TrueTomHarley

One government only will bring an end to war, to injustice, to hunger and suffering. ‘Do not speak of that government here!’ says Russia ‘Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,’ says Jesus. ‘Not if we can help it!’ says Russia….

To find the modern day Christian successors of Acts 28:22 - 'spoken everywhere against - look for the people who are individually praised but collectively maligned.

To follow Christ is now illegal in Russia. The government has given their verdict. Surely it has been played out as at Acts 26:26: ‘this thing has not been done in a corner.’ It has been played out so that all know and can take a stand. It is Jesus at John 15:20: ‘Keep in mind the word I said to you: A slave is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will persecute you.” It is the Acts 28:22 words applied to first century Christians: ‘truly as regards this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere.’ Who else, other than Jehovah’s Witnesses, could these words conceivably apply to today?

It is hard to know what to make of JTR. Sometimes I regret having been so blunt. Other times I regret having been such a wus.

One peculiar characteristic of those who oppose Jehovah's Witnesses is a relentless, even pathological, effort to tarnish anything Bethel does. This is not easy, because much of what Bethel does is truly remarkable. 'I'll bet you think the Org composed the music for Jehovah Will Treat His Loyal One in a Special Way, didn't you?' is an example. As is: 'the GB has directed every Witness to give Putin their home address!' thus buying into the slanderous meme that Putin just can't wait to harm people. Not only can he not wait to ban them in Russia, but he will send thugs worldwide to beat up each individual Witness! What - are these opposers all ten-year-olds? Oh, and the value of letters from each Witness showing concern for the welfare of their brothers in Russia? Doesn't impress the opposers one bit. 'If you really cared, you would be out in the streets protesting,' they say. How many street protests have they engaged in this year, the absence of such action indicating that they don't give a damn?

From Jeremiah 26:7-16: "And the priests and the prophets and all the people heard Jeremiah speaking these words in the house of Jehovah. "So when Jeremiah had finished speaking all that Jehovah had commanded him to speak to all the people, then the priests and the prophets and all the people seized him and said: “You will surely die… "The priests and the prophets said to the princes and to all the people: “This man deserves the death penalty, because he has prophesied against this city just as you have heard with your own ears.”… "Then the princes and all the people said to the priests and the prophets: “This man does not deserve the death penalty, for he spoke to us in the name of Jehovah our God.” ………. It is always this way. The princes have no problem with it. It is the priests and the prophets that oppose religious freedom. Perhaps it will be that way with Putin, if he can withdraw his head from the lock of the Church.

If the driver was disciplined, it is for causing the company embarrassment. It is a testimony to his decency that he did as much as he did. He dare not risk his job to do more. The drivers are expected to work long days, which can easily stretch to ten hours or more. Watch them sometime. They run. They enter data with their thumbs on their tablets as they run. They are very well paid, but they often retire damaged. Recently, UPS (like many companies) tampered with their pensions so that they get substantially less than they had anticipated.

'I'll bet you think the Org composed the music for Jehovah Will Treat His Loyal One in a Special Way, didn't you?' my nemesis taunted, hoping the new knowledge would sour me on God's organization. Of course, it did not, because my wife and I had just had dinner at the Pearlsnswines's Pearls cooking is to die for. Several have died after eating there. But her desserts are positively out of this world. We were savoring her one of a kind lemon meringue pie. Everyone at the table, for it was not only us invited, praised her baking skills. We marveled at her painstaking preparation of the ingredients and the mixing of it in just the right proportions, baking at just the right temperature for just the right time - all testifying to her innate sense of how to please the palate. She blushed, as she always does. She mentioned how she had purchased the lemons just that morning at Shutterstock Farm Market. My fork froze in mid-air. "You lying, despicable wench!" I glared at her. "You just sat there with your smug smile and let all of us think you had grown those lemons on your lemon tree out back!" With that I upended the table, spilling the apostate pie to the floor. "I'll be in the car, dear!" I said to my wife, long suffering woman that she is.

If you sign on in advance, I'll have a waiting list of one. When I was slapped with a Scarlet A for the downed thread, which does not ever disappear from my record, even if I were to repent, even though a far more serious sin, were I to commit one, would disappear eventually in you-know-who's organization, I was miffed at the suggestion that writing here is a privilege I must qualify for. I thought about leaving on that account - in all threads. perhaps creating the thought among some: "Wow! I can see what happens when someone goes after apostates here" At the Kingdom Hall I can say: “Privilege opening up here in connection with toilet cleaning!," and publishers will rush me like peasants storming the Bastille. That is not the case on any internet forum. It is equal exchange at best. If I do not write here, I will write there. However, I must bury my pride. I do need this forum, to be sure, or some worthy substitute.Just as a writer needs a muse, he also needs a villain if he is to write his or her best. Fortunately for the writer, villains are not only easy to find, but they are hard to avoid. Just go on any thread anywhere and say something loyal to Jehovah. Instantly a villain or three will challenge you: "Oh YEAH?!!" and you are off and running. On the apostate site, I even made clear early on that I might not stay, for I had a circuit of real flesh and blood people back home who liked me. Someone shot back that there are no real friends in the circuit - they are nothing but backstabbers, and then he even appended a graphic of a guy stabbed in the back, much like someone else would do. I acknowledged that he had a point - I couldn't turn around without encountering a dozen backstabbers, but I usually managed to take them out like Chuck Norris. A chapter of No Fake News is entitled: the Surly Bear. I have an open edit that states the entire chapter will be rewritten once our situation is Russia becomes clear, be it favorable or unfavorable, and therefore anyone who has the Ebook should download it afresh until they no longer see the edit message. In some manner, the chapter will also include the doings of opposers, since they used the Russian situation to try to push their pedophilia meme. They tie in in other ways as well. My participation here is genuine. No one should think otherwise. But I probably would not have done it were there not another use for the results. There is some truth in this, JTR. At the Kingdom Hall, as you know, we are frequently advised to try to think in terms of illustrations, as Jesus did. If you do this long enough, you may find that the illustrations are more interesting than the realities they spotlight.

You may be on to something when you say 'nothing worth recording in Scripture,' for new manuscripts have been discovered and are on display at the Podunkian: "Now Bill, who was a RETIRED ENGINEER, cut Bildad off mid-sentence and proceeded to say: YOU NEED TO LISTEN CAREFULLY TO WHAT I HAVE TO SAY!! I have heard DISGUSTING AND IGNORANT examples of logic here, and I will not put up with it!!! At that Bildad, Eliphaz, and Zophar got up and went home. Elihu rolled his eyes. Job died." Several more lines follow and a few in-your-face graphics are included. Scholars are unsure why these verses did not make the Bible cannon. The prevailing thought is that scribes simply couldn't take it any longer. To change topic, Mike Pence, it is recently revealed, does not dine with a woman without his wife also being present. He also does not drink alcoholic beverages with another woman unless his wife is also present. He thus takes practical steps to ensure that that which is most important to him, his marriage, stays protected. Can anyone have a problem with this? Feminists are furious with him for dragging his Judeo-Christian archaic values into the work place. It does hurt women, they point out, by potentially depriving female careerists of the old-boy network their males colleagues can enjoy. Thus feminists make clear that they are like most people today, putting career ahead of family. However, men and women are attracted to each other. It is a fact. And since the reason for the untimely deaths of so many musicians has never been discussed before, I will post it here: As they are contentedly composing, their significant other peers over their shoulder and asks: 'Are you writing about me, dear?'

Thank you, Sue. The apostate website that you promptly spotted me on, leading me to think it was yours, AVOID JWS.com, I discontinued after three comments. My move there was ill-thought out. After all, the URL says it all. What could be possibly accomplished other than fightiing, anathema to someone peaceful as myself. But the idea of going onto an apostate website that, like most of them do, hide what they were so as to draw in guileless ones, appealed to me as a one-time experiment - not a course I would recommend to others. They welcomed me there, even as they were unsure of my motives. The very fact you are here indicates you have some doubts, and that is a good thing. Welcome aboard, they said. "How do you know that?" I responded. "Perhaps I am here to kick ass." Thereafter, I did not kick ass, as I did in the thread that was removed. I was nothing but love and joy. However, i discovered that the site is surely 100% or very close visited only by people who loathe Jehovah's Witnesses. They do not phrase it this way. Why, they love Jehovah's Witnesses over there. It is just the Seven Crime Bosses they can't stand, for with them, they risk having someone who will tell them what to do - an even bigger anathema for them than fighting is for me. Almost to the person I was slammed. Leaving a remark of a few paragraphs, departing (for this was not my sole gig), upon coming back, there would be several persons demanding I address this beef they had or that. Of course, you do not do this, because a) it will never end, and b) for any personal complaint, you realize you are seeing but a tip of an iceberg. Were the iceberg to rotate, the tip presented might be entirely different. There was one person there who was so exasperatingly unpleasant - he would not write WBTS or Jehovah's Witnesses, without inserting dollar signs for all the S's. In time, whenever I would refer to him, I would substitute dollar signs for every S in sight. Alright, I get it! He thinks we should exist on honey and locusts, like John. I am a bad boy to do this, engaging with opposers, and I don't pretend otherwise. You do it for just three reasons that I can think of. a) to see if you can keep yourself restrained under evil, b) for the benefit of any neutral or undecided persons lurking about, and c) to hone writing ability if you are a writer - the challenge of writing things before a hostile audience is far different than writing those same things to friends or even neutral persons. Most here are not writers. They have a life, and so the 3rd reason does not exist for them, and there are probably better ways of fulfilling the first. You DO NOT think you are going to change the minds of any participants, for that is impossible. For those who have truly 'been there, done that,' it is the scripture, not me, that uses the word 'impossible.' (Hebrews 6:6) You also must concede that you will never get in the last word, for these people WILL NOT give up. it is not just they. It is anyone arguing anything on the internet. So don't ever engage with such ones if you cannot walk away. Even as I squabble more than most, I realize that I will lose each thread in the end. Toward the end, they howled that I had not answered their questions. I truthfully answered that I had answered them. I had just not let myself be cross-examined, as though in a jury trial. As I left, I said I hoped my leave would not be misunderstood, for I stated at the outset I might not stay, and I referred to the Monty Python Black Knight. I've not done this before and it is not likely I will do it again, at least not for some time. It is greatly time-consuming. In fact, I knew it was time to leave when someone correctly discerned that I was mostly writing for the sake of writing. Not that my participation was not genuine. It was. But to think you would blow all that time merely so as to address persons who instantly dismiss what you say and repackage their questions, which all are really just one question: "why are you still hanging out with the people we cannot stand?" is to admit that your time truly is not worth anything. From now on, I will remain in my former role (except on this thread). I will engage with opposers only if I see three of them mugging my friend Job in the back alley.

Perhaps a little of both

One tactic that caused my downfall on the removed thread was to call someone else a liar. As it turned out, she was not technically a liar. She only actually was. But even that is harsh, and I am afraid of being rebuked. Hopefully I can get away with saying that in my opinion only, her conduct fell short of the ideal. She had latched onto the video that no Witness can watch with a dry eye, using a frame taken from thereof as her portrait photo, in order to deceive Witnesses into thinking that she, too, was moved. She was moved, to be sure. She was moved to feed material at ones so deceived that undermined everything their heartfelt video stood for, hoping to turn them away from the faith she hates. Is that nice? Is that honest? Can she not use her own photo, as I have done with mine? It turns out that she legally can mislead because her video photo is part of the Shutterstock footage our video gives credit for, properly assigning credit, not just appropriating it. It made me think of our recent meal at the home of Tom and Pearl Pearlsnswine, which perhaps I will relate someday.

For several months I have subscribed to The Week Magazine. I like the short synopsis of news stories from around the world. It is as sneeringly liberal as anything I have seen, routinely calling the President an ignoramus, an egomaniac, and a liar, but I figure that's just politics and let it go. But some things are just too much. Like the Trump/Putin romance meme. See, we've been conditioned, rightly or wrongly, to not like Putin. Therefore, if Putin and Trump can be portrayed as bosom buddies, we will not like Trump either, which has been the object of portraying him that way ever since the election. Usually if you run a thread which consists solely of allegations, with conclusions heralded though no evidence is provided, admin will take down the thread. However, it doesn't work that way in journalism, where the mission, from Day 1, has been to take out Trump. At any rate, when he carries on as he did in Syria, it clearly shows he is a lover from hell, and more likely, he was never a lover at all. The story line of the past few months that he and Putin were in cahoots was pure fiction, written for the purpose of Trump's elimination. The Week has been foremost in spinning this line. In light of Syria, do they repent of the rubbish they're written? Not a bit of it. "Blowing up a Bromance" says the cover of the most recent issue, with Trump and Putin portrayed with backs to each other, each holding wilted roses.They are indeed lovers who have just suffered a little lover's spat, that's all. Therefore, I tend to not like The Week simply for their lack of humility, and their bending the facts to fit their story, rather than the reverse. The reason they do this is that they despise the 'populist' candidate. I'm not sure what is so perjorative about 'populist,' Doesn't following the populist course mean you are doing what is popular with the majority? Isn't this the very purpose of democracy? But there is another view. Career politicians like to think of themselves as plumbers. (my example, not theirs, theirs will be more pretentious, but the idea is captured with plumbers) When you hire a plumber, you don't tell him how to fix the problem. You hired him because you do not know how to fix the problem. You trust his expertise to figure it out and do what he thinks best. He is not expected to report his every step to you. Career politicians love to see things this way. They are the experts, elected by the dumbbells, to do whatever they want. These days, what they want is to push toward a world government. That aspect, in itself is also what we want, but theirs is run by humans, not God, so it is not necessarily an improvement over the 'carved up earth' model. Six to one, half dozen to the other. This is not the only scenario under which you might hire a plumber - because you have no idea what to do. Some homeowners know exactly what to do, and simply want or need someone else to do the labor. These are the populist homeowners.

Okay. I'll let it go.To be sure, when I get something in my head, I do obsess about it. Truce for now. But tomorrow it may not be that way. Nor did I name anyone here, which was deliberate. Some will recogniize things straight off, but at least if anyone new should come along, they will not think I am delieberately going after anyone. They may reassess that opinion soon, but they will have to do research to uncover exactly who's who, and most people are not into it that much. What I am obsessing about at the moment is my encounter with a thorn bush which is prompting the soul-searching thought: "With all the fine instruction you receive at the Kingdom Hall, TrueTom, it would be nice if you applied it, rather than viewing certain occasions as splendid opportunities to display your linguistic skills. You can always get a new ear in the resurrection."

It was a very long thread, too. To say 'harping' is unkind. I don't dare do it, lest Ann or someone complains.

For some time, i'd been wanting the run the 'Jehovah Will Treat His Loyal One in a Special Way' video past someone impartial to see if it would affect them as it does me. I settled upon an atheist kid - a kid only from my point of view, not one in reality, since anyone 30 years younger than I is a kid. I liked him from the moment someone brought me along as backup after he had agreed to a return call. Did he think I was one of the top guns that had been summoned? Not sure what he was getting into, tactfully trying to set some ground rules, he probed: "I just want to make sure....if I should ask you to leave, you will leave, right?" "You'll be lucky to get rid of us by midnight," I said, but then asked him how much time he had in mind. It was more than we would have presumed in the first place. So on the followup call, having a feel for the kid, I told him I wanted to do an experiment. I told him the video I wanted to show him was not preachy; in fact, there were no words. He would not understand much of it, I said, but not to worry. it was not a trap, and there would be no test at the end. As I had hoped, he was more than willing. He was eager for the challenge. He was a heady, curious guy and I figured he would be into that kind of thing. After watching the video I asked him to suggest a storyline for it, and that really sent him into overdrive. Though I did it as much out of personal curiosity than an attempt to witness, clearly it works for the latter with a certain type of person - you couldn't just randomly show it at doors. The weak link in this approach was something I had only vaguely suspected. It was ME. It was hard for me to stay dry-eyed watching it, and nearly impossible to do so explaining it. Did I make a fool of myself? Or might it have been an additional draw for him - to see how certain scenes and footage could reach the heart. After all, everyone knows how a Hollywood production can tug at the heart, though the storyline be pure fiction. To be moved in such a way is for me not such a bad thing, and perhaps it is personal growth. I have never been one to wear my heart on my sleeve and I almost look forward to people dying so that I can give the funeral talk.

You are not the villain. If you initially raised the subject, someone else picked it up and it is with her, not you, that there was a shoving match. The other video is made by the Barbara Sinatra foundation. It is well done. But it is not foolproof.

There sits happily on its own thread what is essentially a shoving match over whose child porn video is better. It could be allowed to stay there, but as with Ephesians 1, it is good to gather all things together. Plus, I've turned it over in my head and have some new ideas. Our video is no good, says one villain, because pedophilia is there portrayed as a dark monster. She is unimpressed that Caleb and Sophia are told to immediately run and tell a parent should anyone try to touch them inappropriately. What if Mommy or Daddy is the abuser? she says. She prefers another video, in which off-limit areas are clearly demarcated, thus talking down to children, assuming they do not know their rear ends from their elbow. Her video is not poorly done. But ours is better. Hers is but one more example of why children dislike school. It is one but more lecture from adults that assumes at the outset children have empty heads that they must fill. Ours, rather than lecturing, captures the imagination of the child. Having captured it, it drives the point home. "Even if it is someone you know or trust," Mommy warns. The coup de grace, as far as I am concerned is that our video warns the child about ANYONE who would touch them innapropriately. Her video not only does not protect children in the event that the doctor is the abuser; it specifically says that it is okay for a doctor to touch private areas. Let us gather the 200 young women of the U.S Olympic team. Which video do they think would have protected them more?

I rather like the idea of Twitter, sort of a 'Fireside Chat for Dummies,' which is what most of us are. The only ones who might be upset over this will be the ones who a) don't like change, and b) are annoyed that they no longer have first access to his words in order to spin them.

For @JW Insider's sake, I will be very bold and predict that Trump will bring in socialized medicine, though it will not be called that. Even I do not think this likely, but most do not think it possible, so I still come off as being bold, though JTR will say insane. Trump is pragmatic and has shown he is not bound by ideologies. I can't imagine how healthcare could work via competition among insurance companies when healthy persons can opt out. Obamacare, though it will surely crash of its own weight, has planted the notion, accepted everywhere else, that everyone deserves access to healthcare. Trump himself seems to embrace the idea. He may take the bull by the horns, figure he can craft a system that incorporates the private sector better than any Democrat can, for they distrust the private sector, and charge ahead. It will be a very hard sell. He will lose many of his own people, but may gain from the other side. Even then it may be doomed. Americans are used to Cadillac treatment, and while universal health care is universal, its quality goes down. Pharma too, may scream, because they are used to soaking Americans to offset the modest profits they must take elsewhere. They will carry on about 'choking innovation,' and so forth. As it is, they don't bother innovating unless they see a substantial buck in it; that's why there is MRSA will no new antibiotics to fight it. It's hard to be optimistic here, but I can imagine Trump may try tackling it. Maybe he can still sell it. Overall healthcare quality in America is well above that of any third world country. But among the developed countries, it comes in dead last. I'm tired of playing Russian Roulette with my modest net worth for every sliver I have removed. Perhaps other people are, too.

The funny thing about the thread that was removed is that the one justifiable cause for removing it was not there. One time that disgusting and ignorant hag of a Librarian reproved me, the old hen, for hawking my books, but I did not do it there that I can recall, though I might have a little. In fact, I do not do it anywhere, for I have come to realize it improper on a talk forum to plug my brilliantly written, zany but penetrating, doctrine-free (who cares about that stuff?) book about the faith which many brothers laugh out loud as they read it but some do not like it at all because it gives away many a fault like how you couldn’t get out in service on time because that pious character John Weedsnwheat kept rattling on and on and on about the daily text which I admit I never used to read because it is a bit-sized tidbit and I like something bigger but then one day I was assigned to conduct the reading of the text at the convention, and how I always wanted to jam with Prince, who is the subject of an entire chapter, but it was not to be in this system and will have to wait for the next because he was always busy and I – well, no – I would have found the time. It isn’t right to promote your book that way, though there are even worse things that will get you kicked off a thread and the entire thread hurled down with you, like the Chief Baddie was hurled into the abyss and all his baggage with him and so I never do it anymore, at least not too much, and oh and you know those plans you had for tonight? Cancel them so you can read my book, 30% preview of which is available for free and the remainder of which easily affordable and c’mon! you blow that much at Starbucks without the blinking of an eye.

JTR: That's completely the wrong way to do it, and you, a retired engineer, should know it. You never eat the ears first, and while the base is permissible, it is not preferred. You always go first for the stomach.

Many Witnesses give the impression that they are trying hard to extend the length of their visit. I try to give the impression that I can’t get away quick enough. This is especially useful when you feel locked into a paradigm of one of those full-sized plastic clowns for punching. You punch it and down it goes but because it is weighted at the bottom it immediately presents its smiling face for another punch. I try not to allow that to happen. “Look, I don’t like you. Possibly, I could come to like you, but I don’t now. Let’s get this over with and see how it plays out.” Of course, I don’t say this. In fact, I don’t even feel this way. I am friendly, but not at first over-sincere. Unfortunately, sincerity works well for civil people, but given the vicious disposition many display online, it is only to be expected that they will note your sincerity and take it as an invitation to smash you in the teeth with a baseball bat. Go short, instead: “I’m Tom. I want to read you a scripture, see what you think of it, and I’m gone.” My experience is that I get to read it more often than I would with a more conventional approach. If they decline, I’m true to my word and leave. They frequently say: "No, but thank you for coming.” When they say yes, I read them a scripture – you can choose whatever you want – and then: "I like this scripture because” and offer a sentence or two. It is now their turn, I point out. If you want to discuss or have questions or have observations or whatever, I can stay a bit. Otherwise, I move on. If they seem agreeable, I’ll show them the video. “This runs almost four minutes, but you don’t have to watch it all. The minute it gets boring, hand it back.” They do hand it back sometimes. But not often.

Thank you, Russian brothers, for driving worldwide traffic to JW.org, where they will discover it is NOT extremist. What will be their response at that?