AllTimeJeff

Joined

• started 234 topics
• posted 6,022 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by AllTimeJeff

• 
  66

  My perception of posters

  by Lady Lee in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  earlier today i made a comment on a thread about how i perceive a poster.. my perception is mine and mine alone.

  i am responsible for it.

  how i perceive what someone posts to me is also my responsibility.. if i have a run-in with someone on the board there is a good chance the next time i see that person post something i don't like i will add my past perception to their post.. for example: let's say poster xyzzz told me off.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  An interesting angle.... Thanks Lee.

  For what this is worth, when I first left JW's, I debated. A lot. I think it was Little Toe if memory serves, a Christian, who got into it with me when I was at my most anti Christian.

  I have changed. But I often think of that little debate, and the many I delved into on political matters here on JWN, and how ultimately, they were for me. Did I win? Was I trying to win? Actually, I just wanted to make a point. And I needed to express myself, even if it was immature at times.....

  But in those debates, I got to see in writing people with different points of view, who disagreed with me, and it caused me to think differently through the years. And I would like to think that others have a different perspective thanks to my limited points of view.

  I think if one takes as their motive the ability to understand others, then a debate, even if you are comative (but respectful) can be healthy.

  If you just want to be a d*ck, that's another matter. But I think if you read individual threads, you can get sort of get people's drift. I actually assume most people who are comative are in some pain.

  In any case, this is my meandering way of saying that while we probably resemble some of what we are, I feel safe in assuming that most of us aren't like how we post on this, or other boards.

  Anonymous posting can make one braver then they would be in real life. So I don't take most too seriously, beyond what their stated beliefs are.

  My perception of posters doesn't matter, because while I accept and acknowledge that this and other boards that one chooses to involve themselves in are a part of life, they in no way resemble real life, and as such, to read too much into anyone's posts beyond the opinions expressed is self defeating.
• 
  35

  What is "Brazen" conduct according to new 'Shepherd the Flock of God' book

  by TastingFreedom in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what is brazen conduct according to the watchtower?.

  here are some references from the new flock book:.

  they have really pushed the envelope to bundle a bunch of things into one really evil word.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  The GB controls their own little universe. They don't have to call it "loose conduct" or "brazen conduct". They can call it whatever they want. But here is why they changed the term.

  The "anonymous" NWT committee (made up of Fred Franz, George Gangas, and a staff of go-fers) originally translated the term "loose conduct" in the 1940's. They did this by their own rule of assigning one english word to one greek work whenever possible.

  Fast forward to the 1990's. Sex issues have always been prosecuted severely, esp loose conduct. But its "loose". It can be tightened. It is redeemable. When bodies of elders were started in the 1970's, few were loving. Many were strict and dictatorial. It was necesarry to get elders to lighten up. Any one who has ever been an elder and have read the letters the Service Dept sent to BOE's can see that tone.

  In the 1980's, pedophiles started to really pop. The 90's with the internet brought easy to access to porn. What do you call it? Loose conduct. Conduct that can be tightened. Conduct that can be forgiven. Conduct that can even be ignored. Because its loose.

  But if its brazen?!! Thats different.

  The GB wants to tighten control. They figured out that psychologically, elders who deal with the flock who are involved in pedophilia, or porn, or hanging out with DF'd relatives will be less likely to be strict if it is loose.

  But if its brazen, thats different. Thats evil. Elders will disfellowship more if they are trained to view the sins as evil.

  What changed? Nothing. They just took a word that sounded more criminal, and are in the middle of attaching all those old loose conduct "sins" to a new word, that changes these acts from acts of weakness to acts of evil.

  Brazen = evil. Loose = weakness.

  We are witnessing one of the grand GB traditions, their genius with semantics. They control the words, they control the definitions, and thus, they control people.
• 
  44

  "We're not here to debate or argue"

  by sabastious in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  as a jw i was always taught "never to get into debate or argue with householders.".

  you know what is interesting about that?.

  the message i had when i went to your door was essentially "hello, what ever your current belief is... is wrong.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  JWs aren't there to debate or argue. If you do, you aren't the low hanging fruit that doesn't think critically. You probably have a life of your own, with internet access, who googles stuff they don't know about to learn more.

  JW's are there to find the gullable, hurt, easily misled bunch who like the idea of forever, but who have no idea that forever is a concept that is used as a bait and switch tactic by JW's. Because the GB isn't even about eternity.

  Right now, the GB is about moving out of Brooklyn to upstate NY. That can't be debated or argued. Screw forever.
• 
  117

  To the Household of Dog

  by AK - Jeff in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  to the household of dog, hades, and those who go with you... may you have smoke [on the water]!.

  as you know i have, for many years now, related to you that i hear the voice of the dog shepherd, the smoked one of hades and vodka spirits, auhsehaj hajahcisim [abbreviated in the ancient texts as grim, a four consonant tetragrammaton meaning smoke, drunk, and savior].

  over such years i have received many questions and comments, and engaged in various debates regarding the validity of that name and my translation of it's transmutations throughout the ages including several redacted engagements of the original name.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Well, this is an internet board.

  Shelby was nice enough to welcome me when I first came on this board. She has her personal beliefs, which I don't agree with. However, I find at this point in my life that I would prefer the company of a nice theist with weird beliefs who allows me mine then an agnostic @$$hole. (please note to AK-Jeff and others, that isn't directed at you or anyone on this thread who doesn't like Shelby. That is just a general statement)

  I laughed out loud at the parody of Shelby's stuff. Hey, if you have a strong personality with accompanying beliefs (which you know you have Shelby) then you have to expect that.

  For what this is worth, if you don't like what someone has to say, just don't read it.

  AK Jeff, and others, I think one area where I may differ from you (correct me if I am wrong) is that when I read people of faith, theists, whether they be Shelby or others, I am reminded that they are out there. They aren't changing. They exist.

  I am unsure of the expectation then of calling out a theist. AK Jeff, on the argument/point to prove side of this, I am with you 100%. I think you are right and Shelby wrong.

  And yet, experience teaches us that you can't argue with a person of faith unless they lose faith or otherwise reallocate their faith.

  I don't think that you target Shelby, AK Jeff. One thread to bring light to something or make a point is appropriate in my opinion. I get it. To others here, who have expressed an opinion about Shelby and her beliefs, duly noted. Thanks.

  Shelby, for my part, I live and let live. I am sure you are well aware that your personal beliefs cannot be authenticated, but at the same time, they are good enough for you. That is all that matters, right? That being the case, be you, and if others don't like you or what you have to say, don't sweat it.

  And for the atheists and agnostics out there who ARE irritated at Shelby and have said as much, you can't stop her from believing or posting what she thinks. Ok? It's not that I don't agree with you per se, but, again, its duly noted. Any reasonable person, or anyone inclined to side with Shelby, will read this and other posts and believe accordingly.

  The world will spin, life will go on, and I have work to do. :)
• 
  11

  1975 Quote - Fred Franz' talk--1966 quote and Proclaimers book quote

  by sd-7 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  for your viewing pleasure, compare the two quotes:.

  october 15, 1966 watchtower, page 631:.

  "'what about the year 1975?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  I have learned a good rule of thumb in life: Whenever someone has to overexplain themselves, or even merely have to explain it, instead of relying on the clear sight test, there is an excellent chance that there is a lie, a misrepresentation, and a hidden agenda.

  Put another way: Don't explain yourself. Your friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe you.

  The WTBTS has no friends, only duped followers. Their enemies are the ones who have learned how much they lie. The only honest thing to say was "We were wrong." But they didn't.

  End of story as to them being used by God. Next!
• 
  3

  Fake it till you make it policies

  by Markfromcali in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i was thinking about the practice of not celebrating birthdays and holidays, and even though i've been out a good 10 years i actually am not that big on those celebrations - but i have nothing against them.

  and it occurs to me that if the birthday celebration policy is seen from the perspective of not encouraging individuality or even say ego, it is very much a fake it till you make it approach.

  besides, is there really any indication that people who celebrate gets the big head or something?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  I agree with this in principle. I think it instructive to point out that most (all) of us have our dark sides. (by that, I don't mean seriel killer impulses...) I mean, things we like, desires, fantasies, etc, that we really don't want out in the open to one degree or another.

  Not that this is what you were referring to. But we are all a work in process, and the only way to grow is to experience things, events, and emotions. Including the selfish, immature ones. For most people, its like burning your hand on the stove, and you tell yourself, "I sure as hell won't do THAT again."

  THAT could be that one night stand, drunken binge where you were your most charming, the time that you felt speaking out would be just the thing to show how smart you were, and it didn't, etc.

  So you do have to fake it till you make it once you leave. I call it, trying things on. Sometimes, to learn about yourself, you have to stretch outside of your comfort zone. Otherwise, you will always be asking "What if....?"
• 
  36

  The Insanity of Arguing on the Internet!

  by cognizant dissident in

  1. social
  2. humour

  in an effort to get us all to lighten up and take ourselves and our beliefs a little less seriously, post your internet jokes and funnies here.. one of my personal favorites: .

  .

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AllTimeJeff
• 
  48

  Do you think the Governing Body is having internal conflicts?

  by stuckinamovement in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i ask because the number of gb is lower than any time in history.

  basically with the 7 (8 counting barr, is his head frozen?

  ) currently on,you have an average size elder body.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Oh, a Don Adams memory. After our class graduated in Sept of 2005, we were invited with some friends to Don Adams room at Patterson. We broke out some Scotch. Some good stuff.

  Don poured us all a shot, looked at it and said "Well, I guess this is designed to get you drunk." After which, it was a quick bottoms up. I laughed. It was hillarious. He was in his 80's at the time.....
• 
  48

  Do you think the Governing Body is having internal conflicts?

  by stuckinamovement in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i ask because the number of gb is lower than any time in history.

  basically with the 7 (8 counting barr, is his head frozen?

  ) currently on,you have an average size elder body.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Btw, Mildred Barr died some years ago. Jack Barr is as universally loved (if not respected) as a GB member can be. He misses Mildred VERY much. In 2005, he was still going relatively strong. I wouldn't know how he is doing these days, but he is still alive.
• 
  48

  Do you think the Governing Body is having internal conflicts?

  by stuckinamovement in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i ask because the number of gb is lower than any time in history.

  basically with the 7 (8 counting barr, is his head frozen?

  ) currently on,you have an average size elder body.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Karl Adams was Joel and Don's brother. Don is semi retired, and if memory serves, the first "non annointed" president of the WTBTS once the GB let minor leaguers run the legal stuff. Joel was head of the Service Dept when I was at Gilead.

  It was very telling to me when David Splane and Sam Herd both lectured the Gilead class I was in and said that the GB 'were made up of different men, with different personalities, but we all respect one another.'

  That was just plain weird to hear.

  It is my belief that the GB is like any other body of elders, just the stakes are higher. The strongest personalities and the most eloquent, persuasive arguments win. Cliques are everywhere, and it reaks of politics.