James Thomas Rook Jr.

AllenSmith: Is there any way you can make that clearer ? ... somehow I got lost , as may points on one side were being compared with many points on the other side, and I got lost about what specific points were being compared to what other specific points.

He already HAS a $21,000 Rolex, but there is NOTHING like Green, Folding, Spending Money!

You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT Eoin .... In fact, if somehow Ah received, say, 100 Million Dollars, I would be positively ORGASMIC!

... Years ago, I was visiting the Falling Creek Congregation, on Route 1, in Richmond, VA, and being 6'-6" tall, I am usually the tallest person in the room. After the meeting, someone tapped me on the shoulder from behind and I turned around to look into a Brother's SHIRT POCKET. It so disoriented me I can't remember anything else about him, except when we shook hands, mine looked like a child's by comparison. I had been "minimalized". .

.. and THAT is why we have a conscience ...... because the Governing Body, by their own recent admission forced by GB member Geoffery Jackson in the ARC hearings ... are neither inspired of God, or infallible. If WE are wrong we have to pay the price. If THEY are wrong ... we STILL have to pay the price. They pay NO PRICE WHATSOEVER FOR BEING WRONG ... EVER. Who knew?

... some got into so much trouble they had to be put into the Jehovah's Witness Protection Program ...

Everybody taking the "Vow of Poverty", after reading it, realizes that they are being treated equally ... but some are more equal than others. Our meeting is on Saturday, and yesterday an elderly black Sister mentioned when the subject came up during the Watchtower Study, that the vow did not include if a person had "Old Money", and then she explained what that was .... and I thought that from photos seen of the Governing Body, ALSO apparently does not include $21,000 Rolex Wrist Watches.

Melinda: As Sean Connery said in the James Bond movie "Thunderball", ..... " Was there ever a man more misunderstood?" Please re-read what I actually said ... I could explain it to you, but that would take the fun and amazement out of self discovery. Also please note that I did NOT contradict what God has stated through Isaiah, or assume God or Isaiah was guessing! .... merely given you the key to discover it for yourself ... if you are willing to do the hard work of thinking, IN CONTEXT, what Isaiah was actually saying. The KEY is verses 4 and 5. It STARTS the style of "simile" that continues. YOU do the heavy lifting. Here is a "wheelbarrow" you can use to get started ... http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-similes.html Remember: CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING! ... That is why I quoted FIFTEEN verses ... and not just two verses.

ISAIAH 11:1-15: (See my previous comments IN THIS THREAD , AND the highlighted portion in context, below ... AND THINK ABOUT WHAT IS REASONABLE AND SANE! 1 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. 2 The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him— the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the LORD— 3 and he will delight in the fear of the LORD. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; 4 but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked. 5 Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist. 6 The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. 7 The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. 8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den, and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest. 9 They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea. 10 In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his resting place will be glorious. 11 In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the surviving remnant of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the Mediterranean. 12 He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth. 13 Ephraim’s jealousy will vanish, and Judah’s enemies will be destroyed; Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah, nor Judah hostile toward Ephraim. 14 They will swoop down on the slopes of Philistia to the west; together they will plunder the people to the east. They will subdue Edom and Moab, and the Ammonites will be subject to them. 15 The LORD will dry up the gulf of the Egyptian sea; with a scorching wind he will sweep his hand over the Euphrates River. He will break it up into seven streams so that anyone can cross over in sandals. TO UNDERSTAND SCRIPTURE IT WAS meant TO BE SIMPLE ... JUST READ IT IN CONTEXT .. AND USE PLAIN OLD COMMON SENSE. You don't haul timber in a Corvette Automobile, or Race a Concrete Truck at 125 miles per hour .... but in today's world, you have to put WARNING STICKERS on child car seats .... "Do not fold up car seat with child inside". THINK people .... THINK! And while you are thinking ... read verses 4 and 5 about six times ...until you figure out that what I just stated may be a total load of drivel OF COURSE I am guessing! ... SO IS EVERYBODY ELSE!

It's a good thing I know how to Moonwalk ....

I think he needs to chill a bit, and take a handful of Blamitol (tm). Blamitol edited higher res .mp4

I would have to know more about the subject being debated .. I may not be an impartial judge, or referee .... if you intend to challenge him on some subject .. it should be until there is only one man standing. Among INTELLIGENT honest men of integrity, which I assume you both are, one will concede the debate points originally premised, and see the other is correct, WITHOUT THE NEED TO APPEAL TO AN OUTSIDE AUTHORITY FOR VALIDATION. I WILL, however, put my "two cents" in and help in my usual manner ... .

You have already conceded, True (Tom), by default, for leaving the battlefield, and by surrender, when you "overturned your King". Using YOUR logic, you have self-forfeited the right to disagree with anybody about anything .... and only think approved happy thoughts. You cannot even reply to THIS! Stupidity would be to referee a fight already lost.

Tommy Tom Tom: I have spent several hours reading your blog "SheepandGoats", and I was impressed with the quality of your communication skills in that forum ... I especially liked your treatment of Mickey Spillane .... but when in a discussion of things where people's viewpoints strongly differ .. IT IS A DEBATE ... and that is how adults sift out bad ideas, and set them aside .. on the intellectual battlefield. IN CONTEXT of the discussions, you "took your ball, and went home ...", thereby AVOIDING THE ISSUES, which were left to stand. ... like turning over your King, half way through a chess game. Debate is sometimes a war of attrition ... until the last of the opponent's ideas are individually squashed. That is basically how the "Scientific Method" works also ... and that effort is the ONLY way that real truth is separated from comfortable fiction. You cannot LEAVE THE BATTLEFIELD while the opponents' army of ideas are still standing erect and strong. I can see BOTH viewpoints .. but to "win the day" you have to finish the fight. The "Rubber Duck" theory states that you have to explain what you believe to the rubber duck until it becomes crystal clear what ideas we hold are real, and which are stupid. This forum is our "Rubber Duck". This is the issue that Shiwiii proposed, and that you avoided by conceding the battle: " I would have to disagree with you. The eunuch from Ethiopia was not a part of ANY organization and nor did he have any agency to guide him when he was speaking with Phillip. The lands that the early disciples went to and converted folks had no "agency" as told to us in the Bible. Also, Paul and Barnabas did not appeal to an agency about those in Jerusalem over the idea of circumcision of the gentiles, but rather corrected the Pharisees (who converted) about bringing additional restrictions/ unfair yoke, upon the believers." . .

The only thing I have against short people is I have to pick them up to say hello.

Nothing else need be said.

Whew! I am glad you cleared that up ... I thought a "minimalist" was something like a dwarf.

YEAH! And statistically, they live 8 years longer than men ... what's with THAT?

WHY DO MEN HAVE NIPPLES? uH .. OR IS IT "NIPPELS"?

“A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once. ..." Among sane, rational people, the following Meme applies, always.

I remember in the 1960's and 1970's when some Kingdom Halls had a closet with white dress shirts, and visiting speakers would NOT BE ALLOWED to give their talks if they were "inappropriately dressed". I was called off the platform during a Ministry School assignment because I had a blue shirt under my suit coat, and chastised because I had a mustache. When Jesus was teaching in the Synagogue, did he have to conform to the dress code of Rabbis, and the sideburns never trimmed, and the long Long, LONG beards they had, in order to be allowed to teach from the "platform"? I hope someone out there knows Jewish "rules' and customs about "dress codes" in Jesus' time ... he was referred to as "Rabbi".

. Thomas Thom, Thommy Thom Thom .... I thought Shiwiii had an extremely well reasoned argument that was based in fact, and that further discussing it with you would put your position held in extreme jeopardy, if not ALREADY completely demolished with reason and logic. I hold a view somewhere in the middle, but because I can see BOTH sides ... it was crystal clear to ME that you have resoundingly LOST THIS DEBATE, and embarrassingly BADLY ... with your infantile debate concession comment ... It will be interesting to see, although I already see the current outcome, and forsee the ultimate outcome, if you decide to continue this exchange using Scripture, reason and logic. It is embarrassing to see someone cut off their OWN head, to have someone else hand it back to them ... on a platter. .

WOW! At least you are 100% consistent ... very scary, but somehow reassuring.

Shiwii: I saw that episode of the Twilight Zone, and it made the same long lasting impression on me ... but I never connected it as you did. The analogy fits like it was specifically designed for this conversation. I can still remember the entire episode ... except how it ended. I guess I will have to go to YouTube and refresh my memory with your stunning insight and see it again. Do you remember the name of the episode title? Although opinions are greatly varied, I consider Jehovah's Witnesses the only group that I KNOW ABOUT that could be Jehovah's name people, otherwise I would have to be an Agnostic ... and I have seen the good they do is in fact based on rightousness, not just "good for goodness sake." I suppose I am like the head of the VonTrapp family in the movie "Sound of Music" who loved his homeland and its people, but fled when Hitler took over, and wanted him to serve HIS interests, and not the people of Germany and Austria's Interests. And I am well aware of the steel mailed hand in the velvet glove ... I have been pounded with it a few times myself ... because they LOVE me. Worse ... I have seen OTHERS pounded with "love" ... and crushed. And I truly believe they really BELIEVE and think they do!, and what they do is kind and just. That is where I separate the "I", the "we", and the "they" .

Think about this: When you are reclining ( sitting) at a dining room table bench, you take off your weapons but keep them close by. When "Jesus said to THEM..." he was talking to ALL the Apostles, as their weapons were not evidently ON THEIR PERSON. Sitting down with a sword is ...um.. problematic, as you can visualize, and it was considered an insult to others to be armed at the dining table as well. ... but here is the clincher .... NO ONE left the room to sell anything, and Peter produced two swords in seconds. It took a blacksmith, once he had the metal, about a week of hard labor to make a sword .... NOBODY just "had them laying around", any more than I would deliberately leave an expensive camera OR A .45 CALIBER HANDGUN in a rented dining room. Upon reflection, Jesus said the two swords were "enough", as they were NOT going to war, merely confronting a cowardly illegal mob who would chill when faced with seeing their own blood, which they did. Oh... the clincher ... almost forgot... WHERE DID THE TWO SWORDS COME FROM? ... the Apostles brought them with them to the Passover and the Memorial. .