TrueTomHarley
-
Posts
8,274 -
Joined
-
Days Won
417
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by TrueTomHarley
-
-
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:
I'm very disappointed when the WTS writers stoop to misquoting the evolutionary scientists
Do they? It is in the eye of the beholder. Must one really point out when quoting a scientist that he believes his own theory.
I gave an example with Darwin’s quote about the eye:
Darwin wrote:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”....
Q: If you quote this line, do you really have to add: “of course, this is not to suggest that Darwin does not believe in his own theory of evolution by natural selection”?
I would never have thought so. I mean, what do you expect his next words to be? “Thus we can see that my entire theory is a load of horse manure. But I'm in this to win the praise of my peers, who for some reason, eat this stuff up. That, and maybe there's a buck to be made. So I'm putting lipstick on this pig. I'm sticking to my guns, even though you know, and I know, that it's all nonsense.”??
No! He's not going to say that! He's going to say something like: “Still, many now-established truths seemed equally absurd when first proposed. Evidence is scanty with relationship to the eye's development....no one's saying otherwise..... but we can expect future researchers to uncover corroborating material.”
That's my prediction (without peeking). In fact, he says almost exactly that:
“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
Alright, then. Pretty much what I predicted he would say. Any donkey ought to realize Darwin's not throwing in the towel on his own theory by admitting evolution of the eye sounds ridiculous. If you use his quote to suggest he considers himself a charlatan, that's dishonest. But if you use his quote to show he acknowledges some pretty high hurdles exist in proving his theory.....well, what's wrong with that?
.........The above is from the post:
Darwin wrote:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”....
Q: If you quote this line, do you really have to add: “of course, this is not to suggest that Darwin does not believe in his own theory of evolution by natural selection”?
I would never have thought so. I mean, what do you expect his next words to be? “Thus we can see that my entire theory is a load of horse manure. But I'm in this to win the praise of my peers, who for some reason, eat this stuff up. That, and maybe there's a buck to be made. So I'm putting lipstick on this pig. I'm sticking to my guns, even though you know, and I know, that it's all nonsense.”??
No! He's not going to say that! He's going to say something like: “Still, many now-established truths seemed equally absurd when first proposed. Evidence is scanty with relationship to the eye's development....no one's saying otherwise..... but we can expect future researchers to uncover corroborating material.”
That's my prediction (without peeking). In fact, he says almost exactly that:
“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
Alright, then. Pretty much what I predicted he would say. Any donkey ought to realize Darwin's not throwing in the towel on his own theory by admitting evolution of the eye sounds ridiculous. If you use his quote to suggest he considers himself a charlatan, that's dishonest. But if you use his quote to show he acknowledges some pretty high hurdles exist in proving his theory.....well, what's wrong with that?
......The above is from the 2011 post: https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2011/01/darwins-eye.html
which goes on to consider numerous examples from the 2 most recent brochures on creation v evolution. Numerous footnotes appear to point out that this or that scientist obviously believes in his own theory.
I think that’s sufficiently honest.
- Arauna, JW Insider and Anna
-
3
-
8 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:
It has no real benefit to any of us.
No real benefit! Are you crazy?
Just look at all the upvotes it has garnered!
-
2 hours ago, Shiwiii said:
give me a break. You're just as bad as she is then
There ought be no controversy here. I said that there was some generalization.
Few take traditional sexual morality as seriously as do JWs. That means many of those that leave will not take it so seriously as they once did. In the case of those who go leftist (Alan was the example I cited) they vehemently argue in favor of LGBT rights.
You’re just trying to start a fight, annoyed that your protesters weren’t interviewed by the convention-goers.
-
1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:
didn't you assume that those people that stood with their signs were unrepentant sinners who support LGBT?
Ask Alan to vent his outrage over LGBT. Go on, ask him.
A bit of generalization from Arauna on this point, but the overall picture she nails.
-
2 hours ago, AlanF said:
TTH: “At present, anything from a hand on the inner thigh or rear end to outright rape is described (and sometimes deliberately confused) as “molestation.””
You donkey, of course they are different! You are committing Event Escalation Fallacy.
Turn your mighty intellect upon murder, if you can do so without screaming ‘Straw Man.’ Consider that there is first degree murder, 2nd degree murder, even 3rd degree murder, not to mention hate crime murder. Vent your outrage over that, why don’t you? Tell the moral deviants that “murder is murder!”
Even that paragraph doesn’t adequately describe your idiocy, for the examples within all do involve murder. Better that you should insist that a shove to the body is no different than murder. That comparison is much more parallel to the CSA offenses that you think are the same.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:I think you need to go back to square one on what constitutes morality....Coming from someone with a demonstrably defective moral sense and little critical thinking ability, that's rich!
Completely emotional outbursts. Not a shred of “logic” to them. Character assassination appears to be your specialty. Not meeting your completely arbitrary criteria is enough to be labeled a person of “demonstrably defective moral sense.”
It is perhaps understandable from Leonard McCoy. the hothead. But not from someone who claims logic and intellect that would put even Mr. Spock to shame.
-
3 minutes ago, AlanF said:
This is simple logic. Why do you refuse to accept it?
Because it’s ridiculous.
As I recall, by your “logic,” you have “disproved God,” also.
-
28 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:
The plot thickens.
The reason that you have been likened to Butler is that he had the same wont for overstatement, the same near hysteria on the topic, the same resilience to any mitigating factors, the same shrillness at any comparison of JWs to “the world.”
In his case, he was subjected to horrendous child sexual abuse by the British orphanage system. Yet he never (here) spoke a word against them—he took all of his rage out on Jehovah’s Witnesses that he joined much later, persons having nothing to do with his history.
1 hour ago, AlanF said:It's exactly the attitude TTH displays here -- "Oh, molestation is no big deal!"
He has said or indicated nothing of the sort. This is completely your emotional take.
This is yet another example of the Master of Rationality completely throwing that quality out the windows in pursuit of his ends.
The trouble with critical thinking is that those who espouse it the loudest invariably assume that they have a lock on the stuff.
-
I can’t imagine why anyone would downvote that, @4Jah2me—I really can’t. I mean, there is hardly anything that is controversial.
For that matter, it is beyond me why anyone would downvote anything.
When I make a comment that takes a shot at some villain (as this one does not) it is understood that he is not going to like it.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Yikes! $50 per minute to speak with a householder?!
So says a gag sign posted on someone’s porch. “Doorknockers, please note. This householder charges $50 per minute to listen to any sales pitch, religious messages, or fundraising stories! Payment required in advance. By knocking on this door, you indicate that you are agreeing to these terms.”
Video has captured a couple of visitors—our people, I think. The one on the sidewalk says: “What’s it say?” and the nearsighted woman squinting to read it responds with: “Let’s skip this one.”
I’m done for if this catches on!......
Actually, as far as I am concerned, this sign represents a win-win. It does not make me mad. It is doing me a favor. If anyone doesn’t want to talk to me, then I don’t want to talk to them.
There is a squirrelly assumption that underpins this meme: that Jehovah’s Witnesses are determined to talk to each householder no matter what,and are incredibly frustrated if stymied. It plays into the infantile view that they are “recruiting,” a view popularly spread by “anti-cultists” who obsess over all the ways that people can “manipulate” others. They abhor all forms of “brainwashing” except for the brainwashing that is theirs, as they safeguard mainstream values—values that have not worked out very well insofar as promoting overall peace and well-being. If the mainstream thinking contained answers to the vexing questions of life, people would’t have to worry for one second about “sects” and even “cults”—they would be rejected out of hand.
So are Jehovah’s Witnesses “recruiting?”
“I am going to ask you to convert,” I told a certain householder, “but it is not going to happen until the 100th call—and what are the chances It will go on for so long? In the meantime, it is just conversation.” To householders who state they have their own religion or spirituality and who decline conversation on that basis I say, “Well, I’m not going to ask you to change, and if I do, you can say No.” I mean, it is fine to decline conversation—more people do than do not—but just not on that basis. You might say it to an evangelical Christian—the sort that actually dofeature instant conversion of the “Come down and be saved!” variety. You might say it to a Moonie, because their people are known to disappear off the surface of the globe, only to reappear selling flowers in robes. But you ought not say it to one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, whose members live and work in the general community.
No, the sign does me a favor. I have no problem with it. It might be different if they proliferated so that they became a commonplace gag sign, just a fad witticism inspired by late-night TV that didn’t necessarily mean anything. In that case, I might just walk away or I might playfully attempt to negotiate terms before deciding if I wanted to enter into such a “contract.” “Well, a guy has to serve the Lord,” I will say non-aggresively to some while trying to size them up. You’ve got to have a sense of humor.
Like a No Soliciting sign, there are no legal consequences to blowing past it, [in the U.S.—it may be different elsewhere] and like a No Soliciting sign, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything. It might be put up by a previous owner, and the current one sees no reason to remove it. It might be put up by a family member that died. It might have been put up after those pushy people selling vacuum cleaners left. It might be put up in the heat of election campaign season. It might be put up to dissuade Jehovah’s Witnesses, but I do not assume that is the case.
”I saw your sign and was a little concerned that you might think it applies to me,” I sometimes say when one of them is staring me in the face. “It doesn’t—but you might think it does.” You can assess by the response if the householder had that intention or not, and if he did, I have no problem moving on from what would cause both of us stress. Don’t argue, “We’re not soliciting,” because it really doesn’t matter whether you are or not. What matters is what the householder thinks you are doing. Of course, you can tell him that what he thinks is wrong, but that is never a fine foundation for a visit, is it?
I have said at times, when my attention is directed to such a sign, “Oh. Well....I’ll make sure not to do that, then,” either by soliciting money (which Witnesses never do) or soliciting opinions—drawing people out—which we do. Simply tell them stuff, don’t ask them a thing—that is enough to technically comply with such a sign. But the trick is not to argue over technicalities. The trick is to see if such and such a vague sign actually means anything to the householder and respect his wishes if it does.
No, a No Soliciting sign means nothing legally, same as this new $50 per hour JW sign that some are giggling over means nothing. The only sign with legal consequences (in the US) is a No Trespassing sign, and even that only has legal consequences for individual dwellings—you can’t wall off an entire community with a No Trespassing sign. To be sure, some are trying to change that, but the idea of answering for large swaths of other people is repugnant to most and so the change may not readily happen.
Let’s face, this sign is kind of crude, and not too many people are going to put one up. It is sort of like that sign in which you find yourself as though staring down the barrel of a gun that says, “Never mind the dog! Beware of the owner!” I don’t just jauntily breeze by that sign as though is was a Welcome mat. I tread a bit cautiously. If my companion was to turn around and leave, I wouldn’t blame him a bit. Still, you never know. I was leaving one such home—no one had answered—and as I was walking away, a pickup truck drove in with a gun rack in the back window. “Great!” I muttered to myself—“probably a real hothead here!” He turned out to be the nicest guy in the world—very respectful of our purpose and of the Bible. There was a lot of crime in the neighborhood and he had just “weaponed-up” for the protection of his family.
These signs are not a red light—No Soliciting, Beware of Whatever—but they certainly are a yellow light. They are not a yellow light legally, but they are a yellow light in that they might reveal something of thehouseholders wishes, and I have no problem always complying with their wishes once I know what they are.
As it is, Jehovah’s Witnesses have a method to keep note of those who have emphatically said that the don’t want JW calls ever. It is an imperfect system and I usually forget to consult it, but it works better than nothing. Ironically, it may all vanish one day if the current “data-keeping” laws gathering steam in Europe, spearheaded by the same people who see “manipulation” everywhere, spreads to the US. It will be illegal to keep track of who doesn’t want a call. As it is, one US brother I know reported on a trip to Europe and how the brothers there were wrestling with these new anti data-gathering laws that had never been intended (at least, by most) for them, but were being applied to them, with: “Good! They’ve just made your job easier! Preach to one and all and don’t worry about any “records”—keeping track of them is a pain in the neck!”
What about a child answering the door? For me, that depends upon the age of the child. For a teen, sometimes I will go Bible-lite, such as commenting on what the words of the Lord’s Prayer literally mean, and I do not press any point. Or show a video geared to teens—I have never had a teen not pay rapt attention to the video, “Be Social-Network Smart.” With teens, I have sometimes told them that I really don’t know what to do with teens, because they are learning and gathering data, but they are also under their parent’s roof, with the latter guiding that process, and so they may or may not want them speaking to persons of different beliefs at the door, and ‘which is it with them’?
Even that doesn’t guarantee anything. One parent that I finally encountered said, “I don’t appreciate you speaking to my children,”—I had done so twice and had shown a couple of videos. I responded that I had never been looking for the kids—I had been looking for her—and that when the teens had answered I had asked them whether their parents would want them speaking to a visitor about religion and they had said she would not care. “Kids will say anything!” she told me. So I explained that I would not call again (she said ‘thank you’), repeated that I had never been looking for them in the first place, and even was able to give a brief synopsis for why we call at all—she became pleasant.
Another teen—I had just finished something brief and similar—he had been home alone. As I left, the mother drove up in the driveway. I told her who I was, that I had spent a few minutes speaking with her son, I had asked him a question and he had answered intelligently. “You should be proud of him,” I said as I took my leave.
Cultures are different. I once handed a tract to a child with directions to give it to her parents, and upon leaving, my companion said that she would have witnessed to the child. My companion was newly arrived from South America where it is commonplace for parents to allow and even encourage children to talk religion to anyone calling about it. There are congregations there heavily populated by children with the full blessing of parents who do not attend themselves—respect for God runs deep in some lands and the assumption is that you cannot go wrong allowing your children to learn about the Bible.
Though the following has nothing to do with the Bible, it has everything to do with that fact that cultures are different, and so when the Witness organization speaks in a way that is not really my cup of tea, I say, “It is probably one of those others cultures that they are taking into consideration.”
There is a large community of deaf persons in Rochester NY. Accordingly, there are a number of Witnesses who make their living as translators. One of them told me of a certain deaf family of two adults and two children—all deaf—who are known not only locally but also nationally, and the following story is told nationally as a way of highlighting the challenges of catering to different cultures:
A neighboring “hearing” girl would come over to play at the home of the deaf family. The two children were surprised that she didn’t seem able to sign very well at all, but they all managed to sign well enough to each other to get by. Then the two children went to the little girl’s home to play, where they saw the mother not signing at all! Her mouth kept moving, and the little girl seemed satisfied with that, but there was no signing. Upon returning home, they related their bewilderment to their parents and asked, “Are there other people like that?”
-
On 3/12/2016 at 9:14 PM, The Librarian said:
if one were to make inquiry about someone who has never been accused of such bad conduct, and who is unlikely to be so tainted because of their general reputation, the PA Office’s response would be outright denial.
Of course! What in the world is so controversial about that?
In Western law, it is called, “presumed innocent until proven guilty.” In common parlance, it is “refrain from gossiping.”
I sort of miss the times when outright gossip did not form the stuff of headlines
On 3/12/2016 at 9:14 PM, The Librarian said:Note that the obituary does not include the fact that Greenlees was one of the Governing Body of JWs "at the World Headquarters" for over 20 years.
Unless I am missing something, that is because he was not. 13 years is what it looks like from the article.
On 3/12/2016 at 9:14 PM, The Librarian said:member Leo K. Greenlees was forced to resign and leave Bethel in late 1984. ...As a director Greenlees automatically became a "governing body" member when that body was formally instituted in 1971.
He is removed when an apparently creditable accusation surfaces. It is shocking, perhaps, that he might do such a thing, but it appears pretty uncontroversial in the way it was handled.
And sometimes you wish that there was more differerentiation in “molestation.” At present, anything from a hand on the inner thigh or rear end to outright rape is described (and sometimes deliberately confused) as “molestation.” None of those actions are great, of course, but there is a substantial difference between them.
-
This year in our part of the world storms impacted travelers both to AND fro Thanksgiving weekend. In service, whenever I saw cars in the driveway, I would include mention of this, with encouragement to stay safe, delay travel if need be, etc.
There is something nice about not being locked into holiday routine so that if you have something planned and the weather is rotten, you can say: “Forget it! Let’s move it back a month.”
-
My wife and I recently saw a rerun of the musical Oliver. I had seen it before.
I have read the Dickens book that it is based on, Oliver Twist.
At no time when I read the book or initially saw the movie did I take Fagin for anything other than as portrayed: as a wicked man who trained his army of children to be his pickpockets, and thereby reap gains.
This time around my very first thought was: A pedophile! What else is he doing with those young boys!?
THAT is the best validation of Anthony Morris’s statement of several years back:
’When the epidemic of child sexual abuse initially came to light, we were all a little naive as to the severity of the problem.’
Ever so much of the froth over the JW organizational response to child sexual abuse is the determination to judge yesterday’s abuses by today’s standards.
-
Tom Harley on James Thomas Rook
The title of my next book! History repeats itself!
-
52 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:
A lot of mature restraint is really just being too TIRED
You get much credit for this profound and obviously true statement.
52 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:except for the Governing Body. When THEY make mistakes, they pay no price whatsoever.
You lose it all for this stupid one. Of course they pay one.
“Besides those things of an external kind, there is what rushes in on me from day to day, the anxiety for all the congregations. Who is weak, and I am not weak? Who is stumbled, and I am not incensed?” 2 Corinthians 11:28
The greatest penalty is the one that we impose on themselves. To insist that this “penalty” was fully at work with Paul and NOT the Christian leadership of today is to impart motives and appoint yourself the judge. Didn’t you say that you were above such things?
Ah...yes....here it is:
2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:I do NOT think I have enough "spirit" to judge anyone .... in the sense of somehow punishing them.
I admire your hangdog toughness on certain things—I really do—but much of your presence here is proclaiming that you will not “somehow punish them,” but praying that SOMEBODY would. Much of your presence is clearly vindictive.
Much of your presence here is the plain wish to settle scores, the plain manifestation of the grudge to end all grudges.
If it had the same draw, Anna and I would sell tickets to that.
-
2 hours ago, AlanF said:
The 'world' may well end because of man-induced climate warming, but it will have nothing to do with "Bible based" JW predictions of "the end".
@James Thomas Rook Jr. is such a wuss. We all know it.
Given how, at the drop of a pin, he lauds Trump to the high heavens, and given how Alan is unambiguous in denouncing that luminary, @Anna and I thought we had front row seats for the battle of the century! They are both pugnacious. Neither knows the meaning of holding back in the slightest detail. How could we go wrong?
We sold tickets to the event. We lined up vendors. We had programs printed. And what happens?
A LOVEFEST! “You have never disappointed me, James,” Alan coos.
It has cost us serious money in refunds—and I had most of my money spent pampering Mrs. Harley!
WELL, IT IS NOT HAPPENING AGAIN!!!!
”Man-induced climate warming” is a problem that “may well” end the world, Alan says—and WHO has raged on and on that global warming is a HOAX to fool the GULLIBLE sheeple for the sake of left-wing politics, the politics that Alan adores? JTR - THAT’S who. By all rights, this ought to be the mother of all wars, even greater than the Trump/no-Trump war!
But he punted on that war!
He will punt on this one, too—the big wuss. Anna, keep your counsel to yourself! I am NOT going to print up tickets, again.
-
8 hours ago, Anna said:8 hours ago, AlanF said:
“I don't believe I said in 2000, but by 2000.” Ok, well that's what I wanted to clear up. I thought you said it.
Of course he said it. He is now trying to walk it back because, despite all his blustering, he couldn’t quite make it stick.
It is as you say. The nearness of the end has been impressed upon Witnesses from their inception, but the only specific date in anyone’s lifetime today is 1975. They burned their fingers on that one so badly that they resolved never to do that again. So far they have kept to that resolve. Every subsequent pronouncement has been generic, and is in harmony with Jesus’ counsel to “keep on the watch.”
Alan’s just upset that they have not said not to keep on the watch. In fact, he’s probably upset that they have not denounced God, for he writes that he has “disproved” him.
If you can distract the Librarian for a moment, I wrote long ago of another such revision that Alan has no doubt chronicled. If by some miracle he missed it, it is another that he can throw on the stack:
Paragraph 18 [of the Revelation book] on page 94 states "some scientists forecast mathematically that an accidental nuclear war is virtually certain to take place within the next 25 years - let alone a planned nuclear conflagration!" The updated version, however, yanks this phrase for the blander: "some scientists speak of the possibility of an accidental nuclear war - let alone a planned nuclear conflagration!" [!]
The reason the publishers have done this is because Tom Barfendogs has marked on his calendar (to the day, hour, and minute) exactly when 25 years from the first book's publication expires. He is praying, hoping, pleading that there is no nuclear war within that time frame (after that is okay) so he can launch into yet another false prophetscreamfest.
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2007/07/will-the-real-a.html
I wrote the post 12 years ago and it stands up reasonably well. The line that I like most is “after that is okay.” It is the same with Alan. The prospect of nuclear war isn’t as disturbing to him as the horror that JWs might get credit for warning of. It is the same with countless other factors that have this world teetering on the brink. He doesn’t think it is in any great trouble, or if he does, he certainly doesn’t want anyone looking anywhere else outside of human answers for the remedy.
In this sense he is the biggest hypocrite of all. He rails against Jehovah’s Witnesses, but it is really God, the Bible, and specifically the notion of his kingdom coming that rankles him.
-
On 11/29/2019 at 1:57 PM, 4Jah2me said:
My Harley, you are so brainwashed by the Org that you do not know an opposer from someone who gives facts about the GB and the JW Org.
There has never been an opposer of anything who says: “I am opposing because I am a liar.” Always they are the revealer of “facts.”
-
2 hours ago, AlanF said:
The only one who more or less knew what he was doing was Fred Franz, who had a year or two of Greek in college before he joined the Bible Students, but had no education at all in Hebrew.
2 hours ago, AlanF said:My own opinion, for what it's worth, is that on the whole both versions of the NWT are translationally at least as accurate as the best other translations. In a handful of cases I think it's more accurate than most.
Viewing these two statements of yours, one after the other, it’s apparent you that must have done something so as not to burn your head out with cognitive dissonance. You haven’t said what, but it must be that you decided either
1. that translating the Bible is so easy that any orangutan can do it, or
2. it is perfectly possible for talented persons to accomplish the task without going In for the higher education that you insist is so essential.
If it is #2, you will find yourself in another beef with @James Thomas Rook Jr.. You should have heard him carry on about the impossibilities of translating without advanced education on another thread.
2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:Put in another thread. Start one if you have to. Your hostess, the Librarian has (repeatedly) requested it. Is consideration for the wishes of the web owner too much to ask?
@4Jah2me, you DOWNVOTE this repeated request from @The Librarian, the owner of this site?
Do you pay for your purchases at the store?
-
25 minutes ago, Jack Ryan said:
now its fully evident that what they are saying is “avoid thinking styles that are contrary to what we teach”. Makes me want to puke.
The way the Bible expresses it is: “Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.” By making a show of such knowledge, some have deviated from the faith.” 1 Tim 6:20
The verse you are looking for is: “The wisdom of this world is such that God could learn a thing or two from it if he wasn’t so brain-dead.”
Let me know when you find it.
-
47 minutes ago, AlanF said:
To be more precise, interpretations of 'yohm' are such personal interpretations.
Put in another thread. Start one if you have to. Your hostess, the Librarian has (repeatedly) requested it.
Is consideration for the wishes of the web owner too much to ask?
Do you pull off your muddy boots before entering someone’s living room?
-
43 minutes ago, AlanF said:
I heard several JWs in the 1980s talking about 2000.
I heard several JWs in the 1980s talking about zebras. Coming from the Master of Rationality, I’d say that this bit of “evidence” is rather weak.
43 minutes ago, AlanF said:And today we see Arauna vaguely warning that Real Soon Now world leaders will do all manner of vile deeds.
Another bit of proof!
43 minutes ago, AlanF said:In online forums in the late 1990s, many JW apologists threatened: "You'll get yours when 2000 rolls around!"
It IS true that, as they were dropping the 1999 New Year’s Eve ball in Times Square, the brothers were dropping an identical one at Bethel: “Four...three....two....one....IT’S THE NEW SYSTEM!!!! ......Oh.....Still the same?.....nuts!”
What is wrong with you? There is 1975 and only 1975 in anyone’s lifetime. And, as stated, even that one is arguable.
You’re just steamed that there has not been counsel: “Remember, brothers, how Jesus said ‘Keep on the watch?’ He’s nuts. Fogedaboutit!”
3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:Yes, problem is lexical. And as consequence, of not knowing true meaning, translations are made on idea of people who making translation.
This speech is shocking! Who can listen to it?
It is on a topic having nothing to do with the theme of this thread! How could you?!
Put it up on another thread. Start one if there is not one already! Same with Alan with his dates. A completely different topic. Start a new thread!
How can you people be so insensitive to the wishes of @The Librarian (that old hen)? She has made it clear that she wants order. We must be considerate of her and not just think of our own selfish desires. Otherwise she will throw everything in one master thread where the focused energy will cause it to explode like a supernova, blowing us all to Kingdom Come!
(maybe that’s how The End comes about)
-
44 minutes ago, AlanF said:
TrueTomHarley said:
I did. She punted.
Let's see: we have 1914, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, 1975, 2000, and Real Soon Now.
That's one alright.
One in a lifetime, I said.
It is 1975 in the case of anyone (over 45) living today. For anyone under 45, there is nothing at all.
The rules allow for it. It is a concession to human imperfection.
1941 and 2000 is straining gnats, as you know. It is you trying to retroactively puff up the stats. Nobody at the times thought those years were consequential.
Even 1975 is arguable for the certainty expressed, but for the sake of argument, I’ll let it stand.
-
2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:
Secondly. Mr Harley has no idea whatsoever, just how many JW 'leaders' are involved in CSA.
This is not rocket science. Pay attention to existing court action. With rare exception it focuses on families in which there was child sexual abuse—often step-families—and elders are involved only in that it was not reported to authorities.
”Secondly. Mr Harley has no idea whatsoever, just how many JW 'leaders' are involved in CSA.“
I know it for everyone else, though. It is every case that comes to trial—and there are no end of them involving leaders of anything.
When was the last time you read of court action against a priest because there was child sexual abuse going on among a family of his parish and he did not stop it?
When was the last time you read of the Boy Scouts getting sued because there was child sexual abuse going on in a Scout’s family and the Scoutleader did not stop it?
When what the last time you read of child sexual abuse involving the UN that centered around workers discovering CSA in a family and not reporting it?
2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:Firstly Mr Harley (just like Aurana) likes to compare everything to the 'world'. We all well know that the 'world' belongs to Satan the devil. So in effect Mr Harley likes to compare the GB and it's JW Org to Satan the devil. Wow, great comparison.
This one is almost too stupid to answer. How can you be so childish?
“Shining as illuminators in the world” is also comparing Christians to the world. To acknowledge that within your ranks you have the same issues that afflict the rest of mankind, but that overall, they are far less serious (in not involving the leaders, whereas that is the pattern elsewhere) is hardly the evil that you make it out to be.
2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:I am of the opinion that Almighty God wants His name (or the name JWs use) made clean.
It’s “The LORD.” Better get used to saying it. The only ones wanting anything to do with the Name is JWs, which you have left because it is not perfect. Get cracking on your replacement organization—you who have said that God could raise up a “genuine, pure” anointed within about ten years before the end comes. Shoot me a text when that has happened.
-
31 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:
so I guess Armageddon will be in the year C.E. 500,001,975.
That’s one heckuva corner.
31 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:Stay Alive 'Till '75!"
Everyone is allowed one failed EOW date in a lifetime. It’s in the rules.
Besides, if you weren’t so old, there wouldn’t even be one failed expectation for you.
Leo K. Greenlees
in Topics
Posted
They are so united that any jingoistic national leader can talk them into blowing each other’s head off in the latest inter-national skirmish, something that cannot be done with Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The “Truth” that Jehovah’s Witnesses cling to is the pearl of great price which the merchant, upon finding it, gladly sells all that he has to secure it. (Matthew 13:46)
If he later came to regard that pearl no more highly that a common pebble found on any dirt road, then he will naturally reverse course and holler about the price he and others paid to secure it
That’s all that is going on here with Alan. He has negated the upside, so of course all that remains is to moan about the cost. He has “disproven” even the central tenet of that “pearl.” He has “disproven” God.
For the most part, he does not outright lie. But he overstates to such a degree that nothing from him can be taken verbatim. It all has to be carefully checked. Much of it is embellished with sweeping assumptions. Minor, but typical, case in point is his recent insistence that his enemy stated the end would come specifically in 2000. Under relentless pressure, he walked it back to some generic statements about “within the century.”