TrueTomHarley

Oscar Oxgoad entered the Kingdom Hall as he always does that day—clean shaven. But at the end of that Watchtower study he bent over and fumbled about in his overstuffed bag—I couldn’t make out what he was doing 
He straightened up and walked about after the song with a huge Santa Claus beard.
I knew he was going to do something like that! I knew it!
He is such an idiot.

I confess I haven’t actually been following this thread in any depth. One would think that would prevent me from weighing in.

I'm not completely sure what this thread is even about. Offhand, it seems like an attempt by the hypercritical people to get the picayune and the righteous-overmuch people going. 
We all know what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. So whatever is seen is Chili either squares with it or it doesn't. 
If it does, then there will be some trickery involved to get people all incensed over it. It may be fraud by photoshop or trespasser sabotage. Or there may be something circumstantial or cultural that we know nothing about..
If it doesn't. then it will be corrected, now or later. It always is. 
Once I came after you with the charge that you had an agenda and you responded with: 'Of course, I have an agenda.' I said to myself: 'The old pork chop is right. He does has one. So do I. So does everyone.' Stay here any length of time and it becomes clear who the players are and what are their agendas. They range in shades of from off-white to downright black. Thus everything anyone offers ought to be seen in this light, and the posts of some ought to be 90% dismissed on this basis alone.
The ideal is what C.T. Russell stated, that he would accept a truth even if it was from the Devil himself. But the reality is, how would you know it is the truth? Far more likely is it that he is just lying like he always does, using abundant tricks of the trade to make you think he is telling you the truth. The tools for lying are legion today, far more than in Russell's time, what with photoshopping and all. Even without photoshopping , we all know the reality of information selectively given without context or in manufactured context in hopes that people will come to false conclusions, so that @JW Insider finally has to say: 'I'll go down there myself and shake the truth out of those bad brothers (if bad brothers they be).' Obviously that is something few brothers can do, not just on account of resources, nor even on account of time, but on account of best use of time.
And if we get so worked up about reports from those whose agendas are manifestly cockeyed, if not downright foul, in these days of photoshop, what on earth will we do in the days of 'deep fakes', a day that is rapidly dawning? If anyone doesn't know the term, a casual Google search will reveal that it is the manipulation of video evidence, so that any head can be attached to any body and be made to say anything the poster wants? Are you going to lose you're cookies, then, when a GB member appears in the nude to recommend that we all start showing a little sympathy for the Devil? Because you know it is coming.
(My own prophesy, by the way, is that deep fakes will instantly be turned upon children, as technological advances usually are, for the sake of ratcheting up the bullying that they are already taking their own lives over. Since generating those deep fakes is only possible with an abundance of still photos to feed into generators, any source of those abundant photos is going to be sued off the planet. It will not be enough for social media sites to say that what they did was perfectly legal at the time and was agreed to by their users. Laws will be reinterpreted to say that they have violated them. You think lawsuits today have gotten out of hand?)
So you have to go by someone's manifest agenda. In this regard, @BillyTheKid46's comments are among the most appropriate, even if he is prickly is his presentation. Witness the modern sanctification of the term 'whistleblower'. Whistleblowers are useful, of course, but they are more useful in blowing the cover off an evil organization. Almost all of the self-styled  'whistleblowers' here think  that Jehovah's organization is evil. If you are one, like me, who doesn't think that, then you discount their comments on that basis alone.
People's veracity should be judged by always keeping in mind their overall agenda.
It is like a WT article that dealt with those occasional Bible accounts that are downright strange and even paint God in a bad light. 'All we see is a little snippet,' it said. 'What do you do with a close friend who has had your back and earned your trust over time and you know him through and through, but then you hear a bad report about him? Do you say: "YEAH! I knew it! He is a rat!" ?
Unfortunately, it is a crazy age we live in in which loyalty is seen as the mark of a chump, and there are many people who are that way.
It is like when I pointed out that the Geoffrey Jackson on Twitter was not the real Geoffrey Jackson and @Witness took a breather from bludgeoning everyone with irrelevant scriptures to say 'How do you know that it is not him?' It has his picture, doesn't it? 'He' even said'pray for our brothers in Russia.
Duh. You know it is not him because she says that it is. Presently it was revealed that he didn't give a hoot in hell for 'our brothers is Russia.' - kill them all as far as he is concerned. It was all a ruse so as to capture the attention of naïve brothers and redirect it to unflattering reports elsewhere.

I'm not completely sure what this thread is even about. Offhand, it seems like an attempt by the hypercritical people to get the picayune and the righteous-overmuch people going. 
We all know what Jehovah's Witnesses believe. So whatever is seen is Chili either squares with it or it doesn't. 
If it does, then there will be some trickery involved to get people all incensed over it. It may be fraud by photoshop or trespasser sabotage. Or there may be something circumstantial or cultural that we know nothing about..
If it doesn't. then it will be corrected, now or later. It always is. 
Once I came after you with the charge that you had an agenda and you responded with: 'Of course, I have an agenda.' I said to myself: 'The old pork chop is right. He does has one. So do I. So does everyone.' Stay here any length of time and it becomes clear who the players are and what are their agendas. They range in shades of from off-white to downright black. Thus everything anyone offers ought to be seen in this light, and the posts of some ought to be 90% dismissed on this basis alone.
The ideal is what C.T. Russell stated, that he would accept a truth even if it was from the Devil himself. But the reality is, how would you know it is the truth? Far more likely is it that he is just lying like he always does, using abundant tricks of the trade to make you think he is telling you the truth. The tools for lying are legion today, far more than in Russell's time, what with photoshopping and all. Even without photoshopping , we all know the reality of information selectively given without context or in manufactured context in hopes that people will come to false conclusions, so that @JW Insider finally has to say: 'I'll go down there myself and shake the truth out of those bad brothers (if bad brothers they be).' Obviously that is something few brothers can do, not just on account of resources, nor even on account of time, but on account of best use of time.
And if we get so worked up about reports from those whose agendas are manifestly cockeyed, if not downright foul, in these days of photoshop, what on earth will we do in the days of 'deep fakes', a day that is rapidly dawning? If anyone doesn't know the term, a casual Google search will reveal that it is the manipulation of video evidence, so that any head can be attached to any body and be made to say anything the poster wants? Are you going to lose you're cookies, then, when a GB member appears in the nude to recommend that we all start showing a little sympathy for the Devil? Because you know it is coming.
(My own prophesy, by the way, is that deep fakes will instantly be turned upon children, as technological advances usually are, for the sake of ratcheting up the bullying that they are already taking their own lives over. Since generating those deep fakes is only possible with an abundance of still photos to feed into generators, any source of those abundant photos is going to be sued off the planet. It will not be enough for social media sites to say that what they did was perfectly legal at the time and was agreed to by their users. Laws will be reinterpreted to say that they have violated them. You think lawsuits today have gotten out of hand?)
So you have to go by someone's manifest agenda. In this regard, @BillyTheKid46's comments are among the most appropriate, even if he is prickly is his presentation. Witness the modern sanctification of the term 'whistleblower'. Whistleblowers are useful, of course, but they are more useful in blowing the cover off an evil organization. Almost all of the self-styled  'whistleblowers' here think  that Jehovah's organization is evil. If you are one, like me, who doesn't think that, then you discount their comments on that basis alone.
People's veracity should be judged by always keeping in mind their overall agenda.
It is like a WT article that dealt with those occasional Bible accounts that are downright strange and even paint God in a bad light. 'All we see is a little snippet,' it said. 'What do you do with a close friend who has had your back and earned your trust over time and you know him through and through, but then you hear a bad report about him? Do you say: "YEAH! I knew it! He is a rat!" ?
Unfortunately, it is a crazy age we live in in which loyalty is seen as the mark of a chump, and there are many people who are that way.
It is like when I pointed out that the Geoffrey Jackson on Twitter was not the real Geoffrey Jackson and @Witness took a breather from bludgeoning everyone with irrelevant scriptures to say 'How do you know that it is not him?' It has his picture, doesn't it? 'He' even said'pray for our brothers in Russia.
Duh. You know it is not him because she says that it is. Presently it was revealed that he didn't give a hoot in hell for 'our brothers is Russia.' - kill them all as far as he is concerned. It was all a ruse so as to capture the attention of naïve brothers and redirect it to unflattering reports elsewhere.

It is a mild hypocrisy but nothing more. 
It is like when brothers decry those who love violence but then tune into the football game.
It is like when Jesus turns water into wine and the director says: “Every other man puts out the fine wine first, and then when guests are intoxicated the inferior. But you have saved the best for last!” 
One uber-righteous brother (for we do have some) stated: “We know people were not intoxicated at that gathering because Jesus would NEVER associate with those intoxicated.” I thought: “Of course he would. The verse all but says he did.”
Good ol Jubulasiasen, who can’t hold his liquor and ordinarily doesn’t have to worry about it because he drinks only in moderation has a few too many at the joyous gathering and makes an ass of himself, incurring the wrath of his wife on account of the embarrassment.

And Abʹsa·lom would say to him: “See, your matters are good and straight; but there is no one from the king giving you a hearing.”  
And Abʹsa·lom would go on to say: “O that I were appointed judge in the land, that to me every man might come that happens to have a legal case or judgment! Then I should certainly do justice to him.”
 

It is a mild hypocrisy but nothing more. 
It is like when brothers decry those who love violence but then tune into the football game.
It is like when Jesus turns water into wine and the director says: “Every other man puts out the fine wine first, and then when guests are intoxicated the inferior. But you have saved the best for last!” 
One uber-righteous brother (for we do have some) stated: “We know people were not intoxicated at that gathering because Jesus would NEVER associate with those intoxicated.” I thought: “Of course he would. The verse all but says he did.”
Good ol Jubulasiasen, who can’t hold his liquor and ordinarily doesn’t have to worry about it because he drinks only in moderation has a few too many at the joyous gathering and makes an ass of himself, incurring the wrath of his wife on account of the embarrassment.

It is a mild hypocrisy but nothing more. 
It is like when brothers decry those who love violence but then tune into the football game.
It is like when Jesus turns water into wine and the director says: “Every other man puts out the fine wine first, and then when guests are intoxicated the inferior. But you have saved the best for last!” 
One uber-righteous brother (for we do have some) stated: “We know people were not intoxicated at that gathering because Jesus would NEVER associate with those intoxicated.” I thought: “Of course he would. The verse all but says he did.”
Good ol Jubulasiasen, who can’t hold his liquor and ordinarily doesn’t have to worry about it because he drinks only in moderation has a few too many at the joyous gathering and makes an ass of himself, incurring the wrath of his wife on account of the embarrassment.

This must be extremely stressful to you, since the link you supplied points to 13 specific areas of inquiry, all but the first thought to be possible hotbeds of CSA, and the religion you despise is not among them.

Okay. Good answer.
I thought that you might get sanctimonious about it, but you didn’t. 
Following sport can be a religion in itself. It’s amazing the degree to which people get into it.
It is even like when the Witness organization tries to sell everyone that kicking around the soccer ball at a picnic is the equivalent of being on the school sports team, and the kids roll their eyes because they don’t think it’s that way at all. In this regard, they should look to you.

hehehehe :)))))))))

hehehehe :)))))))))

She says that she was raised a Witness but did not make it her own.
She says that now she wants to.
She says that when she does she is going to track you down, old boy, and wallop the stuffing out of you at the sport of your choice, so long as it is tennis.

hehehehe :)))))))))

You are all confused. Did God have a nation in the past? Yes, the house of Israel was God's nation. God's Kingdom on earth, with a fleshly king representing it. There was nothing idolatrous about that idea. But as you know, the nation of Israel was later rejected by God and as Jesus said to the Jews: "This is why I say to you, the Kingdom of God will be taken from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits". This became the Christian congregation made up of not only anointed Jews (Israelites) but also anointed Gentiles. Hence, this new nation came to be known as "spiritual Israel", who with those not anointed (the other sheep) became one flock. 1 Pet. 2:9.
JW.org is a website. The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses is the worldwide congregation of anointed and the other sheep. If you want to call it an organization there is nothing wrong with that, since it is organized to accomplish  God's will on earth, which is the preaching of the Kingdom and making disciples: "Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.” ( Matthew 28:18-20) This worldwide congregation is not lead or headed by a fleshly King like in Israelite times, nor any other human,  but a heavenly king Jesus Christ. He is the head of the congregation. Matthew 23:10 
There is nothing idolatrous about that arrangement, and giving support to it is not being idolatrous but it is supporting Jesus' arrangement.
And again I repeat, jw.org is a website, it is not the Christian Congregation, but merely a modern aid to disseminating the Kingdom good news.
 
 

One effect of a disenfranchised anointed-in-the-wilderness model is that unity of Christians diminishes and ultimately dissolves. Christianity becomes little more than a personal code, molded differently in each individual by the greater forces of national, social, wealth, racial, educational divisions. Inevitably, Christians are at each other’s throats, each happy to do “what is right in his own eyes,” modified by a smileyGod face.
Sometimes I think it is chosen for just that reason. It is the disunited world that Christians came out of. Why on earth would anyone want to go back into it?
The point is, Witness, I haven’t seen any evidence that you actually DO anything, beyond crashing posts and reading half the Bible to those within.

You did not answer the second part of my question: 
How does anyone really know that these “brothers” of yours are really anointed, since all they must do is self-identify? Even (gulp) @James Thomas Rook Jr. could do that. (Not that he would)
 Because they believed then that Christ died on a cross. They no longer do. Is it that flabbergasting?

Practically speaking, what would you like to see happen?
Practically speaking, what would you like to see happen?

You did not answer the second part of my question: 
How does anyone really know that these “brothers” of yours are really anointed, since all they must do is self-identify? Even (gulp) @James Thomas Rook Jr. could do that. (Not that he would)
 Because they believed then that Christ died on a cross. They no longer do. Is it that flabbergasting?

Reducto Ad Absurdum my foot, you dolt!
Trump is a non-religious politician who says “Two Corinthians.”
The GB are brothers taking the lead who say “2 Corinthians.” 
It’s pretty much the equivalent of a church minister signing a parishioner’s Bible upon request.
It’s not the kind of thing that I would ever care to do. But the urge to obtain VIP/celebrity signatures appears to be hard-wired into the genome.
 
 

!
Oh. Unless he means the hehehehe:)))))))
But I have not thought that attributed to a language or grammar barrier.

One effect of a disenfranchised anointed-in-the-wilderness model is that unity of Christians diminishes and ultimately dissolves. Christianity becomes little more than a personal code, molded differently in each individual by the greater forces of national, social, wealth, racial, educational divisions. Inevitably, Christians are at each other’s throats, each happy to do “what is right in his own eyes,” modified by a smileyGod face.
Sometimes I think it is chosen for just that reason. It is the disunited world that Christians came out of. Why on earth would anyone want to go back into it?
The point is, Witness, I haven’t seen any evidence that you actually DO anything, beyond crashing posts and reading half the Bible to those within.

And Abʹsa·lom would say to him: “See, your matters are good and straight; but there is no one from the king giving you a hearing.”  
And Abʹsa·lom would go on to say: “O that I were appointed judge in the land, that to me every man might come that happens to have a legal case or judgment! Then I should certainly do justice to him.”
 

!
Oh. Unless he means the hehehehe:)))))))
But I have not thought that attributed to a language or grammar barrier.

And Abʹsa·lom would say to him: “See, your matters are good and straight; but there is no one from the king giving you a hearing.”  
And Abʹsa·lom would go on to say: “O that I were appointed judge in the land, that to me every man might come that happens to have a legal case or judgment! Then I should certainly do justice to him.”