TrueTomHarley

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

Frankly - after living in this crazy world - and then in a beautiful paradise - it would be suicide to choose independence from Jehovah's moral standards..... but satan and his demons (perfect angels) chose this and many sane humans.

Charlie Manson's greatest (maybe only) contribution comes as a sage remark toward the end of his life: "You know, a long time ago being crazy meant something. Nowadays everybody's crazy."

On 11/22/2017 at 7:34 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

Why could they not have reasoned similarly? Let Jesus speak himself, if he has something to say! Why could they not have refused to listen to Paul the Middleman? When the verse says "Listen to him" it is not speaking of Paul.

If we step outside the world of Bible believing people, we find this is exactly how those of critical though (higher criticism) regard Paul. They practically treat him as a person who founded a separate religion, reinterpreting the words and teachings of Jesus - linking them to OT events that Jesus himself never linked them to.

It brings to mind those who rail at the marked difference in direction from Russell to Rutherford, from Rutherford to Knorr, from Knorr to the GB. They are fixated on men. If they are going to harp on this, tell them to not be so namby-pamby. Tell them to follow through. Tell them to ignore Paul and focus on only what Jesus said. 

It is the same with those like @Noble Berean who started this line of discussion, with the GB. It cannot be that God works through that group of men? Don't be such a wimp! Extend your logic to Jesus and Paul. Take your Bible and rip out every book after Acts.

6 hours ago, Anna said:

think I need @TrueTomHarley to put things into perspective. Because to be honest, all I want to do during Armageddon is hide in the closet and pray like crazy, and afterwards sit on a pile of rubble, hopefully with my loved ones, have crows bring us food and

Have the crows bring her an extra sandwich and more ink for her pen.

Two links are added, sourcing everything. The only "projection" of mine that remains is the Special Victims Unit, which I admit is subjective. is anyone in a tizzy over that? Let him or her come here and defend the show if they are.

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

Kindest Broder Tomsk

WOW! If the cat ever gets my tongue, I know where to turn.

Yes, of course one must preserve civility on one's forum. Everyone understands that.

On the other hand, we are dealing with persons that I positively do not like, because they loathe what to me is most virtuous. I don't like it even more if he poses as one who would help.

Matters of God are the most important matters the tongue can speak of. People come to blows over politics and even sports teams. It should be enough that I do not hot-wire my laptop so as to electrocute him via the internet. All here cut him some slack, feeling he is valiantly attempting to communicate in a language not his. I am willing to do the same. There is the chance, however, that English is his first language and that he is using his full power of communication undiluted.

The day I am required to conduct rational patient discussions with such ones is the day I am out of here. The scriptures tell me one is not supposed to do that.

On November 21, 2017 at 1:00 AM, AllenSmith said:

Did they “accept” Bro. Jackson suggestion, to make child sexual abuse reporting “mandatory”? Throughout Australia? NO! So, all that gasoline on that fire, achieved what? To the Australian Government, so far? NOT MUCH!!!!!

Another thing I like about Allen is that he raises strawmen. Persons reveling in critical thought hate strawmen. They think the world is their courtroom where they can cross-examine anyone at will. Their critical thinking is always just that - it is the glory of being critical that they revel in. God help us should these persons of critical thought ever take over. The most vociferous among them famously do not gladly suffer fools  - and a fool is anyone who disagrees with them.

I like strawmen. They are a fine rhetorical means of putting things into perspective. In some cases, they amount to saying: "your point is too silly to merit a serious answer," which is true of many petty things opposers harp on in this forum.

The ARC hearing resulted in 'Not Much?' If so, it is typical of the "sound and fury, signifying nothing" we usually get from such folks. They stumbled upon the solution. They didn't even stumble upon it - it was put to them by one of our people. But the simple solution has thus far proved impossible to for them implement because they represent a tangled mess of conflicting agendas who simply cannot put such differences aside so as to cooperate no matter how dire the situation or sacred the cause. What they can do is build a platform upon which to grandstand. For some of them, that is enough.

Their actions screw up as many people as they help. Locally, police just nabbed a kindergarten teacher with kiddie porn on his computer. It is bad stuff, even for kiddie porn. They grilled him and he admitted he has fantasized over the children in his charge. They caught him via an international sting operation tracing filthy pedo content originating overseas. He has never actually done anything to any of the children he teaches. But he has pinched spare underwear from their backpacks to take home and he's drawn much pleasure from dreaming of what could be.

https://nypost.com/2017/11/22/kindergarten-teacher-busted-for-child-porn-stealing-kids-undies/

Okay? He is one sick puppy. No way can you have him teaching kindergarten, even though he has never touched a child. It is reasonable to think it is only a matter of time before he does, for he is feasting on what will only build his appetite. (Except for child porn, you can't even slip THAT assumption past ones of critical thought, since they will demand proof that indulging in such porn does not harmlessly distract perverted persons from the real thing) And these people would pose as our moral superiors?

The question to be addressed is: how do you remove him as teacher? For the sake of the children, you do it discreetly. You say "Mr. Feely has had to leave and he won't be coming back. He had an emergency come up. He wanted to say goodbye but had to leave immediately." Was it handled that way?

You know it wasn't. "MR FEELY IS A PERVERT!! HE WAS TEACHING YOUR CHILDREN AND JUST LOOK AT THE DISGUSTING FILTH ON HIS COMPUTER!! HE EVEN SWIPED JANIE'S PANTIES!!!!!!!!!" It was top news for days on end. Thirty children are scarred for life and know now that any adult - no matter how benevolent, might easily be (probably is) trying to molest them. What child does not love his or her kindergarten teacher? Who is trusted more? 

Even for the guy's own sake, it might be acknowledged somewhere that he had thus far resisted acting upon what he was feeding himself with. It might be a case of 'salvaging what is left.' Instead he is universally denounced as a depraved monster - thus there is no way he will ever cover. He might not anyway, but why ensure the outcome? He can be put on the sex registry list without throwing the city into an uproar. He is done so with maximum publicity mainly for entertainment purposes and to allow certain ones to puff out their chests about their moral righteousness.

The only reason authorities started tracking viewers of porn in the first place is because they thought they could thereby cut off the flow. I guess they got that wrong.  It has continued to grow exponentially for years.  Users will store the stuff on thumb drives and bury it in their back yards before they give up on it. The top cop in Britain recently said, though it pained him, that such users should not be prosecuted. There is no way police can possibly keep up - there are so many - and by attempting it they are torn from pursuing the most dangerous criminals. You can't have every third person employed as a cop.

And the world would play moral superiority with Witnesses?

The world slaps down perversion on one hand and feeds it with the other. Does anyone think the Law and Order - Special Victims Unit show is not a magnet to draw and feed molesters who fantasize over the world they would love to see? Does anyone think they walk away saying: "Wow. This is bad! I should never do it"? The show is entertainment for the average person? I cannot watch one straight through. It is entertainment mostly to vigilantes and perverts and perverts-in-training.

And they would pretend they are more righteous than us? I don't think so.

Meanwhile there is an underage kid placed on the registry for having sex with his girlfriend of 13. This, despite the prevalent teaching that parents should accept the fact that their kids are going to have sex and to get them vaccinated for HPV and not be so Victorian about it. Another young man is put on the list for having sex with his underage girlfriend who misrepresented herself as above age. In each case a domino effect is started and neither young man is likely to ever fully recover. 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/11/oklahoma.teen.sex.offender/index.html

These stories are a dime a dozen. They are collateral damage in a war where zealots say: "we may not be able to do anything about terrorism or suicides or corruption or injustice or drug abuse or job insecurity, but by God - we CAN do something about perverts fiddling with our kids. But in fact, they can't even do that. A depraved world cranks out pedophiles as readily as it cranks out men who become radicalized and shoot up or run down anyone in sight. 

These people are our moral betters?

There is a style among women that I can only call the pedo look. Grown women with hairstyles and polo shirts to look like little boys. Probably just a coincidence.

Here is a headline story in the New York Times gushing over a ten year old male model. "His eye makeup is better than yours!" it swoons. Is this a perv site? No. It is the New York Times. The boy has over 330,000 followers on social media. What a great success story! Do you think they ask how many of them are pedophiles? Why - it doesn't occur to them to go there. Soon they will run another blockbuster story exposing the results of what they now push.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/22/style/his-eye-makeup-is-way-better-than-yours.html

And they would play the moral high card? This world does everything it can to titillate perversion and then acts all furious when it actually breaks out. Allen doesn't let them get away with it, though most others acquiesce to some degree, and the real villains push the notion that the world's pedo problems would largely disappear were it not for that religion they can't stand.

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

WHY I resist srecko wisdoms?

[so, so many time]

is like I corsing myself, almosts...

SHHHH!!!

@The Librarian is monitoring.  (the old hen)

17 minutes ago, The Librarian said:

@TrueTomHarley @Srecko Sostar rude behavior is not tolerated.  LetÂ’s tone it down please. 

 

Yeah, Srecko, did you hear that?

 

57 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

we sang a dirge,
    and you did not cry.’

I'm crying plenty - anytime I reflect upon your obsession over the minutia of a religion you left long ago.

17 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

They only quoted Rev. 7:1-3 and those verses told nothing about "mental and emotional imbalanced or past religious beliefs". Please Tom read more careful WT articles, and then you would not asking me to provide scriptures about GB IDEA, that is or that is not part of Holy Scripture. 

For crying out loud, Srecko - there is such a thing as common sense. Did you forget what that stuff is?

It is a faith where everlasting life on a paradise earth is recognized as God's purpose for mankind. Yet the overall world that Christians operate within is that 'everyone is going to heaven when they die ' The overall world - inside or outside the congregation - produces abundant emotional stress. It is therefore not a shocker to suggest that  "mental and emotional imbalanced or past religious beliefs" may be a factor for some - particularly so should someone give evidence of imbalance in their everyday lives - which you would know nothing about since you ran for the hills ages ago. 

What business is it of yours? Get on with your life - for I assume that you have one - and stop harping on the tiniest thing here. You don't need a scripture to justify it every time you blow your nose.

On 11/22/2017 at 11:21 PM, Arauna said:

To think that Witnesses are above this debased state is silly.  It is our education in Jehovah's ways that have dignified us somewhat. This is why we are warned to wage constant war against our own inclinations by Paul and other bible writers, who wrote under inspiration. We are all unbalanced, debased and in a sorry state - to think otherwise is to bamboozle yourself.  So we all have something mentally unbalanced somewhere - just depends on the degree. Sin and all the other things going on in this system is crouching at our door - all the time.  Just depends if we let it in.

However, when we lift ourselves out of this condition and try very hard to obey Jehovah with all effort, then we can get his approval and a measure of his spirit - if we humble ourselves to ask for it.

50% of the Bible is related to this theme, probably more. The prophets positively beat us over the head with it. Unless one applies spiritual values in one's life, his or her worship is meaningless and disapproved.

Yet here online is found extensive discussion of issues that constitutes less than one percent of the Bible. Would that it more closely correlated with the Bible's allocation of themes. I think it tells something of many participants that it does not.

Okay, I get it - angels are desirous of peering into future things and are frustrated that they cannot. But even so...

Particularly is it so of opponents who are demanding Witnesses 'study the Bible' more, when Witnesses collectively are the most well-read biblically in the world. Do such opponents actually apply the faith in their life? Are they known as persons of love, empathy, and Christian activity? Or are they primarily known as persons who argue that they have a better way?

This is an anonymous forum and one does not really know anyone. Maybe they all are the epitome of Christ-like qualities - they certainly all seem to treat that as a no-brainer. But I am dubious nonetheless.

40 minutes ago, Matthew9969 said:

Perhaps you can provide the study to back this statement up?

It is someone else's point. Let them rise to the occasion if there is one.

Where is @James Thomas Rook Jr. when you need him with the Far Side cartoon showing Satan furious with the painter for painting 999 on an interior room. "Well, I'll be," the fellow says, scratching his head. "I guess I was holding the blueprint upside down."

18 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

"My interpretation is that" ..... how is very speculative and without of any  Bible based fact  and support. Statements and opinions came from GB and some of people here agree with such manipulative message in WT magazines. 

Yeah, @Nana Fofana, excellent point Srecko makes here! Why can't you quote any scriptures about what is happening 2000 years after they were written, hmm?

For that matter, where is the scripture saying you can call yourself Nana on the internet? Srecko is very wise. Don't think you can slip anything past him.

What adds to the chill is that the Russian Orthodox translation also says Jehovah in about 9 places, per Anton Chivchalov.

12 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

Do you think it's at all possible that Jesus could communicate with the anointed directly? 

Yes

12 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

And not rely on a centralized GB?

Yes.

12 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

If that were the case, would that be acceptable to those taking the lead? 

It had better be. But these three questions miss the one obvious fact that makes them all irrelevant.

How would they know? Because the individual annointed ones say so? The day that this happens I am going to reveal here that I am also annointed and I have been lurking here for months. I now have a pronouncement. It is that my fellow annointed @Witness is all wet and no one should listen to her, and that @James Thomas Rook Jr. is next in line as replacement in case someone bites the dust. He has many many many complaints. It is time to put them all on the front burner.

If anyone doesn't believe it, I will threaten to summon Jesus' white horse, who is not exactly Mr. Ed. I'm annointed. I said something. Jump!!

5 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

If it is the truth, it should stand up to critical thought. 

Oh? Jesus said any who would see life must eat his flesh and drink his blood. How would your 'critical thought' analyze that one? He lost a great many disciples that day. Probably it was ones who, like you, put their trust in critical thought.

'Critical thought' is the trademark of a generation that constructs a system that is swirling directly down the toilet, and yet proponents thereof project an air of superiority right until their heads go under.

Jesus could not have said anything more stupid if his concern was to cater to critical thought. It should be clear that he doesn't give a hoot about it. He violates its tenets all the time. He spins illustrations that he rarely explains. When he does explain them, it is not in a manner that would satisfy any advocate of critical thought. He raises strawmen as readily as he breathes. He launches ad homenum attacks willy-nilly. He speaks to the heart, in almost total disregard for the head. 

For every verse about the head, there are ten about the heart. People insisting on critical thought are the most obnoxious people in the world because each one assumes that he alone has a lock on the stuff. Critical thought is the main element of this world's wisdom that God laughs at.

Though I don't mean to equate the two, the current uproar over a Trump tweet illustrates the divide perfectly. I don't care how much I dislike @James Thomas Rook Jr. ; if he saved my kid from 10 years in a Chinese prison I would be on my hands and knees thanking him. A tweet that calls out ingratitude gets people stirred up because it speaks to the heart - everyone knows where gratitude is and when it is appropriate. But those who go in for critical analysis think the president petty for not letting it go. Doesn't he have more important things to do?

When Trump tweets that North Korea has launched all its missills, people of heart will run to take cover. People of critical thought will run to their computers to point out that the idiot can't even spell the word right.

THAT is my opinion of your 'critical thought.' As nearly as I can tell, it is Jesus' opinion. And God's.

Things that have been done on the GB's watch and on their behest - do the blessings outweigh the costs? There are costs - sometimes they are significant. Do the spiritual benefits the GB alone has enabled outweigh the costs? Or do the costs, invariably matters of personal rights curtailed somehow, outweigh the benefits? It is a matter of the heart. The head has little to do with it.

21 hours ago, Matthew9969 said:

I would really love to see that article or study.

I believe you just did. It is the Question from Readers you brought up yourself  and misread a point perfectly obvious to everyone else. Some mistakenly think they have the calling because they are nuts - what's so hard about that? Nobody is saying who is who.

Lest anyone think I ridicule people, let me say that I am not opposed to nuts. Many are nuts here. I am nuts. One man's nuts is another man's eccentric. I don't care to sort it out and don't know if I could if I wanted to. What I do know is that our nuts are harmless. With the world's nuts, you'd better buy a bullet-proof vest.

@James Thomas Rook Jr. will know, if he can extract his face from out of a turkey, that I am very much opposed to those misreading points.

8 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

Jehovah God gave ample evidence to first-century Christians to verify the apostle Paul's divine backing:

• In Acts 14:10 he heals a man so that he can walk.
• In Acts 19:11-12 his handkerchief causes diseases and demons to be expelled.
• In Acts 20:10-12 he resurrects a boy.

And Paul also said all these gifts would pass away. So it all becomes irrelevant to identifying divine backing today.

8 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

I admit that I can't dogmatically say that Jesus Christ has no representatives on earth

Then why keep doing it with the GB?

8 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

I just was trying to point out that in the Bible Jesus Christ doesn't need a centralized body to achieve his will,

He doesn't NEED anything. That is not to say it does not come in handy. Replace Bethel with a pile of rocks, and look to those to 'cry out.'

8 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

I do believe... I believe... I do believe 

My point is that your footing is much less firm here.

8 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

I see the temple of God as the anointed ones--a people rather than a faceless organization that exists legally ...JW org.

If anything, the JW.org disproves this. I see their faces all the time, whereas I never used to.

8 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

God's temple is IMO not contingent on a legally created organization,

Yes! As long as God's temple doesn't do anything, all is fine. Far better to meet in each other's basements. (caution: unnecessary sarcasm here, the language of you-know-who)

8 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

but is a brotherhood that will exist regardless of what happens to the JW org.

Yes. It will. Why not allow it to make hay while the sun shines?

8 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

I think the GB has made it pretty clear that we can only make it into the new system by closely obeying their singular direction. There's a very narrow pathway to get to the other side of this system of things

You think there's not? Didn't Jesus say something about 'cramped and narrow?' I think they simply don't want to be negligent. I don't think they know themselves how things will shake out beyond the hints from the scriptures. But whatever the caution be issued in the future, I don't think they want to see a brotherhood dominated by the sons-in-law of Lot, who imagine they are joking.

IMO, it is because of this that: 

8 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

 it's tied to unquestioned obedience of the GB. The organization is very high control with no room for dissent. The GB has set it up that no one can question their direction under threat of expulsion.

You have much exaggerated this, but everyone knows where you are coming from. Nobody would say your words are groundless, only exaggerated. This is among the most recurring themes of this entire forum.

8 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

That alarms me, because when you have unchecked authority things usually don't go well.

This statement strikes me as not unlike Peter's in the windstorm - panicking at the unknown and fear-inspiring. Congregation authority was pretty much unchecked in the first century, much to the dismay of Diotrophes and the superfine apostles. As so as the latter succeeded in checking it, it all fell apart.

8 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

And I think it's also concerning that JWs don't seem to "...test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God

We do tend to go by rote. How 'concerning' this is is anyone's guess. They don't call them sheep for nothing.

8 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

And I am one of those "loonies" 

No.

2 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

Because in the first century, Jesus Christ was able to direct Saul/Paul directly to preach on his behalf.

Says who? Paul himself, mostly, plus a handful that could testify he had experienced some sort of religious experience, though they were not able to catch any of the words. Skeptics on this forum would not have been impressed.

 What if those first century Christians had refused to listen to him or read his letters, saying 

2 hours ago, Noble Berean said:

We know that Jesus Christ is our undeniable leader and we should "Listen to him" as it says in Matthew 17:5. Now, how should we expect to receive direction from Jesus Christ today and in the coming years? Is it direct from Christ or from a body of men acting as representatives for him?

Why could they not have reasoned similarly? Let Jesus speak himself, if he has something to say! Why could they not have refused to listen to Paul the Middleman? When the verse says "Listen to him" it is not speaking of Paul.

Perhaps there were some who did argue that way. I don't see why there wouldn't have been. Where are they now?

The good news enjoyed tremendous growth under Paul? Big deal. It has done the same under the direction of the GB, yet that makes no difference to critics here.

Practically speaking, what do you propose we should do if we allow no one to represent Christ, but insist on communication from Jesus himself?

4 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

Please remember my lack of education and make allowances for my inability to come up with another word, and copying "delectible" from another poster on thread.

Sigh....I've come to regret that. In hindsight, I did completely misread @James Thomas Rook Jr.' remarks (though not necessarily his sentiment) and thus based my tirade on something he didn't say. I owe him an apology, fair and square, without any snide asides for once.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Hmmm. Did I mIsread this?

I need a drink. Maybe I can snatch one from @The Librarian while she's not looking.

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

This study shows that JWs have about a THIRD of the mental illness rate of the general population, and I would suspect that that would equate to about a THIRD of the suicides of the general population.    Just a guess

Hmmm. Did I mIsread this? Possibly. He says a third, not three times. Hmm

Alright, Tommy, man up!

Sorry, JTR

Having said that, one cannot go wrong on a rant against the big boy, in my opinion. It's delectable.

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

TTH, when you determinedly misconstrue what is being said, and cannot visualize what MUST be the case, when people don't use puppets and crayons to explain things to you.

Oh, stop it with the ad homenum attacks, will you? If you MUST revel in ad homenum attacks, then revel in the ones I make against you, for they are accurate.

If you even walked back your idiot statement or attempted to clarify it, I would cut you slack, but you unfurl it as though you would replace Rutherford for the keynote talk with your huge banner: 'Behold! Advertise, Advertise, Advertise that Witness Ministers of the Kingdom are Nuts!' (and yet you intend to raise your kids Witnesses!!  Why should not THAT be considered parental abuse? Raise those kids to embrace the religion you hate.)

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

This study shows that JWs have about a THIRD of the mental illness rate of the general population, and I would suspect that that would equate to about a THIRD of the suicides of the general population.    

Of course! One quarter of a percent of the population is responsible for one third of the suicides!! Count yourself l**ky that I did not call you a liar. I did not do so, because I allowed for the possibility that you belonged in an asylum.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

If Bergen claims that such health issues are only 10% to 16% higher in JWs than the general population, I would not think this is so surprising in the time period that he tried to measure.

Now THAT is another statement entirely.  Had you said that, you would not have come off as an unhinged lunatic. 

Is it true? It is in one particular place and time. Furuli later made a YouTube perhaps in response to it, as though this fellow had butchered his findings. And JWI, who will spill JW shortcomings at the drop of a pin, says Furuli's numbers should hardly be relied upon. So who can know?

But there is another way to look at it. 

Even if it were true, it is no more than what one would expect when Jesus says he came to seek, not those who do not need a physician, but those that do. The groups to worry about, to my mind, are those who have low rates of mental illness among them - for there are a lot of mentally ill people around. It must be that they feel excluded - driven away by condescension, lack of love, or inhospitality. 

Those who can operate smoothly among this world’s calamities – who can absorb all the atrocities routinely distributed and accommodate themselves to it without fuss - those are the people to worry about, IMO. Besides, when our people go off the rails, they nonetheless wouldn’t hurt a fly. If persons of the greater world go off the rails - better call the SWAT team and secure a new identity from the authorities!

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Mental illness is more of a stigma

Yes. Why do you think he brings it up?

9 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

It is clear, TTH that your understanding of statistics is that it has something to do with numbers, and not Lego blocks in the hallway at night, as you have completely misconstrued what I stated

I remarked only on what you actually said. Didn't you say once that you had been an engineer? With such command of numbers - one third of all suicides from a group that represents .25 of the population! - if you were given any engineering responsibility in your city, there will not be found therein a single toilet that flushes.