TrueTomHarley

I'm crying plenty - anytime I reflect upon your obsession over the minutia of a religion you left long ago.

For crying out loud, Srecko - there is such a thing as common sense. Did you forget what that stuff is? It is a faith where everlasting life on a paradise earth is recognized as God's purpose for mankind. Yet the overall world that Christians operate within is that 'everyone is going to heaven when they die ' The overall world - inside or outside the congregation - produces abundant emotional stress. It is therefore not a shocker to suggest that "mental and emotional imbalanced or past religious beliefs" may be a factor for some - particularly so should someone give evidence of imbalance in their everyday lives - which you would know nothing about since you ran for the hills ages ago. What business is it of yours? Get on with your life - for I assume that you have one - and stop harping on the tiniest thing here. You don't need a scripture to justify it every time you blow your nose.

50% of the Bible is related to this theme, probably more. The prophets positively beat us over the head with it. Unless one applies spiritual values in one's life, his or her worship is meaningless and disapproved. Yet here online is found extensive discussion of issues that constitutes less than one percent of the Bible. Would that it more closely correlated with the Bible's allocation of themes. I think it tells something of many participants that it does not. Okay, I get it - angels are desirous of peering into future things and are frustrated that they cannot. But even so... Particularly is it so of opponents who are demanding Witnesses 'study the Bible' more, when Witnesses collectively are the most well-read biblically in the world. Do such opponents actually apply the faith in their life? Are they known as persons of love, empathy, and Christian activity? Or are they primarily known as persons who argue that they have a better way? This is an anonymous forum and one does not really know anyone. Maybe they all are the epitome of Christ-like qualities - they certainly all seem to treat that as a no-brainer. But I am dubious nonetheless.

It is someone else's point. Let them rise to the occasion if there is one.

Where is @James Thomas Rook Jr. when you need him with the Far Side cartoon showing Satan furious with the painter for painting 999 on an interior room. "Well, I'll be," the fellow says, scratching his head. "I guess I was holding the blueprint upside down."

Yeah, @Nana Fofana, excellent point Srecko makes here! Why can't you quote any scriptures about what is happening 2000 years after they were written, hmm? For that matter, where is the scripture saying you can call yourself Nana on the internet? Srecko is very wise. Don't think you can slip anything past him.

What adds to the chill is that the Russian Orthodox translation also says Jehovah in about 9 places, per Anton Chivchalov.

Yes Yes. It had better be. But these three questions miss the one obvious fact that makes them all irrelevant. How would they know? Because the individual annointed ones say so? The day that this happens I am going to reveal here that I am also annointed and I have been lurking here for months. I now have a pronouncement. It is that my fellow annointed @Witness is all wet and no one should listen to her, and that @James Thomas Rook Jr. is next in line as replacement in case someone bites the dust. He has many many many complaints. It is time to put them all on the front burner. If anyone doesn't believe it, I will threaten to summon Jesus' white horse, who is not exactly Mr. Ed. I'm annointed. I said something. Jump!!

Oh? Jesus said any who would see life must eat his flesh and drink his blood. How would your 'critical thought' analyze that one? He lost a great many disciples that day. Probably it was ones who, like you, put their trust in critical thought. 'Critical thought' is the trademark of a generation that constructs a system that is swirling directly down the toilet, and yet proponents thereof project an air of superiority right until their heads go under. Jesus could not have said anything more stupid if his concern was to cater to critical thought. It should be clear that he doesn't give a hoot about it. He violates its tenets all the time. He spins illustrations that he rarely explains. When he does explain them, it is not in a manner that would satisfy any advocate of critical thought. He raises strawmen as readily as he breathes. He launches ad homenum attacks willy-nilly. He speaks to the heart, in almost total disregard for the head. For every verse about the head, there are ten about the heart. People insisting on critical thought are the most obnoxious people in the world because each one assumes that he alone has a lock on the stuff. Critical thought is the main element of this world's wisdom that God laughs at. Though I don't mean to equate the two, the current uproar over a Trump tweet illustrates the divide perfectly. I don't care how much I dislike @James Thomas Rook Jr. ; if he saved my kid from 10 years in a Chinese prison I would be on my hands and knees thanking him. A tweet that calls out ingratitude gets people stirred up because it speaks to the heart - everyone knows where gratitude is and when it is appropriate. But those who go in for critical analysis think the president petty for not letting it go. Doesn't he have more important things to do? When Trump tweets that North Korea has launched all its missills, people of heart will run to take cover. People of critical thought will run to their computers to point out that the idiot can't even spell the word right. THAT is my opinion of your 'critical thought.' As nearly as I can tell, it is Jesus' opinion. And God's. Things that have been done on the GB's watch and on their behest - do the blessings outweigh the costs? There are costs - sometimes they are significant. Do the spiritual benefits the GB alone has enabled outweigh the costs? Or do the costs, invariably matters of personal rights curtailed somehow, outweigh the benefits? It is a matter of the heart. The head has little to do with it.

I believe you just did. It is the Question from Readers you brought up yourself and misread a point perfectly obvious to everyone else. Some mistakenly think they have the calling because they are nuts - what's so hard about that? Nobody is saying who is who. Lest anyone think I ridicule people, let me say that I am not opposed to nuts. Many are nuts here. I am nuts. One man's nuts is another man's eccentric. I don't care to sort it out and don't know if I could if I wanted to. What I do know is that our nuts are harmless. With the world's nuts, you'd better buy a bullet-proof vest. @James Thomas Rook Jr. will know, if he can extract his face from out of a turkey, that I am very much opposed to those misreading points.

And Paul also said all these gifts would pass away. So it all becomes irrelevant to identifying divine backing today. Then why keep doing it with the GB? He doesn't NEED anything. That is not to say it does not come in handy. Replace Bethel with a pile of rocks, and look to those to 'cry out.' My point is that your footing is much less firm here. If anything, the JW.org disproves this. I see their faces all the time, whereas I never used to. Yes! As long as God's temple doesn't do anything, all is fine. Far better to meet in each other's basements. (caution: unnecessary sarcasm here, the language of you-know-who) Yes. It will. Why not allow it to make hay while the sun shines? You think there's not? Didn't Jesus say something about 'cramped and narrow?' I think they simply don't want to be negligent. I don't think they know themselves how things will shake out beyond the hints from the scriptures. But whatever the caution be issued in the future, I don't think they want to see a brotherhood dominated by the sons-in-law of Lot, who imagine they are joking. IMO, it is because of this that: You have much exaggerated this, but everyone knows where you are coming from. Nobody would say your words are groundless, only exaggerated. This is among the most recurring themes of this entire forum. This statement strikes me as not unlike Peter's in the windstorm - panicking at the unknown and fear-inspiring. Congregation authority was pretty much unchecked in the first century, much to the dismay of Diotrophes and the superfine apostles. As so as the latter succeeded in checking it, it all fell apart. We do tend to go by rote. How 'concerning' this is is anyone's guess. They don't call them sheep for nothing. No.

Says who? Paul himself, mostly, plus a handful that could testify he had experienced some sort of religious experience, though they were not able to catch any of the words. Skeptics on this forum would not have been impressed. What if those first century Christians had refused to listen to him or read his letters, saying Why could they not have reasoned similarly? Let Jesus speak himself, if he has something to say! Why could they not have refused to listen to Paul the Middleman? When the verse says "Listen to him" it is not speaking of Paul. Perhaps there were some who did argue that way. I don't see why there wouldn't have been. Where are they now? The good news enjoyed tremendous growth under Paul? Big deal. It has done the same under the direction of the GB, yet that makes no difference to critics here. Practically speaking, what do you propose we should do if we allow no one to represent Christ, but insist on communication from Jesus himself?

Sigh....I've come to regret that. In hindsight, I did completely misread @James Thomas Rook Jr.' remarks (though not necessarily his sentiment) and thus based my tirade on something he didn't say. I owe him an apology, fair and square, without any snide asides for once.

I need a drink. Maybe I can snatch one from @The Librarian while she's not looking.

Hmmm. Did I mIsread this? Possibly. He says a third, not three times. Hmm Alright, Tommy, man up! Sorry, JTR Having said that, one cannot go wrong on a rant against the big boy, in my opinion. It's delectable.

Oh, stop it with the ad homenum attacks, will you? If you MUST revel in ad homenum attacks, then revel in the ones I make against you, for they are accurate. If you even walked back your idiot statement or attempted to clarify it, I would cut you slack, but you unfurl it as though you would replace Rutherford for the keynote talk with your huge banner: 'Behold! Advertise, Advertise, Advertise that Witness Ministers of the Kingdom are Nuts!' (and yet you intend to raise your kids Witnesses!! Why should not THAT be considered parental abuse? Raise those kids to embrace the religion you hate.) Of course! One quarter of a percent of the population is responsible for one third of the suicides!! Count yourself l**ky that I did not call you a liar. I did not do so, because I allowed for the possibility that you belonged in an asylum. Now THAT is another statement entirely. Had you said that, you would not have come off as an unhinged lunatic. Is it true? It is in one particular place and time. Furuli later made a YouTube perhaps in response to it, as though this fellow had butchered his findings. And JWI, who will spill JW shortcomings at the drop of a pin, says Furuli's numbers should hardly be relied upon. So who can know? But there is another way to look at it. Even if it were true, it is no more than what one would expect when Jesus says he came to seek, not those who do not need a physician, but those that do. The groups to worry about, to my mind, are those who have low rates of mental illness among them - for there are a lot of mentally ill people around. It must be that they feel excluded - driven away by condescension, lack of love, or inhospitality. Those who can operate smoothly among this world’s calamities – who can absorb all the atrocities routinely distributed and accommodate themselves to it without fuss - those are the people to worry about, IMO. Besides, when our people go off the rails, they nonetheless wouldn’t hurt a fly. If persons of the greater world go off the rails - better call the SWAT team and secure a new identity from the authorities! Yes. Why do you think he brings it up?

I remarked only on what you actually said. Didn't you say once that you had been an engineer? With such command of numbers - one third of all suicides from a group that represents .25 of the population! - if you were given any engineering responsibility in your city, there will not be found therein a single toilet that flushes.

I addressed only his remarks, which are the dumbest remarks I have heard even from him. I did not follow the link, for I already seen a YouTube of Fureli refuting the perception and I imagined JTR was misrepresenting it. Unfortunately, I was raised with Sesame Street and I must have whiz-bang action or else I get bored. The YouTube was a bit plodding and I only scratched the surface before quitting. (a transcript I would read, if JTR made one available. A dull video simply takes too much time, which at the moment, I do not have. maybe later I will.) But now I see that the link is to something purporting to be academic. It may even be that the YouTube I saw was Fureli's attempt to clear up misconceptions from this report. At any rate, I saw enough of the YouTube to see that Fureli meant to speak in defense of the faith and not try to undercut it.

Brilliant, James. They are a quarter of a percent of the U.S. population, yet they account for one third of all suicides! There may be something to your observation, though. Just Saturday as I was entering the assembly hall, I had to step over ten dead bodies. I mean, some viewpoints are too stupid to countenance.

What do you plan to do with this information you are just curious about?

Help me out on a call. A sister placed magazines with a college kid, conversed a while, and he said she could call back. His father, however, would not likely be welcoming, he said. She gave the call to me. I made it. He was not home. His father was, and the son had been right. The father was not welcoming. Neither did he tell me to get lost. Well – he did, but it was not in the ordering sort of tone, and I said I had not been looking for him anyway, but his son. He was the family head, and I told him I would not try to sneak around him, but did he mind if I called again on his son? The kid was smart, I told the old man, and that must mean his parents are smart. He said his son was his own person, and if he wanted to speak with me again, that was up to him. I called again. The son, of course, was not home. The unwelcoming dad was. He was in a wheelchair, as he had been the first time. One bumper sticker on the family car read “Born right the first time.” The other said: “There are death squads in America; they’re called insurance companies.” I think we overdo our advice to take cues from bumper stickers, but this time the Ten Commandments could not have told me more. All that remains is to fill in a few blanks. Sometimes I open with Job 34:10 – “it is unthinkable for the true God to act wickedly.” I like the verse, I told him, because some people think he does act wickedly. And some see all the nasty things going down and say: “I don’t think there is a true God.” It plays into the theme of why there is suffering, I told the fellow. He wasn’t nice. I made clear that the instant he told me to go away, I would. We were conversing through the storm door, which added a measure of challenge. I almost reached to open it, for it was awkward for him to do so, but I decided it would be a bit much. He laughed derisively at my Bible verse. “You’re here because you want to tell me about suffering?” he shot back from his wheelchair. I answered: “No. I want you to tell me. I don’t have to talk at all. I want you to invite me in and tell me.” I said: “Look – everyone has a story, but no one wants to hear it. So I will,. I've got the time.” He’ll never see me again anyway – what does he have to lose? I told him. He answered sarcastically that he could never get over the Christians’ “need” to “save” people. Look, he said, he was one of the 5% who are atheist. “Yeah – I’m here to change that,” I answered. This is far more blunt than I would ever be ordinarily, but I decided I would answer him in kind. It was not even true, really, or at least it was not a goal I realistically held. I also told him that he was right – we are Christian, and it is a bit much that we should appear out of thin air, but that Jehovah’s Witnesses are in a league of their own. He responded by saying his number one man from his working days had been a Witness, and that he had been the nicest, most reliable fellow in the world. “Yeah, we’re all nice,” I said. “You think I’m nice? Wait to you get a load of Clyde,” I motioned to the brother behind me, who could barely make out through the door what the man was saying. His praise for the brother he once supervised at work didn’t yield me as much ground as might be expected. After two or three more minutes maneuvering, I told him that while I would like to know more, one can only go far, and we would take our leave. He didn’t cry over the prospect, but had never taken the bait of saying I should go. I am not sure what to do. I will let it go, probably. One more call in a few months to see if anything has moved, and then I am done. Maybe before, but I have no plans at the present. Any advice?

It is in the thread. You have been silent for some time. Read up on what you have missed.

@JW Insider can top your experience any day with one he knows about. I half fear that he will. Suicides happen. They are tragic. These days in the greater world they have become all the rage among the young, who do not buy the rosy reports enthusiasts of this system are trying to sell them. Surely there can be no greater condemnation of this world than the stampede among the young to leave it. It is better than an idiot sharing the dismal news of this system of things with a happy face.

Relative to some others, you are a saint, I admit. Sorry.

He will pummel you nonetheless. That fellow knows law. Don't try to peddle emotion disguised as law before him, because @Allen Smith will catch you at it every time. Protest "pummelling," - my foot. It is not exactly badmitten anyone else is playing here. Even you have stepped over the line of sheer pleasantry.