Bullies respond to your confidence and your self esteem. They got to you so far, that you become unsure of your self worth.
During the day there are plenty of social interactions, that can form a win for your self esteem. Think of it as giving someone else who is down a little boost. Just go outside and for a passing moment be kind, friendly and good to someone else. No matter who and no matter the situation. Gift someone a small moment of attention and make their day just a little better.
Laws and regulation would be much better if they were specific. It is just that people making laws and regulation are usually too lazy to do so or just want to be able to interpret them how ever they want afterwards.
A law should be broad, to be applicable for a long time and multiple situations, yet clear enough not to be misunderstood.
For example, once it is decided if conduct is deemed unfair or dangerous, there should be little interpretation on the consequences and they should differ.
Weirdly laws are usually very specific on what is deemed unfair, yet rarely on what is dangerous.
Assume there is a ground truth to all knowledge and it is finite. Above that is an infinite amount of recombination, remixes or transformations. Most of the ground truth has been uncovered in tedious small steps over centuries growing to a vast library. Now assume none of us can hold it in a single brain.
Just some time ago people thought a computer is a middle class woman performing calculations, tables of hard to calculate functions. Everyone can do these calculations on a phone, but only a few do them in their head, even less look them up in a table. Now the computer turnes into a cogigtator. It simulates a thinking mind, that holds more than a brain could. It allows an even wider populus access to this vast library in a simplified manner. Shouldn't this be an overall improvement?
Obviously the snake bites its own tail but eventually another snake will eat it whole.
In the story oh Hiob/Job,he is unaffected in his behavior and the trust instilled in him from others, which clearly discouble his person from his misfortune.
In the original there is no word for faith, believe or trust only for character.
Job is of good character despite his misfortune, that makes him a man of God.
Technically correct, but quite misleading. The idea of "trust in God" or "faithfulness" is completely central to Job. The story doesn't concern itself with "doctrinal faith", but it implicitly discusses "faith" in the general sense of trust in the providence of God in the face of challenges that might make one abandon Him.
The word used was "aemuna" or "æmunatō". The most basic translation is reliability. The other word much later was pisteōs with loyalty in its most basic translation.
The concept of faith as you describe it is a late interpretation, morphing both concepts together.
Jobs "faith" is his reliability of character, neither his believe nor faith, yet axiomatically the definition behind those words. That if you choose to believe in God and have faith your reliability of character will come or strive to have it.
Without being misleading, you may have it without any believe or faith in God.
What is a "late interpretation" in your view? What time period exactly? Job has been read as a story that directly dialogues on the possibility of faith and trust in God in the face of evil for millennia. See The Babylonian Talmud (Bava Batra 15a-16b), Midrash Rabbah (Genesis Rabbah, Exodus Rabbah), Saadia Gaon's commentary on Job, even Maimonides. And on the Christian side, Take Origen, John Chrysostom, and especially Gregory The Great's Moralia in Job in the 500s CE.
With late interpretation I mean what is after the fact.
Job has not read his own story.
A late interpretation for me is viewing him, with what he has defined.
If faith would be praying five times a day and avoiding shellfish, his story becomes meaningless.
As you pointed out well, there are many scholars who discussed faith and belief over time. I am not a religious authority, think of me as a simpleton.
You may choose their take on the word, it is a late interpretation to me. It could be a whole book on the matter.
isn't it crazy an all powerful being would abuse a person to teach them some vague lesson? like truly if you think about it objectively how is that different from the Mike Vick dog fighting scandal
I may imagin Job being as class with core attributes, integrity and commitment, and the variable attributes like wife, wealth, family etc.
You can have billions of different instances of Job and the variable attributes may change over time. If integrity and commitment are unphased by that, the instance of Job is reliable.
It is Jobs choice to be reliable, no matter his attributes.
Mistreating dogs changes their core attributes and makes them less reliable. They might be rehabilitated, but this crucial part is not their choice.
This is how I would see the difference. What do you think?
i see the human and the dog as classes that inherit from the same base class with slightly different attributes such as computational power, healing, running speed etc
isnt your comment like saying abuse a dog if its reliable no matter the attributes it is a good dog? abusing people also changes their core attributes which is what trauma is and by this logic poofy guy in the sky is an abuser or a slaver
how do people reconcile that? the christians that raised me used to beat me into believeing wondering if HN has a more philosophical take
Yes absolut exactly. LUCA comes to mind as a base class. Obviously attributes and methods differ quite greatly, we are not just dogs. To reconcile all abuse in this life sounds great, to the humans class, to the dog class it is probably of little interest.
Yet specific therapy dogs can take a lot of abuse, without ever lashing out. They are great for troubled children.
For my explanation I take a further definition of hand and handedness, maybe you find it compelling.
They have no hands because a hand has chirality, from the Greek word for hand. This means that it's mirror image can not be overlayed or superimposed with the original object and there is a distinction between left and right hand.
The hand of a Lego figurine lacks this very specific property.
No it is not.
It is not a primary source, it is a collection of some sources, the information is freely edited by anyone.
People who put a lot of effort into piling up the knowledge of humanity into the Wikipedia are just human.
Even though it is one of the most valuable collections of human knowledge and a giant effort, with absolute astonishing quality, that is also free and easy accessable to everyone, it isn't safe.
You can never trust it, you can not cite it and you should know it is full of mistakes.
Better check the sources for yourself, it is sometimes worthy to take a look at the discussion.
If you stumble upon a mistake, you are accosted to improve upon it, using the edit function.
The Marshall Islands, which accept Taiwans to be a sovereign nation?
Most of the EU, the USA and Russia do not officially state Taiwan is a sovereign nation to not antagonize China.
Yet if China wants to host the next world war, a lot of nations think they are well prepared for the occasion.
None of us can do anything about it.