TrueTomHarley

23 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Your heart and mind made the wrong assessment and conclusion. I'm sending a smiley.  

It is like when a man just returned from his day's work invited me into his home, in which he had several Bibles. I had stopped by previously; his wife said to return when he got home, for he loved to discuss God's Word.

He was a humble man, hospitable, instantly likeable, of just what church I forget. I made some points. He made some points. He invited me to a certain passage of scripture. He meant to read it aloud but I got there first and made to read it myself. 

"No, not you, don't you read it," he said, chuckling in good-natured faux panic. "You'll mess it all up!"

18 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I don't know much about your written works, but it sounds like you have fun with it. By itself that's reason enough to keep at it. 

I do have a lot of fun with it. I compare myself to a painter, a favorite safe hobby for a Witness. (painting, not writing, and the object painted is likely to be a boat) He or she paints for enjoyment. Thereafter, he doesn’t tuck paintings in the closet but puts them in some gallery. If he finds that some like them, so much the better. If they buy them, even more so much the better. But he would paint regardless of reception. He benefits from naysayers too, and may or may not incorporate their input into subsequent works.

I write to be creative, to research, to tell stories, to do memoirs. Steve Jobs confided to his biographer he wanted his story told so his kids would understand him better. I don’t primarily consider myself an apologist, though I can see why other people might. It is just that I am a Witness and everyone writes about what they know. Mostly, I am just a communicator who gots to communicate.

That said, to the extent I am an apologist, I go places I have never seen any Witness go. The Witness works that I have seen mostly confine themselves to ‘safe’ Witness topics like bashing holidays or blood transfusions. If they do go into matters of controversy, they mostly repackage what they’ve read in the Watchtower. For me, Chrysiddes remarks (under his pen name Ivor E. Tower) about ‘Tom Irregardless and Me’ is satisfying:  “Tom shows a remarkable breadth of knowledge and reading too – he has by no means exclusively studied Watch Tower publications.”

To the extent I have a goal, it is to show how a modern Witness copes with the times. Another goal is not to be dull. As an example of going somewhere I’ve never seen a Witness go, ‘In the Last of the Last Days: Faith in the Age of Dysfunction,’ includes a detailed description of my meeting with the elders, following up on prior counsel not to engage with ‘apostates’ and unsure as to whether I do or not, but if so, to readjust. I mean, I had a book (which I later removed) on my blog page entitled TrueTom vs the Apostates!’ A little difficult for me to say, ‘Don’t know nothin bout no apostates here.’ I don’t advertise, but word gets around.

Probably, every ‘apostate’ book contains a meeting with the elders, many of them framed as ‘shootout at the OK Corral.’ I don’t know for sure, having never read one. Everyone’s got a story to tell, and mine is as good as theirs. But I’ve never seen an account of a meeting with elders from a loyal congregation member. If Witnesses are known as ‘insular,’ I strive to be open. I frame this meeting in the good light I think it should be framed in, as an example of shepherding, even when a given ‘sheep’ might find it overbearing. Rather than take any shots at anyone, I present the elders much as Pudgy has, as honorable men doing their best to do the right thing. I’m on good terms with every one of them, as well as the congregation at large. 

I even deal with charges opponents make against them: 

“Are the brothers “brainwashed”—the ones who counseled me about a matter that they do not understand themselves from a fleshly point of view, which is the only point of view of concern to the greater world? It’s such a loaded word. Who isn’t brainwashed today in some respect?

“Follow the flag and get your head blown off in consequence; only some of your countrymen will think your death noble—everyone else in the world will consider your death in vain. It doesn’t take some brainwashing to buy into that? Follow unquestioningly the overall goals of this system to get a good education so that you may get a good job—not a tad of brainwashing there that such is the path to happiness? When my wife worked as a nurse with the geriatric community, she said a quite common thing was for bewildered elderly persons to look around them in their waning years, as though to say, “Is this all there is?” These were not “losers” in life, for the most part. These were people who had enjoyed careers and loving families. But there was an aching emptiness at the end for many of them, a certain vague but overpowering sense of betrayal by life. Is it not the result of being brainwashed by mainstream thinking?”

So, yes, I write for enjoyment. Yes, I am pleased that my works trickle off the shelf. But they should be New York Times bestsellers.

18 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Ignore people like me.

Unnecessary advice. You are one of the viewers, even as you do paintings yourself. I’m content if you don’t throw that many tomatoes.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Why torture your soul as if everything after "sin" is irreparable and futile.

The only problem a sinner will have is a problem with people, not with God. Then tell me, whose, which relationship is more important to you?

Exactly. That is why you sit in the penalty box for a while till they let you back in the game.

Many Miles all but blew a gasket when I pulled this illustration on him, but it is exactly what I would do if I had caved on this issue, either out of conviction or out of cowardice.

Of course, if it were out of conviction I caved, so that it was not really caving but standing on principle, and my conviction was such that since headship is misguided on this position, it is misguided in everything else as well, then I would not head for the penalty box. I would head directly to the showers. But most people are not such black-and-white thinkers. Even the Great Courses philosophy professor cited some research somewhere—I will look it up in time—to the effect that most persons are content with what is mostly true, a finding that seems to distress him because he thinks through philosophy he can discover what is absolutely true. Good luck on that project. 

His course of 36 lectures (let us estimate 5 per lecture, deducting the introductory and concluding lecture, to arrive at our count) considers 170 philosophies, some in detail, some in passing, and for each one he cites logical inconsistencies. Even as I write this, I know it cannot be as high as 170, but it is a lot.

He says: “Philosophy can be frustrating because it's so difficult to find concrete answers. For example, we just studied a number of ethical theories but each one failed in one way or the other. We didn't definitively define what's morally right and wrong and we certainly didn't find the truth makers for moral statements we were looking for.

Now this might tempt us to draw the conclusion that, just like with free will and persons and the mind, that morality is just an illusion. The reason that we can't find the ground for moral facts is because there are none, and that might be true however.”

Or . . .it just may be that he is looking in the wrong place for everything. It just may be that Zilch is the price he pays for confining his search to that of the ‘physical man.’ If he was to expand to the ‘spiritual man,’ it might be different, but he has consistently made a great show that everything must conform to ‘reason.’ He is not put off by his entire lecture, which sums up the entire body of philosophy, not finding any ‘reason’ that is consistent. 

19 hours ago, George88 said:

Once again, the power of intellect shines through.

Believe me, if this guy has a problem, it is not that his intellect fails to shine through. It’s that he should put a basket over it. He has confined his search to what is rational, to what is intellectually satisfying, and he will not go beyond it. It is a great shame, because the body of knowledge Witnesses adhere to is not afraid to go beyond it. It has to conform to reason, and it does, but it doesn’t have to bow to it as Master, the way this professor representing philosophy does.

It is like my comment on the educated world’s division of Job into two parts: “Is the appeal here that by doing so you are in position to understand neither while in both cases flattering the intellect?” By separating chapters 1 and 2, you get to shine before your educated peers, reassuring them that you, too, are not so stupid as to believe in a literal devil. At the same time, you get to spin treatises on the windy speeches, unconcerned that they may be a test at the end. Whatever theories you propose will be no better or worse than the next guy’s.

It is not intellect that matters to God. It is heart. If you have intellect, by all means, bring your gift to the altar, but don’t expect anyone to bow and scrape to you on that account, much less to hand you the reins.

But coming back to Srecko, I would say that if I caved, whether it be out of cowardice or conviction, I would sit in the penalty box for a while. If it were conviction, I would bitch a little bit inwardly, to be sure, but I wouldn’t flame anyone. They’ll eventually let me back in, and in the meantime, I can read Pudgy’s cartoons. 

Not to make light of MM’s trials. Had I experienced the things he had experienced, I might feel differently. I too, might thereafter present myself as an investigator of faiths (through rationality, no less) rather than as an adherent of one. I, too, might seek to undermine whoever I thought was advancing the ideas I came into such jarring conflict with. 

It is the human experience. John Butler experiences child sexual abuse long before he becomes a Witness. Thereafter, he cannot participate in a discussion of it without lapsing into near hysteria. The Sandy Hook parent loses his child and crusades for gun violence. A mother’s son is run over and Mothers Against Drunk Driving is born. None of these things would have happened without a horrific experience to precede it.

I am sympathetic. Maybe I would go there, too, in similar circumstances. My only experience with childhood sexual abuse came when some pervert happened along as my 15-year-old self was walking before dealer row considering the car I might buy when of driving age. No one was around, and the creep, leaning into me a little bit more than one would think proper, urged me to go with him behind the dealership because that’s where they keep the really good cars.

I wasn’t stupid. I got away from him in no time flat. I saw right through him—though, not for the right reason. They’re not going to keep the really good cars in the back. They’re going to put them up front where people can see them!

But if some horrific thing had happened, maybe I, upon recovery, would be like Butler. Or with different tragedies, like the other three. Or like Many Miles. Maybe I would come here as Many Many Miles and say to him, ‘What’s wrong? Cat got your tongue?’

If I so far have not, it is out of recognition that, whereas humans excel in demolition, they are far less skilled in construction.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

No. I will say it came from JWs. And guys like MM may say, ‘Oh, well, this book is an apologetic work. Why waste my time?’ But I cannot conscientiously do it any other way.

It gets worse. When I release any such book, not only with MM dismiss it because it is apologetical in nature, but my own people will say, ‘Hmm—are we supposed to be doing this? Isn’t it someone else’s job to write about God?’

It’s like when I fill out a skills list for use in building projects. I say I know how to clean. If I say I also know how to write, follow up remarks will reveal that my experience comes through blogging—a dirty word to most Witnesses. It is not as though anyone has said a person can’t do that. It is that no one has said that you can, (a dilemma known as Pudgy’s Razor) and so the thinking of most will be, ‘If it were worth doing, the org would be advancing and recommending it.’ Instead, they have cautioned of how ‘it is not necessary’ and ‘some indiscreet brothers’ have done it, leading others to conclude that ‘Thou Shalt Not Blog’ is the eleventh commandment. 

So, for me it is somewhat like @Juan Rivera, who has said he pays a social cost for being a Witness. Juan, too, could write some books, and may someday. But he will face the same dilemma, and already does in ways that are parallel. He would, if he were a Baptist, write a book about God. Baptist Press would promote it, and even say: ‘Look at this guy! A real thinker, he is, a theologian and one of ours!’ Whereas, when he writes as a Witness, he becomes that brother who is likable but a little odd and possibly one who should be given a wide berth. You can ‘beat the rap’ simply by being a good person in the congregation and out, but the notion that one should feel there is a rap to beat will unfailingly stick in the craw of those overly swayed by today’s age of independence.

For me, I will acquiesce and say, ‘That’s the way it is. Suck it up.’ If it is a downer, it is many-fold more times compensated for by other benefits that I perceive stem from being a Witness. When people unite, all must chip in a little. If they don’t, then the unity doesn’t happen. Is there a social cost to being a Witness and making oneself subject to the Witness’ organization? There is also a social cost to not doing it: 

Recently, we had people from Texas come into town to work on a Kingdom Hall remodel nearby and they needed a place to stay. Sight unseen, we handed them the keys to our house while we were heading away for a few days. Many people would kill for such a brotherhood where you can place such trust in total strangers. 

That happened. The following two paragraphs I made up:

At the Independence Day church, Mr. and Mrs. O’Reilly heard of our adventure and decided to do the same. The first guests who stayed at their house broke their TV. The second set of guests tracked mud throughout the house. The third set found the Go Packs and raided the funds set aside.  The fourth set emptied the house completely and the O’Reilly’s returned to four bare walls.

Steamed, they contacted Independence Day Church headquarters. “Oh, yeah, that happened to us, too. No, they’re not congregation members – they’re imposters. But we have such a half-assed organization that any scoundrel can pull the wool over our eyes in a twinkling of the eye.’

Notice how it is not a matter of rationality to prefer the Witness organization to the Independence Day church. It is more a matter of what one values more. ‘Taste and see that Jehovah is good,’ the verse says. I had previously witnessed to the O’Reillys extensively but upon hearing Jehovah has an earthly organization, they decided that tasted bad. They preferred the Independence Day Church, where no one will lean upon them in any way. If they have to buy a houseful of furniture once in a while, it is in their eyes a small price to pay. 

19 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Maybe I missed something, but the article I read that you linked to was an apologetic work. . . 

Was it? 

How is the following any more than a reasonable conclusion upon reflection of the article itself?

“The problem is that transfused blood needs nitric oxide to keep the blood vessels open, otherwise, the carried oxygen never reaches the tissues. But nitric oxide begins to break down within three hours of storage, and donated blood is presently stored up to 42 days. To be sure, researchers think they can remedy the problem. But that does nothing to improve the effectiveness of blood transfusions already given, each one of which was hailed as "life-saving," yet few of them actually qualifying as such, at least not any more so than saline solution, which offers no danger of rejection. We all know that the body spots foreign tissue in an instant, and tries hard to get rid of it.”

I mean, I get where you’re coming from. I make clear in the article that I am a Witness. That negates the commentary itself, which even acknowledges researchers aim to rectify the problem and perhaps partially have by now? This is the mindset with which, for example one reads something about an uncontrolled southern border and says, ‘Well—what do you expect? He’s a Republican who wrote it.’ Or one reads something about the abuses of big business and says, ‘He’s a Democrat. Of course he’s going to say that.’ 

This is example of the inane prejudging of information the greater world typifies today. The Great Courses philosophy professor does this in spades. Discussing climate change, he touches on the fact that many weatherman don’t believe it. ‘A meteorologist is not a climatogist,’ he tells us, thus equating anything the former might write to so much toilet paper. How did it get to be a world where people are brilliant in their chosen field, but if you nudge them just a tiny bit out of it, they are clueless? What Great Educator fallen from the heavens packages information this way? And why—unless he is also the Great College Administrator. Hehehe )))). 

If I refer frequently to this philosophy professor, it is because I can see he and his featuring prominently in any future book about Job and other theodicies that I may write, and I am getting a few licks in early. How should I present such a future book? If I include reference to Jehovah’s Witnesses in it, people will say, ‘Oh, that’s an apologetic work.’ But if I don’t, it will leave a gaping hole because the theodicy most coherent is that of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (with a possible nod to the Seventh Day Adventist writer) If I cover all the Witness theology, but don’t say where it came from, it’s as though to say it can be found anywhere—even though it can’t. It becomes like pointing the person seeking water in any random direction, unconcerned with whether I am pointing to the Sahara Desert. Moreover, if I cover the ‘theodicy’ without saying where it came from, I give the impression it came from myself! 

No. I will say it came from JWs. And guys like MM may say, ‘Oh, well, this book is an apologetic work. Why waste my time?’ But I cannot conscientiously do it any other way.

7 hours ago, Pudgy said:

… I was just getting ready to reply something I thought was profound, wise, insightful and wrong.

…. but then the idea occorred to methat we have never seen MM and the Big L in the same post….

Coincidence?

And then … Pudgy is actually . . . . . .drum roll, please . . . . .pass the popcorn . . . .. .MARMADUKE!!

I would never say that the Librarian and Many Miles are the same person, but they do bear a certain relationship to each other.

And the exact nature of that relationship is . . . IDENTITY

(sigh . . . Naw, I don’t really know it. But there are enough clues one might piece together as to make it at least a 60% probability, or even higher.)

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

I'll just get my popcorn.

Evading the question, methinks.

2 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Maybe I missed something, but the article I read that you linked to was an apologetic work. Bizarre is often in the script when writing to protect a view rather than writing to share a view.

Is there a link you provided I missed?

Here's the one I read: https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2007/10/blood-transfusi.html

Hmm. Yeah, you’re right. It is there, but it is several paragraphs down since it is not the main point. It reads:

”Oddly, there are two versions of this AP story by Randolph E Schmid. One leads with the butt-kissing "blood transfusions have saved millions of lives" and one doesn't. I suspect Mr. Schmid, who is a science writer, did not include it. But somewhere along the line, some pious editor unable to tolerate the blood transfusion idol besmirched, added the phrase. Versions that have the phrase are here, here, and here. Versions that do not are here, here, and here. (I've included so many because some sources don't archive their stories very long....I hope some of them survive.)”

Alas—none the versions have survived. Papers don’t maintain their archives as they used to, or they put them behind paywalls.

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

Now, as for the usage of "life saving", it's common usage for a wide array of therapeutics. It is false to say the term is never separated from blood transfusion. As a adjective the term is applied when context suggests it is applicable, no matter the noun it's describing

It may be that I am too close to the forest to see the trees on this one, but is sure seems to be the way I said. At any rate, that bizzare treatment of the article I linked to I have never seen anywhere else.

On 12/4/2023 at 4:39 PM, George88 said:

We have [individuals] who mistakenly believes that blood transfusions are a panacea

The Great Courses professor on philosophy, expounding on the topic ‘how do we gain knowledge?’ cited an example of those he thinks who have not. He speaks of Jehovah’s Witnesses rejecting “life-saving blood transfusion.” (The logical error they have committed, he says, is rejecting the findings of ‘experts’ which, he maintains, is something you must never do.) The guy has nettled me up to this point. Now he’s toast.

It is very strange that the adjective “life-saving” is never separated from the noun “blood transfusion,” all the more so because the 2008 New Scientist article indicated “life-threatening” was more apt. Where did that convention come from? Do we ever hear of “life-saving heart transplants” or “life-saving antibiotics?” When you drop, do they send a “life-saving ambulance?” No, they send a regular one! So what is it with blood transfusion alone being “life-saving?”

The strangest example of this (for me) occurred with a certain news article I blogged about. A certain serious risk of transfusion was under discussion, which went on for several paragraphs. It was a source like the Associated Press. Individual newspapers subscribing to that news service picked up that story and ran with it. Half of them simply reprinted the story. The other half also reprinted the story, but with an added first sentence: “Although blood transfusions have saved countless lives, they are not without problems” or something to that effect.

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2007/10/blood-transfusi.html

It took me some time to believe my eyes. Some of them had it. Some didn’t. What’s with that? I wondered. I finally surmised that there were many editors who could not tolerate an affront to the god of blood transfusions so they offered him an opening pinch of incense so that he would not become incensed at them. I didn’t know how else to account for it. I used the oddity to my own advantage, however. I then writing Tom Irregardless and Me and began to insert, not only that god, but several other ones: the god of football, the god of qualifications, the god of higher education, and the god of the sex abuse registry—making reference to an Economist article lamenting that modern hysteria over pedophilia has resulted in sex registries so long as to be useless to law authorities, so that they mostly become a registry to shame people. Then (the article did not extend it to this) they become a vehicle for shaming those you don’t like. The stuff is the Chief Planetary Product. There is plenty of it to go around, so that focusing on groups in where it has occurred makes a great forum for spouting off, but not so much for fighting the problem. It occurs everywhere, people have discovered. 

Anyway, from where does this crusade to substitute “life-saving blood transfusion” for “blood transfusion” arise? Might it be to fend off Jehovah’s Witnesses, who have dared to offend a god?

42 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Hey. I was just confessing!

Gasp!!!!

A conspiratorially-minded person could take this confession for an admission that MM IS The Librarian!!!! Now, that would be a puzzle piece to crow about!

Just like I have progressed from being rebuked years ago for shamelessly promoting my first book, Tom Irregardless and Me, to participating here to such a degree that some think I actually own the site.

When the number of my comments surpassed those of the formerly dominating @Pudgy (under a different name) I said, ‘What’s wrong—cat got your tongue? I never thought they would surpass those of @JW Insider, but that too eventually happened.

A few dark and paranoid persons began insisting I was the owner. I denied it, but there is a certain type of person who once they get something into their heads, you can forget about ever getting it out. So I began to play along with the notion, and will continue to do so until this site shuts down, which you never know if that will happen or not. @admin was sweating it a while back about some proposed legislation that would make it hot for webmasters. Apparently, the storm blew over. Meantime, I put most of my writing on my own platform, so if this ever does go up in smoke, I go up to a lesser degree.

I dedicated In the Last of the Last Days: Faith in the Age of Dysfunction to @The Librarian. A writer needs more than a muse. He also needs a villain—and she has provided a playground where villains roam freely, as well as others falling in diverse places on the spiritual spectrum. It’s not always clear where they fall, but it sure is engrossing to put together the puzzle—just know, if you find you have stepped into it, you have to back out for a time. Not every one on a mission is actually on one. Sometimes, they just so closely resemble a person on one that you can’t tell the difference.

Avant-garde to carry on in this way? The entire system is avant-garde, from the slippery one who chuckles hehehe))))) as he is cast down from the heavens, to the brother who rebadges the WaPo byline as ‘Theocracy Dies in Darkness,’ to the brother who cries ‘There is not a righteous man, not even one; there is no one who has any insight; there is no one who searches for God—except me.’

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

I believe in evolution.

I know this will stagger the faith of some participants here. But I just have to say it.

Evidence:

This discussion started by asking the question "How many here have ever held an MCP party card to look it over and see what it is?"

Watching the subsequent path of this discussion has made me a believer. Oh, and we even have a talking beaver chiming in from time to time!

 

Oh, stuff it. You got your licks in. Let that be enough for you. Time to move on.  

It’s a little like @The Librarian, aptly named, whining on about the defilement of her card catalog that exists to keep order! Then someone like Pudgy comes along, and says, ‘Hey, forget order; let ‘er rip. You can be organized to such a degree that it starts to come out of your pores, like the brothers whose gestures are so similar that they begin to resemble synchronized swimming.

8 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Do not forget that it is applicable to everyone and to every situation. GB convinces himself of ideas, and then every JW finds his ideas within the general idea of his religion

Loosely speaking, Srecko is my template for the character Vic Vomodog, sort of a Wily E. Coyote figure who lurks in wait of any comment about anything and converts it into yet another attempt to catch the Road Runner. Thus far, Road Runner thwarts him every time, but we do not know what tomorrow will hold. If we did, the gag would have lost its enduring appeal long ago. Vic’s perpetual attacks on the faith are not logically consistent, but I don’t worry about it because neither are Srecko’s. Anything that comes up—how can it be used against the faith? Nevermind if it is consistent with prior criticisms.

It probably never would have occurred to me but for reflection upon the inane, ‘hehehe )))))))’ he used to append to comments, ceasing the practice only after Nana Fofana (who does not appear to be here any more) began imitating the style so mercilessly, even meanly overacting a chopped style that stems from English being a second language, that he could endure it no more.

Oh, yeah: hehehe ))))))). How can one not think of Wily E. Coyote cooking up another scheme with some Acme products?

On 11/27/2023 at 12:44 AM, Juan Rivera said:

I’m beginning to think that the idea that we can approach the bible without an inherent bias or rose tinted glasses is an illusory ideal. This abstract view from nowhere seems to be more effective when we think we have obtained pure objectivity, all while unknowingly presupposing contemporary ideas and assumptions. Everyone uses glasses of some sort when they come to Scripture

That being the case, it saves swaths of time if we can discover what are the glasses another is using.

It has been mentioned before that if one is atheist, it will so heavily influence anything they utter that you simply waste your time addressing them—unless you are speaking specifically of atheism or if you are speaking to those beyond them.  Atheism is for them the force that refreshes, and if you could demonstrate that each and every accusation against human organized worship is false, they still would say, ‘Well, there’s no god anyway.’ So why should you go there with them? What you as a Christian view as commendable delayed gratification they view as a woeful and willful flushing of one’s life down the toilet. When you say, ‘Well, every project needs headship, so I’ll cooperate with these people,’ they say, ‘They’re even more deluded than you! Cult leaders, through and through! The farther you can get from them, the better.’

Within the realm of religion, find out if the other believes we’re in the last days, for it will so heavily influence anything they say as to make any other criticism of theirs irrelevant. There is no sense swatting the water downstream, for it is immediately replaced. Unless you go to the source—are we in the last days or not?—any subsequent conversation, unless it is directed at those lying beyond, is fruitless. The entire ‘life boat’ scenario that so much Witness action and thinking depends upon is absurdity to them. Addressing some controversy about ‘Tight Pants Tony’ as though that was something that really troubled them, is just spitting into the wind. Even if you win, you haven’t gotten anywhere. I’ll wear pants the size of parachutes if it fits in with lifeboat protocol. 

Find out, as soon as possible, how they feel about ‘the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.’ Many people, even those religious, are repelled by the thought—how could God be so mean! they say. Find this out as soon as you can, because it will determine much of what they subsequently say and, again, you can find yourself quibbling with a point so far downstream—critiques over how Witnesses do this or that—as to quibble all day over a comparative nothing.

And, Lord knows, find out whenever you can if the person is ‘Proud to have come out of the closet’ gay, because if he or she is, you don’t stand a chance in discussing anything involving traditional morals as found in the Bible. Whatever you are debating, with you thinking that if you can make the point it may stick will not. Their ‘sexuality’ trumps all else.

All the above are largely matters of the heart, not the head. The heart makes a grab for what it wants, then charges the head to devise a convincing rationale. This leads the unobservant to think the head is calling the shots, but it is the heart all along. This is why one might buck at ‘rationality’ as the be-all and end-all. Rationality offers good insight into the head, but poor insight into the heart.

The best talks and writings are those that, while not ignoring the head, appeal primarily to the heart. Jesus did things that would infuriate any strict devotee of reason. He routinely spun parables that he declined to explain—let the heart figure it out. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. He answered questions with counter-questions. Try doing that with a modern ‘critical thinker.’ He launched ad hominem attacks. People may say that the ad hominem attacks of Matthew 23 are not really ad hominem attacks because the scribes and Pharisees actually were that way, but this wlll be said by anyone launching such an attack.

Allen Guelzo the historian lectures about how subjective history is, not at all how most of us suppose it. We get a hint he may be right when we recall the expression, ‘History is written by the victors,’ but he greatly expands on the idea by including new trends and waves of thinking among the ‘victors.’ That’s why (he does not make this point, but likely would if his lectures were given today) Americans pull down statues of Columbus and the forefathers that they once put up. History has (once again) flipped. The good guys have become the bad guys.

But doesn’t our modern day critical thinking solve the problem of subjectivity? he asks. No, it only makes the situation worse, he says, because it repackages our dubious biases as laudable critical thinking. “When dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity,” Dale Carnegie said. The trouble with critical thinking is that those who most heavily advocate it too often assume they have a lock on the stuff.

Accordingly, while your remarks must make sense so as not to explode the head, to go exclusively there is to miss where the action is. It is the heart that is the seat of motivation. One may be dubious of a discussion that appears purely intellectual, as though coming across ones fighting a battle that does not matter.

54 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

Although I am prejudiced that human dams are just as important as beaver dams.

It is not commonly recognized how smart beavers are. Most of them are graduates of Dam U.

11 hours ago, George88 said:

I remember when, Rubella, polio, measles, and chicken pox were a thing, and children needed to be vaccinated to attend school. Times have changed, or have they?

Yes. Whereas there were once about 7 shots required for pre-school age children, now there are around 70 (some of them boosters of the same thing).

4 minutes ago, Anna said:

Is that for real?

Yes.

Without again copying @Pudgy’s cartoon, which reveals a certain — ahem—cynicism of social media that leans left, which is practically all of it . . .

the founder of the BITE model that is used to recognize ‘cults’ is very political, active on Twitter (sigh…X) and invariably comes down on the left side of most (if not all) issues. He has a book out called, ‘The Cult of Trump.’ It could be argued that when you think half the country has fallen victim to a cult, it is evidence that you have drunk too much of the KoolAid yourself.

BITE stands for all methods of ‘control,’ behavioral, informational, thought, and emotional. Ironically, nobody seeks to control information like many of these social media companies, going so far as to ban large swaths of communication, and those who engage in them, on the grounds of being ‘misinformation.’

I read Walter Isaacson’s biography of Elon Musk.  He described the latter as very enamored with Asimov’s three laws of robotics—but also very concerned that most of his competitors are not. He has developed a feud with one of the Google heads (Page or Brin, I forget which), who has accused him of being a ‘specist.’ (one who favors his species) They used to be tight.

‘Um yeah, I kind of like humanity,’ says Musk, accounting for why he is fond of Asimov’s laws. He is in the minority. Most of these other guys want to let AI rip, go where it goes, go as fast as it can be developed, and if it one day outsmarts and outmaneuvers humans, swatting them as one might swat a bug that gets in your way, well—that’s evolution for you, survival of the fittest.

6 hours ago, George88 said:

What if a patient contracted another person's illness

This is true of Isaac Asimov, who died of AIDS from a blood transfusion. I discovered this in writing up a post about him. It wasn’t widely known—his family hushed it up. And it was not acquired until his later years. All the same, it’s not a nice way to go, it probably shaved a dozen or more years from his life, and who knows what he might have written in that time:

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2007/07/isaac-asimov-an.html

8 hours ago, Many Miles said:

My apologies.

Mine too. Maybe if I had the experiences you report I would feel as you do. I have had calamity in my life, but not that one.

8 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Oh. I forgot. You were at the movies

Isn’t this your 6th or 7th mention of The Fugitive? Though there is tragedy in the world, those not immediate victims continue to go to the movies, to concerts, to plays, to read books, to surf the internet, until in Eliphaz’s words, ‘it becomes your turn.’ Maybe all such activity should end until there is no more pain, but it does not.

6 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Make of things as you will. It's best that way, and that's the way it is regardless. I'm just glad you found a big piece. Impressive.

I think you are not big on the movies, for there is an allusion that you did not pick up. I don’t know how else to account for this bit of pique on your part.

7 hours ago, Many Miles said:

That's very irreverent

I meant to be colloquial. I did not mean to be irreverent. Comparing life to a game is among the oldest metaphors in the book.

7 hours ago, Many Miles said:

it makes light of mothers and fathers who've lost children over this issue.

Those persons understandably might sour on the metaphor, You did not say that you were one of them. 

The fact is, people put their lives on the line for any number of causes—for country, for science, for exploration, even for extreme sports, and they are generally praised for it. Only if the motivation is religious conviction is their loss tainted by accusations they were manipulated. In all other cases, life, including wordplay, goes on.

Not long ago, Juan said some do not like his style of writing. Same here with mine. It was not my intention to dishonor anyone and I don’t think the comment did.

Since you specifically mentioned children, that recalled a blog post I wrote on a 1994 Awake Magazine that dealt with the issue. An excerpt: 

“I also thought it well to take a look at that May 1994 Awake quote which Matt uses to advance the notion JW youths are dropping like flies for their transfusion refusals:

“In former times thousands of youths died for putting God first. They are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue.”

“Not that I accuse Matt of anything devious. I've no doubt he used the quotation in good faith. It's likely from a web source purporting to be informative, but in reality existing only to denigrate a faith its  author dislikes, trying to make JWs look as fanatical as possible, and doing so for philosophical reasons, rather than anything having to do with medicine or lives. So is the statement taken out of context or not?

“It's a little difficult to tell, for there is no context. The quote is a one-line blurb on the magazine's table of contents designed to pique interest in the articles to follow. The articles to follow describe the cases of five Witness youngsters in North America. Each was admitted into a hospital for aggressive cancer or leukemia. Each fought battles with hospitals, courts, and child welfare agencies determined to administer blood against the patient's will. Each eventually prevailed in court, being recognized as “mature minors” with the right to decide upon their own treatment (though in two cases, a forced transfusion was given prior to that decision). Three of the children did die. Two lived. It's rather wrenching stuff, with court transcripts and statements of the children involved, and those of the participating doctors, lawyers, and judges. In no case do you get the sense that blood transfusions offered a permanent cure, only a possible prolonging of life, ideally long enough for some cure to be discovered (which has not yet happened). One of the children, who did die, was told that blood would enable her to live only three to six months longer, during which time she might “do many things,” such as “visit Disney World.” There's little here to suggest that “thousands of youths are dying for putting God first” who would otherwise live. Frankly, I think the quote is sloppily written. “They are still doing it,” says the quote. Doing what? Dying? Dying in the thousands? Or putting God first without regard for the immediate consequences?”

3 hours ago, George88 said:

Shall I persist in preaching and teaching with God's authority, or is the answer sufficient?

Well, now that you’ve established your position in the pecking order, no.

You had me saying, ‘Oh, he’s not such a bad guy after all,’ until that line.