Jump to content
The World News Media

TrueTomHarley

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,273

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    417

 Content Type 

Everything posted by TrueTomHarley

  1. TrueTomHarley
    Spill the beans on me and I'll cut off your water supply and make you gift-wrap your own excrement and urine, just like Rabshekah threatened the Israelites
  2. TrueTomHarley
    I'll allow for this, to a degree. Furthermore, it is not a bad thing. It is in harmony with the first century GB being "uneducated and ordinary," not masters of critical argumentation. While faith and logic need not be mutually exclusive, you should not expect to PROVE matters of faith by logic. It ought to be clear that Jesus didn't give two hoots about argumentation.
  3. TrueTomHarley
    Usually it is considered bad form for an author of non-fiction to write in the first person. It is considered immodest. It is similar to why you don't say "in my opinion." OF COURSE it's in your opinion. You wrote it. At this point one of the dominant tourists carjacks a steamroller and attempts to flatten the tour guide.
  4. TrueTomHarley
    This question is better left to others who will discuss it at greater length and with at least as much success. Not everyone has to weigh in on everything. What - I should spend a few hours online and assume equal weight with the GB?
  5. TrueTomHarley
    It 'plagues' non-JWs even more, as they have made no progress whatsoever in united declaring the kingdom good news.
  6. TrueTomHarley
    There's a new kid in town. I, for one, question the authority of @The Librarian! (the old hen) Has she demonstrated that she can do these things? Does she alone have authority? Are not ALL here equally capable? Didn't she SCREW UP the deployment of simple thread technology? For lack of skilled direction, the people suffer!!! What gives her the right to domineer over the sheep on this forum?!! I am tired of her controlling attitude. I think it is only right - YEA - IT IS AN OBLIGATION to question her authority until she gives PROOF that she is handling the word of this forum aright!
  7. TrueTomHarley
    You wouldn't know it by many of the comments. In most cases, people are merely reiterating the same remarks they made the day they came onboard.
  8. TrueTomHarley
    While we read of some prophets in the first century (how many were there?) they have no role in the circumcision ruling of Acts 15 - which was conveyed to all congregations as a decree. Past prophets were considered (Amos and Isaiah), witnesses were heard (most notably Peter, Paul and Barnabas) but there is no mention of contemporary prophets. Possibly those who bellyached and refused to heed the decision did so on that account - that the then-prophets were ignored! and what right did the elders and apostles have to ignore the prophets?!! Surely those who scream bloody murder at GB decisions today would have screamed bloody murder back then. Telling to me is the identification of who was acting as restraint to apostasy back then. It was the apostles themselves. The minute they died, it was as if the chorus rang out among the malcontents: "Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead." The 'elders' of the Acts 15 "apostles and elders" were not enough to hold back the rebels. What those rebels didn't dare do when the apostles were around, they did with impunity with their successors. If apostasy could spin out of control the instant the apostles died, what possible chance does it have to not likewise overwhelm today. Plainly ones are pushing for that outcome with all their might. The only thing to thwart them - that they will not be able to prevail against no matter how hard they try - is the fact we are in harvest time now. 'Let the weeds grow along with the wheat until the harvest,' the Master told his workers. 'Come harvest time we'll bundle them up and toss them in the fire.'
  9. TrueTomHarley
    All the letters from 1rst century apostles and older men to the congregations and all reactions from them toward those who challenged their authority.
  10. TrueTomHarley
    As to the thread title: "Governing Body: Does it show loyalty or disloyalty to question the GB?" Perhaps the better question is: What is the scriptural precedent for it? Like Jesus did?
  11. TrueTomHarley
    Presumably, this is also true of GB members, past & present. One would think so. But that did not stop Korah and a whole bunch of others from doing it. You have not even attempted to make the case - and I trust you won't go there - that the GB is leading people into false worship.
  12. TrueTomHarley
    Since you're not suggesting the GB is on par with those corrupt leaders, the premise of your point collapses and the point along with it. Yes. By another one of the leaders. If we are to believe JWI, it happens all the time. This tired bit of nonsense has been dealt with already. There was an entire thread about it. You take a back seat in those instances. Nobody says you can't. It's when you try to grab the wheel that trouble comes about. @bruceq's verse is telling: They keep following the Lamb "no matter where he goes." In whose eyes? If it is each one following him no matter where he goes in his own eyes according to that one's own Bible-trained conscience, then some do one thing and some do another. The whole phrase becomes silly, and should be replaced with "each one did what was right in his own eyes." Since you do not equate the GB with the corrupt, wicked kings, then the model of rebels in the congregation, be that Korah or Hymanaus, is the more appropriate. Further, since it is not corruption or wickedness you object to, then it becomes little more than a matter of style. You don't carry on and on over such things. You just sit out if you can't abide it. To not do so indicates that one really doesn't believe: "it's not about us - it's about God's purpose and the sanctification of his name." "It is about us" is the message that comes through loud and clear with the most chronic complainers
  13. TrueTomHarley
    In the absence of human authority, when God says something you don't like, you simply interpret it away. No harm done.
  14. TrueTomHarley
    Nobody has any problem with God. It is always with his human organization. This is true even with Judas. He and God were tight. But Jesus looked pretty human to him.
  15. TrueTomHarley
    I think most of us first respond like Paul, who 'lost it' in Athens. "While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he grew exasperated at the sight of the city full of idols. So he debated in the synagogue with the Jews and with the worshipers, and daily in the public square with whoever happened to be there." Acts 17:16-17 NABRE Why didn't he mind his own business? Because he became exasperated - wanting to tolerate no rivalry toward Jehovah.
  16. TrueTomHarley
    It is to prevent this that the current persecution is all about. this is a fine report, Kurt.
  17. TrueTomHarley
    A local brother with a flair for dramatization used to tell of a first century publisher unknowingly calling on a disgruntled former member. "You call yourselves Christlike!" the latter accused. "I was there at that meeting between Paulus and Barnabas. You see those two kids over there? They do not fight like I saw your two 'leaders' fight!"
  18. TrueTomHarley
    Do they? Or do they not remind us of journalists who all day, every day, identify problems for others to fix. And when the fix is in, they point out what is wrong with that, too. It's a great job to have. Possibly. But does it not just as equally provide fuel for those with flame throwers? I don't think it has worked that way on this forum. People leave with approximately the same level of empathy they had on arrival. It is a fruit of God's spirit (you can probably tease it out of the list somehow) not dependent or necessarily helped by public airing. When they devise a new Bible training school there at headquarters, they put themselves through it first. This indicates to me that they are not devising material to 'control the masses' - (I can hear some making that accusation now) Instead, they recognize that all are to be 'taught by Jehovah,' themselves foremost. It is a recognition of their own shortcomings, as descendants of Adam, and a renewed determination to seek what is higher. To whatever extent it is true that the new ones are having a love-in and the old ones fought like cats and dogs, should we attribute it to public discussions? Or to being taught by Jehovah?
  19. TrueTomHarley
    Now you've got it! That sun that went behind the moon the other day - shouldn't it have emerged by now? Have I done anything wrong? Is it from @The Librarian? No more musical poems, I promise. Do I have cause for concern? Stop citing music LPs, @James Thomas Rook Jr., or you may have to learn the hard way, as I have!
  20. TrueTomHarley
    C'mon! The context has to fit the lyrics employed. I just can't stick it in anywhere!
  21. TrueTomHarley
    Actually, my wife and I walked out of a amateur production of that musical because it seemed altogether too smutty. I didn't know about the racial controversy. The music is fine, though. And who could complain about The Sound of Music? What's @jw insider going to do now? Everyone's going off the rails.
  22. TrueTomHarley
    And I had so much more.* Just remember, it is not about us. It is about vindicating Rogers and Hammerstein. And @The Librarian *do you mean thread, or do you mean pages of this thread?
  23. TrueTomHarley
    Nonsense. I am merely looking for occasions to spotlight My Fair Lady lyrics, which the threadmeister @JW Insider himself has endorsed.
  24. TrueTomHarley
    That braggart who uses the science of speech More to blackmail and swindle than teach!
  25. TrueTomHarley
    I wouldn't like to have 'crossed' King David when he was ruling. These are things that are 'too high' for me. Uriah will surely have a reality check when he discovers that David, not only had him killed, but had him carry his own order of execution to Joab. Moreover, Jehovah overlooked it, went on to bless David greatly, and blessed his son by his ex-wife even more. "What am I - chopped liver?" he will say. And that is only because David had the hots for his wife. Imagine if he thought Uriah was messing with the kingdom! There are some things you do not mess with and people of the last days are too stupid to know that. Reporters peer into the pants of leaders to tell of their soiled underwear and are dumbfounded that said leaders get mad. As to the brothers back then, I won't attribute ill conduct to any of them. I will follow the counsel given somewhere that if a friend has consistently proven himself honorable, you do not turn upon him at the first questionable report. You think: "well, probably there are things I do not know about." Having said that, one can always revert to the remarks already made about David behaving unseemly. That is the nature of rumors. You don't want to get caught in one. Most likely there was a grain of truth somewhere that someone built on and others blew it viral. Imagine what can be done, for example, with reports that men are sitting naked together in the sauna. It's why one must always be cautious about what they relate. I keep thinking of the scripture that tells how Jehovah feels about spreading contention among brothers. I don't see any reason, per se, to vilify men like COJ. But neither do I want to sanctify him. There's a time to back off. Even if he felt maneuvered into a tight spot, he could have always clawed his way back, making whatever amends he had to. Michael Jackson made the Thriller album and, to deal with the fallout, expressed regret over doing that type of music, which was woven into a magazine article on (then) questionable music, he being quoted anonymously. True, he later came to grumble about that 'discipline,' but it may have been better had he taken it to heart. His later years didn't really go that well for him, did they?
×
×
  • 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.