Jump to content
The World News Media

TrueTomHarley

Member
  • Posts

    8,204
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    406

Everything posted by TrueTomHarley

  1. The fact that this fellow is not behind bars is very strange to me, in light of what he is supposed to have done. There may be an answer for it, but surely it is something that should be explained, and the reporter behind the story mentions none. It has been covered already that there is a blatant untruth in her story - her statement that Witnesses are prohibited from reporting to authorities. If she had said many Witnesses were disinclined to run to authorities, that would be one thing. But she said they are prohibited from doing so, when right on the Witness website is a statement that they are not. Even if she didn't believe it, a decent reporter would at least note it. Instead, she has been fed a line by someone and she repeats it uncritically, without research. So what about the fact this fellow is not in jail? It seems he should be if his crimes are as unambiguous, repeated, and grievous as announced. Why is he not? Are there some mitigating circumstances that no one has seen fit to cover? Maybe not, but it seems a relevant point.
  2. When you read a person's statement and you disagree, he will say you must consider the context. You must read more. When you do that and still disagree, he will say you have to read yet more to get a more complete picture. When you do that and still disagree, the answer is to read yet more. When you do that, to the point of reading everything the idiot has ever written, and you still disagree, he will call you a fool. It is just the way he is. Who was it that said one must season their words with salt? Make words winsome, and not wincing.? If I read a short article and it is well-written, I am motivated to read more. If what little I have read persuades or intrigues me, I look for the next installment. If, on the other hand, what I read is insults and taunts and photoshopped silliness, my attention wanes. It may be that I have thereby missed out on the revelations of a true genius, but it is a price I am willing to pay. If you want to persuade, you must go about it differently. You cannot salt your comments with words that do nothing but turn off. Who do you think is going to suffer through that in order to determine - when all appearances are to the contrary - whether you truly have both oars in the water? This is particularly so if you keep demanding that I submit myself to cross-examination, as though in court.
  3. It is all but one question, rephrased and repeated endlessly. How many times must one answer it?
  4. You do not. You keep telling me I'm in serious needs of meds. And maybe I am. But I never was before I started hanging out here. It's not enough that you have driven yourself loony?
  5. I can think of a pair of ears between which there are air spaces. It's because nobody reads this stuff. And what of this next beaut?
  6. Who would have thought scriptures could be weaponized?
  7. When I said 'unfortunately, I think you have lost it,' I was not kidding. I was a bit worried for you, and - I am internally conflicted to admit it - I am relieved to find that it is not so. Or is it? I mean, that last remark was as long as it was just plain unhinged - comparing the Watchtower to Stalin, the Gestapo, and to ...... Vlad the Impaler?! 'Surely he has lost his mind!' I said, and I expected even your fellow opposers to sing - "and another one gone and another one gone. Another one bites the dust!" Your period of silence after that last comment was, for you, astoundingly long. Or so it seemed to me. And now you are back. Where it was relief tinged with sadness, now it is sadness tinged with relief. Or is it the other way around?
  8. Let's see, GF....You quoted 8 scriptures. Matt quoted 15. You lose. Especially do you lose if @Witnesscomes along and quotes 90. True, they will not be relevant and for that reason must be discounted 4 to 1. But what remains will still be enough to clobber the both of you put together
  9. Unfortunately, I think you have lost it. It would have been better had you listened to @Arauna. Perhaps it is not too late.
  10. I'd like to know what they are. This is a heinous crime he was found guilty in a court of law. Only the religion that he was once connected with - whether at present or 20 years ago is not specified - can be named. Can anyone imagine this being said of Harvey Weinstein? - that he cannot be named 'for legal reasons?' And he hasn't even been tried yet. And why haven't we heard about his religion?
  11. While this is true in theory, in practice there are many caveats. What they know is that, while they will be watched, most people are ideologues who report only that which reinforces what they already thought. I would never trust a report from you, had you been in the audience. You would never trust one from me. The courtroom is only so big. Are there not truly impartial ones present? There doesn't seem to be, or if there is, these are not the ones who issue reports. For example, one of the two San Diego stories repeats as background that Witnesses are prohibited from going to authorities. Since this is not true, and is a pretty blatant untruth, it casts doubt upon everything else she reports. Had she said that many Witnesses are disinclined to run to authorities, that would be one thing. But she says they are prohibited, where right on jw.org are plain statements that they are not. So she hasn't researched. She's been fed a line by someone and she simply parrots it. The 'two-witness' policy is mentioned and heavily criticized. Is that ever not the case? Therefore the obvious 'practical' solution is to drop the policy and any attempt to look into wrongdoing - even the modified policy will not satisfy critics. Be like the greater religious world that takes no interest in the conduct of its members. Elders will thereby learn of few instances of abuse and the problem is solved from a liability point of view. At some level, that is the intent of such criticism, IMO: Don't allow a religion to attempt to produce a clean people, for that involves 'judging' and 'lifting ones' faith above others as 'the true one.'' Don't allow it.
  12. There is such a thing as modesty and so I rarely spill. But for some time I have been the model for photos such as this.
  13. It is true, but that is the extent of my rebellion - right here on the World Forum - home of wayward Witnesses and a few good blokes. I wouldn't try to spin an entire thread out of it.
  14. He is at the museum in London getting so smart and sucking up so much data I hate to think what he will do with it.
  15. You have misunderstood my comment and it is my fault for not being more clear. If it was up to me, we would drop our emphasis on always being so immaculate in appearance. Just last week a householder gave me what he thought was a helpful tip that if we didn't dress to the nines routinely, our message would better resonate with the average Joe. When in the ministry, I dress as casually as I can without triggering alarms, for a full suit with shined shoes fails to do it with the average householder, IMO.. Having dressed down just a bit, I am content,. On a few beastly hot evenings last year, I dispensed with a tie altogether in the ministry. 'Let them come out themselves and stop me,' I told myself. I admit the overall picture is not going my way - it is just one of those things to adjust to and keep in perspective - because I see fully attired brothers on the website trekking through the wilds where anyone else would don safari gear. This is only minor grousing - don't take it as anything more. I realize that it is a matter of showing respect and that you'd don't go slumming with the Lord. We just overdo it sometimes. To the extent formal dress is almost exclusively the realm of the political, legal and business worlds, I even think it feeds the perception of JWs being "corporate." @adminhimself would agree. I'd be happy if there was no correlation at all between photos of dress and lessons about Christian conduct.
  16. Nobody has a problem with education. it is the assumption that it can only be had in the way the greater world ladles it out that Christians have a problem with. Many of the Witnesses accomplishments are at the top of the field. For example, the website translated into 900+ languages, which universally wins high praise, (save for that from religious enemies). One sources gushed on about how Wikipedia, Google, and Apple combined do not come close, and what a staggering accomplishment the site was. Imagine if they knew that only rarely did persons involved have any 4-year college at all. You acquire your education via the moral training of God's counsel to us. When, later on, you find you need some specialized secular training, you go out and get it - a la carte. You need not subject yourself to the world's model where they get to unscrew your head, pour in their accumulated wisdom, and screw it back on again. Their wisdom has not resulted in a fine world. Where it has resulted in fine things, it is usually technical know-how that you can pick up though other means without all the baggage. The world makes it challenging to get education this way, but with planning it can be done.
  17. You might have noticed that the subject of child abuse never came up in Russia, although everything but the kitchen sink was thrown at us otherwise. I asked a Russian brother about the justice meted out by authorities for child sexual abuse. 'Rather swift and harsh, I would say' he replied. I think that says it all. Also telling is that there are few with deep pockets in Russia. Thus the interest of those who would pursue justice in abuse matters cools.
  18. Through most of my life I have heard the mantra: "the path to a better world is through education." It has become a bedrock staple of the West and unless grades are in the toilet, high school students in the West are shunted directly into college. So it is not unfair to ask to see this better world.
  19. It is the first series of Watchtower pictures I have ever seen in which a person starts well-dressed, finishes less so, and the result is used to illustrate an improvement.
  20. Come, come, what is that supposed to mean? If you must buy them, they are not real friends. Real friends are those (usually) with whom you share common interests and with whom personalities click.
  21. I rather like the idea of Facebook friends or any correspondents on the internet. (and I do not take your joke as a jab at me, or at least not a mean-spirited jab at me, and likely nothing to do with me at all) They are not 'real' people - I know that - and my online rule is ever foremost in my mind: 'on the internet, everyone is a liar.' Still, you can get a feel for persons over time, like some, dislike others, and you can at any time strike up a topic weighty or trivial and have a response to bat about - you simply cannot do that as a regular course with real people, who must answer in real time, and who have many things on their plate. Social media does not have to be all about cats or plates of food. But the online 'friends' don't take the place of real people and real friends. When I experimentally went on the apostate site for a few days and found myself deluged with demands to subject myself to cross-examination, I responded that I might not stay, for I had a real circuit full of real people who like me. They may be nuts to like me, but like me they do - and I them. As far as I am concerned, it is a benefit of pure worship - real friends with real people.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.