Posts by seesthesky

34

Escape from this room - Even harder than the first

by misspeaches in

seeming it was such fun solving that puzzle try your hand at this one .

http://www.fasco-csc.com/works/viridian/index_e.php .

(again i don't know how to post it as a link so try copy and paste into a web browser) .

seesthesky

http://flippedcracker.net/archives/2004/08/13/veridian-room-walkthrough/

go to the above if you must sleep

40

Would the W.T. be open for massive lawsuits if they changed blood policy?

by hubert in

i was just thinking of this, because of my last post topic.

if the watchtower changed their no blood policy to accepting whole blood, would and could that .

open the flood gates for law suits from jdubs that sacrificed their children for the tower, or would .

EDUARDO: "Simply put if the WTS "broke the contract" or didn't honor the agreement, it is possible that the Bulgarian government itself would have STANDING to bring suit but it is unlikely that anyone else (especially "unidentified 3rd Party beneficiaries of the agreement," i.e. Bulgarian witnesses) would have standing to bring suit to enforce the agreement or for damages."

umm - i thought third party beneficiaries to a K could sue - so long as they're identified - e.g., the beneficiary to a life insurance policy can sue the insuring company if it refuses to pay benefits even though the beneficiary was not a party to the contract

50

Is Michael Jackson INNOCENT??

by breeze in

i am sure this is not new topic, but today seems to open the ???

, is he just a target because of his wierd behavier.. i want to think he is innocent????.

the press in this country is sometimes off the center of the subject.....maybr not representing the real truth....???.

seesthesky

CRUZANHEART: At least he's being tried under a law that doesn't require two witnesses, only a preponderance of evidence.

it's not preponderance - it's "beyond a reasonable doubt" - civil cases use the preponderance standard which approximates 51 percent - reasonable doubt, on the other hand, involves more complexity which lawyers often reduce to, "a doubt which would cause you to hesitate in a matter of serious personal importance"

my 2 cents to add to the dollar which pays for a little accurate knowledge

10

jacob wrestling with an angel

by seesthesky in

what do you think the following genesis verses represent?

24 finally jacob was left by himself.

then a man began to grapple with him until the dawn ascended.

seesthesky

what follows comes from the following link - http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/1999-June/003494.html

Avi Erlich observes that Harold Bloom misunderstands the story in
Exodus 4:24-26. So, join the club of those not comprehending what the
ancient author was up to. While Erlich and Bloom do not agree on the
meaning of this most enigmatic drama, they do agree that amongst
Jewish scholars there is little agreement as they contrive to make the
unpalatable more palatable. Out of all the rabbinic scholars, sages,
midrash composers, talmudic storytellers, there is not much consensus
as they struggle to make this tale fit into "normative" conventional
wisdom. If I understand Bloom correctly, all this speculating and
theorizing would have pleased the ancient author. For, it was her
intention to be deliberately obscure at times so as to provoke
auditor response. This story, is one of those times, in which she
purposely employs this technique. The ensuing much conjecturizing is
evidence that the "great lady", Gevurah, J, has succeeded in compelling
the reader to examine preconceived notions, and, to do some ruminating.
Succeeded, except for Josephus and Philo, who cop out by ignoring this
notably contentious account.

Erlich and Bloom agree that biblical scholars miss the boat if they
focus on the question, "What was the sin of Moses that led the
Night-Stalker God to pursue him with homicidal intent?" This is a
difficult passage for the revered Rashi, generally thought of as
preferring a plain sense interpretation when appropriate. For the plain
sense of the text is the scandal of Yahweh's unwarranted assault on His
just chosen, called and commissioned Liberator and Lawgiver. Bloom
thinks Rashi's observation that Yahweh was out to kill Moses because he
was not proceeding post haste to fulfill his ordained task in Egypt, to
be absurd. What Bloom calls "normative tradition", impatient even with
the esteemed Rashi, came up with "the mad explanation that Moses was to
be slain precisely because he had failed to circumcise his son". Martin
Buber, who Bloom notes is generally, "largely free of the normative
tradition", fumbles here, as he insists that Yahweh must have had a
motive. For Buber, Moses had held something back; has not been
completely obedient, and since Yahweh "claims the entirety of the one He
has chosen", Yahweh was out to get him. But, Bloom notes that perhaps
the greatest tribute to the awesome irony of J, was rendered by the
midrashic legend, which converted the murderous Yahweh into Satan
disguised as a serpent that nearly swallows up Moses before Zipporah
performs circumcision on his son". Similarly, the LXX translators get
Yahweh off the hook by converting Him into an "angel of the Lord".
Although the Redactor is a villain for censoring the perceived larger
Book of J., Bloom acknowledges his willingness to include this
troublesome vignette, albeit not until he (R) had tampered with it to
make it appear to be an etiological circumcision tale- "so J's own
passage becomes instead a weird founding event for the praxis of
circumcision".

For Bloom, these defensive maneuverings are unnecessary and
inappropriate, indicative that the author's intent has been missed.
There was, and is, scholarly resistance to J's depiction of an
"eccentrically irascible, easily angered" god, such as she portrays so
laconically in this stark narrative. Moses, no hero of J's, doesn't
fare well, either. "The Moses of P, who stammers because he has
uncircumcised lips, is a wholly different Moses from J's, who stammers
out of dread and bewilderment, and has to be rescued from Yahweh by his
wife through their baby son, hardly a dignified salvation for the
prophet." Nobility is characterized in the drama by Zipporah,
non-Israelite daughter of a pagan priest, who intuiting Yahweh's
intent, performs the blood ritual that will appease Him, thus saving
her husband's life.

Avi Erlich, unhappy with J's impish, rascally God, sees the passage
very differently. He criticizes Bloom as "a critic who takes nothing
literally, thinks it outrageous that God would want to kill His Own
elect, especially when Moses is even now undertaking His frightful
mission. But most certainly we are not meant to take as narrative fact
the fantastic statement that God met Moses at the inn and sought to
kill him" . For Erlich, there is no need to be defensive about this
text. Scholarly contortions to assimilate and normatize arise out of a
basic exegetical blindness. For him, this passage is a delving into
the psyche of Moses. It is a description of his bad dream, his nightmare
told in hallucinatory language. "Thus when we read that "the Lord met
him, and sought to kill him" we might wonder if God meets Moses not
because God seeks but because the human Moses dreams. Perhaps these are
nightmarish images fabricated by a terrified servant in the middle of
the wilderness, in the middle of the night. In deed, the flitting
appearance of Zipporah as she throws the foreskin at the feet of Moses,
seems more dream-like than covenant-related, and her repeated accusation
against the bloody husband, sounds less like the customary ritual of
circumcision, and more like a madly repeated dream element. Magically,
as in a dream, Zipporah's incantations dissolve the rage of God, just
as Jacob's dream- work dissolves the grasp of the angel with whom he
wrestles in his sleep at Penuel." Re: Zipporah, Erlich observes, "Is not
Zipporah herself a terrifying dream figure, both a protectress and a
knife-wielding mother who menaces both Moses and his son? Such a lurid
magician can not be meant as an actual appeaser of the God of Abraham.
What Hebrew reader would accept at face value the claim that this harpy
dissuades a berserk God from squeezing Moses throat? That "God let him
go" probably represents Moses's own dream wish that Pharaoh will indeed
let the Hebrews go, and that Moses himself will be let go without being
doomed as a false prophet, or a failed servant"

What is the author up to? Providing a serious, insightful psychological
study of the fears and apprehensions of Moses's troubled mind-his dream
work? Or, a description of a just God's plan and activity, which
because of its crypticness leaves us to figure out what His noble
motive* might have been to warrant His trying to kill His servant?
Or, do we have a tricky, nuanced, sophisticatedly subtle, non-religious,
comic, supreme ironist, the most elliptical of all biblical authors,
here daring to intimate an extra-ordinarily wayward, and uncanny
literary character?

*The most widely accepted motive in the normative tradition is that
Moses failed to keep the commandment to circumcise his son, Gen.17:12-14

10

jacob wrestling with an angel

by seesthesky in

what do you think the following genesis verses represent?

24 finally jacob was left by himself.

then a man began to grapple with him until the dawn ascended.

seesthesky

What do you think the following Genesis verses represent?

24 Finally Jacob was left by himself. Then a man began to grapple with him until the dawn ascended. 25 When he got to see that he had not prevailed over him, then he touched the socket of his thigh joint; and the socket of Jacob?s thigh joint got out of place during his grappling with him. 26 After that he said: ?Let me go, for the dawn has ascended.? To this he said: ?I am not going to let you go until you first bless me.? 27 So he said to him: ?What is your name?? to which he said: ?Jacob.? 28 Then he said: ?Your name will no longer be called Jacob but Israel, for you have contended with God and with men so that you at last prevailed.? 29 In turn Jacob inquired and said: ?Tell me, please, your name.? However, he said: ?Why is it that you inquire for my name?? With that he blessed him there. 30 Hence Jacob called the name of the place Pe·ni´el, because, to quote him, ?I have seen God face to face and yet my soul was delivered.?

TIA

2

the divine conspiracy by dallas willard

by seesthesky in

hi - any of you read the divine conspiracy by dallas willard?

- if so, any comments on his work?

know anything about the guy?

seesthesky

Thanks for the reply. I have read most of the book - what many on amazon say about it is true for the most part. I just wondered if anyone here had read it.

2

the divine conspiracy by dallas willard

by seesthesky in

hi - any of you read the divine conspiracy by dallas willard?

- if so, any comments on his work?

know anything about the guy?

seesthesky

hi - any of you read the divine conspiracy by dallas willard? - if so, any comments on his work? know anything about the guy? tia

18

Denied!!! See Inside.

by Doubtfully Yours in

.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/law/03/24/schiavo/index.html

the highest us court has spoken.. dy

seesthesky

ODRADE: "The fact that the Supreme Court rejected the appeal shows that they agree with the 20 court rulings previous. For an appeal to have merit to the Supreme court, there must be evidence that laws have been violated and wrong decisions have been made. Not proof, but at least evidence."

27

My first post---Boy do I need help!!!!!!!!

by PAJA in

jw
friends

i have been lurking here for a few days but decided i need to jump in as i need some serious help!

i got into a relationship with a jw.

i worked with her for over a year, got hurt on the job and was recovering for about 5 months.

seesthesky

tell the truth

126

I still think it might be the truth - what is wrong with me?

by slimboyfat in

apostate literature - i have read the lot.

you name it - c of c, gentile times reconsidered, thirty tears a watchtower slave, the orwellian world of jehovah's witness, apocalypse delayed, and the freeminds and watchtower observer sites, so on and so on.

and i have been reading the posts on this site regularly pretty much since it started, and hourglass before it.

seesthesky

sbf - u r processing (MENTALLY) out loud - based on your posts it seems like you have questions about how and with whom to worship -

the posture of your questions also indicate that you see the jw path as the right one - take it if u think it's correct

other people take their paths with and without question, u can do the same

walk on

sky