10 Dec 05
Let's see if we can sort this out.
The sociopath who kills as easily wiping his nose was sarcasm. Some thought goes into wiping one's nose, and relatively speaking, more thought for more action. The killing by a sociopath is related to thought, therefore intent of some sort or another. Fire protects its source. The sociopath does not kill one 'making' him happy. The murderous act is predicated by thougths toward the same, for whatever reason.
The intent of the statement relative to emotions sometimes leading is just that: sometimes emotions are allowed to lead, in place of objective thought. Those are the times when 'anything goes.' Emotion does not think objectively, but rather responds. When a respondent within the soul is given control over that soul, the path will invariably lead to specific results.
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by joelekJoelek's original post describes eleven cases of Pharoah's heart being hardened. In 4 of the cases, there is no cause described. In 3 cases, it explicitly says that Pharoah hardened his own heart, and in 4 of the cases, it explicitly says God hardened Pharoah's heart.
No, I think that Pharaoh hardened his heart. I also think that God hardened his heart. This is EXACTLY what the Bible says.
These are 11 distinct cases of Pharoah hardening his own heart, and in 4 of them God is clearly described as the cause. I don't understand how you came to your understanding of these passages without a little creative interpretation.
10 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOops. I accidentally recced this post. Well, enjoy the rec I guess.
Let's see if we can sort this out.
The sociopath who kills as easily wiping his nose was sarcasm. Some thought goes into wiping one's nose, and relatively speaking, more thought for more action. The killing by a sociopath is related to thought, therefore intent of some sort or another. Fire protects its source. The sociopath does not kill one 'maki ...[text shortened]... hin the soul is given control over that soul, the path will invariably lead to specific results.
11 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean in the context of the discussion we were having; it seems to be random "stream of consciousness" BS. Could someone please translate this gibberish into something approximating coherent sentences in the English language?
Let's see if we can sort this out.
The sociopath who kills as easily wiping his nose was sarcasm. Some thought goes into wiping one's nose, and relatively speaking, more thought for more action. The killing by a sociopath is related to thought, therefore intent of some sort or another. Fire protects its source. The sociopath does not kill one 'maki ...[text shortened]... hin the soul is given control over that soul, the path will invariably lead to specific results.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI typically consider myself quite skilled in this arena. More often than not in this forum, rather than meeting others halfway in communication, I end up taking the ass end of a 80-20 deal. In this case, I've gone the full 100 and have come up with nothing. Sorry, but I have no idea what he was trying to convey.
Could someone please translate this gibberish into something approximating coherent sentences in the English language?
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'm going to start using the phrase "fire protects its source" in all my posts as I like the sound of it though I have absolutely no idea what it could possibly mean in this context.
I typically consider myself quite skilled in this arena. More often than not in this forum, rather than meeting others halfway in communication, I end up taking the ass end of a 80-20 deal. In this case, I've gone the full 100 and have come up with nothing. Sorry, but I have no idea what he was trying to convey.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by no1marauderFire protects its source.
I'm going to start using the phrase "fire protects its source" in all my posts as I like the sound of it though I have absolutely no idea what it could possibly mean in this context.
This is related to the sociopath who makes a conscience decision to murder. Regardless of the action around the original intent, that intent is protected until it reaches its logical conclusion. In this case, the death of someone else is intended by the sociopath. That intention is not as casual as wiping their nose, but instead is either predicated by actions of the victim, projection by the aggressor, or both.
It is the prosecution's task to show what that intent was in order to prove murder. Given the necessary emotions, murder is proven.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo emotions need to be proven to prove intent. You are hopelessly confused. I'm not surprised that you refuse to admit that you don't know anything about law; fire protects it source.
Fire protects its source.
This is related to the sociopath who makes a conscience decision to murder. Regardless of the action around the original intent, that intent is protected until it reaches its logical conclusion. In this case, the death of someone else is intended by the sociopath. That intention is not as casual as wiping their nose, but inste ...[text shortened]... what that intent was in order to prove murder. Given the necessary emotions, murder is proven.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo when the Bible says that God feels pity, compassion, anger, and so on,
We have covered the ground of anthropomorphisms. Let's not lose the forest for the trees.
God didn't feel those things? I guess the Bible lied.
When Jesus wept, He didn't feel anything?
And why is anger a predicate for murder?
Nemesio
11 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioThe Bible doesn't lie; one needs humility and guidance to understand it.
So when the Bible says that God feels pity, compassion, anger, and so on,
God didn't feel those things? I guess the Bible lied.
When Jesus wept, He didn't feel anything?
And why is anger a predicate for murder?
Nemesio
Jesus wept refers to the humanity of Christ, not the diety.
Is love a predicate for marriage? No, but it is a common one.
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, off the top of my head, I would define "intent" as:
Define intent.
A person acts intentionally with respect to a result or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense when his conscious objective is to cause such a result or to engage in such conduct.
But that's just me.
EDIT: OK, it's New York Penal Law sec. 15.05(1) but you know how it is: a fire protects its source.
11 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo how do you explain when God shows pity, anger and compassion, to name
The Bible doesn't lie; one needs humility and guidance to understand it.
Jesus wept refers to the humanity of Christ, not the diety.
Is love a predicate for marriage? No, but it is a common one.
three emotions?
Answer my question directly: why is emotion (anger) a predicate for murder?
Your example isn't even clear; you give a case which has exceptions (love isn't
always a predicate for marriage) which might lead a person to believe that
murder can occur in the absence of emotion (which is the opposite of your point).
Nemesio
11 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioAnthropomorphisms. Language of accomodation.
So how do you explain when God shows pity, anger and compassion, to name
three emotions?
(love isn't
always a predicate for marriage) which might lead a person to believe that
murder can occur in the absence of emotion (which is the opposite of your point).
Nemesio
There needs to be a emoticon for sarcasm, as that was employed by the post regarding love being an impetus for marriage. There are other motivations for marriage, just as there are other motivations for murder besides anger.