Teejay and the Kosmokrator
by IslandWoman 35 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
hillary_step
Teejay,
No, no... you're right! When it comes to cult leading, I pale into insignificance when compared to others, but isn't that the point? Tell me, HS: in IW's allegory, who would you say is the Bull? Careful, now...
What you seem to be expecting is for me to comment on a notion as yet totally unproved by yourself or IW. Please present evidence to this Board that a cult of personality and follower exists around AlanF, JanH, Norm, Kent and Farkel. Once you have done this I may be able to take this argument seriously.
Now, I have given my reasons as to why I believe you raised this issue. If you recall I agreed with you that XJW's are especially susceptible to being led, as we were well conditioned by the WTS in this way of life. I thought that you made a very valid point here and I noted that in my post. Where I plainly disagreed with you is that you went overboard in illustrating this tendency by naming XJW's that you believed are and were the object of other XJW's cultist focus. It just so happens that each one of the persons mentioned are persons with which you have had long-term and sometimes bitter disagreements, usually over matters unrelated to the issue of cults and followers. I also suggested that this may have been the reason that you singled out such ones and publicly named them as the object of cultist tendencies, thus casting a shadow on what was actually a good post.
The problem is that there has been no evidence presented to sustain your accusation. Present this evidence and I will return to this thread. Anything else would be a waste of both our time, including my commenting any further on IW's Homeric visions.
Best regards - HS
-
BeautifulGarbage
It is my observation that there is no cult of Farkel, et al,. What I observe is a group of people that are long time friends and many know each other in person. This allows those individuals to know the full breathe of the person that exists. Not just the slivers that are desplayed on this forum.
Now, they are few posters, on this forum, that seem to unquestionably come to defense to a few more ..ahem..prominent posters, regardless of how disgustingly one of the foremention poster behaves. However, that is the exception, not the rule. For me, personally, do I wish they could clean up their act? Of course. Do I admire their writings? Yes. But, in the end, their behavior doesn't have even a miniscule impact on my life. I understand that others have been hurt by their words. When that happens, it's time to step back a bit and examine the roll this discussion board has on our lives. Judgement in that area is at the descretion of the individual poster.
If you recall I agreed with you that XJW's are especially susceptible to being led, as we were well conditioned by the WTS in this way of life.
I would have to disagree with this statement. Of course, knowing that Mr. Step would be a complete gentlemen in his response, if any. I have personally noted, after being a member on this board for nearly two years, that if one is a "true" XJW (by that, I mean has cut ties and has completely rejected all doctrines), that quite the opposite is true. I think that XJW are much less likely to be led by anyone or anything. The taste of bitter betrayal by leaders, and the despair of destroyed, or lost, family, is a constant reminder of the devastation blind following can bestow on the unquestioning.
I'm sure there are a few that want to follow something, or someone. But, that is no different from the "outside" world. It's simply human nature where people don't have the convenience of using the XJW excuse for behaving in a manor that is considered rude, polite, argumentative, diplomatic, cowardly, brave, smart, stupid, noble, or contemptible.
BTW: Cute little ditty, IW.
Andee
-
IslandWoman
Andee,
I have personally noted, after being a member on this board for nearly two years, that if one is a "true" XJW (by that, I mean has cut ties and has completely rejected all doctrines), that quite the opposite is true. I think that XJW are much less likely to be led by anyone or anything. The taste of bitter betrayal by leaders, and the despair of destroyed, or lost, family, is a constant reminder of the devastation blind following can bestow on the unquestioning.
I understand what you're trying to say but in practice the working definition of XJW is much broader and inclusive than the one you used above. Each of us are in our own transition into a new world and the transition must be made at our own pace. Everyone here, to one degree or another, is an exJW whether they are still in or out or just lurking because just to be here is a defiance of the Governing Body and a declaration of spiritual independence from them.
Some further thoughts:
As for the story at the top of this thread, the character "Teejay" was calling for the men in the temple to erect a god of "self-determined right thinking" feeling that it was in their best interests. Mithras though took offense to being called a god and ran with that disregarding, for the most part, the main point of "Teejay's" speech.
It is very interesting because here on this board the use of the word "leader", as applied to some of the top Tower fighting male posters here, is frowned upon by said posters, they seem to be rankled by it. Yet imo there is nothing wrong with the word and it, I feel, can be properly applied to some who are looked up to and respected for all their hard work and vigilance in exposing the Watchtower. They are leaders. Loved, respected leaders. Possibly it is humility which makes them dislike the term, I don't know.
When the GB members claim not to be prophets yet they run a show which does attempt to prophesy we all see the fallacy in their claim. It is the same with some here who take the lead in the fight, they are leaders. To be disturbed at being called such is not to recognize the position of power and of responsibility that they command.
There are exJWs who are hurting and as long as there are hurting people there will be vulnerable people, people who look for someone to help them sort out the mess they have in their head and hearts because of the Watchtower. Here they find friends and fellow feeling, they also find men who they can count on and respect. But even the smallest person, the simplest person, the person in the shadows has something of worth to contribute and should feel equal enough to make known their opinion and safe enough to do so without fearing that to contradict a prominent poster is to die a slow death.
If they do not feel safe and free to speak their mind without fear of "tough love" reprisals from the kings among us than we have not moved too far from the Watchtower after all.
IW
-
SixofNine
When it comes to cult leading, I pale into insignificance when compared to others,
Perhaps, but not for lack of effort. KenpoDragon has you beat in that department though. What's a cap'n to do?
One thing about them others, AlanF, Farkel, Jan, et al... no one can accuse them of even looking like they care to have a following. That's why putting their names in a sentence that infers they are cult leaders is absolute horse shit.
IW, do you ever take off your sexist colored glasses?
-
teejay
What you seem to be expecting is for me to comment on a notion as yet totally unproved by yourself or IW. Please present evidence to this Board that a cult of personality and follower exists around AlanF, JanH, Norm, Kent and Farkel. Once you have done this I may be able to take this argument seriously.
It's appropriate that you characterize the cult of personality debate that I present as a "notion." (Please see definition of "notion"). Notions (ideas; opinions; concepts) have no need of proof. It's no different than any other opinion that someone may espouse. Either you see relevance in the notion (or opinion) and agree with it or you don't see the relevance of it at all. It's really as simple as that. Your agreement or lack of has little to no bearing on the actuality of the notion itself. It is MY notion!
Besides, as IW so eloquently said (and was missed by nearly every one of those who seemed to take offense to the "notion"), whether there is in fact a cult of personality here or not, wouldn’t you agree that there is a need for those who do have a fixation on leaders to leave that mindset behind? That, to me, is the true essence of "Teejay" in IW's allegory: the concept that the shackles of the follower mentality must be done away with before true freedom of mind can ever be achieved. While others may do or say things that add to the understanding of our shared history, the idea that we need those contributions to affect our full recovery is erroneous thinking and must be thrown off.
It just so happens that each one of the persons mentioned are persons with which you have had long-term and sometimes bitter disagreements, usually over matters unrelated to the issue of cults and followers. I also suggested that this may have been the reason that you singled out such ones and publicly named them as the object of cultist tendencies, thus casting a shadow on what was actually a good post.
You are free to entertain the "notion" that I mentioned who I did for the reason you say I did. As you say of me, your notion is one for which you have no proof. Yes it's true: over the past two years I have "had words" with Farkel, JanH, and AlanF, but I have had heated exchanges with several others here on the board and have never referred to these others as having "followers." Why do you suppose these others have been omitted from my notion of cult of personality? Was it a simple oversight on my part? No! It is because there is no cult of personality surrounding them!
Regardless of what viewpoint you take relative to my "notion," it's my opinion that your continual implication of what -- to me -- is a minor issue suggests that you don't fully understand what I've been getting at all along. Just as there is no literal Mithras, no Bull, no stars of heaven, indeed... no literal Teejay... there really is no Cult of Farkel, at least not in the sense I think you think I mean. Is there one in the sense that *I* mean? Yes. I believe that there *is*, to this day, a cult of Farkel; a Cult of JanH; a Cult of AlanF. They are one and the same cult. The cult of "wrong thinking."
-
teejay
When it comes to cult leading, I pale into insignificance when compared to others,
Perhaps, but not for lack of effort. KenpoDragon has you beat in that department though.Beat in what department, Six? The "pale into insignificance" part, or the "lack of effort" part?
-
wasasister
I don't know why this popped into my head:
There is a breed of dog which - if it locks its jaw onto something - cannot or will not release it. You can beat the dog, shout at it, set fire to it, and it will still hold on in defiance of all reason.
Help me out here, dog lovers. Is it a Pit Bull? Or perhaps a Tazmanian Jackal? Hmmm.....
-
SixofNine
I 'spose he is pale in comparison, but I was talking effort.
-
teejay
There is a breed of dog...
Interesting, Wasa.
Was that meant to be an insult? Are you saying that I am a dog? Some might, but I don't take it that way at all. You were trying to make a point, I believe. I take it to mean that you see a relentless tenacity in me, and in that you are correct. Not a syllable of argument from me. You have pegged me perfectly.
Now... if you try reeeal hard, you might be able to use your own words to understand what I meant when I say there is a Cult of Farkel / JanH / AlanF on this board.