TrueTomHarley

I am going to go out on a limb slightly. 2022!!! Be Ready only 1457 shopping days left for someone to buy your home.

I don't do the following often, for it is a little mean. I wouldn't do it just on account of a differing point of view. I reserve it for someone obnoxious and condescending from the fundamentalist religious world, someone trying to denigrate the work Witnesses do, someone saying dismissively: "No thanks. I'm Christian." As though they own the word. I reply that only a Christian would do the work I am doing, adding "frankly, I'm a little surprised you're not doing it yourself." Always it vanquishes the smug smile. Â However, one does not stop there, upon seeing that the blow has landed. Immediately you move on to soften it somehow, perhaps by returning to whatever you were discussing in the first place. Â I am not thrilled speaking with these ones. If they try to start a fight - and it is always over the Trinity - I deflect. Hopefully I share my verse and leave it at that. Â When I offered a verse to one of these fellows, he immediately wanted to know my religion. Anyone else I would tell immediately, but to him I acted as though - well, it's rather a personal question, don't you think? I mean, this is the Bible. What is more Christian than to talk about it? Â Too many of these folks have their scholarship defined by their beliefs, and not the other way around. Too many have had a religious awakening of some sort. How do you tell them that their experience is not theirs? I don't try. If they find what they learned by revelation confirmed in Scripture, they are happy, but they are not unduly put out when they find it is not. Â Reliably, being saved by faith and not by works will come up. 'Of course,' I reply. 'Everyone knows that. But the works don't hurt, to they? They certainly give us some street cred.' Â What about "there has been a child born to us...his name will be called wonderful counselor, mighty God, prince of peace," he challenges. What about it? I reply. Does he think I should have a problem with it? Why should I? Â He will have to get a little more specific than that if he wants to get into a shoving match. No scrapping on my watch.

We learned not to do it again. Have you noticed any other years since ballyhooed as the big one?

I think they just don't want to find themselves saying something crucial and the sons-in-law of Lot think they are joking. I find it hard to quarrel about that (and am not saying that you do). I don't think they know themselves, going back to the verse that says they are but brothers and just one is the leader. I think they look at the likelihood of ISIS walking the same beat with grenades that Officer O'Malihan once walked with his nightstick, and people donning genders as they once donned clothes, and they think the time of decision may soon arrive - best to be prepared.

Every day I write several pages for the World News Forum. My wife always cuts it down to a line or two. She says that's why she does it, too. Why couldn't you have gotten married at the Justice of the Peace and spared this poor brother?

You should have stayed where you were. The end did come in 1975 but only in Zaire.

I think it is an attempt to put the issue to bed by people who are dumbfounded that their was of framing it is not as clear to everyone as it is to them. Many comments from those disgruntles assume an us versus them mentality - the boss class dictating to the worker class. I honestly do not think they look at it that way. I honestly do not think it is that way. I think it is the way of Matthew 23:8-10: But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. ...Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. They do not view themselves as leaders, but as fellow brothers who are taking the lead. There is a difference. The leader is Christ. When they say "some brothers thought such-and-such" they mean themselves as much as any in the ranks. They do not draw a distinction between themselves and the rest of the brotherhood. Having floated the idea, which was valid due to the 6000 years, they did not push it unduly. If they had pushed it, all district overseers would have pushed it, not just Sunitko and a few like-minded zealots. There is plenty of 'blame' to go around. It is enough to say: "some brothers thought..." The way they view it, and the way we do well to view it, is the spiritual way of Matthew 23. The way some here view it seems to me the fleshly way: the bossman class dictating to the worker class.

There is a lot of that going around. There ought to be a vaccine for it.

Health authorities are now saying the current flu vaccine will be but 10% effective. There had better be a lot of apologies - that's all I have to say.

I find it hard to disagree with this. It is common for apologies to be demanded of public figures or business people today. When they are proffered, are the persons ever forgiven? Or is it the pattern that they have thereby admitted to disqualifying conduct and should step aside. Friends do not require apologies. Enemies will not be satisfied with them. It is primarily a matter of the heart. It sounds to me that R.L struck just the right balance. This makes no sense to me. If he was dismissed for his renegade writing, why was he retained as a writer?

It would accomplish two irresistible aims of certain religionists. (Thank God they are not us) It would validate those Middle Ages portrayals of the Savior with golden flowing hair. It would affirm the U.S.A. as God's chosen vehicle.

The strategy to blow opposers off with a quick answer is the same one Jesus used many times, both to opponents and to those who just wanted a quick fix. Later, with his faithful disciples he (sometimes) explained matters in more detail.

It's a trap, @Noble Berean!! Don't fall for it!

I can vouch for him. He never did.

Yeah, that way when she sits down she sits where the camera is pointed so the video does not consist of an empty chair. They are not the first filmmakers ever to have done that.

Other than a certain dead horse involving an entire thread that I have beaten until the flesh has fallen off the bone and should certainly desist from by now and will unless I see an advantage in bringing it up again, I am not aware of this happening. Has it? There was something odd about Allen, but I gave up trying to figure what was what. The Librarian said he had been booted for rudeness, but I thought that was long ago. Now he apparently cloned himself and I see several manifestations of himself. Let no one say @AllenSmith is not an enigma. Has he ever been rude? Probably. But there are no end of people here who have been nearly as rude, and countless ones who are deliberately offensive, attributing evil motive to Witness headship when they have no basis whatsoever for doing so. Besides, as long as we are quoting Greek on this thread, let us quote Aristotle: No great mind has ever existed without a touch of madness. Cut him slack. He brings legal decisions to the table that nobody else thinks of. Or maybe there are other examples I do not know about. It's is hard to keep up, especially when the Librarian redirects comments into new threads like some great anti-typical shell game.

Forgive me for blowing it off. Now that I can see it has actually been published on a website, I am much more impressed.

Come come. What - do you seriously expect someone is going to plow through a comment that long? Do you think people are MADE of time, with nothing else going on in their lives? I counted. It is 22 complete screenshots! Even JWI would not impose upon readers such a barge. Apparently, it is intended as an answer to me. Distill it, would you please?

This makes no sense to me. If it was published in 1971, how does it become a 1999/2000 issue? It would be a 1999/2000 issue if it was published at that time. It belongs to the 1970's which you've already logged. Strike 1999/2000. Plot your remaining numbers on a graph. No finer evidence will emerge of how we have improved over time. All bunched up at the beginning. Nothing for 40 years. The chart would be the envy of any quality control group.

We say Witnesses got all excited over something that turned out to be a big nothingburger. Give them the short answer - ‘Everyone is allowed one failed end-of-world date per lifetime. It is in the rules’ - and be done with it.

How old is @The Librarian?

When you annoy Top Cat O'Malihan (the old hen) it is time to take a breather. After all, it is what I have said to others: 'If you can't abide by the rules, leave.' However, I am freshly chastened and from now on will do nothing but breathe joy and love to everyone - relatively speaking and with minor caveats.

I am not opposed to critical thought and it is you who said 'mindless adherence,' not me. You make a mistake if you accept critical thinking as the be-all and end-all, though - the benchmark by which anything should be judged. If you would so revere critical thinking, extend it to the Bible itself. Who says it is inspired? What evidence is there? 40 men staying on topic? A theme furthered down through he ages? Are you serious? Do you really think that will satisfy those who insist critical thought must be the final arbiter? The fact is that Jesus did not cater to it in the slightest. Let the ones who worship critical thought squabble themselves into oblivion, as they do here and in ten thousand other places. Jesus bypassed them all and spoke directly to the heart. @Noble Berean, @Elisabeth Dolewka

A psychedelic trip for JWs. Heavy, man.

Might there have been collusion with the Russians?