TrueTomHarley

Yes. But it is like most classics - very slow and cumbersome in its developing, but all the more gripping when it gets to action and emotional pull on that account. I didn't actually 'read' it. I listened to it via Books on Tape while working a hum-drum job.
An entire chapter, the 3rd I think, is dedicated to the architectural details of Paris during that time. Or maybe it is just the architectural details of that church - I forget which.

Yes. Does God pump his fist at the Ritchter Scale - that it is the best thing since sliced bread?
 
They're covering all bases. Recent doozies made them rethink, as it did me.
 

If you were going to put your throne somewhere, the Pleiades is the place to be. I'd put mine there.

Anything with significant upside is likely to have a downside.
 
Some of these things are like State's laws still on the books to regulate some arcane practice that has long been discontinued, like "no ice cream cones on Sundays" it is not necessary to repeal each one. Not reiterating it is enough.
That said, i was somewhat bummed when they doubled down on toasting after I had hoped it would go the way of all the earth. At a non-Witness wedding reception, our table of Witnesses was caught flat-footed when a crew came around to record everyone toasting to the bride. Had I had my wits about me, I would have rose and said: "We don't toast but we want to to wish the bride the greatest joy in life & we thank her for the honor of inviting us & etc etc." That's all they wanted. No need to explain toasting. Instead, I just sat there and looked a bit dumb.

You shouldn't keep carrying on like this because it is just silly. Unless you are bellicose or in-your-face about it, it is perfectly possible to hold views outside of the mainstream on the lesser points you harp on. Many do, as you have seen. By now you have gone through several threads participated in by mature ones, who are obviously not in cahoots with one another, who all make clear that your beef is so only in your own mind.
Things you say about Jehovah's Witnesses are either wrong, exaggerated, misinterpreted, or attributable to occasional human error. 

I have in my will to omit my name and simply put the jw.org blue sign on my gravestone.
Seriously, I agree with Fishing. They didn't have to tell me not to wear logoed tee shirts on work assignments. I long ago refrained from making myself a billboard for anything. jw.org is no different. 
I only wear the badge cards because I'm asked to. As a means of advertising the convention, it's okay, even though I resisted at first. But to the extent some think you are 'showing off,' I don't like it. 
When I worked the huge apartment complex by myself in the evening with only an iPad, some thought I was the building inspector. I didn't tell them differently. I like discretion, not being known as a Witness until I choose to make it known.
 
 

I don't think anything of significance has changed since the 74 article. There is a bit of counsel designed so that persons do not get overly casual with disfellowshipping just because it is a relative, but there is nothing fundamentally different. And it is just counsel, albeit strong counsel. But it is nothing more. Having said that, I have never been there. But the things Franz speaks of today would not get one in hot water. Certainly not The Boot.
Could it cost one privileges in the congregation? Dunno. But if it does, it does. Life goes on without privileges.
And the advise I gave our very own Rocket Man is actually good counsel. If anyone is paranoid, take a screen shot of the FAQ and carry it around with you. And then carry on in accord with it.

All anonymous! None of it's any good! No one was qualified!
I'm quitting this religious gig and enrolling in college! There everyone is qualified. I know they are because they all went to college themselves.
I just hope that idiot dropout Bill Gates doesn't come around or the ghost of Steve Jobs. They are not qualified either and I just trashed my iPad and my laptop on that account. If my wife can prove she has a Home Economics degree, I'll ask her to make me coffee.

Now that the cop was exonerated in the St. Louis shooting, the city braces for a third night of protests. A solution is needed. Here is one written last year.
"In the course of their job, police shoot hundreds of people per year. How should one report this? Put all shootings on TV. All of them. Run them 24/7 in the order in which they occur. Create a dedicated channel: The Shooting Channel. Make it freely available. Give every network a cut so no one will complain about ratings. Promote ‘The Shooting Channel’ heavily. Ban shootings on any other channel.
Put white-on-black shootings on. Put black-on-white shootings on. Put black-on-black shootings on. Put white-on-white shootings on. Put Hispanic-on-Methodist shootings on. Put Buddhist-on-nudist shootings on. Put redneck Alabama white-on transgendered Vietnamese shootings on. Put them all on. Let viewers decide for themselves which shootings are significant and which are yawners. Otherwise, the newspeople will cherry-pick their favorites and start a race war."
What were there - about 5 or 6 highly hyped shootings that summer? They culminated with another shooter taking out several Dallas police officers, so much had rage been stoked. Did not the news media suddenly switch to 'love-in with police' mode to atone for their very different mode just before? 
Two of the shootings were not intentional white on black shootings at all, though they were both hyped that way. There was the black man shot in Florida. He was not the target. He was caretaker for an autistic white man with a toy gun that fooled the cop - the cop got spooked and missed his target. The other was the white cop in Charlottesville whose actions triggered several days of violence. Turned out he was not a white cop at all but a black cop. Both incidents were initially reported as 'white cop shoots black victim' and hyped as proof the police were racist. Neither correction was more than a buried footnote when the facts came to light. Why does the media do this? Not for me to say. But 'The Shooting Channel' will solve it.
The italicized words are from 'No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash,' an ebook that is not exactly flying off the shelf as it ought but I hope to remedy that here. The solution proposed would never come about, but only for monetary reasons. Insofar as public information can cool rage before it begins, it is the answer. Perhaps ALL police shootings should result in community outrage - that is for others to decide. Perhaps there IS racism within the police, but is not demonstrated by highlighting just a hand-selected few shooting incidents. When a study was made of the Philadelphia Police force, released in 2015, it showed blacks were more likely, not less, to be shot by a black or Hispanic officer than a white one, as the former were more likely to experience 'threat misperception.'
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/702101

I can understand that.

I would like to see this. I truly would. There are too many pundits who do nothing but shriek in sound bites and I don't know what is true. My impression thus far is that computer models predict, and have for some time, great global warming, but the actual data has not backed it up. When data does, it is only at the expense of ignoring data that doesn't.
Shrill alarmists scream Irma was the greatest hurricane ever and we should get used to seeing ones like this all the time. In fact, it is the seventh largest to hit the U.S. and the list of potent hurricanes show they are largely independent of year - they are not particularly increasing in frequency over time. Before Irma, there were 12 years when no hurricanes at all hit the continental U.S.
On the other hand, Andrew Cuomo, the NY governor said - and everyone knows this is true - 100 year floods are now happening every 2 years, so clearly something is happening.
Neither side acknowledges the other's existence and when they do it is to demonize them - typical of the way the world handles things these days.
Both @JW Insiderand @James Thomas Rook Jr. have proven capable of presentation and I do not see how either can hold the Governing Body accountable, though one may try.

Come on, big boy - have at it. Seriously. I really want to see it. I will even allow that I probably fall into your camp on this, but I want to hear the other side from someone informed yet not obnoxious or condescending and @JW Insiderseems good to go and I have extracted a promise from him to keep his submissions under the length of a phone book.
I probably won't join in much because I agree with @Queen Esther that it is not the prime issue for a Christian, but that does not mean it's not something well to hear both sides of. 
If you hang out on one side, you will think the other side global elitists who want to use concocted  'climate change' as a wedge to advance unlimited government intervention. If you hang out with the other side, you will think the climate change 'denyers' (itself a term of ridicule) are self-centered greedy people who gladly sell their own grandchildren down the river so they can enjoy their profits and high living now.
It is typical of the way the world addresses anything today and is the reason the system will not be missed when it is replaced by the kingdom. Two big stupid animals ramming each other with their horns: THAT is the image you want to send into outer space to tell any aliens how we run things here. 
The moment has arrived. right here on the World Media News forum, to begin a civil and informed discussion - the first one ever about anything. History will be made. In heaven they will say: 'you know, people can get along, they are not the basket cases we thought they were - maybe it's time to feel regret over our plans.' 'Why don't you be wise and make MY heart rejoice for a change,' says the Devil. 'Come on! Just once show that people outside of theocratic concerns can talk to the other side without resorting to hurling insults.'
Do not shrink back. Advertise advertise advertise the claims of one side or the other and let the inquisitive reader decide!

I would like to see this. I truly would. There are too many pundits who do nothing but shriek in sound bites and I don't know what is true. My impression thus far is that computer models predict, and have for some time, great global warming, but the actual data has not backed it up. When data does, it is only at the expense of ignoring data that doesn't.
Shrill alarmists scream Irma was the greatest hurricane ever and we should get used to seeing ones like this all the time. In fact, it is the seventh largest to hit the U.S. and the list of potent hurricanes show they are largely independent of year - they are not particularly increasing in frequency over time. Before Irma, there were 12 years when no hurricanes at all hit the continental U.S.
On the other hand, Andrew Cuomo, the NY governor said - and everyone knows this is true - 100 year floods are now happening every 2 years, so clearly something is happening.
Neither side acknowledges the other's existence and when they do it is to demonize them - typical of the way the world handles things these days.
Both @JW Insiderand @James Thomas Rook Jr. have proven capable of presentation and I do not see how either can hold the Governing Body accountable, though one may try.

I would like to see this. I truly would. There are too many pundits who do nothing but shriek in sound bites and I don't know what is true. My impression thus far is that computer models predict, and have for some time, great global warming, but the actual data has not backed it up. When data does, it is only at the expense of ignoring data that doesn't.
Shrill alarmists scream Irma was the greatest hurricane ever and we should get used to seeing ones like this all the time. In fact, it is the seventh largest to hit the U.S. and the list of potent hurricanes show they are largely independent of year - they are not particularly increasing in frequency over time. Before Irma, there were 12 years when no hurricanes at all hit the continental U.S.
On the other hand, Andrew Cuomo, the NY governor said - and everyone knows this is true - 100 year floods are now happening every 2 years, so clearly something is happening.
Neither side acknowledges the other's existence and when they do it is to demonize them - typical of the way the world handles things these days.
Both @JW Insiderand @James Thomas Rook Jr. have proven capable of presentation and I do not see how either can hold the Governing Body accountable, though one may try.

Are they trinitarian or not? That's all you need to know. If they are trinitarian they will hate the NWT, because their beliefs dictate their scholarship.
If they are not trinitarian they will be okay with it. They will recognize it as a legitimate translation, with both strengths and weaknesses.
You have just answered your own question. If it was in the Septuagint, then it should be in the NT, because when OT verses are quoted in the NT, the quotes are taken, not from the Hebrew, but from the Greek translation of the Hebrew - the Septuagint.

Are they trinitarian or not? That's all you need to know. If they are trinitarian they will hate the NWT, because their beliefs dictate their scholarship.
If they are not trinitarian they will be okay with it. They will recognize it as a legitimate translation, with both strengths and weaknesses.
You have just answered your own question. If it was in the Septuagint, then it should be in the NT, because when OT verses are quoted in the NT, the quotes are taken, not from the Hebrew, but from the Greek translation of the Hebrew - the Septuagint.

What is "biblical Greek?" Are you sure that is not just "Trinitarian Greek?"

This is stupid. 
I don't care if Franz's dog translated it. The fact is that it exists and it gets high scholarly marks. Witness the experts testifying with regard to Russia's attempt to ban it. Not their witnesses, of course, but everyone knows their witnesses couldn't translate their way out of a paper bag.
Not Trinitarian witnesses, either, because their beliefs dictate their scholarship instead of the other way around. And there are some who genuinely have trouble with 'Jehovah' in the New Testament - it is cutting edge based upon Septuagint fragments and not all want to cut so deep. But except for that, the NWT is very well received. 
Who can say how much of the NWT translation was farmed out to experts who, being Witnesses, also wished to remain anonymous like Franz so as not to distract from the true author of the work?
You want to find the 'qualifications' of the translators so you can gloat that they don't have any, in case they don't. How 'qualified' do you have to be with language? Put a baby in a bi-lingual home and he grows up knowing two, without any teaching at all. Put it in a tri-lingual home and it grows up knowing three. Okay, ancient language adds a degree of complication, but even so, it is just communication and that is humankind's oldest trick in the book. Since jw.org is translated into 900 languages, it seems clear that the prestigious universities that teach language ought to come crawling to us, and not the reverse.
It's the technique of the lazy lout who must know the qualifications of the translators to determine if the work is any good or not. Before my wife and I bought the home we now live in, we looked it over carefully for quality. We even hired an inspector. Satisfied, we moved in. We have no idea who actually built the house and have never lost a moment of sleep on that account. 
 
 

Are they trinitarian or not? That's all you need to know. If they are trinitarian they will hate the NWT, because their beliefs dictate their scholarship.
If they are not trinitarian they will be okay with it. They will recognize it as a legitimate translation, with both strengths and weaknesses.
You have just answered your own question. If it was in the Septuagint, then it should be in the NT, because when OT verses are quoted in the NT, the quotes are taken, not from the Hebrew, but from the Greek translation of the Hebrew - the Septuagint.

It could not have been a better fit. The water flowed from the throne of Ezekiel's temple, which could not have had literal fulfillment because they would have had to build it on a spring and they didn't.
Later during the same meeting, the Bible Study covered all the schools held throughout the organization. Comments thinned out as the study progressed because nobody had gone to the latter schools so they had nothing to say off the top of their heads.
Okay? The water is the 'life-giving' spiritual food. And where is it more manifest in the schools, some available to all and some more specialized? Yet the schedule for the Bible Study is months old. The schedule for the Bible reading? Maybe a century, as it is 'wash, rinse, and repeat.'

Truetom strode into the room and slapped his Bible down on the bar. All heads turned at the sharp retort. All male heads, that is. All female heads had already swung around at his first appearance, smitten instantly by his pure animal virility.
“What will it be, mister?” asked the bartender uneasily, fidgeting in the presence of an indefinable yet unquestionable authority. “Milk,” Truetom replied and he said no more, so that the bartender began to wonder.
Presently it came to him: “Say, aren’t you Truetom, the world-famous door to door preacher?” Truetom looked up coolly. “What’s it to you?” he said. “Nothing, mister, really – I meant no offence. Here – let me pour myself a milk, too. In fact – HEY! EVERYBODY! TRUETOM IS HERE! MILK FOR EVERYBODY! A TOAST TO TRUETOM!”
“Is there anything about me that says ‘milktoast’ to you?” Truetom scowled, and milk ran out from the terrified man’s mouth. “I’m with the true religion and I DON’T DO MILKTOAST.”
“Sure, Mister, whatever you say,” stammered the bartender.
Truetom impaled him with a gaze. “It’s about time you understood a few things. “I’m TrueTom. I have a corporate agenda. I’m not afraid to play by the rules and I do what I’m told. Don’t tell me what to do because I’ll do it right away and sometimes a man doesn’t want what he’s asked for. You got that?” and the bartender murmured something incoherent as he wet himself.
An impossibly bosomed bimbo floozy, splitting the seams of her too-short skirt, saddled up to him. “They say in these parts that you’re pretty righteous, Truetom. Just how righteous are you?”
“I’d advise you not to try to find out,” Truetom stared her down. Undeterred, the brazen hussy placed her hand on his inner thigh and slowly moved it – not in the direction of his rugged boots. In a flash, Truetom whirled about and decked her with a single punch. Then he calmly resumed sipping his milk as she lay face down on the filthy floor.
When he was done he put down his glass and picked up his Bible. “I have a scripture for all you scum,” he said.  "It's found at John 8:15. 'You judge according to the flesh. I do not judge any man at all.'"
“Look, Truetom, we don’t want no trouble. I’ve got my own religion and I never talk about religion and politics anyhow – anything that matters I don’t come near – and I….” Truetom grabbed him by the neck and rammed his head into another verse he’d just looked up. “a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged.” – 2 Timothy 2:24
At length he put his Bible in its holster and turned. “Alright, I’m coming out!” Truetom hollered out the door to the townspeople amidst the pouring rain. “Don’t nobody raise no objections, or ‘viewpoints!’ If anybody raises an objection or viewpoint, I’ll preach to him AND I’ll preach to his wife AND I’ll preach to his kids. Don’t go cutting up no more wrong deeds or I’ll be back!”
He rode slowly out of town – dead center through the middle of the street, and nobody raised a word of reply.

Truetom strode into the room and slapped his Bible down on the bar. All heads turned at the sharp retort. All male heads, that is. All female heads had already swung around at his first appearance, smitten instantly by his pure animal virility.
“What will it be, mister?” asked the bartender uneasily, fidgeting in the presence of an indefinable yet unquestionable authority. “Milk,” Truetom replied and he said no more, so that the bartender began to wonder.
Presently it came to him: “Say, aren’t you Truetom, the world-famous door to door preacher?” Truetom looked up coolly. “What’s it to you?” he said. “Nothing, mister, really – I meant no offence. Here – let me pour myself a milk, too. In fact – HEY! EVERYBODY! TRUETOM IS HERE! MILK FOR EVERYBODY! A TOAST TO TRUETOM!”
“Is there anything about me that says ‘milktoast’ to you?” Truetom scowled, and milk ran out from the terrified man’s mouth. “I’m with the true religion and I DON’T DO MILKTOAST.”
“Sure, Mister, whatever you say,” stammered the bartender.
Truetom impaled him with a gaze. “It’s about time you understood a few things. “I’m TrueTom. I have a corporate agenda. I’m not afraid to play by the rules and I do what I’m told. Don’t tell me what to do because I’ll do it right away and sometimes a man doesn’t want what he’s asked for. You got that?” and the bartender murmured something incoherent as he wet himself.
An impossibly bosomed bimbo floozy, splitting the seams of her too-short skirt, saddled up to him. “They say in these parts that you’re pretty righteous, Truetom. Just how righteous are you?”
“I’d advise you not to try to find out,” Truetom stared her down. Undeterred, the brazen hussy placed her hand on his inner thigh and slowly moved it – not in the direction of his rugged boots. In a flash, Truetom whirled about and decked her with a single punch. Then he calmly resumed sipping his milk as she lay face down on the filthy floor.
When he was done he put down his glass and picked up his Bible. “I have a scripture for all you scum,” he said.  "It's found at John 8:15. 'You judge according to the flesh. I do not judge any man at all.'"
“Look, Truetom, we don’t want no trouble. I’ve got my own religion and I never talk about religion and politics anyhow – anything that matters I don’t come near – and I….” Truetom grabbed him by the neck and rammed his head into another verse he’d just looked up. “a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged.” – 2 Timothy 2:24
At length he put his Bible in its holster and turned. “Alright, I’m coming out!” Truetom hollered out the door to the townspeople amidst the pouring rain. “Don’t nobody raise no objections, or ‘viewpoints!’ If anybody raises an objection or viewpoint, I’ll preach to him AND I’ll preach to his wife AND I’ll preach to his kids. Don’t go cutting up no more wrong deeds or I’ll be back!”
He rode slowly out of town – dead center through the middle of the street, and nobody raised a word of reply.

In fact, the circuit overseer did counsel me about my presentation.

Unfortunately, he is stuck with you, the same way he is stuck with me.
Many times he has tried to get out of his contract with me, which he perhaps feels he made too hastily. However, I always show him the forgiveness clause and he has no recourse but to back down - even though he may grumble about it. I have him over a barrel.
I'm kidding, of course, but only partly. There is a forgiveness clause - though, to be sure, we are not to "accept the undeserved kindness of God and miss its purpose." But let God determine when that has happened, not you.
Good. That means you also don't know that he doesn't approve of you. Assume that he does. Focus on the love. The forgiveness clause has him backed into a corner. You have him where you want him.
 
Because you figure Jehovah would understand your feelings and forgive you? He probably would, but the fallacy is to think he will not regarding the current struggles you go through, even if you feel you are getting pasted. Your family will forgive you, too, but they will be crushed - perhaps for life.
 
To the extent you can, lay off on this kind of thinking. We are all basket cases in one way or another - whether in the truth or not. Let God figure it out when and if you have disappointed him. All you really have to do for now is to avoid homosexual acts, which can't be super-hard because they always involve another party. In this respect you are no different from a straight person who is yet single. Viewing pornography is not good, but it is largely not good because it draws you into a funnel that doesn't end and the funnel skews your future ability to relate to a real person. Again, this is no less true of a straight person.
 
No. Even if you are a complete scoundrel in your congregation - and your comments make it very clear that you are not - you are doing a tremendous service right now by bringing something taboo but potentially lethal out in the open and allowing others, many of whom are mature, to comment. It is a thread that may benefit not just you, but they, and also others who may have the same issue as they stumble across it later.
Lay off on the guilt, to the extent you can. Or put it in perspective. Count yourself like Paul who pummeled himself and declared himself a 'miserable man' because what he wanted to do he did not do, and what he did not want to do he did do. What was his issue, anyway? Who's to say he was not gay, facing exactly the same troubles you face? I've no reason to think it is true, but I have no reason to think it is not true. It doesn't matter. It could be true, and that is good enough for you. His exact demon is probably left vague for exactly that reason - to help many persons in many struggles who will see that he is saying "been there, done that" and say "maybe he is talking about my problem."
Maybe even self-abuse is what he is carrying on about. Who can say? Masturbation is not great, but it is in some respects like porn - its the end result of a long habit that will mess you up, not an instance of the habit itself. Recently I read in some city how the cops were busting men for masturbation in the park. These were businessmen in suits on their lunch hour who were married. There were not few of them. Yes, sexual appetite unrestrained leads to the most disturbing conduct, but that is not at all true of a lapse here and there, which can be shrugged off as an "oh, well - life goes on." Lay off on the guilt is what I'm saying. Big as that Bible is, and as many are the things that it condemns, it no where condemns self abuse specifically. You must read it in from other verses having to do with self-control and with wholesome outlook about proper sexual relations. You read it in properly, make no mistake, but you must read it in nonetheless. If it were really a big deal, it would be the 11th commandment. Sometimes I think it is as much a Victorian relic as a biblical one that we carry on about it as much we do.
What are the things that really get God going - from that proverb about the six things that he hates - no, wait - make that seven? He hates anyone spreading contentions among brothers. You doing that? I don't think so. He hates "feet that are in a hurry to run to badness." It seems you are doing all you can to glue yours to the floor. "A false tongue" he hates. You been doing any lying lately? It doesn't look like it here. Oh, and he hates "hands that are shedding innocent blood" How are you doing on that score? Killed anyone lately? I didn't think so. Cut out Proverbs 6:16-19 and mount it next to the yeartext on your bedroom wall. Mount it over the yeartext, if need be. 
Of course you did.
 
If you fail you fail. Find that scripture about the righteous man who falls seven times and yet gets up each time, and put it next to your other new yeartext. You know what 'seven' means in the Bible - it could be a thousand times he messed up. How come he doesn't lose his 'righteous' status at the 5th failing? Because that's how God is with us - none of us are 'clean.' He deals with it. He doesn't have to. We don't sit back and fleece him for it - that's why we carry on a struggle. But go easy on the guilt. "No temptation has taken you that is not common to men," Paul says, and you don't knock every ball out of the park.
The mantra "born gay" is self-defeating. There is little evidence that it is that way. Gayness may be firmly entrenched for as long as one can remember, but that is not the same thing. Who knows what triggers it? In my youth it was accepted wisdom that it came as a result of parental dynamics, a domineering mother and a retreating father - which is far less depressing for someone determined to abide by God's standards because it implies change is possible. That accepted wisdom was never disproved, just as it was never proved in the first place. It was merely drowned out by another model which has also never been proved, but it is the favored model because it validates a lifestyle that some want validated. If there is one thing that has proven crystal clear in recent decades - to the astonishment of most - it is how amazingly fluid sexuality is. It does not respect 'one man-one woman.' It does not respect gender lines. It does not even respect age limits. It jumps the rails at every turn and is only nudged back on track with only great difficulty. 
How to nudge it? Have 'plenty to do in the work of the Lord,' Paul says. Accept that you have homosexual leanings for now and be done with it. You cannot act upon them, you certainly  work against your own interests should you deliberately cultivate them, but the leanings themselves do not disqualify you. They will fade so subtly you will not notice it, probably over much time, in this system or the next, as you routinely rub shoulders with persons who in this regard have their act together. In other regards, you do and they don't, and when you see someone whose feet are "in a hurry to run to badness," you can stick out one of yours and trip them up. They'll thank you for it later. In this way also you can be like one of the genuine members of the Christian body, which works smoothly with the other members. I don't know that is what Paul had in mind but it works,
No, ISB, you are not a washout. You are doing your brothers a tremendous service and the best is yet to come. "Strengthen your brothers when once you return," Jesus said to Peter. He could strengthen them only because he had gone somewhere. Had he never gone on a difficult journey, he could do no more than say "I know just how you feel." "Yeah, sure you do," his intended recipient would say, rolling his eyes. 

What is "biblical Greek?" Are you sure that is not just "Trinitarian Greek?"