by AGuest 212 Replies latest jw friends
Ah, so the detail that I use them in ways you don't like is what matters. Got it.
Exactly, I don't like that you use them incorrectly and selfishly. You must OWN your thoughts and actions. The only thing you own are encyclopedias, dictionaries and thesauruses.
-Sab
BRING OUT THE COMFY CHAIR!
I actually have to run, going to the casino for a friends birthday. It's been interesting, as usual.
-Sab
There is a felony murder rule. If you conspire to commit a crime and do some overt act, you can be guilty of the actual crime altho you did nothing criminal yourself. Aiders and abettors can be guilty. Perhaps b/c it gets press attention but I read about the non-actor getting a heavier sentence than the actual murderer frequently. It may be that the actual murderer makes some sort of deal with the prosecutors.
I'm not up to date with the details b/c I don't do criminal law and never want to do it. wikipedia must have an article on felony murder rule. FindLaw and Cornell Law School may also have materials online. Conspiracy law is complex and it varies greatly state to state. Dog the Bounty Hunter went to prison b/c he drove the getaway car.
Conspiracy law is often criticized b/c you can get a conviction with less evidence than the actual crime.
Exactly, I don't like that you use them incorrectly and selfishly. You must OWN your thoughts and actions. The only thing you own are encyclopedias, dictionaries and thesauruses.
I own this discussion. You haven't been right once. If backpeddling were a sport, you would be up for gold in the Olympics. Only silver in getting your ass handed to you, though.
EP, I'm not interested in being right, but rather putting out my voice and position. You always seem make things about right/wrong which hinders honest discussion from both ends. Backpeddling? LOL!
Conspiracy law is often criticized b/c you can get a conviction with less evidence than the actual crime.
Well that would be a failing of the people involved in the case. Were talking about the concept of Conspiracy law which starts with an ideal setting. My original point is that it isn't required to physically commit a crime to be punished for it. This is in our world which means there is a higher version of the same concept within the spirit world where God resides. God has responsibility for his creation and he takes it too. The whole Bible spells out God's unrelenting faith in us. Any moment in human history can be analyzed and found ultimately wanting and in vain by people living in that moment. Therefore, we need a broader view of ourselves in order continue on without feeling in vain. This is accomplished by faith. Faith in science will get you as far as gravity can throw you.
-Sab
I have not yet asked about this understanding, but one thing I wanted to say, is that I always felt that this verse was somehow 'out of place'. Or out of conte x t, at least in the following understanding: Because it made no sense that Paul thought women would be 'kept safe' or 'saved' (as some translations have it) from the result of Eve's sin, through childbirth. I mean, is childbirth another path to salvation? Christ never mentioned anything about that. Plus, Paul was a pretty symbolic man. Most didn't understand that. When he spoke of how men and women should treat their wives and husbands, he wasn't talking about wives and husbands of the flesh. But rather, the Church and Christ. He e x plains that, and then casually comments that we should treat our flesh and blood husbands and wives as he described as well. But that is an afterthought.
I think Paul was a lot deeper than people give him credit for, and I also think that is one of the reasons people misunderstood and twisted his words, as Peter (?) mentioned as well.
But there are a few (lot) of verses that seem out of place, at least according to our common understanding of them.
Just wanted to add that.
Peace,
Tammy
EP, I'm not interested in being right, but rather putting out my voice and position. You always seem make things about right/wrong which hinders honest discussion from both ends.
Clearly you aren't. If, however, we are going to have a discussion, we need to be clear on what we are saying a logically consistent. You mistake my calling out a lack of consistency for a desire to be right.
We can't move forward unless we understand what other people are saying. For instance, when you arbitrarily decides when details are important and then get all flustered when I call out that details ARE important, it doesn't help the point of disucssion for you to say you decide to with hold them just for me because you don't like the way I use them.
that's counter productive
I am going to bed. You require production, I don't. That's where we greatly differ.
-Sab
I am going to bed. You require production, I don't. That's where we greatly differ.
I am in bed. Yet again, I win.
tammy,
I find your observation about some Pauline statements to be astute. When I discovered that Paul did not write many letters attributed to him, I also discovered that the ones the Witnesses go to town with, and the ones that make me furious, were never written by Paul. Some letters attributed to Paul are contrary to his known works.
Humans interpret history from their present perspective. It is difficult to understand the mindset of a culture from a different era. Paul wrote primarily to congregations that he established. They had the experience of knowing the authentic Paul. We don't. The statement makes no sense in the context of Paul's celibacy b/c the end time was present. Producing babies when Jesus was arriving any second would be reckless.
Roman culture was full of blood and gore compared to ours, which is not nonviolent. My expectation is that pregnancy would make a woman a larger target. Romans executed, not the Jews.
When I was a young Witness, everything made sense. It was so complex with all the numerology and obscure prophecy that I knew I could never learn enough to truly understand. Rather, the magic at Bethel was nice. Now I question so much. Certainly, obscure statements seemingly not tied to Paul's main themes that he repeats and repeats should be taken with a grain of salt. Perhaps if we had access to Paul, he could explain what he truly meant and his justification for the statement.
Recently, I came across the totally absurd assertion that Paul was a feminist. I laughed so hard. When I finished the book, cross checked with other books on Paul, and actually read the scripture, it is not so absurd a statement. Early Christianity was radical. Our understanding is mired in a patriarchal culture.
