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

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The reason that the GB can say ‘follow the direction of secular authority’ and still have that count as spiritual guidance is that (with some exaggeration) JWs can do it, and non-believers cannot.

School Principal in my work place also said to all employee stuff, we have to follow governmental direction. And what  is the point of your illustration?

I can easily, just for you, make connection between "direction of secular authority" and "spiritual guidance" WITHOUT any sort of religious organization and their leaders, in this case GB.

Please go to Romans chapter 13, and you will be able to understand what ties exists between God and "secular authority". God is Spirit and he put "servant with sword" to be HIS servant. I think that is some "spiritual" connections in question, that exists between them. God calls secular authorities as His servant. GB said how they are also God's "servant". 

According to Bible text God have servants all over the Earth. And some are atheists, some are religious, some are agnostics ..., What sort of ties people can have with God, but "spiritual" ? GB are not in some "privileged" position as mere "servants" in comparison to other God's "servants". Because they all are just "servants", and if God want to give his spirit, sorry, guidance, to some other "servants", who are GB to contradict God’s will ??!!

 

[Srecko Sostar]

10 minutes ago, César Chávez said:

3 hours ago, Anna said:

But my point was that just because someone does something right, is it proof of Jehovah's backing? And what if we do something that turns out to be wrong advice, as the GB has admitted (because they are fallible and can err) does that mean this is proof they do not have Jehovah's backing? I think it was just a really bad choice of words

Then it simply means, people that err with this standard of assumption has not fully understood the GB and the actions of the apostles. Agreeing with former members would not be, good advice or a good observation. Those that do so are asking for perfection of others, when those should start with themselves first.

I think that main problem all religion have, and JW too, is in this: People who lead a religion invoke God’s authority for every word they utter in front of people. GB is among the same class. When GB stops claiming that both, correct and false doctrines and instructions came from God, then they may be closer to God and  "truth".

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

Quote TTH. The reason that the GB can say ‘follow the direction of secular authority’ and still have that count as spiritual guidance is that (with some exaggeration) JWs can do it, and non-believers cannot.

Perhaps Tom is only talking about Americans here. 

In the UK most people followed the instructions of the government. My son even told his employer that he wasn't going to work, and that was before lock down started here in England. He self isolated with my wife and I, as a family in one household. We even had a stock of food bigger than a GO BAG, and still have. 

Tom talks as if everyone outside that CCJW org is a criminal or rebel. It's that old JW talk, 'Don't mix with those outside they belong to the devil'.   Grow up Tom and get real.  That 'GB Helper' made himself and the CCJW look stupid by his statement. Live with it.  

 

[TrueTomHarley]

4 hours ago, Anna said:

I think it was just a really bad choice of words....and a little presumptuous. And was it really necessary for him to say it? Something like this surely would have been more appropriate and modest: "the advice that the GB are giving is proof that they really apply the scriptures in their life and are allowing

That’s not “proof” either and the same unholy trinity here would bellyache about those words no less than they do what Glock really did say.

I almost think that “prove’ should be stricken from the JW vocabulary. It is one more word that has been redefined to give it a narrow focus that it never exclusively had before. “Scientific proof” is all that people have in mind today, and if “scientific proof” was the order of the day, the stuff we have would not be called “faith.”

Should Glock be expected to use the word “prove” in the scientific sense? Not hardly. He is a Bible teacher. How does the Bible use the term? The New World Translation uses the word ‘prove’ 46 times. Not one of them is in the scientific sense. Only 2 or 3 is even in the legal sense. Typical are verses like Jesus “sending you out as sheep among wolves; so prove yourselves cautious as serpents and yet innocent as doves, (Matt 10:16)

“On this account, you too prove yourselves ready, because the Son of man is coming at an hour that you do not think to be it.” (Matt 24:44)

“But wanting to prove himself righteous, the man said to Jesus:...” (Luke 10:29)

“My Father is glorified in this, that you keep bearing much fruit and prove yourselves my disciples.” (John 15:8)

In fact, 

4 hours ago, Anna said:

And they did say it about themselves, because as I have already commented to Tom, everything that is published first gets approved (by the GB).

What do you suppose is the etymology of “approve?” Does anyone think it suggests scientific proof? Or does it not denote meeting the standards of someone with recognized stature? It is ridiculous that Brother Glock should be taken to task by narrow-minded sticklers for a single application of the word which will almost certainly not be his, nor be the dominant one of history.

Words change. There is no sense grousing about this. “Why so serious?” the Joker says, as he slits another throat. We may have to change on this as well—or just ignore the idiots and put pedal to the medal!

Sometimes I think we should do that with the word “cult.” The word has changed. Rather than resist it, it may be better to embrace the new meaning. Point to the etymology of the word. It stems from the same root as does the word “agriculture,” which literally means “care of the earth.” Ones who care for “the matters of God” would be an appropriate definition for “cult.” I could live with it.

One might even do what the cops did when their radical student “apostates” began tormenting them with the epithet “pigs”—doubling down when they saw that it got under their skin. Finally, one innovative officer decided to roll with it:

P - Pride

I - Intergritey

G- Guts

S - Service

Can Witnesses do the same? “To the adolescents I became an adolescent,” Paul said:

C - Courage

U- Unity

L - Love

T - Truth

One does not want to be like my (non-Witness) cousin, who grumbled till her dying day that she could no longer use the word “gay” because the homosexuals hijacked it. “I’m no prude,” she would day. “If they want to go AC-DC, that’s alright with me. (would she really wink just then?) But why couldn’t they invent their own word? Why did they have to take “gay?” She’d go on and on. I used to set her off just to watch the sparks fly. “She’s just mad that she can no longer speak of going to ‘gay Parie,’” I said to my right-wing brother. But my right wing brother had still not forgiven the French in the aftermath of the “Freedom Fries” fiasco. “Why  can’t she?” he muttered.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

36 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

In the UK most people followed the instructions of the government

Did you forget that I have television? I can see how obedient they are.

JWs have put themselves among company in which peer-pressure is going to nudge them in the safer direction. Non-Witnesses, many of them, (recall that I said “with some exaggeration”) have put themselves in a place where their peer-pressure will not. Do not think that peer-pressure is nothing. It is the reason that we look at our photos of yesteryear and marvel at how we ever could have thought those dorky styles back then did anything for us.

[Anna]

@TrueTomHarley I know what you are saying, and I understand why you are saying it. It's similar to being a literalist. But that quote " proof they have God's backing" says  exactly what it means, and essentially boils down to this: In context Br. Glock was talking about apostate lies putting doubts into peoples minds about the GB. So, "In case you doubt the wisdom of the GB because they are imperfect and sometimes make mistakes and you want proof that they have God's backing, well here is proof". (Despite the fact that anyone can issue similar guidelines, and HAS issued similar guidelines). But sorry, all it proves is that the GB have been diligent in watching the world, are wise in applying the Bible's wisdom, wise in applying the authorities' advice and that they are concerned for us and want us to stay safe..

Really, the praise goes to all the hard working CO's, elders, and publishers who willing cooperate and actually make all this work! Without the co-operation of everyone in the organization, the GB can give wonderful advice till they're blue in the face and have Jehovah standing right behind them what would it prove?
Come on Tom, just admit it, it was not the best argument to prove a point ( Br. Glocks) or choice of words. And you must admit that this is somewhat of a clumsy effort at reassurance that the GB do have God's backing and that we can trust them. I believe there has been some success on the part of opposers in bringing the friends away. It was confirmed by a trustworthy elder, as I already mentioned in one of my posts. Br. Glock's talk is what the opposers like to call damage control. I won't call it that, because I am not on the opposers side. But I can see how some could think that! Actually, to be honest, I find it rather exciting as it may indicate something drastic is going to have to happen soon (oh, you don't say!)
By the way, apart from the "trust the GB because we have proof they have God's backing" bit I thought the talk was very good.
 

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Should Glock be expected to use the word “prove” in the scientific sense? Not hardly. He is a Bible teacher. How does the Bible use the term? The New World Translation uses the word ‘prove’ 46 times. Not one of them is in the scientific sense.

And if you look at the NWT for related words, you will see something of further interest. In the related words below, the first number is the frequency in the pre-2013 NWT, and the second number is the NWT (revised).

prove 360/57, proved 273/30, proven 0/0, proves 23/1, proving 20/7 proof 21/8, proofs 2/1

for a total of 699 "proof" words, reduced to only 104. A drop of "7 times."

Except for the word "proof(s)" itself, the vast majority of these terms are carryovers from a favorite verb construction credited to F.W.Franz, apparently because he wanted to translate Jehovah's use of "ehyeh" to Moses with "I will prove to be" rather than just "I am." So to be consistent, he sometimes even took mundane phrases similar to "I will speak" and translated them as "I will prove to be speaking."

In other words, Jesus never says "prove yourselves cautious as serpents" he just said "be cautious as serpents."

Jesus never said: "On this account, prove yourselves ready," he just said "On this account, be ready."

And Jesus didn't say: ". . . prove yourselves my disciples," he just said ". . .you shall be my disciples." (Although in this last case the full construction is: "My Father is glorified in that you are bearing much fruit and [so that?] you shall be my disciples." So a translator might be justified in either adding the word "true" to disciples, or using "prove to be" because of the probable implication of the entire construction where the usual word for "and" can sometimes imply "so that.")

Although 600 of the 700 verb constructions were dropped in 2013, there was no real reason to keep the other 100 as carryovers, either. It was mostly a quirk of the old NWT where it gave an important "sound" to the phrase, but with very few times when it translated the true meaning of the verse. That's why in current Bible reading, the revised NWT simply removes the following cases of "prove" or "prove to" and just leaves it as "be."

(Exodus 10:7) . . . After that Pharʹaoh’s servants said to him: “How long will this man prove to be as a snare to us? . . .

(Exodus 12:5)  The sheep should prove to be sound, a male, a year old, for YOU. . . .

(Exodus 16:5) . . .And it must occur on the sixth day that they must prepare what they will bring in, and it must prove double what they keep picking up day by day.”

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Anna said:

Come on Tom, just admit it, it was not the best argument to prove a point ( Br. Glocks) or choice of words.

 

On 7/8/2020 at 1:44 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

If Brother Glock want to say that ‘ewents’ prove God’s backing, I can say, “Well, ‘indicate’ might have been more scientifically precise,“ but otherwise I do not lose my cookies over it.

 

On 7/9/2020 at 1:39 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

In fact, I have no problem if Brother Glock does think that a woo factor is at work...it is just that you can’t “prove” it in the scientific sense. 

 

[Anna]

22 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

more scientifically precise,“

 

22 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

it in the scientific sense

I am probably misunderstanding the point you are trying to make. I don't think science has anything to do with Br. Glock's use of the word "proof' in the context he used it in. I think you might be over thinking things....

[TrueTomHarley]

9 minutes ago, Anna said:

I think you might be over thinking things...

I thought the point I was making is that he could have chosen a different word and thus prevent this thread from coming into existence. Isn’t that your point as well?

[Srecko Sostar]

7 minutes ago, Anna said:

 I don't think science has anything to do with Br. Glock's use of the word "proof'

Perhaps br. Glock is "Bible scholar", a person who has studied a subject for a long time and knows a lot about it, an intelligent and well-educated person who knows a particular subject very well.

In that context he should be aware of using particular words and their meanings, in/for his talk .

[Srecko Sostar]

7 hours ago, César Chávez said:

So what you are saying, the Apostles had no authority to invoke the word of God, even though Jesus commissioned them to do just that? When Moses struck the rock, was Moses alone or was he in front of the people. Maybe you can clarify your position. 

Now, didn't Jesus separate church and state? What do you suppose Jesus was talking about when he mentioned "Give Caesar what is Caesars" Was Caesar a Sanhedrin or a man of state? Now think about Hebrews  13:17. What err do you see when someone from the ORG questions a leaders actions that has no basis for it, just outside influence and speculation. Does that not mean, that person is putting themselves in Moses chair? 

Why would that be presumptive? Their actions are signaling to others, they have the right to complain just like Furuli did. Was he correct to do that? NO! Since God's Holy Spirit would not have been with such a divisive person. 

People can "invoke" whatever they want in "proving" their position on something. A reference to a “higher instance” does not mean that the higher instance approves a “lower instance” on every or all doctrine, instruction, directive and policy. That is what i saying.