Posts by AllTimeJeff

47

Aug 15th WT

by mouthy in

has anyone read it "jehovah is a lover of justice " page 26 paragraph 16 & 18 please read it .

what rubbish .

AllTimeJeff

17. Why is Satan's final attack on Jehovah's people certain to fail?

You have to love the thought provoking questions on these WT articles. Do you ever notice how the questions are the key to the whole load of crap? To be thought of as a good "dub" you have to answer the question correctly!

This question is beyond ridiculous. Lets take a made up attack against a made up people who will be protected by a made up god, because

Will Satan's attack succeed? No.
God's Word assures us, "Jehovah is a lover of justice, and he will not leave his loyal ones.

Unless you were a JW in Germany in WWII, or those missonaries in the Phillipines. (or me...)

So here is the formula: The GB makes up the topic, pulls scriptures directly out of their @$$ to answer them, and then print WT articles that are totally loaded, with questions designed to curb thinking and spoonfeed a frocked theology.

43

new september 2007 Kingdom Ministry Qbox

by patientbrother in

brothers i absolutely had to join this web site once i saw the new km for this coming month, has any one else had a chance to view this?

i'm absolutely flabbergasted for the first time in my life, what about the the apostle paul and the bereans?

didn't he encourage them to go and find out for them selves the truth?

AllTimeJeff

Dear Patient

I am a former missionary and elder. I can see how strongly you feel for your flock and for god. The pain and dismay I felt I honestly can't put into words.

I left not because of the "dumbing down" that some have referred to here. I think that is very legitimate. I left because I had questions I never allowed myself to find the answer to. When I found those answers, I allowed myself to be led down the path those answers led me.

You hit the nail on the head about the Boreans. Why would god create us with a heart AND mind and forbid us to use it, to question, to search for answers? Do you really believe in your heart of hearts that Jehovah expects you to use your brain to find him, only to turn off your thinking ability to serve him after you have found the "truth"? If truth is progressive, why are we not allowed to make such progress ourselves?

Please know for what this is worth that I will be following your story. I don't envy your pain, but I am interested to see where your honest search leads you to.

May you have peace.

33

What Was the Final Straw for Barbara Anderson Leaving the JWs? Here it is..

by Seeker4 in

first a few important points.

here's the link to the website featuring the jw court documents dvd: www.watchtowerdocuments.com.

let's keep passing that on.. second: the subject of getting this into hands of the national press has been handled, and if everyone could leave it at that for the time being, we'll inform you on here what to look for in the next week or so, hopefully.

AllTimeJeff

Great thread. It was Barbara's releasing of that information that sort of got me back here in this forum.

I just want to add a "ditto" to seekers comments about the idea that the victimes cause their own abuse. Elders to this day all over the country (USA) STILL have it in their mind that little boys and girls can "ask" for it. It makes you sick.

FIVE WHOLE YEARS!!!! And what was their motive? Why did it take them so long?

Fear of negative publicity
Money and legal issues

They didn't care about the kids.

The letters that elders have to review have NOTHING to do with helping the victim. If anything, elders are to get the parents to do something in the way of legal action and support. The borg doesn't want the elders to put themselves in a position to get Bethel sued. It has A TON to say about confidentiality and calling that !@#$% Legal Dept.

Thank you Barbara Anderson!

21

Why do JW apologists always have to lie???

by drew sagan in

and i'm not talkng about historical referances, bible quotes, and those sorts of things.

instead i'm talking about how jw apologists conduct themselves on the internet.

they do it all the time.

AllTimeJeff

Thats clever... In the same way that Karl Rove is clever....

Well, for one thing, JW's aren't supposed to be on the internet anyway. Somehow though, they find their way on. Eventually, they will go form supporter to dissident. Somehow, we havg to get them to examine what a drunk fat ass Rutherford was. (oh yeah, and an adulterer...) Not that anyone cares, but JW's still hold Rutherford as one who was used by the good Lord himself. (you would think he could have found people better then that drunken hypocrite of a fornicator)

Oops, sorry. Rant there.

Yeah, JW's like to get involved in a snow ball fight by blindfolding themselves first. You should see the pbs.org debate going on over "Knocking". The JW's who post their have all the pedigree and education of Jethro Bodeen. I am not kidding. They are so closed minded.

But you do have to be patient with them. It is absolute hell to get yourself to admit the truth that you belong to a nutty little cult.

7

Why Doesn't the Governing Body Follow the Examples of the "Bible Writers"?

by AllTimeJeff in

the witnesses often claim that they are the true religion.

that there existence has fulfilled bible prophesy and bible chronology.

because the true religion should (in their own words) imitate exactly the candor of the bible writers who..... quote: *** ba p. 16 can this book be trusted?

AllTimeJeff

The Witnesses often claim that they are the true religion. That there existence has fulfilled bible prophesy and bible chronology. Obviously then, there version of the bible (the NWT) and how they defend the bible is important to their claims. In our modern times, living in the “information age” as we do, the bible has been under close scrutiny and investigation. Logical questions have been asked, inconsistencies have been identified, contradictions exposed. But for most theistic believers, they continue to exercise their faith. How do JW’s show that the bible is the literal word of god?

One argument is the “honesty of the bible writers.” Instead of trying to cover up mistakes and wrongdoing, the bible is 100% honest and forthcoming. Consider the following WT quotes:

Quote:
*** w98 4/1 p. 14 par. 17 A Book for All People *** 17 Honest writers would record not just successes but also failures, not just strengths but also weaknesses. The Bible writers displayed such refreshing candor. Consider, for example, the forthrightness of Moses. Among the things he frankly reported were his own lack of eloquence, which in his view made him unfit to be Israel’s leader (Exodus 4:10); the serious mistake he made that prevented his entering the Promised Land (Numbers 20:9-12; 27:12-14); the deflection of his brother, Aaron, who cooperated with rebellious Israelites in making a statue of a golden calf (Exodus 32:1-6); the rebellion of his sister, Miriam, and her humiliating punishment (Numbers 12:1-3, 10); the profaneness of his nephews Nadab and Abihu (Leviticus 10:1, 2); and the repeated complaining and murmuring of God’s own people. (Exodus 14:11, 12; Numbers 14:1-10) Does not such frank, open reporting indicate a sincere concern for truth? Since the Bible writers were willing to report unfavorable information about their loved ones, their people, and even themselves, is there not good reason to trust their writings?

And this one:

Quote:
*** ba pp. 15-16 Can This Book Be Trusted? *** ) The serious mistakes of King David were not covered over but were committed to writing—and that while David was still ruling as king. (2 Samuel, chapters 11 and 24) Matthew, writer of the book bearing his name, tells how the apostles (of which he was one) disputed over their personal importance and how they abandoned Jesus on the night of his arrest. (Matthew 20:20-24; 26:56) The writers of the letters of the Christian Greek Scriptures freely acknowledged the problems, including sexual immorality and dissensions, in some of the early Christian congregations. And they did not mince words in addressing those problems.—1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 5:1-13.

Surely then, the true religion that claims the bible is 100% inspired would be obligated to follow the example of the bible in this way. They should then deal with their own shortcomings and acknowledge their specific mistakes, and to quote their own words "freely acknowledged the problems, including sexual immorality and dissensions." Do they do this? Or do they cover up and whitewash their history?

There are many unpleasant personal episodes regarding the first 2 Presidents of the WTBTS, CT Russell, and JF Rutherford. Russells divorce is glossed over, even though there is a lot of evidence that he was at the very least a flirt, if not an outright adulterer. The "miracle wheat" controversy, where he made through the pages of the WT wild claims regarding some hybrid wheat that out of the goodness of his heart he was willing to sell to the brethern below cost is certainly embarassing for a man that supposedly Jehovah saw fit to entrust the revivial of true worship in our day.

Rutherford was even worse. Putting aside the "hostile takeover" of the Society in 1917 that he pulled, he was without a doubt a one man dictator, a verbally abusive despot. No governing body was around or even sniffed power while he was alive. He was against prohibition because he drank heavily as an alcoholic. He had illegal booze smuggled into Bethel. He built a San Diego mansion during the Great Depression where he lived and ruled Bethel from. He was in constant attendance by younger women. It was well known but covered over fact that he was a fornicator. He slept around, had sex, etc etc etc.

In an little publicized event, the Society's lawyer during the 1930's was a man named Olin Moyle. He wrote a private letter to Rutherford in 1939 expressing his displeasure at Rutherfords drinking and verbal abuse. Rutherfords response was to kick Moyle out and through the pages of the WT, warn the brethern that Moyle was essentially a trouble making apostate. (*** dx30-85 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania *** warning letter from board of directors regarding O. R. Moyle: w39 316-17) Moyle rightly filed a libel suit against the Society that was settled in 1943.

My question: Does the governing body today, or at any time in their existence, acknowledge these problems, mistakes, sins, and dissensions as they claim the bible does?

Most troubling are the sexual sins of the GB. Two of their number, Ewart Chitty and Leo Greenlees were both found to be homosexuals. Chitty was sent back to his native Britain in 1979 and not disfellowshipped. His needs were payed and cared for by the Society until his death. Greenlees in late 1983 was found to have for decades seduced new boy bethelites into homosexual relationships. Surely he should have been disfellowshipped. But he wasn't. He was sent to New Orleans where he was made a Special Pioneer on the infirmed list. His basic needs were still payed and cared for by the Society until his death in 1989.

My question: Does the governing body today, or at any time in their existence, acknowledge these problems, mistakes, sins, and dissensions as they claim the bible does?

The pedophile issue? Barabara Anderson knows of their database file with over 20,000 sexual predators within their midst. The Society's answer? Instead of turning these sicko's over to the authorities, they disfellowship her and Bruce Bowen. They are apostates because they didn't play by the rules the governing body sent. No bible law or principle was broken. They were disfellowshipped to limit their ability to expose the pedophile problem within the Witness organization.

My question: Does the governing body today, or at any time in their existence, acknowledge these problems, mistakes, sins, and dissensions as they claim the bible does?

There are other things, and this post is too long as it is. But one thing is certain. The Witnesses own arguement that they use to show that the bible is true smacks them in their own face as to their claim of being the true religion. Because the true religion should (in their own words) imitate exactly the candor of the bible writers who....

Quote:
*** ba p. 16 Can This Book Be Trusted? *** The writers of the letters of the Christian Greek Scriptures freely acknowledged the problems, including sexual immorality and dissensions, in some of the early Christian congregations. And they did not mince words in addressing those problems.

Jeff

7

i need some clarification

by bigdreaux in

and i didn't want to hi-jack another thread.

what i need to know, is, do the anderson c.d.

's prove the governing body, or anyone high ranking at bethel, knew about and helped cover up the abuse?

AllTimeJeff

I haven't read these documents. I have seen several letters on pedophiles in my time as an elder. It is AMAZING (in a sad way) how the first priority is too make sure that everything is handled as silently as possible, making sure that as few people as possible are apprised of the situation.

Of course, we had clues. Remember two men? Ewart Chitty and Leo Greenlees? Both these men were on the governing body and were homosexuals the entire time they were at bethel. When found out, whatever "discipline" they got did NOT include disfellowshipping. In both cases, they were shipped (silently) out of Brooklyn. Greenlees was actually made a Special Pioneer on the infrimed list. Both of the physical needs and expenses of these hypocrites were met till there deaths in the 1980's.

I was taught as an elder that elders, ministerial servants and pioneers were more "culpable" and if they had committed "sins" worthy of disfellowshipping, they were to be generally treated a little more tough. Not that it happens all the time, but that is the way it is supposed to be in JW Land.

Ironic isn't it that Ray Franz got disfellowshipped for disagreeing with the borg while being an upstanding, moral and decent man while two other predatory GB members were conveniently swept under the rug? Why? "Theocratic Warfare!" Lloyd Barry was fond of saying that in a war, you use whatever means necesarry, and these morons on the GB really believe that. They will lie, thinking that "Jehovah" approves of their bull.

Thus, the whole reason why these guys hide pedophiles is that they believe that Satan is causing this to distract from the preaching work. BULL!!! They are concerned about their money. They may say it is to protect their ability to preach, but their "ability to preach" is directly related to the money in the bank.

Don't forget that the Legal Dept comes under the thumb of the Chairmans committee. They get reports every day. AND the Governing Body HAD to sign off on those settlements. It is in their charter that "the ecclesiastical governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses" runs all the coporations.

Their delusions of what the bible commands as far as preaching harm no one unless it involves blood and pedophiles. (thats all....) I think it is pretty clear now that they do harm people, they have for a long time, and they really don't give a damn.

92

Need some education on THEOLOGY? Start here! Evolutionists take note!

by LittleToe in

http://www.monergism.com/systematic.html.

http://www.rtrc.net/documents/wcf/hodge/wcftoc.htm.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.htmlhttp://www.lgmarshall.org/reformed/berkhof_summary.html.

AllTimeJeff

I would also point out that JW are unique as a religous movement, because their activities necesarrily put them in contact with people of different faiths, and many, myself included, did take the time to allow people to express their own ideas about god and what their own religion means to them.

Deputy Dog asked: What makes you any different than lets say Mormons or Evangelicals for example?

I didn't say I was! You misunderstood the paragraph. I wasn't excluding anyone at all. Mormons and Evangelicals.. I was merely pointing out that JW activities do put themselves in position to learn about the faith and beliefs of others. Good for the Mormons and Evangelicals for their efforts at getting out in the religous community. JW's still have the advantage in that everyone is expected to preach. Evangelicals are decidedly different, and Mormons only send a select few out in the public. But that wasn't the point of the paragraph. I will allow for anyone to know more then I on any given subject, given the possibility of a discussion such as this where the merits of our ideas can be displayed.

9

A JWD collective view on hunger, injustice, prejudice, morals..

by jgnat in

zarco asked this question on another thread.

should jwd have a collective view on these burning issues?

my answer, definitely not.

AllTimeJeff

While I like to argue about factual evidence on the existence of god, I agree thus far that a collective effort to get everyone to agree on subjective matters would do more harm then good. I am not saying that if I were world ruler, I wouldn't be too bad at it! For one thing, I wouldn't feel the need to send my firstborn to die for everyone because I failed to tell Adam and Eve that Satan existed! I would give them another chance, and a news bulliten about that bully Satan....

In any case, it is good to be involved in your local and national communities, esp democracy. Express yourself! That is what freeness of speech is all about.

171

The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?

by Terry in

history has demonstrated:.

religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone or something.. science asks questions.. religion purports to answer questions.. science seeks to disprove its own conclusions.. religion seeks to reinforce its own dogma.. science is error-correction toward adjusting for realities as they unfold.. religion internalizes against reality by mocking up a substitute.. science is the most recent development of the human mind.

technology proves science to be successful in advancing human progress.. religion disdains human progress and waits for the end.

AllTimeJeff

Terry said

What distinguishes Religion from Science is MEASUREMENT

True that! The fact is that no one argues facts in the Scientific world, but expert theologions consistently argue about inconsistent theories found in their own dogma; theories in which it is impossible to measure! It is a subjective process at best.

I also want to point out something: Being an athiest doesn't mean one is scientific in the least. Athiesm isn't even a movement with it's own theology, if you will. Simply put, an athiest is one who (for reasons involving facts and evidence) is a person who doesn't believe in god. We don't need to identify ourselves as a "non-astrologer" or "non-alchemist". To quote Sam Harris (again)

Atheism is nothing more then the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified belief.

As a few of these threads have demonstrated, athiests ask, "Please present evidence for your beliefs and faith." The answer receieved is "My faith is a private matter, and you aren't allowed to ask. I can't explain everything I believe, but I am comfortable in that I believe god exists and loves me." Of couse, it is private and harmless until is manifests itself in Bush's belief that Jesus wants the USA to invade Iraq, that abortion, gay rights, or a vaccine for HPV given to young girls all equals a destruction of our society that was based on Judeo-Christian values. All this is is an infliction of faith based beliefs. The source for these beliefs are not questioned? Why? Someone has private faith, they then inflict their beliefs politically. That is dangerous if you are at the receiving end.

Of course, when Science points out such things as homosexuality being genetic, or that genes and cells do evolve, faith based politicians again show up and say that we must fight these proven facts because they go against traditional ways of thinking. Rarely is it argued based on evidence, only that it goes against what we always used to believe. I am not saying that religion is losing; since 2001, they have been winning in the USA, and the evidence is their for all to see and intepret.

As I personally explore my beliefs through education, I am taking my time, but not dragging my feet, in trying to learn what facts exist, and whether the rest is postulation (d. to assume without proof, or as self-evident; take for granted) That is why I asked what I did about the dangers of faith. To me, it is self evident that if you or I do not truly know through education and facts why we believe what we do, it is dangerous. The moral claims of religions throughout the world, and the good works done in the name of god in no way can wash the blood and suffering done and caused by religions through the milleniums.

92

Need some education on THEOLOGY? Start here! Evolutionists take note!

by LittleToe in

http://www.monergism.com/systematic.html.

http://www.rtrc.net/documents/wcf/hodge/wcftoc.htm.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.htmlhttp://www.lgmarshall.org/reformed/berkhof_summary.html.

AllTimeJeff

While we are all in a conciliatory mood, I just want to say that the debate is a healthy one. I for one am not surprised at the emotional responses. One might say that how we see and describe the world is not reality; in other words, how we describe the world doesn't show how the world is, but describes who we are.

That isn't to say that facts don't exist. Theology is an exercise in determining which invisible things to believe in, and which invisible things we choose not to believe in. For example, the Roman Catholc Church recently deliberated on the doctrine of limbo. (again) Thirty theologions got together to discuss what happens to unbaptized babies when they die. 2 lines of thought have these babies enjoying bliss forever in limbo, or go to hell and burn forever, all for not being baptized. (mind you, this is a recent debate) Even though it isn't a part of scripture or offical Catholic dogma, it is firmly entrenched in the traditional Catholic teaching. One must wonder what evidence was presented on the subject as to the eternal fate of unbaptized children after death. Such is the exercise and disciplines of religious theology. It most frequently invents questions about made up, unrealistic scenarios based soley on traditions, only to come up with answers based on... ??? (you tell me)

In any case, to understand the arguement of the person you are debating/discussing a subject with is very helpful. If a debate based on ideas and facts takes place, it does take a lot of emotion out of the equation, with the requisite hurt feelings. I don't think that everyone who leaves JW think they are experts on religion or theology, but there are a few who have taken the time while in and out of JW to educate themselves about the beliefs of others. I would also point out that JW are unique as a religous movement, because their activities necesarrily put them in contact with people of different faiths, and many, myself included, did take the time to allow people to express their own ideas about god and what their own religion means to them. (such expressions made were stunning in their variety while lacking a coherent idea of who god is and even what their own religion believes and teaches) I would say it does give an ex JW certain "freeness of speech" if you will to talk on some competent level about the beliefs of others, if only because they did talk with common people about their own faith on a weekly, often daily basis.

So, the debate will continue. (or discussion, or polite conversation...lol)