Jump to content

Ann O'Maly

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

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

There are literally hundreds of these references. But unfortunately the gay sex book was not published by Zondervan. Perhaps you have done more research into the other books on homosexuality published by Zondervan, but from what I can tell, most of them are about gay persons trying to live a celibate lifestyle and the potential conflict between grace and sin. This is also the gist of articles on this topic on Zondervan Academic. Harper Collins did buy Zondervan in 1988, well after Zondervan had already been publishing the NIV and books by "Christian-related" authors. Having a Christian books division does not stop HC from publishing whatever else it wants from other authors. It doesn't mean that the persons who run the Zondervan division agree with everything published by HC in general.   

You seem to want to make a point here. It appears you are discrediting my assessment about Zondervan not being a good spiritual publishing house. As usual, this continues to be a mistaken stance you have shown for many years.

 

All But Invisible

By Nate Collins, Wesley Hill

·  9780310526025

·  ISBN 10: 0310526027

·  Imprint: Zondervan

·  On Sale: 2017-09-12

·  Pages: 320

·  List Price: $19.99

·  Publisher: Zondervan

I believe my inference was about churches that are now allowing gays (LGBT) (HOMOSEXUAL) into their churches in the name of unity. I have no idea what you are trying to articulate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

recognize who is the right kind of slave. To

Just a change of one word and one can change the meaning of the sentence. Kinda sneaky I would say.

The question about WHO the slave is: is not a parable; it is about identifying a slave by the job that is being fulfilled........ providing food to all the rest of the slaves... it is like an identifying mark.......of this slave in the last days....

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

ALL scripture useful and beneficial for teaching, etc.

So do I believe this.... but we are talking here about the slave that will be doing a specific job in the last days.... and the scripture in Luke 12 indicates that he is 'appointed' to do so by the one to whom he is accountable.  if he does not do a good job he is accountable. 

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

would like to ask JW members and JW parents, why they think how children of age 3,4 to 7 or from 7 to 14 or from 14-18 are not in such dangerous of "devil's" influence..... but young people from 18-24 are ??

 I feel that young children are in grave danger too! Especially with the new UN based curricula.   This is why it is imperative for parents to speak to their young children a lot and daily..... to counterbalance the sexual rubbish and other junk they are learning in school. Parents need to be very vigilant right now.  Homeschool if it is at all possible.

33 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

I will disagree with Brother Furuli on higher education for a spiritual life. For a secular life, there will never be a guarantee, but with a spiritual life, God guarantee’s everlasting life to loyal

Agree.

"We know we all have knowledge Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 

    Hello guest!
 If anyone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know it as he should know it. 
    Hello guest!
 But if anyone loves God, this one is known by him." 
.  1 cor 8: 

One does not need higher education to have the love Jesus showed.  In fact education is a barrier to be trusting like a child.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Billy the Kid. CC. Quote "Once again, show me where Jesus obligated the apostles to receive higher education to gain spiritual knowledge?"

Totally different situation in 1st century. And Jesus supplied much for the Apostles. 

When people advise against higher education it kind of reminds me of the scripture about saying 'keep warm and be well fed' but doing nothing to help in that respect. 

Here in England most industry has gone. Most jobs are either retail or office. Then there are the high tech jobs. For many jobs qualifications are needed. The responsibility of the family head is to supply not only spiritual food but physical food. We know the 'bits of paper' are quite useless but many employers require them or you won't even get an interview. 

By the way the Apostle Paul was basically saying there is a time for using education and a time for just being spiritual. 

As for your idea of disloyalty to God. You seem to be getting your GB mixed up with the real GOD. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain or enlarge upon your use of the word 'overseeing' here. 

I meant it exactly in the ways that the Bible uses the word "episkopos" which literally means overseer. It can be used of elders who oversee a congregation. Perhaps the needs of all the congregations in Achaia or Galatia, for example, would have needed an overseer of several congregations, much like a "circuit overseer." Titus, for example, had to qualify as an overseer of elders and overseers in city after city:

A Circuit Overseer and / or Elder does oversee, but under the rules of the GB. 

I think you were referring to the GB themselves, hence I asked for your further explanation of the word Overseer regarding the GB..

The CO and Elders do not make the rules, whereas the GB do. The CO and Elders do not govern, whereas the GB do. 

Who do you think appoints the members of the GB to their positions ?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

When people advise against higher education it kind of reminds me of the scripture about saying 'keep warm and be well fed' but doing nothing to help in that respect. 

Here in England most industry has gone. Most jobs are either retail or office. Then there are the high tech jobs. For many jobs qualifications are needed. The responsibility of the family head is to supply not only spiritual food but physical food. We know the 'bits of paper' are quite useless but many employers require them or you won't even get an interview. 

This reminds me, how there was a real difference between the humble existence back then with today's materialism. You make a good argument against the Christian faith. Ii also makes it clear how, scripture is really not understood. Who has guaranteed you a better life if you had received, higher education? Keep in mind, Jesus was a Carpenter. Did that family continue with the charity of others, or did they work to provide? 

Matthew 6:19-342, Thessalonians 3:10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, César Chávez said:

You seem to want to make a point here. It appears you are discrediting my assessment about Zondervan not being a good spiritual publishing house. As usual, this continues to be a mistaken stance you have shown for many years.

All But Invisible

By Nate Collins, Wesley Hill

·  Publisher: Zondervan

I believe my inference was about churches that are now allowing gays (LGBT) (HOMOSEXUAL) into their churches in the name of unity. I have no idea what you are trying to articulate.

I think you are being dishonest again. So, if you are, consider this to be a case of "reproving before all onlookers." (1 Tim 5:20)  I could be wrong, of course, so just think of it as merely trying to follow the qualities Paul spoke of:

(Titus 1:8, 9) . . .a lover of goodness, sound in mind, righteous, loyal, self-controlled, 9 holding firmly to the faithful word as respects his art of teaching, so that he may be able both to encourage by the teaching that is wholesome and to reprove those who contradict.

So to answer you: yes, I want to make a point here. Yes, the facts have discredited your assessment about Zondervan. As usual, you were "hoisted by your own petard," again. As usual, you love to project your mistakes onto other people. When proven wrong, you have never admitted it directly, but nearly always create a new diversion, or try to make yourself look better, often by twisting words.

When you say, "As usual, this continues to be a mistaken stance you have shown for many years," technically, I agree. I have now exposed this same type of mistaken stance for many years.

Then you bring up the book "All But Invisible," just as I thought you might, but I think you did this dishonestly.

Then you said: "I believe my inference was about churches that are now allowing gays into their churches in the name of unity."

I believe this is also dishonest, as your statements indicate that this was NOT what your inference was about, and I'll indicate why I think this below.

----------------

I suppose some readers here might be wondering what this is all about. So I'll provide a quick review, if anyone is interested or concerned.

First, Cesar Chavez (CC) said the following about Furuli's book.

On 5/31/2020 at 8:08 PM, César Chávez said:

I will admit, I love his references like authors from the Zondervan publishing house. A publishing house that printed the Satanic Bible. This just tells me, Furuli didn’t do a thorough research.

    Hello guest!

The implication is that Furuli should not have quoted from any books from Zondervan publishing, just because they also published the Satanic Bible. The problem with that claim is that the Satanic Bible was never published by Zondervan. It came out in the 1960s from another publisher (Dell), and HarperCollins sold books from that other publisher.

Zondervan claims, I believe, to have published two-thirds of the best-selling Bibles. Zondervan was bought by HarperCollins in 1988, and associated since the early 1980s. Zondervan has become the Christian Publishing division of HarperCollins. In fact, if you were to write about this controversy, you would probably get a response like the following, as found on their site:

image.png

But this controversy has been all over the web, and there might be tens of thousands of references to this idea about the "Satanic Bible," and probably THOUSANDS of them also make a point about Zondervan also publishing a book called "The Joy of Gay Sex."  As crazy as that first point was, I wondered why CC didn't bring that up, too. In a sense he already had, because CC provided the link

    Hello guest!
as shown above, which also says the following:

Now Zondervan, the largest Christian house, is under fire again, for publishing a Bible translation with more gender-neutral language, and some Evangelical competitors think they see the influence of its secular parent, HarperCollins. "There is  of the Southern Baptist Convention. HarperCollins, he noted, also publishes books offensive to Evangelicals like "The New Joy of Gay Sex."   But Jane Friedman, chief executive of HarperCollins, which acquired Zondervan in 1987, said it operates with complete autonomy out of a separate headquarters in Grand Rapids , Mich.

Since CC had put this controversy in the context of doing "thorough research" I assumed he might know that BOTH of these two books are paired thousands of times by evangelicals and fundamentalists, often as a way of dismissing the NIV and other translations from encroaching upon their revered KJV translation. (As an aside, in 2013, the Watchtower Society also published a revised "Bible translation with more gender-neutral language.") 

So after showing CC that Zondervan hadn't actually published the Satanic Bible as CC claimed, he then responded with the associated claim about homosexuals, just as one might have expected:

On 6/1/2020 at 3:42 PM, César Chávez said:

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. If you research the history, there was nothing here for you to clarify to begin with.

The primary point I had tried to clarify was not "nothing" but that the original claim was wrong, false, and also pointless, as the Watchtower has also quoted from Zondervan publishers several times.

But, I was also concerned that CC might have purposely left off the title of the book about homosexuality, not just because it's an uncomfortable title, but because I figured CC might later try to say he was referring to a different book if I pointed out that he was also wrong about the one mentioned in his web link. (You'd have to know more about CC's history to understand why I thought I needed to prepare for such deviousness.) So I responded carefully:

On 6/1/2020 at 3:52 PM, JW Insider said:

Harper Collins published the Satanic Bible and also a book about "gay sex." . . . When Harper Collins bought Zondervan, it still didn't mean that the Zondervan suddenly became the publisher. . . .  However, it is very likely that discussions about homosexuality as a issue related to religion have been published by Zondervan.

To which CC responded:

On 6/1/2020 at 4:01 PM, César Chávez said:

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

So now this is actually an admission that HC published the Satanic Bible, but CC insists that Zondervan published "gay sex." Of course, they didn't. So now knowing about the book "All But Invisible" and knowing that he might say this is what he was talking about all along, I figured it was OK to let him know I was talking about the original book CC had already sent a link about. I knew by the term "gay sex" that CC was not referring to Zondervan's books on homosexual acceptance in churches and their struggle against sin. So I was more clear:

On 6/1/2020 at 7:03 PM, JW Insider said:

there is a common complaint all over the Internet that Zondervan published the Satanic Bible and the Joy of Gay Sex. ... But unfortunately the gay sex book was not published by Zondervan. Perhaps you have done more research into the other books on homosexuality published by Zondervan, but from what I can tell, most of them are about gay persons trying to live a celibate lifestyle and the potential conflict between grace and sin.

But CC, who can never fully admit a mistake, went for it anyway, claiming that he never knew what I was talking about and that this book "All But Invisible" was the one he meant all along. You can see him saying that in the opening quote from his last post on the topic.

The problem with that is that "All But Invisible" is not a book about gay sex at all. Quite the opposite, it is about the experience of a person who although homosexual does not believe in gay sex, because he believes sex should only be part of a monogamous marriage. His form of Christianity is the source of his belief. He speaks of the loneliness, but also the understanding he has of other homosexuals going through the same experience.

As this author repeats in several ways:

image.png

------------------

So, back to you directly CC. That is why, in my opinion, you were not being honest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

As in keeping with this thread about scholarship, it’s well to point out that at least two of them freely reveal themselves to be among the least scholarly persons on earth.

"A man has made great progress in cunning when he does not seem too clever to others." ~ Jean de la Bruyere

2 Cor 11:13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Again, it is the completely understandable urge to preserve demeanor for those providing the lead

Yes, I agree. But it is inevitable that the "truth" will come out over time. When that happens, you are either shocked and stumbled right out (of the truth) because you cannot believe that someone who was held up as almost perfect is not, and therefore cannot be from God. Or you are realistic, you see through the "demeanor preservation", you know that those providing the lead are imperfect as any of us, and that mistakes will be made, including obfuscation and lack of transparency. So when something does come out, you will not be shocked or stumbled. You are not going to leave. You are going to put your trust in Jehovah....He will never disappoint, and he sees everything. So stay calm and carry on 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2020 at 8:26 AM, JW Insider said:

Some will set themselves up as God's messengers with a message about a flight to Australia for example

To be honest I was surprised that you bothered replying and addressing some of the things he raised, but I admire you for it. I just don't have the patience for what seems like completely ridiculous ideas....but I did read your replies to him. 
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. I just can't be bothered to defend ridiculous statements any more....

I would like to respond to more of what you say but I will have to wait till I can have my PC  back. Trying to do this on the phone is awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Keep in mind, Jesus was a Carpenter. Did that

Vocational training is the best.  Countries which still offer this kind of training do well in manufacturing  Germany has a tradition if this kind of training and has combined it with on-the-job training while going to night school..

In south Africa we had many renowned vocational schools which were accepted al over the world (like the German model) .  Then the UN came in with their advice and  guidelines for generic degrees..... and they closed vocational colleges.  Joblessness sky-rocketed. 

I recall when I lived in UK, there was also a system for this kind of vocational training.  I have forgotten the name of it now.  But one could train for all kinds of vocations. My daughter studied for a specific type of buyer in supply chain management.  She works in the City of London in banking now and earns substantially more than her husband who has a master decree in chemical engineering, and a few additional diplomas such as project management.

If one chooses a career wisely one can still have a job in difficult times. My son did not choose a career in what he loved to do. He chose an essential vocation in manufacturing which is similar to an industrial engineer.

Later he did a degree in Packaging in which one learnt about all the different bacteria, temperatures etc in food packaging.   Last year, when he wanted to leave dangerous South Africa,  he immediately got a job in NZ (his vocational training got him in - not the degree).

There was a waiting list of half million people...... his prospective company requested the NZ government that  they needed him urgently and he was pushed to the front of the line. He is there already for 10 months and enjoying the working conditions. Not as stressfull as SA.

Vocational training is tops.  I can attest to that. The GB has always pushed vocational training in place of degrees...... and they are absolutely correct on this. Generic degrees are useless - just a debt-ridden piece of paper that does not guarantee a job.

And universities are hotbeds of foreign subversive propaganda these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

When my homeschooled son entered community college at age 16, he said in all innocence, “I had no idea that there were so many stupid people.”

Is it possible that he somehow chose wrong college?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes 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.

I saw that. It takes a lot of self-control for me NOT to respond, as I find myself opening another window and dashing off a response before I even finish reading the entire post. Many don't get sent.

Responding to Australia Trek was primarily an exercise in discovering where he is coming from and trying to figure out his level of sincerity and flexibility on some of these ideas. Now that I have kind of figured it out, there won't be much more to see. I think I already understand Witness (and Pearl, too) pretty well, so I read her writing quickly and don't really engage. I don't see a lot of flexibility there, so I think I already have a good idea what to expect if I did engage with Witness. But I also appreciate that she has a few things absolutely right. I better stop talking or I'll end up giving my view on everybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anna said:

Or you are realistic, you see through the "demeanor preservation", you know that those providing the lead are imperfect as any of us, and that mistakes will be made, including obfuscation and lack of transparency.

May i ask, if some ordinary JW member come to position to see what is going on, or how act of those who lead will (do) cause damage.....,would be realistic to react, to tell why you disagree and to refuse be part of wrong "demeanor" of individual or of group or of organisation?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Anna said:

Witness for example when she says that buying liquor (Morris) is a sign of not being sound in mind. I just can't be bothered to defend ridiculous statements any more....

Yea, agree.  The level of judgment is like a nagging wife.....(I will refrain from using hate-OCD MO).

I had a few good moments with two of her cohorts when they stepped out of their usual MO shoes yesterday and we could just decently share thoughts like human beings.... I enjoyed that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

those who lead will (do) cause damage.....,

I guess the answer depends on what you interpret as damage. It's complicated because not everyone gets damaged by the same thing. It also depends on our ability to forgive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

possible that he somehow chose wrong college?

I don't think so...... very few courses are worth their salt these days and children come out dumber than before they went into the propaganda machine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Anna said:

interpret as damage.

Moral damage effects all if them.  Even if they do not  do those things - they no longer hate what is bad but condone it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Display of ego - has nothing to do with scholarship but is all about displaying a quality of satan. Knowledge puffs up - love builds up.

Some people have to prove they are right at all cost.  They are not thinking of their neighbour but themselves. We all fall into this trap...... but surely there is a time to stop?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

to refuse be part of wrong "demeanor" of

Interesting words srecko. Any "aquired" demeanor is hypocritical.  I believe in being who I am and showing it.   JWs come from all parts of the world and have different personalities. As long as we show love and kindness, impartiality we are acceptable to jehovah and each other.  When we expect others to be like ourselves it is a red flag. Live and let live. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Arauna said:

I don't think so...... very few courses are worth their salt these days and children come out dumber than before they went into the propaganda machine. 

Than few things are possible. TTH son is intelligent person. He is not lazy and/or preoccupied with playing.  TTH is good teacher and know enough about what and how to transfer knowledge and skills to his children. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Arauna said:
7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

to refuse be part of wrong "demeanor" of

Interesting words srecko. Any "aquired" demeanor is hypocritical.

Thanks for accent on this word. I used it from @Anna comments, and perhaps not get deeper meaning of expression. It is not only about "behavior" as such. When you said "interesting wording" that send me a signal. I went on dictionary again:  

Definition of demeanor

: behavior toward others : outward manner - 

    Hello guest!

 outward manner - I get it. It is not just behavior as such, but two face, two side how individual present self: in general public and inside closed circle.

To have such "insight" on others is more possible with people around us. It is little more difficult about people who writing articles in magazines about whom i don't know nothing. Only WHAT they write. Little more is possible to see on people who showing themselves on TV Broadcasting. We see faces and tone of voice. That is very helpful.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It takes a lot of self-control for me NOT to respond,

It can be learned. At Sheepandgoats U, there is a degree program on not responding to the ignoramuses. It is taught by a professor of impeccable qualtifications and sterling example - myself. 

Hesitate to sign up, perhaps put off by some examples that you have seen with your own eyes? Then consider a testimonial:

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

 TTH is good teacher and know enough about what and how to transfer knowledge and skills 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Hesitate to sign up

I also hesitate to put some of signs to JW people comments, even i was found some sentence in entire comment i agree with too. But why to show agreement on things that are generally normal and agreeable because they are normal to normal people. Yes, yes, Bible speak about: whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. - Philipians 4 

But if we just praise (sing up comments) each other we won't get far. :))) On other hand people like me must learn how not be partial because, for example, other people religion belongings. :))) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love to put 'votes' on all individual comments because to me it shows impartiality. My vote is for or against each comment, not it's writer. 

@JW Insider Quote ' Responding to the Australia trek...'    But all things are possible with God.  Imagine if he had been the one that mentioned the Red Sea opening up, before it actually happened.  Would you have laughed at it ? I think Arauna thought it through in a human way, but if God actually wanted it to happen then it would happen. (No i don't believe will, but in theory it could have) ---------------

 

  12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

those who lead will (do) cause damage.....,

@Anna  replied 'I guess the answer depends on what you interpret as damage. It's complicated because not everyone gets damaged by the same thing. It also depends on our ability to forgive.'

Child Sexual Abuse damages more than just the victims. So does the Shunning procedure. Even the Blood issues. 

It brings as back to Collateral Damage, which Americans are all to familiar with. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

But if we just praise (sing up comments) each other we won't get far. :)))

Is that what you think this forum is for—so that we may get far? Have you seen any sign of agreement from anyone over the last five years? The best thing that has happened is that JTR began to realize who all his comments were making him friends with and did a reappraisal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TrueTomHarley Not to mention that I still see this part of the forum as to what it was originally - Controversial Posts "While here, best be well prepared to be challenged" something along those lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Jesus himself said   ( 

    Hello guest!
 )
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."

TTH I presume you are in contact with JTR so that you are able to know why he does what he does. 

Do you presume that JTR was not speaking from his heart ? Do you think he said things to 'make friends' ? 

I don't believed JTR was swayed by anyone. i think he said what he wanted to say because he had those feelings in him at the time.  I hope he is well and happy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

Child Sexual Abuse damages more than just the victims. So does the Shunning procedure. Even the Blood issues. 

It brings as back to Collateral Damage, which Americans are all to familiar with.

Understandable, but you seem to be focused on one side who speak such, not realizing the other side of what you just mentioned. Child abuse is, as well as domestic violence and the like, is something that can damage directly and or indirectly, and it can easily effect those who are not trained and or well equipped to deal with it because this type of sin can put a whole community into limbo and not easy for them to recover at times. As for the shunning, it is supposed to be regarding church ties, hence how excommunication is done, and for the blood issue, not everyone is for blood transfusions, therefore, they see other alternatives that do not require this standard (dubbed gold standard by those in the EU), likewise, there are some cultures out there, mine even, who do not give/take blood at all due to a number of reasons, among them being something quite dark (something I, as a Christian am against). Moreover, you even have other groups and people partaking in alternatives, for instance, you have the US military whereas some opt out blood transfusions for bloodless medicine, as with others, for they do not want to succumb to later complications, as many have, as is with evading contaminated blood. Bible wise, the blood issue has carried over to the New Covenant, therefore, it is not too surprising that any Christians avoid giving/taking blood, to add on to their case, the only blood that is more sacred is that of the Christ, for by means of him, God's hope is what we know by means of our faith and it is this hope that will allow us to live once more. Now, even if I do take/give blood, by the mainstream, my blood, or my people's blood has been branded as the blood of the Devil, for you see, such people quick to judge everyone of that culture and race for the actions of a few people, which is not good.

Americans as well as others know the existence of these things, especially abuse, but they have provided tools to combating the issue. The problem is no one is listening, nor is anyone putting it into practice, for only a small number of people, myself included, are actually listening and applying what child abuse and neglect services tell us to practice and teach. Likewise with any other form of abuse.

As for the other two, Americans are aware of the church's ability to practice excommunication, even so, they've written articles on the matter, some even expressing the one true form of excommunication vs. the ones practiced in some churches. As for blood, not all Americans are for blood transfusions, espically with the fact you have Factor and Ambrosia in our midst. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Is that what you think this forum is for—so that we may get far? Have you seen any sign of agreement from anyone over the last five years? The best thing that has happened is that JTR began to realize who all his comments were making him friends with and did a reappraisal. 

 

19 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:
54 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

But if we just praise (sing up comments) each other we won't get far. :)))

In a biblical sense, who can understand will understand -  

Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another. Prov 27 17

Thanks for remind me about JTR. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Srecko Sostar said:

 

In a biblical sense, who can understand will understand -  

Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another. Prov 27 17

Thanks for remind me about JTR. 

That is only if you apply and learn from the facts and evidence given, as is, with what is actually true. For if we are to put this application we are in a positive light regards to the matter. Not doing so, you are not sharpen, you only become dull.

That being said, those who understand what is true are the ones who are sharpen and can sharpen others, but those who deviated from understanding what is true, well, they will not be the sharpest tool in the shed, in this sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 [

    Hello guest!
]publicans and sinners! And wisdom [
    Hello guest!
]
is justified by her [
    Hello guest!
]
works.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 [

    Hello guest!
]publicans and sinners! And wisdom [
    Hello guest!
]
is justified by her [
    Hello guest!
]
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

think you are being dishonest again. So, if you are, consider this to be a case of "reproving before all onlookers." (1 Tim 5:20)  I could be wrong, of course, so just think of it as merely trying to follow the qualities Paul spoke of:

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. Honestly, I don't know why you even bother trying to pretend just to look intelligent. This post was about the challenge you seemed so desperate to disprove about Zodervan not being a good spiritual publishing house. 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. 

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. The same co-author from "All But Invisible" that Nate Collins sees with his gay friend.

"My story is very different from other stories told by people wearing the same designation—“homosexual Christian”—that I wear. Many in the church—more so in the mainline denominations than the evangelical ones, though that could soon change—tell stories of “homosexual holiness.” The authors of these narratives profess a deep faith in Christ and claim a powerful experience of the Holy Spirit precisely in and through their homosexual practice. According to these Christians, their homosexuality is an expression of holiness, a symbol and conduit of God’s grace in their lives.2 My own story, by contrast, is a story of feeling spiritually hindered rather than helped by my homosexuality. " Page 128

Instead of trying to redirect your falsehood to something else within scripture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Arauna said:

Yea, agree.  The level of judgment is like a nagging wife.....(I will refrain from using hate-OCD MO).

I had a few good moments with two of her cohorts when they stepped out of their usual MO shoes yesterday and we could just decently share thoughts like human beings.... I enjoyed that. 

Yes! However, let's keep it in the right prospective. The Morris liquor fiasco from outsiders was he had bought expensive liquor when the photos from the video proved otherwise. Buying liquor is not a crime. Honestly, I don't know why you even bother to answer, I guess you have better patience to listen to dishonest hearts than me.😌

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

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.

That's the point. You falsely thought you had something to argue, and you were proven wrong as usual. 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.

hill.jpg

32 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

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.

Well to you maybe, to me, they are not a good spiritual publishing house since many other works lean toward homosexual acceptance.

33 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

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.

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

36 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

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, and the Watchtower publications have also promoted or distributed books about spiritism. The Watchtower Society has also quoted from several different commentary publications from Zondervan, not just several Zondervan-published Bibles.

Wrong again, give it up JWinsider.

"PUBERTY CAME LATE FOR ME, or so it felt at the time. I was almost thirteen years old, but far from being the exciting whirlwind of change that it was for my friends, the experience terrified me. From the very beginning of those unsettling months, I found strange new desires—it wasn’t clear to me then that they were sexual—for the other guys my age who were going through the same turbulent transformation. I started noticing and being fascinated by the firming muscles and the growing hair of my male friends. I would steal glances at them whenever I could, trying not to be caught but unsure why I felt it necessary to be so secretive." page 14

Wisely Hill is talking about his personal experience as a homosexual. He wants to let gays know it's not wrong to be gay and it's not wrong to be a Gay Christian. Read the books in their entirety instead of searching for snippets in google. 

Teenage Guys: Exploring Issues Adolescent Guys Face and Strategies to Help Them

"This is a very dangerous thing for teenage guys because it’s a radical deviation from the script.
That’s why gay teenage males are hailed as brave and courageous when they come out. By the way, when
a teenage guy approaches a youth worker seeking spiritual guidance on this issue, he’s experiencing a
coming out of sorts. It takes as much courage (if not more) for him to talk about it with a church leader.
Fear of rejection is what often prevents Christian homosexual guys from disclosing their struggle."

Therefore the church should react to the individual, not the issue. I’ve watched many youth workers take
the information they’ve received from guys and, in the name of trying to bring about reconciliation, they
take it to other church leaders and the guys’ parents. Basically they “out” them without permission while
expecting the safety of pastor-student confidentiality to continue. In the end, the leaders’ attempts to “help”
these students actually bring more pain, shame, and humiliation into the guys’ lives." page 105-106

This Zondervan publication offers acceptance within the church. How? By framing the argument with equality and unity. There are many examples about the publishing house. Therefore, my stance as not being a good publishing house for spiritual material, stand. Spiritual food should be based with scripture, not personal emotion. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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:

    Hello guest!

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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

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.

That's exactly what the evidence shows. You continue to embarrass yourself, but enough said!

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

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

To discourage worldly interpretation such as acceptance of homosexuality, then yes! If he has the foresight to do so. I would much rather have him give a better interpretation than yours, any day!

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

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.

Possibly to you, when you get caught, you seem to argue deviation! Yet, you contend, that I don't like to accept when I am wrong, where does that leave you, since you want to continue a nonsensical argument. Perhaps, that TTH class you speak of, should teach you something that that school can't comprehend, truth.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

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.

What was the point you disagreed with, that you saw similarities between Rolf and Raymond? The first dishonest projection you offered? Then you continue to insist on a false premise just because you got it wrong to what I saw pointing out about Zondervan publishing house that you to continue to try to clean up at all cost?

The fact I have proven your false claim with my evidence of where I was referring to, and you get upset because you can't read my mind only shows weakness.

Get it straight JWinsider. Enough said, you argue on your own from this point on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

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

Yep. I have told my own story here many times. How my 9 month baby had a full day surgery to remove cancer from both sides of the chest cavity which also stuck to the spine. The fact that she did NOT have blood saved her life. Her miracle is amazing because she is almost 42 years old.

Yes, I researched blood....... very damaging and most people who die from anaphylactic shock due to blood  - it is not on the death certificate. They say "complications from surgery". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Witness said:

But in his case, it is the way it was done.  I think you know that.

No matter how he did it - he would be criticized. I guess they try to live normal lives and try to side-step the severe scrutiny. Jesus was called a glutton and other names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, César Chávez said:

why you even bother to answer, I guess you have better patience to listen to dishonest hearts than me.😌

I sometimes wonder too!  But my hope is that I could change a 1% perspective of someone.  I do not have the same culture as most  people on this forum.... so I often see things differently..... and sometimes it has served me well. 

I have however, thought many things through, pondered over bible teachings, the GB, the slave,  and I like philosophy and history.... which influences my opinions.  It has helped me to realize that I appreciate Jehovahs organization - no matter how flawed.  It is easy to judge when not in the GB 's shoes.

Many here may be smarter than me, and  I pick up their arrogance in their replies. While I sometimes come across as "blind believer" in the GB and slave -  it is definitely not the case. I have made a choice because of  understanding and hopefully some wisdom.

I do however judge with mercy. Is this not what is required? Justice and mercy? An unbiased perspective at all times? 

I am not here to quote umpteen scriptures and preach to others. Most here love God I am sure.... but I find that some are too critical of others and have too little of Christ 101 spirit to quote a friend on here.  Some I outright call hate-mongers. But all people are worth our time - while there is still time. 

Their own attitudes may close the door for them.  In south Africa I preached to white supremacists. These people's own attitudes closed the door for them - not me. When I mentioned that God approves all people - they were not prepared to listen. Similarly on here...... peoples own attitudes could be detrimental to approval by  jehovah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another. Prov 27 17

Only if the iron wants to be sharpened - therein lies the rub! 

Only associations, which are based on a sincere search for a better understanding or even love, can sharpen wisdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, César Chávez said:

However, let's keep it in the right prospective. The Morris liquor fiasco

For me, to see GB members in the shop buying what ever he need or wish is normal thing. That fact not need to be of any specific interest for public.  

Just, to see such highly positioned individual (top manager in WTJWorg) without make up, neat hairstyle, clothes, clean fingers/hands with an expensive watch and ring, because of TV studio preparations, makes next, different picture and perception about person.

 In all that is normal how no one of us looks "perfect" in various situations and circumstances through a day.

This short shop video about Mr. Morris is "perfect" for another reason. To see one of them in "normal" situation and say to yourself: "What, Hey, this is the guy who preparing my spiritual food ?" :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Arauna Quote  " I do not have the same culture as most  people on this forum.... so I often see things differently.... "

That applies to me also. And @Srecko Sostar I would think too. 

I have the feeling that most on here are American and of course most of the GB ( 7 out of 8 ) are also American. Unfortunately it would seem that Americans are raised to have an attitude. And to have that 'Collateral Damage is OK', frame of mind. 

But you've raised a point. You do not have 'the same culture' and therefore you often 'see things differently'. 

Now, apply that to the GB. If they were from different parts of the Earth, they would be from different cultures and would 'see things differently'. What a wonderful mixture of men that could bring in. Many on here have said that the GB are not especially highly educated. So having men from different cultures / countries would not be a problem. It's not the level of worldly education that would matter, it is the spirituality of the men. 

( Worldly education is however needed to get worldly employment. )

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

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 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.

Far be it from me to discuss something here that belongs in a different topic, 😉 but I was thinking the same thing. Outta Here pointed this out with a reference to something I had never seen before, and which appears to be a true sentiment of translators who let tradition invalidate parts of God's word. In this case, it refers to Zondervan's NIV:

On 12/15/2018 at 4:50 AM, Outta Here said:

An example . . . would be the response of one Edwin H Palmer, (Executive Secretary for the Committee on Bible Translation for the NIV), on a question as to why the name Jehovah had been ommitted from the NIV translation. He said in 1979: "we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation, and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Ps.23 as, "Yahweh is my shepherd"." 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, César Chávez said:
14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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

To discourage worldly interpretation such as acceptance of homosexuality, then yes!

At least you are consistent in saying that you think the GB should be counseled about this, too. If counseling the GB is really the right thing to do, don't you think that you should counsel the GB not to quote from Zondervan publications, now that Furuli has failed to do so? You would be the right person to do this since I doubt that any other Witness around here would have even thought about this. I'd bet that no others here even agree with you on this point. So, it looks like it's up to you if you really think it's the right thing to do. 😉

12 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Yet, you contend, that I don't like to accept when I am wrong, where does that leave you, since you want to continue a nonsensical argument.

I don't want to continue it, but since we've both had ample opportunity to consider the evidence for or against your original claims, I don't see any point in belaboring it either. You've already moved on to "adjusted" claims, so I think that each of us have made the point we hoped to make.

12 hours ago, César Chávez said:

What was the point you disagreed with, that you saw similarities between Rolf and Raymond?

Someone else who hadn't even seen the discussion here, just recently asked me if I had noticed the same thing. He mentioned items that match what was already brought out here in the discussion and even more. So, yes, this is a good topic. Perhaps we should start another topic since this topic is already quite lengthy. 

12 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Then you continue to insist on a false premise just because you got it wrong to what I saw pointing out about Zondervan publishing house that you to continue to try to clean up at all cost?

Classic!

12 hours ago, César Chávez said:

The fact I have proven your false claim with my evidence of where I was referring to, and you get upset because you can't read my mind only shows weakness.

Your false claim was based upon false evidence. That was obvious, and is even more obvious now. But I do admit that it would be interesting to understand your mind. I like people and enjoy learning about them and learning from them. And watching how people think has always been of great interest to me. Perhaps it is a weakness, but I have learned much from the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

That is an insult to Mr Rook. 

Mr Rook would not be so thin-skinned to see it that way. He would have had a good belly-laugh over it. You would have us believe that you were his friend? You did everything you could to separate him from his God. Remember, he was on my side of the Great Issue, not yours.

He came to have the same problem that Rolf is going to have—having “false friends” sucking him dry for info, kissing his feet with praise, ecstatic at the ‘dirt’ they think he is spilling, then turning around and saying he is delusional for not abandoning every last vestige of Witness belief—just like you do with JWI. At the same time, his genuine friends distance themselves. At least Rolf will find some companionship within the airy world of ‘scholarship’—no such luck for JTR.

It was worse for JTR. Rolf makes perfectly clear that he regards his faith as true. I gather that he is not too different from JWI, who has issues with some organizational matters, but has no problem acknowledging that there must be leadership and cooperating with it on that basis.  In contrast, JTR came across as a ‘spiritual terrorist,’ and it is only upon close examination—which the average Witness will be not inclined to do in view of his outrageous remarks—that one can see his love for Jehovah was genuine. Even his own kids deserted him—something he freely admitted—this despite the fact that he was not under congregation censure..

You simply cannot go about harshly criticizing ones held in high esteem—ones loved for their hard work and example—and expect to keep your friends. The loudest applause at any convention is at the question, “Would you like to send your greetings to the brothers in Bethel?” It’s like if some would come around and pretend to be my friends, saying the nicest things about me, yet they absolutely cannot stand my wife, and never fail to hurl abuses at her. Is that going to work with me? Will I be taken in? I don’t think so. And yes, the earthly organization is likened to a beloved human—a mother, as that AlanF, with the IQ of a Descartes and an EQ of the Sesame Street Cookie Monster, changed to ‘mommy,’ hoping to infuriate people.

I like to think with JTR it was a case of Psalm 141:5 and that he has time to undo the damage. Of course, you always have time to undo it with Jehovah if your turnaround is genuine, but I hope it is with family and friends as well.

Should the righteous one strike me, it would be an act of loyal love; Should he reprove me, it would be like oil on my head, Which my head would never refuse. My prayer will continue even during their calamities.” 

I like to think it was that way here with a few who slammed him pretty hard but also made clear that the rebuke was not personal—and that he as a person had some very appealing qualities. I tried to do that, and I had some acknowledgement from him in ‘thanks’ emojis, not just upvotes. Others did this, as well—his spiritual brothers with his best interests at heart. I could well be a little too Pollyanna in reviewing how it has turned out—but his last few comments very neatly tie into a Pollyanna view—so that’s the one I’ll take. 

He wasn’t really wrong in the factual nature of anything he said—he was ‘wrong’ in how he had processed it. You can’t go about life being hypercritical. You have to be ready to move on. You can’t go digging through the diamonds to find the dirt. You have to be ready to forgive. It is an important theme of Jesus that he came to feel he ought more fully get his heart around.

You kept telling him how he could bask in a fine relationship with God while sticking it to the visible organization. He had too much common sense and honesty to fall for it. He knew that path leads inevitably to become fully part of the word—in time, doing all that the world does and thinking it can be offset with a smiley God emoji. 

Mark Smith’s book Secular Faith points out that the typical church member has more in common with atheists than with members of his own denomination of 100 years ago. That is what happens in the absence of an earthly counterpart to the heavenly organization. JTR knew that. That was among the things he meant when he lamented that he should have been closer to Jehovah.

Go ahead, you idiot—slap another braying emoji on this one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Psalm 141:5 . . .“Should the righteous one strike me, it would be an act of loyal love; Should he reprove me, it would be like oil on my head, Which my head would never refuse. My prayer will continue even during their calamities.” 

Such an amazingly great scripture. It can take years to fully get our hearts and our head around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

He came to have the same problem that Rolf is going to have—having “false friends” sucking him dry for info, kissing his feet with praise, ecstatic at the ‘dirt’ they think he is spilling, then turning around and saying he is delusional for not abandoning every last vestige of Witness belief—just like you do with JWI. At the same time, his genuine friends distance themselves. At least Rolf will find some companionship within the airy world of ‘scholarship’—no such luck for JTR.

Perhaps JTR was surrounded with "false friends" for much longer time before he joined this forum and had conversation with ex-JW's here. If you noticed i respected JTR choice of his decisions. It is in him only to "take side" or to balancing in intellectual and emotional turmoil. 

As you said, "his genuine friends distance themselves" and "his own kids deserted him". Also, JTR acted as "spiritual terrorist" (your description) on this forum. 

This "terrorist" issue remind me on @4Jah2me and @Arauna conversation about GB and them as "spiritual dictators".

How different they are. JTR and GB.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

For me, to see GB members in the shop buying what ever he need or wish is normal thing. That fact not need to be of any specific interest for public. 

That's good. Maybe your voice will carry to other outsiders that make a mockery of social media to condemn people for nonsense. It would go toward those from the inside that continue to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL! 😂

Classic deviation JWinsider. Keep in mind my stance about opinions. While I criticized Furuli for using Zondervan publishing house to make an unscriptural depiction of the GB, because of higher education and legal matters that you took offense of, YOU are the one that mentioned the watchtower also uses Zondervan.

Therefore, you are the one insinuating an action that is yours not mine. If you think I haven’t emailed Furuli to make my objection known?

Now, as for the Watchtower that you continue to openly criticize. I will allow the watchtowers own criticism of Zondervan do the talking for them.

*** w01 9/1 p. 3 Is There a Devil? ***

Is that how you see things? Do you agree that “the devil is in reality man’s invention to account for his own sinfulness”? That statement appears in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, and many who profess to be Christians think that way. Christendom’s theologians, says Jeffrey Burton Russell, have by and large “dismissed the Devil and the demons as superstitious relics.”

 

Where does your false claim lie? Substance

Now do I walk alone here, YES I do, I wouldn’t have it any other way here. I’m not conflicted!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TrueTomHarley  I actually feel very sad about your massive comment in which you try to blame me for JTR's problems.  Sad for you Tom. Because you must be feeling a great deal of hurt to write such things. 

Quote " You did everything you could to separate him from his God. Remember, he was on my side of the Great Issue, not yours."

He didn't need to take your side or mine. He is a strong enough man to make his own decisions.  And your accusation against me is not that of a true Christian. Plus the fact that: The CCJW is NOT God. 

Quote " Rolf makes perfectly clear that he regards his faith as true." 

I also regard my faith as true. My faith is in Almighty God through Jesus Christ. My faith is not in the GB of CCJW. 

Quote " You can’t go about life being hypercritical. You have to be ready to move on. You can’t go digging through the diamonds to find the dirt. You have to be ready to forgive."

The GB have diamonds ? No. The dirt is on the top for those that actually see it. CSA isn't buried anymore. What was done in the dark is now brought out into the open. CSA is not hypercritical. 

The GB are being shown up for what they really are, and not just by 'idiots' like me. 

Mr Rook seemed to have his own reasons for disliking the Organisation. He made that quite clear.

And as for his family it seems they don't agree with your ways. Were they ready to move on or to forgive ? It seems not. JWs in practice. Hypocrisy. 

And by your tone, it seems that you hold a grudge against me. No forgiveness there then, only blame.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/3/2020 at 10:33 PM, 4Jah2me said:

Do any of then meet the mark of serving God through Christ properly ?

Depends how critical and judgmental you are of the people. (A cultural fault, I found amongst many of the British).  If a group of people have all the core teachings absolutely correct, then you should be happy to serve with them because one serves jehovah - not people.  But if you only focus on the imperfect  people - then no community of believers will ever be good enough for your self-righteous soul. You will miss out on the many blessings you could have had.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2020 at 5:00 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

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. 

Well put.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

The GB have diamonds ? No. The dirt is on the top for those that actually see it. CSA

There you go again... back to the old behaviour. Just can't help yourself heh?

We were talking about JT . I agree with Tom.  He found himself being loved by you hate- mongerers way too much and realized he has to do a personal re-evaluation.  

I sincerely hope he is doing well.  .......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Perhaps JTR was surrounded with "false friends" for much longer time before he joined this forum

False assumption.  I knew a man who had a similar personality than JT. 

He was a difficult man to understand and had a problem to fit in with other JWs because of his personality.   It was due to growing up in an orphanage all his life.

His wife's faithfulness helped the children to remain faithful. (They came in the truth together). He had left the truth for several years because he was witty like JT but with a quirky element of black acidity in it.  Most people fled because  they could not handle it - not because they did not care.

Age did not soften his personality...... but he was in truth a good man.  He provided well for his family and would eagerly help strangers.  He would laugh easy but always had a look about him as though he was a suspicious predatory cat which  did not trust his surroundings.  Whatever happened to him as a child formed a lasting disability - which was unseen to the eye.   

He therefore needed much more love from us all ..... but most of us had our own baggage and issues- not enough love to give someone like him some peace and heal the damage. Only jehovah can do this.

This person came back into the congregation before he died. He had never broken any biblical laws except that he was a hard man to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Arauna said:

Depends how critical and judgmental you are of the people. (A cultural fault, I found amongst many of the British).  If a group of people have all the core teachings absolutely correct, then you should be happy to serve with them because one serves jehovah - not people.  But if you only focus on the imperfect  people - then no community of believers will ever be good enough for your self-righteous soul. You will miss out on the many blessings you could have had.  

@Arauna  you sound so bitter for a supposed Christian that is supposedly serving God 

@Srecko Sostar  asked which 'church' he should belong to, and I answered him. 

You talk about having teachings correct, but the GB constantly change their 'teachings'. And on another topic you many note that i call the GB out for their deceit when they say that Jesus calls them the F&DS. 

So I think it is your GB that are 'self-righteous' in a truer sense. Putting themselves first, making a name for themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Arauna said:

personality

Personality is very strong "thing", and was shaped with many known and unknown elements we are not aware, sometimes, or not at all aware of them to the end of life.

 Maybe we could say about that thing like this. For example, someone who is hasty in words, after learning the “truth” of JW’s and Bible, become successful in softening this nature or it became somehow invisible to others. But that does not necessarily mean how a person changes his personality and deleted bad attribute, but he / she is just able to control more certain behavior. Another reason for this look on matter is Bible fact how imperfection inherited from first people is here. And it is not gone because you are JW or whatever else. 

This can be topic for conversation. Even people in Bible who was "inspired" to do some God's act was "inspired" for particular moment and deed. They are not people who "changed their personality" given by nature and build up by  family, society, events, learning and experience. 

WTJWorg said how reading Bible, hard work to change bad aspirations/tendencies, good society and help of HS will bring you "new personality". But still, WTJWorg say another fact, we are still imperfect and err (i will add: purposely or not purposely) till the end of 1000 years Kingdom. 

Question still stay: What you manage to change, what you changed in fact, in meanwhile??

Nature is written in the blood and flesh much stronger than we think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

you sound so bitter for a supposed Christian that is supposedly serving God 

Sorry if I come across that way. I am the least bitter person you can ever meet. Sweet, friendly and open... no bitterness.   Almost childlike but with a keen eye for observation. Nothing misses my eye when it comes to observation....because I care about people. 

1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

GB constantly change their 'teachings'. And on

The fundamental teachings have been the same with minor adjustments...... so this is not a true statement.  You look only to the few changes and not the entire Body - which is the same.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

attribute, but he / she is just able to control more certain behavior.

Agree. In the beginning they control these emotions but a  relapse can come. After many years it is easier.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

fact how imperfection inherited from first people

Some peoples weaknesses are more pronounced where others can be hidden by good manners....... but all of us are very flawed....we all need Jehovahs mercy very much and should give more mercy to each other.

But sometimes we deal with our own baggage and do not know how to deal with other peoples baggage.... this is just reality. But we should widen out and try..... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Arauna said:

Sorry if I come across that way. I am the least bitter person you can ever meet

I can instantly see this. It is true of me, as well. Bitterness has no place at....excuse me—

Hey, you rotten kids! Get off of my lawn!!!!”

(Sorry—couldn’t resist) Of course you are not bitter. It’s quite plain. Nor am I. Not at all. Frankly, if you still hang on to bitterness at our age you will soon be dead from it.

I posted in Twitter just now, and it doesn’t perfectly fit, but it almost does. 4Jah is right—I like to hear myself talk, or more to the point, I need someplace to go for a writing workshop. Why not here?

 

For a long time I’ve practiced, if I follow one viewpoint on Twitter, I also go out and follow its polar opposite. In that way I’ve come to see that such polarization is everywhere, not just politics, not just my field of religion, not just social issues, but everywhere....1/3‬

It is very rare for people to switch from one camp to another. The notion that we are rational beings is largely a facade. In the context of religion, I say ‘the heart chooses its beliefs and then entrusts the head to devise a justification...2/3‬

‪Who can say what makes the heart? But our individual experience no doubt are a huge factor, if not the dominant one....3/3‬

By this measure, Jehovah’s Witnesses (not those born into it) are a most unusual people. They have changed on fundamental outlook—something almost nobody does. And what their ‘apostates’ who have gone back to the things left behind? Aren’t they unusual, too? Nah—they just got cold feet as to the changes they made and retreated back to the seeming normalcy of Demas.

Maybe that’s why (within limits) I can hang out here without taking offense at anyone, even should things be specifically directed at me. We are all but actors in a play. It is the play that is the topic to follow. The actors are not all that important. You don’t have to know much about the actors to follow the play—it can even be a distraction if you do.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TrueTomHarley YOUR COMMENT ABOVE IS CLICK BATE OF COURSE. But it just makes you look very childish in a bad way. 

I'm glad it keeps you happy though. :) 

@Srecko Sostar   As for personality. Everyone has a split personality or a dual one. Especially JWs because they are told to change, it does not happen naturally.

However when a person does get a Christian conscience then they begin to look more deeply at scripture and at the church / organisation they belong to. Hence many leave the CCJW because they can observe so much hypocrisy and immorality in it. The ones that stay are the ones either too lazy to look deeply, or, the ones that are too frightened to lose family and so called friends. 

But TTH pretends they leave because they cannot cope with it. He also pretends that they all go off into the 'world'. I suppose it might be the only way Tom can handle the fact that so many people leave the CCJW voluntarily. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

if you still hang on to bitterness at our age

Wisdom speaking.  If one has not made peace with the world and learnt to be forgiving and kind after 60 years........ your life has been wasted...... you have not learnt anything.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You don’t have to know much about the actors to follow the play

The actors may be playing a role but the play is reality...... sad....... that people are wearing masks and hats and do not realize it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 4Jah2me said:

Especially JWs because they are told to change, it does not happen naturally.

Same old judgmental attitude......No, those who ' willingly' change by personal choice and are sincere in their brotherly love learn to  put up with imperfect brothers BUT those who change because they are told t, those are the ones who  become rebellious and become hate-mongers.....and call others dictators.  They never followed jehovah from free will in the first place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Arauna  Thank you for the comedy reply. Oh blind sheep that you are, will you never learn.

Quote TTH  How can it be click bait, you klutz—there’s no place to click!

Little heart shaped thing bottom right side of each comment Tom. Open your eyes man. 

  •  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

blind sheep that you are, will you never learn.

My dear, there is none as blind as those who have their eyes wide shut. I usually try to work with those who have something redeemable about them because they can say something I can agree with or learn from when I do not agree.  

You have only one message and it is the same old, same old.... and if I call you out you get personal...... so do not even bother to call me something else because  you revert back to same MO.......

At least the hate-OCD is consistent...... gotta give you credit for that!.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Arauna Yes, and in my case, it is as if it is a cultural sin.

@Srecko Sostar Any day now, it still amazes me when you post a response and it prompts question, you do not wish to answer it. The irony of it all, the answer to that very question befits what too place thereafter, hence when it comes to that Bible verse in question, you miss it's context. So again, as done before, as is being done now, 1 John 4:1 has been used against you (This verse being used against you time and time again is tragically telling, even for you).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2020 at 7:12 AM, 4Jah2me said:

That is an insult to Mr Rook. 

It is more of a running gag on this forum.

Apparently even for me, if anyone states a small bit of Old English or simply say "That being said," automatically it brands someone as Space Merchant. I remember someone assume this one member, I believe it was Alex and they assume Alex was me.

Then again, I always say that for a final notation in a response, discussion, challenge and or debate.