TrueTomHarley

The point is that our personal salvation is not the central issue before all creation. It is a relative detail. God has bigger fish to fry and we do not imagine that it is all a about us. This is not the case with some faiths, at least, judging from the preponderance of their writings.

STOP SAYING THINGS LIKE THIS!!!
I make up my mind to take you out as with a bazooka and then I read a remark like this and lose every bit of steam.

STOP SAYING THINGS LIKE THIS!!!
I make up my mind to take you out as with a bazooka and then I read a remark like this and lose every bit of steam.

I did check. It is word-for-word accurate. (surprising even myself)
I did not know that the same passage had appeared elsewhere, give or take. I was very taken with one article long ago (and I wrote a post on it) that ‘we are not so presumptuous so as to think that our personal salvation is the central issue of the universe’—this after pondering the vast outstretches of space. Much of Christendom, especially the evangelical variety, does think this way.

The point is that our personal salvation is not the central issue before all creation. It is a relative detail. God has bigger fish to fry and we do not imagine that it is all a about us. This is not the case with some faiths, at least, judging from the preponderance of their writings.

It is more than “possible.” He is definitely a dodo.
I don’t try to micromanage it. I back up and look at the bigger picture. I look at Holy Spirit as “the wind [that] blows where it wants to, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from and where it is going.” It seems like a fool’s errand to try to stipulate just how or even if it operates in any given situation. (John 3:8)
 I take for granted that Holy Spirit does not stop a human from being human. It certainly didn’t in the first century. Why expect that it would today? I put stock in passages such as 2 Timothy 3:16....All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,  Humans do their best, botch up many things, and somehow God pulls a rabbit out of the hat with it.
We carry on here at the WNMF as though these matters can be settled objectively, when the very nature of our being defeats the goal and ensures that all will be subjective. “Taste and see that Jehovah is good,” the psalm says. Some have tasted and seen that he is bad. How are you going to prove otherwise to them? Their experience is their experience and they process it as they will. It is more a matter of the heart than the head. The heart chooses what it wants and then entrusts the head to provide a veneer of rationality to give the appearance that it is the head. But it is the heart all along.
Why is it that so few people change in any interaction such as this? Why does not one ever persuade the other? Not just this forum on spiritual topics, but on any forum about anything? I have seen only the tiniest shifting of opinion from certain participants, and in most cases, none at all. It is not a matter of the head.
Assembling the Bible canon. It’s not a bad topic of discussion and it has been brought up several times. Lately I have been listening to a series of talks from the Great Courses company entitled: “From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity.” The speaker is Bart Ehrman, Chair of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, he with a Masters of Divinity degree.
You’d almost think that the Chair of a Religious Department would believe in God, but he does not appear to. If I took a science course taught by one who thought Newton and Einstein were well intentioned but misguided zealots, I would smell a rat.
Questions for Study at the conclusion of one lecture includes: “Why do you suppose such people as Perpetua or Ignatius—who presumably had so much to offer people in this world and who could have no doubt led happy lives here—were so eager to sacrifice their bodies and leave this world?”
Thus he indicates that he does not have a clue as to what he teaches. The entire motivation of a Christian appears to be a totally foreign concept to him, notwithstanding that he is recognized as the smartest person in the room.
 
 

They didn’t know that at the time, you dodo. It is only after the fact that their letters were collected and included in the Bible canon.
The example of Paul is almost as bad as that of Peter the Chicken (Galatians 2:21) and John, who lost every 2nd disciple, as I put before ‘hardening of the mental arteries’ JTR for his consideration.
“To the married people I give instructions, yet not I but the Lord, that a wife should not depart from her husband; but if she should actually depart, let her remain unmarried or else make up again with her husband; and a husband should not leave his wife,” he writes. (1 Corinthians 7:11)
And then...
“But to the others I say, yes, I, not the Lord: If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and yet she is agreeable to dwelling with him, let him not leave her.” Vs 12
Whoa! Going beyond what is written much?
”Now concerning virgins I have no command from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who had mercy shown him by the Lord to be faithful.”  Vs 25
His opinion?!!
Can you imagine how @James Thomas Rook Jr., not to mention yourself, would have blown a gasket back then?
 

Today’s Twitter gem from @rhetorical_rory:
lest we forget, the true meaning of christmas eve is sneaking up on one's enemies in the dead of night and slitting their throats 🙏🏼
 

They didn’t know that at the time, you dodo. It is only after the fact that their letters were collected and included in the Bible canon.
The example of Paul is almost as bad as that of Peter the Chicken (Galatians 2:21) and John, who lost every 2nd disciple, as I put before ‘hardening of the mental arteries’ JTR for his consideration.
“To the married people I give instructions, yet not I but the Lord, that a wife should not depart from her husband; but if she should actually depart, let her remain unmarried or else make up again with her husband; and a husband should not leave his wife,” he writes. (1 Corinthians 7:11)
And then...
“But to the others I say, yes, I, not the Lord: If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and yet she is agreeable to dwelling with him, let him not leave her.” Vs 12
Whoa! Going beyond what is written much?
”Now concerning virgins I have no command from the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who had mercy shown him by the Lord to be faithful.”  Vs 25
His opinion?!!
Can you imagine how @James Thomas Rook Jr., not to mention yourself, would have blown a gasket back then?
 

It may well have been “brought out and analyzed.” But not by you and not on your “debate forum” Then—as now with the ones endeavoring to follow their lead—you would have been foremost in calling for his head.
You would have pointed out the BREATHTAKING INCOMPETENCE of those taking the lead then—you know you would—for they knew or should have known that Peter was a wuss—hadn’t he denied the Lord three times?
You would have savaged John, too. ”I rejoice very much because I have found some of your children walking in the truth,” he wrote. “SOME of them?!” you would have hurled back at him, “SOME? It would have been ALL of them if you had not been so grossly inept!” and you would have appended a few cartoons and then charged their blood on his hands.
You know you would. Or, if you don’t, everyone else does. I think your brain is every bit as calcified as that of Allen, and probably far more—for I can’t figure out exactly what game he is playing, but yours is crystal clear. You have a mind of concrete—all mixed up and firmly set.
 

You could easily make the case that it didn’t flow in the first century either.
“However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face to face, because he stood condemned.  For before the arrival of certain men from James, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he went withdrawing and separating himself, in fear of those of the circumcised class.  The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense...” Galatians 2:11-13
This is an astounding bit of cowardice from one who was a leader in the Christian community—in fact, he could be said to be the most prominent leader, he being the recipient of the “keys of the kingdom.” There are schoolchildren who will not allowed themselves to be bullied so. Verse 13 makes clear that his cowardly example messed up many from the Jewish community.
Imagine how Peter—and everyone that allowed him to stay in his place—would have been savaged here on the World News Media Forum.
You should check yours very carefully, because I am not sure that they do. The most absurd collections of words come out of them.
Ho ho ho

He does not.
Father Christmas. I hate that idiot.
He does believe God can do that—what are you smoking? But he also believes that God will not bother, since he already has an acceptable one.

Thank-you for being honest enough to acknowledge that. Some posters here only see from dark glasses and do not appear to be honest even with themselves. So on your point above, we are in agreement.
To be fair, "shunning," "excommunication," "disfellowshipping" isn't just a part of JW's beliefs. In fact, other religions feel they have a scriptural basis for doing just that. How much they implement it is up to them. But there is a practical aspect to this as well. It is one thing to have "doubts" and not be fully convinced about certain things - even disagree, but another try to "draw disciples away after themselves" - or basically start your own religion based on your own personal thoughts. Right now, we enjoy world-wide unity in thought, belief and action. (even though there may be variances as to who believes how much and what - as evidenced on sites such as this). If someone is so disillusioned with our beliefs that they want to leave, that is a choice they can make. Some quietly leave with no fuss and just leave off. But others are very vocal and opposed within the congregation and are more disposed to tearing down than building up - causing dissensions. (Some on this site I would consider such and some I consider outright apostates who never have anything good or constructive to say.) To them I would say: "Stop wasting my time and yours and get a life. If you don't like it go." It's that simple. But others, based on the many changes that have been made, (changes that are often in line with their thinking all along) are willing to take a wait and see attitude, with the faith that if it's that important, Jesus can ensure changes are made at a rate we can handle or understand. (And NO, I don't believe that "Jesus controls everything that goes on in the congregation." I believe the other explanation given, that he grants authority and we are accountable as to how we use that authority based on God's Word. 
What an absurd conclusion to draw. But that is not surprising since I now believe you are an apostate and I shouldn't be wasting my time responding. My point btw, was that we shouldn't base our dedication to God on a date - whatever date that may be. Of course, it may not stop some from doing just that. But don't be surprised if I rarely if ever respond to your apostate views again. 

You could easily make the case that it didn’t flow in the first century either.
“However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face to face, because he stood condemned.  For before the arrival of certain men from James, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he went withdrawing and separating himself, in fear of those of the circumcised class.  The rest of the Jews also joined him in putting on this pretense...” Galatians 2:11-13
This is an astounding bit of cowardice from one who was a leader in the Christian community—in fact, he could be said to be the most prominent leader, he being the recipient of the “keys of the kingdom.” There are schoolchildren who will not allowed themselves to be bullied so. Verse 13 makes clear that his cowardly example messed up many from the Jewish community.
Imagine how Peter—and everyone that allowed him to stay in his place—would have been savaged here on the World News Media Forum.
You should check yours very carefully, because I am not sure that they do. The most absurd collections of words come out of them.
Ho ho ho

We should all be concerned with what we preach as being the honest truth - that's what "truth" seekers do. But it is also fair to say that while God knows absolute truth, Bible truths have been gradually revealed from the first prophecy in Gen. 3:15 regarding the seed (and other prophecies) until now. The Patriarchs, Jews, early Christians and JW's today have always had to revise their understanding/expectation of certain things they had assumed/believed to be true as more information was forthcoming. Some see that as a bad thing - being "wrong" about certain beliefs or expectations, while I see it as a positive/progressive trait - which is what one would expect from truth "seekers." The fact that JW's have made  changes and continue to do so shows they are humble enough to admit their mistakes and correct matters. (That assumes as well that other changes will likely be made as they are confronted with more realities. Some dates have gone by the wayside and maybe even 1914 could be discarded eventually. Who knows?) Dates are of little concern to anyone who intends their dedication to God to be forever. In fact, on studies with other people, I qualify these types of things as our "present understanding" organizationally, but if a change in thinking takes place don't be too upset about it. It's part of the growing process all humble servants of God have rolled with. On other things, like war, hellfire, Trinity, Christmas...I'm certainly more definite about. 
 "Going around frightening people with an 'end is nigh' message and a 'only baptized JW's will be saved' message is not teaching truth to anyone." First of all as you should already know, our preaching work is not to go around "frightening people." If that was our purpose, we would be preaching what almost every other religion on earth you would have a choice of going to would preach: Hellfire. So we are different in that respect. What we preach is the gospel or good news. Good news about what? As everyone knows, it is the "good news of God's Kingdom" that we preach in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations before the end comes. (Matt. 24:14). Also to make disciples. (Matt. 28:19, 20; Acts 28:28, 30) We even look at Armageddon as a positive in clearing the world of Satan's system and those who aren't interested in doing God's will in favour of those who are. We are informing people they have a choice. There is nothing new there:
Deut. 11:26-28: "See, I am putting before you today a blessing and a curse 27 the blessing if you obey the commandments of Jehovah your God that I am commanding your today 28 and the curse if you do not obey the commandments of Jehovah your God and you turn aside from the way I am commanding you to follow..." There are many other Bible passages in the same vein.
  "To pretend that JW's door to door witnessing is doing God's will, well I'm sure you know it isn't." If you can't be honest then don't project that on us. Of course we believe witnessing is something Jehovah's "Witnesses" should be doing. While you may disagree with our message you can't say we don't "walk-the-walk" when it comes to witnessing/preaching about God's Kingdom and what it will accomplish. It is one of the main focuses of our organization. While we may not know the "day and hour" and can't predict the future regarding dates, the message about God's Kingdom to us, is a clear focus in the Bible. So if you don't think we are doing God's will as to our door-to-door work, then you are welcome to your opinion - but at least be honest about it. I for one, DO believe we are.
2 Tim> 4:2 "Preach the word; be at it urgently in favourable times and difficult times..." Romans 10:14 "How in turn, will they hear without someone to preach..." Matt. 10:7 As you go, preach saying: 'The Kingdom of the heavens has drawn near." Heb. 10:15 "How, in turn, will they preach unless they have been sent out?" Acts 10:42 " Acts 10:42 "Also, he ordered us to preach to the people and to give a thorough witness..." Luke 9:2 "And he sent them out to preach the Kingdom of God and to heal." ... 
 

It wasn’t okay with them. They disapproved.

I worked with someone in field service recently who was—shall we say—in over-enthused mode. The householder, accordingly, was doing all he could to ensure that the brother did not lay a glove on him. He did not want a fire and he was trying for all he was worth to hose us down. He brought up how he believes each one has his own belief, and furthermore, each one has the obligation to respect the other person’s belief, and so forth. 
Did the brother take the hint? Not a bit of it. He remained convinced that just one more point—just one more sentence from him would turn the whole situation around—and so he kept pressing, while the poor householder was practically working himself into a frenzy.
I interrupted. I rarely do. Contrary to those videos in which the two witnesses stand side-by-side in oddly choreographed behavior, or at least it seems that way to me, I usually hang well back and give the appearance that I am just barely paying attention—this is so it does not appear to be two ganging up against one. I especially do this if it is a woman that answers the door.
With the householder getting agitated—an entirely reasonable response given the brother’s full court press, I interjected: “Let me tell you how it works with Jehovah’s Witnesses.” They both paused. “We ARE going to ask you to convert,” I told him. “But it is not going to happen until the 100th call, and what are the chances anything will go that long? In the meantime, it’s just conversation.”
The tension instantly broke. The person visibly relaxed. “Oh—it is just conversation,” he reflected. Then he allowed that over the years JWs had already probably called upon him 100 times, but even so he (and the other brother’s) demeanor changed. We wrapped up without fuss and moved on. It is a method I heartily recommend, having seen it bear good fruit many times. Search for those who are interested without putting into a panic those who are not.
I probably also said something at the end about how we come without appointment—something that is almost unheard of today—so if someone is gracious to us—as he had been (for he was not at all unpleasant)—we truly appreciate it.

Yes, of course. The fellow in Corinth submitted to congregation discipline as well:
Before: “Do you not judge those inside while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves.” (1 cor 5:13-14)
After: “so that, on the contrary now, YOU should kindly forgive and comfort [him], that somehow such a man may not be swallowed up by his being overly sad.” 2 Cor 2:7)

Yes, of course. The fellow in Corinth submitted to congregation discipline as well:
Before: “Do you not judge those inside while God judges those outside? “Remove the wicked [man] from among yourselves.” (1 cor 5:13-14)
After: “so that, on the contrary now, YOU should kindly forgive and comfort [him], that somehow such a man may not be swallowed up by his being overly sad.” 2 Cor 2:7)

Which are?

I don’t know what in the world you are talking about. There are no such brothers in the USA. Maybe in other places.

It may be that you do not, but what you do so closely resembles it that no one can tell the difference.

Several times you have likened yourself to Mickey. Now you are proposing a trinity of sorts—you, Mickey, and Joe.
It holds in some surface ways. All three would stand up for the little guy and be angered if that one is treated unjustly. All three have thick hides—they can take it as well as dish it out. All three have a personality that might chafe at the “corporate” nature of the theocratic organization—though I have no evidence that Joe ever did not easily work it out.
Similarities end after this. I can’t imagine Mickey indulging the same complaining spirit as you. One reason that I cannot imagine it is that he had the perfect stage on which to do it and never made use of it. Disfellowshipped at least once, he humbly worked his way back towards reinstatement.
Why? Unlike you who carries on ad naueum about how the Mighty Eight can ruin someone’s life forever, they had no power to “ruin” his. His 2nd wife was not a Witness (she is intensely political—I follow her on Twitter—my guess is that she has no high regard for JW, and may hold it responsible for sabotaging his best work), no family members in the truth so far as I know, professional success and thereby lots of friends—he was a close friend of John Wayne, for example....He could have told those brothers to kiss off—he had no need of them. They couldn’t “ruin his life” at all. Still, he submitted to congregation discipline and took steps to get reinstated. I believe that he feared God and realized that such fear included treating with respect those taking the lead for the work they do. I think he was able to “man up” and not cry when discipline came his way, even if it was not discipline spot-on in every regard. 
Certainly Joe and probably Mickey was able to overcome any distaste for “organization” to appreciate that it affords far more benefits than liabilities—particularly since the earthly organization strives to refine itself. I think Mickey, and certainly Joe, would see the disrespect you show for those taking the lead and become fed up in a hurry. Joe was familiar with the ways of the mob—speak out against their headship and you lose your life, though they might on first offense merely cut out your tongue as a friendly warning. So we may imagine him seeing your rabid maligning and ridiculing of theocratic headship today, coupled with whining should you receive any kickback. “What does the idiot expect?” he would say, and Mickey, too.
That’s one dissimilarity I see. There are more.
 

I propose that they change from 1914 on April 1, primarily to get Allen’s reaction. The next day they change it back. April Fool.
Who cares, if the word is not translated properly? It seems to me that you have fallen a long ways. A) you don’t trust JW’s, but B) you don’t trust anyone else, either, since Holy Spirit hasn’t gotten around to inspiring a true translation that can be trusted.
You have a very strange view of Holy Spirit and what it is supposed to do. It sometimes seems to me that the day you stopped believing in Santa you started to believe in Holy Spirit as a one-on-one substitute.
Throw another window in his Kingdom Hall, and the spiritual wuss will be stumbled and out by the evening.

Grizzly bears falling from the sky—what are you, nuts?
Destruction of “the wicked” on the Lord’s Day/Day of Judgment is a persistent theme of the Bible. I believe you still pass yourself off as religious. How do you deal with such verses? Do you sweep them under the rug as something embarrassing?