this is so hard, overbearing, just have to vent.
the bible contains a lot of 'hidden manna', and treasure, it's quite literally correct when it says to seek those things out.
i know i need to be patient and our heavenly father will guide me.
A lot of people feel that they have come a new knowledge or that they have foudn something that no one else knows, usually because they haven't read their "history books".
You know, as much as we disagree on certain things, I like you. Very well said.
this is so hard, overbearing, just have to vent.
the bible contains a lot of 'hidden manna', and treasure, it's quite literally correct when it says to seek those things out.
i know i need to be patient and our heavenly father will guide me.
What f'ing hubris. You REALLY think that you have discovered something about the bible that is so startling, so amazing that the knowledge itself is dangerous and people could use it the wrong way or that it would stumble others and turn them away from God or something? I have just GOT to know what this is...
i recently watched the movie along with the second part thanks to several people mentioning it on this forum.
i have seen both people against and pro.
what are your thoughts?
A contract exclusively between party A and party B is non-binding on party C
Of course not. You are 100% free to leave the US and find some ungoverned piece of land and start your own government. However, within the confines of the US, if you choose to stay, you IMPLICITLY agreeing to the law of the land.
I have at no time entered into and am therefore not a party to any contract, written or verbal, which establishes me as subject to the rule of the U.S. Federal government.
See above. Simply by being here you are implicitly agreeing and obligated to follow the law of the land.
Premise 5: The U.S. Federal government, via standard operating procedure for such, routinely and deliberately in the course of enforcing its own laws, restricts and curtails the freedoms of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of what it defines as its citizens.
How does it restrict life? Liberty is not absolute. What kind of happiness are you not free to pursue?
Presmise 6: I fall under the definition of a citizen of the United States of America, more exactly a natural-born citizen, who did not immigrate to this country.
Conclusion: The U.S. Federal government routinely restricts and curtails what it itself claims are my inalienable human rights, and without any contractual basis to do so.
I believe the logic is sound and the argument is therefore valid, but if you have issues with one or more premises, let's rumble. ;-)
Perhaps you misunderstand that the declaration of independnce meant. In any case, it was declaring to britain the intentions of the new nation. Your rights are enumerated in the first 10 amendments to the constitution. Regardless, no one is keeping you here or preventing you from attempting to change the laws of the land via the established process.
The logic of each step is sound in a microcosm, but where it breaks down is that there is no contractual basis for you to stay and nothing preventing you from trying to change the laws should you wish to do so.
i see two compelling reasons right off the bat:.
1. financial - this one is a bit counterintuitive, as we all know the wtb$ is loaded.
but if we could see real preaching stats by territory, i bet my ass that the most return visits are in the western/developed countries.
They may have their main body so brainwashed for these rules that they could never accept this major of a change.
They are brainwashed to beleive and accept anything the WT says, bro. Hell, the generation change will barely make a ripple. I got my wife and some of our friends to admit the whole beard thing completely unsriptural and going beyond what was written and their answer was "it's just a good sign of who wants to leave because they don't love god". Seriously, having a beard means you don't get down with the jesus.
i would love to hear your experiences when this worked out for you.
i had a great turning of the tables when i was 22. the con.
went out to a park for picnics, softball, that sort of thing.
yeah, when i have gotten the line "they weren't comfortable talking to you about it" i just go back with "well, biblically speaking i need to speak with that person and until i do, i really am not entirely sure what we are talking about so i can't really comment."
i recently watched the movie along with the second part thanks to several people mentioning it on this forum.
i have seen both people against and pro.
what are your thoughts?
And your liking it (or whatever) doesn't make it any more valid, nor do all the mere trappings of legitimacy that you mentioned. You're trying to argue that it's legitimate from within it's own framework of value and legitimacy--you could use parallel arguments to legitimize any form of government: dictatorship or whatever.
Again, nonsense. I made the argument that the legitimacy SPECIFICALLY derived from the people BECAUSE the government was formed by representative that the people had elected specifically to perform that task. Dictatorships in no way fit that bill.
Your argument, restated, is this: it's legitimate because it's democracy. So what?
It's a representative republic. So it's not a democracy.
Just because it's a democracy (or some perversion thereof, i.e. the U.S.) doesn't make it fundamentally different than an absolute dictatorship, because when it comes down to it, someone else still has the power of life and death over you, and you never willingly signed over those rights to them.
Exfept that in a dictatorship, the government doesn't have to follow the law, can arbitrarily change the laws, citizens have no rights, they can prevent you from leaving, etc. You're free to leave if you choose. You have rights. I am, of course, not saying it works perfectly, but the very fact that we have a Tea Party speaking out and calling our president names and unfit proves that something is working (free speech).
To examine its true legitimacy, you have to examine it from an external framework and set of values. "Duly elected representatives" does not a legitimate government make.
The people are the external source, unlike a dictatorship.
What if Congress passed a bill calling for your execution? 'Tis the will of the people via the elected officials, so be it?
Then it would be struck down by the supreme court as unconstitutional because the constitution only provides for conviction of treason as the only federally authorized death penalty.
i recently watched the movie along with the second part thanks to several people mentioning it on this forum.
i have seen both people against and pro.
what are your thoughts?
So is it then from the consent of the governed? I never signed off on that.
They're bullies, no more legitimate than the mob, but "legitimate" in exactly the same manner as the mob: they'll rob/imprison/kill you if you don't do as you're told.
Nonsense. They are legitimate because of the charter adopted by the duly elected representatives of the people (specifically speaking about countried like the US, Canada, Germany, France, etc). You don't like it? Find some land where there aren't other people that have already established the laws of the land and move there. Or buy a boat and live in the middle of the ocean. The fact that people generally elect the represenatives to make the laws and government is what gives it legitimacy. You not liking it doesn't make it any less valid.
i recently watched the movie along with the second part thanks to several people mentioning it on this forum.
i have seen both people against and pro.
what are your thoughts?
Care to clarify what you mean?
I mean that calling government (in the general sense) "legalised" organized crimed make as much sense as calling rape just sex you didn't know you wanted. By definiton, if something is legal, it's not crime.
there always seemed to be some witnesses who seemed to be in it for the social aspect of it.
the ones who planned most of the gatherings and trips.
and the ones who got invited to the parties two states away.
There is an idea of a notverylikely as a JW; some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me: only an entity, something illusory. And though I can hide my lack of FS hours, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense I know more about the bible and your religion than you do... I simply am not there.
/shameless stolen from one of the most under-appreciated movies of all time, but very close to 100% spot on
there is a certain brain-eating parasitic worm that produces an odd symptom: it affects your dreams.. .
the following are typical dreams this parasite will cause:.
dreams about not fitting in your car comfortably dreams about driving from the back seatdreams about veering all over the road .
Borrow from XKCD much?
That was lifted from this... http://www.xkcd.com/719/
