What kind of Cosmetics can you use if you are TWO FACED?

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

... how do you think any sane, reasonable adult would see it?

Unfortunately, I think you have lost it. It would have been better had you listened to @Arauna. Perhaps it is not too late.

[Evacuated]

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

In Las Vegas, about two weeks ago, a man stole a truck when the keys were left in the ignition .. admits it openly, and is NOT repentant ... and can NEVER be repentant...............if he had been one of Jehovah's Witnesses, he would be disfellowshipped as an unrepentant thief with an apostate morality.................The fact that he used that stolen truck to rescue people being massacred, the wounded and dying, to the hospital, does not fit into the robot software program of the current "clerk" administered rules.

DO YOU KNOW ANY REAL LIFE EXAMPLES ... ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD where the WTB&TS has shown mercy for an unrepentant  brazen wrongdoer?

1. This example (presumably true) has no connection whatsoever to your challenge.

If you said that a Jehovah's Witness who stole a truck to ferry wounded and dying people to hospital, then sold the truck and refused to give the proceeds to the rightful owner and used the money for XYZ so was disfellowshipped because he refused to repent of the theft, there might be some grounds to evaluate what went on. But this didn't happen. Even if it did, it would still have no relationship to your challenge.

2. To then ask for examples of unrepentant, brazen, wrongdoers that have been shown mercy is ridiculous.

I think you are trying to make a legitimate point here, but, (insult my intelligence all you like), I am afraid it is lost in your extreme, bombastic, and unrealistic examples.

As I said, I have a feeling that you are trying to make a legitimate point here, but you will have to do better than this James, otherwise, quite frankly, it is LOST. 

[Anna]

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

ince this is not true, and is a pretty blatant untruth, it casts doubt upon everything else she reports. Had she said that many Witnesses are disinclined to run to authorities, that would be one thing. But she says they are prohibited, where right on jw.org are plain statements that they are not. So she hasn't researched. She's been fed a line by someone and she simply parrots it.

It's very annoying when reporters do that, and unfortunately there are more that do than don't.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

OK ... looking at the above replies ... I see we euphemistically will have to "agree to disagree" ... so since you have decided to treat my questions as only rhetorical on the Las Vegas issue, and to not see the it as the general public saw that incident ... I will repeat for your consideration a hypothetical scenario  a bit closer to home, only this time I am NUMBERING the questions (1,2,3) you are invited to consider, and opine on.

It makes it easier to excoriate me if that's how you see it, without confusing any issues.

 

10 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

"Quod est necessarium est licitum"

That which is necessary, is legal.

If I ... with premeditation ...  I deliberately murdered a Sister out in Service by shooting her through the head through her car side window ...who was screaming in horror and pain, her body and face ON FIRE ...burning to death in a car fire, and nobody could not get her out ....

1.) ... how do you think the Congregational Judicial Committee would handle it?

2.) ... how do you think a civil Jury would handle it?

3.) ... how do you think any sane, reasonable adult would see it?

 

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

It is my considered belief that TRUTHFULLY AND ACCURATELY answering those three questions quoted and numbered above ....  in detail .... will provide a REAL answer about whether there is REALLY such a thing as Justice, and Mercy, in the Christian Congregation ... and ignoring those three questions ... OR AVOIDING them ... or EVADING them AS STATED ... is a cop out, and a proof of institutional cognitive dissonance on a global scale.

[TrueTomHarley]

26 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

OK ... looking at the above replies ... I see we euphemistically will have to "agree to disagree" ...

When I said 'unfortunately, I think you have lost it,' I was not kidding. I was  a bit worried for you, and - I am internally conflicted to admit it - I am relieved to find that it is not so. Or is it?

I mean, that last remark was as long as it was just plain unhinged - comparing the Watchtower to Stalin, the Gestapo, and to ...... Vlad the Impaler?! 'Surely he has lost his mind!' I said, and I expected even your fellow opposers to sing - "and another one gone and another one gone. Another one bites the dust!"

Your period of silence after that last comment was, for you, astoundingly long. Or so it seemed to me. And now you are back. Where it was relief tinged with sadness, now it is sadness tinged with relief. Or is it the other way around?

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

18 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Neither system is perfect ... and and I have stated many MANY times earlier on this blog ... Justice we only get from Jehovah God ... everything else is just "due process".

However, there is a difference in what "due process means in various "systems".

Total Anarchy has one definition of "due process"

Transylvanian dictator Vlad the Impaler had a definition of "due process"

Soviet Josef Stalin had a definition of "due process".

The Nazi Gestapo and Department of Justice had a definition of "due process".

The WTB&TS has a definition of "due process"

The USA court systems have their definitions of "due process"

etc.

etc.

If your life was on the line, which system would YOU choose to get what approximates Justice?

 

I have edited two points of the quote of my above referenced comment  (click read more), changing  two points to red and bold to highlight what two ideas  go together.

... but of course since you are looking at anything I say trough AGENDA DRIVEN sunglasses, you do not comprehend what you read, so I will try to be clearer.

Ahem .... the following six lines quoted are separated by "air spaces" ... that means they are SEPARATE  definitions ... that means they are SEPARATE judicial systems.

1.) Transylvanian dictator Vlad the Impaler had a definition of "due process"

2.) Soviet Josef Stalin had a definition of "due process".

3.) The Nazi Gestapo and Department of Justice had a definition of "due process".

4.) The WTB&TS has a definition of "due process"

5.) The USA court systems have their definitions of "due process"

6 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I mean, that last remark was as long as it was just plain unhinged - comparing the Watchtower to Stalin, the Gestapo, and to ...... Vlad the Impaler?! 'Surely he has lost his mind!' I said, and I expected even your fellow opposers to sing - "and another one gone and another one gone. Another one bites the dust!"

I clearly was talking about six completely separate and distinct forms, styles and characteristics of applied "Justice".

Completely different....completely separate.

I find it VERY SAD AND TELLING  that you, yourself made the connection, true or false, or partially true or partially false, that

" I mean, that last remark was as long as it was just plain unhinged - comparing the Watchtower to Stalin, the Gestapo, and to ...... Vlad the Impaler?! "

You AND YOU ALONE are the one that made that connection between deliberately isolated points ... you and you alone ... when my point was ONLY ... and what was also clearly stated :

" If your life was on the line, which system would YOU choose to get what approximates Justice?"

Which as usual ... as always ... the questions you NEVER answer.

I do know WHY you never answer my  questions, but go off on a tangents of misconstruction.

                                                        It's painful                                                                                                       

  although I deliberately kept the ideas separate ... with your own mind you saw that connection.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Your period of silence after that last comment was, for you, astoundingly long. Or so it seemed to me. And now you are back. Where it was relief tinged with sadness, now it is sadness tinged with relief. Or is it the other way around?

TTH: ".. period of silence"?

You look for meaning in personal attributes, like dissecting a picture of a guy taking off a sleeve stained suit coat and becoming more worldly, as in Sunday's WT, and see nuances where there are none whatsoever.

You might have well have said he was being chased by bees!

".. period of silence"?

I do have to sleep and eat, and go to the ..... grocery store, and do yard work, etc., etc., etc.

Besides ... it's not the swing of the pendulum, as it goes to and fro ... but the essence that drives it, that makes us go.

Wha-de-do-DAH.

 

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

You may have noticed  from the above, TTH, that I ALWAYS try to answer your specific questions, and you NEVER answer mine.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Ahem .... the following six lines quoted are separated by "air spaces"

I can think of a pair of ears between which there are air spaces.

 

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

You AND YOU ALONE are the one that made that connection

It's because nobody reads this stuff. And what of this next beaut?

 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

You may have noticed  from the above, TTH, that I ALWAYS try to answer your specific questions, and you NEVER answer mine.

You do not. You keep telling me I'm in serious needs of meds. And maybe I am. But I never was before I started hanging out here.

It's not enough that you have driven yourself loony?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It's because nobody reads this stuff. And what of this next beaut?

Apparently you don't read it either ... correction ....You do read it but do not understand what you have read, or,  do understand what you have read, and it's too painful to acknowledge.

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You do not. You keep telling me I'm in serious needs of meds. And maybe I am. But I never was before I started hanging out here.

It's not enough that you have driven yourself loony?

The fact that you NEVER answer my specific questions PROVE that your thinking that I am looney is hard evidence that I am thinking correctly ... but only hard evidence for those that understand WHY you never answer my questions.

You do understand what you have read, AND  it's too painful to acknowledge.

... therefore, it follows .... I must be loony.

Hmmmm .... having again once answered what I believe is all of YOUR questions (more on that follows...) .... specific, to the point, and to the best of my frazzeled ability, this would be a good time to reiterate my original observation about that, as follows .......

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

You may have noticed  from the above, TTH, that I ALWAYS try to answer your specific questions, and you NEVER answer mine.

In your last two posts, I did not know what to do with the second of the three questions you asked me ... but if you would clarify what a "beaut" is, I will earnestly try .... this paragraph being, as you might note an attempt to answer your specific question, and technically it is a specific answer.

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

And what of this next beaut?

You have to excuse me, now ... I am about to take my wife out to brunch at Golden Corral, as it is cheaper than buying a really good breakfast and lunch at home ... and no preparation ... and no dishes !

I assure you there is no nefarious intent being away from the keyboard for an afternoon, or even all day ... like giving the invisible ninjas stationed in your house the "go code".

yeah... I wouldn't do THAT this afternoon ....

(rubs hands together as if putting on hand lotion ... with maniacal giggling)

 

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The fact that you NEVER answer my specific questions

It is all but one question, rephrased and repeated endlessly. How many times must one answer it?