TrueTomHarley

It’s not to the point of hatred—nor even close.

I like the account in which Paul’s accuser gushes on and on about Felix—showering him with insincere praise. When it becomes Paul’s turn, he all but says “Well—you’ve certainly been around for awhile.” Felix was a rotter through and through, and everyone knew it.
“When the governor nodded to Paul to speak, he answered: “Knowing well that this nation has had you as judge for many years, I readily speak in my own defense.” Acts 10:24

He’s on your thread, JWI, not mine.
If it is not important to you, then why ask it?
Look, it is not a bad question.** No need to act as though so pious that a “worldly” thought would never cross your mind. Obviously it has, and it is not a sin to ask about what’s going on. If you don’t know what is going on, then you are ever inclined to say stupid things. Tom Irregardless may have been right, but his knee-jerk response was annoying nonetheless: 
“And to think that Tom Irregardless, when confronted with some news report he didn’t understand, which was almost anything, would dismiss it all with ‘it just goes to show we need the Kingdom!’ How long had he been saying that?”
**I won’t answer it, of course, because I am too pure for that sort of thing—I only think of God. But maybe “worldly” JWI will.

“Wednesday morning at five o’clock as the day begins.”

Would it be fair to surmise your post as a “conspiracy theory?” I am working on a post on that topic now, a few separate items having gelled together over the last few weeks. 
Maybe, depending on the action here, I will even put it on this thread—not as a competing idea, nor dovetailing—just the same topic as seen from another angle—with focus on how it relates to our people.
When push comes to shove, all is a manifestation of the whole world lying in the power of the you-know-who of 1 Jn 5:19. It is odd that Tom Irregardless’s remark (quoted from Willie Whitepebble’s recollection) comes across as so stupid on the surface and so spot-on overall:
“And to think that Tom Irregardless, when confronted with some news report he didn’t understand, which was almost anything, would dismiss it all with ‘it just goes to show we need the Kingdom!’ How long had he been saying that?”
I’ve known plenty of people apt to use that quick retort. I becomes exasperating. Still, that does not mean that it is wrong.

Uh oh—where’s that application for Bible 101? It’s here on the desk somewhere, isn’t it?

I spoke to and older black gentleman—he’d invited me into his house, where he had several Bibles and study materials revealing the student that he plainly was. It is dicey to point out that he was black because long ago I did that with another person, and Witness, from her pseudo-heavenly throne, launched a lecture my way about racism. I say it now (and then) to call attention to a basic humility and common sense which it seems to me whites are much quicker to shed. Okay, Witness?—it’s not a put-down.
Anyhow, with this fellow—who really did know his Bible—a certain passage of Corinthians came up, and I made to read it. “No, no, don’t you read it,” he cried, in mock-panic, “you’ll screw it up!” He chuckled even as he said it, and so did I. He wasn’t wound up too tight—I found myself liking the guy.
That’s how I feel about 4Jah, who posts one of my favorite groups of all time. I love The Who. But if he posts it, you just know that he will screw it up.

He’s on your thread, JWI, not mine.
If it is not important to you, then why ask it?
Look, it is not a bad question.** No need to act as though so pious that a “worldly” thought would never cross your mind. Obviously it has, and it is not a sin to ask about what’s going on. If you don’t know what is going on, then you are ever inclined to say stupid things. Tom Irregardless may have been right, but his knee-jerk response was annoying nonetheless: 
“And to think that Tom Irregardless, when confronted with some news report he didn’t understand, which was almost anything, would dismiss it all with ‘it just goes to show we need the Kingdom!’ How long had he been saying that?”
**I won’t answer it, of course, because I am too pure for that sort of thing—I only think of God. But maybe “worldly” JWI will.

Nah, you screwed it all up. But behind the scenes, I contacted JTR and he made it right for you. “Is he doing more ‘heavy lifting,‘” he said. “Is he ever!” I replied.
I haven’t seen Tucker and I haven’t yet read your post thoroughly. I will. One thing that I noticed:
I spoke to a retired military man in field service who told me how he had felt a great sense of responsibility for those under his command. For some reason, in these racially charged days, you always have to say if someone was white or black. He was black. He spoke to how in police recruiting today a military background was a large factor—sometimes the only factor—that was taken under consideration for hire. This was true even of those who had had serious discipline problems. “You don’t think that if they are discipline problems in the military, they might not be ideal for civilian policing?” he said.

Nah, you screwed it all up. But behind the scenes, I contacted JTR and he made it right for you. “Is he doing more ‘heavy lifting,‘” he said. “Is he ever!” I replied.
I haven’t seen Tucker and I haven’t yet read your post thoroughly. I will. One thing that I noticed:
I spoke to a retired military man in field service who told me how he had felt a great sense of responsibility for those under his command. For some reason, in these racially charged days, you always have to say if someone was white or black. He was black. He spoke to how in police recruiting today a military background was a large factor—sometimes the only factor—that was taken under consideration for hire. This was true even of those who had had serious discipline problems. “You don’t think that if they are discipline problems in the military, they might not be ideal for civilian policing?” he said.

I think it is a combination of several reasons. de Vienne offers one when she speculates that they are “incurious as to their own history.” They are doers more than contemplators of the past. They lead with the heart more than the head. There is a plank devoted to such things, but it is not a rudder that steers the ship.
@Arauna advances another reason—it must be in the other thread—that to a certain degree, history is unknowable, written by the victors, modified over the years by those of myriad agendas, and much of the original data is lost forever. Thus, because they are doers more than thinkers, they research the past, come up with what seems tight enough, and say (as one local sportscaster used to say) “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.” To do otherwise is to yield to thinkers who frequently not engage in doing if you light a stick of dynamite under them. “God gives his holy spirit to those doing his will,” they say, not those writing about it. 
It is a scholar-light approach that infuriates scholars too caught up in the suppose ascendancy of their own discipline—scholars who simply assume takeover rights. They get them in many venues—and the greater world offers testimony has to what happens when the world’s scholarship runs the show—you would think Srecko would reflect upon that before he carries on about how essential higher education is—but they do not get them in Jehovah’s organization. Once in awhile they get sent to the doghouse, but only when they howl too much. 
I say, I have no problem with this,” once I get over the problem I have with it—for I come from a world of readers and books. Still, I notice that they don’t add up to much when they are poured into the world vat, and may collectively even bring that world to its knees. I yield to Someone whose ways just might be higher than mine. He gives his spirit to those obeying him as leader.
In general, when I hear any viewpoint of challenge, I look for deeds at least as much as ideas. Frequently, there are none, and the remarks can largely be dismissed on that account. That is my take on what Paul says on the prospect of confronting the self-styled superfine apostles of his day—‘when I see them, I will get to know not just their words—anyone has them and many have them in great abundance—but I want to get to know their power—their deeds. 
That’s why when Matthew4 5784 or someone, oozing malice, launches a new topic entitled: “Honestly—No Malice Here—But Let us Speak Earnestly About the Wrong-doing of the Witness Leaders,” I say, “Have you actually done anything besides quit? Do you have anything to show for yourself besides grumbling? ” Just any malcontent is going to throw a tirade about something I hold dear and expect me to engage in earnest debate with them? I don’t think so. I wait for JWI to do it on the basis of addressing the points, not the person—and Cesar with a flamethrower to do it on another basis—and then several pages in, after the original malice has been obscured, I override my better judgement and jump into the fray.
The saying goes that ‘if you can do something, you do it. If you can’t, you critique it.‘ Absent someone’s “power”—their good deeds, their honest track record—I do not take them too seriously. They are critiquing—and the reason just may be that they ar capable of nothing else. At least Rolf has a track record—how hot it is and what has been allowed to go stone cold was my first initial question about his book. 
The saying is often escalated to a usually (though not always) unnecessarily cynical, “and if you REALLY can’t do it, you teach it.” Here we come to Dr. Gene Huang, who did not fit the pattern. He taught at Cornell, and was for years, among the most published authorities on statistics. His work provides mathematical support for scientists who study gene function. He became a Witness in the late 1990’s.
I speculate in Tom Irregardless and Me that after a dozen years or so, when he has proved himself stable, he or someone like him is invited to look over our science offerings and contribute an update if they see fit. Many brothers seem to think that at Bethel, they assign such material to the Witness who did really well in high-school science, straight A’s!—he or she holed up for a few weeks, and “out came this book” on creation blowing the cover off evolution. 
No. Plainly it will be someone like Brother Huang “bringing his gift to the altar” upon invitation. However, will his work silence the critics? You know it won’t. The writings of evolutionists and those who favor “intelligent design” would fill a library so large that even @The Librarian (that old hen) would throw in the towel. So they take Gene Hwang’s book at Bethel—he is a heavy-hitter—and say: “That’s our story and we’re sticking to it,”—same as they do with history. Do other “scholars” debate their own competing version? “Yeah—well—we’ll see,” they say, as they envision a headline in the paper that they have seen so many times before: “Everything You Thought You Knew About Such-and-Such is Wrong!”
 

I think it is a combination of several reasons. de Vienne offers one when she speculates that they are “incurious as to their own history.” They are doers more than contemplators of the past. They lead with the heart more than the head. There is a plank devoted to such things, but it is not a rudder that steers the ship.
@Arauna advances another reason—it must be in the other thread—that to a certain degree, history is unknowable, written by the victors, modified over the years by those of myriad agendas, and much of the original data is lost forever. Thus, because they are doers more than thinkers, they research the past, come up with what seems tight enough, and say (as one local sportscaster used to say) “that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.” To do otherwise is to yield to thinkers who frequently not engage in doing if you light a stick of dynamite under them. “God gives his holy spirit to those doing his will,” they say, not those writing about it. 
It is a scholar-light approach that infuriates scholars too caught up in the suppose ascendancy of their own discipline—scholars who simply assume takeover rights. They get them in many venues—and the greater world offers testimony has to what happens when the world’s scholarship runs the show—you would think Srecko would reflect upon that before he carries on about how essential higher education is—but they do not get them in Jehovah’s organization. Once in awhile they get sent to the doghouse, but only when they howl too much. 
I say, I have no problem with this,” once I get over the problem I have with it—for I come from a world of readers and books. Still, I notice that they don’t add up to much when they are poured into the world vat, and may collectively even bring that world to its knees. I yield to Someone whose ways just might be higher than mine. He gives his spirit to those obeying him as leader.
In general, when I hear any viewpoint of challenge, I look for deeds at least as much as ideas. Frequently, there are none, and the remarks can largely be dismissed on that account. That is my take on what Paul says on the prospect of confronting the self-styled superfine apostles of his day—‘when I see them, I will get to know not just their words—anyone has them and many have them in great abundance—but I want to get to know their power—their deeds. 
That’s why when Matthew4 5784 or someone, oozing malice, launches a new topic entitled: “Honestly—No Malice Here—But Let us Speak Earnestly About the Wrong-doing of the Witness Leaders,” I say, “Have you actually done anything besides quit? Do you have anything to show for yourself besides grumbling? ” Just any malcontent is going to throw a tirade about something I hold dear and expect me to engage in earnest debate with them? I don’t think so. I wait for JWI to do it on the basis of addressing the points, not the person—and Cesar with a flamethrower to do it on another basis—and then several pages in, after the original malice has been obscured, I override my better judgement and jump into the fray.
The saying goes that ‘if you can do something, you do it. If you can’t, you critique it.‘ Absent someone’s “power”—their good deeds, their honest track record—I do not take them too seriously. They are critiquing—and the reason just may be that they ar capable of nothing else. At least Rolf has a track record—how hot it is and what has been allowed to go stone cold was my first initial question about his book. 
The saying is often escalated to a usually (though not always) unnecessarily cynical, “and if you REALLY can’t do it, you teach it.” Here we come to Dr. Gene Huang, who did not fit the pattern. He taught at Cornell, and was for years, among the most published authorities on statistics. His work provides mathematical support for scientists who study gene function. He became a Witness in the late 1990’s.
I speculate in Tom Irregardless and Me that after a dozen years or so, when he has proved himself stable, he or someone like him is invited to look over our science offerings and contribute an update if they see fit. Many brothers seem to think that at Bethel, they assign such material to the Witness who did really well in high-school science, straight A’s!—he or she holed up for a few weeks, and “out came this book” on creation blowing the cover off evolution. 
No. Plainly it will be someone like Brother Huang “bringing his gift to the altar” upon invitation. However, will his work silence the critics? You know it won’t. The writings of evolutionists and those who favor “intelligent design” would fill a library so large that even @The Librarian (that old hen) would throw in the towel. So they take Gene Hwang’s book at Bethel—he is a heavy-hitter—and say: “That’s our story and we’re sticking to it,”—same as they do with history. Do other “scholars” debate their own competing version? “Yeah—well—we’ll see,” they say, as they envision a headline in the paper that they have seen so many times before: “Everything You Thought You Knew About Such-and-Such is Wrong!”
 

I spoke to and older black gentleman—he’d invited me into his house, where he had several Bibles and study materials revealing the student that he plainly was. It is dicey to point out that he was black because long ago I did that with another person, and Witness, from her pseudo-heavenly throne, launched a lecture my way about racism. I say it now (and then) to call attention to a basic humility and common sense which it seems to me whites are much quicker to shed. Okay, Witness?—it’s not a put-down.
Anyhow, with this fellow—who really did know his Bible—a certain passage of Corinthians came up, and I made to read it. “No, no, don’t you read it,” he cried, in mock-panic, “you’ll screw it up!” He chuckled even as he said it, and so did I. He wasn’t wound up too tight—I found myself liking the guy.
That’s how I feel about 4Jah, who posts one of my favorite groups of all time. I love The Who. But if he posts it, you just know that he will screw it up.

It seems barely possible that one could have been a JW for decades and later ask such a dopey question. It may be that the entire persona is a facade.
It reminds me of how all my life I had searched for truth. I knew I had finally found it when I learned that there really was a people who were cool on beards.
I don’t think so.

It seems barely possible that one could have been a JW for decades and later ask such a dopey question. It may be that the entire persona is a facade.
It reminds me of how all my life I had searched for truth. I knew I had finally found it when I learned that there really was a people who were cool on beards.
I don’t think so.

Adam and Eve? Is he cool with them?
They are not very popular in the university. I am not even sure that they graduated.

Adam and Eve? Is he cool with them?
They are not very popular in the university. I am not even sure that they graduated.

Ah. So the real headline to be taken from the Rolf book, obscured by 50,000 wet dream malcontent internet  pages, is 
“Top Norwegian Awesome Scholar Proves that CSA Hysteria Against Jehovah’s Witnesses Is Bogus”
In writing this headline, I hesitated to use the word ‘proved.’ Had he really done that? But then I deferred to the words of the other scholar on this forum, 4Jah, who said of Rolf’s book (without reading it): “I think this gentleman and his book proves the point I'm making here.”
In fact, it ‘proves’ just the opposite.
In a roundabout way, Rolf brings his gift to the altar. Are legal machinations against the WT on account of how they viewed elders in the 1940s? Or are they about sensationalized investigations of CSA? Put Rolf on the stand as star ‘expert’ witness for the defense—after lauding him as Moses descending with the tablets, opposers can hardly say that he is delusional—and knock the legal ball out of the park.
In view of this service, compromise with Rolf. Appoint a panel to look at the GB’s doings. Get a few of the helpers. And, for balance, an impartial outsider or two like myself or @Arauna (you keep out of it JWI) We’ll have this ship righted again in no time.
 
 

It can go the other way, too with references to the “immorality of the soul.” But nothing matches reading aloud one of those interminable “Is it” questions of Fred Franz and only realizing that the very end you should have read it with the inflection of an “It is”—because it was a statement, not a question.

Sure, it's Acts 15:24, highlighted further below, but you'd probably want to see the context. And keep in mind that I am just interpreting, too. In Galatians, where Paul clearly makes a point that he did not get any apostolic authority or theocratic assignments from the "so-called pillars" at Jerusalem. Paul says in Galatians chapters 1 & 2:
"nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was. . . .Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me .  . . .But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us;  we did not yield in submission to them, . . .But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. On the contrary, . . . . . . James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars. . . . However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong.  For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class. The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense [Greek, hypocrisy], . . .
So this is the backdrop of Acts 15. The NWT cross-references "the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy" to Acts 15:1 and 15:24:
(Acts 15:1) Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”
(Acts 15:24) Since we have heard that some went out from among us and caused you trouble with what they have said, trying to subvert you, although we did not give them any instructions,
It's not as important but "men from James" is cross-referenced to Acts 12:17, evidently to show that "James and the brothers" was a way of referencing the Jerusalem congregation. The WT uses this idea to say that James must have therefore been the "chairman" of a governing body at Jerusalem.
So, putting it all together, the situation is that JAMES, was one of the highly regarded men, who SEEMED to be important. But JAMES had sent spies to see if Paul was really preaching against the need for circumcision. But these spies, were evidently just supposed to spy for James, and report back to him. These men from James evidently did NOT have instructions to begin subverting Paul's preaching by promoting circumcision.
At any rate, you can see from Acts 15:24 that, in the message that went out from Jerusalem, it admits that these men "went out from among us" and "caused trouble" and admits that they were "trying to subvert." James says they did not give them instructions, which is a nicer way than Paul would have said it, of course.

Ah. So the real headline to be taken from the Rolf book, obscured by 50,000 wet dream malcontent internet  pages, is 
“Top Norwegian Awesome Scholar Proves that CSA Hysteria Against Jehovah’s Witnesses Is Bogus”
In writing this headline, I hesitated to use the word ‘proved.’ Had he really done that? But then I deferred to the words of the other scholar on this forum, 4Jah, who said of Rolf’s book (without reading it): “I think this gentleman and his book proves the point I'm making here.”
In fact, it ‘proves’ just the opposite.
In a roundabout way, Rolf brings his gift to the altar. Are legal machinations against the WT on account of how they viewed elders in the 1940s? Or are they about sensationalized investigations of CSA? Put Rolf on the stand as star ‘expert’ witness for the defense—after lauding him as Moses descending with the tablets, opposers can hardly say that he is delusional—and knock the legal ball out of the park.
In view of this service, compromise with Rolf. Appoint a panel to look at the GB’s doings. Get a few of the helpers. And, for balance, an impartial outsider or two like myself or @Arauna (you keep out of it JWI) We’ll have this ship righted again in no time.
 
 

Ah. So the real headline to be taken from the Rolf book, obscured by 50,000 wet dream malcontent internet  pages, is 
“Top Norwegian Awesome Scholar Proves that CSA Hysteria Against Jehovah’s Witnesses Is Bogus”
In writing this headline, I hesitated to use the word ‘proved.’ Had he really done that? But then I deferred to the words of the other scholar on this forum, 4Jah, who said of Rolf’s book (without reading it): “I think this gentleman and his book proves the point I'm making here.”
In fact, it ‘proves’ just the opposite.
In a roundabout way, Rolf brings his gift to the altar. Are legal machinations against the WT on account of how they viewed elders in the 1940s? Or are they about sensationalized investigations of CSA? Put Rolf on the stand as star ‘expert’ witness for the defense—after lauding him as Moses descending with the tablets, opposers can hardly say that he is delusional—and knock the legal ball out of the park.
In view of this service, compromise with Rolf. Appoint a panel to look at the GB’s doings. Get a few of the helpers. And, for balance, an impartial outsider or two like myself or @Arauna (you keep out of it JWI) We’ll have this ship righted again in no time.
 
 

I’d better bring up CSA before 4Jah soars to a font too large for the page.
Does he mention CSA? Ray thought it was an overblown concoction of media. What say Rolf?

Is his post still up where he said my remark was obvious click bait and I said ‘how can that be, you dodo, since there is nothing to click on?‘

How can it be click bait, you klutz—there’s no place to click!