TrueTomHarley

Still holding out, huh? This is becoming an obsession for me. I wish you had never brought it up. What happened to Sarah and the Terminator? Look, I cannot see all those macho movies. I want to, desperately, and I do feel a responsibilty to illuminate my writing with the wisdom of contemporary culture, but my wife does not enjoy those movies, so if I am going to watch them, I must watch them myself. Now, I am already in hot water with my wife due to my time spent in writing, another solo sport. She accuses me sometimes of not turning around from my bad habits, like that of "not listening," which is exacerbated at such times. She misunderstands completely. The problem is that I turn around so instantaneously that I cannot stop my rotation and I do another 180, but just try telling her that. We do jointly fulfill our obligation to keep abreast of contemporary culture in that we have fallen into the habit of one TV show per night, at present alternating between episodes of Monk and Psych. shows I never heard of all during their run but was alerted to afterwards by my 9-year-old nephew who has seen them all. I tried to tell the kid that he should watch the Terminator movies so as to pull his weight in society but his mother intervened. I like these two shows submitted by a nine-year-old. In last night's Psych, for example, Juliet was outraged that the circus weight guesser guessed her weight wrong and she obsessed about it during the remainder of the show. Now, I think it is very important not to obsess over things, but she says later on: "Shawn, I've got it!" and Shawn thinks she has uncovered a break in the case, but she goes on to explain that her particular pants are not 'slimming.' At shows end, when the circus guesser is revealed as a villain and is about to shoot the good guys, robbing them of any further contribution to contemporary culture, she decks him from behind with a single blow of unusual force, that she accentuates by saying "145 pounds, my ass!" Prior to this, my wife and watched episodes of Chuck, suggested by my kids. Prior to that, some time ago, it was episodes of Office, also suggested by my kids. In fact, I used the Office show as a template to straighten out an atheist's love-life, taking a pesky detour from my work of writing about God, a detour that I didn't want to take but you know how some people just cannot turn down a privilege, in a post entitled 'Jim and Pam and Ray Goth' which I would love to link to but I don't dare because the Librarian will get mad, though she should'nt because I have disabled my comment section so as to leave no doubt that I do not wish to compete with her. So don't chide me for failings in keeping abreast of contemporary culture. I feel that I am pulling my weight, and I am keeping my marriage with the lovely Mrs Harley in good shape as well. Make no mistake, the woman is a looker. You do not want to mess with something so good. Now, for the umpteenth time, what happened to Sarah and the Terminator? Look, if James is reverting to orneryness, becoming stubborn just for the sake of becoming stubborn, one of you other participants tell me. This is not like confession, that only the priest can answer. Unless you do not want to embarrass yourself by admitting to the secret sin of not having watched it yourself.

I have read more books than you, if only because while you are watching movies you cannot read books. To the extent that Paul is correct when he counts 'contemporary culture' a lot of refuse, hopefully I can be forgiven for having missed a few fliks. And I did see some of the Terminator series, like that one where the modern alien takes the cop's body and can reform itself from just a puddle of molten metal, and the 'cop' therefore becomes the bad guy, while Arnold as a biker is the good guy. That's why I thought he may have taken on the attendants, because he was certainly the kid's protector, and I think his mama's as well. Nobody can do everything. I have to write about God and keep my promise before the moon and stars and JWI that I will be nicer to you, and even now i can feel the devil on my left shoulder making faces at the angel on my right. Now, once and for all, what happened with Sarah and the Terminator? A man can only stand so much religion. What about Sarah? You brought her up.

That is three posts in a row, and as usual, you are evading the issue, an issue that you brought up in the first place. How did it turn out with Sarah and the Terminator?

Oh, for crying out loud. So do the brothers who clean the toilets and sweep the floors

How did it turn out? Did Arnold take out the guys that were chasing her?

They do in Russia. That was a good Heinlein quote. For a while he and Asimov were all the rage as sci-fi writers. Which did you prefer and why? (Not a trap, honest)

Yes, but are any of them 'Pants-on-Fire' lies?

If I catch anyone doing that, I’ll let them have it with both barrels, believe you me!

I said I'd be nice to him, and I will. I will, I wlll, I will, I will, I will, I will I will, I will, I will....starting tomorrow. Run the 10 Benghazis past @James Thomas Rook Jr. Having said that, the trick is to ensure that the fact-checkers are honest. I had a very hard time with the Politfact fellow when I saw him on TV or somewhere., especially as he was unveiling his gimmicy 'Pants-on-Fire' lie rating, which I thought was juvenile. Moreover, obvious uses of hyperbole on Trump's part were all rated lies. I would hate to see what would happen if he decided to rate Jesus, who did hyperbole all the time. Still, I don't know how that would qualify the Benghazis. Let James explain it. I believe he makes quite the big deal about HILLARY'S Benghazi. Is it really but 10% of the total?

I don't know the story of this. Of course, many have thrust it at me, but I have accepted someone's take that it amounted to little more than taking out a library card so as to get access to some writings. 'Oh, no, it's far MORE than that!' I have been told, as though they sat at Kofi Onnans right hand, shoving aside even the Vatican, but the prospect of secretly calling shots with the wild beast seemed so ridiculous that my interest tanked. I figured either it was a valid move that was misunderstood, or it was the clumsy move of some brother who is peeling potatoes in the Bethel kitchen for penance and will be for the thousand years. If you like, in the spirit of telling all that has been told innacurately everywhere else, I'd like to know of it, either here or through DM or through a link to where you probably wrote of it long ago.

I'll be nicer to him.

I don't recall having complained of that. Besides, I didn't even tag you. Perhaps I shouldn't do it. I'll think about it. But you routinely say the most vile things about those who I feel deserve the deepest respect, and you do it in the most juvenile manner, that it is almost a knee-jerk reaction for me. Rise, for I too am a man, having feelings like those of many here.

I'll go along with this, with the caveat that you can overdo it with regrets and apologies. This is because most demands for apologies hide a greater agenda. We see it all the time in political matters. Admit to a fault and the immediate refrain is that you have declared yourself unfit and should be fired. Nor is admitting to a course ever enough in the event of not being fired. The fault is brought up repeatedly, ad infinitum. I almost think that people don't want the apology they demand, because then their mission is torpedoed by success. They get around it by continuing their attack anyway. In the case of some policies, an apology is immediately met with a "Well, what are you going to DO about it?" If the response is not exactly what the critic demands, the apology is dismissed as just empty words, the 'regret' no more that a lying attempt to manipulate public opinion. It is a crazy world we operate in today, and anyone in his or her right mind ought to be ecstatic at the prospect of coming out of it. The enemies of Jehovah's Witnesses have succeeded in doing what Jehovah's Witnesses alone could never do: place Jehovah's name on worldwide center stage in (at present) three key areas. The one most unnuanced and instantly evocative of sympathy is the persecution of them in Russia, which has grabbed the attention of connected ones that we find difficult to grab. The other two battlefields are not what we might have chosen, but that does not mean that the battle should be run away from, or that it will not be won. It is enough to state that this or that policy indeed has a down side, and then to call attention to its upside. It will divide people, but that it not a bad thing. It is exactly what Paul at Hebrews 4:12 says the truthful message should be expected to do. The kickback over 'shunning' can be won. In many cases it is from those like Saul who keep kicking against the goads. In some cases it has nothing to do with disfellowshipping, a term that hasn't been heard in the Kingdom Hall for a dozen years or so. People do a 180 from previously held deeply moral views and find that those who hold the course lose interest in associating with them, even if they be family members, yet no announncement was ever made. When an announcement is made, it is that 'so-and-so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses.' Who would ever say that he is, when he does/says things directly contrary to what he once did/said? People hear such an announcement and respond as they see fit. To be sure, Christian counsel based on Bible principles shapes how one responds to such announcements, but we make no bones about being guided by loyalty to Jehovah. The provision may tweek some; I think it already has, but the general principle is clearly found in the Bible. Suffice it to say that, minus such tools of last resort, no group has succeeded over time in preserving the morality that members have voluntarily signed on for. It becomes an issue of choosing between serving God or man, and we don't mind things being framed that way. The child abuse matters indeed have a real downside to them. Though opponents expand the charges into as many different areas as they can, the essential reality is that, due to being 'insular,' allegations and actual instances of child sexual abuse were handled within the congregation arrangement, and thereafter many participants declined to go 'beyond the law' and also report to outside authorities. Once again, adjustments have been made by the theocratic organization. Perhaps more will be forthcoming, but it will never be enough to satisfy determined opposers. 'Insular', which sounds bad, is mostly just another word for 'separate', which is a biblical imperitive. Separateness usually leads to some degree of insularity. Admit it, settle up where need be, and move ahead. Christians are to be separate from 'the world.' There is no question as to this. The world doesn't like it, because it reads in such a course a judgement, for example, as Jesus stated at John 3:19. It is as is written at 1 Peter 4:4: They are puzzled because 'you do not keep running with them into the same low sink of debachery,' but they figure out the proper course in a hurry, and 'go on speaking abusively of you.' So be it. Let it be a matter of being very public about Christians staying separate. "Water's just fine here in the low sink!" the ex-Witnesses and the media taunt. 'What's wrong with you, saying it is not?' God's name is front and center, put there by our opponents as much as by us. In each case it is accompanied by what Jesus told his disciples to expect: 'They will lyingly say every sort of wicked thing about you' (Matthew 5:19) for belonging to the 'cult' that is 'everywhere spoken against.' (Acts 28: 22) We can't choose our battles but we can fight them. Every one of them can be turned into a positve witness, even as we acknowlege there has been a downside, even a serious downside. Meanwhile the truth flows like the gushing widening river from the throne. It can be run online from the Lett's dorm room, if need be, as the online lessons convey what might take the individual Witness a year to convey. Let those who have left Jehovah's way take responsibilty for the overall world they have chosen. Is it only with the congregation that there is a downside? When they see mayhem and malevolence on TV, let them embrace it. It's what they have chosen. Let them join pundits in declaring the skyrocketing anxiety levels that have become a staple of life 'a crisis of mental health', as though there was in reality nothing to worry about.

Historically, people have recognized the right, even the responsibility, of parents to decide such things for their minor children. There are many examples of authoritarian countries deciding otherwise: that children are the property of the state and not the parents, to be molded by state views. Increasingly that model is spreading to lands that once had greater respect toward parents and took a hands-off approach. Don't go to town with the "hands-off" phrase, JTR. Just don't. We know where your obsession lies. Please refrain.

I tweeted, with photo included, that all Regional Conventions had witnesses scenes of Russian police breaking up Christian meetings. Instantly, the tweet was liked from three entirely separate parts of the world, none of whose authors used English as a primary language. There is nothing like the worldwide brotherhood. Rachel Denbur, director of Human Rights Institute, frequently quoted in media, picked up the tweet and retweeted it. Â

It is also worth noting that the European Court of Human Rights didn't buy the charge that Jack is spreading, that Jehovah’s Witnesses break up families. It wrote in 2010: “It is the resistance and unwillingness of non-religious family members to accept and to respect their religious relative’s freedom to manifest and practice his or her religion that is the source of conflict.” They didn't buy the charge of "mind control," either: “The Court finds it remarkable that the [Russian] courts did not cite the name of a single individual whose right to freedom of conscience had allegedly been violated by means of those techniques.” "The Russian Supreme Court in 2017 was not chastened by this rebuke and saw no need to cite a name for the April 20th trial, either. They did, however, find every need to not hear representatives of foreign embassies who might, for all they knew, have sided with the European Court."

As long as Paul pops Nero in the nose and gets the girl I'm happy.

Though I was initially mortified that one describing himself as brother would give away the fort, spilling dirt here and there (and alas, Allen the Terrible seems never to have gotten over it), I am gradually coming around to his way of thinking. I like the model of the Christian who has seen dirt, but nonetheless stays loyal despite it. It is the essence of the talk: Acquiring a Heart of Wisdom, which I used to love to give and which is seldom done well. In this case, JWI chooses to spill, not in Grand Central Station, but in some tiny backwater channel of the internet run by an arthritic hackeyed has-been of a librarian (the old hen) and he makes his posts so long that the stupid people will get bored and move on. I am going there myself, spilling dirt to some degree, and already have gone there in No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash: 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. What I will never be is a reporter taking on the mission of telling Bethel what it is doing wrong, as though I knew or felt I could assume the responsibility. Even of most of the supposed JW supporters on this forum, it is mostly a matter of discussing the degree to which they are wrong. I won't go there. I will take it as a given that since they are human and follow in the footsteps of the first century congregation leaders, of course they will make mistakes here and there. Nobody should expect otherwise. Though JTR will gleefully seize upon the nugget of dirt and throw away all context, usually imputing the most vile motives to those in authority that he disagrees with, I have come to think that it doesn't matter. They will, and do, make up dirt anyway. Might as well give them some John Wayne True Dirt. I don't consider myself above the theocratic organization, much less authorized or interested in 'exposing' their missteps, and I could care less about wonkish things. If a video is posted of something confidential, I don't go there. Not everything not made public is the smoking gun. To be sure, I may eventually go there if something becomes absolutely crucial, as it did with the confidential memos Shiwiiiiiiiiii posted, because I eventually inserted them into the Money chapter of Dear Mr. Putin, with the observation that each one of them was entirely what you would expect given the Bible verses used to justify them in the first place. And when JTR excitedly posts video for me to see, I seldom go there. What is this obsession with allowing ones' enemies to serve up your menu for you? Didn't he get the sense of Thomas Jefferson's counsel not to argue with entrenched idealogues? Now, if JWI posts it for me, that is a different matter. However, I like the idea of suffering setbacks in life, even some in the context of theocracy that would not have happened outside of it, and recovering from it rather than evangelistically broadcasting every little petulant beef about anyone or anything that ever did one wrong, an inconvenient truth that makes the internet so tiresome. Nobody would ever say that there is not more 'peer pressure' within God's organization than outside of it, for example. Peer pressure in the Christian context is generally a good thing, as persons 'exhort one another to love and fine works.' But occasionally it runs amuck. The downfall of Western life today is that it is exclusively focused upon the rights of the individual as a near sacred quest, and any mention of a 'greater good' is met with a "Whoa! That sounds like Stalin talking!" Not everything can be about the individual. You know the pendulum has swung too far in the individualist direction, to the point of upending the planet from which it is suspended, when that happens.

Yes and no. Yes, in that you can reach a point, per your own judgement, where you say: 'I've pretty much done all I can do as a teacher. The public Bible studies at the Kingdom Hall represent your best path forward at this point.' No, in that you don't write anyone off. You can visit forever if you see fit, bringing specific points, bits of encouragement, or invitations, to your student's attention. You just may feel free to ratchet down your attention for a given person, but you never have to vacate entirely unless you want to.

The 144,000 is a yawner. Nobody cares. I never go there. To clarify a little, some care, but it is analagous to the wonks on media absolutely obsessed over the doings of government and all its machinations, imagining that they reflect the interest of the ordinary people whose greatest hope towards government is that it will pave the roads, jail the bad guys, keep a few of its promises, and otherwise stay out of their hair. A handful throughout history go on to rule with Christ in heaven. Good. It means the heavenly government has more of a feel for humanity than otherwise, first observed by the fact that the king himself did time as a human. That's all anyone really cares about, as they envision how God's Kingdom will bring relief from the individual woes and travesties they suffer on earth. I barely go further with the 144,000 unless someone insists about it.

It means we can run the entire preaching campaign out of Brother Lett’s dorm room, if need be. I am amazed to have seen no reference to it online till now. It confirms my take that people primarily mount the internet to bellyache. I am looking forward to telling someone: ‘I don’t want to study the Bible with you. Do it yourself.” We spoon-feed too much. Many people can handle the basics themselves. This frees up whoever wants to be freed up to focus on a second tier of Bible education involving specific questions, application, press to maturity, and so forth. I think it is a great idea and I wonder what the theocratic organization will do with it, since even they haven’t commented on it. A pioneer in our Hall saw it and said: “ I think it means we have been fired.” I think it means some will feel freed up to make more effective use of their time in the ministry, for truth be known, it is not always stunningly efficient. The observation that efficiency is not one of the fruits of the spirit only partly compensates. It continues a direction already started with JW.org itself, particularly the broadcast, as well as the literature carts. Can’t get enough of it here; it has changed my approach already.

As an ultimate trump card of congregation discipline, to be applied when lesser measures have failed, is disfellowshipping cruel? It certainly could be, and increasingly is, argued that way. Undeniably it triggers pain. That said, suffice it to say that no group has been able maintain its deeply-held moral principles through decades of time without it. I vividly remember circuit ministers of my faith saying: “Fifty years ago, the difference between Jehovah’s Witnesses and people in general was doctrinal. Conduct on moral matters, sexual or otherwise, was pretty much the same.” Today the chasm is huge. Can internal discipline not be a factor? The book 'Secular Faith - How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics' attempts to reassure its secular audience through examining the changing moral stands of churches on five key issues. The book points out that today's church members have more in common with atheists than they do with members of their own denominations of decades past. Essentially, the reassurance to those who would mold societal views is: 'Don't worry about it. They will come around. They always do. It may take a bit longer, but it is inevitable.' Jehovah's Witnesses have thwarted this model by not coming around. Can internal discipline not be a factor? In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses, members voluntarily sign on to a program that reinforces goals they have already chosen. Sometimes it is not enough to say you want to diet. You must padlock the fridge. It is not an infringement of freedom to those who have willingly signed aboard. They are always free to attempt to diet some place where they do not padlock the fridge. Experience shows, however, that not padlocking the fridge results in overweight people, for not everyone has extraordinary willpower. If people want to padlock the fridge but they can’t do it because malcontents forbid that course and they get big and fat, as in the United States, for example, where the level of obesity is breathtaking, how is that not a violation of their individual rights? It is all a difference over the basic nature of people and what makes them tick.

Next thing you know the charge will be collusion. This is a witchhunt! Sad.

You know, I think that this says it all. The disfellowshipping provision, though hard on those who refuse to yield to it, is a principled moral stand based on biblical values. Possible cut-off with the grandchildren is a great tragedy, to be avoided if at all possible. The response Jack advocates is about himself not being disrespected, and the grandchildren are to be used as pawns to that end. Yes. That says it all.

“...never [enter] into dispute or argument with another. I never saw an instance of one of two disputants convincing the other by argument. I have seen many, on their getting warm, becoming rude, & shooting one another. ... When I hear another express an opinion which is not mine, I say to myself, he has a right to his opinion, as I to mine; why should I question it? His error does me no injury, and shall I become a Don Quixote, to bring all men by force of argument to one opinion? ... There are ... the ill-tempered & rude men in society, who have taken up a passion for politics. ... Consider yourself, when with them, as among the patients of Bedlam, needing medical more than moral counsel. Be a listener only, keep within yourself, and endeavor to establish with yourself the habit of silence, especially on politics. In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in fact or principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull; it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal.” - Thomas Jefferson