TrueTomHarley

This is just plain dumb. When you start railing about Donald Duck or Fred Flintstone I'll know you are sincere.

If you were going to put your throne somewhere, the Pleiades is the place to be. I'd put mine there.

In both the cases you mention, the GB seeks to mitigate, not propagate, fat-headed notions that the friends may have.

Oh. So now generosity is wrong, too? Would you be content with that relationship with your employer? - hope that you may get a 'green handshake?'

It's a good idea.

Anything with significant upside is likely to have a downside. Some of these things are like State's laws still on the books to regulate some arcane practice that has long been discontinued, like "no ice cream cones on Sundays" it is not necessary to repeal each one. Not reiterating it is enough. That said, i was somewhat bummed when they doubled down on toasting after I had hoped it would go the way of all the earth. At a non-Witness wedding reception, our table of Witnesses was caught flat-footed when a crew came around to record everyone toasting to the bride. Had I had my wits about me, I would have rose and said: "We don't toast but we want to to wish the bride the greatest joy in life & we thank her for the honor of inviting us & etc etc." That's all they wanted. No need to explain toasting. Instead, I just sat there and looked a bit dumb.

On what? Wait - no matter. My system is that good. The probability is 72.4962% give or take.

You shouldn't keep carrying on like this because it is just silly. Unless you are bellicose or in-your-face about it, it is perfectly possible to hold views outside of the mainstream on the lesser points you harp on. Many do, as you have seen. By now you have gone through several threads participated in by mature ones, who are obviously not in cahoots with one another, who all make clear that your beef is so only in your own mind. Things you say about Jehovah's Witnesses are either wrong, exaggerated, misinterpreted, or attributable to occasional human error.

If your only goal is to get people to say "Accept the Lord and be Saved" to their immediate neighbors, not too much. In that case, go to the churches who emphasize money much more than us and ask for it back, since some of them have achieved only that small goal, despite (or because of) a paid clergy.

Well - just don't go bombing any spectators like they did at the Russian Air Show the other day.

I've worked this idea for a while and know how to spot the day of the end: http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2011/05/how-to-predict-the-end-of-the-world.html

Ah. Here it is: http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/09/20/september-23-end-of-world-theory/ Saturday. Be ready. Tip off Shiwiii as well. Wouldn't want him to miss the cut.

Not only do I agree with you emphatically, but I think all congregation members should have black leather jackets with the name of their congregation emblazoned on the back. Come now. If your focus is to be a 'Little House on the Prairie' church, your viewpoint is fine. But if you are serious about carrying out Christ's commission to preach 'this good news of the kingdom throughout the inhabited earth,' you have no problem with effective organization. In fact, you thank God for it, since it enables the most' bang for the buck' globally. Primarily, it is not about us. Most gripers here think that it is. It is about the sanctification of God's name and the realization of his purposes.

Yes they do. Once a year. You posted the long article. And even that is not asking for money. It is simply telling those inclined to donate the most effective ways of doing it. Nobody emphasizes money less than Jehovah's Witnesses. Moreover, they clearly have something to show for what is donated.

Off topic, but there is some Christian preacher who is right now invoking the pyramids to explain how earth is soon to be destroyed by a mysterious incoming planet. A sign, one of two witnesses of Revelation, is that of the eclipse that just bisected the country. (gasp!)

Against my better judgement, I'll grant your sincerity here. The methods may differ but the fact that they 'shake em down' in religion for dough one way or the other is not. Nobody is as discreet as Jehovah's Witnesses, who have never taken collections and who rely on contribution boxes, which can be ignored by anyone who wishes to.

Quite a few when nobody else in the plane knows how to fly, and there is only one guy back there with a huge mouth who insists he knows more than anyone in the whole wide world

I have in my will to omit my name and simply put the jw.org blue sign on my gravestone. Seriously, I agree with Fishing. They didn't have to tell me not to wear logoed tee shirts on work assignments. I long ago refrained from making myself a billboard for anything. jw.org is no different. I only wear the badge cards because I'm asked to. As a means of advertising the convention, it's okay, even though I resisted at first. But to the extent some think you are 'showing off,' I don't like it. When I worked the huge apartment complex by myself in the evening with only an iPad, some thought I was the building inspector. I didn't tell them differently. I like discretion, not being known as a Witness until I choose to make it known.

It is a 'document' attached once a year in the Watchtower magazine. That hardly seems excessive. Certainly not 'money-hungry.' Online changes everything. It is probably always possible to link to it. But still it is featured but once a year.

Moreover, it remains clear that your view of the Bible is that of a cross between the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, with special emphasis on the latter.

It's not really my reading skills that need work, but my reading-your-mind skills. Even these would be aided if you spoke without a bazooka.

TTH: I suspect that you, as usual, have misunderstood what I said. Since I don't remember saying that ... the burden of proof is on you to quote what I actually did say. So far ...your accusation has no basis of reference. It's nice not to remember what you have said. Not everyone has that luxury. From the thread Friends With Benefits: TTH: "Many times you have challenged readers to point to even one thing you have said that is not true. I will take you up on your challenge now. "You just said an untruth, and it is a big one. It is fundamental to everything else you say: "It's not about us. Not primarily. Primarily, it is about the sanctification of God's name and the vindication of his purpose. 'Not hurting anyone,' though a good provision, is not as good as keeping God's name on high and his purpose undeterred. "Furthermore, though you have been very critical of the Governing Body, this understanding predates the Governing Body. It first emerged in Rutherford's day." In response to my comment, you squealed that it was irrelevant because you had not just then issued a challenge to point out anything untrue you might have said. It is relevant now, as you have just done so.

And even more on blood pressure meds to help them when they noticed traffic to jw.org leapt and did not recede both after the trial and after the appeal - as people went to see if the website is truly extremist, and, of course, saw that it is not. If it is all about us, then your spin has real merit. If it about making known Jehovah's name and purposes, then mine does.

You're joking! The remark seems almost too disingenuous to answer. I was raised United Presbyterian. Our family received pledge envelopes to put in the collection plate at services. Put in the amount pledged. Like any charity, a pledge was used as the basis to try to secure a greater pledge. My non-churchgoing dad even had words with the pastor about it, since my mom did not work outside of the home, thus he was the one who ended up paying. My sister still is Presbyterian, Reformed. She tithes 10%. It is what's done. What seems more trusting in God to you - a contribution box in the back where people may or may not give anonymously, or a collection plate passed through the rows and everyone nearby will know just how much one puts in? I think you would have to be pretty obtuse to ask this question. I think I know why.

There was the statement you made that the sole purpose of the law was to serve for our happiness. Not only is it incorrect, but it is an untruth that underlyies ALL of your incessant bellyaching. It's not about us. You clearly think it is. At least, your comments clearly indicate you think it. There is such a thing as the sanctification of God's name, you know.