TrueTomHarley

It’s odd that this should be your latest insult. Once again you inject national politics before an apolitical audience to whom you know it will fall flat. I have several times expressed the opinion that the 2016 election was a godsend for Witnesses, and it has nothing to do with who won or lost. It used to be that if you read 2 Timothy 3:1-5 and your householder did not agree that people are more fierce, implacable, backbiting, unhinged, and so forth, then in times past, there was not much you could do about it. Plainly the verse is subjective. It always will be, or course, but with Trump’s election most people will concede that the country has lost its mind, with rank and file persons of both sides screaming at each other day and night. To say 2 Timothy 3 is undergoing fulfillment increasingly comes across as a “Duh.” Parallel events take place around the globe. Brexit is as crazy, if not more so, and 2 Timothy saves the day for JWs there also. Then there is the fact that major populations around the world are exploding in violence, even revolt—Hong Kong, France, Italy, several countries of Middle East, South America, several again of Africa—civil unrest has become the order of the day. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/with-nationwide-strike-colombia-joins-south-americas-season-of-protest/2019/11/21/2d3adf0e-0bef-11ea-8054-289aef6e38a3_story.html In view of this, the most important thing we can do is debate whether Karl Klein reported Rutherford saying “I made an ass of myself” because he didn’t like him. It is not unlike when Tillerson supposedly called Trump a moron, and the media suspended interest in all other topics in order to determine whether he did or not. This continued even after Tillerson called a press conference to say: “Back where I come from, we don’t have time for this nonsense!” Incredibly, this did not chasten them! “Well......did you call him a moron or not?” they wanted to know. You can’t call Trump a “bull in a china shop” because to do so you would have to accept the premise that the status quo of human government is a “china shop.” “Junkyard dog in a junkyard” is perhaps an analogy that works better. In service this morning, my companion started some presentation around the theme of good government. The householder, initially reserved, responded that he is working hard to undo the damage he thought Trump was doing to the country. I thought it was well, due to his initial brusqueness, to explain that Jehovah’s Witnesses are well-known for being neutral, and that a person such as he might suppose that anyone serious enough about the Bible to come preaching it must be a Trump supporter, since born-agains fall all over him, but with us it is not so. This melted his reserve considerably and the end of the visit was far better than the beginning. Had it been my door, I would have heard him out on just what he was doing to counter Trump as a quid pro quo—perhaps he would afterwards hear us out. But I am comfortable talking politics, as relatively few Witnesses are. My companion took it back to a more conventional path, from our point of view.

Oh, give me a break, you pompous pillar of pettiness! I think far more deeply than you. You have a incredibly broad knowledge of a certain aspect of a narrow topic. Beyond that, I wonder if you know anything at all. I bring to the table free-ranging, out-of-the-box thinking on a variety of topics. You bring strait-jacketed, legalistic thinking about one. I bring wit, imagination, and humor in all its varieties—self-deprecating humor as well as the kind of humor where you make fun of yourself. You bring niggling, blustering nastiness, insolence, and an astounding capacity to insult all creatures great and small with childish taunts. You are a precocious, smart, and mean-spirited adolescent who finds himself in the body of an adult and thus imagines he is one. You don’t want to know just what high position he occupies. A he who is characterized as a she. If I were you, I would ask no further questions. Of course! That’s why he repeatedly said just the opposite in his life experiences.

The thing to focus on is, not that Rutherford thought it existed, (a “cult” around Russell) but that the FDS freely admits it 50 years (or whatever) later. It is as when Rutherford says “I made as ass of myself,” and AlanF uses to fact to insist that he could not have been “inspired.” What he should focus on is that he said it in the first place. I mean, not in my wildest ramblings can I envision Alan saying publicly the same. You cannot go wrong when you have persons who, as individuals, do not take themselves too seriously. This is the same Rutherford who says: “Well, Carl talks a lot and he says things he doesn’t mean.” Can you imagine Alan letting anyone off the hook so easily? He rages on about the technicalities of words and totally ignores the human component that makes them work in actual life. Of course, the “Carl” whom Rutherford spoke of was Carl Klein, a one-time GB member whose life-experience was published in 1984. (“Jehovah Has Dealt Rewardingly With Me.”) Notable among the lessons he reports as contributing to a happy life is: “Since then, I have observed many similar tests of loyalty. When mistakes are made, those not wholly loyal at heart seem to pounce upon them as an excuse for quitting.”—Compare Psalm 119:165. This, too, is good to reflect on. Klein’s reminisces are a favorite with the friends—it is not just me. One brother stated just the same when commenting on a WT paragraph about a month ago that referenced him.

If he hung his head, it was not in shame. It was in dismay at the literalism. He was probably wondering, “How did this fellow ever get past ‘I and the father are one’ to become a Witness in the first place? He was probably wondering, “How did this fellow ever come to believe in God?” since the cosmonauts traveled through the heavens and didn’t see him. Lord, save us from the literalists. By definition, you cannot get to see spiritual things. It is the wind that blows where it will and you hear the sound of it but cannot otherwise nail it down. (John 3:8) In the ministry, I will not argue with a trinitarian (having learned from experience). I say, “95% of the scriptures that are said to prove the trinity would, if they were seen in any other context, be instantly dismissed as figure of speech.” Yet somehow grown persons make themselves children when they see them in the Bible, and insist: “The Bible SAYS what it MEANS and MEANS what it SAYS.” I simply cannot play that game. I don’t want to prove that “crocodile tears” does not mean the crying person is a crocodile. I don’t want to have to produce the bush after I have told someone not to beat around it. I don’t want to explain to a grown-up that there is no Santa Claus. I have never had this problem at all of demanding just HOW elders are appointed by holy spirit. Jesus said (above) that it can’t be done. It is enough to say that appointees are measured against the Bible template, which is an acknowledged product of holy spirit, the measuring is done by existing elders, and is cleared by HQ, where presumably there is a file cabinet stuffed with holy spirit. I do note, however—I mean it clicks together just now—a possible reason for that last letter from the circuit overseer. “I have appointed” so-and-so as an elder in the congregation, he said. It is a tactic to stay one step ahead of the scoundrels who are adept at “framing mischief by decree” to make clear that, contrary to their insistence that they are fighting a “corporation,” what they are actually fighting is the Bible itself, and to the extent that the Bible is God’s Word, which we believe that it is, God himself. Verses directly say that traveling ministers appointed elders. Frame it the same way today so that they must redirect their attack against scripture itself and thereby reveal exactly what is their desire. Many changed wordings and announcements likely come about for the same reason, causing JTR to rant about “legal machinations,” but it cannot be any other way, because attacks are often framed legally. After changing the wording, then say, as did G Jackson, “the Bible says that there will be such and such, and we are doing our best to fulfill that pattern.” Surely THAT should not be illegal. (What he said was: “Jesus said that in the last days - and Jehovah's Witnesses believe these are the last days - there would be a slave, a group of persons who would have responsibility to care for the spiritual food. So in that respect, we view ourselves as trying to fulfill that role") Davey the Kid, from the final chapter of Tom Irregardless and Me, is a real person, immensely capable, who served several years at Bethel. He died a few years back, so perhaps I could give his last name, but then some sorehead here will produce evidence that he farted once and will start a thread about that. Davey related that, while at Bethel, visitors would tour and some would say that they could feel holy spirit in the hallways. You cannot literally feel holy spirit in the hallways, Davey said, as he went on to discuss just how holy spirit can be expected to back those who do God’s will, as they do in a focused way at Bethel. I can picture 99 persons in the audience—who had said they felt holy spirit in the hallways—smiling at themselves that they ever thought they could literally feel holy spirit in the hallways, and AlanF stomping out of the building now that they have admitted to LYING to him for all these years.

This is actually a very good answer. No one has to kiss up to these guys. It is enough not to oppose them. No national leader stands by and sees his legitimacy trashed. You don’t get too far in Russia or China by doing that. Look how much trouble Trump is causing that “whistleblower” and the uproar over it from those who want to undermine him. Obama did the say with a different set of whistleblowers. It is enough not to try to grab the wheel of the bus. Simply “do not think about them at all” if you cannot get your head around everything they do.

When Bill Ford fired Lee Iacocca, he said: “Sometimes, you just don’t like a guy.” Fortunately, I do not have that problem. Look, you windbag. Nobody else has this problem of producing lengthy texts that appear to be expounding upon your previous remarks and then blaming Admin for his inadequate software! Everyone else can figure out how to use the stuff. The trick is to not think yourself so important that you must, not only talk ad nauseam yourself, but quote others ad nauseam so you can argue with their every syllable!

My detective skills are being criticized and some unkind ones are doing the same with my writing skills. One unkind person even said, “Don’t quit your day job.” Just to be on the safe side, I have resolved to keep my position as head of the glass department for Tesla Motors.

The elders and the GB can take care of themselves. It’s when he failed to laugh at one of my jokes that I decided he was toast. Well....you’re both from the UK, aren’t you? Doesn’t everyone on that island know everyone else?

Oh. That explains it. I just saw your words from before and wondered what THAT was all about? He said something and then unsaid it, apparently.

Uh oh. You are reacting (and I thank you) to my Dawkins post on the wrong thread. Be prepared for an onslaught from @AlanF about how STUPID you are! He is not the same—JTR is an absolute saint by comparison—but I used to occasionally include off-color words in my posts just to see him, who could launch the nastiest and crudest of tirades, get all bent out of shape that I has said a naughty word.

This is not technically true. Admittedly, there was much opinion, but there was also at least one bit of solid information content: It would be very hard to dispute with that one.

Tweeted Richard Dawkins one fine day (11/13/19): “You could easily spot any Religion of Peace. Its extremist members would be extremely peaceful” Can it be? Is Richard Dawkins referring to Jehovah’s Witnesses—universally known for being “extremely peaceful” yet declared “extremists” in Russia? If so, I will take back the relatively few bad things I have said about him. I have not really said THAT many bad things about him. At times, I have even been complimentary. When he blessed the atheist buses rolling out in London, I said that he raised a good point—his was a reaction to existing “hellfire’ buses, with advertising from the church. He did wuss-out, though, with a: “There probably is no God.” Probably? It wasn’t until I began following him on Twitter, though, that I noticed how breathtakingly contemptuous he was toward anyone who disagreed with him—not merely about God, but also on geopolitical things—and then I did say a few mean things. For example, I said of him that “he does not suffer fools gladly, and a fool is anyone who disagrees with him.” However, he has largely repented over this online meanness. I’ve noticed it over the months. He has not banished it entirely, but it is much less prevalent, so that I regret that I ever said what I did. The temptation to be disdainful of opponents is well-nigh irresistible, particularly if you think that they are willfully choosing ignorance. I have (more or less) mastered the temptation, of course, but I have a source of effective and unending counsel that he does not. This is no more concisely stated than it was at a recent Watchtower Study. A Bible verse considered how we ought “do nothing out of contentiousness or out of egotism, but with humility consider others superior to you.” (Philippians 2:3) Practically speaking, this advice is not easy to implement. It may even strike one as nonsensical—how can everyone be superior to everyone else? Said that Watchtower: “The humble person acknowledges that everyone is superior to him in some way.—Phil. 2:3, 4.” Of course. In some way everyone is superior to everyone else. Search for that way, hone in on it like a laser beam, and it will not be so difficult to treat even opponents with respect. “Disagree without being disagreeable” is the catchphrase today. But Professor Dawkins does not have this advantage. Much of his tradition would sway him in just the opposite “survival of the fittest” direction. So he must be given credit for his new, somewhat softer, online personality. Possibly someone who has his best interests at heart—perhaps his wife—said, “Richard, you sure do come across as a cantankerous crank on Twitter,” and he deliberately walked it back. It’s commendable. Now, I don’t think Richard had Jehovah’s Witnesses in mind with his tweet. He probably has formed his views of them through the contributions of their “apostate” contingent, and those views could hardly be blacker. I looked down among his comments to see whether any of those nasties had reared their heads. Perhaps here was an example: “Not entirely true. Extremists usually have their own misinterpretation of scriptures.” I responded to this one: “If “misinterpretation” results in a religion of peace, perhaps it is not a misinterpretation after all. Perhaps the mainline view is a misinterpretation.” Is that not a no-brainer? Another one, disagreeing with the above tweet: “Actually no. Most extremists do exactly what is written in their book. ‘Misinterpretation’ is used as an argument by believers that cherry pick morals that fit our secular ethics today.” I know this type, too. This is the type that finds slavery in the Bible or war in the Old Testament and rails at the “hypocrisy.” I responded to this fellow as well: “Everything has a historical context and to deliberately ignore such context is to be intellectually dishonest. If our side does it to theirs, we never hear the end of it.” He blew up at this reference to context. Evil is evil, he carried on, across all places and time-frames. These characters are very predictable—you could even write their lines for them and not be too far off. Has “critical thinking” made us all nincompoops? It was once thought the most intelligent thing in the world to consider historical backdrop; one was irresponsible, even deceitful, not to do it. Very well. If he is going to trash, with blinders affixed, the source that I hold dear, I will do the same with his source: “You should turn your critical thinking skills upon Ancient Greece, the definer of it. When time travel is invented, history revisionists will give a friendly wave to American slaveholding forefathers as they race back in time to fetch wicked Greek pedophiles—it was an enshrined value of that world—back in irons.” He was not chastened by this. Hijacking Twitter as his personal courtroom, he cross-examined: “Is the holding and beating of slaves, as described in Exodus, morally acceptable? Yes or no?” I countered: “Is the raping of children as endorsed by Ancient Greek society morally acceptable? Yes or no?” Incredibly, he was not dissuaded. “Last chance!” he shot back. “Is the holding and beating of slaves, as described in Exodus, morally acceptable? Yes or no?” “To the blockheads, I became a blockhead.”—Paul (sort of) —1 Corinthians 9:19-22,” I tweeted back: “Two can play the game of obstinacy. Last chance: Is the rape of children—it was enshrined in Ancient Greek society—morally acceptable? Yes or no?” Then I went away, and when I came back, he had deleted all this tweets so that it was hard for me to reconstruct the thread. However, someone else had pointed out a grave sin I had committed: “Thomas you are guilty of the moral equivalence fallacy.” Am I? I suppose. You can sort of guess by the wording just what that phrase means—I had not heard it before. At least it is in English. I once heard a theologian quip that if there is a Latin phrase and a perfectly clear English phrase that means the same thing, always use the Latin phrase so people will know that you are educated. But my “moral equivalence fallacy” is still is no more than considering historical context, a praiseworthy intellectual technique for all time periods except ours. Besides, I actually had posted something about slavery long ago. But it is not a topic so simple that it can be hashed out in a few tweets, and so I declined to go there with this fellow, who would debate all the sub-points. If God corrected every human injustice the moment it manifested itself, there would be nothing left. The entire premise of the Bible is that human-rule is unjust in itself and that God allows a period of time for that to be clearly manifested before bringing in his kingdom—the one referred to in the “Lord’s prayer”—to straighten it all out. In the meantime, the very ones who work themselves into a lather at religion “brainwashing” people are livid that God did not brainwash slavery away once humans settled upon it as a fine economic underpinning. If Dawkins’s tweet and my response hangs around long enough before burial in the Twitter feed, I would expect some of our malcontents to observe as they did in Russia, where the only evidence of extremism cited is proclaiming “a religious view of supremacy.” Huge protest will come at how Jehovah’s Witnesses practice shunning and thus “destroy” relationships and even family. But views inevitably translate into consequences and policies. Refusal to “come together” with those who insist on diametrically opposed views is hardly the “extremism” of ISIS—and yet the Russian Supreme Court has declared that it is, with the full backing in principle of those from the ex-JW community—the ones who go crusading, which is perhaps 10%. I’m going to write this up as a post and append it to his thread. Let’s see what happens. Probably nothing, but you never know. Plus, let’s expand on that particular Watchtower some more. The particular article covered was entitled: “Jehovah Values His Humble Servants” (September 2019 issue—study edition) Unlike nearly all religious services, Witness meetings are ones that you can prepare for. You can comment during them. They are studies of the sacred book, not just impromptu rap sessions, acquiescencing to ceremony, or sitting through someone else’s sermon. You can prepare for them, and you are benefited, as in any classroom, when you do. The focus here, as it so often is, is on practical application. Humility draws persons to us. Haughtiness repels them, and thus makes next to impossible the mantra to “come together.” My own comment, when the time was right, was that haughty people can only accomplish so much—it may be a great deal, for haughty people are often very capable people—but eventually they run up against the fact that nobody else can stand them, and so people are motivated to undercut their ideas, even if they are good ones, out of sheer payback for ugliness. Humble people, on the other hand, may be far less capable individually, but their efforts add up. They know how to cooperate and yield to each other in a way that haughty people do not. Someone else on that Dawkins thread, an amateur wit, played with that them of unlikely extremists: “Jehova's witnesses are peaceful but their extremists are better extremely annoying...” Why fight this? It is a viewpoint. Viewpoints are not wrong, because they are viewpoints—right or wrong doesn’t enter into the equation. Better to roll with it. I was indeed on a roll, and so I tweeted back: “I will grant that they can be. Still, if you had a choice between a team of JWs approaching your door and a team of ISIS members, you would (hopefully) choose theformer. Those 2 groups, and only those 2 groups are officially declared “extremist” in Russia.” And with that, I included a link to my ebook, “Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia.” I am shameless in that. No matter how many books I sell, it is not enough. I don’t sell them, anyway. The book is free, a labor of love. It is an application of the theme: “If you have something important to say, don’t hide it behind a paywall.” It is the only, to my knowledge, complete history of events leading up to and beyond the 2017 ban of the Witness organization in Russia. As to the latest developments there, another one was herded off to prison, who, making the best of a sour situation, or perhaps genuinely finding value there, said: "I want to thank … prosecution. I don't just thank you, but thank you very much, because thanks to you my faith has become stronger … I see I'm on the right path." Of course. It is unreasonable to oppose so vehemently a people totally honest, hard-working, and given to peace—and yet the Bible says that such will exactly happen. How can it not serve to strengthen faith?

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/united-nations-soldiers-paedophilia-un-child-rape-ngo-staff-a7648791.html https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/un-isn-t-doing-enough-to-tackle-its-sexual-abuse-epidemic-former-staff-agree/ @Srecko Sostar

This is remarkable to me—the assumption that there is an obligation to patiently hear out and respond to anyone’s complaints. Let us assume that 4Jah2Me has a complaint (I mean, he was DF’d (I think) for something) that he pushes and pushes and pushes to the point where he gets tossed out of the JW organization. He then engages TTH on the WNMF, pushing his complaint here, and simply assumes that TTH will open the door that elders have shut—patiently hearing him out and providing satisfaction after those unknown elders have demonstrated by their discipline (that he has rejected) that it cannot be done. It’s not happening on my watch. What! This is a courtroom for malcontents to conduct cross-examination? I’ll respond and provide “actual information” any way I like. What is the purpose of this forum? As far as I am concerned, it is the purpose of anyone who carries the ball. JW.org has a purpose. Tomsheepandgoats.com has a purpose. AlanF’s blog (I think he has one) undoubtedly has a purpose. But this one? @admin is not a Witness, nor I think anyone to whom religion is a top concern. His purpose is to indulge a hobby, keep abreast and comment on current events, and generate some advertising revenue. He has several times weighed in to the effect that he is dismayed and fed up with the quarreling that goes on here, but it is traffic, after all. Mostly he deals with other areas of his website. @The Librarian (that old hen) is a Witness that I have described as an avant-garde one. She posts things both controversial and non-controversial and I would not be surprised if she was once resolving a crisis of conscience, and though this forum, has steadily moved toward loyalty to God, instead of away like AlanF. She would probably like to see more adherence to topics, but in the end, I think she is happy to see a good witness given, and that cannot usually be done by letting malcontents control the agenda, though JWI does attempt it and sometimes succeeds. I could be wrong, but I think she is stuck with me, and she knows it. I may be a bad pupil, but after all, I am her pupil and I think she stands by me, even as she shakes her head sometimes. The purpose of this forum is whatever I want it to be when I have the ball—it is a human institution, and no more—and then others get the ball and the purpose becomes whatever they want it to be. Selfish? Sure—but why not? The unselfish channel for spiritual things is jw.org. “Please tell me what you don’t like about JW.org so I can smash you over the head with it,” say several obtuse opponents. I don’t think so. I’ll spill when and to the extent that I see fit. I am an apologist—not a “disgusting” one, like that fathead states, but one who strives to do what the word itself means—defends. The old hen only has two genuine Witnesses on the controversial threads that reliably comment, and one of them is a little bit squirrelly—which one is in the eye of the beholder. Then there is a second buttressing level of 4 or 5 persons who are solid, but they also have lives to lead and most of them disappear for weeks or months at a time. I don’t think she’s ever going to mess with JWI or I, because if she does, she has very little left to represent JWs and she becomes simply another undisguised apostate website—which I don’t think she wants. So we two set the “purpose” here to a large extent, and our intents are not the same. He takes the topic in one direction, and I wrestle it in another. Someone from the second tier will have to step up to the plate if either of us go and I don’t think they have the time. Nope. It is my forum here, now. It will do what I want it to until someone else takes the snap. Will that someone be AllenS, who (I think) resurrects himself at will with myriad names, all displaying the same unusual combination of qualities, even inspiring guesswork as to who he really is? Is he an informed, though paranoid and cantankerous, brother of undefined standing? Is he an opposer who wishes to make JWs look bad by posing as one and showing intolerance, incessant bickering, and unreasonableness? Is he a genuine brother so determined to shut down “apostasy” that he floods the site with such unpleasantness that anyone who doesn’t drink unpleasantness as the elixir of life will flee the scene? Who knows? But he has as much right as anyone to carry on as he does, until the Librarian tosses him, which she has done, but there is hardly any point because he just pops up in another alias. This is a lawless place. One must know that going in. Nobody really knows who’s who. AlanF, who surely must be one of the most unpleasant persons to ever walk the planet, has somehow picked up the notion that I am Vic Vomidog. With John Butler being “DFed” (says JWI—something I did not know), I am once more heading in the direction that 4Jah2Me is really a reincarnation of him. “Can’t you just accept me as me?” he says. No, I can’t. I mean, I can entertain the possibility, and I would rate it at about 60%—really quite high—but he surfaces with identical peculiar reasonings and even some exact words of John B, so I reserve the possibility that they may be the same. It’s a frontier. It’s lawless. Someone else said that it is exhilarating operating in such an atmosphere, and I like that characterization. Still, it sure does consume time, and it would probably do ME good to get tossed.

Humor does not universally translate even to those who do have a sense of humor, let alone to those who do not.

Isn’t saying that you can err the same as saying you don’t know?

When I knew even less than I do now, I mentioned to my son that China, having just emerged from Maoist peasant and dark ages, was starting to throw its weight around and aspire to greatness. He, who lives among countries of the old Yugoslavia and keeps up with world history more than I do, replied that China has always regarded itself as a great nation, and is merely reasserting its greatness, having at last thrown off the deliberate Western sabotage of the 20th century. Long ago a friend of mine tried to follow Angie’s recipe for delicious sauce. He didn’t know what a clove was, so he figured it must be another word for the bulb. When he phoned Angie to report that the sauce tasted funny, she laughed so hysterically that she could be heard without the phone. You could not approach my pal for days. I am not so devious as you suggest. I didn’t think it through. I merely highlighted some words of yours quickly to connect my thoughts with yours. To show that I am not in a conspiracy to suppress your words: There. Happy? Going back 100 years to harangue about a failed anticipation does not interest me so that I should scheme to hide it. I have plainly stated that there were some closely succeeding dates back then that were like when you miss the nail with the hammer, and in frustration, swing several times more, again missing each time. Besides, I wrote the book on how to predict the end. If people would pay attention to my research that I have presented here and on my own blog, we could nail down that sucker to within an hour or two: https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2011/05/how-to-predict-the-end-of-the-world.html

Yes, @Arauna, an excellent challenge for you. Put each “joke” under the microscope. Analyze it with critical thinking skills to PROVE that it is funny or not funny. Just think how enriched your life will be! It is like when I watch Colbert. I do not just laugh because the plebeians are laughing—what do they know? It might be a trap. I run each joke into the lab for a bevy of tests. If I determine thereby using science that it was funny, I laugh my sides off. If you actually read things before you worked on your rebuttal, you would see that @Arauna‘s comment has nothing to do with chronology. It has to do with political developments that she has in position to know that will make you wish the end had come, even should you be on the wrong side.

The last few comments have referenced “the end,” but they have missed the most obvious sign. As you know, Jehovah’s Witnesses take a few years to work their way through the Bible via assigned chapters. This week we consider Revelation chapters 1-3. The end will come in about two months. It would be too inconvenient to make them start all over again from the Genesis beginning. Call THAT not bringing in anything useful?

On the contrary. It is the only beneficial use of space here, with a couple of caveats.

Curse that Alan idiot, anyway! We had a perfectly nice forum of lunatics and he had to spoil it all! ”How is your progress today, TrueTom?” my bevy of psychiatrists asked me at my last appointment. “Are you reintegrating with normal society? A little more progress, and we’ll let you go.” ”Um......uh......well you see.....there was this buffoon who was wrong on the internet....”

If you would work on that adhominem of yours a bit more, you’d find that the people launching “ad hominem attacks” would get bored and desist.

To me, this is tops among the fine points you bring to the table. I don’t necessarily endorse them. But that is only because I do not have the background or sources that your have. You state things that no one else does, and you state them persuasively. You help me envision the truly monumental changes that we may soon have to adapt to. I appreciate that. Meanwhile, as long as we remain busy in Jehovah’s service, as you, me, and several others are doing, we can hardly go wrong. He knows when his time has come, even as we struggle to read the tea leaves.

When speaking with others of a different point of view, it is important to treat them with a modicum of respect. It is important not to taunt and ridicule and insult. Of course, if such is your only object, then it is okay to do these things, but not if your goal is to persuade. It is important to present oneself as cognizant to the laws of civility. That way, in the event that you actually do make a valid point, you find that it is not rejected out of hand by persons who simply resent how ill-mannered you are. My greatest fear is that Alan’s cherished evolution is right and that he is the final product of it. If so, kiss goodbye any future for the human race, for that is ensured, not by big dumb animals with horns ramming each other to prove ‘who’s da man?’ but with ordinary persons of moderate intellectual abilities and superior social skills—the latter of which our boy Alan has not a speck. Arguably, this point highlighted above is valid. It is not a game-changer, but neither is it ridiculous. It may be that the “apostate” brush paints far too broadly and many regarded as such do not strictly fit the bill. They fit another bill, that of fomenting divisions, displaying an unyielding spirit to the point that unity and progress ceases, elevating self to godhood, or some such woe. It is in the Book somewhere—certainly the overall spirit should cover it. It is sort of like that StarTrek episode where Picard snapped: “Those Stenchiites have been beating us over the head with that blasted treaty for days! There must be something in it that can benefit us!” There was. Provision in the treaty called for arbitration of disputes, the plaintiff to choose the arbiter, and so Picard chose the Sleepyites, now in the 2nd year of their 20 year hibernation state. For some reason that I do not recall, time was of the essence, and so the Stenchites yielded on their legalistic point. Legalism only takes you so far, and is counterproductive if pushed beyond that point. It is like looking at those solid electrons that dissolve into mush if examined too closely. @Arauna is right when she concedes that Witness has a huge reservoir of verse, but she is totally unable to put them to any practical use. It is the same with AlanF. Yes, he knows a lot of facts and he shows off with them to the most anal degree, but when push comes to shove, what can he show for them? An ability to destroy a WorldNewsMediaForum thread, and not much more. He, like Witness, is good at tearing down (though in different ways). But can he build? Don’t make me laugh. He ladles contempt on any who would stick to an arrangement that they know to be fallible. What in the world is wrong with him? Or his disciple, 4Jah2Me, who puts even “make mistakes” and “errs” under the electron microscope and discovers worlds of difference between them! He says—for he has not yet shed everything, as he presently will—that the end is at least ten years off. In that time, God will be able to raise up a pure anointed who represents him without flaw. I say, “Go for it!” Maybe you can start it up in your basement—as a collaboration with Witness. Ten years down the road I’ll take a look, and if in fact, you have pulled off the trick, I will join you. Meanwhile, I will tell Kim Jung Un to hold off on the nukes, Trump to stop carrying on so others hate his guts, Xi to dismantle social rating and be nicer to those in his camps, Putin to “cut it out,” Greta to just be patient for a few more years. Yeah, go for it 4Jah2Me! I’m sure it will happen that way. Meanwhile, trash the good while holding out for the perfect. Michael Hart wrote about Plato and his ideal government as realized in his concept of philosopher-kings, notable for their ability to convert their academic book-learning into practical results. The concept has never actually been implemented, Hart said. I wrote that it had been. Anyone familiar with Jehovah’s Witnesses will realize at once that his idealist concept fits almost to a tee their Governing Body. https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/plato-and-the-governing-body.html I’m serious with regard to 4Jah2Me. Ten years for God to make a better anointed that has enough Holy Spirit to satisfy him? Fine. Run with it. I’ll stay where I am in the meantime because JWs are quite plainly in the vanguard, even with their blunders. Besides, I don’t know how many of their blunders are actually blunders. I do note that John rejoiced that “SOME of your children are walking in the truth.” That’s a pretty weak statement. Don’t you think he would rather have said, “ALL of your children are walking in the truth?” Were the “some” that left all due to the ineptness of that early Christian governance? Or was it the best that could have been expected then (and now) in the course of letting light shine in a world that prefers darkness? “When the son of man arrives, will he really find the faith on earth?” Jesus asks. “Not if I can help it!” Alan says, with an upvote from 4Jah2Me. So bring me what you have in ten years, and if it is the same, only minus the imperfections, count on my support. I’ll bolt. I’m not vested here. I am tired of guys who “make mistakes and err.” I want to be where they don’t make mistakes and they don’t err. Get cracking on it, and if there still is a system of things in ten years, I’ll join you.

You know, I think this comment reveals a lot. It is all about themselves with these guys. They simply MUST get their story out! They are incapable of setting aside personal interests for the sake of something greater than themselves. Everyone wants their own story to prevail. That is not hard to understand. I do, too. But sooner or later, one must concede that life does not revolve around ME. Submission to authority, and benefiting from discipline is a constant theme of the Bible. It is as Brother Mick Jagger says: “You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometime, you just might find, you’ll get what you need.” I want to be center of the universe. I don’t need to be. I don’t know why the announcement was modified. I would not be surprised if it is a response to relentless attacks of opposers framed legally. Why would they care about specific wording? They just want something that will get the job done. “No longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses” works. If, through word or deed, you are no longer witnessing for Jehovah, can anyone say that you are one of Jehovah’s Witnesses?