TrueTomHarley

It is based upon math, which is easy as pi.

I like this, even if I perceive I am among those being reproved. The internet is inherently a farce for anything other than dull subjects that evoke no passion. A truly thoughtful remark can be given, followed by the tirade of a complete moron who nonetheless has equal weight. Many branches are represented here, and each branch has sub-branches. Not everyone is 'able to teach' (counsel that was not given to newbies, but to Timothy and by extension those of his spiritual stature and those who would aspire to be but are far from there yet) but all one has to do to claim that right (to teach) here is to show up. Within each branch, some persons are thoughtful and considerate, and some are dogmatic and disrespectful. Adding to the confusion is that people do not necessarily represent themselves honestly, and you never actually know who's who. One hasn't a clue as to who anyone is other than by scrutinizing their comments, and how many will take the time to do that? Some are here for precisely that reason. Some are here for diversion. Some for a lark. Some to pontificate. Some to build up. Some to tear down. Some to console. Some to provide reason one must be consoled. Some to mix metaphors and references. (Some to offer a time for peace - I swear it's not too late).One person deliberately chooses such a confusing muddle so that he may bare his soul without triggering the response he might get in a more undiluted setting. The sum total is that this is a comedy. That does not mean that some weighty insights cannot be gleaned here, but the overall tone is not something of a wholesome spiritual diet. There is no spiritual food here. Everyone has their own reason for being here and nobody thinks that they are adding to the Bible canon (well - I suspect some do). Sometimes I like to make serious commentary. Sometimes I like to brawl. Sometimes I like to make jokes. At all times, I am a unpaid slave to @The Librarian, who makes me stack boring books at her stupid library (and I always hated to read). It is a slice of life here and life is often erratic. If you want serious spiritual instruction, hit the books of someone upon whom you can rely. Here is a discussion forum with a riotous mix of participants. It may occasionally take the form of a serious commentary on spiritual matters, but it will not consistently do so. Christianity is one of the greatest discussion themes of all time, and battling apostates one of the greatest sub-themes of all time. First century Bible writers were obsessed with it, even Jesus in John 10 and elsewhere. Therefore, whoever would assume the mantle of first-century Christianity must also have quality apostates, and none are better than ours. Ours are the most prolific. Ours are the most vitriolic. I am proud of them. The Presbyterians represent true Christianity today? Are you joking? With those namby-pamby 'apostates' of theirs? We've got the best apostates, and paradoxically, I take them as an indication that Jehovah's Witnesses have the truth, for the early Christian community was similarly infested with apostates - and largely for the same reason: people refused to take instruction and submit to discipline. They resisted any efforts to 'impose morality.' They were contemptuous of authority. A faith too bland to produce quality apostates is too bland to be given the time of day.

Okay, big boy, @James Thomas Rook Jr.have it your way. Your question was more ridiculous than usual because it completely misses the thrust of Paul's statement. 'If you've been enlightened and have tasted, then have fallen away, it is impossible to move to repentance' is his statement. Was he wrong? He then goes on to illustrate his point, using the words you quoted as though it was his main idea. Ask HIM what he meant. It's a side point, anyway.

And if your civil engineering ability was as competent as your online reasoning, there's not a toilet in your city that flushes.

For now, I will imitate Jesus in this regard.

What does that have to do with anything? Look, if you want to go to a whorehouse, go to a whorehouse and leave us in peace.

Imitating Jesus, here is a counter - question. Paul called the corrupt religious leader a whitewashed wall. When he learned who he was, however, he apologized, citing 'you must not speak injuriously of a leader of your people. WITH FAR LESS EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION, I CAN THINK OF SOMEONE WHO SPEAKS FAR MORE ABUSIVELY OF MODERN DAY LEADERS!!!!! CAN YOU???!!!!

Woe to those who pride themselves upon modern techniques of REASON and CRITICAL ANALYSIS. Jesus showed disdain for all of them!!!!!. He declined to be questioned by those who he thought simply wanted to justify themselves. Or who had ill intent. Or who were deliberately obtuse. Did he ever allow himself to be subjected to cross-examination such ones? He evaded questions. He raised instead counter-questions. He told parables and illustrations, which he rarely explained. He employed ad hominem attacks. He raised strawmen galore. (because God wants men or all sorts to be saved, including straw men) I can think of only one time he answered directly: when he was asked point blank, under oath, whether he was the Son of God or not. (I assume you are not going to go that way) I am doing my best to imitate Jesus, that's all. Of course, Jesus can read hearts and people can't. But when someone assaults the internet with 7000 BELLICOSE COMMENTS you can come pretty close!!!!!!!!!!!!

Give me some specific examples of EXACTLY how it was done back then.

It was necessary for the first to take a crash course. Besides, what was Jesus saying other that he would be resurrected? As for the second, he was already part of a people with a dedication to God. Diligently reading Isaiah, he just needed a few tweaks to bring him up to speed. He didn't have centuries of apostate teaching he had to undo.

Back when I first began blogging, there was a fellow with initials DH who was a legend - albeit a somewhat embarrassing one - among apostates. Mention Jehovah's Witnesses anywhere and he was there with vitriolic, usually irrelevant comments. One I went to his own page. Prominently he offered his services for expert testimony in any anti-Witness lawsuit AND expert witness against the anti-depression pharmaceutical industry, apparently not realizing that each offer undercut his credibility for the other.

The reason it is not important to know specific identities is that they are but actors in a play (and one of them does not belong on the list at all, IMO). Take one of them out and they are immediately replaced by another. It is the play we are watching. You don't have to know the names of the actors to follow the play. It can even be a distraction if you do. The roles were laid out long ago in the Book and various actors audition for those roles. It doesn't matter specifically their names. As much as I like to kick these guys in the teeth (verbally) whenever they rear their filthy heads on a site that purports to be a gathering spot for Witnesses - because if Scripture means anything, it is that fighters against God will not fare well at play's end - that does not mean that I know who is who. I am like a doctor who can only address the symptoms. Even when you take the one off the list who I think should be off, the remaining four are not the same. What anyone must be alert to is Hebrews 6:4-6: "For as regards those who were once enlightened and who have tasted the heavenly free gift and who have become partakers of holy spirit and who have tasted the fine word of God and powers of the coming system of things, but have fallen away, it is impossible to revive them again to repentance, because they nail the Son of God to the stake again for themselves and expose him to public shame." I don't presume that I can tell who this verse fits and who it doesn't - especially online. Is a given opposer in this category or has he merely been influenced by someone in this category? Impossible to tell. All I can do is address symptoms. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be addressed. Some of them say that they were once hurt. Who am I to try to deny or minimize that? I don't. All I can note is that Revelation 2 and 3 makes clear that congregations of the first century experienced blemishes at least as bad as is claimed by some happens today, yet continued to be congregations. It is Paul saying that in any house there are vessels for uses both honorable and dishonorable. There comes a time when one must suck it up and move on - either stay or leave, but move on.

If the tone has turned comedic, it is because this is at root a farce with a decidedly tragic outcome. @Jay Witness's friends try to recruit Tom Cruise on their mission to take out the Watchtower. Tom Cruise turns them down, not because the mission is impossible, but because it is ridiculous. He knows they are mostly hacks trying to settle old scores and work off grudges - who should have moved on in life ages ago. So they recruit a young woman, who they knew or should have known, had some instability to her personality, and they manage to secure her cooperation. 'Don't worry. If you or any of your friends are caught or killed,' they tell her, 'if that happens, we will issue a SPECIAL REPORT!' Did they try to set up their poster at her funeral? So she rifles through the confidential files and is caught. Jay appears flabbergasted that headquarters is not cool with this. They 'interrogate her' for two days - it's all he can do to refrain from saying they waterboarded her. The 'interrogation' was so grueling that she reported for a second day. On the second day, it was discovered that her pilfering was not for some innocuous cause or due to some misunderstanding, but to spirit whatever she found to Jay's friends who have dedicated their lives to working against kingdom interests. Bethel showed her the door. "It was reported that when she arrived home, her Jehovah's Witness family and friends treated her terribly," Jay's SPECIAL REPORT tells us, as though they should have been cool with it or even commended her. "Treated her terribly' is a bit vague, isn't it? Look, they probably were not happy with her, but the point is, Jay can't even be bothered to check on that, so eager is he to besmirch his enemies. "It is reported" they "treated her terribly" is enough. If Jay's friends must assign blame for the young woman's death - beyond the young woman herself - surely it is they themselves they should point to. Recruiting someone once a fine servant of Jehovah, perhaps someone dismayed upon finding all was not Santa and the elves - that they were real people there at Bethel, instead - and using her for their own ends. I'm tired of their hate. And now it has cost the life of a young woman. Many of these ones have turned to atheism, so they are beyond all question "fighters against God." Some higher up here once told me I should use honey talking to these people, not vinegar. I am not able to do it. "Can't we all get along?" he apparently felt. No. We can't.

And now for the ultimate mia culpa: I am - gasp! - @The Librarian!!!! I got tossed out of Bethel decades ago for trying to sneak a red-hot bikini photograph, clad only in horn-rimmed glasses, of myself in the Watchtower centerfold. It almost made it out the door, but then some narrow-minded brothers spotted it. I'll bet it still hangs upon their dorm walls - the sickos!! I could have been famous - FAMOUS, I tell you. But now I send photos of myself to apostate rags and even they return it unopened!!

You are obviously a FALSE PROPHET!!! THERE IS ONLY ONE JAMES THOMAS ROOK!!! His is a PERSONALITY IMPOSSIBLE TO INVENT!!!!

Nope. Just me again, big boy, in yet another guise. So is Allen. So is O'Maly. "Was I not having fun?" Actually, every one of them is me, except @The Librarian. And I once dated her. You should have seen her when she would don her big round horn-rimmed librarian glasses. What a woman she once was! But when I proposed marriage, she turned me down, saying she wanted to pursue a life of knowledge and books. It would have served her well to admit she was human, for a change. Just look at what has become of her, the old hen. What becomes of the BAs post service, to your knowledge? Do they remain or leave the faith? Does their BA intensify or mitigate?

This system of things has failed its young people in countless ways, with the predictable result that they are committing suicide in record numbers. Suicide rate of that age group has tripled since the 1950's. One Millennial site puts it: "Every generation uses the ceiling of the generation before them to become their floor to build off of. Instead, it feels like our generation is dodging the crumbling remains of the ceiling exploding above us." (allgroanup.com) Exactly. That being the case, it is misguided to try to impede the one organization proclaiming the solution from the Bible. If they ceased doing it, there is no one else to take over. So plain does this seem to me that I have sometimes crossed a line and asserted it is done for exactly that reason: to prevent the proclaiming of God's kingdom - remarks that have not gone down well in all quarters. But it seems either that or a cutting off of one's nose to spite one's face. it seems either that or the 'unreasoning animals' of Peter's description who act contrary to their own interests. I used to love giving the talk: 'Acquiring a Heart of Wisdom.' I led off with the by-now-trite illustration I've heard of how treasure-seekers dig through the dirt to find the tiniest bit of diamond, and how foolish it would be to reverse it - dig through the diamonds to find the tiniest bit of dirt. I then stated that, nonetheless, we would be doing exactly that for the next 45 minutes, since, with any time in the faith, you are going to come across some dirt,, and if you are not prepared, you will be floored, for it is the one place you do not expect to find any. Then I reveled in tearing things apart for 45 minutes, both in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures. I hit my stride with Revelation 2 and 3, considering absolute basket cases of congregations, guilty of every horrible thing, and yet they were still congregations. The idea was to encourage the audience to have a realistic outlook on what they will always eventually encounter anywhere there are people. Arguably, mature ones here who sometimes veer into discussing organizational flaws are not impeding anything, but by 'shining the bright light of journalistic truth' are encouraging everyone to shape up. Though that sometimes works, as often it is as when you shine a bright light upon cockroaches. They don't stop being cockroaches when you do that. They just go somewhere else. Arguably, everyone is doing just fine here, and it may even benefit some opposers to hear frank admissions of faults by persons of good motive. However, it is another thing entirely to 'smuggle' confidential stuff, whatever that may be, so that Jay can put it on his website. He has pretty well demonstrated where his interests lie. JTR, the strangest of all birds to me, regales us tirelessly with war scenarios about the boldness and courage and glory of men who SACRIFICED THEIR ALL in the greatest theater of existence. He would be shot in a heartbeat as a traitor if he carried on there as he does here. Does he think the military generals that sent thousands into battle were above the petty miscues that he lambastes others for here? All this is not to be unkind to the young woman in question, who I did not know. She is caught up in the spirit of the age, most likely, that holds that revealing faults is somehow a sacred quest - that only good can come of it. Even Jay's breathless banner conveys his enthusiasm for tearing down: it is a SPECIAL REPORT! Just like the banning of the entire religion merited a SPECIAL REPORT on the broadcast site. It is not hard to see whose interests he serves. It's regrettable, of course, but hardly a special report, as though she was a freedom fighter lost in the most noble of causes. Otherwise, every downed soldier would also merit a special report, every millennial suicide would also merit a special report, and whoever they last engaged with would merit special attention as the villain of our age. Can they get insular at Bethel? Can there be intrigues? Of course. It is the common bane of people. But I am loath to offer counsel because A.) I'm not qualified, B.) I don't have 5% of the information they do, C.) it's not my place, D.) Even when I identify a problem, that does not mean I have any idea how to fix it. The world's obsession with firing people for miscues results only in inexperienced clods running show - Jesus fired only Judas, E.) I don't think such matters are fixed though the democratic means of public journalism. It hasn't worked that way in the general world; drawbacks are as numerous as successes, and on balance, it is no better than hoping you get a nice king and not a mean one. F.) I tend to think these matters are self-correcting. If it truly is something from God, as I conclude it is based upon the proclamation of truth that they alone spearhead, then entities other than me will take care of troubles.

They were respectful, but they did weigh in on some topics that have been discussed in this forum. None were written simply to offer compliments. Of course I DID NOT TELL THEM WHAT JERKS THEY WERE and how they MUST COME AROUND to my way of thinking, seeing that it WAS AND IS INDISPUTABLY RIGHT!!!!

I have written 3 or 4 in the course of 40 years. Each one was answered.

Is this ever not the case? Any report of suicide evokes sympathy. People are left to wonder of inner turmoil and so forth. Still, any mental health professional will say that the inability to move on after a perceived negative experience puts one at increased risk for self-harm. People who can't 'move on' in life suffer more often than those who can and do. What we have here, assuming matters are objectively reported - which I do not assume because I have seen Jay's other posts and he has made his intent clear - is a correlation augmented by a possible trigger, but hardly cause and effect. Does anyone think when Kathy Griffin held aloft the severed head of the President, it caused no ripples in her Republican (if they were that) family? She is trying to destroy what they hold of paramount importance. Of course, I knew neither the young woman, nor the circumstances, nor what 'mission' she was on when she was thwarted. (I suspected the latter is exaggerated by Jay becasue he exaggerates anything he deems harmful to the visible organization) Therefore, I can only speak in the abstract. To a degree that may be true, but 2 Timothy 3:1-5 also must be factored in - how persons in the last days would be not open to any agreement, impossible to satisfy, fierce, disloyal, betrayers, headstrong, and so forth. Many today have no interest in reform but seek only to destroy. Divorce it from the field of religion for a moment, for it is clearly seen anywhere - the urge to tear down with no corresponding interest in building. Obama suffered it. Trump suffers it It hardly follows that a group that merely wants to protect confidential information is villainous because someone takes her own life when she is stymied trying to extract it.

Let's see - get up, kiss wife, shower, shave, eat breakfast, pick a fight with JTR - what has he posted lately?

Nobody, but nobody, assembles their entire membership as JWs did at their most recent Regional Conventions, and reviews detailed scenarios under which child sexual abuse might happen, so that parents can train their children - obviously the first line of defense. Especially emphasized was the fact the the perpetrator is likely to be someone a child knows and trusts. If a relative, or friend, or anyone, seems overly attentive to your child. If there are tickling sessions. If there are sleepovers. If there are trips alone to the public restroom. If ....there were several others. These are all potential red flags, maybe harmless, but maybe not, for the parent to be aware of. 'The wise one sees the [potential] calamity approaching, and takes action' is the verse repeatedly applied. JTR saw it too. But he likes his cartoon and wants to spin it around the world a few more times.

do they now position themselves as champion of gay rights? I fear that one will not go over too well with gays.

They were going through their difficult teenage years then. They sat around playing video games and let the old man do all the work. Just kidding, of course, but as you say, there are often things added to our portrayal of events that weren't stated in verse. It is unavoidable any time you do a drama. When that jerk in the dungeon demanded to see Hezekiah, did the latter really drop what he was doing to put up with his tirade? Did he really routinely take time out during his busy king day to play with the small children? And don't get me going on cleanliness. When I see a half dozen full time servants toiling half a day to remove an ounce of dirt, I realize that my more relaxed view of clean doesn't stand a snowball's chance in you-know-where of prevailing.

I am crazy. I know I am.