Going out on a limb here... and attempting to engage in a serious and RESPECTFUL discussion:
I did not self study. It was always as part of a community. A community of very bright students destined for PhDs or professional school. It was a community where questions were more important than answers. My high school was a sad joke. I learned crtical thinking skills. It is interesting to note that the LSATS, the required test for law school admission requires critical thinking skills. This may be how the better ranked law schools self-select even more than the actual instruction. I learned as much from my peers as from any prof. This culture permeated everything. We questioned recreational books. Before college when I read a book for recreation, I liked it or did not like it. After college I could figure out why I did not like it.
Okay (and I don't mean that in a snarky way but to say, "Yes, I'm listening...")...
I constantly refer to Pagels because it was the most freeing experience of my life. We did not just write notes. Since she was a woman and not too much older than us, the women would stay after class and discuss women's issues in the Bible and in our churches/temples. We cried. She exposed us to the entire field of scholarship, not just her pet subjects or theories. Her opinion was always clearly stated as opinion.
No snark meant here, but a serious request for you to consider that perhaps I speak of and constantly refer to my Lord... for some of the same reasons? Primarily that coming to know him... engage him... and be engaged with BY him... has been the most freeing experience in MY life? You want me to allow you an accommodation YOU won't allow in return.
One of my law school profs listened as I told her about the experiences of my former roommate who transferred to the Univ. of Missouri. Unlike at NYU Law, she was attending law school and working full-time. She was now receiving straigtht As rather than Cs. The students were actually prepared for class, even second and third year students. Elaine scoffed at it. Oh, they called profs by their last name. She shrugged off the straightr As (which I could not). If students acted the same way at NYU Law, she told me she would transfer to another law school.
I truly am not sure what the point is here. What you SEEM to be saying is that UoM was better for your former roommate because the curriculum was SO good THERE (vs. at NYU) that she not only could work full-time while attending law school... BUT get straight A's... whereas, at NYU she could only attain to C's... even though all she was doing was going to school? And she could do at UoM... because the INSTRUCTION was SO good... she was always prepared for class... unlike at NYU where, perhaps, students were on their own... as evidenced by Ms. Pagel's "scoffing" (which I take to mean that she felt HELPING students to be scoffable?)...? And that at UoM students were required to respect their professors and so used surnames... versus the "radical" approach at NYU, where profs and students were more like peers and so addressed each other less formally, even quite casually?
Even so, I am still not sure whether I understand the POINT... as to whether the environment at UoM was better... or the one at NYU. My thinking, on what you may mean here is that, while perhaps more casual and peer-oriented, NYU didn't actually prepare you for what you needed as well as it COULD have had you gone to a more traditional-oriented law school like your former roommate?
None of this is exceptional for most of my class mates and colleagues. It was life changing and shocking to me. My corporate law practice did not want a deferential lawyer. They truly wanted to know my personal opinion. Pakistani lawyers can research and report the law at a much lower salary. Lexis will evolve into such a service. Fast Case is almost there.
From my POV, this is a fragmented paragraph, so I am not sure of your point. However, what I THINK I glean from it is that you prefer the deferential lawyer kind of environment (where they truly want to know your personal opinion) to the "Pakistani" environment of "just research and tell us what you find"? If so, I would agree. But here's what catches MY attention: you might PREFER that, but you seem to have your OWN issues with OTHERS giving THEIR opinions. Indeed, when someone DOES... you DEMAND that they get back and basically only "research and report." Do you not see that? And so, just like you would... either look for other employment OR possibly speak about it to those who were trying to make you into that kind ("Pakistani") lawyer... someone, me... might say "Uh-uh, no... that's not what I signed on for here."
Thing is, though, when someone (me) does that, you then try to come off like YOU own the "firm." You constantly post as to what YOU "want" and YOU "want to see/would like to see,"... "need"... as if posters (me) works for you, is here for you... and unless things are presented as YOU see/wish/want them... they SHOULDN'T be. But that truly isn't the case here: this is not only not your firm, but not even a court room. OR a law school class. Do you not see that? If you want those kinds of discussions... should you not go where those kinds of discussions are held... rather than trying to make this place what YOU want/need it to be?
Now, I am sure some (perhaps you) might say that I am trying to make it what I want it to be. Which is... well, asinine. It is... what it IS... and has been since I've been here: a place where ANYONE can discuss almost ANYTHING... in almost ANY KIND OF WAY... save illicitness. And so, if I post what I post... that's my prerogative. It doesn't HAVE to be in line with what you want/wish/or need. Doesn't HAVE to. On the other hand, YOU must learn to live with what IS posted here... HOWEVER it's posted here... by WHOMEVER it's posted here. Especially if you prize people being able to share their personal opinions... even if you don't AGREE with those opinions. I mean, if that's what you want others to do to/for YOU. Right? Else it's... you know the word.
Now, you are (supposedly) an accomplished attorney. SURELY, you can see the rationality and logic, if not the TRUTH, in what I've just shared with you, yes?
What I find exceptional and makes me wonder is that you listed exciting books that you enjoyed only a few days ago. I was very impressed. Their was no air of authority. NO Christ speaking to you. You shared what moved you.
I don't understand why that makes any difference at all, except to the extent that it's a part of me that you can identify with and so it makes you comfortable, while the part that you CAN'T identify with does not, makes you UNcomfortable. But it's not my job to make YOU comfortable - that's YOUR job. Again, you're an educated/accomplished woman - why should ANYTHING about me affect YOU one way or the other? Yet, it does. But I don't pursue you. It's not like I go, "Hey, Band, I want to be your friend! How can I make you comfortable so's we can be friends?" I don't.
On the other hand, if you want to be MY friend, then wouldn't it be upon you to get to KNOW me... so that perhaps you can BECOME comfortable with the parts you are not? I mean, if that's what you WANT? But, see, here's something I've observed about women from the time I was a small girl: unlike men to take their companions as they come... how they look, dress, eat, walk, talk, raise their children, drive their cars, clean their homes, choose their beer/ale/scotch/cigars... wives... WOMEN (not all, but MOST) always try to "make" everyone in their lives "over." Always. "Oh, you should..." and the list goes on:
"Do your hair this way"
"Wear that color"
"Arrange your furniture this way"
"Walk your dog that way"
"Cook your beans this way"
Etc., etc., etc.
And I have the hardest time with these kinds of women... because THEY have the HARDEST time just accepting a friend "as they are." And what I l have learned is that most of them... don't HAVE friends. They have many people come into and go out of their lives... but very few STICK for more than a few months/years. Because they are CONSTANTLY looking for ways to "change" their friends (and husbands and kids and homes and wardrobe and hair and makeup and... and... and... group of friends). Me? I don't care. Because I am not gauging myself or my life by my friends or their lives... or ANYONE else... except Christ.
Which is why I have the TRUE friends that I do - they don't try to change ME... to try to get me to think as THEY do, say what THEY want, wear what THEY want me to, etc. They take me AS I AM... and what I say AS I SAY it. As I do them and what THEY say. If one of my friends came to me in a state of joy and told me that she had been visted in the night by a "being" who told her she was going to have his child... know what I would say? "Really, girl!?? OMG, I am SO happy for you! Please... let ME throw your baby shower??!" And if, in 9 months, it proved true, I would be the FIRST one at the hospital visiting her. And if it proved NOT true... I would hold her as she cried, IF she cried (maybe she'd already gotten over it). I would ask her if she was okay, needed any "help"... from me or someone else... and then ASSURED her that NO MATTER WHAT, I loved her and she was still MY friend.
Because that is the kind of friend I want MY friends to be to ME. And... my friends... are. You've even seen that testified to here.
How does someone graduate college and law school and believe that Christ is speakiing to them.
My Lord was speaking to me long, long, before I went to college OR law school. He's the one that told me to GO. He said I would learn things that I would need later in order to witness to him. And he was right. Because people of the world only understand the things of the world. How can you even talk to them, let alone reason with them, if you have no clue as to the THINKING of the world? Paul's education was very reason why he could go and speak to those in the Areopagus. Those there would have run circles over some of the others.
I've never heard you discuss your feelings concerning the exclusive channel.
What would like to know? You had only needed to ask and I would have shared everything. I have nothing to hide. Instead, you've opposed and attacked... without provocation. Why? Because you "feel" uncomfortable. Since when, though, is fighting against that which makes you uncomfortable... rather than seeking to understand it... been man's BEST course??
When you claim Christ talking to you, it excludes all conversation.
With whom? Because I have not found that to be true. If it were, there is absolutely NO way I would have been HERE as long as I have. To the contary, it has OPENED conversation. With MANY. What you really MEAN, though, is that it excludes all opportunity for you to DISPUTE... which is truly what you want to do (not conversate). And since you can't DISPUTE... you take offense, get offended, and get frustrated. Why, though? Because... you're a lawya! That's what you folks DO: argue. It is your profession. AND... it's an adversarial profession. You and both know that: it's first year law school 101... the FIRST thing teach about the field.
You are frustrated, exasperated, conundrummed, confused... and even mad... that you can't ARGUE/DISPUTE. And I get that because, again, I get your "nature"... because I get your profession. I studied it. But let's NOT call it "conversation"... because that is not what you're looking to do, not at all.
Scripture has no meaning to you.
So what? What do YOU care if it does or doesn't... to ME? There are those for whom the WT and AW have no meaning; yet, there are those who live and breathe by them. So... what?
You cite scripture to prove your point and dismiss it when it does not.
No, I cite it... and explain it... for those who still walk by sight and so need to see something in writing. Now, that it proves my point... OR dismisses someone else's point... shouldn't be so hard for YOU... a lawyer... to understand. Because it is absolutely NO different than you and I using the SAME case... to argue different points/perspectives. YOU will say Doe vs. Smith "shows" this... in support of your case. I say it shows "that"... in support of mine. You say it shows "this" in opposition to my case; I say it shows "that" in opposition to yours. And what does it come down to?
Who has the best, most convincing argument.
Yet, you're upset. Why? Because... your argument is neither the best NOR the most convincing. But, like the good attorney you are... the "other" part of your "nature" steps to the fore: the part that doesn't like to lose! Indeed, it is not only a desirable... but necessary... trait for one to be a successful lawyer, is it not? But, again, this is not a court room or law class. And contrary to perhaps your belief (and that of others)... you are not a prosecutor, I am not a defense attorney, and I am certainly not on trial here. I don't have to PROVE... anything... to anyone... HERE. My "innocence" OR my "guilt." I simply put it out there. Whether you hear... or refrain. You will believe what you will believe... and believe this is what you believe it is (that you dear folks here are "trying" me, which is utterly laughable!)... and that I am whatever it is you believe I am... or am not... regardless of what I share about it.
BUT... regardless... the truth... is the truth. And the truth is that ALL of mankind is on trial, as well as is God and Christ! We... by Death and his chief agent, the Advesary called "Satan" and "Devil"... the one who has accused not only my brothers, but ALL of mankind. And God and Christ... before all of mankind! And while that chief agent of Death acts as a prosecutor against us all and man acts as a prosecutor of God and Christ... I am just a witness: FIRST, as to the innocence of my God, the MOST Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies... and my Lord, His Son, the HOLY One of Israel, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah)... who MAN keeps wrongly accusing... and second, as to my own innocence of that Adversary's charges: that, given enough pressure, I WILL curse God to His very face. He is liar, though, as to me... just as those who falsely accuse God and Christ are liars as to their accusations against Them.
You could never have graduated law school if you approached law in a similar manner.
Well, of course not! Secular law is not concerned with things of the spirit. Even though it is largely FOUNDED on things of the spirit (the Law Covenant, given to man by Moses, which, although a law as to the flesh... was "borne" of the law of the SPIRIT... which law is love... and the Law Covenant's fulfillment)... secular law classes discuss man's case and legislative law... not God's law of love, as given man by CHRIST.
Perhaps you took the CA bar, which is extrmely difficult, after you claim to hear Christ. It would be nice to have conversations with you.
I did... but I can't say it was. Excluding our multi-states (MBEs), the exam is subjective. It is not designed to gauge whether you know the law (that is assumed, based on all your studies in law school, which was supposed to teach you the law - and does); it is designed to gauge whether you "think like a lawyer." I can honestly say that I don't. And I mean no offense but I think it's because my ethics are just a tad higher than most California lawyers'. Ours' is a state where the law isn't necessarily black and white... but whatever "shade"... of WHATEVER "color"... you can convince a judge/court//your peers/opposing counsel, etc., it is. That "color" is usually either whatever your client NEEDS it to be... or, most often... green.
You are the only regular member of this forum that I find it imjpossible to converse with to any extent. It is not the voices. We are human.
No, it's not the voices - it's your unacceptance of something different than what YOU know/understand/believe/agree with/accept. I've watched you... and a few others of the usual suspects... and the one thing I notice you all have in common... is your need to be accepted. And by a certain kind of personality. To the extent that you will jump from indicting the WTBTS for its heinous acts... to excusing them... as long as doing so puts you "in" with others whom you need to be "with" you, whose approval you need. You and both profess Christ - me, as a reality, you an as abstract. Regardless, we BOTH know the WTBTS to be absolutely and utterly false. Rather that putting OUR differences aside until you can understand them better, you choose to make ME the "common enemy." Why? Because you UNDERSTAND them; you KNOW them. You are COMFORTABLE with your understanding and knowledge of them. But you don't know me (which I keep trying to tell you)... nor do you understand me... and so you are uncomfortable with me.
Better to side with a known and "comfortable" enemy... than with an unknown and uncomfortable "friend," yes? Indeed, how can one do differently? Well, most cannot. A true christian, by means of holy spirit, however, can. Because even if they don't recall him saying so themselves, Christ will REMIND them, though that holy spirit... of what he said to his disciples when another whom THEY didn't know or understand made THEM uncomfortable:
"He that is not AGAINST you... IS... FOR you,"
In essence, they had nothing to fear from this man. But that is what MAKES you uncomfortable: your FEAR. Of the unknown. It's what drives ALL of man's discomfort... and the heinous acts he often commits as a result: fear. That is what leads to hatred... and THAT is why some of you have the problem (with me) you do: you don't know, therefore you fear... and your fear drives your conduct and words.
I would rather grapple with questions and be part of a community.
So, okay. Do... YOU. But that's YOU, not ME. I would NOT rather grapple with questions but know the TRUTH. Now, if that comes with being part of a community, excellent! And if it doesn't... I'm okay with that, too. Because while community IS important to me... truth is MORE important. Were it the opposite... I would still be a Jehovah's Witness. Because I would choose the community OVER the truth. Which is why I think that YOU don't REALLY "rather" what you say you do here. Then, again, though, given your comments as to what you "miss"... perhaps you do.
Unlike you, subjects ooh and aahing my statements would revolt me.
I have no subjects... and you repeatedly insult those you consider such... and NOT me... when you say this. You show your contempt for people who have done you absolutely NO wrong, question their intelligence and maturity, and treat them as if they are inferior and to be disdained. Which is not only hypocritical but amazing... considering that YOU have a pastor... as well as constantly remind us of YOUR reverence for your former professors, et al. YOU are a subject of others... yet, you speak ill of these as if you're better. And THEY don't follow me... nor quote me... nor refer to what they've "learned from" me. To the contrary, they TELL you who they receive what they do... and you spit on them and what they share, by saying, in essence, that they don't KNOW who is speaking to them, but are stupid little children who have to follow some lady on the Internet.
It is represensible and contemptible what you folks do in this regard. It is mean, spiteful, hateful, unkind, unloving... and could NEVER originate with God or Christ. Therefore, it must originate from another. You are not insulting me - you are insulting them... and I am humbled by them that they don't every one of you to task for your asinine, puerile, and stupid remarks about this.
I want social and intellectual interaction with other people.
Then seek out those who can/will give you that... and leave those who DON'T... like, perhaps me... BE. I mean, that truly IS the intellectual, rational, logical... AND loving... thing to do, is it not?
Why would someone with both college and law school educations resort to ghetto talk?
Same reason someone with both would resort to, say, 'Spanglish - it's their roots, and no amount of edumakashun will change that. Especially if they, like me, went BACK to the ghetto so as to GIVE back... rather than running to the 'burbs'... because they can't bear to look at people they consider inferior to them. People who live in the ghetto "talk" ghetto. Even the elderly, disabled, poor, and disenfranchised who live there.
[This reminds me of a recent situation I had while travelling on the BART: a young white man got on at Oakland Coliseum... and began blasting his iPod. Unfortunately, it wasn't rock-n-roll but hardcore ghetto rap. Every other word denigrated women and one or more of their body parts. My first inclination was to tell him to turn it down/off. And, there was a time when I would have done just that. But this is Oakland and young people are more disrespectful, if not more violent. I was SO sure it wasn't just offensive to me, no. But as I looked around I noticed that although others looked perturbed none looked they would have my back if I spoke up. A couple were even nodding their heads and tapping their toes to the "beat." What, they couldn't hear those horrid words??!! And then my Lord said to me, softly, "You know, child you do have another choice, rather than one that might put you and maybe others in harm's way." I had NO idea what he meant - what else could I do? Oh, wait... I could get up and leave for another car! But, he said, "No, child. If you leave, would you not give the young man the impression that you're judging him? Where, though, is the love in that? I don't think that's what you want to do." And the truth was I did not. While I didn't like the young man's taste in music, who was I to judge him? He was nothing more than a product of his peers... as most young people are. So... what to do?
And then my Lord said something that made so much sense that I was like, "Well, yes, Lord... duh!" He said:
"Does not your phone play music you LIKE? Why not put in your earphones and turn your own music up so that you don't hear his?"
Which was brilliant, IMHO: I not only was able to turn my own music up load enough to drown the young man's out... but in a way that did not call him out OR disturb others around me!
I digress.]
The point here is that if "ghetto" talk offends your ears... you have choices... which choices don't include you telling ME to turn off MY "music" because it's annoying to YOU. Choices that include, changing the train car/channel (or thread/forum). Or put something else in YOUR ears. "Music" YOU like.
It makes sense within a community. I wrote how I wanted to shoot myself when the housing project students spoke. Valuable class time was wasted as the teachers constantly corrected them. I thought they were lazy and why did not their parents speak correctly so they spoke correctly. No one on TV or radio spoke that way. It was such a pleasure to start college and be removed from the language destroyers. Well, years later I am reading wikipedia and follow a link to Ebonics or something. There was a chart. They were not speaking English. They were speaking a West African language.
Yes, and it comes in various forms, sometimes called "pidgen" or "patois." I speak that (here), too. So what?
If I were teaching such students, I would treat it as ESL and strive to learn their language so I could teach them to be fluent in both.
Perhaps. Maybe you should BE such a teacher, since you have such strong feelings about it. But I would venture that you wouldn't strive to learn their language (which you don't have to a teacher to do). Rather, I believe you would do as you're doing here: denigrating something YOU don't understand... and language YOU don't speak. Because it's not "like" YOU.
Speaking ghetto is not part of being black.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL! The fact that you're talking ABOUT black people when you USE the term "speaking ghetto" notwithstanding, I would have to ask... and you would know this... HOW? I mean, I know you fancy yourself an attorney and so someone who knows a little sumpin-sumpin'... but how the HELL you think you know THIS... is... well... okay, someone posted elsewhere that they had a problem with folks using the word "ridiculous" but that TRULY is the only word that describes this statement. Well, okay, not the ONLY word but CERTAINLY one of the BEST words!
It is bullying, IMO.
Some is. Just like some Ivy League speak is bullying. Depends on the intent. But not ALL Is. Most likely YOU feel that it ALL is... because you understand NONE of it. So, we go back to that whole fear... because you're uncomfortable... because you don't understand... because it's not "like" you thing. Only YOU can change ANY of that, though. (BTW - That particular comment makes me think that perhaps Michael Moore was right all along... you know, when he talked about a certain US demographic's "fear"... in "Bowling for Columbine"? You did see that film, didn't you, very liberal Democrat that you are?)
Furthermore, for the record, I do not take recreational drugs. I did try marijuana when I was younger but I had inhalation problems. It was simpler to decline than have people laughing at me. It is no one's business what medication my doctor prescribes. In fact, I do believe if we took a poll here, people would find it more likely that you do drugs than that I do.
First, I don't care if you did or do drugs... of whatever kind - legal or illegal, medicinal or recreational. I just wish you wouldn't post when you do, as I have quite a time trying to follow you. Second, you would be wrong: I take insulin. Twice a day and sometimes another dose when I want to eat something that requires more. And that's it. A Tylenol once every blue moon, but not even that regularly. Otherwise, not even aspirin. Not even a baby aspirin.
My posts speak for themselves.
They do. That was my point.
The most casual observer can detect who asks questions and has no trouble dealing with complexity.
Indeed. Perhaps you, as to the first, and perhaps me, as to the second. I agree.
I do not think you are evil. My hunch is that you fooled around with a persona that it is strikingly different from your real life one.
Ummmm... what the he... what?? You mean a DEMON?? LOLOLOLOLOL! Wait, aren't "demons" evil?? Wait, that's right - I recall somewhere where you posted that you believe in demons. So, okay, let's look at the logic and rationality behind that: this persona/demon can speak... but God/Christ can't. Sound rational... even TRUE... to YOU?
There is so much you can contribute to this forum. The books you read, the films you watch and enjoy, all indicate an educated person with some sophistication.
I DO contribute a lot to this forum. S'why I'm still here after all these years: because I contribute. In MANY ways. Sure, one way more than most others, but still, not the ONLY way...
Why do so many people turn off their thinking caps when confronting God or the concept of God.
Not all do. Some of us actually turn "on." For those that DO turn off, though... like perhaps you... there is only one reason: fear. Of the unknown. Pure and simple. Unfortunately, these same ones don't WANT to know... so as to LOSE their fear... but that's on them. Well, on them... and, sadly, on the people they tend to take their fear out on. Sadly.
As for my having traits similar to Paul, thank you for the massive compliment. Before I read Paul and commentaries, I despise Paul wtih every ounce of my being.
See? Look at what ignorance causes you to do, and how it causes you to act? You hated someone you didn't even KNOW... based on what you THOUGHT you knew about this person. Then, when you CONDESCENDED to get to know something about him... possibly from what some others said about him... lo, and behold!... he wasn't such a bad egg afterall! Yes, knowledge IS power. Assumptions, though... are not knowledge.
All the Wt did was rant Paul said this thing that I hated. Paul said that. Some of the most beautiful and soaring language on earth was written by Paul and I still want to throw up when I hear it or read it. B/c of Pagels and my own interest, I felt safer after law school to actually read Paul. If you skip the letters he did not write, Paul is wondeful. If you study the culture of the time, he was not such a miscogynist. Some scholars even refer to him as a feminist.
Well, I've tried to say the exact same thing about Paul on this site MANY times, that he was NOT anti-women. Even you, though, jumped on the "band"wagon against that. To see you say differently NOW is... interesting.
Christianity would not exist today were it not for Paul. Well, maybe someone else would have arrived on the scene.
Christianity, as it is modernly fomented, no, it would not. But Paul was not the "father" of the early Body - he wasn't even a christian when the movement started. Christ was the father, founder, and "foundation cornerstone"... and still is. For christians who are such by means of holy spirit, at least. For everyone else, they "follow Paul". To US, though, Paul is simply one of our dear brothers, and one who himself had to be taught (which one will see if one reads "his" letters in order)
Paul asserted his credentials b/c he was warring with other factions.
No, he was responding to those of the early Body who questioned his authenticity... and attemps to come in and change what they had learned either directly from the Christ himself... or his named "foundation," the apostles. Paul eventually learned this, though, but not before he almost completely shattered the Body who met in Corinth:
"Oops, heh-heh... sorry about that, brothers - I mean, didn't know I was gonna cause your congregation to be divided so! So, now, let's look at this matter again: I know I told you before to stop mixing with certain kinds of folks... but that was because I wanted you to be GOOD christians. But, well, I guess you can't be GOOD christians... if you AREN'T christians at ALL... and I don't want that! Heck, I'm already responsible for Stephen and those others I had put to death! Hmmmm... Well, now, look - YOU say the Christ taught you NOT to judge... but to let the congregation decide? Well, if that's what he taught you... You say you rebuked the guy who was sleeping with his stepmother? And he felt pretty bad about it? Well, then, that's good enough for me! You told him how you felt about it... so, let's move forward now, shall we, and not even talk about this matter again, K?
Yeah, yeah, I know - I really should apologize, but gimme a break: I'm a former Pharisee and we NEVER apologized. And so, well, this is it, brothers. The best I can do and so the best you're gonna get. So, let's move on, K? In fact, let's STOP judging one another altogether from this point on! Yes, just FORGET all that stuff I said before... about judging those on the inside: I thought I was right but really was just the old "Pharisee" in me talking. Forget that guy, that "Saul of Tarsus" guy... and just start calling me... mmmmmm... "Paul". Yeah, Paul! Actually, I like that! It's short, sweet, rhymes with "Saul"... AND it won't be so hard when I sign my letters from here on out, either. Just change the "s" to "p" and... voila!"
Done. So, now, about the women..."
Gotta love Paul...
Those credentials are the reason Paul had the tools and intellect so that we know Paul today and don't even know the names of most of the Twelve. Wow, such a compliment.
Actually, that's not true. Per my Lord, we "know" Paul because after the death of John (who was the last restraint)... and the commencement of the apostasy... some decided that he (Paul) was the TRUE "12th" apostle... and not Matthias... (something Paul himself was adamant against!)... and so put his writings in and to the forefront of the Bible canon, while deciding to keep those of the 12 that they didn't agree with out. Paul mostly taught a "christ" of judging in his early ministry, while the apostles taught a "christ" of forgiving and releasing (as they had been taught by Christ to do). This was the reason for the 14-year rift between them and Paul, when Paul started. And there was some question as to Paul's authenticity... given the "heart" of the man who claimed that Paul was "chosen"... Ananias... who later fell dead after revealing his attempt to fool holy spirit. Can Paul TRULY be "chosen"... if the man who says he WAS was a blasphemer himself? Things that made the early Body go "hmmmm...").
Paul was not fully accepted among the Body... until some of the apostles, primarily Peter... finally endorsed him.
I could suggest books or articles that might fascinate you if we could be colleagues/peers. You could tell me your interests. I completely reject your legitimacy as some leader/definer of God for anyone else but yourself.
Can you see why I worry about your meds? In one breath you invite me to become a colleague/peer... tell you my interests... then say you reject my "legitimacy as some leader/definer of God". One, why do you even want to bother with ME... and two, I am neither a leader NOR definer of God. I am a SERVANT of the Leader God APPOINTED... the ONLY One who can define God: His Son, the Holy One of Israel, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH (MischaJah). Now, if you TRULY wanted to know my "interests"... you would condescend to RECEIVE the TRUTH of that "interest."
To do so is not bullying.
To reject my "legitimacy" is not bullying, no. Because I have none; again, I am only a servant. HOW you do it, though... is absolutely bullying. Like hypocrites, though, bullies RARELY see themselves as such.
I give you more credit than you do.
You seem to think so. I'm not sure I can agree.
Everyone here is so tired of the battles.
Then stop waging them. Leave me be.
Join the rest of the world.
No. Sorry. Can't do it... because my Lord's kingdom is no part of the world. The world is passing away. I understand that you might not believe that... but I am not trying to convince you otherwise. Believe what... and as... you will.
We do not hear Christ but Christ may work in our lives.
God makes the sun shine on the righteous and unrighteous, so I have no doubt this is true.
Your own experiences, what you disliked as a Witness, your favorite scriptures-- I do believe everyone would respect you and enjoy your insights.
But then, it would be about me... and not about my Lord. Right? Funny. Because I don't know if you realize it but you've simply alluded to what others wanted of my Lord. His response? "If I came to you in my OWN name... you would receive me. But because I come to you in the name of my Father..." well, they had a problem with that, didn't they? A slave is not greater than his/her master, Band.
If you can lower yourself to our clutzy level, I am certain you would be embraced.
I am sure I would be, as well. Don't take it personal (you know, like the guys you might turn down at a dance might?), but thanks... but no thanks. I'm good. I prefer a different "embrace" than you're offering. One that makes me "happy"... versus one that results in "woe." (Matthew 5:11, 12; Luke 6:26)
So, I hope this "discussion" has been as... enlightening with regard to me as you had hoped it would. I realize that it may not have resulted in the "frienship" you might have been hoping for... but you shouldn't consider the "door" closed on that. If and when you're ever ready to give the benefit of the doubt, and listen and learn ABOUT me... rather that assuming you know... perhaps we can revisit and "discuss" again.
A slave of Christ,
SA
