TrueTomHarley

If you fill to near capacity a 40,000+ seat stadium for a volunteer event, put on by volunteers, surely those of the local media will be impressed. Not the Phoenix New Times reporter! who is “weirded-out” by aspects of the gathering that most would find commendable, and barely mentions the event anyway, as she immerses herself in the narrative of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ harshest detractors. Plainly, the packed stadium photos and the gist of the article do not match. I could be wrong, but I think most will recognize this piece as a hit job, and it might even motivate some to go there to investigate, where they will see that the tone of it is nonsense. “Three days of music-video presentations, prayers, songs, addresses, symposiums, and dramatic readings from the Bible,” according the event program, will intrigue some as a refreshing rarity. Are they so “cultish” as the reporter charges? Stadium and hospitality personnel often cannot praise JWs enough, rarely encountering such orderly and pleasant people. A reporter in Miami wishes that the Marlins could fill their own stadium to capacity as have Jehovah’s Witnesses. A shock jock in Rochester a few years back waxed ecstatic over Witnesses when he found that they categorically reject violence. “These are my people!” he gushed on-air. Another stadium is said to accept as payment-in-full the thorough annual scouring that the Witnesses give the facility. Others reporters, such as this millennial in New Orleans, wrote it up that, while they certainly are different in beliefs, still they are just ordinary folk come together for religious instruction. Not everyone will be as shocked and disdainful as the Phoenix reporter that there are still some people who dress up. Not everyone will gasp in disapproval at counsel that we ought watch who we hang out with. If the New Times reporter felt “conspicuous in pants,” well—that’s hardly the fault of the attendees. She could have chosen to be not conspicuous had she been concerned about it. When I invite people to conventions, I observe: “You are perfectly welcome to come just as you are. But if you don’t have one of these [I flip my tie], everyone will assume you are a visitor, and they may just come to preach to you.” Householders smile at the heads-up. The blatant ill will and bias of the New Times article is evident even in trivial matters, such as the reporter’s disdain that “attendees listened rapturously,” as though they should be expected to nod off. In fact, some of them do after lunch on long afternoons, and it was worse before the days of efficient air conditioning. Don’t attendees of concerts or rallies also listen rapturously? Why come if you do not? Not all will smirk at the “lowest rate of retention on all religions” that Witnesses suffer. Many will realize that it is more than offset by the high rate of participation from those that stick. After all, there are many faiths where members might not actually leave, but how would you know if they did? The high participation rate actually accounts for the lower retention rate, for inevitably some will tire of it and opt for something less strenuous. Similarly, not everyone will be shocked that should you do a 180 and ardently attack what you once embraced, relations with the family may suffer. Of course they will. It is not brands of automobiles that we speak of. But the bulk of the article deals disapprovingly with how Witnesses have grappled with the same child sexual abuse plague that has shown itself pandemic throughout society—be it in segments religious or irreligious. The recent Epstein “suicide” only underscores that the evil reaches into the highest echelons of society, some members of whom appear desperate to cover their tracks. If, in the opinion of the ARC, “children are not adequately protected from the risk of child sexual abuse in the Jehovah’s Witness organisation,” frequent news reports make clear that they are not “adequately protected” anywhere. Even the Boy Scouts of America, that iconic institution that has taught generations of boys responsibility, did not succeed in purging all pedophiles from its midst, and is at risk of going under for it. Arguably, as Jehovah’s Witnesses have attempted to police their own, they have faltered in coordinating such internal “policing” with the actual police. Still, this must be countered by the consideration that few faiths make any attempt at all to look into wrongdoing within the ranks. When a member is nabbed for child sexual abuse, it is as much of a surprise to the minister as anyone else. Moreover, with some groups, the minister is the perpetrator—not just the one who investigates the sin. Jehovah’s Witnesses live, work, and school in the general community. They are politically neutral, and as such, are pacifist. The same Pew source that tells of their “low retention rate” also says of them: “Jehovah’s Witnesses are among the most racially and ethnically diverse religious groups in America.” Just how sinister can they be? In Russia, Jehovah’s Witnesses were declared “extremist” and banned in 2017 for entirely separate reasons, the topic of child abuse having never once arisen—and their woes are exacerbated by the same critics attempting to take them down in the West with diatribes that are embraced by the New Times. One almost senses that the reporter’s discomfort at being offered help three separate times by three separate attendants to find a seat might stem from an uncomfortable sense that they have somehow discerned her intention to accept their hospitality and then lambaste them on the media. Charges against Jehovah’s Witnesses that she has showcased here—which are certainly not nothing—are dealt with in the free ebook TrueTom vs the Apostates! which includes 10+ chapters on the core charge of child abuse. As society increasingly becomes disillusioned with God, it is inevitable that participatory religion will be regarded as cultish. What Jehovah’s Witnesses think of articles such as in the New Times is immaterial. Historically, they rise to fight the battles laid before them. They are used to presenting their faith through its most appealing lens. Let them become used, if need be, to presenting it through its least appealing lens, for both are to be expected of imperfect persons attempting to apply Bible standards in a world that increasingly shrugs them off.

The people who don’t like Clintons really don’t like them. ”How many more have to die,” tweeted Bill, “until we realize” something about gun control? ”How many more have to die,” someone retorted in the wake of Epstein, “until we realize that nobody will ever survive to testify against a Clinton?” ”If you think you were surprised to find that Epstein committed suicide,” someone else said, “just think how surprised he must have been!” But it could have been anyone, methinks. (except himself)

“I came to start a fire on the earth, and what more is there for me to wish if it has already been lighted?”—Luke 12:49 What fire? How did it get lit? Doesn’t it refer to God’s ways versus the ways of a world estranged from him? That fire was lit long ago. Jesus fans it into fever pitch, introducing a preaching activity that will ultimately put the choice in everyone’s face—is it the kingdom that they want to rule over them, or the present human system of 200 squabbling nations? Jehovah’s Witnesses who speak for him today do nothing to bring that future kingdom about, but they do publicize it: “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite.”—Daniel 2:44 Moreover, those who want and expect that kingdom rule versus those who do not want or expect it assume different priorities in their lives that reflect their desires and expectations. It makes for significant conflicts, even within families. That must be what Jesus meant as he went on to say: Do you imagine I came to give peace on the earth? No, indeed, I tell you, but rather division. For from now on there will be five in one house divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against [her] mother, mother-in-law against [her] daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against [her] mother-in-law.”—Luke 12:51-53 It manifests itself today in people changing sides—for the allure of both sides are as strong as the are different. In the case of a Witness family that some members depart from, it takes the form of the latter charging that they were misled, manipulated, and so forth. No wonder the apostle seems to anticipate the charge: “We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one.”—2 Corinthians 7:2 and “Nevertheless, you say, I was “crafty” and I caught you “by trickery.”—2 Corinthians 12:16. Jesus doesn’t buy it, either, about being obtuse regarding the end of this system of things approaching: “Then he went on to say also to the crowds: “When see a cloud rising in western parts, at once you say, ‘A storm is coming,’ and it turns out so. And when you see that a south wind is blowing, you say, ‘There will be a heat wave,’ and it occurs. Hypocrites, you know how to examine the outward appearance of earth and sky, but how is it you do not know how to examine this particular time?—Luke 12:54-56 The trick may be to check your “critical thinking” skills at the door, so as to focus on what he next says: “Why do you not judge also for yourselves what is righteous?”—vs 57 God’s kingdom is “righteous.” Human governments, whatever their intent, whatever their ideals, whatever their sporadic successes, are not. That being the case with God’s kingdom approaching, why make oneself an “adversary of him?” “For example, when you are going with your adversary at law to a ruler, get to work, while on the way, to rid yourself of the dispute with him, that he may never hale you before the judge, and the judge deliver you to the court officer, and the court officer throw you into prison.”—vs 58 I liked this point as well (most of these verses were considered at the Kingdom Hall meeting this past week, and the ones not will be considered next week): “But if ever that slave should say in his heart, ‘My master delays coming,’ and should start to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that slave will come on a day that he is not expecting [him] and in an hour that he does not know, and he will punish him with the greatest severity and assign him a part with the unfaithful ones.”—vs 45-46 Practically speaking, the “slave” that doubts that the master is coming anytime soon (or at all) begins to reappraise all the effort he has put into publicizing that event. What once seemed as natural as breathing air now comes to seem wasted time, in fact, worse than wasted time, since it served to put he/she behind the curve as regards the goals of the greater world. In no time at all, such persons have joined “the unfaithful ones.” They are deriding what they once embraced—in effect, “beating their fellow slaves.” They are almost forced to carry on about how they were misled and manipulated, because the alternative is to explain how they could have been so stupid to go along for so many yeas with what they now reject. So they frame matters as a “sinister religious corporation” taking advantage of the minions. They are nuts—the only reason members incorporate is so that they can do things legally, such as owning land or publishing, that will not all fall apart with the death of the founders. Let us visit the parallel verses in the Book of Matthew, noting that the slaves doing business have always been associated with the preaching and disciple-making work. Let us consider it in the satirical Sheepngoats Translation, which is not accepted by all scholars—in fact, most of them assume that the translators must have been smoking something: “After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. So the one that had received five talents came forward and brought five additional talents, saying, ‘Master, you committed five talents to me; see, I gained five talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ “Next the one that had received the two talents came forward and said, ‘Master, you committed to me two talents; see, I gained two talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ “Finally the one that had received the one talent came forward and said, ‘Master, I didn’t do squat. I thought about it, but you see, to do business, I would have had to work with the others, and they are all jerks. I also would have had to work with the bankers, and it is all about money with them. And I for sure didn’t want to work with any non-profit organizations who might lean on me to do something I didn’t want to do. I shouldn’t have to put up with that—I have rights. After all, we all know that you reap where you did not sow, and gather where you do not winnow. You want disciples? Then get off your rear end and make them yourself! Don’t foist your corporate agenda on me!’ “In reply his master said to him, ‘Wicked and sluggish slave, you knew, did you, that I reaped where I did not sow and gathered where I did not winnow? Well, then, you ought to have deposited my silver monies with the bankers, and on my arrival I would be receiving what is mine with interest.’”—Matthew 25:19-25 The master could have worked with that attitude, it appears! Just take it to the bank if you feel that way, he says. Instead, the loutish slave dug in the ground and hid the silver money, (vs 25) working up a sweat so as to thwart the master’s will. it is as opposers do today. They go to considerable effort to thwart the work that they once took part it.

Sometimes when that is the short answer people don’t bother chiming in in the first place.

As I recall, the generation of Grok regarded dining as a function demanding of privacy, just as we would regard elimination that way. I mean, science fiction is all well and good, but it is not such that I would want to live the dream,

“Grokking my Glock.” Hmm.

I played with the alliteration “gloating over my Glock” but ultimately discarded it. Oh, did I ever tell you that I am not an expert on weapons?

Oh, by the way, I have been studying the methods of @James Thomas Rook Jr. and I tried them out in field service today, inviting people to the convention. I must admit that they are effective. I handed the householder the invitation so that he could see the cover: “Love Never Fails”! (Btw, that is a violation of Strunk and White, who hold that the exclamation mark always goes inside the quotation marks!) ”Love is the quality that we could all use more of,” I said. But the householder was in a surly mood. He crumpled up the tract. “What does love have to do with anyth....” he began. I smiled, parted my suit jacket, and he saw my holstered Glock. He quavered. “Oh, yes, of course. Love...yes, that is what we need,” as he carefully uncrumpled the tract.

In fact, so does @Jack Ryan, who started this thread. His outrage is palpable. JWs have a “moral obligation” to hear him out, he says. What is he outraged over? That he thought he had laid a trap for our guy, but our guy sidestepped it, giving an answer that, as NB put it, was “technically” true. If it was “technically” true, then it was “actually” true. That may be enough when dealing with someone who is going for the jugular. Let Jack sputter in fury that his efforts to force his “new morality” upon the Christian congregation didn’t work this time. He is busy cooking up another scheme as we speak. If you take away the tools by which religion can stay separate from the world and its moral relativism, then it can’t stay separate, and that is his aim. His attitude toward his former faith? Like that of the Edomites, who screamed: “Lay it bare!” So he does not come here as a reformer. He comes here as a destroyer. If not of the faith itself (a big if) then of its insistence upon the biblical morality that makes it acceptable in God’s eyes. He is clearly up to no good, as is @Srecko Sostar, with his ridiculous attempt to compare a man of homosexual tendencies who resists them to a woman of straight tendencies who practices immorality. He, too, is steamed that their should be a faith that upholds traditional morality. He wants to tear it down. And he is joined here by some Witnesses that would say: “You know, I think he has a point. The way of Jehovah is not adjusted right.” I think that the way of Jehovah is adjusted right, or right enough. Perhaps it could be tweaked some—indeed it has been—but not at the expense of robbing God of a clean “people for his name”—something which is not the slightest concern of Jack or Srecko. In fact, they want such robbery to occur. I am very grateful that there is a Governing Body that does not sway in the wind on what is necessary, while they are willing to sway on what is not necessary. I am grateful, too, that God’s stated interests they put first, and they do not lose their cookies when persons disciplined who are disgruntled over it attempt to move heaven and earth so as to undermine the Christian congregation that they have dedicated themselves to uphold.

Let’s face it. There once was a time when it was not required for parents and at-home daughter to find “common compromised solution” when the daughter insisted on violating moral standards as old as time. Not only was it not required, but parents were though dupes if they did it. It is as I said before. Srecko represents the irreligious who would demand that religion accommodate his “new morality.”

You’re joking! In your eyes it should be illegal for them to not answer the phone? Recall from the video that this is not a child we are speaking about. Also recall that, far from “throwing her out,” her parents did not want her to leave. Not too long ago this sort of thing—holding to principle—was called “tough love” and it was widely praised, even if not universally so. Not too long ago parents—Witness or non-Witness—really put their foot down with regard to premarital sex. It wasn’t like today, when many simply buy a package of condoms and tell their daughters to go at it in the upstairs bedroom, where they will be “safe.” The GreatCourses lectures I have been reviewing lately tells of the changing sexual mores of the 60s. In 1960, it was absolutely shocking for an unmarried young woman living at home to be with child. Fifteen years later it was unremarkable routine. You just are mad that the Witness world is practically the last holdout in embracing the “new morality.” In fact, the young woman in the video did eventually make her way back to the congregation, child and all, the lowlife she shacked up with having taken off, and she was warmly accepted. It doesn’t always happen that way, but it happens that way often enough so that you should be able to check your outrage at congregation discipline being applied to what doesn’t concern you anyway, as you have departed from it. Not only could the situation be framed as it was framed in my last comment, as one people being easily swayed—it could also be recognized as the refusal of enemies to recognize the separation of church and state. Practically speaking, the congregation can only fulfill its mandate of staying “separate from the world” if it is allowed to shut the door on ones like yourself who would insist upon bringing the “new and improved morality” of the modern age into it. The Christian congregation is required by God to stay no part of the world. You are arguing that the stand should not be allowed, and you are using the obvious discomfort of those who have been disciplined and remain resentful of it as a pretext. I think all that has to be done is to argue that such disciplinary tools as disfellowshipping are essential to a church’s survival with teachings untainted by changing morals. One way to do this (which I have tried to do in my book) is to establish that no religion has been able to do it in the absence of such tools. The book “Secular Faith,” by Mark A Smith, points to moral positions that have changed in religious bodies with regard to 5 separate categories, and concludes that contemporary church members have more in common with atheists today than they do with members of their own denomination from 100 years ago. https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/in-defense-of-shunning.html Jehovah’s Witnesses want to withstand that trend. You will not allow them to. It is an attack of the irreligious on religion. It is an insistence that we are “come together” on terms of those who would disdain worship. Most people today, if my guess is correct, would hold that disfellowshipping is pretty harsh, certainly by today’s standards and perhaps by the standards of yesterday. But they also know that it is not inevitable, that it is easily avoidable, that the disfellowshipped person had more than a little to do with his or her discipline, and that, once suffered, it can be reversed, as the WT lawyer pointed out. Depending upon their regard for the morality of the Bible, even those thinking it harsh will give Witnesses begrudging respect for not swaying in the wind, as have others.

If he “technically” told the truth, as NB put it, that means that he “actually” did. That may be good enough when dealing with someone who is going after your jugular. Jesus, when dealing with someone who was going after his jugular, gave such a “complete” witness that Pilate said: “What! Are you not speaking to me?!” Nonetheless, it is not a bad question from Srecko: I can think of two reasons (besides what is in the first paragraph about Jesus) why they might show restraint, assuming they did. First, the complexion of courts have greatly changed since the days of Hayden Covington, when you could read a scripture that would be considered an answer putting the matter to rest. These days, where atheism is all the rage, a scripture might be seen as intensifying the problem. Some portions of Scripture are widely considered “hate speech.” That wasn’t so back in the day. In this case, we find ourselves defending a type of discipline to a system-of-things that has largely cast off discipline as outmoded, and deservedly so, as it can stifle “self-esteem.” A second reason is that the Christian could once caution about the “low sink of debauchery” (1 Peter 4:4) and the judges would say: “Yeah, we don’t want to go there.” Today they are as likely to say: “Water’s fine in the low sink—who are you to judge?” Moral standards have changed, and even the things that are still frowned upon are frowned upon to a much lesser degree. So it is a judgment call, and I don’t go there, having no qualifications as a lawyer. I learned long ago in my twenties, when someone ran head-on into my Dodge Dart that I had spent much time “restoring,” finding a rare unrusted body, towing it 70 miles, and dropping a working engine in it, that even in small claims court, a lawyer is an asset. The other side represented himself with one, and my argument that my car was a “classic” that merited more than the usual remuneration, since I had worked so hard on it, went nowhere. He knew all the catch phrases and secret lawyer hand signals, and when I reached to hand a document to the judge without first “asking to approach the bench” it was the beginning of the end for me. These days, when I have any legal matter to attend to, I hire a lawyer, cross my fingers that he is smarter than the villain’s lawyer, and hope for the best. In a dispute with the city, my lawyer said that, in his opinion, submitted documents only had to “weigh enough” to carry the day. Should the Watchtower lawyer defend disfellowshipping by quoting 2 Timothy 2:17 about how unsavory speech will “spread like gangrene” and how on that account, certain ones in the first century were “handed over to Satan” with the possible outcome that they would be taught “not to blaspheme?” There is a part of me that says ‘yes’ to this, but it is their call, not mine, and they are the ones in the trenches, not me. I do try to be “complete” in my own writings, where I make the argument that doctrines from on-High that are voluntarily followed cannot survive if there is not some mechanism to eject those who insist on contradicting AND remaining in close proximity. One can do one or the other, but not both. People of this world are often tripped up by their own faulty assumptions, not to mention their pride. I think of “Parkinson’s Law,” from the satirical book of the same name, that offers a mathematical formula to the effect that, in organizational matters, the amount of time spent on an item varies inversely to its expense. The author illustrates it with a company board meeting at which the first item on the agenda is approval of the proposed $10 million dollar fission plant. Only one on the board has the slightest qualifications on this topic—some of them don’t even know what a fission plant is—and he distrusts the proposal. He is sure that they will just be throwing money down the toilet, but he does not know how to start to explain it to the others. He knows that he would have to refer to the blueprints, and he knows that not one of them would admit that they cannot read blueprints. So he concurs, and the project goes forward after a consideration of 4 minutes. Some on the board, however, are having twinges of conscience that they have not really “pulled their weight,” and they resolve to make up for it with the next item. (The next item on the agenda is a proposed bicycle shed for the employees, that will cost $4000, and everyone weighs in as to whether the roof should be aluminum or composite shingle, which costs less. For that matter, do the employees need a bicycle shed at all, since they are eternally ungrateful no matter what is done for them. This discussion is resolved in 45 minutes. The third item on the agenda is the brand of coffee that should be served in the office and its means of preparation, and here the board argues away 3 hours, with a possible savings of $15, because each of them has strong opinions as well as considerable knowledge about coffee.) Now, with modern thinkers enamored with “critical thinking,” their blind side is to imagine that critical thinking carries the day—that it enables them to withstand outside societal pressures. The doctrine of “self-determination according to ones internal compass” is very strong today, and it is almost a hopeless task to convince such persons that their internal compass is defective and at times almost useless in the face of a heart that “is desperate.” I mean, there is a lot of educating that has to be done to convince such persons, and it may be as hopeless a task as was trying to persuade the board members who cannot read blueprints but would never admit to it. One would think you could start with the fact that advertising assumes that people are not that way, that they are not the critical thinkers they claim to be, and that its widespread adoption and success shows that persons can be easily molded, no matter their assertions to the contrary. But this means battling the pride of humanists, which is a very difficult thing to do. It is what I try to do in TrueTom vs the Apostates. And I do think for all the facts to be laid out clearly does “make JHVH to be very proud.” https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/11/in-defence-of-shunning.html Whether this can be done in the courtroom is another matter. I am not even sure of this observation from Srecko: Did he? It may be so, but my recollections of courtroom procedure is that an opposition lawyer can keep the focus extremely narrow when desired, and declare as irrelevant to the Court material that would clarify matters. It once was considered the height of wisdom to carefully consider context. Today, critical thinkers are likely to ban it as an attempt to “raise a straw man argument.”

You know, if it wasn’t so cumbersome a process requiring yet another email address, I think I would introduce a character AllenSmith2000, or maybe even (taking inspiration from the postal service) AllenSmithForever

You did more than I. I knew nothing of this. He is not really a self-promoter. I have exchanged A few comments with him via Twitter, but when I asked if he had been forced from his job for his views, he stayed silent. He mostly hangs out with other local weather people. It turns out that we have a Cornell connection, because my grandpa and great grandpa went there, and that is also his alma mater. I’ve run some old photos by him & he likes that. He has confirmed that an absurd tangle of roads at the west end of Ithaca is indeed known as “the octopus,” less so now as some have been straightened out, but it is still a mess and terrain dictates it will never be straightened out completely. https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/10/in-search-of-the-ithaca-octopus.html There is a climate zealot on Twitter called @JWspry (no, not one of our JWs—I don’t think) who makes Kevin look like very small potatoes indeed. When i ran my former post past him, “Weather on Steroids,” he said it that the perception was mostly due to what was reported and what was not. Emphasize something disproportionately and you plant inaccurate ideas into people. https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2012/02/weather-on-steroids.html This is more easily illustrated for me with the spate of white on black police shootings, and media nearly conveyed the idea that the very purpose of police was to shoot black people. However, a study of the Philadelphia police force during the Obama administration, concluded that there was no overall racial component—every race shot every other race, and their own—and to the extent there was, it was actually a little more likely that black officers would experience “threat misperception” and shoot black suspects than did white officers. Is a similar biased agenda at work in climate reporting? I would have guessed yes, however you have made me regress to a dunno.

Tell her to put up one in which the pole is encased in a Slinky. They are unbeatable. As the squirrel (or maybe cat) climbs up the pole, he gets almost to the top, and his paws grab the Slinky, at which point he abruptly slides to the ground and lands on his squirrelly rear end. She (and the birds) will laugh so hard about this that whatever project she undertakes that day will succeed.

I have not found it to be this way. (See previous comment) Moreover, it is exactly the type of sweeping statement that argues that the prime reason such climate change science people do not exist to you is that you do not frequent where they hang out. It is seen in many venues. The majority team gets hold of the playing field and seeks to ban the minority team—even declaring that they are not really atheletes.

You know, I actually did see that point when I looked it up, and deliberately overrode it for the sake of more easy understanding. I know that this is not your mission, but you can credit yourself with causing me to back down from my 80% probability rating that global warming is a hoax. It is now more like 50-50. Whenever I follow the mainstream, I also follow that which would be its opposite. In the case of climate change, there are many in the opposite camp and they are often very well informed persons who present data persuasively. The long-term respected, even loved, TV weatherman in my area (who has been replaced for the last few years, so that he is now independent) is among them—I mean, it is not that the other side is all dodos, as they are typically presented. This man is a lifelong student of climatology. And you have caused me to look at matters anew. It is a significant achievement, for I, too, am as stubborn as the day is long. I even think you capable of convincing me completely, were I too devote more energy to the problem. But of course, I cannot. I must devote my energy to kicking in the teeth (verbally) of those who would malign sacred things, trusting that my absence from the climate change field will not alter the game.

Et tu, Brutus? Joining the pork chop at his own game for his play on snowflakes.

It is revealing to me that those who taunt us endlessly over just how “inspired” are the ones at the helm today seem to take for granted that there should be ones who are that way. It gets even more crazy when words such as “infallible” are thrown in. “Perfect” is even worse. “Look at what Brother Jackson said,” they gloat. “Guess he’s not so infallible after all, is he?” they say. They take for granted that for the Christian life to have validity in modern times, there should be ones who ARE infallible, who can and SHOULD spoon-feed members, so there is a lessened need for faith, and hopefully (from their point of view) none at all. These ones wouldn’t have lasted two minutes in the first century, when the ones taking the lead were manifestly not that way. A local speaker with a dramatic flair enacted a fictional encounter from back then with an irate householder, a forerunner of today’s “apostates.” “What! You’re going to tell me about love?” he tells the visiting brother. “Look, I was there at that meeting of Paul and Barnabas after John took a leave of absence! You see those two kids there? [motioning to his young children playing on the floor] They do not fight as I saw those two grown men of yours fight! Why don’t you learn love yourself before you come here to lecture me about it!” For that reason, I shy away from such loaded words as “infallible.” Maybe the insistence on infallibility is a holdover from the Catholic Church, which for centuries insisted that the Pope was that way. “Inspired” will also blow up in your face, because you end up doing backflips in translating just what the word should effectively mean now—or even then, when the “leading men” fought like kids. (I even put the word “apostates” in quotes, increasingly, because it comes in many varieties and it means different things to different people.) It is enough to say that the written record, which includes the dealings and interactions of imperfect ones at the first-century helm, is deemed “inspired.” “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” This is so even though it includes the account of Peter’s astounding cowardess (given his leadership role at the time) of changing his association once the Jewish-based brothers came on the scene—before they did, he mixed freely with the Gentile-based Christians; after they did, he “withdrew” from them. It is still “inspired.” It is enough for us to go on. It is enough to make us “fully competent” and “completely equipped for every good work.” Even though it includes the blunderings of the “uneducated and ordinary” ones that were the leaders back then—and the leaders today hold to that pattern—that is still the case. It is not at all what Srecko or John thinks it should be—a true “anointed” to wipe away every tear and smooth the path, (sorry, Witness) removing all pebbles so that the people of God can sail along blithely without really having to develop faith.

I may have weighed in too quickly on this one, without having read the whole context, just like the ol pork chop says I do. Like Herod, I was in “a fighting mood” at the time. Unlike Herod, I have the worldnewsmediaforum as an outlet whenever I am punchy like that. That way I don’t have to go shooting up any public place, which is all the rage in these insane days. Since the JWI comment immediately follows mine, and then your remark, I am not sure if I have made a faux pas or hit a home run, but I will cover myself in any event.

That is a sin? Actually, it makes all the difference in the world To the extent that this is true, do you know people who lead off with their worst PR take instead of their best? Of course, it is proper to present it as the lawyer does. Parents re minor children is a proper subject for Court concern. Do you think the Court should weigh in on the various reasons that ADULT family members not see eye to eye? Anyone who knows anything about Witnesses knows that they practice disfellowshipping for those unrepently opposed in deed or word. Nobody has to explain to them that those subject to this ultimate discipline might not like it. To the extent they “hide behind legalese, it is because their opponents make use of it over various issues, in this case, disfellowshipping. Do you prefer it when people don’t? I mean, really there is nothing here in this comment other than you grumbling that people exist who are different than you.

Doesn’t matter. Take it. Who doesn’t want to be thought well-read? If I recall correctly, Auntie Pauline was one of @James Thomas Rook Jr.’s favorite aunts.

They are all woven into a fine garment, so it hardly matters.

No. This simply shows that @Equivocation is well-read and that you, despite bolting from the Witnesses, have not compensated for that lack by becoming so. It is pretty common outside of the JW world to refer to the “Pauline writings” and find uniqueness in them. After all, he wrote about half of the New Testament. Since the overall world cannot comprehend unity, (because it doesn’t exist for them) they focus on points of uniqueness and figure that each one is grounds for division and dispute. They cannot conceive of people smoothing over things because it doesn’t happen for them. (Of course, I am speaking in generalities) Often it is said that Paul is essentially a “co-creator” of Christianity. It is he that put most of the Mosiac Law underpinnings to the Way, spelling them out in his letters. The Michael Hart book “The 100,” rating the most 100 influential persons who have ever lived, ranks Jesus (#3) after Mohammad (#1)largely for this reason—he reasons that Mohammad is fully responsible for founding his religion, but Jesus is only half-responsible for founding his. Paul is #6. Isaac Newton, @James Thomas Rook Jr. will be happy to know, is #2, since he is considered the father of science, which rivals religion in the eyes of many and is on the ascendency. Hart also ranks Mohammad before Jesus on the basis that Mohammad’s followers by and large follow him, but Jesus’ “followers” by and large do not. Of course, I view this co-creatorship between Jesus and Paul differently. To my mind, it is to be expected, given Paul’s background and education. He is “bringing his [scholarly] gift to the altar,” doing what the simple folks that comprised early Christian leadership, Peter, John, James, etc, could hardly have been expected to do. Jesus could have done it, of course, but his course was not to suck up to the “educated people,” as though he needed their validation. His course was to appeal to the uncomplicated heart. Let others fill in the scholarly and (for the typical person) boring details—not boring to everyone, of course, but it is well known that Paul’s writings are not the synch to read that Jesus’ sayings are.

This is because the clerk sees you “discreetly parting your suitcoat to reveal your holstered gun, and he doesn’t dare.