TrueTomHarley

Uh oh. The overlords have their heads in their hands and are crying. 'Don't we have a day job we can back to?' they are asking each other. So lets go back to a previous point.

Someone said that the Australians were miffed that a GB didn't appear at their second hearing. Were they? If so, should they be?

The Australian commission has authority in Australia, and nowhere else. Why should not the response be to send our own people who have authority in Australia alone? Seems to me representatives from the Australian Branch should do just fine. Everyone wants to talk to the top guy, assuming all underlings are orangutans.

Our people are united. It isn't our fault if the world is carved up into 200 separate entities. What if they all insisted upon meeting the top guy? No. People overseeing the territory they oversee should be enough. Send more if you want. But it shouldn't be expected.

....SIGH!!!....the LIBRARIAN will YYYEEEEEELLLLLLLLLL!!!!! at me, and i will 

1.  have to 

2  AGREEE!!! with HERR that

3 I am

FOUR!  behaving BADLY by IMITATING a certain APOS**TATE who 

5. INSISTS on absurd and bombastic styyyylllling. 

6. I CAN'T HELP IT!!!!! GILL TEE as Charged!!!!!!!!!!

There. Try to make some sense out of that. I'll take the hit, if need be. Maybe this thread needs be split into several new ones. If so, name them after Anna, not me.

Oh, and now for some JTR-esque graphics:

I mean, C'mon. Some of these characters are firing off statements that are barely coherent. I should be able to do it, too.

No. I don't believe that. I don't believe one can have meaningful discussions with apostates (and I'm not saying that you do). 

You can reason with the surly neighbor. You can reason with the person who hates Jehovah's Witnesses' guts. You can reason with one who has left the faith, for sometimes they reassess. You cannot reason with apostates. They're easily smart enough, but they have no interest in reasoning. They have only interest in persuading. How many apostates have you seen budge one iota here? Imagine yourself a one-time Mormon. For whatever reason, you left the church 10 years ago. And yet you spend huge amounts of your time trolling the comments of your one-time fellow Mormons, trying to shake them from the religion. Are you one who can be reasoned with?

I say, blow them out of the water, until the overlords say you cannot, and if they should say that - well, that also tells you something. Expose their motives. Expose their bizarre obsession with ruining the faith of others without offering any substitute. I mean, as World War III breaks out, can't you imagine Ann (has she been on this thread or just the other one?) upset that the Australian commission has to desist from questioning our people?

Of course, your indignation must be controlled. For one brief moment, Allen gave reign to wrath, and it's back to Bible 101 for him! But he will gain a refresher certificate (I know, because I have a few of them) and then he will be back for more battles. Or maybe he will move on to other things. Either way, he will be fine, and I am glad to know he is around.

5 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

  So how come Trinitarian groups are being targeted as well?

RUSSIA: Alleged "missionary activity" prosecutions continue

July 2016 – March 2017 prosecutions ...

... Prosecutions have involved individuals or communities belonging to the following religious communities: independent Protestants – 18; Jehovah's Witnesses – 13; the Society of Krishna Consciousness (Hare Krishna devotees) – 7; Baptists – 5; Seventh-Day Adventists – 4; Buddhists – 2; New Apostolic Church – 1; Ukrainian Reformed Orthodox Church – 1; and Salvation Army – 1. One village elder who permitted an independent Protestant church to display a banner at a village festival in the Mari-El Republic was also charged.

Did the post say anywhere that no other group was being given a hard time? Nonetheless, 'banned' is different than 'targeted.' We have been 'targeted' for a long time. Only now might it escalate to 'banned.'

“I was just a boy when Stalin exiled my family to Siberia merely because we were Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is sad and reprehensible that my children and grandchildren should be facing a similar fate. Never did I expect that we would again face the threat of religious persecution in modern Russia,” says Vasiliy Kalin, as Russia petitions the Supreme Court to ban Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Of course, it’s all going to go against us eventually in this system of things. When Jesus said his followers would be hailed before courts, it wasn’t so that they could receive ‘good citizenship’ plaques. When Jesus himself was dragged before Pilate, he didn’t sweet-talk his way out of it, did he?

It’s all the doings of the ‘house’ church. Many countries have house churches, who agree to be strictly subservient to the state. Russia, once officially atheist, found they could not stamp out the urge to worship, so they settled on the house church, which they seek to harness as a force for national unity. “What can we do for you?” they ask the house church. “Take out the competition,” is the reply.

Putin doesn’t care, most likely. It’s not his thing. “Give the house church what it wants,” he reasons. “That way I keep them out of my hair.” After all, he has a country to run. It was just that way with Pilate, who tried to get Jesus off, but in the end, gave in to fanatics.

‘What are they saying about me, here?’ said Paul to the Jewish leaders in Rome. ‘Are they digging up any dirt on me?’ But there was no internet in the first century, and snail mail was snail mail. “We have not received letters about you from Judea, nor have any of the brothers who came from there reported or spoken anything bad about you. But we think it proper to hear from you what your thought are, for truly as regards this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere,” they told him. (Acts 28:21-22)

It is a mark of true religion today. Depend upon it to be “spoken against everywhere.”

Surely, the house church make Russia look like utter fools on the world stage. You cannot view jw.org, banned in Russia and Russia alone, and think for one moment that it is extremist. One would think that ISIS would have taught the Russians what extremism is. Still, while we hate persecution and we pray for our Russian brothers under trial, persecution does often turn out for advancement of the good news. “Why are they making trouble for the Jehovahs?” some people ask. “They’re nice people.”

"In their literature, there are some very harsh statements and very insulting statements about other faiths," says Alexander Dvorkin, a former Russian Orthodox priest who now teaches the history of religion and cult studies at St. Tikhon University in Moscow. "Of course, every religion has the right to criticize other faiths, but that should be done in a non-insulting manner, especially if you are talking about [my faith] the faith of the majority." (brackets mine)

The reason you can and should criticize other faiths is that, as any non-religious person knows, religion has historically served as chief cheerleader of war and killing. That’s why a growing number of persons would like to ban it.

“Dvorkin says that the Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian because they don't believe in the divinity of Christ.” (from NPR) Got it? It’s also violence at the hands of Trinitarians. A more intolerant bunch you will never see.

22 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

. It only took over a year to affirm what I have stated all along. The mere fact that these people start their dialog with” I am one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, or “as a Witness” is profaning the very utterance of God’s name, by perverting it.

Much as I hesitate to offer observation to Allen because he knows more than I do on most things: on the internet, you assume up front that everyone is a liar. It's icing on the cake if it turns out otherwise, and you never know for sure, because they are digital bits. Through participation in one thread and reading this one, I get an idea of who is who. But I don't know any of it. Nor does anyone know if that guy in the blue shirt and goofy hat is really me. Nor do I assume the overlords here are Witnesses; if they are, they certainly are avant-garde Witnesses. They're all liars, or potential liars, on the internet. It's only those you personally know that you can be sure of.

I have an entire circuit full of people that like me, and I them. I know who they are, or can readily find out. If I want association, I go there. If I want to brawl, I come here. I'll keep coming here, because sometimes I like to brawl. (or share something light somewhere else) But it's hardly fine association as can be had among real people. And I don't offer suggestions to God's organization as to how to conduct itself because no one has asked me. Anyone here who asks me doesn't count.

One would think that ISIS would have taught Russia what extremism is.

On 3/12/2017 at 11:02 AM, Witness said:

If anything, Tom, I appreciate your addressing me personally. 

 

In the midst of a rebuke as sharp as I can make it, a well-deserved rebuke IMO, Witness picks out and responds to the fact I didn't refer to her in the third person. She doesn't retaliate. This speaks well for her. Would I do as much?

We're not friends and we're not going to be, so long as she dedicates herself to tearing down what I and my people are building up. Nonetheless, this little tweet personalizes her.

But then, following this remark, she appends eight scriptures. Look, if my own people append eight scriptures out of the blue, i will not read them unless they have given me a reason to. Why should I? I've nothing against scriptures, but I'd rather read them in orchestral form, as part of routine Bible reading, where I can get everything in context.

Why doesn't Witness straighten out and fly right. Her people have nothing to show for themselves beyond myriad comments on the threads of others. My people have gathered and unified eight million persons. (a million for each verse Witness cited) Why doesn't she try to mend fences. Does she think someone did her dirty long ago?

29 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

.

You are simply amazing.

A guest in someone else's personal space .... and you insult them.

.

 

In your haste to insult me, did you miss that I thought it, but I did not say it? Have you ever held back from saying something you thought?

Or am I missing something? For otherwise, your comment makes no sense.

Oh. Unless you are referring to the Librarian. But perhaps she and I have a deal that you don't know about. Do you think it possible that there are some things you do not know?

After all, assuming she is a sister, she puts up with astounding abuse from those who hate the organization God uses. I mean, surely for every person I insult, you insult twenty.

Years ago I called on a man and placed a set of magazines. I called on him again and placed another. But then I called back and he said he no longer wanted them. His wife was allergic to newsprint.

“Look, just tell me you don’t like them,” I thought. “Lots of people don't. I can live with that. 'Allergic to newsprint!' What a stupid excuse! Now I’ve heard them all.”

The man and his wife moved away. But some time after that I met them at a District Convention. By then, Bethel had switched to a higher-grade paper and he and his wife had made rapid progress.

They’re probably in the circuit work now that Bethel has gone digital.

A fine newsprint sample below. Don't you agree? (I can already picture this one resurfacing from time to time)

On 3/8/2017 at 9:53 AM, Arauna said:

 interfaith is not accepted by Jehovah.  It is seen as disloyalty to him.

Of course you are correct, Arauna. I refer only to how his photo was immediately redirected to one of child sexual abuse. it seemed not right to me.

Well - how do you persuade a four year old, whose every instinct is to trust adults, that nobody, but nobody is to be trusted,, that at any time, any one of them might prove to be their worst nightmare come true - a nightmare that they cannot possibly envision? How do you do that without terrifying the child, their generation already being far more anxious than ones preceding. I think our video does it better than yours.

But it's arguable. That puts me at a disadvantage, for you well know that I don't like to argue. You are correct that ours makes no allowance for mommy or daddy being the abuser. I wonder if a child ever really recovers when that is the case?

It all must be put into a greater context. Everything about JW training and life serves to strengthen families ties, lessening chances of such abuse. Many things promoted in the greater world are destructive to families, increasing the chances of abuse.

2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

 

The cartoon is aimed at children. 

No. It is a teaching tool for adults. Every one of Jehovah's Witnesses knows this. If you do not know this, it is because you have been out of circulation too long focusing only on stirring up wrath for those who hate.

JWs are taught to use this video, along with all the other Caleb and Sophia videos, as aides in teaching their children. The videos are not intended to stand alone. They are intended to facilitate instruction, and all in the congregation know this. Parents are encouraged in congregation meetings, which you don't attend, to use them this way.

Our video has the added bonus, completely lacking in yours, of instructing parents on how to teach their children and encouraging them to do so. It is thus family-friendly - a force for family cohesion. We think family is good. In the end, it is family that will protect a child better than any network of outside agencies, who so often drop the ball, counterbalancing the good they do.

Nonetheless, the Barbara Sinatra videos are well-done, and to be sure, 'mommy or daddy' have sometimes proved to be the abusers, particularly in step families. The Barbara Sinatra agency receives high marks from reviews I read on Yelp.

2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Naturally, I do not expect a calmly reasoned-out response from you @TrueTomHarley, although

Hey, watch those ad hominem attacks, will you? When did I ever do that to you?

On 3/9/2017 at 10:21 AM, Ann O'Maly said:

and showed a cartoon which taught little children that abusers look like scary boogeymen (very misleading, as abusers are often 'nice' people they personally know or are related to

No. It is a cartoon. God help our children if they see the cartoon Ann would produce. They will be afraid to ever go near an adult again. Zealots do that sort of thing. They are so single-mindedly focused on their cause that they wreak fear and chaos everywhere else.

The trick is to protect children without terrifying them. Most adults are decent. Ann would portray them all as submerged predators. The deed is monstrous. Therefore it is portrayed as a monster. IF the cartoon was presented as standard TV babysitting fare for children, I might concede Ann has a point. But it is not. The cartoon is a teaching tool for parents. It is under 2 minutes in length. "Mommy' specifically says 'even if it is someone you know or trust." And immediately "tell Mommy or Daddy." Any Witness parent is going to ensure that point stands out when discussing the cartoon with their child.

Has Ann accepted this world's thinking that parents abdicate their role as teachers of their children, and let pop media do the job for them? That would account for her attitude, though it is not the only explanation. Another is that she is unwilling to concede anything but pure villainry can come from the Jehovah's Witness organization.

"The world can be a scary place. But you are never alone with Jehovah," Daddy says. But Ann's cartoon would say: "The world can be a scary place. Watch your back every minute. Any grown-up, no matter how nice they look, might be ready to pounce on you and do you harm. Watch out!"

Tell us in detail the cartoon you would produce, Ann. One that will work with four-year-olds.

They welcomed back Charlie Rose on CBSThisMorning. He’d been off a few weeks for heart surgery. His colleagues made a great fuss over him. Even Trump said ‘Welcome back, Charlie. We missed you.’ Even CBS, who hates Trump, ran the clip. Who doesn’t like it when enemies come together?

You know, I switched to CBS mostly because of him, but I liked him better personally when he stuck with PBS. There, he had freedom to interview newsmakers at any length he chose – sometimes 20 minutes, sometimes 2 hours. He’s perceptive in his interviews, and that talent can’t come across on razzle-dazzle network TV. Did he sell out? Yes and no. He didn’t give up PBS. He simply went for more exposure. Goodness knows I go for more exposure. I want to sell my books, which I like.

If anyone sold out, it is Larry King years ago. When I first heard of him in the 70’s, he was interviewing newsmakers for three hours on-air. The first hour was one-on-one. The second and third was moderating questions from the call-in audience. But he sold out to someone, and pretty soon he they had him doing only puff-pieces with celebrities, which aren’t as good.

Nonetheless, who am I to say? A person can do what he/she wants with his/her career. Sometimes people tire of the present and want to move on. Is that so wrong? They wouldn’t be able to (in my eyes) degrade unless they were up there in the first place. I was furious with Mary Tyler Moore for sinking the Dick Van Dyke show by leaving for a solo career. But why should she not? She made shows of her own, which I didn’t like as well. Not that hers were bad, it is just that Dick Van Dyke’s was so good.

But is there not an overall sad component to this? Charlie once stated he has enjoyed a wonderful career because he has been able to know so many newsmakers. Are they really worth knowing? I’ll take brothers and sisters in my circuit any day.

And surely there is also something tragic about hitting maximum exposure just as you know the clock is about to run out. It is why I value the JW faith, for only they explain how that came to be, and how it will be remedied.

My sister owned a shepherd dog like in your photo. When my Dad and I would visit, the dog would stand on hind legs, look him in the eye as if to say: 'Hey! You don't belong here! Move along!"

"That dog almost makes me uncomfortable," Dad would say.

21 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

 

"let's not impute bad motives on the part of others."

The trouble is, if we're not allowed to discern motive after 8 pages and countless posts, what really is left?

Surely Ann has been able to make her point again and again and again and again and again and again again and again and again and again and again and again again and again and again and again and again and again again and again and again and again and again and again. Don't you agree?

I mean, what is left but to assign motive?

10 hours ago, Witness said:

 

10 hours ago, Witness said:

Tom, you do know that Isa 52:11 is quoted by Paul in 2 Cor 6:16-18 of which I listed previously and refers to the Temple,

I think we will not communicate well because we weigh things differently. I put much stock in what has been accomplished. You, as near as I can tell, put no stock in it. 

If the GB's take on Isaiah and other verses were not valid, they would not have 8 million persons gathered as Christ's disciples to show for it. They would, instead, be eight separate cranks, reduced to posting on the internet threads of others, trying to tear them down.

2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

And it would be nice not to be subject to ad hominem rants by those who'd rather not engage in rational discussion. 

It's a big word and I'm not sure what it means. Possibly JTR knows.

1 hour ago, The Librarian said:

 

1 hour ago, The Librarian said:

@TrueTomHarley let's not impute bad motives on the part of others. 

honey rather than vinegar.....

I don't believe that quantity of honey exists.

On March 9, 2017 at 5:57 PM, John Clarke said:

"I take it you are or have been a serving elder. I'm curious.

says Ann O'Maly, as though she was genuinely curious, and then proceeds to ask her question, which is the same question she asks anyone she passes within 100 yards of, which is the question she positively lives to ask these days, which is the question that can be rephrased 20 different ways and will be if the answer is not the one she is hoping for.

But John Clarke is not some naive kid. He has been around the block. He knows insincerity when he sees it. He does regular Bible reading and he knows it is time to apply Isaiah 52:11: 'Turn away, turn away, get out of there, touch nothing unclean'

2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I see that you have no suggestions to improve responses to child abuse allegations

Many times when you are a passenger in a plane that has hit some turbulence it is a fine thing not to smash down the cockpit door, chew out the pilot, and grab the wheel. This is especially true if it is only Passenger O'Maly, sitting two rows over, who insists the pilot be shot because she has hated his guts long before the flight ever began.

Every good story needs a villain. If you are writing your next book, wondering how you are going to sneak it past the Librarian, since she has forbidden you to speak of your other two books and you must be contacted using the Message feature in order to say anything about them, thus She is interfering with FREE SPEECH, to which I have a RIGHT!!!  our forefathers having DIED for it!! Do you HEAR me, you DISGUSTING and IGNORANT old HEN??!!! (stylistic nod to JTR, thank you) you need some villains. Unfortunately for Jehovah’s Witnesses, they don’t get to hang out with many of them. To be sure, they get to hang out with endless oddballs, but that is not the same. Nor is it a bad thing. Our oddballs are lovable, generally, because they are humble and usually well-intentioned. But when the outside world produces an oddball, call the SWAT team and after that, the FBI for a new identity. As I get older, I find I don’t really like people unless they are nuts like me. That is an overstatement, like most of what I write. I get along quite well with the straight shooters, and they with me, but it’s the nuts I am most drawn to.

Tragically, for the JW writer, whenever a villain is found out in the organization, he is shown the door. Once again, the Witness writer is stuck with nothing but goody-two-shoes - fine people to be around, but worthless to an aspiring writer.

Fortunately, God provides. The problem of finding villains is easily remedied. No one can be said to be worthless, for they can always be used as a bad example. All you need do is go online and post something favorable to God and his organization. Instantly a villain will appear. “OH YEAH?!” they scream, and then it is ‘Game On.’

You engage with them for whatever time it takes. Eventually you have your article or your post or your book written, and then you cut them loose. When you do, you are not snotty about it. On the contrary, you are grateful, for they have helped you.

Of course, you still must hang around to help out the home team, composed of members so different, but so cooperative, like members of the same body. JTR, I’m afraid, will readily agree I am a member of the body: An ARMPIT!!!! If not WORSE!!!****

If you answer someone like Witness, and you probably should not, make several references to God’s organization, totally without supporting evidence, and watch her pull her hair out in frenzy and hurl two dozen scriptures at you which are relevant only in her own mind.

There is evidence, of course, but it is nothing that she would ever accept. The evidence lies in opening your eyes to what is right before you. If God didn’t like jw.org, he would short circuit the translation department so that all languages devolved into Pig Latin. How many languages does anyone else have - five? This feat and a dozen other parallel ones, all by unpaid volunteers, all for the furtherance of Christ’s commission to preach and teach, would not exist if God was steamed at them. That is your evidence.

However, if you hate the Kingdom message, you will hate the organization that facilitates its spread. It’s no more complicated than that. When they throw scriptures at you that they imagine undermines organization, it’s well not to patiently explain each one to them, because the scriptures have nothing to do with it. It is hatred of the Kingdom message that motivates everything they do. Address their motives, not their questions.

Of course, these are generalizations. There are caveats. Who cannot be grateful to AllenSmith, who interprets Ann’s bit of bile and throws it back in her face? I would not know enough to do it. I just assume that the liars are going to lie, and it always turns out that way. But Allen highlights for us all just how and where they lie. Thank you, Allen.

Loyal brothers and sisters of Jehovah, all of whom have some reservations about participating here, but in the end feel they must assume Elihu’s role and rally to the defense of an honest man being attacked by dogs, encourage and reinforce and teach one another.

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I can't make much sense of all your ranting, 

If Ann cannot discern allusions, metaphors and literary devices, it is because she has single issue razor sharp focus on one issue and one issue alone. And she also has an interest in children.

It is often that way with zealots. They see only what they want to see. They ask 20 questions, which are all actually the same question. It does little good to answer them, because they don't want an answer. They rephrase their question, and ask it again. Or seek another person to ask it to.

It does no good to even win the victory with them. They are like the Monty Python Black Knight, who loses both arms and both legs, and still taunts his opponent as he leaves in incredulous disgust.

Surely Hillary v Trump has taught us that. Both side tirelessly scream at the other. they are like fans at the football game - cheer when the home team scores, wince when they incur penalty or injury. But they never imagine for one second the other side is not the Devil.

Hang your head in shame, Ann, for your people butcher your second most important cause. Because, like you, they all have additional agendas, which conflict, and thus they cannot cooperate on what ought to be the easiest project in the word. You’re not fixing it. It worsens. If you’re isavvy, Ann, tune in at the right time, which is anytime, and watch a twelve-year old girl hang herself on the internet, a victim of child sexual abuse. A further victim of an internet run by adults of the world you’ve chosen who cannot collectively ban even that image online (you don’t see it on JWBroadcasting, do you? They know what belongs, and what doesn’t belong, online), thus planting a cool new idea in the minds of countless ravaged youngsters who already have the highest suicide rate. Hang your head in shame, Ann, for doing nothing beyond words to stem the calamity.

Hang your head in fear, Ann, and Witness, and JTR, for opposing the one people who consistently favor children. Who do not barrage them with internet violence and perversion. Who do not spy on them AI to sell them merchandise, who do not run them $$$$$ into debt as they seek education, who act immediately to clear out perverts from the ranks, and who offer children a wholesome life now and a joyful future.

JTR doesn’t belong with the villains? Bullshit! His comments show where his heart is. Pity the elders at the Kingdom Hall, if there is one, that is graced by his presence. No. He is Professor Emeritus at the O’Maly Institute, though even Ann blushes at his belligerent tirades. Still, she hates what he hates, and so they are the most bosom chums.

Straighten out and fly right, Ann, and your chums, while there is yet time, if there is. For while the door was shut to you, probably, it was not locked.

2 hours ago, John Clarke said:

 Look at the video on jw.org   jwbroadcasting under the title ,  we protect our children,  evidentally you may not have seen it, sincerely  john (jack) Clarke. thunterjack@comcast.net

 

Turn back, turn back, John Clarke, good soul, before it is too late. This thread has been going on forever, maybe from before you were born. There are some here who are vicious, and some who are merely deranged. (and some fine loyal people, to be sure) You won't be able to calmly reason with them, for their greater goal has nothing to do with children. It is hatred for the organization God uses.

Seriously. If you do want to comment, and I don't doubt you have worthy things to say, read the whole thread (skim it, anyway, for some posts are obnoxious) for there is little to be said that's not been already said.

I mean it, John. Your only reward for making loyal points is to be smashed in the teeth with a baseball bat. It's too late for me. I've been trying to escape for pages, for I do have a life and I want to resume it. But then JTR or someone says something more stupid than usual and I am sucked in anew.

Run, John. Save yourself!