codes clash

[Timothy Sutter]

here's a 'legal matter' concerning
groups of individuals having this
problem to deal with;


"how many sets of laws?"


here's the two major options;


=
one set of laws for those within
a particular grouping and everyone
else is food or potential food,
=


let's just call this 'natural law'

and;


=
one set of laws for all
regardless of group placement.
=


and let's call this 'autonomic deo-mimicry'

it is funny, because one hears
'eye for eye, tooth for tooth'

and they -think-, 'natural law'

but 'autonomic deo-mimicry' is
quite distinct in this manner;

'one set of laws for all'

so, you have Egypt;
the 'natural man'
of 'natural law'

and Egypt -enslaves- a 'strange'
people that is within -its- domain.

and immediately upon the extraction from Egypt,

Israel finds itself -given- this dictum;

"have one law for you -and-
the stranger dwelling in
your midst"

"do -not- oppress the stranger in
your midst because you were once
a stranger in Egypt."

so, for one thing, Egypt engages in a pattern
of behavior with which they would certainly object
if they were the slaves,

and, the law that Israel does -not-
come away with is 'natural law'

or, "one set of regulations for individuals
within a given group and all others are
food or potential food"


trouble is, subsequently, you still cannot identify,
by group membership alone, a clear rejection of
'lex talonis' inasmuch as a group can still operate
according to a 'natural law' from within a 'chosen group'
where that 'chosen' identification is -claimed-
to be -from- God.

meaning; clearly, a group does not -need-
a 'chosen' by God' status to engage in
'lex talonis' but, the identification as
'chosen by God' does not, in itself,
prevent a given group from engaging
in the operation of 'natural law'

meaning; for one thing,

you should not find yourself saying;

"well, they don't believe in God and they
operate according to 'natural law' and so,
they are inclined to group bias and -we-
are -not- so inclined, _simply_ because
we are 'chosen and elect' -by- God."

because -you- could then allow yourself
to fall into the same trap that you
would claim they are already in.

that 'trap' being setting
up two sets of laws,

one for you and your group
and one for everyone else,

where such a set up grants your group the right
to cast aside any 'moral obligation' to those
-outside- of your group placement.

yes, you can -claim- that the 'natural law' group
is more greatly pre-disposed to landing -in- the
'natural law' pitfall than those who claim some
affiliation with God,

but it will be difficult to -prove-, outright,
that those who claim no affiliation with God,
are operating under a 'natural law' -solely-
because they claim no affiliation with Deity,
as you would need more information about how
they -are- _behaving_ to sort this out.


don't use affiliation with God as a tool
to engage in group bias, but don't be unaware
that group bias is a pre-disposition -of- 'natural law'

the lion has a behavior within its pride
and everything else is measured as
food or potential food.

the man of God rises above nature
to free himself from the dictates
-of- nature.

in this way the man can show mercy and -do- Justice.

the tree is -known- by its fruit, -not- by it's name.

show the fruit,
get the name,

take the name,
fail to show the fruit,
lose the name.

look for the fruit,
not the name.

even, and especially,
in your -own- dealings.

the 'non-beliver' may only have
a speck of personal bias, which
you may have failed to correctly
assist in removing, being blocked
by the -beam- of personal bias, in
light of -claims- of deo-mimcry.

so, don't do that.

make sure you have no such
-beam- in yur eyes, -first-,

and then, certainly, feel free to point out
-any- tendency towards personal bias, which
would corrupt Justice.


-now-, not last century


or not

who cares



> the man of God rises above nature
> to free himself from the dictates
> -of- nature.

> in this way the man can show mercy and -do- Justice.


so, why should you care whether
you do justice or not?

what's the incentive if all
that matters is that you get
what you want and you are
getting what you want already?

one clear benefit might be peace.

peace of mind if not the
end to all hostilities.

if you hold to personal bias,
you are fundamentally in an
argument with your self.

you even have, at least,
two sets of behavioral codes.

one for you and one for everyone else,

so, you're already in an argument
with yourself and you don't even
need an opponent.

you own personal codes clash with each other.

don't lose any sleep over it...



> the tree is -known- by its fruit, -not- by it's name.

[Timothy Sutter]

utykuykutykuykutykuyk

[Timothy Sutter]

tykuykutykuykutykuyk

[Timothy Sutter]

tuykykkuutkuyyytykku

[Timothy Sutter]

gktykuyykuykkutyku

[Timothy Sutter]

3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say, 'See, the Kingdom is
in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they
say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you.
Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you.
When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and
you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living
Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty
and it is you who are that poverty."

4) Jesus said, "The man old in days will not hesitate to ask a
small child seven days old about the place of life, and he will
live. For many who are first will become last, and they will
become one and the same.

[°¤ª]

-- 46.36.195.10

[°¤ª]

Do not labor for the food which perishes,
but for the food which endures to everlasting life,
which the Son of Man will give you, because God
the Father has set His seal on Him.”
Then they said to Him, “What shall we do,
that we may work the works of God?”
John 6:27-28