When using your right to continue doing wrong it becomes obstinance. And when using a right to continue in obstinate destruction it becomes torturous. And when using rights to obstinately continue in torturing it becomes ruthless murdering. And when using rights to NOT shut the fricken mouth from needless speech it becomes arrogant. Making a big noise for every alm you do. You see, if upon expressed vocalization that assistance is not desired but using rights to not provide for that request, it could be used against you in The Court of God. We do not want your help IS we do not want it nor have we asked for it. Even your damned prayers ( this is an example) not literal.... But which can be used against the pray-er and provider against them in The Court of God. There is no pain involved in getting better. There is no preparation for some future event. All this means is that there has not been too many difficulties in the life to see prayers of assistance as beneficial or even necessary to keep life, of self, sustained. Contentment is of God. Complacency is not. There is never any complacency in suffering or need. And although a concerned person might lift up a prayer unto The LORD for the well being future life of a complacent person, this sincere concern could be used against the pray-er because even The LORD might see the need for some intervention to be provided, for the well being of the compacent person's future Eternal future and this 'discomfort' might be enough to rouse them to blinded fury.
Yet the underlining 'problem' is not about who is correct or who is not. It is about just ways to provide for the complacency which should not be a negative 'thing' to which the pray-er should require to give explanations to any accusative notion such as, 'but no assistance was requested so why did you breach the non request'? And if and when the pray-er receives unjustly for a just prayer, it is as returning evil for good. It is returning hatred for love; animosity for friendliness; lies for truths; slanders for true testimonies. Rumors for the removing of rumors, etc.... And this should more definitely than not be stopped immediately rather than not. Because although a few might be involved, if not immediately stopped, many could be-come from the few. And if any had authority to stop such wrongs but does not, then using that right to continue doing wrong becomes obstinance. Regardless if the Governor, the wife, the grandmother or grandfather would need to allow for just to occur even if that required for them to not be overly involved.
There was a family with its members. One day a guest arrived and was welcomed to become a part of that family to which the guest accepted. This guest, after time, began increasing that family's wealth and status, etc.... but soon the guest, who had grown accustomed to being part of the 'family' began to be the 'jest' to the family members' pranking. Although at first the guest 'played along' with their pranking it soon began to effect others in the neighborhhod. And still escalating and not being stopped began to get more and more severe and longer lasting. Some needed to relocate their residency because of the severity they were receiving. Others who remained still underwent the pranking 'playing along' of that family while some others joined in the family; hence, becoming a larger family with the guest remaiming to be the 'jest'. And as the family increased in numbers those that remained in the neighborhood began to receive greater troubles. The cause are not those being inflicted nor the family members, right. Nor is it the newly entering in members to the family. Nor is it those that relocated. Then what was the cause? The possible need of the guest to have a home/place to be able to return to at the end of each day. The guest, who was invited to become a part of the family, was not truly becoming a member of that family even after so long time being together. The guest became as a hindrance rather than 'family'. Not enough open meaningful conversations and agreement, it seems seemingly.
There was another family who also invited a guest to be a part of the family. However this guest began alluding to the members that they get incomes more, that they begin to be more accepting to the guest's own personal ways. The result was the same without the pranking to the guest; rather the guest began to 'prank' against the family. Maybe having the second guest be where the first guest was could end in better relationships. So yes.. in a way i guess the second family didn't fully get to appreciate their guest. Rather more hardships for 'not being good enough' because of the non ceasing pranks being placed upon them....at times resulting very horribly. I guess they could adapt their family to accomodate for the guest by letting go of everything they had worked, together, for. Or could it be that because the guest did not request to be invited that the accusation began? And then there was the third family.
Regardless of where the guest went the family was always there to remind the guest how their family was to be upheld at ALL times. Soon it became a battle of property laws and rules of families. Keeping in mind the members of each, the guests and the outcomes. The first and the third remained in their love and even began being friends with other. The second, without the guest, relocated. Soon, the neighborhood no longer was infested with all the pranks. However a problem occurred when certain 'heads' of families tried to have a discussion with the head of the second family which prolonged their relocation from occurring. And it was within this time that the hearts, even of the second family's head(s) was not being keen and shrewd enough to realize that they were being pranked upon which effected the other members in their family, sometimes very tragically.
So when using your right it's as putting the male's forearm on the ladies bodies as well as interchanging hands, etc...
This would seem to be erroneous use of the term "right". "Choice" would be closer to what is being described. This is the human dilemma; we have more choice than wisdom.
How is a choice not a right if the choice can be carried out without legal penalties? As a child i did not have the right to smart talk to my mother however i could have chosen to and if i did i would have received the 'legal penalty' for going against my lack of right. When someone says no, no means no. Unless the no is in jest, towards and placed upon the guests of the above mentioned. You've got to remember the young ones too. Life ends when yours end but not for those remaining. And if these rights are still allowed to be chosen it could result in greater damages. So maybe from your perspective it is not so much rights as choices because of the rules you were raised on/with. But how is defamation to advertisements correct enough to find funny more than abhorrent? Unless otherwise given direct permission to defame the store by which the advertisement might well have been paid for by? Yet still i assume the greater underlying rule and learning would be to keep ones nose out of others' businesses if they themselves find nothing wrong enough to get upset for.
And could that be the dilemma being faced today? It is not a right to defame but it is a choice in how to respond. And so the second family relocated with what was remaining from their choices on how to respond because it was their right to do so. But it wasn't any others right to make mockery towards, especially only as a prank. Here is an example. Mrs. Obama has been called Michael by her own husband, Mr. Obama. This triggered speculation as to whether she truly was a male. Would it be wrong to be suspicious or even announce her as male on public platforms; would it be as a prank? Or should there be less concern to even need to be concerned? I'm not in need to prove anything. Nor do i have need to sway anyone. However i do have a right to not incur injustice and loss without just cause or reason.
I also can choose to infringe upon my parents' right to inflict unnecessary losses if i choose to. I have my name i have to keep upholden. If they choose for themselves to not uphold theirs, i have a right to not be in that association. They are free to deny themselves as they see fit. But it is not a right to keep any, involuntarily, to be the jest. A seed planted will eventually grow to bear something if not only to be as bird food, shrivled weeds or trees that bear poisonous fruit, like the scopolomine tree, otherwise known as devil's breath. Where is any Truly Good fruit anywhere? And why think there are as if one is safe to eat of any freely? This field is not mine nor am i the field keeper. Luke 13 "6He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. 7Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? 8And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: 9And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down." And if it bear fruit, well. But if not, well, then i guess you must cut it down. Why labor for that which is known that it will mot produce good fruit?
Maybe that tree should not be in that field to begin with. If fruit of that same seed bearing fruit is desired, place it among other same seed bearing fruit trees. And such is fruit good to eat. But after 3, 4 years and still discussion? Are you sure good fruit is truly desired? There is a form of senility that would not find labor lost as valuable. What loss is incurred, except to popularity, if everything is made correct? The idle time.
I don't have knowledge of what Hawaii was as before it was introduced into the union but i do have knowledge that many Hawaiians are still very adamant about the wrongful tree that was planted on Hawaiian land when Hawaii was introduced into the union without a voluntary agreement... This is what I'm told. Why would they lie about/to their own past? Supposedly the last Queen of the unified islands of Hawaii, hence becoming 1 territory under 1 ruler, spent her last years in prison awaiting for the nation of the Unified Hawaii Islands to be granted freedom from its imprisonment. UHI Lepo
In 1919, a short-lived dependent Kingdom of Syria was established under Emir Faisal I of the Hashemite dynasty, who later became the king of Iraq. In March 1920, the Syrian National Congress proclaimed Faisal as king of Syria "in its natural boundaries" from the Taurus mountains in Turkey to the Sinai desert in Egypt. However, his rule in Syria ended after only a few months following a clash between his Syrian Arab forces and French forces at the Battle of Maysalun. French troops took control of Syria and forced Faisal to flee. Later that year the San Remo conference split up Faisal's kingdom by placing Syria-Lebanon under a French mandate, and Palestine under British control. Syria was divided into three autonomous regions by the French, with separate areas for the Alawis on the coast and the Druze in the south. Syria became independent on 17 April 1946. Syrian politics from independence through the late 1960s were marked by upheaval. Between 1946 and 1956, Syria had 20 different cabinets and drafted four separate constitutions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Syria Syria is relatively new as a kingdom like rule also.
