TrueTomHarley

Members
  • Content count

    1,394
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

TrueTomHarley last won the day on July 26

TrueTomHarley had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About TrueTomHarley

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2,994 profile views
  1. I'm crying plenty - anytime I reflect upon your obsession over the minutia of a religion you left long ago.
  2. For crying out loud, Srecko - there is such a thing as common sense. Did you forget what that stuff is? It is a faith where everlasting life on a paradise earth is recognized as God's purpose for mankind. Yet the overall world that Christians operate within is that 'everyone is going to heaven when they die ' The overall world - inside or outside the congregation - produces abundant emotional stress. It is therefore not a shocker to suggest that "mental and emotional imbalanced or past religious beliefs" may be a factor for some - particularly so should someone give evidence of imbalance in their everyday lives - which you would know nothing about since you ran for the hills ages ago. What business is it of yours? Get on with your life - for I assume that you have one - and stop harping on the tiniest thing here. You don't need a scripture to justify it every time you blow your nose.
  3. 50% of the Bible is related to this theme, probably more. The prophets positively beat us over the head with it. Unless one applies spiritual values in one's life, his or her worship is meaningless and disapproved. Yet here online is found extensive discussion of issues that constitutes less than one percent of the Bible. Would that it more closely correlated with the Bible's allocation of themes. I think it tells something of many participants that it does not. Okay, I get it - angels are desirous of peering into future things and are frustrated that they cannot. But even so... Particularly is it so of opponents who are demanding Witnesses 'study the Bible' more, when Witnesses collectively are the most well-read biblically in the world. Do such opponents actually apply the faith in their life? Are they known as persons of love, empathy, and Christian activity? Or are they primarily known as persons who argue that they have a better way? This is an anonymous forum and one does not really know anyone. Maybe they all are the epitome of Christ-like qualities - they certainly all seem to treat that as a no-brainer. But I am dubious nonetheless.
  4. It is someone else's point. Let them rise to the occasion if there is one.
  5. What does 666, the 'mark of the beast' really signify?

    Where is @James Thomas Rook Jr. when you need him with the Far Side cartoon showing Satan furious with the painter for painting 999 on an interior room. "Well, I'll be," the fellow says, scratching his head. "I guess I was holding the blueprint upside down."
  6. Yeah, @Nana Fofana, excellent point Srecko makes here! Why can't you quote any scriptures about what is happening 2000 years after they were written, hmm? For that matter, where is the scripture saying you can call yourself Nana on the internet? Srecko is very wise. Don't think you can slip anything past him.
  7. What adds to the chill is that the Russian Orthodox translation also says Jehovah in about 9 places, per Anton Chivchalov.
  8. Yes Yes. It had better be. But these three questions miss the one obvious fact that makes them all irrelevant. How would they know? Because the individual annointed ones say so? The day that this happens I am going to reveal here that I am also annointed and I have been lurking here for months. I now have a pronouncement. It is that my fellow annointed @Witness is all wet and no one should listen to her, and that @James Thomas Rook Jr. is next in line as replacement in case someone bites the dust. He has many many many complaints. It is time to put them all on the front burner. If anyone doesn't believe it, I will threaten to summon Jesus' white horse, who is not exactly Mr. Ed. I'm annointed. I said something. Jump!!
  9. Oh? Jesus said any who would see life must eat his flesh and drink his blood. How would your 'critical thought' analyze that one? He lost a great many disciples that day. Probably it was ones who, like you, put their trust in critical thought. 'Critical thought' is the trademark of a generation that constructs a system that is swirling directly down the toilet, and yet proponents thereof project an air of superiority right until their heads go under. Jesus could not have said anything more stupid if his concern was to cater to critical thought. It should be clear that he doesn't give a hoot about it. He violates its tenets all the time. He spins illustrations that he rarely explains. When he does explain them, it is not in a manner that would satisfy any advocate of critical thought. He raises strawmen as readily as he breathes. He launches ad homenum attacks willy-nilly. He speaks to the heart, in almost total disregard for the head. For every verse about the head, there are ten about the heart. People insisting on critical thought are the most obnoxious people in the world because each one assumes that he alone has a lock on the stuff. Critical thought is the main element of this world's wisdom that God laughs at. Though I don't mean to equate the two, the current uproar over a Trump tweet illustrates the divide perfectly. I don't care how much I dislike @James Thomas Rook Jr. ; if he saved my kid from 10 years in a Chinese prison I would be on my hands and knees thanking him. A tweet that calls out ingratitude gets people stirred up because it speaks to the heart - everyone knows where gratitude is and when it is appropriate. But those who go in for critical analysis think the president petty for not letting it go. Doesn't he have more important things to do? When Trump tweets that North Korea has launched all its missills, people of heart will run to take cover. People of critical thought will run to their computers to point out that the idiot can't even spell the word right. THAT is my opinion of your 'critical thought.' As nearly as I can tell, it is Jesus' opinion. And God's. Things that have been done on the GB's watch and on their behest - do the blessings outweigh the costs? There are costs - sometimes they are significant. Do the spiritual benefits the GB alone has enabled outweigh the costs? Or do the costs, invariably matters of personal rights curtailed somehow, outweigh the benefits? It is a matter of the heart. The head has little to do with it.
  10. I believe you just did. It is the Question from Readers you brought up yourself and misread a point perfectly obvious to everyone else. Some mistakenly think they have the calling because they are nuts - what's so hard about that? Nobody is saying who is who. Lest anyone think I ridicule people, let me say that I am not opposed to nuts. Many are nuts here. I am nuts. One man's nuts is another man's eccentric. I don't care to sort it out and don't know if I could if I wanted to. What I do know is that our nuts are harmless. With the world's nuts, you'd better buy a bullet-proof vest. @James Thomas Rook Jr. will know, if he can extract his face from out of a turkey, that I am very much opposed to those misreading points.
  11. And Paul also said all these gifts would pass away. So it all becomes irrelevant to identifying divine backing today. Then why keep doing it with the GB? He doesn't NEED anything. That is not to say it does not come in handy. Replace Bethel with a pile of rocks, and look to those to 'cry out.' My point is that your footing is much less firm here. If anything, the JW.org disproves this. I see their faces all the time, whereas I never used to. Yes! As long as God's temple doesn't do anything, all is fine. Far better to meet in each other's basements. (caution: unnecessary sarcasm here, the language of you-know-who) Yes. It will. Why not allow it to make hay while the sun shines? You think there's not? Didn't Jesus say something about 'cramped and narrow?' I think they simply don't want to be negligent. I don't think they know themselves how things will shake out beyond the hints from the scriptures. But whatever the caution be issued in the future, I don't think they want to see a brotherhood dominated by the sons-in-law of Lot, who imagine they are joking. IMO, it is because of this that: You have much exaggerated this, but everyone knows where you are coming from. Nobody would say your words are groundless, only exaggerated. This is among the most recurring themes of this entire forum. This statement strikes me as not unlike Peter's in the windstorm - panicking at the unknown and fear-inspiring. Congregation authority was pretty much unchecked in the first century, much to the dismay of Diotrophes and the superfine apostles. As so as the latter succeeded in checking it, it all fell apart. We do tend to go by rote. How 'concerning' this is is anyone's guess. They don't call them sheep for nothing. No.
  12. Says who? Paul himself, mostly, plus a handful that could testify he had experienced some sort of religious experience, though they were not able to catch any of the words. Skeptics on this forum would not have been impressed. What if those first century Christians had refused to listen to him or read his letters, saying Why could they not have reasoned similarly? Let Jesus speak himself, if he has something to say! Why could they not have refused to listen to Paul the Middleman? When the verse says "Listen to him" it is not speaking of Paul. Perhaps there were some who did argue that way. I don't see why there wouldn't have been. Where are they now? The good news enjoyed tremendous growth under Paul? Big deal. It has done the same under the direction of the GB, yet that makes no difference to critics here. Practically speaking, what do you propose we should do if we allow no one to represent Christ, but insist on communication from Jesus himself?
  13. Sigh....I've come to regret that. In hindsight, I did completely misread @James Thomas Rook Jr.' remarks (though not necessarily his sentiment) and thus based my tirade on something he didn't say. I owe him an apology, fair and square, without any snide asides for once.
  14. I need a drink. Maybe I can snatch one from @The Librarian while she's not looking.