Jump to content

TrueTomHarley

Member
  • Content Count

    3,820
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    50

Reputation Activity

  1. Haha
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from Srecko Sostar in You shall not murder vs You shall not shun   
    They are that these are not your words. Who wrote this?
  2. Upvote
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from James Thomas Rook Jr. in You shall not murder vs You shall not shun   
    They are that these are not your words. Who wrote this?
  3. Haha
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from 4Jah2me in Leo K. Greenlees   
  4. Haha
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from 4Jah2me in in what ways is the JW Org moving forward SPIRITUALLY   
    How can you say such a stupid thing? It is a ridiculous misrepresentation of what has been said.
  5. Thanks
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from James Thomas Rook Jr. in JW's in Germany Under Hitler   
    I appreciate this, JTR. The JW stand during WWII is one of the most courageous stands in history. It is also one of the most well-attested—and enemies of the Witnesses are trying to change that perception, seizing upon a letter Rutherford wrote to an infant Nazi government, before it had tipped its hand as to the evil it would become, to assure it that they, the Witnesses, were apolitical, thus not a threat, and ought to be left to operate in peace.
    I appreciate this clarification, too. I let his remark go unchallenged because there were bigger fish to fry. Usually if someone launches a tirade of charges, I respond to just one. Just because he thinks in a muddle doesn’t mean that I have to. Respond to each and every point and things soon become unwieldy—it devolves into endless Alan-type comments hurled back and forth.
  6. Upvote
    TrueTomHarley reacted to James Thomas Rook Jr. in JW's in Germany Under Hitler   
    The above is complete hogwash.  What happened is that Joseph "Judge" Rutherford" tried to butter Hitler up in a conciliatory letter, before Hitler went completely bat-crap crazy ... but Jehovah's Witnesses in Germany almost "to the man" resisted Hitler, and were imprisoned and put to death without compromising any integrity toward God. Many Elders in Germany caved in to Hitler, because they were trying to appease Rutherford, but the rank-and-file JWs actual stand was magnificent, as a whole, and as a group.
    And TTH did NOT indicate in any way that he "hated Trump".
    You are seeing things that are not there ... BECAUSE it is you, Matthew9969, who has  a case of WDS "Watchtower Derangement Syndrome" and because your reasoning and logic processes are dominated by your bogus agenda, you are seeing things that are not there, and projecting those fantasys as originating from others.
    "Be true to your own self, and it follows, you can be false to no man" (paraphrased) .
    You have become in your derangement one very sad person to read, and that is why I voted you last two posts "sad"
    You waste what intelligence you have.

    Oh, and Matthew9969, If you want freedom of speech for yourself, morally, you have to allow for it in others, even if it is what YOU consider bluster and gross error.  To have the moral high ground you can legitimately point out someone's error, or ask them to "prove it", or to act, and call them a hypocrite, with or without a sound basis ... but you CANNOT demand or even contemplate that they "shut up", for not seeing things the same way you do.

  7. Upvote
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from James Thomas Rook Jr. in Trump Derangement Syndrome   
    I rest my case.
  8. Upvote
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from James Thomas Rook Jr. in Trump Derangement Syndrome   
    What is it with this idiot?
    His first remark bashes me for seeming to criticise Trump:
    His second bashes me for seeming to praise him:
    As his many accusations at JWs are shot down, he is degenerating into just another source of vitriol.
    As for cheering for Trump, an elder leading a pioneer meeting—dare I say it was the circuit overseer?—emphasizes the importance of neutrality and the challenges of completely remaining so. “Now we all know that Trump is crazy, but.....” he starts. Two sisters look at each other, and the one says to the other: “I know that my father is a good man, and he voted for Trump.”
    That CO is very atypical. I’ve never heard another one mention the president, or any president, either way. Doubtless he watches the network news at the end of the day, where they do nothing but bash the president. Making any country great again doesn’t necessarily do it for those accustomed to treating equally those of any “nation, tribe, people, and tongue.” (Revelation 7:9) As for the photoshopped Trump beating up on the CNN bobble head, the average Witness who sees that thinks of how he tries not to do like that with the householder. He observes that Trump is bombastic whereas he tries to be polite. Often his politics go no further than that.
  9. Haha
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from James Thomas Rook Jr. in Trump Derangement Syndrome   
    I’ve soured on my view of him in recent years.
    As Supreme Commander, it was he who liberated the concentration camps. There is an account of a certain nearby German mayor pleading ignorance, an enraged Eisenhower forcing him to tour the camp himself, and the next day that mayor hung himself.
    The national system of interstate 4 lane divided highways is named after him. You wouldn’t be able to get around in a timely way without them. It is a good symbolism for how he stabilized the country after the war and put it on sound footing to prosper through speedy transportation and commerce. One aspect of the system was that the roadways could be used to evacuate areas quickly in the event of nuclear war. They are used that way today to evacuate for approaching hurricanes. It’s all a good legacy to the man.
    He did good things. He is essentially the savior of the world, and then the guide of America afterwards. But with my visit to his home in Gettysburg, his star began to fade some. 
    Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide suffered intense persecution during WWII. There were only about 75,000 of them—not the 8 million of today. In the US, many were beaten, others rounded up and arrested without trial, some tarred and feathered. There were a few that were killed. 
    He could have stopped it! He could have explained just who and what they were. No one on the political scene knew them better than he. It was his mama’s religion, who remained faithful to her death. He was raised in it. “Look, they’re patriotic in their own way—they hold off on fighting because of their own religious views about God’s kingdom. They are honest and hard-working otherwise. They are harmless! They are not criminals. It is free speech they are engaging in, and that’s what I am in Europe fighting for!” He could have said that, and probably ended their persecution. Others did speak out in behalf of the Witnesses—notably Eleanor Roosevelt and the ACLU. He kept mum.
    It is impossible for me not to think that he kept his mouth shut with regard to his mother’s “brothers” so as not to harm his stature and political career—both during the war and afterwards. That harsh verdict is tempered by the fact that he truly did well by WWII standards and 8 years of presidential standards—and NATO chief afterwards. Maybe had he not been where he was, his substitute would have screwed everything up. Still, when push comes to shove, he did sell out his childhood “brothers.”
    In a sense he was like Pilate, who knew very well that Jesus was innocent, but he also had a province to run and he decided that was more important. “Give the scoundrels what they want, and keep them out of my hair,” was his attitude. It may be the same with Putin, who says: “I don’t understand why we are persecuting Jehovah’s Witnesses—aren’t they Christians, too?” But, one year later, persecution just keeps rolling on, so it obviously is not a priority to him.
    Even now the National Historical Park Service, that is not wrong on anything, stays wrong with regard to Eisenhower’s upbringing. The ranger during my visit said that he was raised Mennonite, and he wasn’t. He was raised a Witness. Keep that embarrassing fact well-hidden, so as not to jeopardize his or his families social stature. They are a respected family and they want to remain so. They can survive a Mennonite connection, for that can be passed off as quaint. But they dare not take their chances with a Jehovah’s Witness connection, and the National Park Service helps them maintain this ruse. The actual facts of Dwight’s upbringing lead to somewhere embarrassing for a national figure, and so they don’t go there.
    It is hard for me not to think of Jesus’ words that “you will be hated for the sake of my name.” Just the thought of being associated with those carrying out the kingdom proclamation work that he originated and that others spearheaded is enough to make a prominent national leader turn tail and run like a rabbit. “How can you believe,” Jesus asks, “when you are accepting glory from one another and you are not seeking the glory that is from the only God?” Exactly. Dwight did know that you cannot play it both ways. You must choose. He chose to “keep religion in its place.” As is usually the case, that means last place.
     
    Did you deduce from the post that I “really hate Trump and his supporters?” If so, I don’t know from where.
    Could be.
    Still, I don’t view him as the monster that his enemies try to portray him. He is a guy who has had an affair or two or three or four—something that is by no means unusual in men today. Some of his accusers are among the nuttiest people on earth, such as the one who flummoxed Anderson Cooper by describing rape as “sexy” and then leaned into him with: “You’re fascinating to talk to.”
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cooper-cuts-interview-short-after-e-jean-carroll-calls-rape-sexy
    Melania passed off her husband’s remarks to Billy Bush as “locker room talk.” Given that the media was every day trying to take him out and had apparently been sitting on that sound bite for ages, waiting for just the right moment, I made up a broadcast (in No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash) that I named: Live From the Locker Room:
    “Good evening. We’re broadcasting live from the locker room tonight to reveal to America just what goes on in this previously obscure culture that has so suddenly thrust itself upon the national stage. We’ll interview some players in this intriguing venue. Ah, here’s comes a jock now. “Hey! Yo! Whazzup? We’d like to ask you some questions.”
    “Why, good evening sirs, madam. You must be members of the news media. Welcome to our humble locker room. It’s not much, but please make yourself at home. There are refreshments in the adjacent room, just past the gentleman snapping his neighbor’s buns with the wet towel.”
    “Charlie, it is as we thought. ‘Locker room talk’ is but a lame excuse. They’re not crude at all here. They are quite refined and sensitive and…”
    Hey, ya wanna get your crap outta here?! I can’t get to my @%!# locker!”
     
  10. Haha
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from JW Insider in Trump Derangement Syndrome   
    I’ve soured on my view of him in recent years.
    As Supreme Commander, it was he who liberated the concentration camps. There is an account of a certain nearby German mayor pleading ignorance, an enraged Eisenhower forcing him to tour the camp himself, and the next day that mayor hung himself.
    The national system of interstate 4 lane divided highways is named after him. You wouldn’t be able to get around in a timely way without them. It is a good symbolism for how he stabilized the country after the war and put it on sound footing to prosper through speedy transportation and commerce. One aspect of the system was that the roadways could be used to evacuate areas quickly in the event of nuclear war. They are used that way today to evacuate for approaching hurricanes. It’s all a good legacy to the man.
    He did good things. He is essentially the savior of the world, and then the guide of America afterwards. But with my visit to his home in Gettysburg, his star began to fade some. 
    Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide suffered intense persecution during WWII. There were only about 75,000 of them—not the 8 million of today. In the US, many were beaten, others rounded up and arrested without trial, some tarred and feathered. There were a few that were killed. 
    He could have stopped it! He could have explained just who and what they were. No one on the political scene knew them better than he. It was his mama’s religion, who remained faithful to her death. He was raised in it. “Look, they’re patriotic in their own way—they hold off on fighting because of their own religious views about God’s kingdom. They are honest and hard-working otherwise. They are harmless! They are not criminals. It is free speech they are engaging in, and that’s what I am in Europe fighting for!” He could have said that, and probably ended their persecution. Others did speak out in behalf of the Witnesses—notably Eleanor Roosevelt and the ACLU. He kept mum.
    It is impossible for me not to think that he kept his mouth shut with regard to his mother’s “brothers” so as not to harm his stature and political career—both during the war and afterwards. That harsh verdict is tempered by the fact that he truly did well by WWII standards and 8 years of presidential standards—and NATO chief afterwards. Maybe had he not been where he was, his substitute would have screwed everything up. Still, when push comes to shove, he did sell out his childhood “brothers.”
    In a sense he was like Pilate, who knew very well that Jesus was innocent, but he also had a province to run and he decided that was more important. “Give the scoundrels what they want, and keep them out of my hair,” was his attitude. It may be the same with Putin, who says: “I don’t understand why we are persecuting Jehovah’s Witnesses—aren’t they Christians, too?” But, one year later, persecution just keeps rolling on, so it obviously is not a priority to him.
    Even now the National Historical Park Service, that is not wrong on anything, stays wrong with regard to Eisenhower’s upbringing. The ranger during my visit said that he was raised Mennonite, and he wasn’t. He was raised a Witness. Keep that embarrassing fact well-hidden, so as not to jeopardize his or his families social stature. They are a respected family and they want to remain so. They can survive a Mennonite connection, for that can be passed off as quaint. But they dare not take their chances with a Jehovah’s Witness connection, and the National Park Service helps them maintain this ruse. The actual facts of Dwight’s upbringing lead to somewhere embarrassing for a national figure, and so they don’t go there.
    It is hard for me not to think of Jesus’ words that “you will be hated for the sake of my name.” Just the thought of being associated with those carrying out the kingdom proclamation work that he originated and that others spearheaded is enough to make a prominent national leader turn tail and run like a rabbit. “How can you believe,” Jesus asks, “when you are accepting glory from one another and you are not seeking the glory that is from the only God?” Exactly. Dwight did know that you cannot play it both ways. You must choose. He chose to “keep religion in its place.” As is usually the case, that means last place.
     
    Did you deduce from the post that I “really hate Trump and his supporters?” If so, I don’t know from where.
    Could be.
    Still, I don’t view him as the monster that his enemies try to portray him. He is a guy who has had an affair or two or three or four—something that is by no means unusual in men today. Some of his accusers are among the nuttiest people on earth, such as the one who flummoxed Anderson Cooper by describing rape as “sexy” and then leaned into him with: “You’re fascinating to talk to.”
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cooper-cuts-interview-short-after-e-jean-carroll-calls-rape-sexy
    Melania passed off her husband’s remarks to Billy Bush as “locker room talk.” Given that the media was every day trying to take him out and had apparently been sitting on that sound bite for ages, waiting for just the right moment, I made up a broadcast (in No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash) that I named: Live From the Locker Room:
    “Good evening. We’re broadcasting live from the locker room tonight to reveal to America just what goes on in this previously obscure culture that has so suddenly thrust itself upon the national stage. We’ll interview some players in this intriguing venue. Ah, here’s comes a jock now. “Hey! Yo! Whazzup? We’d like to ask you some questions.”
    “Why, good evening sirs, madam. You must be members of the news media. Welcome to our humble locker room. It’s not much, but please make yourself at home. There are refreshments in the adjacent room, just past the gentleman snapping his neighbor’s buns with the wet towel.”
    “Charlie, it is as we thought. ‘Locker room talk’ is but a lame excuse. They’re not crude at all here. They are quite refined and sensitive and…”
    Hey, ya wanna get your crap outta here?! I can’t get to my @%!# locker!”
     
  11. Upvote
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from Arauna in Trump Derangement Syndrome   
    The Dark Lord has made his appearance and people who agree with him in many particulars are keeping an unusually low profile. It is probably because they do not want to inadvertently say something wrong and have him find their lack of faith disturbing.
    Case in point is @James Thomas Rook Jr.. Normally, a mention of climate change will trigger a tirade from him as to how it is a masterful left wing hoax. Normally a negative mention of Trump will unleash torrents of praise for him from his corner. This time, however, not a peep. Well...there is a bit of cheerleading for Trump—you cannot completely erase the spots of a leopard—but he does not pursue it. He and @JW Insider have happily squabbled at great length over both these topics. But he does not do it here with Darth Alan.
    Do I blame him for this bit of cowardice? Not at all. He is in his senior years and he wants to live them out. He does not want to be accosted with endless taunts about how stupid he is. He does not want every syllable he utters to be corrected. He does not want to have to open dozens of dialogue boxes to recall just what it was that he said to earn the verdict that he is a moron. He does not want to shake his head in disgust that every other forum participant has learned to use those boxes properly, and only the Dark Lord is too enraptured with his own arguing to constrain himself to quoting just three lines of text that will faithfully reproduce without opening boxes. He looks at @Arauna, who has had to triple her blood pressure medication, and decides that he wants no part of it. Who can blame him?
    So I will carry his Trump ball for him—not as aptly as he would do it himself, for I am not so vested in it as he—but I will carry it.
    In the midst of discussion, @AlanF reaches back into his quiver for taunts, chooses a old favorite, and hurls back at me: “Apparently you just make up "news" out of thin air -- just like your idol Trump.”
    This is the fifth completely irrelevant reference to Trump since he began participation here, just two or three weeks ago. A moment later, he launches the sixth: “You're doing what ever-Trumpers do very well -- project their own faults onto their opponents.”
    Six times he brings Trump into a discussion that has nothing to do with him. Each time it is like ripping a loud one in the concert hall. His audience surely must be among the most apolitical people on earth. Some of them, JW and non-JW alike, think it downright wrong to bring politics into a discussion of spiritual things. Alan knows this. He knows everything. So why can he not restrain himself from continually inserting that which he knows will fall flat with almost everyone and be positively off-putting to some?
    It is because he suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome. I had thought that JTR made up the term because he is the only one who has ever used it here—another testimony to the apolitical nature of both JWs and many who oppose them—but I see now via internet search that it is not so. Alan has that ailment full-blown, though. He froths over Trump. He obsesses over Trump. He embraces those who every day since before his election experiences orgasm at some new bullet that will supposedly take him out. He inserts references to Trump everywhere, the same way that normal people insert “word whiskers” like “um.”
    So what of this taunt that he hurls at me—ME, TrueTomHarley! :
    “Apparently you just make up "news" out of thin air -- just like your idol Trump.” 
    Is he my idol? That depends. Politically, it is not likely to be so. Trump does the Make America Great routine. He pushes for his country, assumes that other national leaders will push for theirs, and if they don’t, it is all the better for him. On the other hand, as a JW, I look forward to “the kingdom”—a government from God that will eliminate national borders. Even now, visit Bethel, observe the huge globe, and take in the fact that there are no national borders to sully it.
    So no, politically he is hardly an “idol.” But that does not mean that as a man I cannot learn from him. I try to learn from anyone that comes to my attention—either through personal interaction or by their being in the news a lot. I even strive to learn from Alan. Nobody can be said to be worthless, for you can always be used as a bad example.
    Politics aside, it turns out that I am very grateful for Trump. His election has vaulted 2 Timothy 3:1-5 to the position of the world’s year text—this year and every year. It used to be that if you read how people would be fierce, unreasonable, not open to agreement, backbiting, and so forth, and your householder did not agree that such was the case today more so than in prior times, there wasn’t much you could do about it. Plainly the verse is subjective. It always will be, of course—I expect that should Alan ever have the misfortune to be executed by guillotine, he will ignore that unpleasant fact and his head will continue to insult onlookers as it is being carted away in the wheelbarrow—but with ever-Trumpers and never-Trumpers screaming at each other day and night, it becomes a much more difficult verse to deny.
    I also take a page from Trump with regard to his communication skills. At first glance, he hasn’t any. Surely he is one of the most ineloquent public figures in history. And don’t come to him for spelling lessons. But at second glance, one comes to see that he is a master at pushing back at his barrage of opponents. After a brief period of supposing opponents would adjust to his presence, he decided that there was no way on earth that they could be placated, and so he redirects his efforts to defeating them. He does it in the most innovative of ways, taking full advantage of their weaknesses. Time and again, he draws them in as with hooks in their jaws, and just as they are ready to pounce, tasting certain victory, he pulls the rug out from under them.
    Case in point is the brouhaha over his inauguration. ‘It was the most well-attended inauguration in history!’ he boasts. ‘It wasn’t!’ counter his enemies. He reasserts that it was. They dive into the archives to find photos of other inaugurations. Obama filled the quadrangle. Trump’s crowd is visibly far less. HA!, they shout in victory—surely now that they have caught him in a lie, he will fess up to it. He doesn’t! 
    Night after night they run the two photos side by side on national news broadcasts, ignoring all else. They point to the gaping holes in Trump’s photos that are not there with Obama’s photos. “These are FACTS!” they are close to screaming. “You cannot dispute FACTS!” He does. He doubles down, nearly to the point of saying: “No event in human history has drawn the attendance of my inauguration!”
    Tearing their hair out, they invite his advisor on TV—Kellyanne. They rub her nose, and the noses of their viewers, into their two photos. ‘The FACTS show that Obama drew way more than Trump! Right here—look at just this spot! There is just bare ground with Trump and there is shoulder-to-shoulder people with Obama! FACTS are FACTS!
    But Kellyanne says that the President is trying to draw attention to alternative facts. He is trying to draw attention to.........’ALTERNATIVE FACTS!! they scream. ‘THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN “ALTERNATIVE” FACT!!! A FACT IS A FACT IS A FACT IS A FACT!! THERE ARE NO “ALTERNATIVE FACTS!!” 
    But the Advisor to the President insists that they are, and that the media ignores them. They consist of the fact of popular discontent with the “swamp” that propelled him to victory in the first place. Whatever Trump said to the ignored half of America clearly resonated with them, and it is being ignored by the mainstream media. Today he crows about the economy. Bill Clinton garnered adoration from pundits with his, “It’s the economy, stupid!” Today these same pundits will portray the economy as though a very minor point.
    As for me, I enjoy the spectacle, without taking any position as to whether he makes a good president or not. He may be a terrible one, but I like the way he turns the tables on those seeking to destroy him. I am not even sure that his numerous spelling errors are not deliberate. When he tweets that North Korea has launched its nuclear missels, people of common sense will run to take cover. People of the media will run to their keyboards to point out that the idiot can’t even spell the word right. 
    Life is a continued term paper to many of these characters. They did well on term papers in college. They have grades from their professors to prove it. So they launch into the media that only attracts a certain type of people—those who imagine that ‘exposing’ problems is enough to fix them—and assume that life, too, will respect their term paper skills as highly as their professors did. They have little experience in actually doing anything. They are mostly wonks when it comes to government—and the fixes that their type of government can bring is their obsession.
    As for me, I take note that if there is any new meme guaranteed to undermining traditional family life, these characters are all over it. If there is any new meme that will even bend gender distinctions, these characters are all over it. Gayle King dutifully appended the Q on LGBTQ before she even knew what it meant—I heard her say it. Did it mean ‘queer?’ Did it mean ‘questioning?’ She didn’t know. But she didn’t dare not include it once the gods of media popularity told her to. With this track record, anyone who can get these characters incensed cannot be all bad.
    (More to come)
  12. Upvote
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from the Sower of Seed in in what ways is the JW Org moving forward SPIRITUALLY   
    To the extent it is true, Luke 5:31 is what would explain it:
    “In reply Jesus said to them: “Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but those who are ill do.”
    Do you think he is speaking of cancer? Or is mental distress, such as might accompany anguish over the atrocities of this world and the blame assigned to God for it more to the point? To my mind, the ones you should worry about are those who are not greatly troubled by the injustices of life today—those who sail blithely through the horrors and cruelties without a care.
    It is easily offset by the high participation rate of those who stick. After all, with many faiths, people might not actually leave, but how would you know if they did?
    It is also explained by the fact that there is a substantial cost in conduct—to be a minister of Christ is to be self-sacrificing. Why bother leaving a faith that asks little of you?
    Seen, it that light, it is something that the “turnover” you speak of isn’t much higher than it is.
    I would say the numerous schools that exist now that did not 50 years ago fits the bill. For elders, ministerial servants, traveling reps, etc. Intense and reoccurring instruction lasting anywhere from a weekend to a few weeks. 
    I have attended some of these schools. Almost all content is on imitating Jesus’ manner of dealing with the flock, dealing with those in the ministry, showing tenderness, not lording it over, leading by example, and so forth. Very little is on what would be called ‘doctrinal.’
    I remember in particular one instructor leading around a string on a table with forefinger firmly applied to one end. “See how the rest of the string follows so nicely?” he asked. He then reversed course and tried to “push” the string. “See how it bunches up when I do that?” he said. “It’s really not too smart of me to do it that way, is it?” The lesson, of course, was to lead by example, and not by being “pushy.”
    These schools have a cumulative effect of refining those exercising any authority. That they are needed can be inferred from Jesus’ dealings with those to whom he granted the greatest authority. Even on the eve of his death he interceded in an argument they were having as to which one of them was the greatest, the same as you might do with children.
    Take that into account when you next carry on about how inspired, unerring, and pure the leaders were back then and by extension ought be today. Grown men are capable of behaving like children—it happened then, it happens today. Refresher course training in which students will focus on scores  of scriptures—and if they prepare as the ought—hundreds of scriptures, go a long way towards training those in authority to lead as Christ did.
    And, far from the GB dreaming up a school that they ride above and apply to everyone else, when such a school is formulated, they put themselves through it first. They do not imagine that they cannot benefit from intense review of how Jesus dealt with people.
     
    I thought you said you were going to be a “bit positive?” This is just the same bile you deliver when you are being your usual negative self.
  13. Upvote
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from Anna in Leo K. Greenlees   
    Needless to say.
    I like how the JW video “Protect Your Children” pushes just this course. “If anyone” touches you in a way that “makes you uncomfortable” “even if it is someone you know and trust” then “right away come tell mommy or daddy”, who respond pretty much like Anna’s mom did. 
    I like the way how that solves the problem. Will reporting Uncle Hands to the police solve the problem? I have my doubts. Especially since reporting outright rape does not necessarily solve the problem—all the time we hear of CSA crimes from rapists who had already done time and were already on the Predator List. That’s not to say it’s not worth blowing these people in—of course it is. But if our goal is to solve the problem, then Anna’s mom and the WT video gets higher priority.
    The WT video builds on the bedrock that only godly people will have—that Jehovah gave us a conscience. I squabbled with Ann O'Maly (one of the Three Apostates) a while back about dueling videos. Her video featured circled areas of a child’s body, as though the child of critical thinking should bring that chart to mind in order to determine whether he should feel bad about how he has been touched. Our video featured “a conscience” that God gave us.
    O’Maly resisted for the longest time, but the knockout punch came when I pointed out that our video said “if ANYONE touches you” and hers specifically said that it was okay if a doctor touched children in those circled areas. “Ask the young women of the US Olympics Gymnastics Team which video they think would have protected them more,” I told her.
  14. Upvote
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from James Thomas Rook Jr. in Trump Derangement Syndrome   
    The Dark Lord has made his appearance and people who agree with him in many particulars are keeping an unusually low profile. It is probably because they do not want to inadvertently say something wrong and have him find their lack of faith disturbing.
    Case in point is @James Thomas Rook Jr.. Normally, a mention of climate change will trigger a tirade from him as to how it is a masterful left wing hoax. Normally a negative mention of Trump will unleash torrents of praise for him from his corner. This time, however, not a peep. Well...there is a bit of cheerleading for Trump—you cannot completely erase the spots of a leopard—but he does not pursue it. He and @JW Insider have happily squabbled at great length over both these topics. But he does not do it here with Darth Alan.
    Do I blame him for this bit of cowardice? Not at all. He is in his senior years and he wants to live them out. He does not want to be accosted with endless taunts about how stupid he is. He does not want every syllable he utters to be corrected. He does not want to have to open dozens of dialogue boxes to recall just what it was that he said to earn the verdict that he is a moron. He does not want to shake his head in disgust that every other forum participant has learned to use those boxes properly, and only the Dark Lord is too enraptured with his own arguing to constrain himself to quoting just three lines of text that will faithfully reproduce without opening boxes. He looks at @Arauna, who has had to triple her blood pressure medication, and decides that he wants no part of it. Who can blame him?
    So I will carry his Trump ball for him—not as aptly as he would do it himself, for I am not so vested in it as he—but I will carry it.
    In the midst of discussion, @AlanF reaches back into his quiver for taunts, chooses a old favorite, and hurls back at me: “Apparently you just make up "news" out of thin air -- just like your idol Trump.”
    This is the fifth completely irrelevant reference to Trump since he began participation here, just two or three weeks ago. A moment later, he launches the sixth: “You're doing what ever-Trumpers do very well -- project their own faults onto their opponents.”
    Six times he brings Trump into a discussion that has nothing to do with him. Each time it is like ripping a loud one in the concert hall. His audience surely must be among the most apolitical people on earth. Some of them, JW and non-JW alike, think it downright wrong to bring politics into a discussion of spiritual things. Alan knows this. He knows everything. So why can he not restrain himself from continually inserting that which he knows will fall flat with almost everyone and be positively off-putting to some?
    It is because he suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome. I had thought that JTR made up the term because he is the only one who has ever used it here—another testimony to the apolitical nature of both JWs and many who oppose them—but I see now via internet search that it is not so. Alan has that ailment full-blown, though. He froths over Trump. He obsesses over Trump. He embraces those who every day since before his election experiences orgasm at some new bullet that will supposedly take him out. He inserts references to Trump everywhere, the same way that normal people insert “word whiskers” like “um.”
    So what of this taunt that he hurls at me—ME, TrueTomHarley! :
    “Apparently you just make up "news" out of thin air -- just like your idol Trump.” 
    Is he my idol? That depends. Politically, it is not likely to be so. Trump does the Make America Great routine. He pushes for his country, assumes that other national leaders will push for theirs, and if they don’t, it is all the better for him. On the other hand, as a JW, I look forward to “the kingdom”—a government from God that will eliminate national borders. Even now, visit Bethel, observe the huge globe, and take in the fact that there are no national borders to sully it.
    So no, politically he is hardly an “idol.” But that does not mean that as a man I cannot learn from him. I try to learn from anyone that comes to my attention—either through personal interaction or by their being in the news a lot. I even strive to learn from Alan. Nobody can be said to be worthless, for you can always be used as a bad example.
    Politics aside, it turns out that I am very grateful for Trump. His election has vaulted 2 Timothy 3:1-5 to the position of the world’s year text—this year and every year. It used to be that if you read how people would be fierce, unreasonable, not open to agreement, backbiting, and so forth, and your householder did not agree that such was the case today more so than in prior times, there wasn’t much you could do about it. Plainly the verse is subjective. It always will be, of course—I expect that should Alan ever have the misfortune to be executed by guillotine, he will ignore that unpleasant fact and his head will continue to insult onlookers as it is being carted away in the wheelbarrow—but with ever-Trumpers and never-Trumpers screaming at each other day and night, it becomes a much more difficult verse to deny.
    I also take a page from Trump with regard to his communication skills. At first glance, he hasn’t any. Surely he is one of the most ineloquent public figures in history. And don’t come to him for spelling lessons. But at second glance, one comes to see that he is a master at pushing back at his barrage of opponents. After a brief period of supposing opponents would adjust to his presence, he decided that there was no way on earth that they could be placated, and so he redirects his efforts to defeating them. He does it in the most innovative of ways, taking full advantage of their weaknesses. Time and again, he draws them in as with hooks in their jaws, and just as they are ready to pounce, tasting certain victory, he pulls the rug out from under them.
    Case in point is the brouhaha over his inauguration. ‘It was the most well-attended inauguration in history!’ he boasts. ‘It wasn’t!’ counter his enemies. He reasserts that it was. They dive into the archives to find photos of other inaugurations. Obama filled the quadrangle. Trump’s crowd is visibly far less. HA!, they shout in victory—surely now that they have caught him in a lie, he will fess up to it. He doesn’t! 
    Night after night they run the two photos side by side on national news broadcasts, ignoring all else. They point to the gaping holes in Trump’s photos that are not there with Obama’s photos. “These are FACTS!” they are close to screaming. “You cannot dispute FACTS!” He does. He doubles down, nearly to the point of saying: “No event in human history has drawn the attendance of my inauguration!”
    Tearing their hair out, they invite his advisor on TV—Kellyanne. They rub her nose, and the noses of their viewers, into their two photos. ‘The FACTS show that Obama drew way more than Trump! Right here—look at just this spot! There is just bare ground with Trump and there is shoulder-to-shoulder people with Obama! FACTS are FACTS!
    But Kellyanne says that the President is trying to draw attention to alternative facts. He is trying to draw attention to.........’ALTERNATIVE FACTS!! they scream. ‘THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN “ALTERNATIVE” FACT!!! A FACT IS A FACT IS A FACT IS A FACT!! THERE ARE NO “ALTERNATIVE FACTS!!” 
    But the Advisor to the President insists that they are, and that the media ignores them. They consist of the fact of popular discontent with the “swamp” that propelled him to victory in the first place. Whatever Trump said to the ignored half of America clearly resonated with them, and it is being ignored by the mainstream media. Today he crows about the economy. Bill Clinton garnered adoration from pundits with his, “It’s the economy, stupid!” Today these same pundits will portray the economy as though a very minor point.
    As for me, I enjoy the spectacle, without taking any position as to whether he makes a good president or not. He may be a terrible one, but I like the way he turns the tables on those seeking to destroy him. I am not even sure that his numerous spelling errors are not deliberate. When he tweets that North Korea has launched its nuclear missels, people of common sense will run to take cover. People of the media will run to their keyboards to point out that the idiot can’t even spell the word right. 
    Life is a continued term paper to many of these characters. They did well on term papers in college. They have grades from their professors to prove it. So they launch into the media that only attracts a certain type of people—those who imagine that ‘exposing’ problems is enough to fix them—and assume that life, too, will respect their term paper skills as highly as their professors did. They have little experience in actually doing anything. They are mostly wonks when it comes to government—and the fixes that their type of government can bring is their obsession.
    As for me, I take note that if there is any new meme guaranteed to undermining traditional family life, these characters are all over it. If there is any new meme that will even bend gender distinctions, these characters are all over it. Gayle King dutifully appended the Q on LGBTQ before she even knew what it meant—I heard her say it. Did it mean ‘queer?’ Did it mean ‘questioning?’ She didn’t know. But she didn’t dare not include it once the gods of media popularity told her to. With this track record, anyone who can get these characters incensed cannot be all bad.
    (More to come)
  15. Upvote
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from JW Insider in Trump Derangement Syndrome   
    The Dark Lord has made his appearance and people who agree with him in many particulars are keeping an unusually low profile. It is probably because they do not want to inadvertently say something wrong and have him find their lack of faith disturbing.
    Case in point is @James Thomas Rook Jr.. Normally, a mention of climate change will trigger a tirade from him as to how it is a masterful left wing hoax. Normally a negative mention of Trump will unleash torrents of praise for him from his corner. This time, however, not a peep. Well...there is a bit of cheerleading for Trump—you cannot completely erase the spots of a leopard—but he does not pursue it. He and @JW Insider have happily squabbled at great length over both these topics. But he does not do it here with Darth Alan.
    Do I blame him for this bit of cowardice? Not at all. He is in his senior years and he wants to live them out. He does not want to be accosted with endless taunts about how stupid he is. He does not want every syllable he utters to be corrected. He does not want to have to open dozens of dialogue boxes to recall just what it was that he said to earn the verdict that he is a moron. He does not want to shake his head in disgust that every other forum participant has learned to use those boxes properly, and only the Dark Lord is too enraptured with his own arguing to constrain himself to quoting just three lines of text that will faithfully reproduce without opening boxes. He looks at @Arauna, who has had to triple her blood pressure medication, and decides that he wants no part of it. Who can blame him?
    So I will carry his Trump ball for him—not as aptly as he would do it himself, for I am not so vested in it as he—but I will carry it.
    In the midst of discussion, @AlanF reaches back into his quiver for taunts, chooses a old favorite, and hurls back at me: “Apparently you just make up "news" out of thin air -- just like your idol Trump.”
    This is the fifth completely irrelevant reference to Trump since he began participation here, just two or three weeks ago. A moment later, he launches the sixth: “You're doing what ever-Trumpers do very well -- project their own faults onto their opponents.”
    Six times he brings Trump into a discussion that has nothing to do with him. Each time it is like ripping a loud one in the concert hall. His audience surely must be among the most apolitical people on earth. Some of them, JW and non-JW alike, think it downright wrong to bring politics into a discussion of spiritual things. Alan knows this. He knows everything. So why can he not restrain himself from continually inserting that which he knows will fall flat with almost everyone and be positively off-putting to some?
    It is because he suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome. I had thought that JTR made up the term because he is the only one who has ever used it here—another testimony to the apolitical nature of both JWs and many who oppose them—but I see now via internet search that it is not so. Alan has that ailment full-blown, though. He froths over Trump. He obsesses over Trump. He embraces those who every day since before his election experiences orgasm at some new bullet that will supposedly take him out. He inserts references to Trump everywhere, the same way that normal people insert “word whiskers” like “um.”
    So what of this taunt that he hurls at me—ME, TrueTomHarley! :
    “Apparently you just make up "news" out of thin air -- just like your idol Trump.” 
    Is he my idol? That depends. Politically, it is not likely to be so. Trump does the Make America Great routine. He pushes for his country, assumes that other national leaders will push for theirs, and if they don’t, it is all the better for him. On the other hand, as a JW, I look forward to “the kingdom”—a government from God that will eliminate national borders. Even now, visit Bethel, observe the huge globe, and take in the fact that there are no national borders to sully it.
    So no, politically he is hardly an “idol.” But that does not mean that as a man I cannot learn from him. I try to learn from anyone that comes to my attention—either through personal interaction or by their being in the news a lot. I even strive to learn from Alan. Nobody can be said to be worthless, for you can always be used as a bad example.
    Politics aside, it turns out that I am very grateful for Trump. His election has vaulted 2 Timothy 3:1-5 to the position of the world’s year text—this year and every year. It used to be that if you read how people would be fierce, unreasonable, not open to agreement, backbiting, and so forth, and your householder did not agree that such was the case today more so than in prior times, there wasn’t much you could do about it. Plainly the verse is subjective. It always will be, of course—I expect that should Alan ever have the misfortune to be executed by guillotine, he will ignore that unpleasant fact and his head will continue to insult onlookers as it is being carted away in the wheelbarrow—but with ever-Trumpers and never-Trumpers screaming at each other day and night, it becomes a much more difficult verse to deny.
    I also take a page from Trump with regard to his communication skills. At first glance, he hasn’t any. Surely he is one of the most ineloquent public figures in history. And don’t come to him for spelling lessons. But at second glance, one comes to see that he is a master at pushing back at his barrage of opponents. After a brief period of supposing opponents would adjust to his presence, he decided that there was no way on earth that they could be placated, and so he redirects his efforts to defeating them. He does it in the most innovative of ways, taking full advantage of their weaknesses. Time and again, he draws them in as with hooks in their jaws, and just as they are ready to pounce, tasting certain victory, he pulls the rug out from under them.
    Case in point is the brouhaha over his inauguration. ‘It was the most well-attended inauguration in history!’ he boasts. ‘It wasn’t!’ counter his enemies. He reasserts that it was. They dive into the archives to find photos of other inaugurations. Obama filled the quadrangle. Trump’s crowd is visibly far less. HA!, they shout in victory—surely now that they have caught him in a lie, he will fess up to it. He doesn’t! 
    Night after night they run the two photos side by side on national news broadcasts, ignoring all else. They point to the gaping holes in Trump’s photos that are not there with Obama’s photos. “These are FACTS!” they are close to screaming. “You cannot dispute FACTS!” He does. He doubles down, nearly to the point of saying: “No event in human history has drawn the attendance of my inauguration!”
    Tearing their hair out, they invite his advisor on TV—Kellyanne. They rub her nose, and the noses of their viewers, into their two photos. ‘The FACTS show that Obama drew way more than Trump! Right here—look at just this spot! There is just bare ground with Trump and there is shoulder-to-shoulder people with Obama! FACTS are FACTS!
    But Kellyanne says that the President is trying to draw attention to alternative facts. He is trying to draw attention to.........’ALTERNATIVE FACTS!! they scream. ‘THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN “ALTERNATIVE” FACT!!! A FACT IS A FACT IS A FACT IS A FACT!! THERE ARE NO “ALTERNATIVE FACTS!!” 
    But the Advisor to the President insists that they are, and that the media ignores them. They consist of the fact of popular discontent with the “swamp” that propelled him to victory in the first place. Whatever Trump said to the ignored half of America clearly resonated with them, and it is being ignored by the mainstream media. Today he crows about the economy. Bill Clinton garnered adoration from pundits with his, “It’s the economy, stupid!” Today these same pundits will portray the economy as though a very minor point.
    As for me, I enjoy the spectacle, without taking any position as to whether he makes a good president or not. He may be a terrible one, but I like the way he turns the tables on those seeking to destroy him. I am not even sure that his numerous spelling errors are not deliberate. When he tweets that North Korea has launched its nuclear missels, people of common sense will run to take cover. People of the media will run to their keyboards to point out that the idiot can’t even spell the word right. 
    Life is a continued term paper to many of these characters. They did well on term papers in college. They have grades from their professors to prove it. So they launch into the media that only attracts a certain type of people—those who imagine that ‘exposing’ problems is enough to fix them—and assume that life, too, will respect their term paper skills as highly as their professors did. They have little experience in actually doing anything. They are mostly wonks when it comes to government—and the fixes that their type of government can bring is their obsession.
    As for me, I take note that if there is any new meme guaranteed to undermining traditional family life, these characters are all over it. If there is any new meme that will even bend gender distinctions, these characters are all over it. Gayle King dutifully appended the Q on LGBTQ before she even knew what it meant—I heard her say it. Did it mean ‘queer?’ Did it mean ‘questioning?’ She didn’t know. But she didn’t dare not include it once the gods of media popularity told her to. With this track record, anyone who can get these characters incensed cannot be all bad.
    (More to come)
  16. Upvote
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from JW Insider in in what ways is the JW Org moving forward SPIRITUALLY   
    To the extent it is true, Luke 5:31 is what would explain it:
    “In reply Jesus said to them: “Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but those who are ill do.”
    Do you think he is speaking of cancer? Or is mental distress, such as might accompany anguish over the atrocities of this world and the blame assigned to God for it more to the point? To my mind, the ones you should worry about are those who are not greatly troubled by the injustices of life today—those who sail blithely through the horrors and cruelties without a care.
    It is easily offset by the high participation rate of those who stick. After all, with many faiths, people might not actually leave, but how would you know if they did?
    It is also explained by the fact that there is a substantial cost in conduct—to be a minister of Christ is to be self-sacrificing. Why bother leaving a faith that asks little of you?
    Seen, it that light, it is something that the “turnover” you speak of isn’t much higher than it is.
    I would say the numerous schools that exist now that did not 50 years ago fits the bill. For elders, ministerial servants, traveling reps, etc. Intense and reoccurring instruction lasting anywhere from a weekend to a few weeks. 
    I have attended some of these schools. Almost all content is on imitating Jesus’ manner of dealing with the flock, dealing with those in the ministry, showing tenderness, not lording it over, leading by example, and so forth. Very little is on what would be called ‘doctrinal.’
    I remember in particular one instructor leading around a string on a table with forefinger firmly applied to one end. “See how the rest of the string follows so nicely?” he asked. He then reversed course and tried to “push” the string. “See how it bunches up when I do that?” he said. “It’s really not too smart of me to do it that way, is it?” The lesson, of course, was to lead by example, and not by being “pushy.”
    These schools have a cumulative effect of refining those exercising any authority. That they are needed can be inferred from Jesus’ dealings with those to whom he granted the greatest authority. Even on the eve of his death he interceded in an argument they were having as to which one of them was the greatest, the same as you might do with children.
    Take that into account when you next carry on about how inspired, unerring, and pure the leaders were back then and by extension ought be today. Grown men are capable of behaving like children—it happened then, it happens today. Refresher course training in which students will focus on scores  of scriptures—and if they prepare as the ought—hundreds of scriptures, go a long way towards training those in authority to lead as Christ did.
    And, far from the GB dreaming up a school that they ride above and apply to everyone else, when such a school is formulated, they put themselves through it first. They do not imagine that they cannot benefit from intense review of how Jesus dealt with people.
     
    I thought you said you were going to be a “bit positive?” This is just the same bile you deliver when you are being your usual negative self.
  17. Downvote
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from 4Jah2me in Leo K. Greenlees   
    Come, come. Tell the truth. Shame the devil. 
    What are you hiding? What are you misrepresenting? What are you sifting through with your mighty “logic,” and in so doing, dropping everything of value, making yourself look ridiculous, and qualifying anything else you say?
    They are NOT going to say: “If the GB says the moon is cheddar cheese, than IT IS!”
    Most likely they demur because the question is so stupid, and then you crow your typical “victory!”
    I thought you said that you knew how to think. 
    It will not fly with those who truly understand logic. Vicious leaders will produce vicious people. If, instead, the rank and file JW “tend to be exactly that”—“loving people who sincerely want to do the right thing,” then the leadership cannot be TOO vicious. 
    No. Anyone of sense will tell you what ones of sense here do tell you. The leaders also are loving and try to do the right thing. They are imperfect, they can err, they are not scared of applying the discipline that any decent parent must. They are NOT “vicious”—otherwise those who look to them for headship would also be that way.
    Now THAT is logic.
  18. Upvote
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from Anna in Creationism   
    Do they? It is in the eye of the beholder. Must one really point out when quoting a scientist that he believes his own theory.
    I gave an example with Darwin’s quote about the eye:
    Darwin wrote:
    “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”....
    Q: If you quote this line, do you really have to add:  “of course, this is not to suggest that Darwin does not believe in his own theory of evolution by natural selection”?
    I would never have thought so. I mean, what do you expect his next words to be? “Thus we can see that my entire theory is a load of horse manure. But I'm in this to win the praise of my peers, who for some reason, eat this stuff up. That, and maybe there's a buck to be made. So I'm putting lipstick on this pig. I'm sticking to my guns, even though you know, and I know, that it's all nonsense.”??
    No! He's not going to say that! He's going to say something like: “Still, many now-established truths seemed equally absurd when first proposed. Evidence is scanty with relationship to the eye's development....no one's saying otherwise..... but we can expect future researchers to uncover corroborating material.”
    That's my prediction (without peeking). In fact, he says almost exactly that:
    “When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
    Alright, then. Pretty much what I predicted he would say. Any donkey ought to realize Darwin's not throwing in the towel on his own theory by admitting evolution of the eye sounds ridiculous. If you use his quote to suggest he considers himself a charlatan, that's dishonest. But if you use his quote to show he acknowledges some pretty high hurdles exist in proving his theory.....well, what's wrong with that?
    .........The above is from the post: 
    Darwin wrote:
    “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”....
    Q: If you quote this line, do you really have to add:  “of course, this is not to suggest that Darwin does not believe in his own theory of evolution by natural selection”?
    I would never have thought so. I mean, what do you expect his next words to be? “Thus we can see that my entire theory is a load of horse manure. But I'm in this to win the praise of my peers, who for some reason, eat this stuff up. That, and maybe there's a buck to be made. So I'm putting lipstick on this pig. I'm sticking to my guns, even though you know, and I know, that it's all nonsense.”??
    No! He's not going to say that! He's going to say something like: “Still, many now-established truths seemed equally absurd when first proposed. Evidence is scanty with relationship to the eye's development....no one's saying otherwise..... but we can expect future researchers to uncover corroborating material.”
    That's my prediction (without peeking). In fact, he says almost exactly that:
    “When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
    Alright, then. Pretty much what I predicted he would say. Any donkey ought to realize Darwin's not throwing in the towel on his own theory by admitting evolution of the eye sounds ridiculous. If you use his quote to suggest he considers himself a charlatan, that's dishonest. But if you use his quote to show he acknowledges some pretty high hurdles exist in proving his theory.....well, what's wrong with that?
    ......The above is from the 2011 post: https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2011/01/darwins-eye.html
    which goes on to consider numerous examples from the 2 most recent brochures on creation v evolution. Numerous footnotes appear to point out that this or that scientist obviously believes in his own theory.
    I think that’s sufficiently honest.
  19. Upvote
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from Arauna in Creationism   
    I think that this is true. So many things depend upon which scientists you listen to. Often, the scientists carrying the day at any given moment try to declare their opponents NOT reputable scientists. That way they can say: “All reputable scientists have concluded that.....”
    I have stopped following the day to day development on this front, but I recall it was not uncommon for mathematicians to rule aspects of evolution out on the basis of probability alone, no matter how long the requisite time span be said to be.
    I interacted with both atheists and evolutionists (often, though no always, the same) on my own blog. The most weighty of the posts were several years ago. I did read a couple of evolutionist books, “The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution” by Sean Carroll and one by Carl Zimmer. They’re not nothing. I benefited by reading them. But the do not change the big picture.
    In some ways they reveal the fallacy of human thinking. People have figured out some of the appropriate questions to ask and that accomplishment is enough for them to carry on as though they had discovered the answers.
  20. Upvote
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from b4ucuhear in Leo K. Greenlees   
    Come, come. Tell the truth. Shame the devil. 
    What are you hiding? What are you misrepresenting? What are you sifting through with your mighty “logic,” and in so doing, dropping everything of value, making yourself look ridiculous, and qualifying anything else you say?
    They are NOT going to say: “If the GB says the moon is cheddar cheese, than IT IS!”
    Most likely they demur because the question is so stupid, and then you crow your typical “victory!”
    I thought you said that you knew how to think. 
    It will not fly with those who truly understand logic. Vicious leaders will produce vicious people. If, instead, the rank and file JW “tend to be exactly that”—“loving people who sincerely want to do the right thing,” then the leadership cannot be TOO vicious. 
    No. Anyone of sense will tell you what ones of sense here do tell you. The leaders also are loving and try to do the right thing. They are imperfect, they can err, they are not scared of applying the discipline that any decent parent must. They are NOT “vicious”—otherwise those who look to them for headship would also be that way.
    Now THAT is logic.
  21. Downvote
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from 4Jah2me in Leo K. Greenlees   
    Needless to say.
    I like how the JW video “Protect Your Children” pushes just this course. “If anyone” touches you in a way that “makes you uncomfortable” “even if it is someone you know and trust” then “right away come tell mommy or daddy”, who respond pretty much like Anna’s mom did. 
    I like the way how that solves the problem. Will reporting Uncle Hands to the police solve the problem? I have my doubts. Especially since reporting outright rape does not necessarily solve the problem—all the time we hear of CSA crimes from rapists who had already done time and were already on the Predator List. That’s not to say it’s not worth blowing these people in—of course it is. But if our goal is to solve the problem, then Anna’s mom and the WT video gets higher priority.
    The WT video builds on the bedrock that only godly people will have—that Jehovah gave us a conscience. I squabbled with Ann O'Maly (one of the Three Apostates) a while back about dueling videos. Her video featured circled areas of a child’s body, as though the child of critical thinking should bring that chart to mind in order to determine whether he should feel bad about how he has been touched. Our video featured “a conscience” that God gave us.
    O’Maly resisted for the longest time, but the knockout punch came when I pointed out that our video said “if ANYONE touches you” and hers specifically said that it was okay if a doctor touched children in those circled areas. “Ask the young women of the US Olympics Gymnastics Team which video they think would have protected them more,” I told her.
  22. Downvote
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from 4Jah2me in Leo K. Greenlees   
    They are so united that any jingoistic national leader can talk them into blowing each other’s head off in the latest inter-national skirmish, something that cannot be done with Jehovah’s Witnesses.
    The “Truth” that Jehovah’s Witnesses cling to is the pearl of great price which the merchant, upon finding it, gladly sells all that he has to secure it. (Matthew 13:46)
    If he later came to regard that pearl no more highly that a common pebble found on any dirt road, then he will naturally reverse course and holler about the price he and others paid to secure it
    That’s all that is going on here with Alan. He has negated the upside, so of course all that remains is to moan about the cost. He has “disproven” even the central tenet of that “pearl.” He has “disproven” God.
    For the most part, he does not outright lie. But he overstates to such a degree that nothing from him can be taken verbatim. It all has to be carefully checked. Much of it is embellished with sweeping assumptions. Minor, but typical, case in point is his recent insistence that his enemy stated the end would come specifically in 2000. Under relentless pressure, he walked it back to some generic statements about “within the century.”
  23. Downvote
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from 4Jah2me in Leo K. Greenlees   
    You donkey, of course they are different! You are committing Event Escalation Fallacy.
    Turn your mighty intellect upon murder, if you can do so without screaming ‘Straw Man.’ Consider that there is first degree murder, 2nd degree murder, even 3rd degree murder, not to mention hate crime murder. Vent your outrage over that, why don’t you? Tell the moral deviants that “murder is murder!”
    Even that paragraph doesn’t adequately describe your idiocy, for the examples within all do involve murder. Better that you should insist that a shove to the body is no different than murder. That comparison is much more parallel to the CSA offenses that you think are the same.
    Completely emotional outbursts. Not a shred of “logic” to them. Character assassination appears to be your specialty. Not meeting your completely arbitrary criteria is enough to be labeled a person of “demonstrably defective moral sense.”
     It is perhaps understandable from Leonard McCoy. the hothead. But not from someone who claims logic and intellect that would put even Mr. Spock to shame.
     
  24. Upvote
    TrueTomHarley got a reaction from JW Insider in Creationism   
    Do they? It is in the eye of the beholder. Must one really point out when quoting a scientist that he believes his own theory.
    I gave an example with Darwin’s quote about the eye:
    Darwin wrote:
    “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”....
    Q: If you quote this line, do you really have to add:  “of course, this is not to suggest that Darwin does not believe in his own theory of evolution by natural selection”?
    I would never have thought so. I mean, what do you expect his next words to be? “Thus we can see that my entire theory is a load of horse manure. But I'm in this to win the praise of my peers, who for some reason, eat this stuff up. That, and maybe there's a buck to be made. So I'm putting lipstick on this pig. I'm sticking to my guns, even though you know, and I know, that it's all nonsense.”??
    No! He's not going to say that! He's going to say something like: “Still, many now-established truths seemed equally absurd when first proposed. Evidence is scanty with relationship to the eye's development....no one's saying otherwise..... but we can expect future researchers to uncover corroborating material.”
    That's my prediction (without peeking). In fact, he says almost exactly that:
    “When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
    Alright, then. Pretty much what I predicted he would say. Any donkey ought to realize Darwin's not throwing in the towel on his own theory by admitting evolution of the eye sounds ridiculous. If you use his quote to suggest he considers himself a charlatan, that's dishonest. But if you use his quote to show he acknowledges some pretty high hurdles exist in proving his theory.....well, what's wrong with that?
    .........The above is from the post: 
    Darwin wrote:
    “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”....
    Q: If you quote this line, do you really have to add:  “of course, this is not to suggest that Darwin does not believe in his own theory of evolution by natural selection”?
    I would never have thought so. I mean, what do you expect his next words to be? “Thus we can see that my entire theory is a load of horse manure. But I'm in this to win the praise of my peers, who for some reason, eat this stuff up. That, and maybe there's a buck to be made. So I'm putting lipstick on this pig. I'm sticking to my guns, even though you know, and I know, that it's all nonsense.”??
    No! He's not going to say that! He's going to say something like: “Still, many now-established truths seemed equally absurd when first proposed. Evidence is scanty with relationship to the eye's development....no one's saying otherwise..... but we can expect future researchers to uncover corroborating material.”
    That's my prediction (without peeking). In fact, he says almost exactly that:
    “When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
    Alright, then. Pretty much what I predicted he would say. Any donkey ought to realize Darwin's not throwing in the towel on his own theory by admitting evolution of the eye sounds ridiculous. If you use his quote to suggest he considers himself a charlatan, that's dishonest. But if you use his quote to show he acknowledges some pretty high hurdles exist in proving his theory.....well, what's wrong with that?
    ......The above is from the 2011 post: https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2011/01/darwins-eye.html
    which goes on to consider numerous examples from the 2 most recent brochures on creation v evolution. Numerous footnotes appear to point out that this or that scientist obviously believes in his own theory.
    I think that’s sufficiently honest.
  25. Upvote
    TrueTomHarley reacted to Arauna in Creationism   
    Thanks Tom, we are obviously dealing with secularized JWs who are sitting on the fence and maybe do not even really believe the bible when it says jehovah created everything with his dynamic energy..  For them, those descriptions of creation in psalms and job can be thrown into the dustbin. 
    They have not really taken the time to see how irreduceably " connected " all creation is.  I have mentioned some interesting examples before.  The simplest is the eye and the brain..... without the eye the brain cannot interpret .... so which one came first? Both body parts, as they  were supposedly developing over millions of years ....... the one body part, the eye, understood that in "future" it will need a brain and without design developed a brain by pure chances of correct natural selection (hitting the jackpot of benevolent mutation billions of times) to have a brain to perfectly fulfill the purpose of the eye?  So natural selection "knows " what will be needed in future...... wow ! Without a brain it can think! 
    These people are so in awe of  evolution scholars that they cannot think for themselves..... but use derogatory names on us. ..... a perfect example how university education can erode the ability to think for oneself.  Its indoctrination  of evolution - is like a religion....... and permeates everything and crowds out the really good solid logic thinking. 
    I did not just trust my family members but went out to discover the truth about it for myself.  Family members did help me to develop a curiosity to understand.  When thinking is faulty one must be adjusted. This is why I do like to listen to debates to hear both sides.  I still have to be disappointed in the bible.
     
     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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