TrueTomHarley
-
Posts
8,273 -
Joined
-
Days Won
417
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by TrueTomHarley
-
-
8 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:
The people of Rio Linda are NOT offended
Now I am aided greatly knowing the time schedule. Now I know when my arch enemy will post and when he will not.
If right wing radio is on, he will not. He is busy. He must not miss a word.
To be fair to Rush, I would not necessarily classify him as 'right wing.' But if my villain knows the show in such detail so as to pepper each comment with Rio Linda barbs, it is fair to say he listens also to the programs that truly are right wing. His obsession with both the DECLARATIONS of the FOUNDING FATHERS, THE GLORIES OF WAR, and the SACRED RIGHT to bear ARMS is a significant tell.
To do a full disclosure, I also knew about Rio Linda, though not in such detail as to spell it properly. It was a bit of a trap, to see him walk into it with both clown's feet. To be fair, it was not the GLORIOUS VICTORY I had anticipated it might be. Perhaps it merely made me look as petulant as he. But, hey - I'm not writing in the Bible canon.
-
7 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:
I see, when it gets too hot here, they resort to cyber bullying, good to know this is NOT a witness friendly website as indicated.
NOW you've got it!
Look, it's not as though thoughtful material cannot be found here, but one cannot waltz through as if they were at the assembly hall. Scoundrels lurk everywhere. Having said that, not all threads are created equal, not all are as "hot," and one poster said he thinks the villains keep their heads down to an acceptable degree here.
It probably doesn't help that I call them villains. Gasp! Am I the cyber bully? Some here think so, but no one has shown me the door yet.
1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:Having said that, the mental distress of suddenly being cast out and shunned by family and friends is no laughing matter and, tragically, there have been suicides or suicide attempts by those who have suffered this treatment.
I don't doubt that and it is a most serious thing. Having said that, suicide is growing in 'popularity' today, especially with the young, and with adolescents it is almost becoming trendy. People are fragile and this system of things appears designed to expose their frailty and exploit it to the fullest degree.
It is last-ditch effort at discipline, to be applied when all else has failed. Aspects of it may be arguable. The general idea is not. The GB is ever conscious of the individual - it is not they who mock the lowlifes of Rio Linda - yet they dare not forget the Jehovah insists upon a clean people of exclusive devotion. It is no mere passing phase with him. The current Bible reading schedule of Ezekiel reveals many examples of this.
Not to equate this with anyone current, but Judas went suicide. No one would say it was the Lord's fault. Stretching the point just a little, one could say his problem was with God's visible organization, not with God himself. Jesus looked pretty human to him, not at all qualified to do what the Messiah was supposed to do. And those yoyos he was attracting! It was just too much. Judas wanted the refined people.
-
RIO LINDA IS A RUSH LIMBAUGH REFERENCE!!! it is a poor community of downtrodden people that once was the butt of jokes in Rush's early broadcast days!
THE VERY PEOPLE JESUS INVITED TO COME TO HIM!!! "Come to me, all you who are toiling and loaded down, and I will refresh you," Jesus invites.
"Come to ME, all you who are toiling and loaded down, and I will RIDICULE you - WEEK AFTER WEEK AFTER WEEK, IN 6000 OF MY 7000 POSTS!!!" invites JTR!!!
"GIVE ME YOUR TIRED, YOUR POOR, YOUR HUDDLED MASSES YEARNING TO BREATHE FREE, THE WRETCHED REFUSE OF YOUR TEEMING SHORE." What noble sentiments! The very words on the STATUE OF LIBERTY! Could anything possibly spoil them?
YES!!!
"AND I WILL STICK THE LOWLIFES IN RIO LINDA, AND MAKE FUN OF THEM CONSTANTLY!" says JTR!
-
Yes, but what is Rio Lindo? You can even call me dumb for not knowing. What in the world are all those references about?
-
And what is this 'Rio Lindo,' already? You say it all the time. Where does that come from?
-
4 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:
HOW DO YOU KNOW IT ISN’T? WHERE’S YOUR SOLID PROOF IT IS. TRY RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATION BEFORE CLAIMING IT IS. IT ALSO HELPS TO KNOW THE UNSCRUPULOUS TACTICS OF JOHNNY O AN EX-MEMBER.
Far better not to answer the big guy directly, insofar as answering his questions - IMO. They are merely designed to give himself a soapbox to preach from, which he will do in any case. 7000 TIMES!!!!!
-
2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:
if you want to castigate me for something I have said... MAKE SURE IT IS SOMETHING I HAVE ACTUALLY SAID. you have about 7,000 selections to choose from.
Hey, big fella! I note again that I have made 692 posts here to your 671.
What's wrong - cat got your tongue?
Yes, I know, I know - 7000 posts total. But they are all on apostate websites where you are merely preaching to the choir.
-
3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:
and OH!, by the way ... *coff* ... facts fall where they are let go ... I have challenged you several times to show ANYTHING I have EVER written about the Brotherhood, GB, etc., that is NOT TRUE ... ( remember the option to choose among my 7,000 or so posts over the past five or so years, Hmmmmm?) and so far .... you folded, when challenged.
How about mentioning how you were never thrown out when you took advantage of 3-day Regional Conventions, put on at significant expense by the GB and countless volunteers - so as to trash in 7000 comments everything dear to them?
It's rather like when we were invited to dinner at an elder's house. We went, dined, ate all courses, visited with the other guests - and then for the next 12 months bellyached to everyone what rotten chefs they were, how they were trying to poison everyone, how they were truly despicable people - before accepting their invitation for the next year to do the same thing again.
-
3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:
.and added to your penchant for vulgarity
Though I am not a vulgar man, I am sorely tempted to post a bit of it simply to enjoy the spectacle of JTR screaming over a naughty word while he posts the vicious stuff he does against theocratic direction.
-
-
10 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:
The website owner seems not to give equal opportunity for someone who is willing to expose those types of comments that become, a misleading message for the Watchtower.
The website owner also looms as a mysterious figure who may be spiritually minded or may not know spirit from a whorehouse. For the most part, I think he sits back and shakes his head at his good luck in attracting such a vociferous rabble to his website.
-
It is based upon math, which is easy as pi.
-
10 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:
And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.
I like this, even if I perceive I am among those being reproved.
The internet is inherently a farce for anything other than dull subjects that evoke no passion. A truly thoughtful remark can be given, followed by the tirade of a complete moron who nonetheless has equal weight. Many branches are represented here, and each branch has sub-branches. Not everyone is 'able to teach' (counsel that was not given to newbies, but to Timothy and by extension those of his spiritual stature and those who would aspire to be but are far from there yet) but all one has to do to claim that right (to teach) here is to show up. Within each branch, some persons are thoughtful and considerate, and some are dogmatic and disrespectful. Adding to the confusion is that people do not necessarily represent themselves honestly, and you never actually know who's who.
One hasn't a clue as to who anyone is other than by scrutinizing their comments, and how many will take the time to do that? Some are here for precisely that reason. Some are here for diversion. Some for a lark. Some to pontificate. Some to build up. Some to tear down. Some to console. Some to provide reason one must be consoled. Some to mix metaphors and references. (Some to offer a time for peace - I swear it's not too late).One person deliberately chooses such a confusing muddle so that he may bare his soul without triggering the response he might get in a more undiluted setting.
The sum total is that this is a comedy. That does not mean that some weighty insights cannot be gleaned here, but the overall tone is not something of a wholesome spiritual diet. There is no spiritual food here. Everyone has their own reason for being here and nobody thinks that they are adding to the Bible canon (well - I suspect some do). Sometimes I like to make serious commentary. Sometimes I like to brawl. Sometimes I like to make jokes. At all times, I am a unpaid slave to @The Librarian, who makes me stack boring books at her stupid library (and I always hated to read). It is a slice of life here and life is often erratic. If you want serious spiritual instruction, hit the books of someone upon whom you can rely. Here is a discussion forum with a riotous mix of participants. It may occasionally take the form of a serious commentary on spiritual matters, but it will not consistently do so.
Christianity is one of the greatest discussion themes of all time, and battling apostates one of the greatest sub-themes of all time. First century Bible writers were obsessed with it, even Jesus in John 10 and elsewhere. Therefore, whoever would assume the mantle of first-century Christianity must also have quality apostates, and none are better than ours. Ours are the most prolific. Ours are the most vitriolic. I am proud of them. The Presbyterians represent true Christianity today? Are you joking? With those namby-pamby 'apostates' of theirs? We've got the best apostates, and paradoxically, I take them as an indication that Jehovah's Witnesses have the truth, for the early Christian community was similarly infested with apostates - and largely for the same reason: people refused to take instruction and submit to discipline. They resisted any efforts to 'impose morality.' They were contemptuous of authority.
A faith too bland to produce quality apostates is too bland to be given the time of day.
-
Okay, big boy, @James Thomas Rook Jr.have it your way.
Your question was more ridiculous than usual because it completely misses the thrust of Paul's statement. 'If you've been enlightened and have tasted, then have fallen away, it is impossible to move to repentance' is his statement. Was he wrong?
He then goes on to illustrate his point, using the words you quoted as though it was his main idea.
Ask HIM what he meant. It's a side point, anyway.
-
And if your civil engineering ability was as competent as your online reasoning, there's not a toilet in your city that flushes.
-
For now, I will imitate Jesus in this regard.
-
29 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:
... just because prostitutes wear shoes .. does NOT
mean all those that wear shoes are prostitutes.
What does that have to do with anything?
Look, if you want to go to a whorehouse, go to a whorehouse and leave us in peace.
-
Imitating Jesus, here is a counter - question.
Paul called the corrupt religious leader a whitewashed wall. When he learned who he was, however, he apologized, citing 'you must not speak injuriously of a leader of your people.
WITH FAR LESS EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION, I CAN THINK OF SOMEONE WHO SPEAKS FAR MORE ABUSIVELY OF MODERN DAY LEADERS!!!!! CAN YOU???!!!!
-
Woe to those who pride themselves upon modern techniques of REASON and CRITICAL ANALYSIS. Jesus showed disdain for all of them!!!!!.
He declined to be questioned by those who he thought simply wanted to justify themselves. Or who had ill intent. Or who were deliberately obtuse. Did he ever allow himself to be subjected to cross-examination such ones?
He evaded questions. He raised instead counter-questions. He told parables and illustrations, which he rarely explained. He employed ad hominem attacks. He raised strawmen galore. (because God wants men or all sorts to be saved, including straw men)
I can think of only one time he answered directly: when he was asked point blank, under oath, whether he was the Son of God or not. (I assume you are not going to go that way)
I am doing my best to imitate Jesus, that's all. Of course, Jesus can read hearts and people can't. But when someone assaults the internet with 7000 BELLICOSE COMMENTS you can come pretty close!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
5 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:
In the context of your excellent essay above, can you please give some specific examples of EXACTLY how a person would " ... nail the Son of God to the stake again for themselves and expose him to public shame."
Give me some specific examples of EXACTLY how it was done back then.
-
18 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:
Did that thief beside Jesus study for a year? Or how about the eunuch that Philip baptized?
It was necessary for the first to take a crash course. Besides, what was Jesus saying other that he would be resurrected?
As for the second, he was already part of a people with a dedication to God. Diligently reading Isaiah, he just needed a few tweaks to bring him up to speed. He didn't have centuries of apostate teaching he had to undo.
-
2 hours ago, Anna said:
Of course people are entitled to their opinion. But that website is the most awful, uninformed and boring thing I’ve ever seen. Not worth looking or listening to as there is very little that’s even relevant. It’s just filled with opinionated nonsense, and for someone to take their life over it, THAT is the real tragedy!
Back when I first began blogging, there was a fellow with initials DH who was a legend - albeit a somewhat embarrassing one - among apostates. Mention Jehovah's Witnesses anywhere and he was there with vitriolic, usually irrelevant comments. One I went to his own page. Prominently he offered his services for expert testimony in any anti-Witness lawsuit AND expert witness against the anti-depression pharmaceutical industry, apparently not realizing that each offer undercut his credibility for the other.
-
On 7/30/2017 at 9:20 AM, J.R. Ewing said:
Even This “Virginian” has generated many sub accounts. (A) Jay Witness (B) James Thomas Rook (C) Shiwii (D) JWinsider (E) Witness (F) Etc.
The reason it is not important to know specific identities is that they are but actors in a play (and one of them does not belong on the list at all, IMO). Take one of them out and they are immediately replaced by another.
It is the play we are watching. You don't have to know the names of the actors to follow the play. It can even be a distraction if you do. The roles were laid out long ago in the Book and various actors audition for those roles. It doesn't matter specifically their names.
As much as I like to kick these guys in the teeth (verbally) whenever they rear their filthy heads on a site that purports to be a gathering spot for Witnesses - because if Scripture means anything, it is that fighters against God will not fare well at play's end - that does not mean that I know who is who. I am like a doctor who can only address the symptoms. Even when you take the one off the list who I think should be off, the remaining four are not the same.
What anyone must be alert to is Hebrews 6:4-6: "For as regards those who were once enlightened and who have tasted the heavenly free gift and who have become partakers of holy spirit and who have tasted the fine word of God and powers of the coming system of things, but have fallen away, it is impossible to revive them again to repentance, because they nail the Son of God to the stake again for themselves and expose him to public shame."
I don't presume that I can tell who this verse fits and who it doesn't - especially online. Is a given opposer in this category or has he merely been influenced by someone in this category? Impossible to tell. All I can do is address symptoms. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be addressed.
Some of them say that they were once hurt. Who am I to try to deny or minimize that? I don't. All I can note is that Revelation 2 and 3 makes clear that congregations of the first century experienced blemishes at least as bad as is claimed by some happens today, yet continued to be congregations. It is Paul saying that in any house there are vessels for uses both honorable and dishonorable. There comes a time when one must suck it up and move on - either stay or leave, but move on.
-
5 hours ago, JW Insider said:
I'm certainly hoping now that it is, considering the current mood on this thread.
If the tone has turned comedic, it is because this is at root a farce with a decidedly tragic outcome.
@Jay Witness's friends try to recruit Tom Cruise on their mission to take out the Watchtower. Tom Cruise turns them down, not because the mission is impossible, but because it is ridiculous. He knows they are mostly hacks trying to settle old scores and work off grudges - who should have moved on in life ages ago. So they recruit a young woman, who they knew or should have known, had some instability to her personality, and they manage to secure her cooperation. 'Don't worry. If you or any of your friends are caught or killed,' they tell her, 'if that happens, we will issue a SPECIAL REPORT!' Did they try to set up their poster at her funeral?
So she rifles through the confidential files and is caught. Jay appears flabbergasted that headquarters is not cool with this. They 'interrogate her' for two days - it's all he can do to refrain from saying they waterboarded her. The 'interrogation' was so grueling that she reported for a second day. On the second day, it was discovered that her pilfering was not for some innocuous cause or due to some misunderstanding, but to spirit whatever she found to Jay's friends who have dedicated their lives to working against kingdom interests. Bethel showed her the door.
"It was reported that when she arrived home, her Jehovah's Witness family and friends treated her terribly," Jay's SPECIAL REPORT tells us, as though they should have been cool with it or even commended her. "Treated her terribly' is a bit vague, isn't it? Look, they probably were not happy with her, but the point is, Jay can't even be bothered to check on that, so eager is he to besmirch his enemies. "It is reported" they "treated her terribly" is enough.
If Jay's friends must assign blame for the young woman's death - beyond the young woman herself - surely it is they themselves they should point to. Recruiting someone once a fine servant of Jehovah, perhaps someone dismayed upon finding all was not Santa and the elves - that they were real people there at Bethel, instead - and using her for their own ends. I'm tired of their hate. And now it has cost the life of a young woman.
Many of these ones have turned to atheism, so they are beyond all question "fighters against God." Some higher up here once told me I should use honey talking to these people, not vinegar. I am not able to do it. "Can't we all get along?" he apparently felt. No. We can't.
No! Please!! Not another thread about 1914!!!
in Topics
Posted
900.
Nonetheless, be careful that @Ann O'Maly does not nail you on this with some remark about how browsers adjust to the tastes of their masters. Don't misunderstand, I am completely with you on this, but it may be that an 'apostate' browser will not point so unfailingly to where it should.
Consider, too, that nobody has better apostates than Jehovah's Witnesses. Ours are the best. There is no contest. Ours are the most prolific. Ours are the most vitriolic. Ours are the most Velcro-like - they cannot move on. I am proud of them.
You cannot read the Greek Scriptures without being struck with the obsession over battling apostates. Therefore, whoever their successors will be must also be mired in similar battles.