Friends ... with "benefits"?

[TrueTomHarley]

Many times you have challenged readers to point to even one thing you have said that is not true. I will take you up on your challenge now.

You just said an untruth, and it is a big one. It is fundamental to everything else you say:

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The alternate explanation would have to be reasonable, show common sense, and the end result be merciful, and just ... and NOT HURT ANYONE ... which is the whole point of ALL Theocratic Law.

It's not about us. Not primarily. Primarily, it is about the sanctification of God's name and the vindication of his purpose. 'Not hurting anyone,'  though a good provision, is not as good as keeping God's name on high and his purpose undeterred.

Furthermore, though you have been very critical of the Governing Body, this understanding predates the Governing Body. It first emerged in Rutherford's day.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

TTH

Your statement makes no more sense ... than in a discussion of the many different types of apples, you blurt out that Jehovah God, in his Infinite Wisdom, make Giraffes with long necks so they could eat spaghetti.

I do invite challenges, but they should at LEAST  have SOME relevance to the statements that I make.

Your challenge has no bearing whatsoever on my statement that you quoted.

22 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It's not about us. Not primarily. Primarily, it is about the sanctification of God's name and the vindication of his purpose. 'Not hurting anyone,'  though a good provision, is not as good as keeping God's name on high and his purpose undeterred.

OK, then, I will quote you and challenge YOU.

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Example: Lets say my wife got on a Starship to the  Centauri Star System, at sub-light speeds.  She is in hibernation, and will be asleep for 126 years in transit, 63 years accelerating, and 63 years decelerating, meanwhile, back on Earth I have to live the rest of my life, say 42 years, with no help, companionship, or love, THROUGH NO FAULT OF MY OWN.

Does it serve the interests of 1.) God, 2.) Christ, 3.) or any PERSON .... for me to endure this cruelty for 42 years, and die alone? 

To the best I have been able to determine ... THE ANSWER IS NO!

That to me is the KEY question to understanding Jesus' advice about marriage.

I cannot think of ANYONE who benefits from this cruel, current application of Scripture.

Can YOU?

Please answer  questions 1.), and 2.).   Try to stay on topic and not rant about penguins or any other irrelevant side topic.

Can YOU?

.

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

THE QUESTION REMAINS .... (rephrased .... )

Has the Society ever ruled on what happens if a man or woman abandons their spouse FOR THE REST OF THEIR "NATURAL LIVES" ... is the one DELIBERATELY abandoned stuck for the rest of his "natural life"? ?

Hey TTH:

do an essay on THAT question, too, while you are at it.

Remember ... no penguins or irrelevant issues "allowed".

[TrueTomHarley]

PRAY TO JEHOVAH, YOU BIG BABY!!!

IF HE LIKES YOU, HE WILL SOMEHOW UNCOVER THAT YOUR EX IS A BIMBO, WHICH WILL FREE YOU TO REMARRY!

OR DO YOU NOT BELIEVE JEHOVAH IS CAPABLE OF DOING THAT?

..........

BESIDES, SINCE YOU CONSTANTLY MAKE THAT TAUNT TO CALL YOU ON AN UNTRUTH, I DIDN'T THINK YOU WOULD RUN FOR THE HILLS WHEN SOMEONE TAKES YOU UP ON IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

One thing about you Tom, you are

100% consistent in NEVER addressing issues.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

SINCE YOU CONSTANTLY MAKE THAT TAUNT TO CALL YOU ON AN UNTRUTH, I DIDN'T THINK YOU WOULD RUN FOR THE HILLS WHEN SOMEONE TAKES YOU UP ON IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I answered YOUR question as succinctly as the facts that it was based on false premises would permit.

... YOU JUST DIDN'T LIKE  THE ANSWER !

YOU WERE TRYING TO SET A TRAP, AND NOTHING SHOWED UP.

You seem to have a COMPLETE lack of reading comprehension skills, as in all of our back-and-forth sparring,  you have YET ( that means never ... for those in Rio Linda...) to address the issues under discussion, but instead go wandering down the  main corridor and taking side corridors of irrelevancy, to the issues at hand.

How about, for a change ... address the actual issues ON THE BASIS OF THE VALIDITY .... OR NOT ... OF THOSE ISSUES RAISED ? 

Try proposing counter arguments that are relevant to the main issue on the table.

SHOW how my ideas are wrong, and my examples irrelevant to factual reality. Give examples that are stronger and more focused and pertinent than  MY examples.

You cannot win an argument, or a civil debate, by saying "MY Daddy can beat up YOUR Daddy, and my dog has four legs, and YOU only have two, and you are UGLY.".

It is very disconcerting, albeit amusing, to be trying to have a discussion with someone about REAL WORLD issues, and they are under the table polishing their shoes.

.... stay focused !

 

[Melinda Mills]

What is theocratic law by the way? I thought it was the principles laid out in the Bible.

You need to encourage respondents but being gentle with them and showing honour. No one has to reply. 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

..sometimes NO reply would be better than a goofy, irrelevant reply.