TrueTomHarley

Alas, it is too late for the mask. The poor guy already has Covid.

Ever since they reported Fred Flintstone’s lower facial discoloration as evidence of masking during a prehistoric pandemic my faith in them has been shaken.
 
 
 

Ever since they reported Fred Flintstone’s lower facial discoloration as evidence of masking during a prehistoric pandemic my faith in them has been shaken.
 
 
 

I like the acknowledgment that neachers may find it hard neaching the nen nimes nable.

IMG_6402.MP4

IMG_6402.MP4

If this is a reference to 607 (it is not JWI's fault if I do not do my homework), I think of the expression 'it is the victors that write history.' It is a political statement regarding world powers, but it applies to everything. Certainly, science is fraught with accounts of one view coming into vogue, and then crushing the opposition for as long as possible.
My understanding is that some scholarly type has written a defense of 607. That's all you need. Not one Witness teaching is the majority view today; should we insist this one must be? For all the hype about 'critical thinking' today, the pattern remains what it has always been; in fact, it intensifies: choose your belief (largely based on 'heart') then go find some 'experts' to back you up.
Will 1914 fall? If it does, it does. But I am far from burying it just yet. Nor do I feel I should encourage the GB to have the wisdom and courage to do whatever is right. If I drop dead tomorrow, they will do just fine.
 I have grown used to explaining that 'if the greatest war in history, the ONLY time until then that the entire world went to war at the same time (China & region excepted, as it was isolated at the time), AND if the greatest pestilence in history does not constitute fulfillment of Matt 24:7 and Luke 21:10, 11, what does? Vs 8 of Matt indicates it starts off with a bang, but continues for some time.
Will I have to change my tune on this?
On the vs 8 'you ain't seen nothin' yet' front, terrorist knife or vehicle attacks, unheard of not long ago, are now just 'one of those things.' The gay revolution took decades; whereas the transgendered revolution has taken mere months, and a 9 year old girl can be, on National Geographic, not just transgendered, but a transgendered activist. 'Fake news,' absolutely unheard of just 3 years ago, is now a staple of life, one more of many pitfalls to mess with us.
Perhaps 1914 will suffice to get us through to the end. Maybe that won't be so far off after all.

You almost think that she would use her talents to root out villainy and solve a few problems in her country instead.

These would be the only cases that correspond to the abuse cases of other groups—and they are a very tiny minority. If they were the rule, as is the case elsewhere, then yes—signing on to a redress plan might be appropriate.
But they overall make up a very small number. The vast majority of cases comes from a quarter that is not even tracked anywhere else—individual incidents that have nothing to do with leadership. 
It is why the ‘one size fits all’ model that fits most if not all other signees does not fit JW. 
You think it is the elders’ place to forbid any child to leave its parents side, then.

The key words here are “we think.”
The WT thinks differently and their thinking makes more sense. To my knowledge, every other party in this redress plan is structured so that children will be separated from their parents—it is not optional—it is standard operating procedure. That being the case, it stands to reason that they should be penalized if they so separate children and then fail to protect them.
With WT, there is no program that separates children from parents. Almost all abuse reported is cases among the ‘rank and file’—those from elders or servants are unusual. 
So—it is “within the ranks” in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In these other organizations, there is not even a means to track abuse entirely among ordinary members—let alone the supposition that anyone other than the actual perpetrators ought be held responsible. So the WT should sign on to some plan that equates them to groups that systemically separate children from parents? I think not, and so apparently do they.
Next thing you know Hyundai will be penalized for any abuse that occurs among its customers. No. The WT being substantially different, it is better to handle all cases on an individual basis rather sign on to some plan that lumps everyone together as though they all operate the same.
And, goodness knows, these things are often a wedge to drive in further concessions. Even a formal apology that some seem to feel is so important, will no doubt have huge implications in the world of lawyers—who will seize upon it as though a guilty plea.
 
 

IMG_6342.mov

Yes. “While they were listening to these things, he told another illustration, because he was near Jerusalem and they thought that the Kingdom of God was going to appear instantly.” Luke 19:11
No. Unrepentant wrongdoers would be expelled, as happens today.
Yes. “As they traveled on through the cities, they would deliver to them for observance the decrees that had been decided on by the apostles and the elders who were in Jerusalem.” Acts 16:4

Yes. “While they were listening to these things, he told another illustration, because he was near Jerusalem and they thought that the Kingdom of God was going to appear instantly.” Luke 19:11
No. Unrepentant wrongdoers would be expelled, as happens today.
Yes. “As they traveled on through the cities, they would deliver to them for observance the decrees that had been decided on by the apostles and the elders who were in Jerusalem.” Acts 16:4

With reasonable certainty, I am. Or at least I have been up till now.

It is pretty much like that now. The Great Courses lecturer Luke Thomas Johnson observes how Christians “would not even perform the minimal political gesture of offering a pinch of incense to the gods.” To Christians it was religious. To everyone else, it was “political”—not a big deal. 
The polytheistic world back then had no problem in itself with Christians bringing in another god. There was always room at the table for another god—pull up a chair. The problem was that once He was seated at the table, he ordered all the other gods away. All of the other gods were willing to share their worshippers. If you worshipped Baal, he had no problem if you also worshipped Dagon, for example. And if some human came along like the Emperor who also wanted to be worshipped, it was not a problem with anyone but the Christians. Their God was the only one to spoil the party with his insistence upon exclusive devotion. That is the practical manifestation of “exclusive devotion” that only Christians fretted about.
For that reason, charges abounded that Christians split up families One member alone became a Christian and suddenly there appeared a host of seemingly inconsequential things that they would no longer do—it put a strain on families.
One cannot listen to these courses without the thought occurring that early Christians were persecuted for reasons exactly parallel to those of Jehovah’s Witnesses. 
 

Please don’t tell me you’ve escaped into a world in which there is no flippancy. Next you’ll be saying that peace, brotherhood, and mutual respect are the default conditions in the overall world.

“Is it still a God dishonoring sin to eat turkey on Thanksgiving day?”
From the turkey’s standpoint, yes.
 

Please don’t tell me you’ve escaped into a world in which there is no flippancy. Next you’ll be saying that peace, brotherhood, and mutual respect are the default conditions in the overall world.

Not only did I try. I did. Not only was it not “sick.” It was apropos. It’s called getting the overall picture and not just zeroing in on what you want to see.
You were saying it yourself not five posts ago. You can and they can’t? Hold out for the last of the last of the last of the last days if you like. You’re welcome to try.
And what of this diatribe of yours that the ‘true anointed’ is to manifest itself (out of nowhere) in but a few years max? Is that not you asserting we are in the last of the last?

“Is it still a God dishonoring sin to eat turkey on Thanksgiving day?”
From the turkey’s standpoint, yes.
 

“Is it still a God dishonoring sin to eat turkey on Thanksgiving day?”
From the turkey’s standpoint, yes.
 

I suspect they would still be allowed the opportunity to pay taxes. She's not thinking it through if she really thinks that voting is "buying" the governments services. Most people think they are buying representation by paying taxes and they therefore vote as a way to try to manipulate the government to have the best chance of representing their own interests in how that tax money is spent. Yet, here we have a group of people who pay taxes but are not clamoring for special favors that one party offers over another.
Also, having only partisan people among your government workers results in many problems. There are times when you really can't trust partisan people to tell you the truth about what is happening in their government departments. The USA has begun to have this trouble for last couple decades, especially. And in this last election, one party is supposed to be always untrustworthy when it comes to counting votes (in the eyes of the other party). A leader should be happy to have neutral, non-partisans in government jobs. Taken to the extreme, every time a new party comes to power, it could also end up meaning that all persons of the other party must now lose their jobs and training and efficiency must always start at the bottom again.
There is a danger in this type of rhetoric which is probably a kind of "populist trial balloon" to see how much attention it will get her. It might be designed to get attention only because it seems outrageous to most, and she will add other things as she thinks of them if any of these get her some "airtime." I suspect she has picked this one (perhaps it's already one of many such issues) only because of a personal grudge against a particular relative's conversion (or a Witness' grudge against her for getting into politics, or a specific doctrine that she doesn't like. Or she's seen something negative in the news about Witnesses.
She is probably hoping that it gets some attention, but it isn't likely to gain her enough. The two major parties are leading with the current president running again, and a past present running again. 99.9% chance that it ends up being one of those two.

You almost think that she would use her talents to root out villainy and solve a few problems in her country instead.

Yes. And they’ll continue to trot out 1975 again and again. It’s the technique. Answer the question and the rascals merely repackage it and run in through again. 
Nonetheless, @Anna, with better motive, asked if it was likely such a thing could ever happen again.
There are two ways to answer this question: 
“No.” As Mark Twain said: “A cat that sits on a hot stove will never sit on a hot stove again. Nor will it sit on a cold one, for they all look hot.”
”Yes.” Are you kidding me? It was 6000 years countdown from Adam, per Bible chronology. AND, coupled with the 1000 year reign of Christ to commence after Armageddon. It doesn’t call to mind the 6:1 Sabbath arrangement of God? 
Come now. You think they’re going to snooze through that one? They’re the watchman, after all. It’s an irresistible type/anti-type situation. Given the monumental alignment of the planets, it’s a wonder they didn’t make the call far more forcefully than they did, instead of merely stating it was a possibility, which Charlie presently escalated into a probability. They have to make a call on something like that. It is a sorry watchman, peering through the gloom, high up in his perch, that sounds the alarm only when the prow of the approaching ship smashes through the gunwale and pinches his toes.
”No.” The above is actually reassuring. Because such monumental circumstances will not repeat for a long, long, time—and it took such monumental circumstances to put the call on the back burner that some soon moved to the front. Three or four years after 75, I recall some rep saying, “We’ve sailed past all the markers.” What can that mean except, “We’re done?” No more calls like that—until the next time—but there shouldn’t be a next time, for that kind of a setup doesn’t happen everyday. Now we get things like “deep in the last days,” the “end is just around the corner,” and “the last of the last days.” Why not see if you one can hold out till “the last of the last of the last days?” 
Everyone gets one failed end-date call within a lifetime. It’s in the rules. It’s a sign of staying alert. Jump the gun in the race and do they shoot you with it? No. It’s not a big deal. They just start the race over.
 

Yes.
No