TrueTomHarley

Yes, you two. How does it feeeeeel? Yeah, how does it feeeeel, to be on your own? With no direction hoooome. A complete unknow . . .
Oh, wait. That was a typo. He meant banned, not band.
Sorry

“My homie, my friend, don’t keep your love on no shelf—I said, ‘don’t give me no lines and keep your bans to yourself.”

“My homie, my friend, don’t keep your love on no shelf—I said, ‘don’t give me no lines and keep your bans to yourself.”

Yes, you two. How does it feeeeeel? Yeah, how does it feeeeel, to be on your own? With no direction hoooome. A complete unknow . . .
Oh, wait. That was a typo. He meant banned, not band.
Sorry

Yes, you two. How does it feeeeeel? Yeah, how does it feeeeel, to be on your own? With no direction hoooome. A complete unknow . . .
Oh, wait. That was a typo. He meant banned, not band.
Sorry

The reason my libertarian relative can be forgiven for thinking Lincoln cared only about preserving the union and not freeing slaves was that the man said just that. You can’t fault a person for taking another at his word, can you? True, Lincoln was just being cagey as he built a consensus, without which he knew his emancipation project would go up in smoke, but how is the casual onlooker to know that?
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the union and is not either to save or to destroy slavery,” Lincoln wrote in response to a New York Tribune editorial. “if I could save the union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”
The New York Tribune had no way of knowing that Lincoln had already committed himself to a course that would eclipse anything they might have dreamed of, but it was too soon to tip his hand. Too many people cared only about preservation and not a whit about freeing slaves. They would not buy into a program focused on the latter. Toward the end of his life, Horace Greeley, the Tribune editor who penned the letter prompting Lincoln’s reply, would tire and retreat from his own abolition/reconstruction crusade, but Lincoln never did, nor did Grant, his successor after Johnson.
The best way to measure a man’s racism or lack thereof back then was to gauge Frederick Douglass’s reaction to them. Douglass, the escaped slave who had taught himself to read and write, then went on to take his place among the best writers of any age, was a frequent critic of Lincoln in his early (and later) presidency. Then they met. 
Douglass dropped by the White House, unannounced, at the suggestion of allies, and presented his card. He had expected to wait hours. Instead, he was ushered in within minutes “I was never more quickly or more completely put at ease in the presence of a great man than in that of Abraham Lincoln,” he later said. 
From Doris Goodwin’s Team of Rivals: “The president was seated in a chair when Douglas entered the room, surrounded by a multitude of books and papers, his feet and legs were extended in front of his chair. ‘At my approach he slowly drew his feet in from the different parts of the room into which they had strayed and he began to rise.’ As Lincoln extended his hand in greeting Douglas hesitantly began to introduce himself. ‘I know who you are Mr Douglass,’ Lincoln said. Mr Seward [Secretary of State and 60-mile-away neighbor] has told me all about you. Sit down, I am glad to see you.’ Lincoln’s warmth put Douglas instantly at ease. Douglass later maintained that he had never seen a more transparent countenance.”
"Here comes my friend Douglas!" Lincoln later loudly proclaimed at his second inaugural ball to which Douglass almost didn’t gain admittance, due to a long-standing policy of barring Blacks. “I am glad to see you.” He pressed him for his reaction to his talk (previous post). Douglass demurred, embarrassed to be monopolizing the president when there were hundreds pressing to see him. “You must stop a little, Douglass,” Lincoln said. “There is no man in the country whose opinion I value more than yours. I want to know what you think of it?” Douglass said at last the it was a “sacred effort” and Lincoln beamed.
Frederick Douglass would later recall that “of all the men he had met, Lincoln was the first great man that I talked with in the United states freely who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color.” It is a statement, Goodwin observes, that is all the more remarkable when one reflects that Douglass had interacted with dozens of while abolitionists.
It was the same with the 18th president as it was with the 16th. Douglass had frequent access to Grant. But not with the 17th president. Douglass, heading a Black delegation, met Johnson only once. “Those damned sons of bitches thought they had me in a trap!” Johnson gloated afterwards. “I know that damned Douglass; he's just like any n****r, and he would sooner cut a white man's throat than not.” God works through human governments? In two sentences, all that Lincoln had accomplished was undone. 
Thus, William Seward’s retort to Stephen Douglas, who was then angling for the job, proved wrong: “No man will ever be President of the United States who spells 'negro' with two g’s.” Then, again, it’s not as though Johnson was elected president. They had to kill a better man to get him in. An impeachment, which failed by a single vote to convict, almost got him out.

The reason my libertarian relative can be forgiven for thinking Lincoln cared only about preserving the union and not freeing slaves was that the man said just that. You can’t fault a person for taking another at his word, can you? True, Lincoln was just being cagey as he built a consensus, without which he knew his emancipation project would go up in smoke, but how is the casual onlooker to know that?
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the union and is not either to save or to destroy slavery,” Lincoln wrote in response to a New York Tribune editorial. “if I could save the union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”
The New York Tribune had no way of knowing that Lincoln had already committed himself to a course that would eclipse anything they might have dreamed of, but it was too soon to tip his hand. Too many people cared only about preservation and not a whit about freeing slaves. They would not buy into a program focused on the latter. Toward the end of his life, Horace Greeley, the Tribune editor who penned the letter prompting Lincoln’s reply, would tire and retreat from his own abolition/reconstruction crusade, but Lincoln never did, nor did Grant, his successor after Johnson.
The best way to measure a man’s racism or lack thereof back then was to gauge Frederick Douglass’s reaction to them. Douglass, the escaped slave who had taught himself to read and write, then went on to take his place among the best writers of any age, was a frequent critic of Lincoln in his early (and later) presidency. Then they met. 
Douglass dropped by the White House, unannounced, at the suggestion of allies, and presented his card. He had expected to wait hours. Instead, he was ushered in within minutes “I was never more quickly or more completely put at ease in the presence of a great man than in that of Abraham Lincoln,” he later said. 
From Doris Goodwin’s Team of Rivals: “The president was seated in a chair when Douglas entered the room, surrounded by a multitude of books and papers, his feet and legs were extended in front of his chair. ‘At my approach he slowly drew his feet in from the different parts of the room into which they had strayed and he began to rise.’ As Lincoln extended his hand in greeting Douglas hesitantly began to introduce himself. ‘I know who you are Mr Douglass,’ Lincoln said. Mr Seward [Secretary of State and 60-mile-away neighbor] has told me all about you. Sit down, I am glad to see you.’ Lincoln’s warmth put Douglas instantly at ease. Douglass later maintained that he had never seen a more transparent countenance.”
"Here comes my friend Douglas!" Lincoln later loudly proclaimed at his second inaugural ball to which Douglass almost didn’t gain admittance, due to a long-standing policy of barring Blacks. “I am glad to see you.” He pressed him for his reaction to his talk (previous post). Douglass demurred, embarrassed to be monopolizing the president when there were hundreds pressing to see him. “You must stop a little, Douglass,” Lincoln said. “There is no man in the country whose opinion I value more than yours. I want to know what you think of it?” Douglass said at last the it was a “sacred effort” and Lincoln beamed.
Frederick Douglass would later recall that “of all the men he had met, Lincoln was the first great man that I talked with in the United states freely who in no single instance reminded me of the difference between himself and myself, of the difference of color.” It is a statement, Goodwin observes, that is all the more remarkable when one reflects that Douglass had interacted with dozens of while abolitionists.
It was the same with the 18th president as it was with the 16th. Douglass had frequent access to Grant. But not with the 17th president. Douglass, heading a Black delegation, met Johnson only once. “Those damned sons of bitches thought they had me in a trap!” Johnson gloated afterwards. “I know that damned Douglass; he's just like any n****r, and he would sooner cut a white man's throat than not.” God works through human governments? In two sentences, all that Lincoln had accomplished was undone. 
Thus, William Seward’s retort to Stephen Douglas, who was then angling for the job, proved wrong: “No man will ever be President of the United States who spells 'negro' with two g’s.” Then, again, it’s not as though Johnson was elected president. They had to kill a better man to get him in. An impeachment, which failed by a single vote to convict, almost got him out.

It’s when we read that the congregation all suddenly ducked down in the toll booth that I’ll know someone’s been holding out on me.
When a guy shoots his wife to death, I’m beyond wondering what he was trying to say. Had it been only himself, maybe.
But even then, not especially so. Suicides are endemic today. Some spill over into the congregation, many members of whom were like the fellow Jesus refered to, ‘those who know they are sick and need a physician.’ He means spiritually sick, of course, but there is an overlap between mental illness and spiritual sickness.
Do I have to know the details of a suicide? No more than I have to know the details of someone smitten with cancer. Will I hear either out if they come my way? Yes. Do I feel I must seek them out? No.
These days in the overall world it’s common to hear that people ‘died of depression.’ Always it is a tragedy, but there is no particular ‘shame’ in it anymore, nor is there usually a hunt to find ‘guilty’ parties, even when such parties exist. 
Do I feel deprived when it doesn’t make the website? Are you kidding me? Even the miscreants @Amidstherosesmentions are only there because they directly impact the line leading to the Messiah or the apostolic spread of the good news. If every troubled soul and experience was specifically written of in the Bible, the book would be heavy as the Titanic.

Often this happens when the person has reached a resolution to follow through, given their first opportunity. Their paralyzing dilemma resolved, they can give the appearance that all is completely well.

Yeah, he works like that here, too, shifting commenters around, not cars.

Often this happens when the person has reached a resolution to follow through, given their first opportunity. Their paralyzing dilemma resolved, they can give the appearance that all is completely well.

Often this happens when the person has reached a resolution to follow through, given their first opportunity. Their paralyzing dilemma resolved, they can give the appearance that all is completely well.

Often this happens when the person has reached a resolution to follow through, given their first opportunity. Their paralyzing dilemma resolved, they can give the appearance that all is completely well.

If it makes you feel any better, I’ll concede that this statement was probably window dressing:  
maybe not pure coincidence. I’ll leave it to someone better qualified at math—maybe an engineer who got all the toilets to flush in his city—to calculate the precise odds.

We can view humanities imperfection in many ways. It won't change the outcome. Imperfection cannot be cured in this old system. Therefore, whatever the motive, it remains a human tragedy. It is compounded since the murderer decided to act at a kingdom hall. 
This incident is not the first time, a male shot a female at a Kingdom Hall. People are losing "reasoning" as we get closer to judgment day. Awareness and preparedness is something each individual needs to consider. The Org is making it very evident how we need to be cautious with our surrounding. 
Regardless how the media places the circumstance, they want to see American outrage. Who among humanity can tame Satan?
This depends on how we each view the reporting.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/25/us/colorado-jehovahs-witnesses-homicide-investigation-dead/index.html
The individuals were married and former members of the congregation, police said. 
To me, this doesn't indicate if they were or weren't. Doesn't it really matter? A couple went to a Kingdom Hall. Someone lost her life, the other ended his life. One life will be redeemed, while the other will be judged.
Now the other reporting about incendiary devises. There are many common items that can be considered incendiary. Gasoline can, Ammo Box, flares, etc. Can any of those media outlets see the future?
https://news.yahoo.com/multiple-incendiary-devices-found-christmas-182628560.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall
An investigator will have to determine if such devises were part of a plot or were they just simple, there in the vehicle before the incident.
The fact, the shooter ended his life without further incident, can mean, that person was only interested in hurting one person. The message about the usage of the KH is to be determined.
Did that person have a grudge against the Org, or the individual that was part of the Org, or was at one point a member, then left, and decided to return, thus angering the other.
This tragedy has too many unknowns, other than it being a tragedy. Without speculating, prayers are needed for our worldwide brotherhood. 

I think the point the media is trying to accomplish is, it's another dark day for shootings in America. That apparent murder-suicide of "former" members of that congregation, doesn't necessarily detail if they were active or former members.
The politics of this world is, should Americans be allowed to carry guns in a house of worship. In some States, that's already allowed. Will a good guy with a gun be helpful in a shooting? 
That depends on the circumstance. There was a couple trying to make a point about guns in a church in 2017, the fool shot himself by accident inside the church. There was a shooting in a Texas church and a person with a gun shoot the suspect. A shooter in California was subdued by church members, no guns. One size doesn't fit all.
People that look at scripture in Jesus time might say, Some apostles carried swords. Yes! They did, but how many apostles involved themselves with Roman politics or an incursion in a synagogue. I recall, when Jesus was jailed, tried, and killed without so much as 1 apostle doing anything about it. I believe Christ words were, if my kingdom was part of this world, my servants would fight for me.
John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, My servants would fight to prevent My arrest by the Jews. But now My kingdom is not of this realm." Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders.
It is a tragedy, we should just leave it at that.

Any way you look at it the murdered one is a ‘former member.’

Any way you look at it the murdered one is a ‘former member.’

Any way you look at it the murdered one is a ‘former member.’

Well we are pretty close to gas being $6.66 per gallon.
 

It is arcane reasoning like this that led the Jurassic Park scientists to attempt recreation of certain other wild beasts, with disastrous results, particularly in the sequels. 

Where are these small JW discussion forums? I’ve never been invited to one. Not that I would accept, most likely. I have my hands full now—but still. I do get FB group invitations all the time but when I look them over few strike me as unique.
Yeah, I guess that’s true. When the old hen took down the entire TrueTom vs the Apostates thread I was much put out, having taken for granted I could always go back there, as though it was a filing system.
Uh oh.
Just look how it has turned out for Elon Musk
Why do I think with such admiration of JWI keeping up with old-time fellows Bethelites, some of whom have fallen into instability? It’s a personality trait that extends into other areas.

Yes. I don't think anyone else (who has watched multiple-page discussions with him) really doubts that they know him from previous accounts. But not me.  I won't make a big deal about that any more. I told him I wouldn't. He has just as much right to post as anyone, under whatever account name he chooses. It's not like he's really fooling anyone anyway.

It's not new. The possibility that 616 might be correct, was already acknowledged by a person who was born between only about 15 to 30 years after the apostle John died. At such an early date, every known difference among the Bible manuscripts would have been significant, because there were so few manuscripts of the Bible books at this time, compared to later. So any differences, if not caught right away, could result in a mistake that would be with us for the next 2,000 years.
As it turns out, we don't need the "witness" of the man born as few as 15 years after the apostle John died. The very earliest known fragment of the book of Revelation also says 616, not 666. Note this from Wikipedia:
Around 2005, a fragment from Papyrus 115, taken from the Oxyrhynchus site, was discovered at the Oxford University's Ashmolean Museum. It gave the beast's number as 616 ????. This fragment is the oldest manuscript . . . of Revelation 13 found as of 2017.[2][3]Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, known before the P115 finding but dating to after it, has 616 written in full: ????????? ???? ??, hexakosioi deka hex (lit. "six hundred and sixteen").[17]  
Fragment from Papyrus 115 (P115) of Revelation in the 66th vol. of the Oxyrhynchus series (P. Oxy. 4499).[16] Has the number of the beast as ???, 616. What looks like XIC in the fragment is actually Greek for "xis" which are the numerals for 6+10+600 or 616. But to show that this was no simple copyist error, the verse also spells out the word for 616 in the way that we spell it out in English as "six-hundred sixteen" (oder auf Deutsch "sechshundert sechzehn"). In the text of the manuscript in Greek this is spelled out as "hexakosioi deka hex" as already noted above. Irenaeus, the man born as few as 15 years after John, preferred 666 to 616, but provides the evidence that he already saw the number 616 in manuscripts in the same generation as the apostle John. Irenaeus said:
Such, then, being the state of the case, and this number being found in all the most approved and ancient copies [of the Apocalypse], and those men who saw John face to face bearing their testimony [to it]; while reason also leads us to conclude that the number of the name of the beast, [if reckoned] according to the Greek mode of calculation by the [value of] the letters contained in it, will amount to six hundred and sixty and six; that is, the number of tens shall be equal to that of the hundreds, and the number of hundreds equal to that of the units (for that number which [expresses] the digit six being adhered to throughout, indicates the recapitulations of that apostasy, taken in its full extent, which occurred at the beginning, during the intermediate periods, and which shall take place at the end), - I do not know how it is that some have erred following the ordinary mode of speech, and have vitiated the middle number in the name, deducting the amount of fifty from it, so that instead of six decads they will have it that there is but one. [I am inclined to think that this occurred through the fault of the copyists, as is wont to happen, since numbers also are expressed by letters; so that the Greek letter which expresses the number sixty was easily expanded into the letter Iota of the Greeks.] - Adv. haer. 5.30 The Bible manuscript (P115) is not the only manuscript in which the 616 is found. Wikipedia also says:
Although Irenaeus (2nd century AD) affirmed the number to be 666 . . . theologians have doubts about the traditional reading[13] because of the appearance of the figure 616 in the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C; Paris - one of the four great uncial codices), as well as in the Latin version of Tyconius (DCXVI, ed. Souter in the Journal of Theology, SE, April 1913), and in an ancient Armenian version (ed. Conybeare, 1907). Irenaeus knew about the 616 reading, but did not adopt it (Haer. v.30,3). In the 380s, correcting the existing Latin-language version of the New Testament (commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina), Jerome retained "666".[14][15]   The P115 mss is probably from 225 C.E. to 250 C.E.  Here, below, is how "666" was written in the Codex Vaticanus (between 350 and 400 C.E.):
So either version has the potential to be correct. But the earliest evidence we have is for 616, not 666. Also we can think about whether it was more likely that a mnemonic number like 666 would more likely turn into a non-mnemonic 616 or would it be more likely that a non-mnemonic would be retained as a mnemonic. In the study of the history of textual changes, the difficult is simplified more often than the simple is made more difficult.
In this case, however, there is an even better explanation as to why both 666 and 616 were both known at such an early date in the history of the manuscripts of Revelation. But that's another story, that is not necessary for this discussion.

Why am I reminded of a certain local sister’s remark years ago about witnessing to her own former people, the Pentecostals? ‘When they’ve got their music on, you can’t touch em.’
In the background as I write this, family members play ‘Jehovah Give Me Courage’—it’s not only music, but video.