Furuli's new e-book: "My Beloved Religion - And The Governing Body"

[Srecko Sostar]

Yes, i can recall one role model,  where Jesus set example what is the best way how to shun people who are morally and spiritually "garbage".

 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold, a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of ^[a]publicans and sinners! And wisdom ^[b]is justified by her ^[c]works.

It can be how His sharpness was not enough sharp ? :))

[Space Merchant]

Just now, 4Jah2me said:

@Space Merchant What is true to some will not be true to others.  And in the CCJW / Watchtower, 'truth' to them changes over time. 

As for your previous comment to me, i was just mentioning things that do cause damage within the CCJW. 

 

 

The information and evidence provided is outside of the faith communities, individuals and other groups, as with legitimate evidence to culture concerning even that of blood. It links up with them as well if we are to include them.

That being said, as I told many, JWs are not immune, they, as with all, are imperfect. The only thing is, not many of them are well equipped to deal with dangers, therefore, if we are to apply what we learn, especially from services we can make some sort of change as long as everything lines up (state, laws, etc.). There was however one example, a Swahili JW I mentioned a while back, for he knew all things related to child abuse, domestic abuse towards men, women, etc and how he applied it, he gave counsel. For what he knows and what he does, someone else, let's say in the UK, may not be capable of doing.

To minimize the damage anywhere, what we can do, even you, is to teach people.

But yeah, as for blood, they are not the only ones; blood is both risky, as is culturally damaging.

[TrueTomHarley]

19 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Thanks for remind me about JTR. 

Somewhere down the road I will write a post about him. @Thinkingwas worried that he might be on his deathbed—and I must admit, his words could be taken that way—expressing regrets at the very end. But they need not be and I am more hopeful. Whatever regrets he may have that he was very forthright with he will have time to rectify.

The purpose of people is so other people can use them to teach lessons. Just ask Moses. He was the meekest man who ever lived, but till the end of time we will be hearing of how he blew his stack at the miscreants and got sent right back to Bible 101.

[Space Merchant]

3 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Yes, i can recall one role model,  where Jesus set example what is the best way how to shun people who are morally and spiritually "garbage".

 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold, a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of ^[a]publicans and sinners! And wisdom ^[b]is justified by her ^[c]works.

It can be how His sharpness was not enough sharp ? :))

I believed you've confused yourself on this matter. The point is to understanding what is true which sharpens if you are to apply vs. understanding what is true, but deviating, thus dulling thyself.

As with Jesus example, you are far from the point; more so, a bit confusing vs. what you presented prior.

The question is this - Would it be wise on your part to speak and or take up a truth and understanding it to sharpen yourself?

[Space Merchant]

4 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The purpose of people is so other people can use them to teach lessons. Just ask Moses. He was the meekest man who ever lived, but till the end of time we will be hearing of how he blew his stack at the miscreants and got sent right back to Bible 101.

True. Also which I find ironic is not a whole lot of Christians like to talk about Moses, as seen in one debate, a Christian woman has thrown the Levite under the bus, and his companions.

[Srecko Sostar]

Which church to join would you recommend for someone who is "dull", not "sharp enough" ?

Hypothetical question !

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

5 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Which church to join would you recommend for someone who is "dull", not "sharp enough" ?

Hypothetical question !

Is there one worth joining is the question ? Do any of then meet the mark of serving God through Christ properly ?

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Incorrect. Once again your dishonesty goes without challenge. You seem to be, wanting to prove me wrong and as usual you get caught being deceptive by diverting challenges.

As with a lot of things, the actual point is not that important. But honesty is.

(Luke 16:10) The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much.

But by this I don't mean that all dishonesty needs to be challenged. Love can also cover over a multitude of sins. But this topic started out as a serious discussion of Furuli's work on the "FDS=GB" doctrine. If I had said that I think Furuli didn't do his homework because he used some silly fonts in his e-book, you would have a right to correct me. If I said that he shouldn't have used a certain font because that font was used in a certain book on spiritism, and another on porneia, you would have a right to correct me. But if I started evading and diverting and saying I didn't really say what I said, but had really said something else, then someone should probably point out that this type of conduct appears to be dishonest. 

I'm not sure why you thought it was necessary to make this false claim about Zondervan, in the first place, and then double down with a second false claim about them, when the first didn't pan out. But is was shown to be a false claim, nonetheless. Even if it were true, it would still not prove that Furuli did anything wrong, any more than you would be proving that the Watchtower Society is doing something wrong by also quoting from Zondervan. From what I can tell, Furuli's Zondervan sources were perfectly correct on the points that Furuli is making, as they are about the meanings of Biblical Greek words and passages. Remember, that Furuli is an accomplished linguist, and his sources from Zondervan are the NIV Bible and other Bible commentaries about Biblical Greek.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

This post was about the challenge you seemed so desperate to disprove about Zodervan not being a good spiritual publishing house.

Not at all. They could be a great spiritual publishing house, or they could be a terrible spiritual publishing house. It was never about that at all. It was about using false claims as false evidence to indicate that they were not a good spiritual publishing house.

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

You are the one making a big deal trying to make people think that Harper Collins published the Satanic Bible and the joy of sex, when I was referring to a different book published by Zodervan.

Patently false, and dishonest, too, I'd have to assume. Here are your own words as a reminder.

Quote

authors from the Zondervan publishing house. A publishing house that printed the Satanic Bible.

Quote

The fact Brother furuli didn't do due diligence in his research puts a black mark on it since that publishing house not only published the "Satanic Bible" but has published material meant for homosexuals.

Quote

Funny, Harper Collins published the Satanic bible, while Zondervan published gay sex.

As evidence you even provided a website link that only mentioned the Satanic Bible and [Joy of] Gay Sex, with no other books mentioned. The idea that you could avoid admitting the mistake by claiming you referring to a different "gay sex" book was predictable. And then that fell through because "All But Invisible" was a book about celibacy, not sex.

Your second attempt to avoid admitting a mistake again, imo, is now similar:

2 hours ago, César Chávez said:

. . . I was referring to a different book published by Zodervan.  The posted author is gay. Had you done proper research just like Furuli, you would have found "Wisley Hill" and his book published by Zodervan "washed and waiting 2010" speaks of his experience of being gay.

Again, your second try, "Washed and Waiting," is also about gay celibacy, not "gay sex."

But, even if you had been right, what would it mean? Are you saying that a writer who wants to publish a book can't quote from a book from a publisher that has ever published or promoted or distributed OTHER books by OTHER authors who wrote about spiritism or wrote material directed at a homosexual audience. I'm sure you are aware that the Watchtower has written material directed at a homosexual audience (nothing wrong with that, as it is counsel and advice), and the Watchtower publications have also promoted or distributed books about spiritism (in the distant past). The Watchtower Society has also quoted from several different commentary publications from Zondervan, not just several Zondervan-published Bibles.

What you should do is point out what you think is wrong with the actual argument that Furuli made, without "poisoning the well," as it were, by making false claims about his sources.

[Space Merchant]

3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Which church to join would you recommend for someone who is "dull", not "sharp enough" ?

Hypothetical question !

You are now deviating from the focus. Even now you continue to do this, which says a lot about how you yourself do not really apply the verse.

That being said, I will address the question a second time to you, regarding Jesus' example and how it can be applied::::

3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

The question is this - Would it be wise on your part to speak and or take up a truth and understanding it to sharpen yourself?

This is not a difficult question to answer, Srecko.

As far as I am concern, no one mentioned church nor does it have anything to do with any church, so please - stop with the deviation, it will only engineer your own demise, as it has done before.

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

You falsely thought you had something to argue, and you were proven wrong as usual.

That's not what the evidence shows, though, is it?

Somehow I got a reputation around here for being too patient with people like you, and it turns out that getting into verbal fisticuffs with someone is a prerequisite for TTH's "Bible 101" class. 😉 You were handy.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Once again, for the fourth time, to me it was about Furuli not doing a thorough research to use a certain publishing house you are trying so hard to defend now, since "Wisely Hill's" book is another illustration of Zondervan works.

I'm not defending Zondervan. They are just another Bible publishing house with books and Bibles that the Watchtower has seen fit to quote from dozens of times. In fact, the very publication that you pointed out, one that Furuli also quotes from (Zondervan's Expositor's Bible Commentary) has been quoted by the Watchtower publications at least 15 times. Other Zondervan publications have been quoted in the Watchtower about 75 times.

You have evidently looked for things that sound salacious in Wesley Hill's book, as an illustration of "Zondervan works." That sounds like a disgusting thing to do just to try to prove that you might still be partly right in a claim that is still false. But it's still not a book about "gay sex" as you claimed. In fact, I've just looked up 5 places where the book is discussed or reviewed and all of them say it's a book about gay celibacy, and all of them quote the author himself to show the evidence. I'll offer just one of them here, although I suspect you already passed up several similar quotes when you were looking for salacious bits:

https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/washed-waiting-gospel-story-celibacy

In Chapter 1, Wesley explains why he believes scriptural witness and church tradition require him not to act on his homosexual desires and how the gospel enables him to fulfill this demand.

He begins by briefly addressing some of the same biblical passages we addressed in our discussion of Torn—Leviticus 18:22; Genesis 19:1-11; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; I Timothy 1:8-11; Romans 1:18-32—as well as Genesis 1-3 and Jesus’ teachings on divorce in Matthew 19:3-9 and Mark 10:6-8, which Wesley says “presents marriage between one man and one woman as the God-given context for human sexual expression and thus, in principle, rules out homosexual practice.”

“On the basis of texts such as these,” Wesley concludes, “the Christian church has consistently and repeatedly said no to homosexual practice.” (p. 53)

Wesley doesn’t gloss over the challenge of this conviction .

“To say no over and over again to some of my deepest, strongest, most recurrent longings often seems, by turns, impossible and completely undesirable. If a gay Christian’s sexual orientation is so fixed and ingrained that there seems to be little hope of changing it, should he or she really be expected to resist it for a lifetime?”

And it goes on to show why the author believes the answer is that a gay person must resist for a lifetime, and that this outlook is supported in scripture. So, while it's true that he admits some details about what he struggles against, you should not to use selective quotes to misrepresent an author. It seems clear that this was what you did, and what you intended to do. I find this to be evidence of more dishonesty from you.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Once again, that was your incorrect research not by factual proof you are desperately trying to deny now.

Also, please don't project your obvious desperation on me. The facts are very clear-cut so there is really no argument at all. There has not been anything to deny.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Read the books in their entirety instead of searching for snippets in google.

That sounds like more projection, too, but I have no desire to read his entire book. His own review of it, and intro and conclusion should be enough. And his own statements are borne out by 100 percent of the 5 reviews I read. In fact, from you yourself I can tell that you have mischaracterized the book, based on reading your own references.

And, it's still not relevant to the point: that you used false claims as false evidence about Zondervan to discredit Furuli's due diligence, when it was unrelated to his point.

3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

It doesn't matter if they have published bibles or bible commentaries. With a serious book such as Furuli's, well deserved research would have gone further.

Are you saying he should have counseled the GB not to keep using references from Zondervan?

 

[TrueTomHarley]

24 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Somehow I got a reputation around here for being too patient with people like you, and it turns out that getting into verbal fisticuffs with someone is a prerequisite for TTH's "Bible 101" class. 😉 You were handy.

I have not yet offered any scholarships, but that may change.

I’m not sure where all this Zondervan stuff started, but I wish that somewhere Rolf could have pointed out the conflict-of-interest in putting Big Business in charge of distributing the Word of God. 

He might, too, have highlighted the feat of inventing an entirely new publication and distribution channel so that the poverty-stricken fellow in a developing nation is not stuck with some 200-year-old turkey of a translation that he can neither afford nor understand. 

He might also point out how such a channel means that rigorously translating a ‘trinity’ scripture will not doom the Bible in the marketplace, as it would in Zondervan’s case.

He might acknowledge that the GB can’t be all that bad to have pulled off such a stunt.

[Witness]

22 hours ago, Anna said:

Lately I find myself not bothering to reply to others like Witness for example when she says that buying liquor (Morris) is a sign of not being sound in mind.

Anyone sound in mind can buy liquor.  But in his case, it is the way it was done.  I think you know that.