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

[Thinking]

7 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Whether his is narcissistic or not is for others to say, but there is clearly something squirrelly about him. Why he would throw away the brotherhood to absolutely no purpose is beyond me. To throw it away because he thinks the religion JWs practice is all wet is one thing. But he presses the point that his religion is the true one. So why publish an indictment of the GB as you reaffirm everything else. He knows it will cost him (something I myself did’t know, nor some others here). He has counted the costs and is willing for the brotherhood to be severed from him, for something he knows will do no good! He submits his work to Bethel, but when they “refuse” to engage him, he publishes it to make Reddit’s day. The Witness organization will say, “One more bit of opposition? Throw it on the stack,” and he knows they will say that. 

4Jah, odd even in a menagerie of oddballs, says: “I bet your sweating that Rolf wrote his book. I bet you’re sweating that my friends are scheming up other mischief.” Of course I am. But I also keep it in perspective. Could he really have been a Witness at one time, for he seems to have forgotten everything. Wasn’t that his ancestor that was saying to ancient worshippers of Jehovah: I bet you’re sweating that your buddies are “tortured because they would not accept release by some ransom, in order that they might attain a better resurrection.“  I bet you’re sweating that other have “their trial by mockings and scourgings.” I bet you’re sweating that for others it will be “by chains and prisons.” I bet you’re sweating that some will be “stoned, they were tried, they were sawn in two, they were slaughtered by the sword, they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, while they were in need, in tribulation, mistreated.” I bet you’re sweating that my world has consigned them to “wander about in deserts and mountains and caves and dens of the earth.” Wasn’t that his cousin, 4Jahovich, who taunted Dennis Christensen, “I bet you’re sweating that we’re going to throw you in the hoosegow” or two the Russian branch: “I’ll bet you’re sweating that we’re going to declare you illegal extremists.” He has forgotten everything he ever knew about Christianity. It’s as though he thinks Jesus and the twelve are in the “Roman Empire Hall of Fame.”

As for Rolf trading away the brotherhood—If I suffer misfortune and vanish from the internet, (as recently happened to a long-time player here) none of my online acquaintances will ever know why. Was I hit by a bus? Did I suddenly go gravely ill? Did I have a bad conscience over confronting the villains? Did I empty my pockets and still not have enough for my ISP bill? Nobody will ever know. But because I stick with the brotherhood, people will know my distress within a few hours, a day or so at most, and they will be people disposed to do everything they can to remedy my problem. All that Rolf throws away to no purpose other than making a statement. Narcissistic? Maybe not, but the symptoms resemble it closely enough that JWI can be forgiven for not knowing the difference.

I run the risk of seeming anti-scholar here, and I am not. I like books. I have read more than most. When the BBC ran a list of the 100 greatest books of all time, I found that I had read over 50 of them—“read” them via Books-on-Tape while working as a janitor. But too many things are phrased as though matters of scholarship, matters of the head, as though “Wisdom puffs up, but not in my case.” Forgive me, but I would not choose ‘Thinking’ as a moniker, even though I do a lot of it—and “Scholar JW” as a handle leaves me cold. There probably was nobody less scholarly than the twelve who accompanied Jesus, perhaps excepting only Judas, who was not from the hills, but from “metropolitan” Jerusalem. There were plenty of scholars at the time, but Jesus bypassed them all—he was looking for those who would do God’s will, as opposed to just studying it—to shake it down in its components with a heady goal of instructing others. “What is desired in a steward is to be found faithful,” Jesus states, not “analytical.” Of course, the head trains the heart—we all know that. But much more does the heart train the head, so that to overemphasize the head seems to be missing the point. There are brothers who wish to be known for their critical thinking, and even by their eagerness to be “led by the science.” It makes no sense to me. The first thing that contemporary scientists will do is to tell you where you can go with your quaint little notion of Adam and Eve. Science is THE tool of those humanists that would defy God. It is enough to keep up with it—we don’t have to venerate is as they do—as the be-all and end-all. Scholarship is a great thing—pour me a double-shot of it—but it ranks somewhat low in Christian qualities necessary for approval before God. To hear some carry on here (not you), it is the ONLY thing that matters.

 

Aaah Tom you talk a lot..you have a lot of words.....and you at times come over as a bit self righteous...why did I chose thinking,,,not for the reasons you so wrongly presume....thinking was ..because I simply often dont know...what to think...is this right...is that right?...is he right...what if I’ve got it wrong?..Am I leaning on my own understanding??....always thinking..because I cannot afford not to...not having your confidence and assurity of one self...so alas..as old as I am...I have to keep thinking...to make sure...You are to cocky Tom...too self assured....but hey...every Congs got one....

If you read his book he clearly explains he spoke up because of the many who were disfellowshipped wrongly ...he had first hand experience ....and there was a lot of truth in this section of his book.

there were other reasons also...but that one stood out to me the most...
I guess he fell on his sword because he felt it was the right thing to do basically..he is getting old..his time is short...maybye there are other reasons..but I don’t know the brother myself..not personally.

ive never spoken to him...never watched him with other brothers and sisters...I have not read his other books....but that would prove nothing....Personally I think he would have done more good staying with in the cong..But he must have thought speaking up was worth the sacrifice.

your on a forum..I’m on a forum...JWI is on a forum...Billy the kid is on the forum.....but that’s okay...our sin is not as big as Rolfs sin after all...Is it?....ours is just a little sin...so we should be right....after all...a forum is different to writing a book isn’t it....Rolf did on a big scale what we do on a small scale...
you gotta give it to him...he had more guts than me and nearly everyone else on this forum...name and picture up for all to see....

we all use monikers ( not you ) because we know very well if we published our names and pictures we would be marked or out in that back room like jack flash.
we have been warned from the platform about forums...when we had meetings...I have anyway....

thats one point he was making in the book...

I totally agree with you that all the scholarly knowledge means nothing with out the basic love...And words are just as useless with out love too....Now I’m writing a novel...picking up your bad habit I think 😉

 

 

 

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

There probably was nobody less scholarly than the twelve who accompanied Jesus, perhaps excepting only Judas, who was not from the hills, but from “metropolitan” Jerusalem.

You must be confusing Akeldama with Acedemia. I see no evidence that Judas was from Jerusalem.

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I see what you are saying, but this is like comparing pumpkins and slippers (Thanks to Arauna for the expression, possibly inspired from Cinderalla). You are doing quite the opposite of what it appears that Furuli has been doing. I agree that the narcissism label is fraught with problems. But it is not evidenced in people who admit that they will likely agree with someone on things and disagree on other things and simply not understand one way or another on other things. This is already good evidence that you are NOT a narcissist.

I don't think Furuli is a narcissist simply for writing a book that trashes the current accepted view of the GB. As you probably know, I agree with much of what he says about that same subject. Just as I agree with what Fred Franz said about the subject from a scriptural perspective. And I have long presented my view that the "faithful slave" is a lesson for all of us, not a lesson about a clergy of appointed slaves to serve spiritual food for the good for nothing slave laity.

The idea of narcissism comes from the scholastic dishonesty he has engaged in. And, believe it or not, from my own perspective, I'm giving him a generous rationale for his scholastic dishonesty. If it is based on the inability to see where he has ever been wrong, then this is an explanation for why he cannot deal with evidence that shows he is wrong. A person can engage in scholastic dishonesty without being purposely dishonest in the sense of being devious. A narcissist will create such an extreme bias to protect their own ideology that it produces a mental block against rational handling of counter-arguments and counter-evidence. Extreme bias can make one engage in dishonesty without making them a purposeful liar.

On the topic of 607, this really has nothing to do with whether the date is right, or whether Furuli or anyone else has the doctrine right or wrong. It's simply about his many cases of obvious scholastic dishonesty. Even if he was absolutely right about 607 he still handled the evidence dishonestly.

I agree that it's quite possible I'm wrong. But if it has no overriding mental basis, I'd be inclined to see his past actions as absolute, purposeful, devious dishonesty just to keep his reputation intact. I have to admit that I think he has at times, engaged in this type of dishonesty, too. One time, on a very academic Biblical language forum he said something that was proven to be absolutely false, and he couldn't deny it. He couldn't admit he was wrong, so he claimed that what he wrote had started out as a purposeful presentation of the wrong side, that he had sent without the correction. To me, that was either a mental inability to admit being wrong, or it was purposeful "devious" dishonesty. 

And, as you say, he may be right on many of the points made in this latest book, but many of them continue in this consistent pattern of having promoted a certain ideology, from somewhere around the 1970s, for example, but with the inability to admit that anything that changed after that point had ever have been wrong in the first place.

I'd like to think that this latest book is a complete turning over of a new e-leaf, and I could dismiss the past foibles. Yet, he still wants the creative days to add up to 49,000 years.

King David lacked the mental in ability to admit he was wrong....and he was purposely devious...and dishonest....and he absolutely wanted to keep his reputation intact....so now we judge Rolf and condemn him ...let’s leave it with Jehovah....take what we know to be true...think whatever on the rest...but don’t assassinate    his character..unless you are prepared to do the same to King David....to my knowledge he’s not the only one  thinking that about the creative days...I’ve heard it on the grapevine before,,,,

no one has got it all right...not yet anyway,,,,

 

[JW Insider]

38 minutes ago, Thinking said:

and you at times come over as a bit self righteous

I'm sure TTH will speak for himself, but you probably know that it is difficult to make a clear point without sounding self-righteous. It's difficult to call oneself JW Insider, or my intended name 'Bible's Advocate,' or nearly anything without sounding self-righteous to someone. ("Meekest man on the face of the earth"?) When we have an opinion, it's nearly impossible to remember to put the "IMO" caveat after every sentence, so you just stop doing that and state your position. I'm sure we end up sounding overly confident and self-righteous as a consequence.

(1 Peter 4:11) 11 If anyone speaks, let him do so as speaking pronouncements from God;. . .

But many of us have probably learned a lot and changed opinions over time here, too. I know I have. And I've seen evidence from several others, including TTH. Let's just hope that those opinions have changed in the right direction.

38 minutes ago, Thinking said:

If you read his book he clearly explains he spoke up because of the many who were disfellowshipped wrongly ...he had first hand experience ....and there was a lot of truth in this section of his book.

I agree. And I had high hopes for the book providing some value to the GB, if it was in a completely different spirit from his previous books. At this point in the book I saw a bit of love coming through. But when it reverted to a bit of braggadocio I couldn't help but see it as a continuation of his former persona.

At any rate, you are right that none of us can judge correctly, and none of us can see his motives in total. I do agree that what he did might very well have been an act of self-sacrifice in bringing his gifts to the table. I saw it as a mix of good and bad motives, probably because I was unable to give him a clean slate. I'd be happy to rethink my position and concerns about him, and assume that he did not intend to convey some of the characteristics I thought I saw in him.

I promise to re-read and give him every benefit of the doubt, and see what I can make of it.

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Now I’m writing a novel...picking up your bad habit I think 😉

You certainly do not want to do that. It’s a horrible habit it be afflicted with.

If I take a swipe at you as regards the moniker, I can hardly not expect a jab back. I don’t know why I did it, really. Cocky, I guess—it’s as good a verdict as any. The pieces fit together together for a diatribe I was cooking up. I forgot that the pieces have feelings. My bad. I apologize. I have no beef you whatsoever, never have, and your remarks are among my favorites. They do represent—well, “thinking.“ I might even encourage more of them, except that then you might have the experience, as I do from time to time, that in the abundance of words there does not fail to be transgression. 

“Aw, shut up, with your Kentucky-fried Foghorn Leghorn drawl!” the villain says to Benoit Blanc. it’s about time someone said it to me. (If you see the movie ‘Knives Out’—it is free on Amazon Prime—you must be prepared for a bit of language. It is by no means filthy, by today’s standards—I don’t recall a single f-bomb—but no way is it pristine like in the Kingdom Hall. It is an Hercule Poirot parody, with Daniel Craig playing the Christie-like eccentric, brilliant, and world-renowned sleuth, Benoit Blanc. There is nothing funnier, to my mind, then when he opens his mouth to speak an overbearing combination of French/Southern Redneck accent. He routinely says things that, at first glance are profound, but at second are just plain stupid.)

 

[Anna]

Wow Tom, that was a long reply! At first I thought it was JWI 😂. I am just playing, no disrespect to either of you, I do the same I know, especially when I get in my rant mode.

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

a phrase that I never intended to mean anything more than providing leadership.

Gotcha!

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Moses said that Jesus will “raise up a prophet like me.”

I think you meant that Jehovah will raise up a prophet like Moses in reference to Jesus, the future Messiah. Which shows that Jesus became the "greater" Moses. What does that make the GB? That is why I don't think they can be viewed as Moses. Jesus already filled that role. We both agree they have some similar tasks in leading the people organizationally, and providing Bible literature, but as for having the status of being Jehovah's "mouthpiece", (or similar) I am not so sure about that. Many friends do think that, probably because the GB in the past have referred to themselves in that way. Is it any wonder then that some have this idea that the GB are more than what they actually are. And this can create problems, and has created problems where people leave the Truth because of this erroneous understanding. You inadvertently point out the problem: (in bold)

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

That’s all the GB is doing today, saying “Yes, I am a man. Yes, I am behind the curtain manipulating the machinery of organizational lead which is awesome, but I am still a man,” and some of the crowd will still say, “I think he is more than just a man, I think God gives him special spirit, I think....”—that’s just the way people are.

Those in the crowd might be less inclined to view things that way if the GB were NOT behind a curtain in the first place. And saying things like "we are Jehovah's mouthpiece" and "we will give you instructions that may not make sense from a human stand point" do not help.

But I agree with this though:

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

God does lead his people, and there has always been something visible for them to hang their hats on—though at no time does this “something visible” preclude one’s own relationship with God or one’s own study of the scriptures.

 

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

12 hours ago, Anna said:

but those publications are not rocket science. You could write them. Would it then mean that God was communicating through you? 

 I write supportively, as a apologist. Rolf writes as an investigative reporter

When I said the above, I was not comparing you to Furuli. By publications I meant the WT etc. I meant you could write them. Anyone with some intelligence and Bible knowledge could. My example was to show that the spiritual food provided by the GB is nothing that isn't there already (in the Bible). Just made more understandable and applicable in practical terms, which you could do as well. (in fact as we know, the writing department does all this, the GB merely proofread and put their stamp of approval on it). So how can it be said that God is communicating through the GB, (the FDS) if it's nothing new, and if you could do the same? That is what my argument was about. But you already explained what you meant.

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

As you know, you are my heroine, for doing the most commonsense thing in the world: familiarizing yourself with apostate reasonings so that should your loved one come across them one day and be stumbled, you are able to do more than say: “DON’T READ THAT STUFF!!!” an answer that you know as well as I will almost always work to your loved one’s disadvantage—once the toothpaste is out of the tube it does not go back in again, and your loved one’s newly discovered information source will certainly say: “You see? What did I tell you? They want to keep blinders on you!”

Thanks (blushing modestly). No but seriously, it has done me some good too, I feel the same way:

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

there is no mystery at all to these things, and my spirituality has only grown in seeing, not just why people accept the truth, but also why, after accepting it, they reject it.

Just gives you a broader view. I think any and all knowledge is beneficial, whether to deter you from doing bad, or encouraging you to do good. But then am I reasoning like Adam? Why would he want to eat from the tree of knowledge? Hmmmm.....

That's off topic, but maybe it could make an interesting topic!

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Sure, there is a rush that comes with answering a fathead,

I thought you quit that long ago. I have. There is no point. Maybe Reddit is different and compels you more to respond. I don't read Reddit. There is only one apostate forum I check on every now and again just to see if there is anything new. Not in their reasoning, that's the same old, but they are the first with leaked videos etc. That forum is more like a club where people of like mind associate. It helps them to cope with what they've left behind as they find encouragement from people of like mind and situation. If there is a JW club, (not here, I mean JW-Talk) you know there has to be an ex- JW club too.

 

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

But our track record of being unmarred by apostasy is so poor that at times, I wish we would re-examine that counsel to avoid at all costs even a whiff of it. When Amber Scorah sails through her life, ends up a missionary in China, and her faith and entire life is upended by one chance encounter there, something seems out of whack. Why did she cave so easily? Why wasn’t she better prepared for the contrasting view? When the Russian brother asks about his old friend and learns that one has left the faith because he read literature critical of the organization—literature that we are strongly advised not to read, it exaggerates the power of this crap. It is nothing more than the “sons of disobedience” at work, but it creates an almost superstitious horror among brothers that one chance encounter with an ‘apostate’ can upend a lifetime of dedication to God. I think it even works against zeal in the ministry—we work tirelessly over months or even years to make a disciple, with the underlying “knowledge” that it can all come to an abrupt end if that person so much as talks to an ‘apostate’—how can it not sap our willingness to go through the process in the first place?

 Yes. And poor Amber. I do actually feel sorry for her. (bold mine)

"Why wasn't she better prepared for the contrasting view"? Yes, it may have helped. But have you ever wondered why the likes of me, you, JWI, Arauna, Outta Here, ComfortMyPeople, b4ucuhear, JTR and others, although we have become familiar with the "contrasting view" we have not gone "rogue"? I have though about this quite a bit and my opinion is that those who fall away, do so not necessarily because they find out something "shocking" and thus lose faith, but because they find out something that gives them an excuse to fall away because they were already subconsciously that way inclined. Amber was unhappy in her marriage. I think overall she was not content with her life, hence looking for something different (China). Then comes along a charming kindred spirit that "opens her eyes" to the wonders of another world outside the JWs. She falls in love. And there you have it. The perfect end to a concoction to finally do what she really wanted. I can't speak for the others, but I have no need for any of that. I suppose I have matured enough now to see through these things. And yes, really making the Truth your own is key. Ok, I don't want do a Peter here and say we can never be stumbled and fall away, we can, but I would hope it would be a temporary lapse like it was with Peter. We are all weak in varying respects....but what is there outside of Jehovah? A brother asked the other week for us to imagine for a moment how we would feel if suddenly Jehovah stopped existing. I know how I felt. Is that perhaps another key to understanding why some leave and some stay despite man's (GB) imperfections?

Got to go, will continue later.

 

 

 

[Thinking]

7 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

You certainly do not want to do that. It’s a horrible habit it be afflicted with.

If I take a swipe at you as regards the moniker, I can hardly not expect a jab back. I don’t know why I did it, really. Cocky, I guess—it’s as good a verdict as any. The pieces fit together together for a diatribe I was cooking up. I forgot that the pieces have feelings. My bad. I apologize. I have no beef you whatsoever, never have, and your remarks are among my favorites. They do represent—well, “thinking.“ I might even encourage more of them, except that then you might have the experience, as I do from time to time, that in the abundance of words there does not fail to be transgression. 

“Aw, shut up, you Kentucky-fried foghorn—with your obnoxious phony Southern drawl!” the villain says to Benoit Blanc. it’s about time someone said it to me. (If you see the movie ‘Knives Out’—it is free on Amazon Prime—you must be prepared for a bit of language. It is by no means filthy, by today’s standards—I don’t recall a single f-bomb—but no way is it pristine like in the Kingdom Hall. It is an Hercule Poirot parody, with Daniel Craig playing the Christie-like eccentric, brilliant, and world-renowned sleuth, Benoit Blanc. There is nothing funnier, to my mind, then when he opens his mouth to emit a combination of French/Southern Redneck accent and routinely says things that, at first glance are profound, but at second are just plain stupid.)

 

Well you are funny as well..and witty I’m sure if we were all in the same cong we would get on great...🤗

[TrueTomHarley]

37 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Well you are funny as well..and witty I’m sure if we were all in the same cong we would get on great...🤗

I have no doubt of that. Do you know that I am blocked on Twitter by the Liebster Arnold foundation—the ones who published the recent book of the Tutsi brother who survived the Rwandan genocide? I went there upon reading that book and found that I had been blocked! I then followed them via another account (with the same banner that I use here as well)—it is not only here I have multiple personas—and I was instantly blocked again! (I did not follow them with my third account)

I said the same thing that you just said—‘in the Kingdom Hall we would work it out in two minutes.’ The internet is not the congregation and cannot be made to behave like one. They probably came across me when I was exchanging barbs with a few villains, and do not know that I subsequently carted them all out to the curb. In this case, bad association truly did spoil a useful habit.

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/08/blocking-trolls-the-star-trek-way-i-didnt-want-to-do-it.html

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

You must be confusing Akeldama with Acedemia. I see no evidence that Judas was from Jerusalem.

Where does that come from then that he was? I know I have read it.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

Wow and yes i stuck with it all, reading every word that y'all had written .

@JW Insider seems to have a split personality on this topic. He deliberately kicks the man down, then he says he agrees with a lot of the things he wrote. 

@TrueTomHarley is just Tom. He just loves to try to wind people up. Tom I forgive you your slander against me, which you seemed to enjoy as you wrote a complete paragraph about it.

@Anna You seemed to go off topic, but then don't we all. 

In all, I've noticed that you are not really interested in the BOOK, but are more interested in 'analysing' the writer. I feel it is because the Book troubles you all. The reason being as JWI has hinted at, that Furuli speaks truthfully about the GB and about problems in the CCJW. 

Anna did bring up the point that the GB are NOT like Moses or Jesus. Please keep in mind that your GB has said they are NOT INSPIRED. And Anna (I think) mentioned that the Writing Department do the writing anyway, and they too are NOT inspired.  IMO none of them are  even 'spirit led or guided'. And Anna rightly said that Tom could write the Watchtower mags. 

JWI seemed to think that I had 'gone off to some other Christian org', but I have not.  

All of you seem to think that 'God belongs to the CCJW' because you make mention of when a person leaves the CCJW they are leaving God. This is untrue but you will not be convinced.  

The rest of it just seemed to be the three of you patting each other on the back, which is fine.

Dinner time, be back later, 4Jah2me

 

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Where does that come from then that he was? I know I have read it.

Most likely from this or a similar repetition of it:

*** nwtsty Matthew Study Notes—Chapter 10 ***
Iscariot: Possibly meaning “Man From Kerioth.” Judas’ father, Simon, is also called “Iscariot.” (Joh 6:71) This term has commonly been understood to indicate that Simon and Judas were from the Judean town of Kerioth-hezron. (Jos 15:25) If this is so, Judas was the only Judean among the 12 apostles, the rest being Galileans.

That city is also called Hazor but notice from jw.org:

Kerioth-hezron

KERIOTH-HEZRON (Keʹri·oth-hezʹron) [Towns of Hezron]. Another name for Hazor (No. 3), a town of Judah that has tentatively been identified with Khirbet el-Qaryatein (Tel Qeriyyot), about 20 km (12 mi) S of Hebron.—Jos 15:25.

And this map, not from jw.org:

So he probably only commuted to a small town community college in Hebron. 😉

 

[Anna]

Continued....

So going back to the brother who asked the question; "how we would feel if suddenly Jehovah stopped existing". I wonder how we would feel if suddenly if the GB stopped existing? Would we fall apart?

9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Our cure is worse than the disease, and often leads to worse cases of the disease. If Amber is “not of our sort,”  let her learn that before she marries and goes off to China. Then hopefully she will take up a life in indifference to her former faith, and it will just be indifference—not hostility. 

Yes, well said. 

9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I will at most detail a downside. I will not do a Rolf and call for an overhaul. What a tremendously immodest course that is! The GB is taking the lead, and they can amass scriptures to support what they advise regarding interaction with those who willfully leave the truth behind. Who am I to say those scriptures are invalid? Who am I to say I know better? For every iron I have in the fire, they have 100. I can only reflect on what appears before my own two eyes. They can reflect upon what appears before thousands of eyes. Highlight a downside and move on. Bring your gift to the altar. Maybe someone will say, “You know, that talkative yo-yo has a point.” But if they don,t, they don’t. They don’t have to tell me why they don’t. The expression “There are too many chiefs and not enough Indians” is one of the most under-appreciated bits of wisdom in the world.

Yes. And funny you mentioned too many chiefs and not enough Indians, I was going to mention that very phrase, lol. Actually, I was going to say you can't have more chiefs than Indians. Same thing.

Going back to the fear of apostates, it makes me wonder why they (the GB) are so afraid, to the point of putting the fear of God in you if you so much as glance at something apostate related. That has always bothered me a bit. Are they afraid that their influence be undermined? That people will lose trust in them? If that is so, where then does the trust in Jehovah figure? Are we not supposed to trust Jehovah more than any man? Does it not reveal that our trust may lie more in the GB than Jehovah? Recently, in one of the study articles it was mentioned that idolizing someone (the reference was to the GB) could become a stumbling block if that someone falls away. Is it then not better to see the "contrasting view" because that might help us be more realistically grounded. And as JWI alluded (I think it was JWI) why try and "hide" something unless we are ashamed of it (meaning the GB) and why not be candid and transparent? Why have all this "secret" stuff for the apostates to dig up and wave around? Stuff that the GB does not want us to read? Do they think our faith in Jehovah is so fragile?

When you believe in God, then this inevitably leads to questions about his purpose for us and the meaning of life. This in turn leads to an analysis of writings which claim to explain that. This leads to admitting that the Bible has the most intelligent explanation, and that Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones who adhere to all of it despite some personal sacrifice on their part.
When you do not accept there is a God, like Amber, all that is no longer relevant.
Of course those who no longer believe there is a God fall back on so called "scientific proof" . And yes. There are things that don't quite add up about the timeline of the flood, the fossil record, and the age of man, etc. but despite that, even JTR, who believes in evolution (with a helping hand from Jehovah) is still with us.

For any intelligent person there is more proof of the existence of God than there isn't. Those who deny the existence of God do it more for personal reasons than because of science. When it comes down to the crunch, in the end, things are always personal, even if people try to imply some other noble cause or scientific enlightenment, or apostate reasoning. So what are the GB so afraid of?