TrueTomHarley

Because he will just turn around and make another one. And another one. And then another one. The only common feature of them will be that they have nothing to do with the thread.
It’s my own fault for not posting in the closed club.

I added this here because we all need a primer or refresher now and then. At least I do. It's so easy to be pushed into topics like Trotskyism vs Leninsm, Hegelian Dialectic, Frankfurt School of Marxism, or to hear claims that BLM is Maoist, etc., without having first had a chance to understant even the basics. 
I once even heard a person say: Well, Hitler was socialist, right?
Hitler used the term National Socialist because he was trying for popular appeal, even though he never planned to allow even a bit of socialism into his plans. They were nearly the opposite. A very fascist, totalitarian, dictatorial regime that hated socialist policies.

Alright, you’d better not be planning a putsch here.
The word was new to me just a few years ago, and I liked the sound of it, so I coined the college student Ted Putsch, who is majoring in government,  and who comes into the truth, in some ways has more common sense than his teacher (me).

You know, I think I am getting the two mixed up. Irving Stone wrote a book on him, too. I read both, and it was a long time ago.
Yeah—it wasn’t Darwin at all. He did toy with going into the clergy, though. That is for sure. But he never actually did it, not even as a trial gig
Sigh...That’s what one gets for relying on memory. I knew something didn’t quite jive—like how Charles could end up in France.

Listening up on Voltaire via the Great Courses Lecture series (the entry that caught the attention of @JW Insider), I get the same sense that I did with Mark Twain, and even to an extent, with Charles Darwin—that if they had had any sense of the overall coherence of the Bible writings, their output would have been much different. 
Darwin at one point toyed with becoming a clergyman—a respectable profession for a man of letters who couldn’t otherwise figure out what he wanted to do with his life. The historical novel ‘The Origen,’ by Irving Stone, vividly tells of and probably exaggerates Darwin’s brief stint as a priest, and how he infuriated his superiors. Not only did he refuse to shake down his peasant-class parishioners for money, but he committed the unforgivable sin of joining them in their toil and day to day lives. (It was a long time ago I read this—I really should re-read it.)
Mark Twain savaged religion, and Christianity in particular. He is widely thought to have been atheist, and yet—he never had an unkind word for Jesus. His constant complaint was that those who claimed to follow him did not. “There has only been one Christian,” he would write. “They caught and crucified him—early.” Imagine what might have been if he had found a people who follow the Christ.
He did not find one because the weeds were proliferating, and they had choked out the wheat. “Do you want us to pull the weeds out?” the slaves asked the master, and the reply is to hold off until the harvest. The harvest begins after Twain’s time, and Darwin’s, and Voltaire’s. It hardly seems fair to them, but “the devil” who planted the weeds while “men were sleeping” must be given full reign to prove his claim that humans need not heed God’s right to rule. (Matthew 23:24-30, 36-39). The wheat was completely overrun by our trio’s time. One result was that a coherent explanation of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures was nowhere to be found, and not one of the three greats could figure it out on their own.
It makes a difference. You will fight a lot harder to save your home than you will to save your dumpster. Voltaire and Twain readily condemned the travesties of religion—they were principled men, offended at injustice, so why would they not?—and in the process nearly threw the baby out with the bath water. Their successors would later do just that.
Voltaire’s brashness caused him trouble in France, so he fled to England, where he remained for a decade or so. Whereas France allowed only Catholicism to be practiced, England had many faiths and they all at the time, more or less got along with one another. He wrote ‘Letters on England’ and remarked on how others besides Catholics can appeal to verse to buttress their point of view—to frothing clerical disapproval back home. He sets himself up as a devoted and rigid (and naive), Catholic himself, aghast to find Quakers appealing to verse “wrongly”—as his narrative demonstrates that they are not doing it wrongly at all..
Feigning shock that the Quaker is not baptized—after all, Jesus was baptized—he wonders how the Quaker can call himself Christian. The Quaker asks him if he is circumcised—since Jesus was. He replies that he “has not had that honor.” “So—I am a Christian without having been baptized and you are one without having been circumcised,” is the reply. Voltaire lets that stand as having proved the point that all religions can successfully argue scripture. 
What is amazing is that he has no concept that scripture might be grasped as a coherent whole. It is perfectly fine with him to cherry-pick verse, and the reason that it is perfectly fine is that no one has ever demonstrated any other way. When in the skirts of ‘Babylon the Great’ is found the blood of ... all those who have been slaughtered on the earth” (Revelation 18:24) it is not so much for her acts of commission as it is for her acts of omission; it should have been teaching the complete Word of God, but it neglected that task, and thus Voltaire quite naturally assumed that it was not possible to teach it—so far as he knows, no one has ever done it. 
We Witnesses may not be ones for exalting humans, but by this standard, C.T. Russell becomes one of the most innovative humans of all time. You would think his approach to unlocking the Bible would be the most common-sense thing in the world, but it appears to be revolutionary: Toss out a verse for discussion, and do not move on until every other verse on that same topic is discussed. In that way, get a grasp on what the scriptures teach as a whole. The basic Bible teachings that Jehovah’s Witnesses are known for, so different from what may be found in any of the churches, have been in place for well over a hundred years.
It gets much heavier than this, and the blood of Babylon gets much thicker. More to come—
 
 
 

Oh, that’s what she was talking about. I thought it was of individual JWs witnessing online..
Yes, the website is amazing and exactly the ticket since online is where people hang out these days.
I recall in the days before JW.org telling a workmate that we were online. She came back the next day, and it was clear that she didn’t want to hurt my feelings—she was ever so diplomatic as she told me that it sucked. Not any more. Now it is top of the pack. I wrote the following in Tom Irregardless and Me:
In recent years, the Watchtower organization even offers its own programming through a JW Broadcasting streaming channel, a refreshing and most unusual alternative to mainstream TV. Members of the Governing Body thus repeat the pattern they are known for with any new technology: They eye it with suspicion. They advise caution. They know that when the thief switches getaway cars, it is the thief you have to watch, not the dazzling features of the new car. They follow the thief for a time. Convinced at last that they still have a bead on him, they examine the car. They circle it warily, kicking the tires. At last satisfied, they jump in with both feet and put it to good uses its inventors could only have dreamed of.” 

This indicates that your entire overstated point is nonsense.
If they were as hung up on money as you insist, they would NOT want members to simplify and work less hours. 
They would want them to work around the clock and make as much dough as they could, so they could say like the Big Bad Wolf to Red Riding Hood, “All the more for me to take, my dear.”
Their enemies want to keep them penniless and disrupt their organization so that they cannot get preaching of the good news done. It is as simple as that.

What I remember is Ronald J Sider’s book ‘The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience—Why are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World.’
After reviewing dozens of verses on conduct, he says “if Paul is even close to being right on what it means to be a Christian, these verses ought to drive us to our knees in repentance, and then determination to reform.
He is an evangelical leader with suggestions for reform. Of course, they are of an organizational nature. And, of course, JWs are already doing them, and yes, they do resolve the problems he details.
I wrote several posts about this
The reason that people organize is so they can get more things done, and get them done effectively—an obvious plus when it comes to gathering, teaching, and shepherding a worldwide congregation.
The reason that people oppose such organization is that they do not want such things done. It is no more complicated than that.
And the reason the Christian organization applies for money that is legally owed it is....do I really have to explain this?
 

What I remember is Ronald J Sider’s book ‘The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience—Why are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World.’
After reviewing dozens of verses on conduct, he says “if Paul is even close to being right on what it means to be a Christian, these verses ought to drive us to our knees in repentance, and then determination to reform.
He is an evangelical leader with suggestions for reform. Of course, they are of an organizational nature. And, of course, JWs are already doing them, and yes, they do resolve the problems he details.
I wrote several posts about this
The reason that people organize is so they can get more things done, and get them done effectively—an obvious plus when it comes to gathering, teaching, and shepherding a worldwide congregation.
The reason that people oppose such organization is that they do not want such things done. It is no more complicated than that.
And the reason the Christian organization applies for money that is legally owed it is....do I really have to explain this?
 

They did the same in France, when that country’s 60% tax on JW donations was ruled discriminatory by the ECHR. France had to make amends, just as Russia will have to if we can imagine Russia heeding the rulings of outside courts.

What I remember is Ronald J Sider’s book ‘The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience—Why are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World.’
After reviewing dozens of verses on conduct, he says “if Paul is even close to being right on what it means to be a Christian, these verses ought to drive us to our knees in repentance, and then determination to reform.
He is an evangelical leader with suggestions for reform. Of course, they are of an organizational nature. And, of course, JWs are already doing them, and yes, they do resolve the problems he details.
I wrote several posts about this
The reason that people organize is so they can get more things done, and get them done effectively—an obvious plus when it comes to gathering, teaching, and shepherding a worldwide congregation.
The reason that people oppose such organization is that they do not want such things done. It is no more complicated than that.
And the reason the Christian organization applies for money that is legally owed it is....do I really have to explain this?
 

Probably I should not admit that I was halfway through the 47 -lecture Eastern Civilization course when you began this thread, and that without that new background, my meager contributions would have been more meager yet—perhaps confined to a rant about how Chinese Checkers is not as good as real checkers.

Well? Of course. The only verb that has probably been added is “demand.” Change it to “asserted that the consequences of the wrong classification should be addressed” and one could not expect anything else.
Maybe no religions should get state funding. Maybe no charitable organizations should. That is a separate issue. 
But if they do, and JWs alone were excluded due to a prior incorrect classification, then of course that should be rectified.

Why in the world would anyone downvote the 2nd-above post? A 60% tax on religious donations is just?
It is worth pointing out also that this situation in France began decades ago, long before anyone’s favorite issue arose front and center.
If religious exemption is cut off for everyone there will be no objection here. But as long as it exists, JWs are entitled to it as much as any other faith. Probably more so, in fact, since such exemption is founded on the premise that religious faith makes for more upright people, thus improving overall society and saving the state much policing work. JW’s, though they may not bat 100%, given human imperfection, do fit the bill on this. Most religions consist of members whose conduct is indistinguishable from the overall world.
The only thing that is lacking is that a penalty or fine might be levied upon whoever fed the government the faulty information that caused them to classify the Witness organization wrongly In the first place. Wouldn’t that be an appropriate thing? Then a certain yo-yo would be saying: “Oh dear. Oh dear. It’s looks like my side is getting its head handed to it on a platter by the CCJW.”

Why in the world would anyone downvote the 2nd-above post? A 60% tax on religious donations is just?
It is worth pointing out also that this situation in France began decades ago, long before anyone’s favorite issue arose front and center.
If religious exemption is cut off for everyone there will be no objection here. But as long as it exists, JWs are entitled to it as much as any other faith. Probably more so, in fact, since such exemption is founded on the premise that religious faith makes for more upright people, thus improving overall society and saving the state much policing work. JW’s, though they may not bat 100%, given human imperfection, do fit the bill on this. Most religions consist of members whose conduct is indistinguishable from the overall world.
The only thing that is lacking is that a penalty or fine might be levied upon whoever fed the government the faulty information that caused them to classify the Witness organization wrongly In the first place. Wouldn’t that be an appropriate thing? Then a certain yo-yo would be saying: “Oh dear. Oh dear. It’s looks like my side is getting its head handed to it on a platter by the CCJW.”

Well? Of course. The only verb that has probably been added is “demand.” Change it to “asserted that the consequences of the wrong classification should be addressed” and one could not expect anything else.
Maybe no religions should get state funding. Maybe no charitable organizations should. That is a separate issue. 
But if they do, and JWs alone were excluded due to a prior incorrect classification, then of course that should be rectified.

They did the same in France, when that country’s 60% tax on JW donations was ruled discriminatory by the ECHR. France had to make amends, just as Russia will have to if we can imagine Russia heeding the rulings of outside courts.

Well? Of course. The only verb that has probably been added is “demand.” Change it to “asserted that the consequences of the wrong classification should be addressed” and one could not expect anything else.
Maybe no religions should get state funding. Maybe no charitable organizations should. That is a separate issue. 
But if they do, and JWs alone were excluded due to a prior incorrect classification, then of course that should be rectified.

Mostly I use Wikipedia for details on out-of-the-way topics that you wouldn’t think would be subject to bias—lately it has been to corroborate some background on Voltaire, for instance.
But not always—sometimes I use it as though a base stock, like you would in cooking, to develop a post on some contemporary issue. Others do this, too—pretty routinely—to provide backdrop for points they are making. @JW Insiderand @Araunaare doing that right now with a thread about China and its modern-day & changing role.
It’s an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is—that’s how everyone thinks of it. As such, it is unbiased—that supposedly is it’s mission statement. Anyone can edit it (I’ve never quite understood how that works—well, I guess I do, but I’ve never been interested enough to attempt it, and the premise is that when anyone can do so the result will be complete and unbiased.) Not so, says co-founder Larry Sanger. “Unbiased” went out the window long ago. NPOV (neutral point of view) Is a thing of the past.
He says it here, on this post from his own blog: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
He doesn’t say the website is not factual. Nor does he say it is not objective. But it is not complete. It clearly sides with particular points-of-view. Larry offers about a dozen examples of clear bias, from politics, to science, to health, to religion in which the minority view is run off the road. 
Sigh...this seriously compromises Wikipedia as a base. It is a leftist choir that is preaching there these days, and if you quote the source, which I do all the time, you will be getting a leftist point of view, and other viewpoints either ignored completely or declared wrong. It is not for an encyclopedia to do this, Sanger says. It is supposed to reflect all points of view. It is not to declare a winner. 
Sanger’s background (per Wikipedia (!) ) is not primarily technology, as being co-founder of Wikipedia might imply. It is philosophy, epistomology, and ethics. He is clearly disappointed in the path his creation has taken. 
 
 

I notice how the biases often correspond, too. It is amazing how they do that, almost to the point of, to take an example, if you know (in the US) a person’s view of health treatment, you can make a guess on their political leanings and seldom be wrong 

I will even manage to tie this is with the Voltaire kick that I’ve been on lately.
Voltaire was very taken with Newton’s discoveries and the idea that you derive truth from experience—in this case, truth about the universe from his experiments. Seems obvious to people now, but at the time truth was established by religious teachings and one did not think to look beyond them: What does the Church say about such-and-such? was as far as people went, or were even authorized to go.
Voltaire wrote it was “arrogant” to arrive at truth that way, and only common sense to arrive at truth Newton’s way. He could not possibly have foreseen that it becomes arrogant to think one can learn through experience, too—and this business with Wikipedia illustrates why. 
People choke on “experience.” There is far too much of it to process and we are far too puny to take it all in. It depends upon where we’ve been and what we’ve seen. 
Well, one ought to be able to rise above that—at first glance, that seems reasonable. Through study, reading, “critical thinking,” one can yet deduce truth. If there is one thing your exchange with Aruana proves to me, it is that even so we cannot—for the same reason: the sheer volume of what must be processed, and our insignificant time and ability to do it. 
Study the nature of water while it is in a test tube—yes, then it may be doable. But we dont get to study it in a test tube. We are forced to study it at the precipice that is Niagara Falls—as it cascades over us and overwhelms our instruments. 
If you and Aruana cannot convince each other—both of you with background, time, resources, experiences, and studious natures far in excess of the average person, then it cannot be done. 
And whereas the above illustration with Niagara Falls assumes, so far, that all sources are truthful, and open as what they are doing. they’re not. Everyone just assumes that Wikipedia is neutral, and thereby authoritative. It isn’t. Without explicitly lying, it effectively does so. By not presenting “the other side” of anything, it presents the picture that there is none. So it our determination to search for truth, hampered by the limitations already discussed, we also have to deal with the fact that people are trying to muddy the waters.
It goes back full circle. You can’t determine truth through religion, as Voltaire states? Sounds reasonable. But it turns out you cannot determine it by experience, either—it is equally “arrogant” to think we possess the resources that makes us up to the task. It turns out that you do determine it through religion. Of course, you have to have the right one, and that is mostly a matter of heart, not head.

There are people who live to slander. 
Is there shame in an arrest? Not on the part of the one arrested until he/she is found guilty. If found innocent, the shame may even be on the accusers.
Is it not slander to take an accusation that would otherwise never go beyond some tiny community billboard and re-broadcast it to the whole world news media .org?
In Ann’s defense, she is hardly the first one to do this. It is the new standard of the world and has been for some time. An arrest is synonymous to a conviction in the new world of “journalism.” She can’t possibly have missed the point of the reference to the French Revolution in which a denouncement was enough to send one to the guillotine—she is not stupid.

Mostly I use Wikipedia for details on out-of-the-way topics that you wouldn’t think would be subject to bias—lately it has been to corroborate some background on Voltaire, for instance.
But not always—sometimes I use it as though a base stock, like you would in cooking, to develop a post on some contemporary issue. Others do this, too—pretty routinely—to provide backdrop for points they are making. @JW Insiderand @Araunaare doing that right now with a thread about China and its modern-day & changing role.
It’s an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is—that’s how everyone thinks of it. As such, it is unbiased—that supposedly is it’s mission statement. Anyone can edit it (I’ve never quite understood how that works—well, I guess I do, but I’ve never been interested enough to attempt it, and the premise is that when anyone can do so the result will be complete and unbiased.) Not so, says co-founder Larry Sanger. “Unbiased” went out the window long ago. NPOV (neutral point of view) Is a thing of the past.
He says it here, on this post from his own blog: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
He doesn’t say the website is not factual. Nor does he say it is not objective. But it is not complete. It clearly sides with particular points-of-view. Larry offers about a dozen examples of clear bias, from politics, to science, to health, to religion in which the minority view is run off the road. 
Sigh...this seriously compromises Wikipedia as a base. It is a leftist choir that is preaching there these days, and if you quote the source, which I do all the time, you will be getting a leftist point of view, and other viewpoints either ignored completely or declared wrong. It is not for an encyclopedia to do this, Sanger says. It is supposed to reflect all points of view. It is not to declare a winner. 
Sanger’s background (per Wikipedia (!) ) is not primarily technology, as being co-founder of Wikipedia might imply. It is philosophy, epistomology, and ethics. He is clearly disappointed in the path his creation has taken. 
 
 

There are people who live to slander. 
Is there shame in an arrest? Not on the part of the one arrested until he/she is found guilty. If found innocent, the shame may even be on the accusers.
Is it not slander to take an accusation that would otherwise never go beyond some tiny community billboard and re-broadcast it to the whole world news media .org?
In Ann’s defense, she is hardly the first one to do this. It is the new standard of the world and has been for some time. An arrest is synonymous to a conviction in the new world of “journalism.” She can’t possibly have missed the point of the reference to the French Revolution in which a denouncement was enough to send one to the guillotine—she is not stupid.

I am not suddenly absent Anne and you have done much more than speculate. 
so let me be less cryptic for you.
You are In my opinion a shameful trouble maker with very little sense ........again you say the shame is being arrested for that crime .. again you have presumed he is guilty of that crime...more personal speculation on your part
It would have been much wiser to have perhaps spoken or shared this info privately with some one you could trust ..and waited to see the legal outcome of what you found on the Internet
Many people have been arrested for crimes....the shame comes when one is guilty of that crime.
The shame comes when one rushes with information that may or may not be true...And places it on a public forum ......a fool does that Anne
you started this whole saga and now you hope his family will be okay...you didn’t care a fig about his family when you posted up his mug shot and allegations ..so don’t pretend to now.
I am not participating in this public debacle because of the reasons I have clearly stated.
just for the record ..I am a she and not a he