TrueTomHarley

'Big Independent Thinking' is a clumsy term I devised on the spot to supplement the other 'Bigs.' It is simply the stupid memes that catch on as wisdom, but invariably fall apart, often causing great harm. Here is an example from a book that the domineering @The Librarianrefuses to stock in her library, though it should replace at least half the rubbish she has sagging the shelves: I found another atheist on the internet. This one was also raised a Witness, as was Brian. He too, was still a kid. It’s unbelievable! In his heady days of breaking break free!!!!!!!!!! he gushed on about his newfound ‘rationalism’ for the benefit of everyone else: "Rationalism for me means a life of pure freedom. ..... But this means that this life that you’re living now is the most precious thing you’ll ever have. .... Because there is no Big Daddy to appease or suck up to, or be afraid of, you should be nice to people because it’s nice! You should treat people like you want to be treated! You should not steal or murder because it hurts people, and hurting people is wrong. Always. No one needs a god to tell them this.....Being a rationalist....If you say something irrational or realize the error in your own thoughts, a red flag immediately raises. .....rationalism is a worldview with no drawbacks, and only positives. It encourages honesty and truth.....It promotes interest in the common good..." The idiot! The young naïve idiot! Why does he leave? Because he wants to go where there is no Big Daddy to suck up to! It doesn’t occur to him that with the gamut of human governments, the casinos that are world economies, the health woes that lead straight to death, he will do so much sucking up that God and the Governing Body will seem like doddering indulgent grandparents in comparison....‘C’mon, Tom, don’t be so hard on him! That’s the nature of inexperienced youth. They make mistakes.’ ...Agreed. All is forgiven. But what about the experienced liars that have misled him? How lofty and soaring his words of rationalism sound! How much crap they are in reality! ‘The Toxins Trickle Downward’ (Economist, March 14, 2009) examined fallout from the financial crisis triggered by the misdeeds of those at the top of finance and government. Credit markets were now closed to the third world poor, commodity prices vital to their survival had collapsed, and remittances from citizens working abroad had dried up. The World Bank reckoned the crisis would account for 200,000 - 400,000 African lives lost, all children. People at the top had used their “pure freedom,” to grind others into the dirt, and not to “treat people like you want to be treated!” (an exclamation mark, no less; oh, the joys of rationalism!) They were not “nice to people.” They “hurt people,” even though “hurting people is wrong.” Not only did they “hurt people” – they killed them, two to four hundred thousand of them!” All children! Plainly, we do need a “Big Daddy to appease” and a “god to tell us how to live.” If you had had a son or daughter high up in the banking world back then, who was devising the complex financial instruments that would ultimately ruin us all, even killing the poor, you would have carried on about how well Junior was doing for himself, how respected he was in his career, and so forth. You wouldn’t have said ‘too bad he killed a few hundred thousand in Africa.’ You wouldn’t even have known about it. There is sufficient disconnect in this world’s construction so that the players on top can remain oblivious to the havoc they wreak below, oblivious to any need for soul-searching, until Eisenhower comes along and rubs their noses into it like the German mayor and the concentration camp. The failure of human rule could not have been shown in more stark relief as in that article, with consequences so directly traceable to the human wisdom running the show. Russian President Vladimir Putin was both blunt and harsh: “Everything happening now in the economic and financial sphere began in the United States. This is not the irresponsibility of specific individuals but the irresponsibility of the system that claims leadership.” In 2016 America, all that remained was to Photoshop Putin with horns, gleefully pecking at his keyboard, doing his level best to hack the American election, but it was he who nailed it about unrestrained greed. The 2011 film ‘Inside Job’ expressed dismay that no “specific individuals” were brought to justice: Charles Ferguson (film director): “Why do you think there isn’t a more systematic investigation being undertaken?” Nouriel Roubini (professor, NYU Business School): “Because then you will find the culprits.” Culprits and regulators alike belonged to the same social set and were members of the same country clubs; they had no desire to turn on one another. Humans were not designed to rule themselves. It’s not an ability they have, the same as they cannot flap their arms and fly. Whether through greed, ignorance, pride, cowardice, or some mix of the four, the record of human rule aptly illustrates Jeremiah’s words: I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step. (Jeremiah 10:23)

Apologies if I cut off the sentence wrong. The Bible uses the term. The organization simply picks up on it. Oh give me a break. How meaningful can life be in a system where ISIS, dementia, cancer, or simple human greed can snuff it out in a second? "Sayanara!" your longtime employer sings out, as he packs up for overseas. "Dust off that resume, why don't you? And that family and financial obligations you have? FUGEDABOUDIT!" It is as Solomon says: he's seen footmen on horses and kings slogging though the mud. Of course you can get some satisfaction out of life today. More power to you if you have. But many ultimately find it is like chomping down hard on cotton candy - though it looked substantial, there was nothing much there. The thing you are orgasmic about is that you have chosen a place where no one can tell you what to do. Fine. I think it's a poor trade-off but there's nothing to stop anyone from choosing it. Yet by immersing oneself in 'the world' (I am not reformed from saying it) you are likely to find that manipulation from human scheming in the form of Big Government, Big Business or Big Independent Wisdom ultimately take such a toll that the Governing Body will look positively like doddering and kindly old grandparents in comparison.

Had they not been "shown the door," then you would have bitched about them living a life protected from the wild, where MEN have to struggle EVERY SINGLE DAY for existence, and one MISSTEP means INSTANT DEATH!!! You're not the easiest guy to satisfy. Did you also create the child baptism one with the misspelled word? Look, I have misspelled many a word here, as it is a here-today, gone-tomorrow thread. But if I were to design a graphic for posterity, I would get the spelling right. I could design graphics, too. For example, I could picture the ten who jumped from the plane during a choppy flight. Eight are far below, with shoots open, and when the land they will resume their prior life. But two have grabbed hold of a wing, and, with tangled hair, sleet, fumes and dead birds slapping them in the face, they are desperately trying to unfurl a banner for the remaining passengers, who are barely noticing: "Jump off before it's too late! Join us!" I could do that. But it is simply too juvenile. This from me, the guy who wears out his welcome clowning and who even kidnapped @The Librarianto make a point. (but handed her back - holy moly! that woman is obnoxious)

I'll stretch the following into a ninth reason, though it is arguably a subset of the post above. It's a reflection upon the August broadcast that focuses on Genesis 3:16 “…your long will be your husband and he will dominate you.” From the broadcast: "When God said that Adam would dominate his wife, God was not indicating his approval of the subjugating of woman by man. He was simply foretelling the sad consequences of sin on the first couple. So abuse of women is a direct outcome of the sinful nature of humans, not a part of God’s will . Right down to our day, rarely have women been afforded the dignity that God wants them to receive. However, Jehovah makes clear in his word the Bible that women and men have equal standing before him. In fact, he indicated that women would play a vital role in the outworking of his purpose." I am reminded of @SuziQ (or is it @SuziQ1513?) commenting with resignation and even some anger that this 'is a man's world.' It is - and men have historically been jerks. When women enter into positions of leadership and people ask the question: 'do they really think they can do as well as the men?' that is not the right question to ask. The right question is: "How can they do worse?" Anger over mistreatment has caused women to cast aside traditional norms in search of new ones, and redefining roles has reached the point where a happy and lasting male-female relationship is all but impossible. The comment from the broadcast shows that Bethel is no part of the mistreatment of women. However, it also shows that it is. One of the things I like very much about the Governing Body is that they do not package Bible lessons for the masses below. They package it for themselves first, and from there it cascades down to the masses. They are ever conscious that they can and do fall short and so they feed themselves a diet of spiritual food to remedy that as much as they feed others. They earnestly want to live up to Jehovah's high standards, the same as they want everyone else in the congregation to. Busy as they are, they read the Bible daily there, just like the Israelite kings were told to. The leaders of most organizations start 'high.' They are long accustomed to privilege and money. In many cases, they have never known anything else. But the leaders of Jehovah's organization start "low," - lower than most of those they will later lead. They bring to the table a life of full-time service in the lowliest of venues, some having served in third world countries that few other leaders would deign to set foot in. They typify the 'through the dust' flavor that the word 'minister' is derived from. Their reliance on God's word set's them in very good position to lead the worldwide flock, though occasionally it blinds them. Or does it? For example, they routinely refer apostates as 'bitter.' They don't really know if they are or not by experience. They take their own counsel and don't hang out with them. Instead, they just read the Book of Jude's description and assume it must be so. And who's to say it's not so, at least in the main? The ones that you come across on the internet hardly seem baskets of joy.

I bought a car from a private person for a significant chunk of money. You always worry when you do this. How to you know that you are not simply buying someone else's headaches? That concern was alleviated by examining the paperwork. The man had every maintenance receipt neatly and sequentially folded, all from the same dealership, and each spaced 5000 miles apart. Since he had scrupulously maintained the car, I bought it without blinking an eye. It's amazing how many will maintain material things, even becoming obsessive over it, but will not maintain themselves. And when they do, they confine it to maintaining their physical selves and not their spiritual selves, which is more important. I usually duck out of those 'what is your favorite scripture' games because it changes depending on the context. But overall, Matthew 5:3 ranks right up there and I use it in service all the time: "Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need, since the Kingdom of the heavens belongs to them." All of us have a spiritual need. But we are not necessarily conscious of it. Failing to recognize and care for it, a person gets sicker and sicker, like one deprived of vitamins, without ever knowing why. This is the eighth reason I have remained with Jehovah's organization. It tirelessly provide maintenance for our being. It steers clear of the pitfalls that ensnare most churches - slobbering over the latest offerings of human wisdom, honing in on politics, preaching 'prosperity gospel' As I write, the televangelist Joel Olsteen is taking considerable heat for not opening his 16,000-seat mega-church - it once was a stadium - to persons displaced from the Houston flood. "Jesus promises us peace that passes understanding," he tweeted. "That's peace when it doesn't make sense." Nothing makes sense during hard times for those who consume this world's rational or spiritual wisdom. I'm grateful to Jehovah's organization for ever keeping the focus on spiritual things that do make sense.

I think I'll add as the seventh one how the truth has preserved my marriage, and the older I get the more I treasure a solid family - with its ups and downs - rather than a string of failed relationships. Feeding on the wisdom of this system of things, you are almost guaranteed the latter. This is due to basic flawed assumptions on the nature of men, the nature of woman, and the nature of marriage. For example, there is the 'soul mate' fallacy. I'll acknowledge a soul mate sounds good, but is there really such a thing? The notion leads to disillusionment when you invariably find that your wife/husband is less of a soul mate than you initially thought. What course remains but to search for your true soul mate? There is little encouragement to work through issues, and when there is, there is almost no encouragement to stick with it. However, working with the Bible's definition of love will make you a better person over time. It is like exercising a muscle. In contrast, too much focus on a 'soul mate' does nothing but make you a shallow person, whose preferences must be catered to. Let no one read into these remarks that my wife and I fight like cats and dogs. We do not. But there have been times.... Is it not that way with any marriage? The truth has preserved my marriage and thereby made me a better person. Following contemporary wisdom would have destroyed it long ago, most likely. A certain relative belongs to 'the American Dream Church.' - a 'me and Jesus' church. They have put their three kids though college and all have fine jobs. They had fine careers themselves and lived in a most comfortable house. But the marriage grew cold and while the last youngster was yet it school, it blew up and dissolved. Studies indicate that when a marriage dissolves after the kids have left home, it nonetheless affects their marriages for ill. Most likely it is because they say: "if my parents could not do it, what chance have we?" Distressed that they cannot hold together a marriage to save their lives, 'science-rationalist' people take comfort in the cavemen of evolution and spin their minus into a plus: "Toward the end of the twentieth century, career types were disheartened to realize they couldn't hold a marriage together to save their lives. But they didn't want to be disheartened, they wanted to feel good about themselves. So it became essential to come up with a explanation and, above all things, that explanation had to totally absolve them from responsibly, blame or guilt....all antiquated notions unfit for modern humans. Again, the cavemen delivered! "You see, those cavemen had to spread their seed if they wanted to win the survival game, so it was no good staying in one relationship. You had to move on! But you'd better not move on too quick. No, you have to hang around four years, to ensure that your toddlers don't get eaten by predators! After that, the woman can ensure it while you go in quest of the golden waist hip ratio. Again, the evolutionary psychologists, who are taken seriously and not laughed off the planet as they ought to be, assert that this behavior got locked into our genes, to be passed on to progeny. "I don't much care for this notion, but recent discoveries seem to support it. Out in the wilds somewhere, anthropologists have recently unearthed fossils of Yabbadabba Man, a boring ancestor if ever there was one. Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble are thought to be members of this species. They had one or two kids apiece and just hung around afterwards plunked in front of the TV, until even their own wives got fed up with them and tossed them out on their ear, though alas, too late in life for them to start anew and spread their seed. As you might expect, that bunch died out. "Then there was Slambang Man, another recent find. These Romeos were forever moving on in search of shapelier babes. They each had hundreds, maybe thousands of kids, but they left them all to predators so they could go out carousing, and every last one of them was eaten. This species, too, died out, though they are eternally reborn with each new generation." It does nothing but get worse. The very nature of the sexes is being redefined today, as well as the interaction between them. California, I just read today, may soon include a X designation on forms that have, since the beginning of time, contented themselves with an M or and F when questioning sex. Today's young people, sold down the river by foolish thinking masquerading as wisdom, have virtually no chance of forming a lasting relationship. I am grateful to Jehovah's organization for not allowing this to happen within the Christian congregation.

I will partially agree on this one. It's true. Not everyone is the guide leading the blind men into a pit. Some are merely the blind men. We have a video of someone who left the truth and came back, cautioning others to not do it. "The world will chew you up and spit you out," he says. I don't care for that video. It is not true. Sometimes 'the world' chews you up but does not spit you out. Sometimes it spits you out but does not chew you up. A prime example of the latter lies in the hospital geriatric wing, where a relative works as a nurse. She tells of people experiencing severe letdown at the curtain call, who look around and say (not literally) "is this all there is?" These are not losers. These are persons who have had successful careers and have raised caring families. But as the end draws near and their bodies ungracefully fall apart, they say "is this all there is?" Why anyone would throw away the freedom derived from Bible knowledge for the petty freedoms this world has to offer is beyond me. You know, I kind of like this guy. He does not hide what he is. He is not like one who comes in positively cooing love for God and all his witnesses, if only...if only....it does not come out at first....if only they would assassinate those leaders of theirs. I can't stand people like that. It reminds me of my ill-advised aborted experience at the apostate website. There was one idiot who would give only short 'sound byte' comments, always with insulting graphics, and whenever he mentioned Jehovah's Witnesses, he would 'dollar-sign' every 'S'. Okay. Got it. He thinks we should be like John, subsisting on honey and locusts. In time, whenever I referred to him, I would dollar-sign every 's' within a two millimeter radius. (this is not to call AM an idiot - believe me, the two are poles apart in presentation, though there is some overlap)

If you don't mind, I want to go home after two hours. I don't want each meeting to be like a discussion of the WorldNewsMedia forum.

Albert, you make altogether too many statements complaining of sinister intentions at Witness headquarters. It borders on paranoia. To me, it indicates you have spent too much time hanging out with the wrong type of people and drinking in their wisdom. No. Please. Don't go there. We are, to a great degree, who we hang out with. It's intellectually flattering to think otherwise. But it's also nonsense. That is why some god-awful style will come along and within 5 years we're all wearing it, wondering how we ever thought those geeky styles of yesteryear did anything for us. We run with the herd not just on small things like styles, but on all things. It's well to give thought to who you hang out with. It would be nice if you didn't go there, either. For the sake of the piddling little freedoms that you gain by leaving the Witness faith, none of which ultimately amounts to a hill of beans, you throw away freedoms which are truly significant. I'll concede, though, that if you were baptized young and later left on bad terms and you find yourself shunned by family because of it, that is not a good place to be. I can empathize with that. Having said that, it is entirely possible for a person baptized young who later decides to leave to do so without triggering shunning. I know several who have done it. Fade. Drift away. Or just tell a few that you don't want to do it anymore. There are some anti-Witness factions who encourage such ones to go out with a splash - tell them all off at the Kingdom Hall! By following their advice, you virtually assure that you will be shunned. Few governments will smilingly see their citizens declare them illegitimate, and it is no different in Jehovah's organization, which is often called a 'nation,' and is more of a nation in many respects than political nations on the globe. I don't want to get into here whether it should be that way. The point is, it is. Thus, shunning is easily avoidable. One wonders why any outfit - often atheists do this - would recommend such a confrontation, knowing the disruption it will bring on a family. Of course, the lack of 'shunning' doesn't mean palling around as usual, and one who leaves often finds they lose all their Witness friends anyway, and even family, though not in so formal away. The Witness faith is like the man who found the pearl of high value, and sold everything he had to secure it. Most people today would consider this fellow a fanatic. Jesus indicated his was the example to follow. So if you leave the faith, you'll find most Witnessed lose interest in hanging out with you. Like in most things, people seek out common interests. Just look how many families have been divided over Trump and Hillary. Do you really think that when Kathy Griffin holds aloft the mock, bloodied head of the President, her Republican dad (if he is) says: "that's my lass! She speaks her mind! It won't affect Thanksgiving dinner, though."? Is it a good idea to allow Witness kids to be baptized at 10? It's a good thing for those who will remain. It's a bad thing for those who will afterwards decide to leave (with a bang). If only you could tell who was who in advance. Contrary to your dark accusation that JWs rope them in as young as possible so as to hold them hostage (sheesh) my son wanted baptism at age 10 and the elders told him to wait. His feelings were hurt over it, but he was baptized the next year. If you find something good, it is never considered wrong to 'dedicate' yourself to it at a young age. Successful businesspeople and even entertainers do that, to say nothing of athletes. I've never heard one criticized for it.

Use of the word 'most' is subjective - I do not think it is 'most' - though it is certainly true anywhere that new ones do not know as much as older ones. It's not just in the field of religion. It is everywhere. GB counsel doesn't encourage people to be shallow. It encourages them to go deep. But people do that at their own pace and sometimes not at all. You don't have to be a theocratic Rhode's scholar to be baptized - you just have to know and agree with the basics. Surely the fact that you cannot (usually) get baptized for close to a year should allay your concern - unless that concern is unallayable. This is also subjective, and I do not agree with it. I suspect there are some concerns that are important in your eyes that most Witnesses do not know much of, but that is not the same thing. But this is quibbling. You're main concern i'll speak to later. Unfortunately, I am in and out. A five minute comment I can make anytime, but if there is something that deserves more thought, I want to give it that thought. Start a separate thread on it. Seriously. It's a subject in its own right, and this thread is on something else. The threadmeister can always yank it back on topic and there will be nothing you or I can do about it. Having said that, I've been known to hijack a thread or two in my tenure.

No offence, BR, but whether directed to me or to him, it hardly seems appropriate.

While I was typing, you posted your answer. Thus, the two preceding comments should be in reverse order. They make more sense that way. Okay. It's a valid question. I'll address it. But it will have to be later in the day, possibly even tomorrow, as I must attend to some other things. Possibly someone else will chime in. But whether they do or not, I'll get back to you.

Don't put aside the 'deception that Witnesses use to lure in new members' simply because you got pasted on it. Deal with it. Or say: "well, I guess I didn't know what I was talking about." Then bring up children on a separate thread. Look, @The Librarian (a fine woman) is trying to impose some order on this chaos. Cooperate with her. Don't just jump in willy-nilly with a blunderbuss

Few things in this world are less tricky than one choosing to become a Witness. One cannot do so without a lengthy period of voluntary study, seldom lasting less than a year in these parts. It is not a religion where one can impulsively "come down and be saved." Almost always, the one who studies the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses is in familiar settings at congregation meetings and a picnic or two - perhaps 5% of one's time is in unfamiliar settings - probably less. One is always in control of one's destiny. Though it is not my intent to denigrate college here, college is far more 'controlling' than anything JWs originate, in that it separates students almost 100% from what is familiar - a classic tool of 'brainwashing.' 24/7 campus life is a far cry from life back home. The new people of Jehovah's Witnesses trickle in only to the extent and at the rate you want them to. The new people of the college experience replace and overwhelm your former associates from Day 1 - no longer is there the stabilizing influence of family, community groups, or familiar friends. You just don't like the conclusions JWs have come to, and you mask it with concern about their 'controlling methods.' Those 'methods' are far less controlling than that of the greater world's system of education.

In that case do not say "believe whatever you want, I don't care." It is misleading. They are not so 'high control' as you imagine. There is little damage done that cannot be done provided one is not determined to saw off the limb one is sitting on. Set yourself to undo it.

For someone who says 'believe whatever you want I don't care,' you sure do seem to care a lot.

Perhaps it is as you say about separation of powers, but I suspect you are overthinking this. It is better if you do not. Search the scriptures for how many indicate submission to a human authority is a good thing. Contrast that with how many indicate congregational authority is a thing that we can accept or reject as we see fit.. I think you will find the first vastly outnumber the second. Of course, the exact methods will always be arguable. So if there is something you absolutely cannot abide, find the faith that is doing a preaching work comparable to Witnesses and go there. Otherwise, remain here - support what you can, sit out what you cannot. Look for what is good, cut slack for what seems lacking, and allow yourself to be taught by Jehovah.

I am sitting elsewhere. Read the entire thread mentioned previously before you jump in from nowhere and carry on about what has been covered already. It's only a few months old and the title makes clear which one it is. Add to that thread, if you must - you see any reasonable points uncovered.

This statement is ridiculous and has been dealt with in an entire dedicated thread.

Spill the beans on me and I'll cut off your water supply and make you gift-wrap your own excrement and urine, just like Rabshekah threatened the Israelites

I'll allow for this, to a degree. Furthermore, it is not a bad thing. It is in harmony with the first century GB being "uneducated and ordinary," not masters of critical argumentation. While faith and logic need not be mutually exclusive, you should not expect to PROVE matters of faith by logic. It ought to be clear that Jesus didn't give two hoots about argumentation.

Usually it is considered bad form for an author of non-fiction to write in the first person. It is considered immodest. It is similar to why you don't say "in my opinion." OF COURSE it's in your opinion. You wrote it. At this point one of the dominant tourists carjacks a steamroller and attempts to flatten the tour guide.

This question is better left to others who will discuss it at greater length and with at least as much success. Not everyone has to weigh in on everything. What - I should spend a few hours online and assume equal weight with the GB?

It 'plagues' non-JWs even more, as they have made no progress whatsoever in united declaring the kingdom good news.

There's a new kid in town. I, for one, question the authority of @The Librarian! (the old hen) Has she demonstrated that she can do these things? Does she alone have authority? Are not ALL here equally capable? Didn't she SCREW UP the deployment of simple thread technology? For lack of skilled direction, the people suffer!!! What gives her the right to domineer over the sheep on this forum?!! I am tired of her controlling attitude. I think it is only right - YEA - IT IS AN OBLIGATION to question her authority until she gives PROOF that she is handling the word of this forum aright!