TrueTomHarley

VEILED?!!
“After throwing him outside the city, they began stoning him. …As they were stoning Stephen, he made this appeal:
“You always seem to have a veiled form of criticism.”
 
 

VEILED?!!
“After throwing him outside the city, they began stoning him. …As they were stoning Stephen, he made this appeal:
“You always seem to have a veiled form of criticism.”
 
 

WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Gulf War, Spanish-American, Civil War, to name a few. “People helping people:”—I admit I have never looked upon it that way. You are on to something, Srecko.
To be sure, many will go to war with noble intentions. What the overall picture shows, however, is that “man is dominating man to his injury.” Isn’t there a religion somewhere that points to the solution to that predicament?

That flea-bitten mutt?

What are these guys doing on MY STREET!? They have no right!

What are these guys doing on MY STREET!? They have no right!

What are these guys doing on MY STREET!? They have no right!

How can anyone be so obtuse? Of course I know what the subject is. What anyone else instantly realizes is being said is that the tactic fails anywhere—and it fails just as much with WT personnel as anywhere else.

How can anyone be so obtuse? Of course I know what the subject is. What anyone else instantly realizes is being said is that the tactic fails anywhere—and it fails just as much with WT personnel as anywhere else.

How can anyone be so obtuse? Of course I know what the subject is. What anyone else instantly realizes is being said is that the tactic fails anywhere—and it fails just as much with WT personnel as anywhere else.

Exactly.
It is a fool’s game to base judgments on the flaws of those taking the lead anywhere, but it is also the oldest trick in the book. Honing in on the imperfections of the doers will allow you to discredit anything. The only ones not making mistakes are the ones not doing anything (as though that itself is not a mistake).
We’re in weak position to say what ‘should be done’ in directing the Lord’s work. To those who think a True Anointed is the answer, consider how Jesus surely was a true anointed, yet he said something that, if any of the Governing Body had said it, they would be blistering condemned as irresponsible and wrong.
Why did Jesus say as he did about eating his flesh and drinking his blood? (John 6) No clue here. Enemies of the truth would later seize upon it to spread the ill rumor that Christians practiced cannibalism. Early Christians were persecuted and killed, their enemies spurred on by this abominable report that could be traced to Jesus himself. Who would not, if they didn’t know it was Jesus, not quickly condemn whoever said the inflammatory words.
Like you, not all is as I personally would like it. Would things be better if things were more to my liking? No clue. They might easily be worse.  The one thing we know for sure—two dozen or more scriptures say it directly—is that true Christians will be hated by the world. That is a tough current to navigate against.
I have taken the Rolling Stones song as though my own, ‘You Can’t Always Get What You Want.’ I’ve also observed that the point of contention is always going to be the divine/human interface, and have even speculated that this is even true with Judas himself: He and God were tight. No problems there. But this imposter claiming to be the messiah was not at all what Judas had expected. Jesus didn’t fit the bill at all in Judas’s eyes.

Are you privy to the degree Jesus did that after his ‘eat my flesh’ remarks gave enemies the pretext to persecute the congregation for cannibalism?

Are you privy to the degree Jesus did that after his ‘eat my flesh’ remarks gave enemies the pretext to persecute the congregation for cannibalism?

Exactly.
It is a fool’s game to base judgments on the flaws of those taking the lead anywhere, but it is also the oldest trick in the book. Honing in on the imperfections of the doers will allow you to discredit anything. The only ones not making mistakes are the ones not doing anything (as though that itself is not a mistake).
We’re in weak position to say what ‘should be done’ in directing the Lord’s work. To those who think a True Anointed is the answer, consider how Jesus surely was a true anointed, yet he said something that, if any of the Governing Body had said it, they would be blistering condemned as irresponsible and wrong.
Why did Jesus say as he did about eating his flesh and drinking his blood? (John 6) No clue here. Enemies of the truth would later seize upon it to spread the ill rumor that Christians practiced cannibalism. Early Christians were persecuted and killed, their enemies spurred on by this abominable report that could be traced to Jesus himself. Who would not, if they didn’t know it was Jesus, not quickly condemn whoever said the inflammatory words.
Like you, not all is as I personally would like it. Would things be better if things were more to my liking? No clue. They might easily be worse.  The one thing we know for sure—two dozen or more scriptures say it directly—is that true Christians will be hated by the world. That is a tough current to navigate against.
I have taken the Rolling Stones song as though my own, ‘You Can’t Always Get What You Want.’ I’ve also observed that the point of contention is always going to be the divine/human interface, and have even speculated that this is even true with Judas himself: He and God were tight. No problems there. But this imposter claiming to be the messiah was not at all what Judas had expected. Jesus didn’t fit the bill at all in Judas’s eyes.

@Pudgysteadily improves in my eyes. I am starting to think of him as ‘the dog that does indeed vomit but has the good sense not to return to it.’

@Pudgysteadily improves in my eyes. I am starting to think of him as ‘the dog that does indeed vomit but has the good sense not to return to it.’

Exactly.
It is a fool’s game to base judgments on the flaws of those taking the lead anywhere, but it is also the oldest trick in the book. Honing in on the imperfections of the doers will allow you to discredit anything. The only ones not making mistakes are the ones not doing anything (as though that itself is not a mistake).
We’re in weak position to say what ‘should be done’ in directing the Lord’s work. To those who think a True Anointed is the answer, consider how Jesus surely was a true anointed, yet he said something that, if any of the Governing Body had said it, they would be blistering condemned as irresponsible and wrong.
Why did Jesus say as he did about eating his flesh and drinking his blood? (John 6) No clue here. Enemies of the truth would later seize upon it to spread the ill rumor that Christians practiced cannibalism. Early Christians were persecuted and killed, their enemies spurred on by this abominable report that could be traced to Jesus himself. Who would not, if they didn’t know it was Jesus, not quickly condemn whoever said the inflammatory words.
Like you, not all is as I personally would like it. Would things be better if things were more to my liking? No clue. They might easily be worse.  The one thing we know for sure—two dozen or more scriptures say it directly—is that true Christians will be hated by the world. That is a tough current to navigate against.
I have taken the Rolling Stones song as though my own, ‘You Can’t Always Get What You Want.’ I’ve also observed that the point of contention is always going to be the divine/human interface, and have even speculated that this is even true with Judas himself: He and God were tight. No problems there. But this imposter claiming to be the messiah was not at all what Judas had expected. Jesus didn’t fit the bill at all in Judas’s eyes.

I didn’t like when he shot the jackass, though I suppose you can’t sacrifice the entire WWII effort on its account. I did like when he reappraised his toast decision, based upon ‘one SOB to another.’
Where is that recollection of the old bro tilting back in his chair whenever the younger ones take to squabbling and observing, “It’s amazing what Jehovah accomplishes considering what he has to work with.”? I like the observation of Jesus that it’s the one’s in need of a physician that actually seek one out.

Because Jesus portrays them that way. (Luke 5)
Come come, tell the truth and shame the Devil.
The WT explanation of the wild beast is instantly recognizable. You don’t have to agree with that interpretation to see how the International agency for peace and security is “an image” of the various governments and how it derives its power from them, and that through it ALL the nations  (ten horns) briefly combine to rule.
Your interpretation? It is that of the leadership of a religion that represents 1/1000th of the world population that even now, most are only vaguely familiar with and many have never heard of it at all. Seriously? Whereas the WT interpretation is recognizable worldwide, very few people have any idea of what “anointed” Christians are. They don’t even know what it is, and yet your grudge against them comprises the cornerstone of your belief system.
It’s just you playing Marvel Avenger evil superanointed heroes battling Marvel Avenger good superanointed heroes for who gets preaching dominion over the little people of the world.
It’s just pure loony—you playing out your grudge at tireless and tiresome length—making as though it was the very central theme of the Bible’s climax.

Exactly. The woman’s deranged.
The way to look at wild beast prophesies is as you have often said—the agency that comes into it’s own as humanistic ideologues put it to powerful use. 
“Now, the fly in the ointment of saying that international organization for bringing peace and security to the world, presuming to do what only God’s kingdom can do and thus betraying its ‘blasphemous’ nature—the fly in the ointment of saying that international organization is the mighty eighth king that draws its power from the seven is that it sure doesn’t act mighty. The sky-blue helmeted troops that nobody pays any attention to trying to enforce peace, whereas everybody knows you don’t put troops in sky-blue helmets. I mean, they’re sort of like Boy Scouts—they mean well but are not to be taken seriously. 
Maybe what must be done is reappraise the beast giving breath (Revelation 13:15) to the image of the beast, and figure just when does it do that? At its creation, yes, first as its 1919 forerunner League of Nations, then, after it goes into the abyss and re-emerges, as the United Nations, yes, then it “tells those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the wild beast that had the sword-stroke and yet revived.” (Vs 14) 
But there’s not a lot more breath breathed into it. You don’t breathe life into it while the harlot is riding high, hailing it as the “political expression of God’s kingdom on earth” at exactly the same time as Jehovah’s Witnesses are galvanized to “advertise, advertise, advertise the [real] king and his kingdom. You breathe life into it once is has grown weary of the harlot and is showing signs of bucking it—once the dominant culture has turned atheistic.
You don’t breathe life into it until the times immediately ahead? That humanistic framework is put in place as of the image’s founding, and then not much is done with it—until what is just ahead of us? Is it with the UN Agenda 2030 that life is breathed into it, and with that human scheme “the wild beast should both speak and cause to be killed all those who refuse to worship the image of the wild beast [as] It puts under compulsion all people—the small and the great, the rich and the poor, the free and the slaves—that these should be marked on their right hand or on their forehead, and that nobody can buy or sell except a person having the mark, the name of the wild beast or the number of its name.”  (Vs 15-18)
The humanistic way of saving the earth—tamp down that population growth. What can be better than pushing sexual conduct that won’t result in babies? Cool down that planet. How better to do it than squeezing out fossil fuels so that sun and wind will pick up the slack and if it doesn’t—well then, adjust. Redistribute that money. How better to do it that destroying the economy and re-emerging it in a great reset? Tamp down those freedoms people fixate on—they can’t handle them. Remake religion so that it’s ‘my way or the highway’—if it comes on board for backing human schemes, it can stay for now.
None of this can be done openly, for people love their own comfort and they love their own nations. They won’t stand by to see them eviscerated. It must be done clandestinely and it must be done by trillionaires—nobody else would have the wherewithal to pull it off. Oh, yeah—plenty of conspiracies can be spun from this. The problem with conspiracy theories is that, once a few of them turn out to be true, you tend to believe anything that comes down the pipe.
Some of the current conspiracy theories involve COVID 19, its origin, its trajectory, and regimens to deal with it. I’ve read the Breggin and the Mercola books and they do make for good reads—both of them heavily endnoted. The trouble is their solution to thwarting a conspiracy always lies in reverting to the status quo—as if all was hunky dory before COVID-19 revealed itself. Breggin keeps referring to those who benefit—and there are those who benefit enormously—as “global predators”fixated on their own “power, wealth, and self-aggrandizement.” If he says it once, he says it a dozen times. Why does he do that? They are humans fixing the planet—the humanistic way. 
On the other hand, the nations of this earth always paint themselves with laudable goals. They never paint themselves as beasts. Yet that is how the Bible paints them, for that is how they behave—ripping, tearing, and devouring each other and whoever is caught in the crossfire. Sometimes they even turn on their own citizens in the guise of helping them. So maybe Breggin is on to something after all.”
(from https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2021/12/doesnt-that-new-wild-beast-look-an-awful-lot-like-the-bible-wild-beasts.html )
 

Rutherford himself admitted he ..”had made a complete ass of himself over a lot of his writing..”….he was the one that changed the understanding of the ark representing or a type of Jesus….to representing the org……and if you stop and think about the ramifications by that it’s mind numbing…the GB has since changed it back to Russell’s understanding……but I give Rutherford great credit in getting us out of idolatry with the pagan celebrations…Jehovah puts up with a lot from ones he sees fit to use…..thank goodness !!!

If you knew more about zoology you would realize that therein lies the answer to your previous question. The stars of the Pleiades are quite close together, making it easy for a kangaroo to hop from one to another.  

Yikes! It turns out that John Lennon liked Chairman Mao and regretted writing the lyric that suggested he didn’t.
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/beatles-the-lyric-from-revolution-john-lennon-regretted.html/
He and @JW Insiderwould get along just fine! In fact, didn’t JWI say he knows has friends in the music biz?
It is enough! I have figured it out! 
PSomH is John Butler. I am Dr. Max ‘Ace’ Inhibitor. Pudgy is—well, I know he’s been around under a different name. The Librarian is That ‘ol Hen. Dmitor is—the list would stretch off the page.
if you don’t have an extra handle, you are nobody! And face it—JWI is not nobody!
So……….(drum roll please)……..JWI is actually …..
JOHN LENNON!  (the pinko)
I think I’ve said before that my permanent year text is a modification of Romans 3:4.   
Every man online is a liar.
There’s no way anyone can know, so why answer? Anybody can say anything. It will have to be one of those “Does not the ear test words as the tongue tastes food?” kind of things, and if different people come to different conclusions—that’s okay too. It’s not as though anyone can construct their very own online congregation here.
I’ll say one thing about Jehovah’s Witnesses, though. The requirement to be humorless is not put forth in any of the baptism questions. Nor is the requirement to be holier-than-thou. Nor to restrict ones’ diet to Bible-sandwiches.

“But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao…”

He did get a bit heated with PSomH once. But that character would test anyone’s patience.

Exactly. The woman’s deranged.
The way to look at wild beast prophesies is as you have often said—the agency that comes into it’s own as humanistic ideologues put it to powerful use. 
“Now, the fly in the ointment of saying that international organization for bringing peace and security to the world, presuming to do what only God’s kingdom can do and thus betraying its ‘blasphemous’ nature—the fly in the ointment of saying that international organization is the mighty eighth king that draws its power from the seven is that it sure doesn’t act mighty. The sky-blue helmeted troops that nobody pays any attention to trying to enforce peace, whereas everybody knows you don’t put troops in sky-blue helmets. I mean, they’re sort of like Boy Scouts—they mean well but are not to be taken seriously. 
Maybe what must be done is reappraise the beast giving breath (Revelation 13:15) to the image of the beast, and figure just when does it do that? At its creation, yes, first as its 1919 forerunner League of Nations, then, after it goes into the abyss and re-emerges, as the United Nations, yes, then it “tells those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the wild beast that had the sword-stroke and yet revived.” (Vs 14) 
But there’s not a lot more breath breathed into it. You don’t breathe life into it while the harlot is riding high, hailing it as the “political expression of God’s kingdom on earth” at exactly the same time as Jehovah’s Witnesses are galvanized to “advertise, advertise, advertise the [real] king and his kingdom. You breathe life into it once is has grown weary of the harlot and is showing signs of bucking it—once the dominant culture has turned atheistic.
You don’t breathe life into it until the times immediately ahead? That humanistic framework is put in place as of the image’s founding, and then not much is done with it—until what is just ahead of us? Is it with the UN Agenda 2030 that life is breathed into it, and with that human scheme “the wild beast should both speak and cause to be killed all those who refuse to worship the image of the wild beast [as] It puts under compulsion all people—the small and the great, the rich and the poor, the free and the slaves—that these should be marked on their right hand or on their forehead, and that nobody can buy or sell except a person having the mark, the name of the wild beast or the number of its name.”  (Vs 15-18)
The humanistic way of saving the earth—tamp down that population growth. What can be better than pushing sexual conduct that won’t result in babies? Cool down that planet. How better to do it than squeezing out fossil fuels so that sun and wind will pick up the slack and if it doesn’t—well then, adjust. Redistribute that money. How better to do it that destroying the economy and re-emerging it in a great reset? Tamp down those freedoms people fixate on—they can’t handle them. Remake religion so that it’s ‘my way or the highway’—if it comes on board for backing human schemes, it can stay for now.
None of this can be done openly, for people love their own comfort and they love their own nations. They won’t stand by to see them eviscerated. It must be done clandestinely and it must be done by trillionaires—nobody else would have the wherewithal to pull it off. Oh, yeah—plenty of conspiracies can be spun from this. The problem with conspiracy theories is that, once a few of them turn out to be true, you tend to believe anything that comes down the pipe.
Some of the current conspiracy theories involve COVID 19, its origin, its trajectory, and regimens to deal with it. I’ve read the Breggin and the Mercola books and they do make for good reads—both of them heavily endnoted. The trouble is their solution to thwarting a conspiracy always lies in reverting to the status quo—as if all was hunky dory before COVID-19 revealed itself. Breggin keeps referring to those who benefit—and there are those who benefit enormously—as “global predators”fixated on their own “power, wealth, and self-aggrandizement.” If he says it once, he says it a dozen times. Why does he do that? They are humans fixing the planet—the humanistic way. 
On the other hand, the nations of this earth always paint themselves with laudable goals. They never paint themselves as beasts. Yet that is how the Bible paints them, for that is how they behave—ripping, tearing, and devouring each other and whoever is caught in the crossfire. Sometimes they even turn on their own citizens in the guise of helping them. So maybe Breggin is on to something after all.”
(from https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2021/12/doesnt-that-new-wild-beast-look-an-awful-lot-like-the-bible-wild-beasts.html )