing someone to save a million people, but sure. The fact that God must have removed a hedge in your case would surely only be discussed after the fact anywayLike if I kill someone so they don't murder my child?
imo obsequious is like codependent, there is not a scenario in which either is "good."for the real as in being obsequious to the Lord?
The Road to Hellforgiven maybe, but a sin nonetheless imo. If you're hungry, fast
yet the road to hell is paved with good intentions
um, is there any other kind?
i had more in mind justifying killing someone to save a million people, but sure. The fact that God must have removed a hedge in your case would surely only be discussed after the fact anyway
weird, i have noticed that too, going either way, reading or postingThis was the first one I read 'fresh' this morning so I think I was more nearly ready to take it as it comes.
ha well but see that that is the point; they had good intentions, but all they had was good intentionsThose that had good intentions did Not have evil motives!
well, i notice that all of the flora was given to eat first, and only later did meat come in to the picture; kind of like no money/money for now or something.As to murder...
Of course murder and killing are different.
Murder is the sin.
Right. Sometimes intentions count for nothing.ha well but see that that is the point; they had good intentions, but all they had was good intentions
saying intentions count for anything is like saying believing hard enough will get you saved or into heaven, imoRight. Sometimes intentions count for nothing.
let your yes be yes, and your no be noSo if I have a good intention and it goes haywire,,,
Am I responsible?
There is also a deeper lesson revealed in Scripture;
The Order Of Gods Design FOR The Vessels He has created and made, called manKIND.
Male- then Female, then Children.
Male, a weak vessel, With the Greater responsibility TO Hear, Learn, Teach, Oversee the weakER and weakEST Vessels.
The weakER Vessels, Female, responsibility, TO also, Hear, Learn, Teach, Oversee the weakEST Vessels, Children.
Both Adam and Eve Heard God say; Do Not Eat from the Tree of Good and Evil.
Where was Adam when Eve...
1) heard the Serpent speak to Eve?
2) Eve became Captured by the the Serpents attention?
3) Eve looked at the Serpent?
4) Eve listened To the Serpent?
5) Eve talked To the Serpent?
6) Eve looked at the Tree of G & E?
7) Eve reached out and Took Fruit of the Tree?
8) Eve ate what SHE took?
It is the Same Lesson throughout Scriptures...the Order of responsibility to Oversee.
Further the result of consequence is revealed in Genesis.
Dealt with first is the Culprit... the Serpent.
Then the Female...Then the Male.
God Bless,
Taken
Eve was being inventive. That's all. You are right. "God did not say anything about touching the tree".Because she says that she is not to touch it. God did not say anything about touching the tree.
Eve was being inventive. That's all. You are right. "God did not say anything about touching the tree".
Eve could have touched that tree all day long, and nothing would have happened. But adding the idea about touching is similar to what people do with Scripture today. They add "Holy Tradition" or extra-biblical revelations to what is found in the Bible, and thereby come up with some strange doctrines.
If it's true it's not new, and if it's new it's not true.Or actually experience the visitation of the Lord and come up understanding the bible for the first time... which then sounds strange to the majority.
Yeah. Adam was right there, watching. Question is, what would I have done? What do I do daily as the priest in my home to assist my wife spiritually?
In verse 18 God begins the process of finding a helper for Adam. So...all you Hebrew scholars: when God says "you" in these verses, is it singular or plural? If it is singular, then we have an interesting question. I'm guessing it's plural.
Also, it makes me wonder what Adam told Eve about the tree. Because she says that she is not to touch it. God did not say anything about touching the tree.
Rejoice Always!!!
bb, in this discussion I'm assuming (dangerous) that those who INTEND to do something will then go ahead and actually DO IT. Otherwise we're just talking about a WORD instead of how these intentions could turn out.saying intentions count for anything is like saying believing hard enough will get you saved or into heaven, imo
let your yes be yes, and your no be no
so imo if you said you were gonna do it, then what are you going to do lol, "try" to do it?
You strike me as someone that would make that clear up front, "i'll try to do this," where at least you have not made a pledge or whatever
ty. John the Baptist knew he was not going to be making any friends with the SanhedrinWhich Pharisee said that? Not one of the more open ones I would think. Jesus was seen as an upstart bringing in new-fangled ideas....much like His followers today.
well so much the better imo, and yes ezackly "try" is code for "prolly not" rightI don't ever say I'll try to do something...I either do it or I don't.