Jump to content
The World News Media

Friends ... with "benefits"?

James Thomas Rook Jr.

Recommended Posts

  • Member

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Views 2k
  • Replies 20
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's a little too soon to tell.

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. 

Since the Society does NOT recognize Civil Divorces if there is no adultery, and considers a couple to STILL BE MARRIED ... if a man and wife get divorced civilly ONLY ( perhaps for some economic reas

Posted Images

  • Member


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?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member






Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

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



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 !


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • That's completely false. You invariably attempt to weasel your way out of your false statements by claiming that someone has distorted your words. You make false claims about them and claim that they are the ones in the wrong. Then you bluster with some barely-related material hoping it impresses someone (or yourself) into thinking you are some kind of expert or authority. That barely-related material you make use of invariably says nearly the opposite of what you had claimed, which you should have known had you just read the context, or understood what you were reading.  I'll get to the specifics at a later time on this particular point, but it is nearly the same as with almost all these matters. I have learned to expect you to NEVER admit an error, no matter how much evidence is shown. I don't expect you to admit your error on these recent points, but your "style" provides a revealing display of the lengths people will go to, in order to support a pseudo-chronology.   
    • In response to your email, it is important to note that the Watchtower chronology begins at 4026, adhering closely to the numerical indications in scripture. The significant distinction lies in the fact that not everyone begins at 4026; some might commence their chronology at 4004, for instance. Consequently, this creates a noticeable gap between those who employ different starting points for their chronologies. Consider that the new Bible Students have rejected Russell's starting point and instead adjusted it to align with Modern Israel. They have suggested a year around 3954, or something like that, I can't remember, but it seems unfounded. Some of their sects started Criticizing Russell about this matter, and it appears unjustified, as their own knowledge may be limited. Following the Watchtower's guidance is straightforward: align events with their corresponding numerical values. It is important to remember that the Watchtower does not view its chronology as an absolute, unlike secular chronology which seeks to impose its perspective. According to the Watchtower, the pivotal date for the divided kingdom is 997. Look it up in our archives and publications.  The Watchtower's chronology will always diverge from conventional chronology due to its distinctive starting point. The organization holds steadfast to the numbers in the Bible, guided by faith in scripture rather than human interpretations. Despite persistent challenges, the unwavering stance of the Watchtower remains unchanged, as it is grounded in divine guidance, not the opinions of anonymous and faithless individuals.
    • Consider this: if we assume that the tablet dated back to 568 refers to Nebuchadnezzar, and that the king issued an order for Borsippa, a city 12-15 miles from Babylon, then it suggests that King Nebuchadnezzar might have been in his palace giving that order, since logically it would have taken weeks or a month or so for a runner to dispatch such an order from Judah that was for Borsippa in 588/587, as historically suggested, since we can use the same date 588/587 for that event.
    • It appears that he is struggling to accept the reality that Borsippa is approximately 15 miles away from Babylon, and depending on who you ask for directions, it is about 617 miles from Jerusalem. Therefore, if VAT 4956 mentions the death of an individual by the order of a king, in Borsippa and disease then we can reasonably assume it was Nebuchadnezzar based on the 37th year language in that secular evidence rather than the Bible, it suggests that the conflicts in the region were more extensive. This clearly demonstrates that no single conflict can be definitively determined or pinpointed solely by relying on that tablet designated to the year 568, regardless of how convincing it may appear. Making an absolute claim would be dishonest if the information contradicts itself. The same can be said if someone uses the date designation of 587/586 or 588/587. Only people who are desperate would argue that.
    • Stop behaving foolishly and distorting my words. I didn't say that the tablet mentioned 588. What I actually said is that your argument about 587 can also be interpreted as 588. The tablet clearly mentions the city of Borsippa which is way further in distance from Jerusalem, which nobody else has mentioned before, and it reveals the conflicts within it that are indicated in that infamous tablet VAT 4956, which Professor Francesca Rochberg is alluding to.    "Year 37 of Nebukadnezzar, King of Babylon. Month I," "Additional reports in this Diary include that someone was killed “by the command of the king,” that a fox entered the city, a wolf killed two dogs in Borsippa, and that there was disease." I understand that it can be challenging to be proven wrong repeatedly, especially when faced with evidence that can't be easily dismissed. "IN THIS DAIRY" means the same diary. If it's not VAT 4956 it has the same language as VAT 4956. Are you now refuting VAT 4956? Your refutation lacks substance and credibility. There are many other aspects of those dates that can be proven, failing your COJ stance.
  • Members

    • misette

      misette 213

      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
  • 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.