TrueTomHarley

On 5/30/2017 at 0:07 PM, Shiwiii said:

I do not adhere to what the gb states, I only try to adhere to what the Bible states. That should answer your questions, if not then please by all means start a thread and ask away. I have nothing to hide from you or anyone else. 

There is the person who will not do a single thing unless he sees it in the Bible. It sounds very pious, doesn’t it? Very holy. Instantly it casts aspersions upon the one who will do things not expressly spelled out in the Bible. Noble though it sounds, however, it is but an indication of timidity at best, and rebelliousness at worst.

This person is like the citizen of a country who will not do a single thing unless he reads it in the Constitution. He distrusts those idiots on the Supreme Court. What right have they to adapt the Constitution to modern times? They are liars and impostors, most likely, he tells himself.

If the Bible does not specifically say that there will be a governing body for 2017, it certainly gives carte blanche. God has always provided some human agency to adapt his Word to those trusting in it. He is not the Grand Idiot, so as to think it obsolete just when the going gets rough. Today, it is Matthew 24:45-47, a passage which admittedly takes some interpretation. I’ve had someone tell me that it is merely a nice little story with the moral to always do your best.

‘It is necessary to shut the mouths’ of certain rebellious scoundrels, Paul wrote to Titus in the first century. Is it no longer necessary? Did the scoundrels all become saints the moment the apostles died? Who today is going to shut the mouths of the liars? Plainly, there is to be an organization in the modern day.

So obvious are the benefits of organization - so many things you can do with it that you cannot do without it - that it is inexcusable not to be that way. That being the case, why would anyone resist the idea? All I can come up with is that they really don’t want to stray too far from this world and its definition of what is normal. They aspire to be smilely gumdrops in this system of things, and nothing more. ‘It is not bad how the world is arranged,’ they say. ‘All that is needed is for people to be nicer.’ As a smilely gumdrop, they gush joy and love to everyone. Then it turns out that one thinks Trump is the best hope for achieving his aim and another thinks it is Hillary, at which point they assassinate each other. Or they fall into the mindset of the national king, who will invariably convince them that their fellow religionists in that other kingdom have it all wrong and will not straighten up until their butts are kicked.

At heart, they like this system of things. It just needs a little tweaking – that’s all. Nothing drastic. They are like Demas, who departed because ‘he loved this system of things.’ Unlike Demas, who most likely re-assimilated into the world he once left – for we never hear of him again – they do all they can do denigrate the Apostle Paul and the organization he represents. That way they don’t look so bad. ‘How can I put up with someone telling me what to do?’ they explain. ‘Why, they don’t even do birthdays over there.’

It’s a template. I don’t know who specifically fits into it and who does not. I’m not saying you do, Shiwii – how do I know? But it is a template nonetheless. If you like, I’ll say more. I’ve got nothing to hide from you  or anyone else.

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

 

I do not adhere to what the gb states, I only try to adhere to what the Bible states. That should answer your questions, if not then please by all means start a thread and ask away. I have nothing to hide from you or anyone else. 

It's good you have nothing to hide. You do hide your name, however. Is it truly Shiwii?

18 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

White people are expected to be righteous and cannot do anything illegal, and can navigate the "legal" system.

"Brown" people are expected to be mostly good, and are allowed bribery, as they have trouble navigating the "legal system".

Black people are gullible, and expected not to be able to navigate ANY "legal system", or understand nuances.

A villain always imputes racism to his enemies. You, who likely never miss an episode of Rush Limbaugh, ought to agree with that point, for he frequently (and correctly, in my view) points that out.

I am (for a change) not necessarily accusing you of this. You did say something about your proposal being 'ludicrous.'  James, you enshroud your remarks with such crass snarkiness that is difficult to know your point. If that is by design, so be it. I also make no attempt to avoid 'out there' remarks. But if it is not by design, you should know about it. 

I never did get around to viewing your video. It had sound to it, presumably. There were other people in the room, and you have demonstrated that you cannot be trusted with sound, any more than you can with graphics.

41 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

 

The only thing I can suggest is that you don't forget your medications.

The only medications I require these days are Rolaids, which I down by the bottlefull after conversing with certain ones.

Oh, wait. cool it. Someone else is speaking (shut up, TrueTom already, just shut up.)

#helpImtalkingandIcantstop

27 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

If I ever truncate your name, I will be sure to use "True".

Uh oh.

He would have us believe that General Patton, looking upon the battle scene, saying "I love it. God help me, I DO love it" tormented himself over the death of every loyal soldier....remember how he pinned the medal on the maimed soldier and kissed him, a man who couldn't possibly have been aware of it, before kicking at the 'yellow coward?'

The GB, on the other hand, says: "Look at how they got mowed down at TimBuck2! Isn't that a hoot?"

1 minute ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The reason no one saves someone that has fallen overboard, in certain circumstances, is because to stop the ship for a rescue makes that ship EXTREMELY vulnerable to submarine torpedo attack, and EVERYBODY on board knows this.  

 

Oh. Of course. All the casualties of physical warfare are explainable, yet let there be one casualty of theocratic warfare and it can only be because responsible ones are saying: 'Hey, let's make this move and watch the little people suffer....won't that be fun?'

12 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Tom, Tom, Tommy Tom Tom ...

The name is TrueTom. Or if you MUST truncate it, just say True.

27 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

To be crude, (something I always try to avoid) you have to have BALLS driving any vehicle with a few million passengers.

(quoting himself...is TrueTom full of himself, or what?)

I view of this, it is surprising that JTR rails against the GB, for he admires greatly the campaigns of those who have fought FOR OUR RIGHTS AND OUR FREEDOMS AND YOU SHOULD THANK HEAVEN EVERY DAY FOR SUCH BRAVE MEN, TO WHOM YOU CANNOT HOLD A CANDLE, YOU WORM, yet he completely overlooks the fact that men were mowed down by the thousands by errors, by concerns of the 'greater good,' by pure intransigence. A scene comes to mind from Clint Eastwood's first WWII film in which a cavorting sailor topples overboard and it dawns upon his chums that nobody will save him - he will be left to drown. If JTR approached this as he approaches ones taking the lead in theocratic warfare, he would rail on endlessly. Surely one of the following ships could have thrown him a lifeline if they truly gave a shit about life.

Moreover, reading the excerpts of Ray's book provided here, one gains the impression of a tolerably decent man who, nonetheless, takes himself too seriously, and goes weak-kneed when matters of human organization go awry, lifting his conscience above those of all others, as though he alone is concerned about the suffering of others and everyone else thinks it is a big joke. 

To be crude, (something I always try to avoid) you have to have BALLS driving any vehicle with a few million passengers. You will invariably hit some potholes. Some will cause damage to your undercarraige, and you can be sure not all passengers will refrain from second guessing you, especially when you think yourself that maybe you could have avoided that pothole.

I wouldn't last five minutes with such responsibility. It would have been no shame on Ray to merely have stepped aside yet remained in the vehicle, for outside there are only yoyos trying to make the journey on roller skates and pogo sticks. I will even allow that he did not anticipate that every villainous hater of God's organization would lionize him as a modern-day Joan of Arc. Nonetheless, it has worked out that way.

I shouldn't do it. I really shouldn't. Admin will get mad. Even the Librarian may not be able to save me, and she might even get fed up in trying. She is so tired of my sticking an automobile muffler in the philosophy section of her card catalog just to mess with her mind, which....let's face it...at 89, has seen better days. Even fine Eoin will be upset, wasting bytes. No, I shouldn't do it.

On the other hand, we are on this stage for only a short time. What the hell

I found especially refreshing the following part of JTR's comment, just following 'scroll down:'

Why do I go after JTR? He is not the only offender. He has much worthy competition. It gets so old for big babies to carry on and on and on about ones who have RUINED THEIR LIVES! There's no end of things that will ruin your life. In fact, life itself ruins it, for when the clock runs out in this "version of death we call life" (Bob Dylan) after our 80+ (hopefully) years, off to the grave we go, regardless of whether we were geniuses or fools. Why do these characters never even mention the central hope of everlasting life in a new system of things? Forgive me if I speculate it is because they barely believe in it anymore, so they rage at blips of the past, which are sometimes quite serious, trying to spin a villainous conspiracy out of each one. 'Real life' of 1 Timothy 6:19 be damned, they seem to say. THIS is the real life. For crying out loud, if your life is RUINED, suck it up and start a new one! 

Or these whiney characters who WILL NOT COOPERATE and who insist cooperation is evil if it in any way results in being told what to do, as though the BRAVE FOUNDING FOREFATHERS WHO DIED ON THE HILLS AND HALLS OF IWO JIMA were not told what to do, and whose notion of Christianity is a motley collection of loose cannons, each positively oozing in love for everything and everybody, except ones they don't like. They are boundless in their joy and love and peace, until it turns out that one favored Trump and the other Hillary, at which point they assassinate each other. 

'Daring and self-willed, they are not afraid to speak abusively of glorious ones' says 2 Peter. No, they certainly are not. Who are the 'glorious ones' they are not afraid to speak abusively of?

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Hitler was a vegetarian.

This I quote only to get attention. It has nothing to do with anything, least of all, JW Insider.

Having indulged Eoin and me with the identity of who runs this place, (it is 'Admin!' is that not somewhat like the answer to who is the true God?....why, it is 'The LORD!' - doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?)

I now wonder if I will be indulged if I ask the relationship between the players. For example, does the Librarian and Admin know each other from back in the day? Or what about JW Insider? Even some I regard as villains, such as Witness - did she once hang out with the crowd? O'Maly is a wild card (probably not), as is Anna (maybe). JTR is almost certainly not. (but you never know) And I haven't even begun to get my head around Queen Esther; she completely confuses me, but we seldom cross paths.

It peaks my curiosity. As Sherlock says, 'it's Game On,' though he does not add 'as time permits.' I even begin to imagine I know what makes certain ones tick - of the white hats, the black, and the gray.

As for me, I have no connections to anyone. My words are those of Sergeant Shultz: "I know nottthhhhiiiiiiiigggg."

And for whatever it's worth, I've yet to read Ray's book or visit posts about Australia. There is hardly a need, since it seems most everyone else has. Moreover, I readily accept that people can screw up, so 'scandals' involving such interest me little. I go for the overall picture. I get the facts distilled by certain ones here, which I guess I should say I appreciate, since it spares me from plowing though acres of turds in search of a few diamonds. I avoid the bile.

"Who are they? (Genuine question)" Eoin asks.

5 hours ago, admin said:

I did not create this site to protect your corporate propaganda or anyone else's for that matter.

"Corporate propaganda." I think that says it all. I appreciate the frankness. The Librarian, who is not necessarily the same, though he may be, added his site to hers and came under her umbrella, in order to ease up on the hassles of running a site himself. It's practical logistics.

This is the Grand Overlord, the Overlord of Overlords, who yanked me from the thread he or she assigned me to in the first place. The poor and stooped (but never stupid) Librarian, old sentimental hen that she is, pleaded and pleaded in my behalf, for after all, I am her pupil, even if a bad one - but it did her no good. To be sure, I had it coming. I was mean to certain ones. Frankly, I appreciate knowing the rules, even if they are not the 'rules' on my own blog, which doesn't get near the traffic of this one.

In my opinion, anyone observant of Watchtower counsel on association has a screw loose to be here. As it turns out, I do. Plus, an 'extenuating circumstance' or two, which I have previously mentioned. As near as I can see, that is true of other frequent commenters, even if those of some I think are not noble. Perhaps ones more observant of theocratic counsel in this regard, (for I am exceptionally observant in all other regards) will cut me some slack for being a 'bad boy' in view of my 'reasons,' but I would never be critical of them if they did not. The site was here long before I stumbled across it, billed (disingenuously?) as a forum for JWs, and it will be here long after I leave, if I ever do.

Hopefully, the unusual takes and sense of humor I bring will continue to be seen as 'adding value,' particularly now that I refrain from coming after certain ones with a Howitzer. There are far more apostates (some are probably just opposers - which are not the same) around here than I ever dreamed there would be when I stumbled on board - I was initially surprised to find any. I can't make myself be nice to them. I just can't. (I can with opposers) Hebrews 6:6 comes to mind. But approaching the forum with the tools that are mine, I manage to 'coexist," as the bumper sticker says. (I would make all the special characters if I knew how and had the time and interest)

6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

 the JTR thing is wasting time and space). 

Well....it's true. But bits and bytes are cheap.

I do apologize to you, though. You are engaging with a slightly different aim and approach, and I allow myself to be distracted sometimes. I appreciate your bringing all of your talents to bear.

Sometimes I must limit my participation in this or that thread (not this one) rather than 'shooting from the hip.' If I am not prepared to follow comments reasonably closely, which I often am not - sometimes because I regard them as blowhards,  sometimes because I simply do not have the time, sometimes because I don't want to go the way of Jehosaphat, sometimes because I really ought be doing other things - I ought not intrude with flippant remarks of which I am not prepared to follow through. 

Though sometimes I throw in remarks just to see where it goes. Sometimes it goes places. Other times it dies an instant death.

5 minutes ago, bruceq said:

I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

I did not look at the video - is it a trap? I will get to it, though, most likely.

22 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

" ... AND SEE IF YOUR ARGUMENT STILL MAKES SENSE"

I'M SORRY I STILL CANNOT MAKE SENSE OF YOUR POINT!!!

16 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I hate to point this out once again, for perhaps the sixth time... but your reading comprehension skills need a LOT of work.

I was talking about ONE thing... how to tell if ones' arguments are valid, or are off on a tangent, up the creek without a paddle, or sauntering down Booger's Woods to the trivia pit of intellectual analysis.

Oh, stuff it. Your inference was clear as day. If you didn't mean it the way any reasonable person would take it, then your writing skills still need a LOT of work.

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Shooting from the hip I think. 

You can do that when you're sharing from your heart of hearts.

However, let me restate it, for I do not want to give the appearance of minimizing it. Perhaps the pain caused by child sexual abuse is not overstated - I'll walk that one back. But, in that case, the pain caused by myriad other evils is understated.

Maybe it must be that way. Maybe if you processed all the pain of all the evil and compared it with the little progress in its alleviation, without the Kingdom hope to counterbalance it, you would go insane. So to preserve sanity, persons reserve their outrage for the one evil that appears solvable.

"Wait, this one belongs somewhere else in the Dewey Decimal system," frets the Librarian - the old biddy, hunched over her cards. Well - yes, I guess it does.

At least it is not 'TrueTom vs anyone' (yet)

Back when national policies elevated the pursuit of cheap oil sometimes over the interests of ordinary people, a certain human rights person pushed back. "We can always get more oil," he said."but human lives are irreplaceable." This prompted a pragmatist to observe that, really, it was just the opposite. Oil was in finite supply. People were not. 

It is that way with the pedophile endemic. It pushes emotional buttons to the extent that even rational people lose it. Even JTR, rationalism personified in his own eyes, likens child sexual abuse to first degree murder. He has picked one of the few comparisons he could pick that is not valid. Why doesn't he liken first degree murder to terrorism, for example, which is valid? Or to today's nuclear foreplay between nations? Or to the economic system that enriches a thimbleful and drives the vast majority into poverty? Everyone tells us that grinding poverty triggers much violence.

I resist accepting pedophilia as the vilest of all evils. It has no end of worthy competitors, for this system of things is not exactly a romp in the park. However, it IS easy to get one's head around. I suspect that accounts for much of it's status as #1 Evil. "We may not be able to do anything about terrorism, or nuclear foreplay, or economic theivery," people say, "but by God, we can stop people molesting our kids!" But, in fact, they can't even do that. I wish them well in trying. I truly do. It's a noble cause. But so far it has proven to be like shining a light on roaches. They don't cease being roaches by doing that. They just go somewhere else. 

So, while the sexual abuse of children is indeed a great evil, it is just one of many, and I slam back with vigor those who use it in an attempt to malign a religion they cannot stand. The facts do not support their zeal in using the issue to further their interests. 

Sometimes in my heart of hearts, I think that the emotional devastation wrought by abuse is surely overstated. Not that it is nothing. Far from it! But people can and do recover, as they can and do from atrocities they encounter in other aspects of life. As observed before, ancient Greece is the bedrock of Western civilization. The sexual abuse of children was an enscounced staple of that society. How did they ever survive to become 'our' mentors of democracy?

People my age will remember how suddenly the outcry over child sexual abuse burst upon the scene, triggered mostly by scandals in the church - unheard of one day, public enemy #1 the next. And then, as zealots always do, they reach back in time to judge yesterday's people by today's standards. 

In recent years, the American founding fathers that lodge in JTR's house have been vilified for owning slaves. Yet, when time travel is invented, the morals police of today will give them a friendly wave as they race back in history to bring the real slimeballs, the pedophile pervert pillars of ancient Greek society, back in leg-irons.

On 5/22/2017 at 7:49 PM, JW Insider said:

 

Of course, we have had multiple plagues in the world from the even before Jesus predicted that these things would continue to occur. And we could be hit with something unexpected and terrible in the near future, but plagues are no longer the kind of worry they were during the days of exploration from the 13th to the 17th centuries.

Why would not autism be counted as a modern day plague? 

Depending on your source, (I cite the most extreme for dramatic effect) what was once 1 in 10,000 has become 1 in 29.

You can reduce the numbers on both ends, especially the first, by tricks of semantics....'autism' vs 'autism spectrum,' for example. But the disparity is still astronomical. 

Given that autism victims do not die, but instead usually require lifelong care, it is but another 'plague' that will bankrupt society, even apart from its human cost.

10 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I will and I do. but that wasn't the point of the thread now was it? 

I wonder how Shiwiii feels about Christmas. Should that, too, be avoided or embraced per individual conscience? How does she feel about tobacco? Same way? What of recreational drugs, which edge ever closer to normalization and legality? Or for that matter, ANY position that the Governing Body has given direction on? Is it birthdays alone that get under her skin, odd, since she has departed for greener pastures, or is it but one of a host of items that get her riled? 

35 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

This is how “FAKE NEWS” begins, think about that!!

Well, if he's going to post it, he's going to post it. I suspect you (or I) will not be able to talk him out of it. Even the Librarian is afraid of him.

51 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

This is exactly why I write against, those that pretend to be part of a community, 

"What we've got here is a failure to communicate." ... Cool Hand Luke

When I spoke of being tactful with salt-seasoned words, the audience I was referring to was the Russian government, which has misconstrued Jehovah's Witnesses as political. 'Don't feed into it' is what I'm saying, since we want them to treat us better, not worse.

How you treat the avant-garde folks here is entirely up to you. My words to O'Maly were seasoned with fire and sulphur. It's not exactly the circuit assembly here, is it?

6 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

That’s good you mention how people can disagree,

Despite commenting on this thread, I only skimmed it. If heat built up, I don't know about it. It is hard for heat not to build up when discussing the Trinity too for long. I wasn't being critical of you for engaging in the discussion for as long as your like. I have done it myself. I just don't do it anymore. It wears me out. So that means the following excerpt is tongue-in-cheek:

"All computers enjoy getting Tom Pearlsnswine going. I understand the appeal. I do it myself. If I am returning to the car after a long and productive return visit, I will nonetheless say to Tom Pearlsnswine upon entering: “I can’t believe that person won’t admit that Jesus and Jehovah are different!” I pretend not to notice as he reddens – you should see him! You can almost see the steam coming from his ears: “You kept me waiting an hour to argue the Trinity?!”

6 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

That’s good you mention how people can disagree, as has been the case with you and O’Maly.

I didn't really agree to disagree with O'Maly. Instead, I went after her (and her chums) with such ferocity that the same admin who assigned me to that thread pulled me off it, hurled me into the abyss, and the entire thread with it.

I have a Scarlet A (abuse) to show for it, and I wear it as did Hester Prynne (hers was for adultery) from The Scarlet Letter. Like Hester Prynne, it fades in its initial shamefulness, and eventually is taken by some as 'angel.'