TrueTomHarley

Isabella reports—this is the second occasion of it—Jehovah’s Witnesses being arrested and detained in Russia—and subjected to torture.

With an active and prolific hate campaign being waged against Jehovah’s Witnesses online, it is reasonable to think that it indirectly instigates persecution of them in Russia—even escalating to arrests in which torture is applied, as in this case. It is reasonable to think that it indirectly instigates the torching of two Kingdom Halls in the United States during 2019, both of which burned to the ground.

Many groups are harassed in Russia, but it is Jehovah’s Witnesses who are head-and-shoulders the primary target. Why? It boils down to Jesus’ words: “If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because you are no part of the world...for this reason the world hates you.” (John 15:19) It is no more complicated than that. Hatred against Witnesses may be cloaked as reports from a “whistleblower” or complaints of those who would advocate freedom from “mind control,” but at root the motivation is simply disturbance that ones should choose to be “no part of the world.” No villain on TV ever says, “I am the villain.” Instead, he paints himself the wronged one with a righteous score to settle—and the program director strives so that we all see it that way. We must not be obtuse.

From TrueTom vs the Apostates!—“The book Secular Faith - How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics attempts to reassure its secular audience through examining the changing moral stands of churches on five key issues. The book points out that today’s church members have more in common with atheists than they do with members of their own denominations from decades past. Essentially, the reassurance to those who would mold societal views is: ‘Don’t worry about it. They will come around. They always do. It may take a bit longer, but it is inevitable.’ Jehovah’s Witnesses have thwarted this model by not coming around.”

What is Secular Faith is saying is that churches have ceased being “no part of the world”—and having done such, are not hated, since “the world is fond of what is its own.” Jehovah’s Witnesses, and almost they alone, are yet remaining “no part of the world”—and that is why they are hated. That is why they have “apostates” who are off the charts in expressing vitriol. “Apostates” (within the Christian context) can be expected to proliferate in direct proportion to how the main body stays separate from the world. As such, Jehovah’s Witnesses should almost be proud of theirs, for in them they are validated. A religion that has made its peace on the “five key issues” of Secular Faith—what’s to apostatize from?

Anti-Witnesses scream “Cult!” like patrons scream ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater. Are Jehovah’s Witnesses a cult? To the extent they are, it is because the Bible is a cult manual. The behavioral, informational, thought, and emotional “control” that anti-Witness activists complain about are no more than people living by the Bible, living peaceably in this world while they look to the righteous new one to come, the one the Bible describes as “the real life.” (1 Timothy 6:19)

I am not even sure that Witnesses should run from the word. It may be well to point to its origin. It is the same origin as ‘cultivate’—which denotes ‘caring for something’—and in a religious sense it refers to ‘caring for the matters of the gods.’ Okay. I’ll take it. Jehovah’s Witnesses ‘care for the matters’ of God. They trigger opposition from ones who don’t want them to do that. They trigger opposition from those who have crossed over to embrace various aspects of the world—the world that Jesus says not to be part of.

This is clear in the testimony of one witness testifying for the prosecution in the Russian trial that would ban the JW organization. She complained of “complete and total control of life by the Administrative Center.” Asked to give an example of this, she reported her expulsion from the congregations after she “began her close, but not officially registered, relations with a man.” She wants to violate, within the congregation, the Bible sanction of ‘sex only within marriage.’ The Witness organization does not allow it—and she spins it as “complete and total control of life,” hoping to get the Russian Justices riled up.

Look, it is fine to adopt the standards of the world so long as one goes there to do it—don’t bring it into the congregation. She signed on for such Bible-based standards, now she wants to change them—and when thwarted in that attempt, she seeks to get the organization that got in her way banned at the Russian Supreme Court! It is no more than revenge. It is no more than insisting the standards of the greater world be accommodated in the Christian congregation.

Disfellowshipping itself is a last-ditch attempt at discipline, when all else has failed, to ensure that a member not bring standards of the world, no matter how commonly accepted, into the congregation. Is it harsh? It certainly can be spun that way, but as ought to be clear by considering Secular Faith, no denomination can obey Jesus’ direction to remain “no part of the world” without it.

Among the reasons Christians were viciously persecuted in the first century was that their rituals were said to include cannibalism—historians report such. Obviously they did not, but from where might the charge originate? Might one look to the following passage in the sixth chapter of John, which begins by quoting Jesus?

“I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the wilderness and yet they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that anyone may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread he will live forever; and for a fact, the bread that I will give is my flesh in behalf of the life of the world.

Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” So Jesus said to them: “Most truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day.”

When they heard this, many of his disciples said: “This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?”...Because of this, many of his disciples went off to the things behind and would no longer walk with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve: “You do not want to go also, do you?” Simon Peter answered him: “Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life. We have believed and have come to know that you are the Holy One of God.”  (6:48-69)

What of the ones who did not “come to know” that Jesus was the Holy One of God? What of the ones who “went to the things behind and would no longer walk with him”? Did they thereafter leave their former co-disciples to worship in peace? Or did some of them draw from these words proof that Jesus would recommend cannibalism to his followers? Historians advance the notion seriously. And if some advanced the notion, might there not have arisen ones in the congregation who pinned the blame on Jesus himself, for uttering the words that got the persecution rolling; ‘what a blunder!’—I can imagine some saying (though not in his presence).

It makes me think of the uproar over CSA within Jehovah’s Witnesses today. They are comparatively successful at preventing it—nobody, but nobody, has gathered every single member on earth (at the 2017 Regional Conventions) to consider detailed scenarios in which child sexual abuse might take place so that parents, obviously the first line of defense, can remain vigilant. But the world has little success at preventing CSA, so it focuses on punishing it after the fact. Constantly we read of individuals arrested over CSA allegations. The one detail that never accompanies such reports is that of the individual’s religious affiliation or lack thereof. Yet with Jehovah’s Witnesses, that detail is never lacking. Why? 

Plainly, it is that the Witness organization attempted to do something about child sexual abuse—they did not just close their eyes as is typical of groups today, be they religious or not—and now liars are trying to spin it as though they love the stuff. Jehovah’s Witnesses are well-known as a religion that “polices its own.” It is an attribute that used to be viewed favorably, but now in the eyes of critics, it is spun as intolerable “control.” Those taking the lead in the Witness organization thereby came to know of individuals accused of CSA, and their “crime,” if it be one, is in leaving it up to affected ones themselves to report rather than “going beyond the law” to do it themselves. Time will tell how vile that sin is found to be, but it plainly falls far short of actually committing the CSA themselves, which is the pattern elsewhere. 

As with Jesus and his remarks that can, in the scheming of dishonest ones, be spun into encouragement of cannibalism, so the JW policy on CSA is spun by similarly dishonest ones to indicate that the organization is determines to nurture and protect it, whereas nothing could be further from the truth. Three times before the Australian Royal Commission, Geoffrey Jackson of the Witnesses’s Governing Body pleaded for universal, mandatory reporting laws, with no exceptions—if that could only be done, it would make the job of the Witness organization in policing its own without raising the ire of those outside the congregation “so much easier.”

Continuing his cross-examination, Justice Angus Stewart said: “Leaving aside the question of overriding mandatory law from the civil authorities...” I almost wish that Brother Jackson would have interjected at this point, “I wish you would not leave it aside, for it would solve the problem.” The greater world cannot make a dent in preventing childhood sexual abuse, and so it puts the onus on those who are trying to do something about it. Alas, our best lines invariably occur to us too late—had Brother Jackson picked up my line, it probably just would have got their backs up—and then (gulp) he would have looked at me with displeasure.

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Ahnold has aged ...... as have we all.

I liked him as governor—especially when he chided some colleagues to “not be girlie men”—in other words, step up to the plate on some issue or other. Turns out, though, that there were a lot of girlie men in California and they took issue with him.

But my favorite celebrity turned governor was Jessie Venture of Minnesota. The bumper stickers read: “My Governor Can Beat Up Your Governor.”

They asked Jessie about them. “Yeah, I’ve seen them, and they’re true, too. I’ve been to those governor conferences. I’ve looked those guys over. There’s not one of them I couldn’t take!” 

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

That's what I THOUGHT you were alluding to ( giggle) HAHAhahahaHAHA!

What?! You got me going on that movie for nothing?! 

Hasta la vista, baby! I’ll be back.

5 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

My guess at this time is that CC has never seen the movie

I’m only vaguely recalling it. It seems that Arnold tipped the plane to throw the bad guy perched on the nose off balance after signaling Jamie to hang on. I do this myself when cantankerous householders throw themselves on the hood of my car. Works like a charm.

6 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I can’t imagine how

or why CC would downvote this. Is he running himself for office and I have overlooked him?

I mean, I can imagine 4Jah saying, “oh dear, it looks like TTH knows something besides jw.org bible,” but why CC would have anything to say......

What happens when you use it to divide by zero? Most would return an ERR message, but I had one that would simply start running through all the numbers, as though trying them all.

15 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

What impressed you about the movie that you would recommend it

Arnold peeking through the skyscraper window behind the wheel of his Harrier Jet and the bad dude realizing that it just might mean trouble.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

We even keep RVs down to a minimum,until they become studies. 

Around here there are quite a few that do just the opposite—focus on return visits—and you know the challenge of finding return visits home. It drives me nuts, and I am adamant not to be part of a large car-group, sometimes even a van, doing it. Occasionally I am outmaneuvered and when that happens I lose all interest in the ministry, take the back seat in the van, and nap or compose a blog post.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

That was 1990, and repeated a couple of times since then. A great experiment, but one that would get the principal and teacher fired.

I would think so. The only way I could get my head around it was to read it was in a different country.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

similar comments from outsiders were announced at the end of many of the assemblies.

The concluding speaker told how a cop had said, with regard to some pretty obnoxious protestors, “Why don’t you just pop them one?” As to the one of the military monitoring mealtime, I had just about concluded that it was an urban legend—I had a Mormon tell me something similar about his people—but then Shultz told me where it was published. 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Have to admit I have never been alert to flags and war memorabilia, but I'm sure it puts the householder at ease to let them talk about it.

We all get better at handling challenging situations as we age ourselves. Running into the clergyman is another—or a group plainly immersed in conversation and directly in your path. One fellow eyed me cautiously as I approached. He was lugging heavy boxes from a moving van. “You look like someone that wants to talk about the Bible!” I said jokingly. He laughed so hard he nearly dropped the box.

8 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

My brother, who lives about 250 miles away, hates Donald Trump with a salivating and spittle, foaming at the mouth passion, and nearly goes into stroke-mode lambasting him

Is he a JW too? I mean, if you are, what of him?

They have a weak field of candidates, imo. I can’t imagine how they would expect a Sanders or Warren to take the country, as hostile to business as they are, and given the fact that in a capitalist country outright hostility to business will only go so far. 

Biden looks like he is not doing so hot, and is famous for shooting himself in the foot, anyway. A favorite cartoon of mine—published just after he made some gaffe at the very onset of another Presidential campaign, pictured all the contestants revving their engines at the starting gate, and his car alone was already flaming out. After a brief and maybe longer than usual honeymoon, the press would soon start ridiculing his faux paus almost as much as they do with Trump.

Pete—I just don’t think a man with a husband is going to win the approval of the majority—I could be wrong on that, but it seems too much baggage to carry. Plus, can a guy who has only served as a small-city mayor really have the experience to run the country?

Bloomberg may charge and win acceptance, but then there is the very opposite of what the Democrats try to portray as their capital strength—diversity. The guy is richer than Trump and every bit as white.

My guess, based on early results and admittedly too little background into, is that it will be Klobuchar. 

And I must admit, I find it almost impossible to picture you with a brother who hates Trump. If I had to recalculate when @JW Insider described himself as a nerd, I think I may have to purchase a brand new calculator in your case.

For whatever it’s worth, If I see evidence of military service at someone’s home, I will ask about it. When there is a plaque that a son or daughter is a proud Marine or Navy or Army member, I’ll make the point that you cannot have anything but respect for someone willing to lay his life on the line for what he believes in. If there is some old fellow who identifies with any branch of military service, I’ll hear him out. Everyone has a story to tell, but nobody wants to hear it. I’ll hear them out—providing I’m not keeping an entire car group waiting as I do so. 

If someone’s flag is all wrapped up around the flagpole—the way the wind will do that—I’ll unwrap it while waiting for them to answer the door. And if I see a flag flying in tatters, I get mad—if you’re going to do it, do it right.

I think of that experience—it was published in one of the old yearbooks, I think, of the teacher, for some sort of a civics lesson, telling a Non-Witness and a Witness child to salute the Canadian flag. The first did. The second did not. Next came the direction to spit on the flag. The first did. The second did not. “Why don’t you spit on the flag?” the question was asked, “you didn’t salute it.” The answer was that the flag was a national symbol and as such should be treated with respect, even if not given an act of worship that Witnesses consider a salute to be—the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that way as well. But maybe more telling is the “patriotism” of the first child, who salutes on command and spits on command.

There is often a vague mutual respect between members of the military and members of Jehovah’s Witnesses, each of whom recognizes that the other is not rabble and is amenable to discipline. They also recognize about each other that neither harbors racism—people rise and fall independent of race (speaking of the American military here—I’m not in position to testify as to other nations). And it was at the 1958 Divine Will International Convention in New York City (Yankee Stadium & adjacent Polo Grounds) that the U.S. military sent observers to report on how it was possible for Witness volunteers to provide a full-course meal to their quarter-million conventioneers within a short noontime interval—this as related in a Special Report on that event that can be googled and downloaded. (this info supplied by B.F. Shultz, the researcher who is never wrong, who is lauded for “almost a fanatical attention to detail.”)

Since Jehovah’s Witnesses are politically neutral and will not wage war, one might surmise that any encounter with a militarily aligned householder will prove disagreeable, and this can happen. But it doesn’t have to happen, and usually does not by approaching the person with respect and reference to the above points. Often it can be worked into conversation how odd it is that an individual is serving his country with great feeling and sacrifice, yet if he were in any other country, he would feel exactly the same way with regard to that country—and isn’t it strange that the earth should be divided up that way? Many military and especially veterans are mellowed with their service. I wouldn’t want to go up against a General Patton, who wanted to shoot anyone sitting out the fray, but most are more reflective. My own father, who was a WWII vet and who left religion as a young man and never returned, commented  (to my surprise) on the small town square war memorial of the hamlet we were passing through, “They shouldn’t do this—it just glorifies it.”

1 hour ago, César Chávez said:

TTH wants to hear from opposers why the Watchtower is reluctant to speak out about ongoing court cases

TTH wants nothing of the sort.

Just convince some idiot that what remains IS the original work and she is golden.

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I almost wish Bro Jackson would have interjected at this point, “I wish you wouldn’t leave it aside, for it would solve the problem.” ... (but maybe it would have got their backs up even more than what did happen)

@JW Insider—That same speaker I spoke of Sunday also made much of the verse:

“Even if you pound a fool with a pestle...his foolishness will not leave him.“ (Prov 27:22)

This is NOT to suggest that the ARC judge was a fool, but only to suggest how you ought respond to ones suspicious of you, or even hostile. The speaker didn’t use it in this context. He was speaking abut the need for elders to counsel in love, He raised the notion of that one hypothetical brother or sister—they always exist—who behave so outrageously that you wish the elders would lay down the law with them—tell that person off!—put him in his place! The reason they do not do so, he says, is on account of Prov 27:22.

Speak harshly to him and he is still a fool—his foolishness has not left him (even though you pound him with a pestle!)—“the only difference is that now he can’t stand you.” No, you have to counsel in love—maybe somehow you will reach him and he will change himself. 

There is no way that we should be passed off as rational beings. At most, you might concede that there is a component of rationality with each of us. One traumatic experience, or one unique upbringing, all but guarantees that we will never see eye to eye with someone of a different background and experiences. See how very seldom people cross the aisle on any hot topic of which there are two or more distinct sides. The heart sees what it wants and makes a grab for it. Afterwards, it charges the head to devise a convincing rationale, giving the illusion that the head is running the show—but it is the heart all along.

If the fool does not change himself with counsel—and if the matter is serious enough, a violation of God’s law, then you must give him the heave-ho. The speaker did not say this, but he did go on to speak of disfellowshipping. It is ”an act of love,” he said, “though it is very difficult to see it that way at the time.” A person’s relationship with Jehovah is on the line, if not severed, and maybe the shock of disfellowshipping will prompt him to restore it. See someone who’s heart has stopped, see rescuers use a defibrillator on him—see him jump. “That’s terrible!” Is your initial response, but it works to save lives. Christianity is not unsure of itself, and THAT is sure to trigger hostility in a world that is. It is sure to trigger hostility in a world that insists that human wisdom should be the driving force.

He also spoke to the challenge of giving people counsel. Many are very sensitive about it in this day and age. Suppose he sees in the parking lot that a brother has a flat tire. He wants to caution that brother because it is a safety issue—he doesn’t want that brother, his loved ones, or anyone else, to get hurt. “Um, brother, your car has a flat tire,” he says.

”Oh yeah?! Well, yours has a dent in it!” comes the reply.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I recall having missed this obvious point when I first listened to the ARC videos.

By the way, that first came to my attention from Anna. She supplied the exerpt

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

ARC Stewart: Leaving aside the question of overriding mandatory law from the civil authorities,

I almost wish Bro Jackson would have interjected at this point, “I wish you wouldn’t leave it aside, for it would solve the problem.” It would have looked good in the record. Our best lines invariably occur to us too late. (but maybe it would have got their backs up even more than what did happen)

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

It was a difficult read at first because it treads on some dangerous ground and I cringed too much at first, thinking TTH was walking too close to the edge of a cliff. 

I kind of like the writing, and the book overall, but it certainly could use a good editing which it will probably never receive, for reasons of time and self-discipline. Even if the book was terrible, I would still think it good because there is nothing else like it. Baran (a non-JW) wrote the book on JW persecution from WWII to her date of publication—2007, I think. Dear Mr. Putin takes it from that point up to the present. There is nothing else exclusive to JWs. 

Much of Part 2 (a defense against the unspoken reasons for persecution in Russia) is in the form of posts first made here and stitched together. Alas, the stitching often shows. I should hoe out about 30-50% from all those chapters. The book is too undisciplined. CSA never once arose as an accusation there, which I pointed out, but I was on a roll and so I stated that it was part of the overall picture, if not there specifically.

The CSA stuff is even more a part of TrueTom vs the Apostates—it may form a good quarter of Part 1 (Part 2 consisted of post from my archives, written years ago, but relevant to opposers in one way or another)—too much, really, but I was just driven by accusations of the day, and that one was (as is) huge. If there is a TrueTom vs the Apostate-Part 2, I won’t make the mistake again.

Is there too much pedo stuff in Dear Mr Putin? Well—maybe. Even I have to concede that I threw in everything but the kitchen sink. But with the opposers pushing for all they are worth their version of things and achieving some success in that regard—say what you will about opposers, they are not lazy—I thought I’d take all their charges and then some and spin them my way—my way is the actual way, I think. 

The speaker last Sunday—a very respected and experienced older man who has long filled in for the CO when needed, made that point about how we want to watch what we put into our minds because it affects us physically—it’s good to take in what calms us,  It’s the same as another recently quoted the verse ‘whatever things are true, of serious concern, righteous, chaste, lovable, well-spoken-of, virtuous, praiseworthy, continue considering these things.’ Doubtless, that is a large unpinning to present counsel not to go there—grumblers always want to drag you in to the morass—don’t let them. 

In any topic of consequence, there will be disagreeable aspects that can be focused on. Focusing on them for reasons of countering argument does help you to kick back at the scoundrels, but it’s not particularly soothing to your own psyche as you do so. Maybe I’ve done it too much. It’s hard to know the balance. There is always something sordid somewhere, and people love to dive into it, supposing that they will supply the true analysis. I have a strong instinct to come to the defense of what is under attack, and I like to spin it as a virtuous strength, but it may be just a habit I picked up because, as a teen, I constantly had to defend my Dad’s choice of automobiles—AMC products—a sure source of ridicule from fellow teens.

1 hour ago, Arauna said:

JWs have to stay decent while others can use dirty tactics. 

I have not found this to be entirely true in my own case. I think that Vic Vomidog will agree. So will A Nice Guy, Robert Cumulus, Dr. Max ‘Ace’ Inhibitor, Top Cat O’Malihan, and several others, such as Professor Mike “Hammer” Urabi.

It’s is just as well I am retiring from starting threads on the Scoundrel page

5 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

It is OBVIOUS to me that Jehovah does not consider warfare to be murder

Manslaughter then. They’re still going to pay for it come the Great Day.

5 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

using the same criteria that Jehovah God established...which will be used at Armageddon. OTHERWISE....Jehovah God would be a murderer. See the problem?

No. I don’t. 

The NY driving instructor asked how many in his class thought driving was a right and how many thought it was a privilege. Some thought one, some the other. The answer is that it is a privilege—screw it up and they’ll take it away. Same with Jehovah, the Giver of life

Human governments take life away. They are not the giver of it, though. They abuse their authority. They’ll pay. But their entire existence is an abuse of authority, so when it comes to killing people—throw it on the stack.

44 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

This is at the Kingdom Hall that I and my wife attend.  

Does this in any way dovetail with the other topic you raised?

I told CC that, while I don’t quote items designed to be confidential, there were some exceptions. One of them—actually the only one that I can recall—is in the ‘Money’ chapter of ‘Dear Mr. Putin—Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia.’ There, opposers were quoting some confidential letters from the WT to elders regarding financial matters that they presented as though it were the ‘smoking gun.’ In fact, I pointed out (and I could only do so by reproducing what was already out there) they were exactly what one might expect of an organization guided by scripture. It is scripture that the grumblers had a problem with, and they tried to disguise that with their protests of JW policies plainly grounded in scripture. 

It is the same with the Flock book. Quote every single line of it, if you like, and it will simply show a people taking the lead who are determined to follow scripture in doing so. In fact, the book is almost entirely on matters of shepherding, taking the lead in the ministry, not lording it over, treat the flock with tenderness, and so forth, so that if you actually kept up and immersed yourself in scripture and what had been published for the general congregation—which is almost everything—and strove to apply the spirit of them, you would find much of it boring repetition. I know I did. I mean, it was good to be in the atmosphere of godly shepherds discussing how best to fulfill the work they had reached out for—don’t get me wrong. But there was barely anything that was new.

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

So far ... no one has answered the question "Why?" .... but have used many words not to.

I might be reading you wrong but I think the answer is that once God allows human governments to exist, he pretty gives them free reign. It is not for nothing that the Bible likens them to wild beasts. 

He allows them to exist for just the reason you stated—virtually any human government is better than anarchy. But they are not his idea. To referee them would suggest that they are. Sometimes I read Matthew 24:14 and explain that the end that will come is not that of the earth, for it did nothing wrong. It is the end of a system of 200 eternally squabbling nations pushing at each other—surely that was not his idea. But he lets it remain. It beats the alternative. It is a stopgap until “thy kingdom comes.”

Can it do things that are murderous? Well, sure—but the entire arrangement is murderous, a rebellion against God. Even though it is a best-case scenario of that rebellion, it is still murderous. God doesn’t get in there and mediate every little thing—it’s not his arrangement and he interferes hardly at all.

One place where he did interfere is covered in this week’s Bible reading—in God’s promise to Abram. I don’t know about you, but for me an early question that had to be addressed when I began studying the Bible was, “Why would God slaughter the Canaanites—man, woman, and child? This passage helped:

Know for certain that your offspring will be foreigners in a land not theirs and that the people there will enslave them and afflict them for 400 years....But they will return here in the fourth generation, because the error of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure. (Gen 15:13,16)

He gave them 400 years advanced warning! Granted, it’s not everything. It doesn’t quite cover the little children. But I used to explain that when children die today due to parental neglect, people don’t blame God—they blame the parents. Same here—it was for parents to train their children and they neglected to do it. Of course, today people blame God for everything, so the above line doesn’t wash as it once did. 

I wrote a post long ago about why God permits suffering, and an atheist I would swap comments with couldn’t stand it. It hadn’t been written with him in mind. It had been full of appeals to the scriptures, none of which he accepted. So I began to wonder if it couldn’t be repackaged in a way that would appeal to an atheist. I rearranged everything, squashed some ideas, elevated others, and  came up with the following. It is more or less relevant here. See what you think:

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/why-do-bad-things-happen-updated-for-atheists-sort-of.html

In any organization of any sort, there is always information not meant for general distribution. That does not mean that it is thereby the ‘smoking gun.’

I remember a James Michener book stating that the Spanish, although they had a head start, never made much success with their colonizing and the reason was their banking system (or lack of). A thoroughly Catholic nation, they held that usury (the illegal act or practice of lending money at unusually high rates of interest) was wrong, which all but made serious investment impossible—the rich king or queen had to sponsor everything and she did so only to plunder lands and add to his or her wealth)

Protestantism changed everything. Lending on interest, even high interest, became a virtue and the underpinning for colonization from England, France, Netherlands, others.

This is not the same as your topic, of course, but it’s the best I can come up with at the moment, and in a vague sense of how banking systems work, it fits. Your clip is more on the lines of the book, ‘The Creature From Jekyll Island.’ Have you read it?

A good topic of discussion. The imposing Greek & Roman architecture of the large banks, meant to convey stability and strength, is illusory. It can all come crashing down, and used to routinely when there would be a ‘run on the bank’—people all wanted their money for some reason of crisis, only to find that the bank did not have it because they had leant it out.

Central banks were devised to supervise and prevent such disasters, but it comes at the societal cost of inflation for all. That’s why a cartoon I love has some old-timer grumbling how “for the price of a postage stamp today, I used to be able to buy a whole damn Cadillac!”

And the castles made of sand fall into the sea—eventually.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

But the one who owns the shop spends his time preparing food to sell the next day.....And whom would you want standing beside you—a soldier who focused on being prepared or the one who was distracted?

I love pizza!

Isn’t that what the old hen used to say when she wanted us to stay on topic? Glad she’s on my side.