TrueTomHarley

@admin had an epiphany.

If it was up to me, this site would be Bible 303 - an elective. Bible 101 is learning the Bible. It is a requirement. Bible 201 is applying it. It is a requirement. Bible 303 is seeing how people reevaluate their vow after a time - who sometimes back out of it - and why. They provide vivid examples of Bible themes that become meaningful only when you see real examples of them. Ultimately, it is simple. The myriad reasons people leave, generally collapse into one: "Demas has forsaken me because he loved the present system of things." You see people choose individual rights over the Bible-required model of self sacrifice. (rights over responsibility) You see people who insist upon extracting the straw from their brother's eye. You see people who cannot forgive. You see people who go livid over authority, to the point that Miriam and Korah's carryings on are but polite disagreements in comparison. You see modern examples of what seems incomprehensible otherwise - Jews wanting to go back to Egypt - who would even stone those dissuading them. You see people who stumble even seven times, and lose all desire to get up. The reward is farther off than they first thought. The price to pay is higher. You see countless examples of a line you might not appreciate otherwise: "Jehovah's let his heart become hardened." I mean, nobody ever yields an inch here or softens one iota. (it is true of many subjects today) Given only the caveat that you never know for sure just who is who, you cannot reason with such ones - their mind is long made up - and you shouldn't even try, IMO. When you address them, you are addressing the audience beyond. To reason with them specifically over time would make me uncomfortable - I would think I am violating such verses as have nothing to do with certain ones. Speaking to whoever might be reading later is not the same. In some cases, the best example you can give for such ones is to slap the villains hard. The best way to get people to do something is to tell them they can't. New Christians, or immature Christians will come online, and some are like kids playing in the street - blind to the fact that there are villains trying to run them down, swerving like terrorists to nail as many as possible. There is a place for ones more seasoned to hang around, because they can sometimes succeed in hurling a stake into their spokes, sending the nasties head over handlebars. Of course, you can also empathize with those who have had hard times and suggest alternatives to their just giving up or even opposing the ones with whom they were once best buddies. It's not such a bad thing for brothers to see this, IMO. Bible 303 is an elective, because you cannot blow off as nothing the verses, such as Haggai, that say the unclean will rub off on the clean, and not the reverse. "Leave them be, blind guides is what they are," Jesus says, not "Let's rumble!" Bible 303, therefore, cannot be required and it is not for everybody. But for those so inclined to submit their faith to the tests that will surely come anyway, and see others in various stages of testing theirs - and some having failed outright - it is elucidating, because advanced Bible themes as love for God and love for the brotherhood and Christian loyalty play out right under your nose. You can ask yourself: "Just why am I serving Jehovah, anyway?" 2 Peter (or is it Jude?) speaks of those who despise authority. I am convinced that was at the root of everything in the first century just like it is today. Even should you want to live immorally, that will not go down as the reason for your apostasy. In the greater religious world, if you want to live immorally, you simply live immorally. It is only when someone tells you that you can't that it becomes a problem - and then the oppressive authority will go down as the problem, not the determination to transgress Bible laws of how we should live.

Can you use this?

Excellent! A church with which you 85% agree. When are you transferring?

That is NOT the case. Or if it is, it is meaningless because of the word 'standard,' which can mean anything. What makes this statement anything more than emotion on your part is to say: In the States it's the legally-mandated standard that individuals who work with children are mandated reporters. Don't mess with me on this, or I will send @Allen Smith your way, who knows every law on the planet. He will pummel you to a finish. G. Jackson indicated to the ARC that he would welcome the modified statement: legally mandated across the board, and not just applied retroactively when you want to apply it to someone you don't like. It would make Witnesses job of keeping the congregation clean so much easier. That point has already been made in this thread.

Whenever we enjoy a roasted turkey this time of year, we cook it with a bookbag under its wing so that there should be no misunderstanding. WHOA! @Admin has been busy with software innovations! Related topics now appear in the sidebar. (isn't this new?) It is "Similar Content' My own favorite holiday is one of them, and posts I started about Ground Hog Day. Don't nobody say nothin bad about Ground Hog day here, or I'll send the filthy rat down your chimney like Santa and he will leave lice everywhere.

"Turn me on, dead man" - The Beatles National pep talks are fine. Thanksgiving to God we can all live with and don't have to rain on anyone else's parade. But if Jehovah is this kind of a God, he sure took his eye off the ball as regards many parts of the earth, didn't he? That said, whenever I am bold (or dumb) enough to go out in service on a holiday, I find some verse of harmonious theme and say something like: 'this is what we are doing out of respect for the holiday.' It seems an insult to the householder to not connect your remarks to his interest of the day - we otherwise unfailingly try to do that - reading bumper stickers and so forth. (which as often as not were affixed by the previous owner) Even as I write, I warm further to this idea, though it is Witnessing 401 - an advanced course. Many brothers get their heads handed to them on a platter for holiday witnessing. Is it possible, for those so inclined, to connect their remarks with the day's theme and become almost a holiday tradition? I like him already. (within limits) I like him already. Wasn't he the brother who enjoyed the sauna? It seems he was little concerned about tongues wagging.

I am not always entirely sure where @Allen Smith is coming from, but it may help him to know that I like Mark Twain and I take many of his sayings to heart, such as: "Against the assault of laughter, nothing can stand." In my opinion, and I think that of the Scriptures and organization (which would not have us patiently reasoning with flat-out apostates) there are some who can benefit from being reasoned with. And some who cannot. When you address the latter, you are not actually addressing them, but whatever audience lies beyond. Admittedly, no human can make a final judgement as to who fits in which category - I have reassessed in the past, and even re-reassessed - but with some you can come pretty close. It's a little dicey being here in the first place, for Allen no less than I.

The section overseen by @The Librarian should be "Obadiah Revisited" The shortest Hebrew Bible book is that of God's nation under constant assault, and how their relatives, the Edomites, enthusiastically join in the attack - turning their brothers over to those who would kill them....and how Jehovah feels about that.

It is typical of this world. When it at last wakes up to a moral problem, it wildly overreacts. The most blatant and current example is not in pedophile accusations at all, but in college campus accusations of rape. http://www.weeklystandard.com/why-campus-rape-tribunals-hand-down-so-many-guilty-verdicts/article/2010401 the article describes how it is almost impossible for an accused male student to win. It describes how, when the accuser's story is inconsistent or doesn't add up, that is dismissed as an expected result due to trauma. The prevailing cockeyed thinking is very much like the one advanced by @Noble Berean "why would you even want to take the chance of a sexual predator persisting in the congregation?" Simply substitute "college campus" for "congregation" and the thought is his.

Well, it is what it is. I don't care about any corporate agenda.

Okay, okay, I admit it. It is me in my younger days. As for the identity of the sheep, it is a bit hard to tell because it is facing away, but I think it is @James Thomas Rook Jr.

Is he online here?

It is true that I resist all changes of all types. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. My wife even says that I extend it to: 'If it IS broke, don't fix it.' That being said, the blue font is not the best choice, IMO. Black makes a better contrast.

Yeah, that's how I interact with the police, too. Can you think of anyone who doesn't? Can you think of any organization that doesn't? It may change, though. I have offered my suggestion for next year's yeartext: "Salvation belongs to the police."

The scoundrels will all append a B on the front end.

Love those police! What strikes me here (this is no reference to @Noble Berean) is that people who loathe the police in some contexts absolutely love them in others. They have a lot of capabilities that I sincerely appreciate. But they have a lot of capabilities in Russia, too, and they direct some of them toward our brothers.

Okay Nowhere Theologian is not a word we generally use. I am not one. I am afraid I do not know where you are coming from, Allen. I think that I would like to. I am not sure of your role in this play.

Yes, it is a noble sentiment - but nobody is going to do it. We are just going to shoot our mouths off. We have long been trained that way. It didn't start with O.J. but his is the oldest vivid example I recall. The public is whipped into near hysteria by constant repetition of a certain scene. That scene arouses powerful thought and (mostly) emotion, but it is only 2% of the facts. A few months later the jury convenes. They hear (ideally) 100% of the facts. But when they reach the 'wrong' verdict, there is universal outrage. Consistently, there really shouldn't be any trials anymore. Put everything on Facebook and render verdicts according to likes. People are not inclined to believe a court verdict anyway, if it is not what they want. Why waste everyone's time? Nobody likes jury duty. Think of the money that would be saved! @adminshould get cracking on it because he wants to go big. He is tired of a website full of religious nuts. I mean, he likes it, but he wants to build. He doesn't want to cater to anyone's corporate agenda. He should expand into this. He will become so influential that he will be able to tell Mark Zuckerberg to use the service entrance. Even @The Librarian(the old biddy) will be able to do so. More children to tyranize - she will love it! It's a horrible thing - for respected institutions to be so easily made impotent. However, the 'silver lining' for anyone being slammed in court, whether justly or not, is that they can say: 'Do you really believe that joke of a system?" It is also why you should never criticize one who chooses mostly, or even solely, to read Watchtower publications. Yes, they will miss a lot, and their ability to relate to certain others will be impeded. But they will not have to experience the sensation of the ping pong ball ever slammed this way or that by Players intent upon dividing the human population. They won't have to weigh every word to figure out who is spinning them lies and what they are.

I have stated before my thought that the Trump/Hillary election is a god-send for Christians. Not because of the results, but because it has forced all the crazies from their holes out into the open. It is ever so hard to deny 2 Timothy 3:1-5 now, whereas in the past if someone disagreed those verses especially apply today, there was not much you could do about it. It is also demonstrated clearly that the biblical 'mountains' and 'hills' today consist merely of highly paid crazies. News means nothing in itself. You simply look for who or what the journalist is trying to torpedo. It is true with the court system. Trump orders this or that and the Obama-appointed judges throw it out. It once was just the reverse, but was not so highly publicized. The point is that court rulings don't mean much of anything today - you simply have to look at which agenda has won out. I suppose that's true - how can one argue with the value of learning - but the challenge is, as soon as you think you know anything about law, some orangutan throws in a - um - monkey wrench and you are right back where you started. The law is fantastically complex. The cynics (not me, of course) would say that it is made so deliberately for the sake of job security and expansion in a high-growth industry.

You are right. Crime is crime. Sorry. If we are discussing backing the dumptruck of toxic waste into the river, it is very important that you post your story of the guy caught littering. It is not good. No one says otherwise. But it is also not very specific - nor is it rape. If it was, he would have been convicted of it.

That's two, Srecko. Good job! Yes, and in the whole wide world there will be many more. His crime: pleaded to two counts of lewd or lascivious acts We were speaking of countless cases of rape within another certain dominant religion. In that context, the contribution you've excitedly offered up - so thrilled - just doesn't cut it. It is not in the same 'league.' "which then removed Gorski from his position as an elder, but allowed him to remain an active member" After imposing what discipline?, for they invariably would. It would be rebuke of some sort with sanctions - something not mentioned in the story. Should they have shot him? What were the laws at that place at that time? If it is a scenario where critics say they must go "beyond the law" to prove their concern for children, doing that can get them in hot water in most places, because the default law is clergy/penitent protected confidentiality. That's why G Jackson pleaded to the ARC to make their laws uniform, which would make JWs job so much easier - it would be across-the-board policy, with no room for misunderstanding or misapplication, and it wouldn't matter if a given family head wanted to avoid airing his family's dirty laundry on the 11PM News. Even today, families do not line up to do that, whether religious or not.

I like these words of Covington. I like, too, the stable country that is the U.S. that would steadfastly allow itself to be reigned in by its own constitution. (this may be eroding somewhat, but it is still the pre-eminent example) Unfortunately, there are also unstable countries, and some that are regressing, who, when you tell them of their own constitution, say: "Oh yeah! Great paper! We have it in the men's room for drying hands." #stopjwban I love Blackwell's book. I quote from it in my own, and in the one to come. I got mine on a 'book tour' - when he was top-billed speaker for a special meeting at the Niagara Falls convention center. Another was our circuit overseer, Dave McClure, son of Lucy McClure of the case that reversed Gobitas. He told of getting beat up walking to and fro school. As only Dave McClure could do, he made getting beat up almost sound like fun. The remaining speaker was someone I don't remember who rattled on about health, spouting opinion that would never happen today. "If you're not sick, don't go to them!" I remember him saying about doctors. I also remember McClure, who was sitting near me, say loudly after the talk: "Well, I guess I'm gonna go down there and get me a hot dog!" These were back in the days when "each one did what was right in his own eyes." McClure is (while I am in story-telling mode) the one who fell asleep while I was conducting a study and he was following along. He dropped his book, which woke him up. (he was a diabetic, and afternoons were not easy for him) Later the two of us stopped at the home of a new person who asked who conducts the study when a publisher asks the C.O. along. He said: "Weelll, I just check beforehand with the brother, and if he wants me to conduct it, I do. But if he says he would rather conduct it himself, then I just nod..... He is also the one (from my other post) who would make the sign of the stake. In my single days, I used to stick like glue to these guys. I was his chauffer when he visited our congregation, and he sat in his Chrysler's back seat.

It's okay, he keyed their cars in the parking lot afterwards.