Apparently anti-CR is spreading rumors that I believe strictly in "eye for eye" damages. Nope, I do use the damages in how I practice Christianity, but in terms of avoiding offenses, namely in children as depicted in my writing.
By damages I mean the tort system under the Mosaic Law, as understood in the New Testament, meaning there is one guilty person, and one innocent person in an exchange, depending on the evidence exchanged in gaslighting.
This setup helps me avoid conflict in my personal life, because damages could be anything, perhaps in public, that offends community standards or the standards of an individual. That's what damages are, and some of us might have social skills issues that require that kind of structure, where you tar yourself in relation to others you damage with your sin nature.
"Eye for an eye" is the Old Testament understanding of divine justice. I believe in collective shunning, meaning pro-social alienation. I walk away from abusers when they don't want to stop punishing and controlling children or others. In terms of personal slights, I try my best not to lash out.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Any comment that
1. Endorses child abuse (including pornography of such)
2. Imposes want to the point of imposition, meaning entitlement.
3. Contains self-entitled parent rhetoric, to the point of self-victimization
will not be published. Flexible application. Debate is allowed, but only civil arguments that presume the best of intentions in their opponent, on both sides.