TrueTomHarley

4 minutes ago, TheWorldNewsOrg said:

He is the co-founder of the Weather Channel.... interesting take.

Hilarious. As far as I am concerned, you have earned your ownership stripes for another 5 years.

Without regard for whether climate change is real, or manmade, or not, (What—you think I want to take on JWI who will drown me in verbiage so thick that I won’t come up for air for many years?) what is remarkable is what donkeys these ‘journalists’ are.

6 hours ago, ApostaBabe Linda James said:

So would your comments about "waiting untill the 3rd page" to Space Merchant, ( or as you put it, a "throwaway unserious " comment ) fall under what is called, "bantering?"

Yes.

6 hours ago, ApostaBabe Linda James said:

then you weren't meaning to throw him off 

No.

6 hours ago, ApostaBabe Linda James said:

And again, if that be the case, then I could really use some help

Okay. Banter doesn’t necessarily translate well. It can be taken for serious remarks. SpaceMerchant is from a region and culture substantially different than mine. He is also more serious in his demeanor than me. Therefore, he might think I am making fun or him or his moniker (since the topic is aliens.) I was not. That’s why I reached out to him to clarify. It is because I have regard for him that I did this. I don’t have the same high regard for everyone.

6 hours ago, ApostaBabe Linda James said:

and/or patience ) and a lot, and I mean A LOT of time with adjusting to what has always appeared to me, 🙄 as a disturbingly strange way of socially interacting.

You have chosen the right forum to study, for there are several genuinely strange people here, and so what can be expected of their interacting?

6 hours ago, ApostaBabe Linda James said:

social bonding through a number of dismissive insults. 😳😲😬 Yet when I see them get to the worst possible dig or insult, they will literally bust out belly gut laughing. Both of them! 

You’ll have to give examples of this. It is nothing I try to do and if I’ve fallen into it, it was accidental.

6 hours ago, ApostaBabe Linda James said:

they will high five one another through what appears to be a really good time between the two of them.

On the other hand, there are some here I call “villains,” and I genuinely don’t like them, because their purpose here is to trash what I hold dear. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t wear like an old shoe at times, and so here and there a comment might be taken for comraderie.

6 hours ago, ApostaBabe Linda James said:

I am coming to realize that with so many of your comments that I have read here at "World News," for the last year or so, where I have thought to myself,  💭 "What a pompous elitist schmuck this man is,"

Sometimes you do well to stay with your first instincts.

6 hours ago, ApostaBabe Linda James said:

what you've more then likely been doing is, simply attempting to bond with other's here through "bantering."

No.

6 hours ago, ApostaBabe Linda James said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

This place is a writing workshop for me, part of a hobby. ‘There is a gaggle of regulars here, some of them I like, some I don’t, some i like more than others, and some I dislike more than others. I’m a communicator and I gots to communicate. Stuff I first formulate here sometimes ends up elsewhere, for I have my own blog and have even written a few ebooks. Everyone else has his or her own rationale for being here too. 

My practice here is to divide people into three classes. 1) those who have tasted and seen that Jehovah is good, 2) those who have tasted and seen that he is bad, and 3) those who have never tasted. It is an application on Psalm 34:8: “Taste and see that Jehovah is good, O YOU people; Happy is the able-bodied man that takes refuge in him.”

Now, #1 and #2 will speak a language that #3, through lack of experience, does not. For that reason, there are probably not too many #3s around—they would soon get bored silly. From the standpoint of one who tries to be a #1, loyal to God as JWs understand him, I do not believe it is right to earnestly engage with those #2s who have tasted and spit it out the fine food. Maybe you know both the scriptures and the counsel behind this stand.

So, if I reply, I often don’t speak to them as much as I speak past them or even about them, as though they were not present. Or I ignore them completely to make another point of my own. This might easily give the impression of a pompous elitist schmuck to someone sympathetic to their point of view. But I am not elitist. I suppose I come off as cocky sometimes. Sorry.

I go on the assumption—I think it is correct—that this is a forum run by a Witness, admittedly an avant-garde one, who allows “apostate” comments, and thus Jehovah’s Witnesses are the ‘good guys.’ If it was the other way around, if it was an “apostate” site that allowed Witness comments, I would not be around, for I would think myself a troll for doing so.

So this is my site, in effect, not their site. I don’t try to bully. But I suppose when the besiegers have cast their ladders against the castle wall and I pour out the boiling oil upon them it might seem that way.

6 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Because you say yourself: One way is simply refuse to accept it.

It is plain that you have done so. 

What are you bellyaching about then? You’re free to hang out with others who think as you do. Enjoy their company.

Alas, the editing feature is being sharply restricted lately—it shut down early, so I must make another comment to get the attention of @Space Merchant. Please read the above two comments.

(And the delete function has disappeared! Yikes! This means I’ll have to use much more restraint with PSomH. How many times have I quickly slapped back at the dodo, then deleted my own hasty comment?)

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Thinking DID NOT SAY THAT ,,,,!!!…I think you have got rabies…[responding to Pudgy’s ‘obviously the work of a cult.’]

Witnesses plainly don’t fit the traditional definition of a cult that we all grew up with. Time was, if you fell under the spell of a charismatic leader, withdrew from society, and began doing strange things, you just might be a member of a cult.

However, the goal posts have been moved! There is a new definition of cult, and by this definition we do fit. If you belong to a group in which there is significant human authority and if you think outside of the mainstream box, you are a cult. That nutcase BITE expert thinks half the country (United States) belongs to a cult for voting for the candidate he disfavors.

So the question becomes how do you adapt to this new normal?

One way is simply refuse to accept it. “Cult” has had specific meaning for centuries, and just don’t budge from that specific meaning. The only reason it has changed is because humanists are intent upon snuffing out religion that becomes powerful through organization. If it is only a matter of uncoordinated individuals each acting (or more often, not acting) upon his or her own personal interpretation of God, that is less of a threat to them, and they are okay with it. Disconnected individuals are relatively easy to pick off or assimilate, but it is much harder with a centralized coordinated group.

Another way of dealing with the updated definition is to accept it but also point out that the Bible thereby becomes a cult manual. It plainly speaks of a first century group in which there was significant human authority. That gathering of the apostles of older men in 49CE (Acts 15) sent out decrees (decisions) to the congregation that were to be observed. (Acts 16:4-5)

A supplemental way is to revert to the original meaning of cult, for it comes from the same root word as does agriculture. Whereas agriculture is literally caring for the earth, cult in the religious sense can be taken as caring for the matters of God. I’ll take it. It is not too different from serving as ‘guardians of doctrine.’

One can also be very resourceful and turn that taunt (for that is how it is usually intended) on its head, the same way some innovative police years ago dealt with the taunt pigs. They advertised that is stood for Pride, Integrity Guts, and Service. In the same way, as applied to Witnesses, cult can stand for Courage, Unity, Love, and Truth.

The villains don’t own the dictionary. We can make as much use of it as they. In the case of hostile ex-Witnesses, we can even adapt the Freddy Mercury song:

We’re the apostates, my friends

and we’ll keep on fighting till the end

No way we’ll lost this

Be sure you choose us

Cause we’re the apostates of he world.

2 hours ago, ApostaBabe Linda James said:

One would think that there would be some kind of understanding for the timing of the comment. 

Actually, I kind of like Space Merchant. I hope I didn’t put him off with my throwaway unserious comment.

1 hour ago, xero said:

Or you could do like this one sweet little sister who said jauntily "Fine, your blood is on your own head then" 

To put down an unpleasant dodo with a quick retort is well-nigh irresistible, but I try not to do it unless the obstinacy seems entrenched and unchangable, and even then it is probably not for the best. 

The benefits of speaking with obstinate ones is that it affords opportunity to see if you can keep yourself “restrained under evil.” Sometimes you find you cannot, and then it’s back to Bible 101 for you!

the longer version of “you think we’re doing it all wrong, and we think you’re doing it all wrong—let’s just admit it,” includes the line, “We’ll steal people from your church if we can, and you’ll do the same to us.”

It was late in life that I discovered this. With common ground established, I’ve had some very enjoyable discussions with people whom I used to do nothing but cross swords with. 

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Actually, only a Christian would do what I am doing. Frankly, I’m a little surprised that you are not doing it yourself.”* (Watch that smug smile fade.)

More productive than that snarky answer is when I defuse the tension with such ‘rivals’ with, ‘Look, you think we’re doing it all wrong, and we think you’re doing it all wrong—let’s just admit it. But the point is that we are both ‘doing it,’ and we’re living in a world where most are not, even where many oppose.’ With that common ground established, you can sometimes engage them at an entirely different level, provided we don’t ‘use’ such detente to get the upper hand of a debate.

Just now, TrueTomHarley said:

I don’t know. I think those two tone red/flesh colored pants are too tight to pass muster.

I won’t be wearing one those anytime soon, but I have to admit to being intrigued. I suppose it might work if fitted with a headband equipped with a siren.

20 minutes ago, xero said:

I always wanted to wear the bright primary colors that some of the brothers who were also brothers in Houston would wear at the DC.

I don’t know. I think those two tone red/flesh colored pants are too tight to pass muster.

16 minutes ago, xero said:

I suppose it's like when you go to a door and someone wants to argue w/you about the trinity.

To the similar-person who declines to speak with me, saying “No, thanks—I’m CHRISTIAN!” I reply, 

“Actually, only a Christian would do what I am doing. Frankly, I’m a little surprised that you are not doing it yourself.”* (Watch that smug smile fade.)

*to be used ONLY in cases of blatant smug superiority, (you can smell it) NOT in the case of sincere misunderstanding.

57 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

Just more sexist and insulting comments from Tom 

Is there no word at all that you know how to use properly? The only reason anyone could possibly call my remarks sexist is that she is a woman.

She might just as well label me a man-hater for consistently calling you a dodo. 

(Now, if someone called me a bird-hater due to that last remark, I guess I’d have no choice but to repent in sackcloth.)

30 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

In the Scriptures a Levite alone, not sinners, carved up the body of his concubine into twelve pieces which he sent to all the Israelite tribes

Sometimes a guy has to do things to get people’s attention.

29 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Would you be so kind to remind me?

No.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Please, who were people who were "guardians of doctrines" in period of 2000 years before WTJWorg? ...

If you ever were actually a Witness, you would know the answer to that question.

(Excepting only if you are like PSomH, who doesn’t seem to know anything about anything.)

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

After all, they are the “guardians of the doctrine,” as Mr. Jackson told the ARC.

He could not have chosen a better description. Per that list of key tenets (doctrines, core beliefs) listed on the FAQ of the website, and cited by Anna, they are all of them found in only one place. 

Why are they not found in many places? Because if there were ever any guardians of those places, they long ago fell fast asleep. Only in one place have the doctrines been guarded. Everywhere else they dissipated to the four winds or thieves made off with them.

Every time someone flushes a toilet in Bethel it is a doctrine for you. It is impossible to be so obtuse unless it is deliberate. Everyone but you knows that if your picnic gets rained out because you read the weather wrong, it does not take away from the overall success of your life goals and purposes.

37 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

“With God all things are possible”….The words of Christ, which you seem to despise. 

Quite the contrary. I am now going to use them as you do, to “prove” anything at all.

12 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

Perhaps someone else would be able to find the flaws in your logic, but for the life of me I cannot.

I am reminded of how someone was described as having suffered an injury causing “permanent deafness,” and one commentator said, ‘Well, it’s a little too soon to tell.”

So it is with those who would pronounce 1914 dead and buried. It’s a little too soon to tell.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Professor Jason D. BeDuhn aptly described it when he wrote that" I agree with this point, but I'm embarrassed that such an important list (for our purposes) has the name and opinion of a "secular"

Whoa! I almost said something so dumb that PSomH could call ME a dodo and I would have little defense. 

My quick impression was that if was Jason who agreed, but was embarrassed, etc, leading me to almost ask: I never thought he was a Witness—is he? But after reading the remark 200 time, I see it is you who agree but is embarrassed. 

I dunno. Yeah, I see your point, it is a little odd there, but it is just an appeal to testimonial. After all, if they quoted Bro Splane, people would say, “Well, of course, he would say that.

There is a Russian professor they could have used to, Gordienko? I think, who says: When the authorities make accusations against the Witnesses, the do not realize they are making accusations against the Bible itself.’ He has the advantage of being dead, so the Russian authorities cannot arrest him.

5 minutes ago, Anna said:

I haven't

I haven’t seen them either. She probably blocked me, too.

On 7/3/2021 at 2:08 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

, I come to the assumption that mass sales of KH do not presuppose defeat for JW members

You may have suffered from reading too much of Witness, who carries on and on about material things being an “idol” for Jehovah’s People. In fact, they treat Kingdom Halls pretty much like people treat their homes. If they outgrow them due to more family members, they build something bigger. If it outgrows them due to the kids moving out, they downsize. Since (admittedly with some exaggeration) Jehovah’s people can put up and dispose of buildings pretty much live the overall world can put up and take down Coleman tents, as they have plenty of trades people and volunteers, it is less trying for them as it would be for most groups.

In general, where there are circumstances conducive to humility, kingdom interests increase. Where there are circumstances conducive to pride (income and advanced schooling) kingdom interests hold their own or even retreat. In my area, if called upon to account for a Hall being sold, I explain that it is on account of our great growth.

On 7/3/2021 at 2:08 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

Since I don’t follow JWTV, maybe some of you have heard it publicly stated that the sale of KH is God’s leadership because of COVID?

No.

On 7/3/2021 at 2:08 AM, Srecko Sostar said:

Or is this explanation only of an internal character, semi-official?

Who can say? It probably varies with the individual. When the timing of events turn out fortuitous, some will think it coincidental and others will credit God for it. Since we are a godly people, I’m sure we will have more crediting God than, say, a group of humanists. 

As PSonH is fond of saying, With God all things are possible!

But there is no grapevine consensus that I am aware of.

On 7/3/2021 at 4:38 AM, Pudgy said:

Several years ago JWs worldwide sent about 8 million letters to the Russsian Federation, and to the best of anyones' knowledge, not a single one was read.

In the splendid book “I Don’t Know Why We Persecute Jehovah’s Witnesses,” I wrote:

“Putin’s response was that “we should treat the representatives of all religions in the same way—this is true, but still, it is also necessary to take into account the country and the society in which we live. True, this does not mean at all that we should include representatives of religious communities in some destructive, or even in terrorist organizations. Of course, this is complete nonsense, you need to carefully deal with it. Here I agree with you.”

Later in the meeting, Putin returned unbidden to the topic to observe that “Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christians, too. I don’t quite understand why they are persecuted. So this should be looked into. This must be done.”

One reason for his apparent puzzlement might be that he read a few of those letters. Somebody would have read them, or at least opened them to see what they were. They are postage of the going rate, not what the USPS calls ‘standard’ (and everyone else calls junk) mail. His office or representative thereof either opened the letters from unknown persons or they never open any letters from anybody, which I think is unlikely.

So there are millions of letters pouring in. No way will Putin not be informed of it and who almost all of them are from. He has never seen nor heard anything like it. Will he really read none of them? Is he absolutely dead as to curiosity? 

At any rate, that is one possible explanation to his very peculiar response to a question posed him by a government minister. 

I think you play the “nobody read them” card too much. Granted, no one is saying that they read a lot of them. But it cannot be that none were read by anyone, after which those anyones would have reported to the responsible persons, and quite possible they would sneak a peak at one or two of them.

In fact, when I heard Putin answer a question with “Zip, zero, nada” at a press conference, not only was I sure he had read at least one, but I’m pretty sure I know who wrote it.

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

Unfortunately, it would not shake up one's faith,

One would think a Space Merchant would be the very first commenter on a thread dealing with aliens, rather than holding off to page 3.

I never thought I would do it. I gave PSomH an upvote (for setting up a question to JWI.)

True, he thinks he is tearing the cover off the ball with his expose on the rough transition from Russell to Rutherford. He does not know that Witnesses are well aware of this, that it is plainly discussed in the Proclaimers book, for example.

Still, @JW Insiderhas a feel for this time period, and it will be interesting to see what he has to say and if he deviates from the party line in even the tiniest degree, necessitating that I report him to Bethel.

29 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

If they denied Christ it was because Christ wanted them to.

One must not argue with a dodo.