The "Overlapping Generation" Revisited.

[TrueTomHarley]

59 minutes ago, PeterR said:

Yes, that's probably how it works.

Given that you agree, simply pull up one of many Bible verses about reviling or abusive speech - the kind that Bible writers say congregation members should be disciplined for - and you have answered your own question.

Your beef was never with the GB at all. It was with Christianity as described in the Bible. 

[TrueTomHarley]

21 hours ago, PeterR said:

Sure it's a "minor matter" when a vulnerable person finds themselves in a room with three elders for not believing man-made doctrine. No doubt that's what the scripture means.

Nevertheless, let us give PeterR the benefit of the doubt. I think he is devious as they come, but this is the internet - I could be wrong. There's no way the situation would have unfolded as he presents it. But it may not be as blatant as my hypothetical example with JTR. Peter pointedly says he will not spill clarifying details so to protect persons. Probably the persons who would most look bad with clarifying details are himself. But there may be others, and one must commend him if he shows restraint for that reason. We can't know for sure.

On the internet one cannot settle these matters, just as we cannot settle matters when the media repeatedly plays a clip of this or that wrong, everybody makes up their mind about it, and then raises hell when the jury later gets it 'wrong,' notwithstanding that the jury alone has heard all the facts from all the parties.

Still, let us grant Peter his premise that he was wronged. No one would say it is impossible. Human secular justice fails all the time, with penalties much more severe than family and friends shunning you for a time period mostly under your own control. These days there are many who have been imprisoned for years, even decades, now declared innocent based upon DNA evidence. Since human justice is imperfect, should we suspend all attempts to apply it?

Why doesn't he just 'do his time' if he must? There is a mechanism under which he will unfailingly be reinstated in time, should that be his desire. (assuming he is DFed, which he has not said) Nothing is going to hinge on his swallowing or not swallowing the overlapping generations. Unless he is unhinged with paranoia, or contaminated with GIGO reading, he knows this.

Of course, if he is truly the victim of injustice, as we are here granting his claim, he can always says: 'screw it! I was right! These guys are jerks.' I would say it, at least for a time. It would be hard not to. 

The reason such a person eventually comes around and suffers injustice if they must, is because that is the course the Bible disposes one towards. It is either that or devolve into a collection of loose cannons, still believing the dominant church teachings of Trinity and hellfire, most likely, for it is the GB that is most responsible for our breaking free from those false doctrines. And, as far as doing Christ's assigned work of preaching the good news of the kingdom? Forget it. Each one will be too concerned about their own individual beefs to collectively get the job done, insisting their own complaints be resolved before anyone can move forward.

In the end, it is: 'Do I want to be part of the apparatus advertising the new system of things, declaring this good news of the kingdom to all the inhabited earth, or am I content with being a sanitized subset of this system of things?'

[PeterR]

10 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Still, let us grant Peter his premise that he was wronged.

 

That was quite an outpouring of speculation.

Let me put one thing to rest. I have not personally been wronged in this matter. Neither has any of my family.

I'm not sure why you would want to grant me a premise I never implied.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

Oh, for crying out loud! You post the remark, one of a long list of complaints and criticisms: "Sure it's a "minor matter" when a vulnerable person finds themselves in a room with three elders for not believing man-made doctrine. No doubt that's what the scripture means." 

What would you have us all believe? That you came out smelling like a rose? 

You feel free to malign persons, and slander the GB. You ridicule teachings that others have accepted and have never said you had to embrace. You insinuate all sorts of wrongs and injustices you have been victimized over, yet you are cagey with clarifying details. you do everything possible to present yourself an enigma - blatantly wronged, but not able to provide any clarification.

Yet as soon as anybody 'speculates' about you, you cry like a baby!

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

PeterR:

TTH has a well documented tendency to make up complete scenarios ENTIRELY from his imagination, without any basis in fact whatsoever, and then compare others to his imaginary scenarios .... and he has NO CONCEPT that there are people who are willing to risk their lives, their fortunes, their reputations and everything they hold dear to pursue Justice and Truth for its OWN sake .... and to defend the oppressed they have never even met.

Tyranny has become political correctness .... with manners!

.... or in his case ... bluster.

OH ... and TTH ... thank you for providing a never ending stream of solid documentation to substantiate my assertions!

 

[PeterR]

17 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Oh, for crying out loud! You post the remark, one of a long list of complaints and criticisms: "Sure it's a "minor matter" when a vulnerable person finds themselves in a room with three elders for not believing man-made doctrine. No doubt that's what the scripture means." 

What would you have us all believe? That you came out smelling like a rose? 

 

If I was theoretically in "a room" at some point, you have no idea whereabouts at the table I might have been sitting TrueTomHarley.

Nevertheless, it's not relevant to the points I'm making and I have no inclination to be baited by your throwing mud at the wall to see if anything sticks.

You are constantly diverting from the scriptural aspect of the discussion and making it a personal matter, which although not surprising to me, ought to be a red flag to readers. This is a common tactic when a person has no scriptural or moral argument.

 

Quote

You feel free to malign persons, and slander the GB.

Slander is a very strong accusation TrueTomHarley. And you throw it around like confetti? Please point to a post where I have slandered the GB or any other person, or calm down and show the strength of character to withdraw such a statement.

 

Quote

You ridicule teachings that others have accepted and have never said you had to embrace. You insinuate all sorts of wrongs and injustices you have been victimized over, yet you are cagey with clarifying details. you do everything possible to present yourself an enigma - blatantly wronged, but not able to provide any clarification.

Yet as soon as anybody 'speculates' about you, you cry like a baby!

When I cry, I cry like a grown man. And any grown man should cry if he sees people being hurt. But many of them don't, having had their hearts hardened to a "greater cause".

But I can assure you that your personal comments here do not affect me emotionally in the slightest.

 

 

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

PeterR:

 I Grok.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, PeterR said:

But many of them don't, having had their hearts hardened to a "greater cause".

This, too, is a common gripe of those who detest Witnesses. Those who say it most live in the West.

Few except in the West have any problem with setting aside one's personal interests in furtherance of a "greater cause." Everyone else knows 'you can't always get what you want.' Only in the West, intoxicated with independence, where the year text every year is "Nobody's telling ME what to so," do people think you should always get what you want. It is the 'spirit of independence' that the Watchtower frequently speaks about, yet it is hardly just them. Anyone concerned for the future of humanity must take note of it.

Christianity is nothing if not sacrificing to a "greater cause." Don't use the phrase perjoratively. To the extent one does, it indicates that one is poles apart from Bible-defined Christianity.

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

we have already defined one generation as really being two generations that overlap... two, yet one ...uh ... so ... as the time runs out  having ALREADY established this principle ... we can make a THIRD generation overlap, and it STILL be one

Hmmmm. The first generation could be the generation of fathers who saw 1914, then the generation of their sons who lived long enough to see the spirit-anointed organization work through a governing body in the 1970's. And as long as the spirit-anointed governing body are alive on earth, we are still in the one generation.

So we have the Generation of the Father, the Son and the Spirit-Anointed, and the three are ONE Generation. It has a certain "ring" to it!

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

WHOAAaaaaAAAAA!

Boggles de mind!

[TrueTomHarley]

6 hours ago, PeterR said:

Slander is a very strong accusation TrueTomHarley. And you throw it around like confetti? Please point to a post where I have slandered the GB or any other person, or calm down and show the strength of character to withdraw such a statement.

And while I'm at it, what is it with your showboating this? You just want to keep your complaints on center stage for as long as you possibly can. Our history only goes back two threads. We've had no exchanges in secret. Just scroll back is all you need to do.

I'm sure it will be subjective, as everything else is here. Your chums will agree with you, mine with me. Just scroll back, find something I've said, and argue with it. You don't need my help. That way, I can do other things.

6 hours ago, PeterR said:

which although not surprising to me, ought to be a red flag to readers.

Oh, please. Once again, you demonstrate you are full of yourself. There will be no Putizers awarded here. This is a 'here today, gone tomorrow' internet thread. It will be completely buried in no time at all. Most likely the only readers we need be concerned about flagging are the immediate participants here. Rest assured that I am ever mindful, before I post anything, that it never actually disappears and always could potentially resurface some day. I always take that into account. But in all probability, these words will never be seen again. (unless someone like me is saving them)

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I just checked .... conversations I had in 1997 ... before browsers, are still on the Internet .... wow!