Posts by Death to the Pixies

16

Steve2 Weenie Challenge

by Farkel in

steve2 made some comments about a 10 year old post i made, and i will present them.

although there are numerous typos that could be corrected, his post was much more direct.

: i can see why you've pitched this long and absurdly hard-nosed account at a christian readership.

Death to the Pixies

Wow, big tough guy cyber talk like it was 1998 or something. Yawn.

50

I just stumped our PO!!!

by The Last Nephilim in

i have never seen this guy stumped on a bible topic or point before, but history was made today!!!

he and a soon-to-be elder were doing a shepherding call on my wife and i because we've missed weeks worth of meetings and had no service time for dec. he went through the usual lectures about how we're cutting off jehovah by missing meetings (because we all know god won't lift a finger for those who don't go to meetings, right?

) he gave some good illustrations- the guy really is a good teacher, it's just what he's teaching that's questionable.

Death to the Pixies

The point about the original Greek text saying THE God of me was that JWs commonly use the reasoning that although called "a god" or "godlike" or "Mighty God", Jesus is never referred to as "Almighty God" or "THE God". In this instance it seems to prove otherwise. The text does not say that Thomas simply said the words, it states that he said the words TO Jesus.

You are ignoring why it has the article, not to identify his as the Almighty per se, but because it is possessive. Moule says:

“It John xx. 28 O kurios mou kai o Qeos mou, it is to be noted that a substantive in the Nominative case used in a vocative sense and followed by a possessive could not be anarthrous the article before Qeos may, therefore, not be significant.” Moule An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2d ed.

Narkissos had some research on the vocative followed by a possessive that is of interest, but this gives more than enough reasonable doubt to the claim that Jesus is being called "Ho Theos" in that unique sense where it is applied to the Father as a quasi-proper noun or name. It still fits into the generic defintion of "god". Satan in 2 Cor. 4:4 is also, for grammatical reasons, called "Ho Theos"

18

The View's Sherri Shepherd

by bikerchic in

did anyone see todays show?

sherri talks about being raised a jw and how she left after her father was df'd and she could no longer speak to him.

it was really surprising to me.....am i the last to know she was raised a jw?.

Death to the Pixies

Yeah bummer about that but hey I think from what I saw on those clips it totally shows how being raised a JW could "stunt" your growth in areas that have to do with Biblical history, after all the Bible to a JW was/is the end all and how many of us ever took the time to do research after we left the B'org?

You can't blame that kinda ignorance on being a JW, or even try to use terms like "biblical history" in describing what she was ignorant of. She didn't know that 'Christians did not come first'! I would say that Jws moreso than most Christians are aware of that...um..one thingie in the beginning of the bible... what's that called again? Oh yeah, the Old Testament. She probably knew it too, just got confused.

39

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES RULES, RUINED JA RULE'S CHILDHOOD

by WTNightmare00 in

rap star ja rule blames his familys jehovahs witness roots for ruining his childhood.. .

the im real hitmaker reveals he was never allowed to celebrate birthdays or christmases growing up - and even playing with other children was a problem for his strict grandparents, who helped raise him.. .

as a result, the rapper, real name jeffrey atkins, goes overboard when his children celebrate birthdays and special occasions.. .

Death to the Pixies

Yes, he said all those things then smoked an ounce, made homophobic comments in ways even the Wt would consider classless*, got arrested for gun possession, assaulted an innocent man (not billy joel), then punked out in a fued with a real rapper..Plus "all those things" he said are not true ,I hear he was never baptized therefore never d-fd, his mom did a lot more than "have a couple drinks" with worldly people. He has said as much in other interviews. He is a bad rapper with no cred, he has embarrassed himself oh so many ways. Bad duets with talentless starlits, fueds with real rappers who do not respect him (50-cent) and the like.

*Ja declares: ""And if it is, then we need to go step to Paramount and fucking MGM and all of these other motherfuckers that's making all of these movies and we need to go step to MTV and Viacom, and lets talk about all these fucking shows that they have on MTV that is promoting homosexuality, that my kids can't watch this shit," he continued. "Dating shows that's showing two guys or two girls in mid-afternoon. Let's talk about shit like that! If that's not fucking up America, I don't know what is"

Never mind this post, someone else already nailed this joker to the double cross.

45

OH MY GOD!!!! AN ELDER WITH A MYSPACE PAGE!!!!!!!!!!

by wanderlustguy in

jw
friends

imagine the fun that can be had...this must be done carefully...and can be oh so much fun.... do not send me a pm asking for the address!!!!!

.

ideas?.

Death to the Pixies

I'm just deciding if it makes me a bad person to do it.

Nope, just a Genesis loving fatso, cheeto eatin', monster energy drinkin', loser.

155

"They (WT) took me out of context", Gail Bethea-Jackson video

by Fatfreek in

this is too important to bury within an old thread.

that thread hashed over several items of interest which you may want to read by way of a refresher: .

is gail bethea-jackson truly a doctor as the watchtower site claims?

Death to the Pixies

The point of the link was not to”? And, exactly where is the objectivity in such an assertion? You complain about speculation, and then present speculation as premise in support of a preferential conclusion. Do you know what this process is called?

The proof is in the pudding, it is not a page unique to adults. It would naturally include what is know as "child abuse". If that somehow changed the comprehensiont of her words, what would that gain for the Media Site? Well nothing.

That you do not see the connection is blatantly clear in each of your responses. Anyone who searches for Gail’s video will find her interview directly linked with the statement representing her statement as the position of Jehovah’s Witnesses. For whatever reason, this is something you have apparently overlooked.

we must be looking at a different video, what you say does not exist on the pages I am looking at. But just relax their guy, if we are not on the same page we can work that out and go from there.

Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that Gail was asserting at the time of the interview that parents did not recognize it a crime for a full-grown adult man to rape their little 6-year-old daughter? Please! It is not speculation to realize Gail’s remarks on this point were speaking directly to adolescent sexual offenders rather than the typical pedophile.

Personally I believe Gail was not being careful in her wording, and was speaking in generalities. So I cut her some slack there. I believe the intent of her quote (regardless if she did parse, though if she did she should have obviously used 'child paedophile') was to say that abuse was not taken as seriously as it should have been. Which, the WT would naturally quote to show that we need to take it seriusly. She uses a couple phrases which signal she is being very general, for instance "so to speak" , "it wasn't really" etc..etc..

155

"They (WT) took me out of context", Gail Bethea-Jackson video

by Fatfreek in

this is too important to bury within an old thread.

that thread hashed over several items of interest which you may want to read by way of a refresher: .

is gail bethea-jackson truly a doctor as the watchtower site claims?

Death to the Pixies

Hello Mr. Morgan, Thank you for your insights.

You said:

It is false to say the Watchtower has not presented Gail’s words in a context. Specifically the Watchtower presents her interview by hyper linking Gail’s own words (i.e., “body of knowledge”) to a Watchtower published article discussing child molestation at the hands of adults

True, they do hyperlink to an article dealing with child abuse, but the point of the link was not to link to "adult" abusersspecifically against "adolesecent" abusers, but rather to help people learn about safety in general. It was a pretty general link about saftey and abuse prevention. Hardly a devious link. Since they were not, in a unique way, highlighting adults over adolesecents it can't be said to be an added context to Gail's page . Since that was not the point of the link.

The Watchtower presentation of Gail is also misleading in that it presents her video interview as “Jehovah's Witnesses' Response to Inquiries on Child Abuse Jehovah's Witnesses: Progressive Understanding of Child Abuse for Society in General”. Yet, Gail is not one of Jehovah’s Witnesses and neither is she speaking for Jehovah's Witnesses.

I do not see that connection. That heading was above a seperate page involving JR Brown.. The reader would have immediately made the connection that she was not speaking unique to JWs with the Heading "Knwledge of child abuse..Society in general". Naturaly they would have thought they were speaking about Society in General and that the person was not a JW.

As for Gail’s use of the term pedophile , though the term is typically used in reference to individuals older than 16 years of age, this is not always the case. As a term, pedophilia is a clinical diagnosis, usually determined by a psychiatrist or psychologist. (The typical legal term to describe the crime committed by pedophiles is forcible sexual offense or something similar.) It is not unheard of for individuals younger than 16 to be diagnosed as pedophiles. Accordingly, it is foolish to read too much into Gail’s use of the term pedophile . In her career she has probably met more than a few youthful offenders who were diagnosed as pedophiles. When she expresses herself to a general audience she may intentionally use the term pedophile in relation to adolescent offenders so her audience understands the nature of behavior and its seriousness. The general public is painfully aware of the dangers of pedophilia. The public has little understanding of the seriousness of adolescent sexual offenders, or even a good awareness of the subject.

Anything is possible, though i suspect unlikey. But speculate seems to be all we can do at this moment. However, her last words in the video seem to bolster the idea she is not parsing words with paedophile, she seems to be speaking of child abuse and victimization sans the parsing. She simply says: I went to one of the most prestigious
social-work schools, at that time, in the country and in all of my studying,
we didn't have a course in child abuse. But as I said, even without the adult vs. adolescent point, it really stops being an issue when you take the questionable speculation on the Media Sites motivation to post the interview clip.

155

"They (WT) took me out of context", Gail Bethea-Jackson video

by Fatfreek in

this is too important to bury within an old thread.

that thread hashed over several items of interest which you may want to read by way of a refresher: .

is gail bethea-jackson truly a doctor as the watchtower site claims?

Death to the Pixies

Consider the words 'taken out context'. That means what was shown on the video was a smaller part of the original whole. You state that the WTS haven't added to or changed her words. Maybe so, but by removing most of her interview and editing the rest, what she appears to say gives a misleading effect to the advantage of the WTS. Her words, not ours.

Hi Besty,

Every interview you have ever seen is heavily edited. . Again, I disagree that the interview was to gain "advantage" to the WTS. For this to be used as an excuse as some have claimed makes little sense and is tantamount to the WT admitting they had an illegal policy, which is not their position. Their position is they did not have a fundemantally flawed policy but mistakes happened. It is pure fantasy to assume it is a "let's cover our butts" interview. So the "excuse" and it's related charges makes no sense. It seems like an honest attempt at educating.

The WTS have lied by omission.

How so? Gail's "out of context" claim is bogus to begin with, as the Media site did not give context. Add to that, I suspect her memory is not good here. She used the word "paedophile" which I believe is generally not used of minors. Even without, it is a silly claim.

GBJ says she gave a 1 hour interview, approximately 90 seconds of which appears on the website. Can you explain why you don't see that as out of context in itself?

That in itself is not wrong or proof of lies by omission. Sounds like she is weasling under harrassment from Ex-Jws. I guess I can't blame her. I suspect it is a lot of "context" given to her by your friends as to why the Media site quoted her. A lot of wrong context. I do not put Fat Freek in that category, he seemed nice, but people on other sites have admitted they have attempted to contact her to give her a piece of their mind.

155

"They (WT) took me out of context", Gail Bethea-Jackson video

by Fatfreek in

this is too important to bury within an old thread.

that thread hashed over several items of interest which you may want to read by way of a refresher: .

is gail bethea-jackson truly a doctor as the watchtower site claims?

Death to the Pixies

Hi Steve,

1) The video was made 10 years ago , well before the Watchtower's policy on reporting child abuse became more publically controversial. As a registered health professional, she now realises her comments recorded under one context have been quoted in another context. Hence, her reptuation - including her practising certificate - could be at stake.

Well, there is no "another context" to begin with I have found. And she may, after being bombarded with phone calls and much mail, be responding less than honestly to distance herself from the organization. Smart and savvy like a politician.

Point #2, (2) Gail Bethea-Jackson maintains she was talking about adolescents abusing younger children, not adults abusing children . Her comments actually do make sense when viewed in that context, because only in more recent decades have clinicians appreciated that it is not just adult abusers who cause damage when they offend against children, but older children abusing younger children can also cause damage.

It is possible, though not certain that Gail is responding with emotion and that could lead to a fuzzy memory. I believed she used the word "paedophile" in the video which is defined as :"an adult whose primary sexual interest is in children; some professionals make a differentiation between a pedophile, whose sexual partner of choice is a prepubertal child, and a hebephile, who is aroused by adolescents." Irregardless of that fact,I feel the WT did not change or add context to her quote, so I believe point #2 to be moot. Even if she was talking of younger children abusing even younger children, I fail to see how she was taken out of context. The JW media website does not give commentary on her at all. I do wonder what kind of mail and phone calls she has recieved from some of you guys and what role that "pressure" lead to her response.

Anyway, I have made up my mind, I take it for what it is. You guys are free to run with this ginourmos scandal :>)

155

"They (WT) took me out of context", Gail Bethea-Jackson video

by Fatfreek in

this is too important to bury within an old thread.

that thread hashed over several items of interest which you may want to read by way of a refresher: .

is gail bethea-jackson truly a doctor as the watchtower site claims?

Death to the Pixies

The whole tenor of the edited interview is that of, "Gee, shucks, we don't know nuttin, heck, even a few years ago no one knew this was happenin".
Poppycock. Child molestation didn't "spring up" since 1985.
To trot out an ancient, heavily edited interview to defend such gross misconduct and imply the whole thing is "new light" - well, I hope this helps you see the situation a little more clearly.

That is kinda what I thought, it is a context youare adding. Take that unverified assumption away and you do not have much. There is no real reason to assume it is a defense for anything. That is adding context.