TrueTomHarley

5 hours ago, Arauna said:

I think the shouting match that Paulus had with Barnabas is a good reason for us to not expect people to be perfect and where ever people are - imperfection is sure to follow - and there is always that EGO to a stronger or lesser degree.

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!" 

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

However, I always think that discussions can help prepare us for change, and will promote less dogmatism, and therefore more humility in the meantime.

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.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This helps us empathize with those we meet in field service and other interested persons.

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.

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I have a feeling that the current GB get along many times better than the 17 at once during my tour of duty

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?

2 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

The ladies seem to stick to the hard work as in their daily lives, while the gentlemen, sometimes like rambunctious kids in older bodies, veer off to speak of other interesting things like musicals, poems, etc., to rest their brains from the hard grind of the topic. They know how to relax, even if it means shooting at another, using strange language (TTH, JTR)

Now you've got it!

11 hours ago, bruceq said:

Yes and to the ancients who did not understand science a visiting comet would be quite a spectacle even more than an solar eclipse would be.

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!

15 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

TTH:  You are weaseling.

If " ... I am merely looking for occasions to spotlight My Fair Lady lyrics .... ", you would not have used my quote as  alleged context.

C'mon! The context has to fit the lyrics employed. I just can't stick it in anywhere!

1 hour ago, bruceq said:

Did you know South Pacific was very controversial because of the inter-racial marriage issue back then

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.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Threadmeister? Great. I hereby rule that no one can make more than two posts in this thread containing lyrics from My Fair Lady.

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?

3 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I am talking about an idea... a CONCEPT ... a principle ... and you are attacking me personally.

Nonsense. I am merely looking for occasions to spotlight My Fair Lady lyrics, which the threadmeister @JW Insider himself has endorsed. 

8 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

When someone says the filter is actually used to prohibit the incandescent  screaming pain filled and raging demons from Hell from entering my camera, ( I suppose these hypothetical people would think the Sun is "Hell"?), I can assuredly tell you THAT IS NOT WHY I FILTER THE LIGHT, without getting into how EXACTLY the filter material is made to  do the "voodoo, that it do, so well".

That braggart who uses the science of speech

More to blackmail and swindle than teach!

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

By the next morning, I had learned that it was later on that same afternoon the previous day that they had learned they were all being disfellowshipped. 

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.

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But within hours, the rumor had surfaced that they must not have been just apostates but must have also been "swingers" who changed marriage partners, and that the men must have also been homosexuals. I was appalled by how fast those two rumors spread

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?

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

However, I promised the man I would look into the matter.

What preaching campaign did he or the other man go on to found?

Look, I understand that the above question could be seen as blowing off research and reveling in ignorance. But as @Arauna has helped us to see, 'scientific research' in this system of things is no more than the children's game 'King of the Mountain' to prove "who's da man?" - not unlike those big, stupid, (blush) male animals ramming each other with their horns. The victors shove everyone else off the field. It happens everywhere in science. The fault does not lie in science, but in those who put slavish faith in it. Today's science is trumped by human politics - call it 'male ego' if you must - every time, so that it must be taken with a grain of salt.

1 hour ago, Nana Fofana said:

One mistake is the Egyptology dating - which is contested heavily today by "renegade" scientists with the result: they are not allowed on digs in Egypt because there are powers/academics in control that do not allow this. So much for the "science" of it.

How is anybody like me ever going to know this? They are not. They are safeguarded only when they assume that 'science,' like everything else in this system of things, is contaminated, and must not be relied upon as an absolute.

So it goes back to 1 Corinthians 1:26-29 dissing those who rely on their education and 'facts.' Other verses expand upon it. Jesus says "whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life." What a stupid thing to say IF his main concern is to persuade devotees of 'facts!'  But if his prime concern is, not heads, but hearts, then it is flawless.

So you put your efforts into the preaching work and trust in God, who does not appear overly concerned that his people are RIGHT in the eyes of contemporary scholarship. Sometimes that stuff changes, even though it be a tsunami. it reverses course and goes right back into the hole from which it came.

6 hours ago, Arauna said:

but for a woman in a man's world I saw the male ego in action too often. So I learnt to distinguish its manifestations very quickly..... having the word of Jehovah to measure it by..

I like the bunker video in which the elder reflects at home how he groused at counsel from another elder. His wife says: "please tell me that you didn't argue with him."   (perhaps not a direct quote due to memory, but very close)

It's a little like when we decided to home-school our children and decided the question "you think you can do better than the professional educators?" was not the correct one to ask. "How can we do worse?" fit better. (city schools then, as now, were absolutely dismal in performance, despite non-stop declarations of 'reform' - each one of which is taken as a fait accompli) So it is with women. The question is not: "How can they do better than the men?" It is "how can they do worse?"

I also like (this time it is an exact quote) this statement from the August broadcast: "Right down to our day, rarely have women been afforded the dignity that God wants them to receive. However, Jehovah makes clear in his word the Bible that women and men have equal standing before him. In fact, he indicated that women would play a vital role in the outworking of his purpose."

14 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

His 'discovery' was, in fact, what had long been already known and established in ANE and biblical scholarship. His downfall was believing that the Society was interested in the truth of the matter.

How does this fit with 1 Corinthians 1:26-29?

"For you see his calling of you, brothers, that there are not many wise in a fleshly way, not many powerful, not many of noble birth, but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame; and God chose the insignificant things of the world and the things looked down on, the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, so that no one might boast in the sight of God."

I'm not on familiar ground here, as I had never heard of COJ prior to this discussion, though I knew there must be someone to fill his role.  To the extent there is an appeal that the intelligencia are the only ones qualified on such things, God appears contemptuous of it. He not only puts up with the foolish things of the world - he chooses them over the 'wise men.'  Pure academic 'muscle' carries little weight with him, much less 'credentials.' It doesn't quite make sense to me, but there it is.

The twelve were decidedly not intellectuals. They were 'workmen' who had learned to handle the Word aright. Paul had intellectual cred, but I would not be quick to suppose he thereby did all the brainwork. He took direction from his educational inferiors. Plus, his lasting stature is not that he was an in-house thinker. He was primarily a doer, whereas the superfine apostles who were always trying to thwart him, boasting of their credentials, were not.

There is the biblical scholarship that starts on the premise that the biblical sayings are innocent (of untruth) until proven guilty, and biblical scholarship that presumes them guilty until proven innocent. It makes a difference in the conclusions derived, just as it does in the justice system.

I should do research to see if this COJ was a doer like Paul, or did he mainly fancy himself an in-house thinker? But probably someone will clarify this for me.

10 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

We listened to the record so much that it was all like one big song. If I start singing from the beginning I don't stop until Ascot Gavotte (which I never learned well enough). So that's the only thing that kept me from singing both sides straight through

After I dust off JTR in the ministry, let's you and I get together and sing a few rounds.

7 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

To my wife's chagrin

Camping, my friend Bucky and I used to sing the entire song. And a few others from the musical. His wife Cora would get so mad.

"They're always throwing goodness at you; But with a little bit of luck a man can duck." (there was a line or two it was well to skip)

7 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Yep, if you trying to go someplace, and the pilot(s) are disoriented and wrong ... and in crisis you CAN fly an airplane yourself, depending on them to be competent may get you killed.

The reason you have a conscience is to be able to evaluate calculated risks.  

If you are wrong ... you die

If THEY are wrong ... you STILL die.

There is such a thing as 'God,' you know.

3 hours ago, Arauna said:

I am fortunately a sister so I do not have to deal with male egos but I am savvy enough to know that a definite sign of the spirit of the world or Satan is a love to control others

What is this nonsense about male egos?

"One man in a million may shout a bit. Now and then there's one with slight defects. 

One perhaps whose truthfulness you doubt a bit. But, by and large, we are a marvelous sex."

It is discouraging to me that you would so quickly write off an entire gender with – HEY!! BIG BOY, @James Thomas Rook Jr.!!. THAT’S ANOTHER SLAM AT THE GB YOU JUST MADE!!     

Oh YEAH?!

Oh YEAH?!

Oh YEAH?!

Field service, punk! Let's settle this in field service!! Working together - YOU and ME!! High Noon! Or are you too CHICKEN?!!

25 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Unfortunately, the responses from HQ were inadequate,

That says it all, IMO. 

It is the uneasy passenger who tried to redirect the plane - for he has studied flying himself -  and the pilot's response was 'inadequate.'

1 hour ago, bruceq said:

Judge Grishin directly read dozens of texts from the Bible. The most authoritative specialists in the area of linguistics and religious studies where summoned to the trial from Moscow, who answered all questions of the sides and judge. Representatives of the prosecutor's office, who sought the ban of the Bible, were not able to identify a single biblical quotation that, in their opinion, could be considered extremist. Nevertheless, to universal amazement, the court made the decision to recognize the Bible as extremist material.

The judge knew what he had to do.

I am sorry to hear it, and not just for the right reason. I am sorry to hear it for Russia's sake, too - which should be none of my concern.

I am saddened to see a 'great' nation so clearly paint itself as Neanderthal-witted,  and contemptuous of universally and clearly recognized truth. 

46 minutes ago, Brother Rando said:

When the earthly kings ban the preaching work, they are actually helping to fulfill the SIGN of the son of man in (Matthew 24:14) 

@bruceq alerted me to the Alexa.com site, which I had never seen before. it rates websites for traffic.

As the persecution of our brothers in Russia is gathering steam, the worldwide ranking of jw.org shoots up from #1200 to #800 -  in the span of just three months.  People worldwide hear the charge that the website is extremist. They visit to see whether that is so. Of course, they discover that it is not.    https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/jw.org

The Russian authorities are doing kingdom interests a great favor. It is a 21st century adaptation of Acts 8:1&4: Villains succeed in shutting down the good news locally. But not without much publicity, which ultimately intensifies the witness. In time, the kingdom message spills right back into where it was banned in the first place - stronger than before. 

Why am I not more like good @Araunawith his spot-on definitions of knowledge and wisdom? Is he not on track with how Jesus reasons?

Jesus speaks a lot in the gospels, yet very little of what he says would satisfy today's disciples of argument and reason. He spins complex parables which he rarely explains. He diverts from hostile questions by asking counterquestions. He even goes for ad hominem attacks, though, as someone here mentioned, he always connects the attack with the reason, so it is more like character cross-examination in court. Nowhere does he patiently thrash out matters with his opponents. He speaks things for the heart to figure out.

Increasingly, I think he (and Jehovah) do it on purpose, so that those too carried away with Western-style argumentation and proving themselves right will argue themselves right off the deck of the ship before it reaches Port Newsystem.

11 hours ago, Anna said:

Just as a side issue, I noticed that in the new 2013 NWT there are several instances where we changed the wording to be more in line  with other (Christendom's) translations.

Several literal renderings went out the window, and I miss them. I see why they had to go - for the sake of clarification, especially to cultures not attuned to Hebrew thinking, but I miss them nonetheless.

No longer do the grousers grouse that God's way is 'not adjusted right' and Jehovah turns the tables on them by asking 'is not your way not adjusted right?' Now they simply call each other 'wrong.' (Ezekiel 33)

No longer do faces sharpen one another. That's too bad. There are faces here that you could shave with.

Yikes! Alexa declines to even rate my website - tomsheepandgoats who? it says. I have to register. To be sure, I would have been blown away had I appeared in the top 10,000,000. But I did't think they would deign to acknowledge it's existence. Surely they are in cahoots with @The Librarian

7 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Do you REALLY think Jesus

would make signs less clear than the average small town mayor's signs?

He does it all the time, spinning parables designed to draw out the heart, & frustrate junkies of critical analysis.

1 hour ago, bruceq said:

No need for another interpretation but thanks anyway.

Perhaps I should not say this, but this discussion does not bother me. Nor does it do damage to the cause, even if Ms. Violin appears to hope it will. Historically, many have peered intensely into these things. They still are. It is nothing new that they do it here.

The big fat books we used to study, when explaining some teaching, would preface their remarks with: "it does not mean this' and 'it does not mean that." 'Why do they say what it does not mean?' the Circuit Overseer asked. 'Why don't they just say what it does mean?' It was for the sake of the old-timers, who were being called upon to unravel understandings they once had. Understandings come and go. I'll take the GB's current version because they have some tangible apparatus to show that what they spin has been blessed by God. God's spirit has moved countless volunteers to do things that they do nowhere else. I'm actually a little heartened to see some discuss at length things like this because "it ain't me, babe." I don't feel threatened by it. Let them quibble chronology till the cows come home and hope they are not missing the facts on the ground @Araunaspeaks of, for that is where the real proof of is - faith expressed in practical ways that no one else has gotten around to doing. This stuff is icing on the cake with innumerable variables arguable many ways.

Listen, I'm smart (if you are not fussy) yet this all goes over my head. It will do the same to everyone. Not so if I took hours to review and digest it, but I don't - the real truth is supported by deeds, and if there are no supporting deeds, then it is mere academic air and no one ought to get too worked up over it. Let the ones who have made it a special interest carry on with discussion. For personal reasons, there are a few non-spiritual subjects I know in considerable detail. Why should I object that some have made this theirs? I'll just interrupt here and there to insult @The Librarian.(the meddlesome hen)

39 minutes ago, Arauna said:

I cannot eat your scroll - it is bitter in my mouth - in fact its flavor is false.

The shriveled-up old biddy @The Librarian often makes pupils wash their mouths out with pages of her books. 

(Am I overdoing this? Vote it down and I will cease and desist for awhile - one mustn't be an annoyance -, depending upon who votes.)