TrueTomHarley

To the extent that is true it would appear that I am the blockhead.

Well—had you put it that way in the first place . . .

“What do you say, you fornicating punk? Ya feeling lucky today?”

You blockhead. I mean, Duh, if anyone discards belief in God they necessarily focus on only the inconveniences of being Christian in the present system, which no Witness would ever deny there are some, but they are compensated by realities to come. If there really is a God, and if there really will be a new system in which He rules unopposed, then he will enforce his own standards. Just like during that circuit assembly in the early 70’s in which two resurrected ones were bellyaching over everything under the sun, impervious to the correction that the loving elders (who weren’t packing guns) were pouring on like syrup, then the lights went out, there was a loud zap and a flash from heaven, and they were gone! Oh, yeah—a ‘dramatization’ it was.

Well, there’s plenty in Australia worth fighting for, like this guy: Be honest. Doesn’t this remind you of Pudgy awakening from a nap? I dunno. I think of that verse where Jesus said God hides things from the wise and intellectual, while revealing them to babes. Can a babe understand the above? I’m not sure I can myself.

Within the Christian tradition, there is nothing inconsistent about these two statements. Except for a few scattered early mentions—no more than mentions—in early history, there is no place in which one can learn of Christianity but the Bible. The ‘lies’ and ‘false teachings’ of the vast bulk of Christendom can immediately be identified as such. That the ‘soul’ is mortal and dies when the person dies, that with a single exception, ‘hell’ come from one of three original language words, none of which mean eternal suffering. That Jesus’s followers should be ‘no part of the world,’ whereas most Christian churches are fully part of the world—that God is not one-in-three persons, that the grand overall theme of the Bible is not, ‘be good, so you will go to heaven when you die,’—these teachings can be instantly identified by scripture as ‘false.’ Such ‘false’ religious teaching unfailingly paint those who espouse them into outrageous moral corners—such as ‘comforting’ bereaved parents that the reason their baby died was that God needed another angel in his garden, which is why he picked the very best—your child. Most of the main teachings of churches are not found in the Bible. It is the attempt to read them in that causes persons to throw up their hands in frustration and even disgust. Deprived of nourishment, flooded with junk spiritual food, inquiring minds are left to scavenge elsewhere. Some settle for atheism, some for agnosticism, some settle on churches that pay scant attention to biblical things in favor of a social gospel, even a political one. So, they are not just lies. They are harmful lies. They are lies that are near-universal in the church world. The GB has mounted a successful sustained, and worldwide assault on them. To ignore this and instead flail away about mistakes they may or may not have made is astoundingly small-minded to me.

It is well not to describe religous interpretations as ‘lies’ when they cannot immediately be identified as such. With your patience—and you are certainly a patient and tenacious fellow—let me try to develop a point: Congregations are lately covering the Book of Job. Here, Job is giving his testimony: “Let God weigh me with accurate scales; Then he will recognize my integrity.” (Job 31:6) His life course is one of integrity toward God. If it was not, downfall would be justified, he believes, but it has been “If my footsteps deviate from the way Or my heart has followed after my eyes Or my hands have been defiled, … If my heart has been enticed by a woman And I have lain in wait at my neighbor’s door, … If I denied justice to my male or female servants When they had a complaint against me, … If I refused to give the poor what they desired Or saddened the eyes of the widow; If I ate my portion of food alone Without sharing it with the orphans;… If I saw anyone perishing for lack of clothing Or a poor man with nothing to cover himself; … If I shook my fist against the orphan When he needed my assistance in the city gate; … If I put my confidence in gold Or said to fine gold, ‘You are my security!’ If I found my joy in my great wealth Because of the many possessions I acquired;” (31: 7-25) All those things would be bad, meriting God’s disfavor, he believes, but he never did any of them! “Have I ever rejoiced over the destruction of my enemy Or gloated because evil befell him? I never allowed my mouth to sin. . . Have the men of my tent not said, ‘Who can find anyone who has not been satisfied with his food?’ No stranger had to spend the night outside; I opened my doors to the traveler. Have I ever tried to cover over my transgressions, like other men, By hiding my error in the pocket of my garment?” Have I been in fear of the reaction of the multitude, Or have I been terrified by the contempt of other families, Making me silent and afraid to go outside?” (29-34) No, his life is not characterized by any of those things. It is his testimony. He has always been upright. He’s ready to sign it: “I would sign my name to what I have said.” (31:35) It is all peremptorily denied by his three interrogators: Eliphaz: Is [your suffering] not because your own wickedness is so great And there is no end to your errors? For you seize a pledge from your brothers for no reason, And you strip people of their garments, leaving them naked. You do not give the tired one a drink of water, And you hold back food from the hungry. The land belongs to the powerful man, And the favored one dwells in it. But you sent away widows empty-handed, And you crushed the arms of fatherless children. That is why you are surrounded by traps, And sudden terrors frighten you; (Job 22:5-10) Why does he reject Job’s testimony, instead charging just the opposite? Because it conflicts with his own ‘theology:’ “What I have seen,” Eliphaz says previously, “is that those who plow what is harmful And those who sow trouble will reap the same. By the breath of God they perish, And through a blast of his anger they come to an end. . . . Even the teeth of strong lions are broken.” (Job 4:8-10) His preformed—faulty, as it turns out—theology tells him Job must have been ‘plowing what is harmful’ for him to be suffering now. Job, who otherwise might have agreed with that theology, undergoes the worst of spiritual crises to accompany his crisis on all other fronts, because he knows he has not been ‘plowing what is harmful’—quite the contrary. So he works out his angst by blaming God for being both cruel and unfair. This further inflames Eliphaz and crew, already riled that Job is resisting their ‘correction.’ Now they read false positive for apostasy and figure they must attack Job for that reason, too. Presently they are all but hurling epithets at the poor fellow. Before chalking up the above to the oddities of religious people (or applying them to Witness HQ), reflect that all of society is that way. If you have benefited from acupuncture, say, and want to tell the world about it, you will find yourself derided among the materialist crowd for advocating ‘pseudoscience.’ What about your own beneficial experience, you will ask. ‘It will be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence,’ inherently unreliable. It doesn’t matter how many like testimonies you can gather; it will all be attributed to ‘anecdotal evidence’ by those whose scientific ‘theology’ admits to no other view—they can’t replicate your experience in their test tubes, so they assume you are either deluded or lying. Mechanisms may differ, but the overall pattern is no different than Job’s ‘anecdotal evidence’ rejected by those of a different theology. You can go along with the airy dismissal of ‘anecdotal evidence.’ Then one day you find it is your evidence they are trying to dismiss and you wonder how people can be so high-handed and stubborn.

I suspect—and it may be that the ‘air’ of the day determines it, and it may afterward be subject to reinterpretation—that ‘everyone knows’ certain legalese is just boilerplate crap and other legalese actually means something.

“not sure what you read as a typo” Maybe the penman had a close relationship with Jesus.

Now I see where that Mission Impossible line came from.

Hadn’t thought of that. Even if Aaron had caught Moses’ flash of temper, he might have thought, ‘I owe him one.’

It seems like if we are going to do overstepping headship, we should criticize Aaron for not going all the way and saying to God, ‘Oh, come on! After all he’s done? It was just a little loss of temper, and goodness knows, they had it coming!’ That is the sentiment most of us have to come to grips with upon reading the account. Aaron was human. Would he not have had to come to grips with it too? The trouble with overstepping headship is that people don’t have the judgment to know when to do it. For every ‘proper’ time they do it, there are 5 improper times.

I must be reading this wrong, but it seems to me the notion ought to fill you with dismay. Had you succeeded, you would have negated God’s means to save humanity. That’s a pretty steep price to pay just to get some licks in. Oh. Wait. My bad. You’re probably not speaking of success in the sense of stopping Jesus arrest. You’re speaking of outdoing the twelve and not cutting loose and run in his moment of trial. Well, yes, that might be a good thing to aspire to. Not so sure the twelve could be outdone, though. Sort of like all this commentary on what Aaron should have done if he just had a little backbone.

Click and Clack, auto mechanics who had a schtick on radio, used to say the grates on the back were for keeping your hands warm as you were pushing it. (I do like the price, though)

Yeah, yeah, whatever. You’re just using one of those crummy Android jobs and driving a Yugo.

Good comparison. Yes in the first instance, no in the second. Yes in the first because of headship. Adam had it. No in the second because Aaron did not. I admit there’s an appeal to the #2 guy correcting the faux pas of the one who has headship. Trouble is, once it begins it never ends. Then, you soon discover that the #2 guy is overall less qualified than the #1–which partly accounts for why the #1 was appointed 1 to begin with. Since you’ve presented an imperfect comparison, not so imperfect as to be sophistry, but imperfect nonetheless, I will too: Do you think Steve Jobs’ or Elon Musk’s #2 person should have corrected Steve or Elon every time they impulsively fired someone? (Both of them fired many, often on a whim, often unjustly) Bear in mind that Jobs gave you that iPad you’re writing on and Musk that Tesla you covet.

Ooh. That being the case, can you send any unwanted points my way? No. Still no. Each one will carry his own load. Have you ever sat in on a meeting where one participant feels obliged to correct every slip of the tongue of another?

What? It was a red herring? They got me all going over a red herring? I sure won’t make that mistake again! Hmm…..if the ball cost x, and the bat cost x + 1, then the price of the ball . . . …okay, take a break, Tommy. Good thread, and all, but doesn’t your wife have some chores lined up for you? Better get to them.

I had no idea this topic ran on for so long when I replied above. I am reminded of the popular psych line, ‘woulda shoulda coulda,.’ What one can discern in later years, with the benefit on unhurried time for meditation, one does not discern spur of the moment. Besides, Not to mention how it shows he caves under pressure. He’s not going to stand up to Moses spur of the moment. Maybe in his later years, the years most of us are in, but not at the time.

“Whoa, big fella! Whatcha doing here?!” I can’t picture it. It’s not as though Moses wasn’t being severely tested. Probably Aaron felt the pressure of the same test. He was probably just as upset with the people and only sensed vaguely what Moses was doing wrong, or even if he was. Even today, it’s hard not to excuse Moses. I liken it to, when a brother gives a good talk and ones approach him to say, ‘Good talk!’ he will, likely as not, murmur something to the effect that it is not he, but Jehovah. He says this even though it is perfectly possible for ones to speak persuasively without any help at all from Jehovah. So what are we to make of someone who takes full credit for doing something that no human in a thousand years would be able to do? But it’s not immediately obvious. Most fail to make the point stand out as to how outrageous Moses’ response really is.

In fairness, there is a 66 year difference in the quotes. Most things modify within a 66-year period, even when it means backing off a little. It’s a far cry from, ‘To each his own gods, o Israel!’ They still think it’s a good idea to pay attention to them, if not simply on the basis of headship and respect for love shown. As do I. I appreciate the modification, since I know I ought not feel disloyal if I don’t embrace every little thing. I mean, really. Think back to 1957, when people readily complied with all things without complaint. Back when my dad would shear my hair like the barnyard animals he grew up with, leaving just a little tuft in the front like a hood ornament. He blew his stack when the Beatles came along and I tried to grow my hair one millimeter longer.

Sometimes when coming to grips with a calamity, people do not speak with a thesaurus in hand. He meant ‘land of his birth, same as that 89 Wt.

“Those who claim that their own nation is superior to all others, even to the point of worshiping the State, have been manipulated by rulers and regimented in order to carry out their policies, whether good or bad. As a result, the Goliath class has arisen to test the loyalty of God’s people, who love the land of their birth but decline to worship the State and its symbols.” [italics mine]. (Wt 1/1/89, pg 22)

“Why do people here go to such extreme lengths to falsify their theories by overriding a locked post?” I have often wondered about this.

I must admit that’s a simile I’ve never heard before.