TrueTomHarley

3 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Just think about all the good that came from how Job lived his life

There could never have been a Mission Impossible without him.

3 hours ago, Many Miles said:

God is not dependent on humans organizing to get His will done.

No, but organizing does seem consistent with giving God a lot rather than giving him a little

3 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Because people organize to get things done does not mean to get things done you have to be organized.

It may be that as long as you don’t work to sabarolf organization, as though a freedom fighter, you’re okay—even as you stand apart from it yourself. Or it may not be okay. I’ll err on the side of sticking with what my experience tells me has worked to a reasonably fine degree, given that ‘we have this treasure in earthen vessels.’ I remember giving that talk on ‘Unified or Uniform,’ contrasting the unity of the earthly organization with the uniformity often demanding by nations, which goes so far as to stuff people into actual uniforms.

57 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I wouldn’t go so far as to say he was lying..more like acting like Abraham when he claimed Sarah’s as his sister….technically he wasn’t lying as they were actually closely related ( cannot remember how close ) .

Yeah—I always figured it was something like that. You said it well:

39 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Jehovahs people are no different to his people of old times…

40 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I’ve been there and experienced such pain that lead to a death

It makes a difference, doesn’t it? It’s a little bit like coming back from the dead when you finally get back on your feet.

I put the following in ‘No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash,’ a book I took down pending rewrite that I haven’t gotten around to, so now it is nowhere:

“After studying one book seemingly written for no other purpose other than to harp on dress and grooming and harangue about field service, the conductor said to me: “Tom, why don’t you comment? You know all these answers.” It was a turning point. He was right. I did know them all. It was time to stop sulking. From the circuit overseer on down, they had stirred up major chaos in the family. They had been heavy-handed and clumsy - but never malicious. And it had never been Jehovah. I had read of ill-goings-on in the first-century record. Congregations described in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 were veritable basket cases, some of them, but that did not mean that they were not congregations. Eventually things smooth out. Eventually 1 Timothy 5:24 comes to pass: “The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men will become evident later.” “Later” may take its sweet time in rolling around but it always does roll around. Should I stumble when it becomes my turn? I’d read whiner after whiner carrying on about some personal affront or other on the Internet. Was I going to be one of them? 

 . . . Recovery didn’t happen overnight, for I have a PhD in grumbling. Indeed, I was so good at it that few noticed I grumbled, for I had never left the library – I had only strayed from the same page. Now it was time to get on the same paragraph. Was that book truly a dog? They’re not all dazzling flashes of light, you know, for the treasure is contained in earthen vessels. Or was it the conductor? Or was it me? No matter. If life throws you for a loop, you thank God for the discipline and move on. “For those whom Jehovah loves he disciplines, in fact, he scourges everyone whom he receives as a son,” the Bible says Tell me about it. “Half of those at Bethel are here to test the other half,” the old-timers said. Yeah – tell me about that, too.”

Everyone has a mid-life crisis or two, during which they have to reassess. It doesn’t even matter if it is a servant of God we’re speaking of. Everyone has a mid-life crisis.

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

Yes koalas are very cute but they have a big problem

Just to show @Thinkingthat we are thoroughly attuned to ‘down under,’ here are some pictures we took at the Columbus Zoo:

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

i don’t think pudgy looks as cute as that when he awakes…

No. He is probably more like this guy:

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Blockhead? lol

I thought that by now you already had the chance to know my sense of humor and some kind of irony and sarcasm in some of the written sentences.

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

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

Plenty of children have comprehended that.

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

41 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

I don’t know how else to say this, so here goes…. 

Do we REALLY want Elders in the Congregation to carry guns?

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

30 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

In the near future, when the WT JWorg takes over this world, then someone will need to be in charge of carrying out the judgments of the Judicial Committee. Who else but armed elders? 

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.

4 hours ago, Thinking said:

Thanks for trying but it still seems murky waters..if I had to say that to leave Australia I would think I was giving allegiance to our constitution thus our country…..so happy we never had this problem. Americans are very very political and religious compared to us…makes things so much easier on us.

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?

18 hours ago, Many Miles said:

As an example, a teaching of what "soul" is. It's not a single thing by itself. Rather, it's two things in a state of composition that equate to "soul", when and only when those two things remain together as one. In the case of "soul", those two primary components are 1) a body formed from the earth and 2) breath of life. Together, those components were "soul". Apart neither is "soul". Only together is there "soul".

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.

6 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It is well not to describe religous interpretations as ‘lies’ when they cannot immediately be identified as such.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

WTJWorg teaches believers that "truth" must be based on the Bible. Anything contrary to "Bible truth" is called, by WTJWorg, a "lies" or "false teachings". 

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.

10 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Then, in the early 1930s, they changed their doctrine. Another example of "old truths and new lies" or "old lies and new truths", take it as you will.

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.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

My dad often told the story of how many students would see it and wonder what the job number referred to.

Now I see where that Mission Impossible line came from.

13 hours ago, Thinking said:

Did Jehovah think it just a little loss of temper..or Aaron’s failure to be strong in his faith . Jehovah was goi g to strike him dead except for Moses begging for his life.

 

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

On 11/9/2023 at 2:14 PM, Many Miles said:

I completely understand what you write here, and don't necessarily disagree. The sole reason I brought up the questions you responded to was only to show there is a limit to any obedience or loyalty we may owe any human or group of humans, regardless of whatever authority they might hold.

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.

On 10/31/2023 at 11:29 AM, George88 said:

If I were granted the extraordinary ability to travel through time, my first endeavor would be to valiantly stand by Jesus' side. Although I harbor doubts as to whether my efforts would have yielded success, given that Christ was destined to become humanity's savior, the mere notion of trying fills me with indescribable wonder.

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.

7 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Can't imagine Jobs or Musk driving one. But were we to find a photo of it, that would be worth sharing!

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)

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

We're not talking about Jobs or Musk

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

On 10/31/2023 at 12:54 PM, Many Miles said:

Were I to ask whether Adam should have acted to check Eve's action in Eden to eat of the tree of knowledge, my guess is you'd have a ready answer

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. 

On 10/31/2023 at 7:57 AM, Many Miles said:

Scoring points is infantile and I'll have no part in it. But relevant questions deserve answering, particularly when they are as simple as 2 + 2.

Ooh. That being the case, can you send any unwanted points my way?

On 10/31/2023 at 8:24 AM, Many Miles said:

when a question can be answered with a single word it gets confusing when an avalanche is offered in response.…. "Do you think Aaron should have acted to check Moses actions at that incident,

No.

On 10/31/2023 at 8:24 AM, Many Miles said:

Aaron could have acted to check Moses without instilling a rebellion. All he had to do was say aloud something to the effect of "You mean Jehovah, not us." But he didn't do that.

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?

On 10/30/2023 at 3:49 PM, Many Miles said:

Do you think Aaron should have stood is passive support of Moses at the incident of Meribah, just because Moses was anointed by God as His spokesman?

Or, do you think Aaron should have acted to check Moses actions at that incident, despite Moses being anointed by God as His spokesman?

“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.

40 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Nothing like saying it like you mean it!

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.

14 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

To love the country. What is a country if not a political creation. If JW love "political creation" in land where he/she lives

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.