Are ther any JW's in this group?

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Chris

unread,
Mar 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/8/99
to
Hello,

I just found this newsgroup today, and I am a JW. I have been reading a few
of the messages, and I have seen a lot of false teachings, and things that
JW's would be able to easily say why they are false.

I was wondering if there were any JW's here? or just people of Christendom
trying to discourage our faith in the truth?

Please email me at home ch...@computernik.com or at work
Chris....@NesbittBurns.com or email both if you want.

I want to send my love to all my brothers and sisters if you are out there.

Regards,

Chris

Jabriol

unread,
Mar 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/8/99
to

A clasic example of what a brother would do when he gets on the net.
he runs a search engine, and anything with a JW on it, he thinks it is
legit.

there are many jw's on ARJW. mostly are lurkers. ARJW has become a heaven
for Bashers against our religion. IF you want to join a private list let me
know.

Antonio L. Santana ( Precusor Auxilar en Marzo 99)
South Camden Spanish

Powwow: jab...@cris.com
webphone: jab...@cris.com

Christ's Witness/zygo

unread,
Mar 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/8/99
to
In article <7c0bu2$h...@chronicle.concentric.net>,

jab...@cris.com wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I just found this newsgroup today, and I am a JW. I have been reading a
> few
> > of the messages, and I have seen a lot of false teachings, and things
> that
> > JW's would be able to easily say why they are false.
> >
> > I was wondering if there were any JW's here? or just people of
> Christendom
> > trying to discourage our faith in the truth?
> >
> > Please email me at home ch...@computernik.com or at work
> > Chris....@NesbittBurns.com or email both if you want.
> >
> > I want to send my love to all my brothers and sisters if you are out
> there.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Chris
>
> A clasic example of what a brother would do when he gets on the net.
> he runs a search engine, and anything with a JW on it, he thinks it is
> legit.
>
> there are many jw's on ARJW. mostly are lurkers. ARJW has become a heaven
> for Bashers against our religion. IF you want to join a private list let me
> know.

Quite frankly, I don't understand the Jehovah's Witnesses! On one hand they
come to ours doors, proclaiming they have the absolute truth of God's Word.
On the other hand, if we as Christians counter with what we believe is the
truth, we become bashers!?*@#$ The Watchtower, Mar. 15, 1986 says on page 12,
"If we have the truth, we have nothing to fear. The truth will stand the
test." Well, we are a test in a way of your truth. Likewise, you are a test
for our truth. We all seek it, I believe. This is a forum of debate of that
truth. Maybe my side will not "beat" your side, or your side will not "beat"
my side, but those who lurk here are the fertile minds which will decide who
is right. For all of us [present believers] it would be hard to change our
minds, for them it is easy as who has the most probible argument. If we are
the "hell" bound "evil" workers of Satan, who bash your "truth" what are you
afraid of? The truth stands for itself, whoever possesses it! And Satan
cannot overcome it.

Christ's Witness (Acts 1:8)
Edward

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Thammuz

unread,
Mar 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/8/99
to
Chris:

I don't know how many actual JWs there are reading this ng, but the
majority of people I have talked to/read in the last week I have viewed here
are those who have been disfellowshiped/disassociated, like I. I don't think
there is any active attempts to discourage your faith, just some people
trying to collect together what they believe now that they are away from the
Society, or those who want to vent any issues they may have had leading up
to their parting ways. I doubt you will find anything here but frustration,
but feel 'free'.
Regie Satanas,
Thammuz

** Legga Lamb **

unread,
Mar 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/9/99
to

Chris <Chris....@NesbittBurns.com> wrote in article
<t0IE2.11611$134.112733@tor-
: I was wondering if there were any JW's here? or just people of


Christendom
: trying to discourage our faith in the truth?

$$$ Your faith is not in the "truth",... it's in the WT Corporation.
: :
: I want to send my love to all my brothers and sisters if you are out
there.

$$$ Even the DF'd and DA'd ones or just the still-suffering slaves?
--
Carol....
"Is boneless chicken considered an invertebrate?"
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
: Chris
:
:

** Legga Lamb **

unread,
Mar 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/9/99
to

Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
<7c0bu2$h...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
: there are many jw's on ARJW. mostly are lurkers. ARJW has become a


heaven
: for Bashers against our religion. IF you want to join a private list
let me
: know.

*** And on the list are all JW's who agree with each other, can't think
for themselves, never ask any serious questions about the WT or it's
crazy beliefs.... YAWNNN :-O


--
Carol....
"Is boneless chicken considered an invertebrate?"
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
:

: Antonio L. Santana ( Precusor Auxilar en Marzo 99)
: South Camden Spanish
:

** Legga Lamb **

unread,
Mar 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/9/99
to

Christ's Witness/zygo <zy...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in article
: Quite frankly, I don't understand the Jehovah's Witnesses! On one


hand they
: come to ours doors, proclaiming they have the absolute truth of God's
Word.
: On the other hand, if we as Christians counter with what we believe
is the
: truth, we become bashers!?*

*** The very first JW's I ever let in my door BASHED the religion of
both my Mother (Lutheran) and my Father (Catholic) and even with the
carefully WT taught diplomacy they were "insulting." Had I been a bit
older and wiser I would have booted them back out the door right then.

@#$ The Watchtower, Mar. 15, 1986 says on page 12,
: "If we have the truth, we have nothing to fear.

*** Then they must be shaking in their shoes....


--
Carol....
"Is boneless chicken considered an invertebrate?"
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
:

: Christ's Witness (Acts 1:8)
: Edward

Mark Sornson

unread,
Mar 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/9/99
to
** Legga Lamb ** wrote:
>
>
> *** The very first JW's I ever let in my door BASHED the religion of
> both my Mother (Lutheran) and my Father (Catholic) and even with the
> carefully WT taught diplomacy they were "insulting." Had I been a bit
> older and wiser I would have booted them back out the door right then.

But you didn't boot them back out the door. In
fact, you invited them in, and associated with them
for years and years. So there must have been something
about their approach that you approved of (at the
time).

Though you say you were never baptized (you did
say that to me), you attended meetings for many years.
If they really were so insulting all the while,
you must really have been a glutton for punishment.

In honor of your father or your mother, are you
now a Lutheran or a Catholic [given that it's
hard to be both]? If you are neither, why do you
reject them (and how do you explain your rejection
of either faith without bashing the other)?

-mark.

campb...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Mar 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/9/99
to
In article <36E4EF52...@zk3.dec.com>,

Mark:

I too have noticed that the JW inlaws I have do tend to bash the Catholic
religion, which is incidentally the religion of my parents. When I first
heard my inlaw making negative comments, I was a little put off, and later
mentioned that my parents and family was Catholic. I thought that was a
discreet way of letting her know that her comments might be offensive.
However, she still didn't stop the negative comments, so I guess she is
either rude or insensitive.

This brings me to the second point about rejecting faiths without bashing
them. Like Carol, I have rejected the faith I was raised in. I don't think
that is an uncommon occurrence, as we get older we find spiritual meaning in
ways that might be different from our parents. That doesn't mean that I
disapprove or think my parent's religion is wrong or evil, it just means it
is not for me. By rejecting, one is not necessarily bashing. My parents
couldn't care less what my religious affiliation is. Some of the JW's I have
noticed are not content to just practice their own religion but also want to
criticize everybody elses. They also seem to take it as a very serious
offense if somebody decides just not be a JW anymore.

Steve Champagne

unread,
Mar 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/9/99
to
campb...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> Some of the JW's I have
> noticed are not content to just practice their own religion but also want to
> criticize everybody elses. They also seem to take it as a very serious
> offense if somebody decides just not be a JW anymore.

That's terrible! I mean, whatever happened to the good 'ole spirit
of "live and let drink blood"......?

For whatever reason no one ever criticizes *my* religion. And I
can't tell you how left out I feel, not having the same opportunities
that others have to take offense with criticism of "their" religion!

Could someone out there please shake a stick at me or throw some
stones or something? I just want to see what it's like to have my
religion criticized and require internal gasket repair therein.....


--
I know we're the same because I hurt when I hurt you
and feel good when I treat you as though you are me.
~
"Steven R. Champagne" 2 lines, 106 characters


campb...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Mar 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/9/99
to
In article <36E56FF9...@yahoo.com>,

Steve Champagne <ia...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> campb...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > Some of the JW's I have
> > noticed are not content to just practice their own religion but also want to
> > criticize everybody elses. They also seem to take it as a very serious
> > offense if somebody decides just not be a JW anymore.
>
> That's terrible! I mean, whatever happened to the good 'ole spirit
> of "live and let drink blood"......?
>
> For whatever reason no one ever criticizes *my* religion. And I
> can't tell you how left out I feel, not having the same opportunities
> that others have to take offense with criticism of "their" religion!
>
> Could someone out there please shake a stick at me or throw some
> stones or something? I just want to see what it's like to have my
> religion criticized and require internal gasket repair therein.....
>
>
You know, those evil (insert your religious group here) are really devil
worshippers. They have everything wrong. Anyone who would be a (insert
religion here) is surely going to burn in hell. Lets get a pile of stones,
round up all the (insert religion here) and get rid of them once and for all.

Consider a stick shaken at you, stones thrown and aspersions cast your way.
(metaphorically speaking)
;)

--
> I know we're the same because I hurt when I hurt you
> and feel good when I treat you as though you are me.
> ~
> "Steven R. Champagne" 2 lines, 106 characters
>
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

Steve Champagne

unread,
Mar 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/10/99
to
On Tue, 09 Mar 1999 22:13:46 GMT, campb...@my-dejanews.com
<campb...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:

>> Could someone out there please shake a stick at me or throw some
>> stones or something? I just want to see what it's like to have my
>> religion criticized and require internal gasket repair therein.....
>>
>You know, those evil (insert your religious group here) are really devil
>worshippers. They have everything wrong. Anyone who would be a (insert
>religion here) is surely going to burn in hell. Lets get a pile of stones,
>round up all the (insert religion here) and get rid of them once and for all.
>
>Consider a stick shaken at you, stones thrown and aspersions cast your way.
>(metaphorically speaking)

Thank you! I feel so much better now!!!! ((((()))))

Steve Champagne

unread,
Mar 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/10/99
to

Steve Champagne

unread,
Mar 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/10/99
to
On Wed, 10 Mar 1999 03:40:20 GMT, Steve Champagne <ia...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Thank you! I feel so much better now!!!! ((((()))))

Ooops... sorry for all the repetition... the news server kept
saying this post didn't make it.... guess it didn't know its left
port from its right....

~~ Froggy Nite ~~

unread,
Mar 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/10/99
to

Mark Sornson <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in article
<36E4EF52...@zk3.dec.com>...
: ** Legga Lamb ** wrote:
: >
: But you didn't boot them back out the door. In


: fact, you invited them in, and associated with them
: for years and years.

$$$ Unfortunately yes. And I'm glad I never got baptized and sold
literature and harmed even more people. Some became my good friends
but as you can guess they felt about the WT/GB as I did.

So there must have been something
: about their approach that you approved of (at the
: time).

$$$ Their approach? I was a lonely housebound new mother and they
were company. Don't ever say they don't BASH other religions because
they do... it's part of the indoctrination they use to get you involved
with their own false religion.
:
: Though you say you were never baptized (you did


: say that to me), you attended meetings for many years.

$$$ No one there forced me to be baptized. And I only attended the
meeting when I had nothing better to do as I found them boring,
tedious, juvenile, repetitious and mind numbing for the most part.

: If they really were so insulting all the while,

$$$ Where did I say "all the while?"

: you must really have been a glutton for punishment.

$$$ See above? I like the few couples I was close too but the society
stunk as far as I was concerned.
:
: In honor of your father or your mother, are you


: now a Lutheran or a Catholic [given that it's
: hard to be both]?

$$$ I'm neither as I believe in evolution and the freedom from religion
that provides. :o)

If you are neither, why do you
: reject them

$$$ Because I don't believe the Bible and all the fairy tales in it.
And all religion is based on these fairy tales about this no-show God.

(and how do you explain your rejection
: of either faith without bashing the other)?

$$$ I could care less what either believes as I am free of all that
religious nonsense now.
--
Carol....
"Why doesn't Tarzan have a beard?"
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
:
: -mark.
:

~~ Froggy Nite ~~

unread,
Mar 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/10/99
to

campb...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<7c3l09$lng$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
: Mark:


: : I too have noticed that the JW inlaws I have do tend to bash the
Catholic
: religion, which is incidentally the religion of my parents.

$$$ The JW's I knew bashed all religions and had many reasons why each
was false, bad, and harmful.

: I thought that was a


: discreet way of letting her know that her comments might be
offensive.

$$$ They usually don't/can't take the hint.

: However, she still didn't stop the negative comments, so I guess she


is
: either rude or insensitive.

$$$ She's brain washed and probably can't stop the insults.
:
: This brings me to the second point about rejecting faiths without


bashing
: them. Like Carol, I have rejected the faith I was raised in. I
don't think
: that is an uncommon occurrence, as we get older we find spiritual
meaning in
: ways that might be different from our parents.

$$$ In my case evolution as it at least makes sense and is not a multi
billion dollar business run by discreet slaves or whatever.

That doesn't mean that I
: disapprove or think my parent's religion is wrong or evil, it just
means it
: is not for me.

$$$ Exactly.

By rejecting, one is not necessarily bashing. My parents

: couldn't care less what my religious affiliation is. Some of the


JW's I have
: noticed are not content to just practice their own religion but also
want to
: criticize everybody elses.

$$$ And almost all of them do. But when you even hint at the faults in
their religious cult/sect they go bananas.

They also seem to take it as a very serious
: offense if somebody decides just not be a JW anymore.

$$$ It's like we suddenly sprung horns and became one of their demons
they're all so obsessed with.

mark sornson

unread,
Mar 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/10/99
to

campb...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7c3l09$lng$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...

>Mark:
>
>I too have noticed that the JW inlaws I have do tend to bash the Catholic

>religion, which is incidentally the religion of my parents. When I first
>heard my inlaw making negative comments, I was a little put off, and later

>mentioned that my parents and family was Catholic. I thought that was a


>discreet way of letting her know that her comments might be offensive.

>However, she still didn't stop the negative comments, so I guess she is
>either rude or insensitive.

Just out of curiousity, are any (or all) of those JW inlaws
former Catholics?

Are these in-laws by marriage (i.e., your wife's family, if
you are married), or by marriage of brothers or sisters
whose spouses have JW relatives? Just wondering,
for I admit that I don't know much about you (and am
too lazy at the moment to use dejanews to see what
else you've posted about yourself from however-far-back).

Also, what nationality are your in-laws? What I mean is,
are there any factors in their backgrounds (other than
their being JWs) that might have predisposed them to
be very expressive of their negative opinions? Though
I don't mean to stereotype them, people of some
nationalities (on the average) tend to be more outspoken,
whereas others tend to be more reserved.

If your in-laws weren't JWs (but some other religion),
do you suppose that they might be just as outspoken
about some other religion that they disliked?

>
>This brings me to the second point about rejecting faiths without bashing
>them. Like Carol, I have rejected the faith I was raised in. I don't
think
>that is an uncommon occurrence, as we get older we find spiritual meaning
in

>ways that might be different from our parents. That doesn't mean that I


>disapprove or think my parent's religion is wrong or evil, it just means it

>is not for me. By rejecting, one is not necessarily bashing. My parents


>couldn't care less what my religious affiliation is.

That's OK by me.

>
Some of the JW's I have
>noticed are not content to just practice their own religion but also want
to
>criticize everybody elses.

You could easily erase "JWs" from this paragraph and
just leave a blank that anyone could fill in with a different
religion based on an encounter with a person of
some other faith with a similar degree of disdain for
other religions. There was a time, for instance, when
Catholics (such as in Canada) actively persecuted JWs.
The Greek Orthodox church in Greece has similarly been
intolerant of JWs. And the Russian Orthodox church
is currently intolerant of every faith that is non-Orthodox
[to the point of instigating legal action against JWs,
and of inducing the Russian Duma to pass a law that
puts every 'Christian faith' except Russian Orthodoxy
out of favor with the govt].

I guess my point is that you've hit on a personality trait
that a LOT of people have, that isn't necessarily caused by
religion, per se, but rather is caused by being conditioned
to a pattern of thinking [formed by many factors] that
predisposes the person to be critical (as a knee-jerk
response) rather than tolerant (and more reflective).


> They also seem to take it as a
very serious
>offense if somebody decides just not be a JW anymore.

This last sentence could easily open up a topic
thread that could spiral out of control.

At the risk of being understated, JWs take the decision
of someone to join us *very very* seriously in the first
place. We consider the act of becoming a JW to be
a declaration of having made a rather permanant and
carefully considered choice of loyalties that one would
be willing both to live for and to die for. Given that
fewer and fewer people seem to hold beliefs that
they would die for (lest they be tagged as fanatics
or extremists), I can imagine why some would be
puzzled that JWs seem to get so 'bent out of shape'
over someone who leaves. But look at it from our
point of view if you can -- if we're willing to die for our
beliefs, how consistent would it be for us to view them as
of so little consequence when someone else simply
up and quits as though they were walking through
the door of a theater -- off to be entertained elsewhere --
or a door to a store, as though our faith was just
one place to "shop" among many, as though spirituality
was a commodity and one religion just a "brand name"
to be chosen arbitrarily from many?

Though we don't begrudge others the privilege to
make other choices, we claim the right to highly
esteem our own faith as superlative (in our own
view) - and thus we cannot highly esteem the
choice for a person to accept and then later
reject what the rest of us consider to be so valuable.
To paraphrase a thought in the NT, it would be
better for them not to become JWs at all.

'nuff said for now.

If you want to chat about this at greater length
[and with greater candor], feel free to drop me
e-mail (sor...@zk3.dec.com).

-mark.

campb...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Mar 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/10/99
to
In article <7c4uod$j6f$1...@lead.zk3.dec.com>,

"mark sornson" <nos...@forme.com> wrote:
>
> campb...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <7c3l09$lng$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> >Mark:
> >
> >I too have noticed that the JW inlaws I have do tend to bash the Catholic
> >religion, which is incidentally the religion of my parents. When I first
> >heard my inlaw making negative comments, I was a little put off, and later
> >mentioned that my parents and family was Catholic. I thought that was a
> >discreet way of letting her know that her comments might be offensive.
> >However, she still didn't stop the negative comments, so I guess she is
> >either rude or insensitive.
>
> Just out of curiousity, are any (or all) of those JW inlaws
> former Catholics?
>

No, my mother in law was Lutheran and later converted, the others were then
raised as JW's.


> Are these in-laws by marriage (i.e., your wife's family, if
> you are married), or by marriage of brothers or sisters
> whose spouses have JW relatives? Just wondering,
> for I admit that I don't know much about you (and am
> too lazy at the moment to use dejanews to see what
> else you've posted about yourself from however-far-back).
>

They are in laws by marriage. My mother in law, and 2 of her children, are
JW's . My father in law is not. He is, I believe some sort of non
practicing Protestant.

> Also, what nationality are your in-laws? What I mean is,
> are there any factors in their backgrounds (other than
> their being JWs) that might have predisposed them to
> be very expressive of their negative opinions? Though
> I don't mean to stereotype them, people of some
> nationalities (on the average) tend to be more outspoken,
> whereas others tend to be more reserved.
>

Actually they are from nebraska, a supposedly very friendly state, and are
Americans of european origin who have been in the US for quite awhile. They
are not immigrants and I believe their ethnic background is Swedish or
Norwegian.

> If your in-laws weren't JWs (but some other religion),
> do you suppose that they might be just as outspoken
> about some other religion that they disliked?

My experience from people of other religions is that they tend to be
accepting of other groups. The only group I can remember hearing something
negative about is Jews. and even that is a few isolated incidents. Also, I
never hear them bashing Episcopalians or Presbyterians, or even Muslims, but
they seem to have some sort of bug up their behind about Catholicism and they
feel so justified in their dislike that they don't care what they say or who
they say it to. Perhaps it is just a personal thing with them, but hearing
Carol ( and sometimes others) tell of their experiences with JW's I wondered
if this was an attitude they learned through their group.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

Mark Sornson

unread,
Mar 10, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/10/99
to
~~ Froggy Nite ~~ wrote:
>
> Mark Sornson <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in article
> <36E4EF52...@zk3.dec.com>...
> : ** Legga Lamb ** wrote:
> : >
> : But you didn't boot them back out the door. In
> : fact, you invited them in, and associated with them
> : for years and years.
>
> $$$ Unfortunately yes. And I'm glad I never got baptized and sold
> literature and harmed even more people. Some became my good friends
> but as you can guess they felt about the WT/GB as I did.

That doesn't surprise me all that much, I guess,
because I know that there'll always be people associated
with JWs (some of whom actually become JWs) who
have, or may develop, a bitter spirit towards the
WT/GB. But it just seems rather pointless to me,
and actually somewhat insincere, to have associated
with this religion for so long when just about all the
while you had a spiteful attitude toward the
beliefs and practices that were really at the core
of what JWs were all about.

>
> So there must have been something
> : about their approach that you approved of (at the
> : time).
>
> $$$ Their approach? I was a lonely housebound new mother and they
> were company. Don't ever say they don't BASH other religions because
> they do... it's part of the indoctrination they use to get you involved
> with their own false religion.

Your answer begs the question, I think.
And besides, since you hung out with JWs for
many years (more than 10 - prior to 1975
and into the 80s, right?), you can't
use the excuse that you were a "lonely
housebound new mother" as the reason for
being involved for the entire duration.

If they did "bash other religions", that
must not have been a significant concern
for you, since you stayed with them
for such a long time.

And you now bash all religions, it seems ...
so is that part of the "indoctrination"
used upon you to get you "involved" with
your current set of beliefs (or non-beliefs)?

> :


> : Though you say you were never baptized (you did
> : say that to me), you attended meetings for many years.
>
> $$$ No one there forced me to be baptized. And I only attended the
> meeting when I had nothing better to do as I found them boring,
> tedious, juvenile, repetitious and mind numbing for the most part.

But yet you went for years and years.
There's something that just doesn't connect
between your actions and your stated feelings.

Like I said, you really must have been a
glutton for punishment. Did you go to the
meetings just to spite yourself?

>
> : If they really were so insulting all the while,
>
> $$$ Where did I say "all the while?"

What you say above about the meetings being


"boring, tedious, juvenile, repetitious and

mind numbing for the most part" sounds pretty
close to "all the while" to me.

It hardly strikes me as significant for you
to imply that "for the most part" means there
were a rare number of occasions when you felt
your visits were worthwhile.

>
> : you must really have been a glutton for punishment.
>
> $$$ See above? I like the few couples I was close too but the society
> stunk as far as I was concerned.

But what was the point of going to meetings for
years and years just for the sake of "the few
couples" you got to know?

Either they were such great friends that you
were willing to undergo such suffering for
their sake (and not for God's sake), or else
you were soo desperate for friends that you
were willing the scrape the bottom of the
barrel and take *anyone* as a friend who would
pay you any attention. What exactly did you
put into your relationships with them that
made you their friend?

I can't imagine being friends for years and years
with someone who thinks some of the most important
aspects of my life "stink". *That* is pure
desperation for association.

Given that *most* JWs choose as their friends
other JWs who really value what JWs stand for,
did you really leave JWs or did they leave you
[or finally tell you to 'hit the road']?

> :


> : In honor of your father or your mother, are you
> : now a Lutheran or a Catholic [given that it's
> : hard to be both]?
>
> $$$ I'm neither as I believe in evolution and the freedom from religion
> that provides. :o)

But what took you sooo long to get to this point?
Especially since you weren't, by your own
description, really trapped or forced into
believing anything JWs believed about God, etc.

>
> If you are neither, why do you
> : reject them
>
> $$$ Because I don't believe the Bible and all the fairy tales in it.
> And all religion is based on these fairy tales about this no-show God.

It sounds to me as though you wanted something
from God and you are mad that he didn't meet your
demands. You wanted him to give to you, but you
weren't willing to give anything to him.

Do your friends also become "no shows" to you when
you cannot get something from them anymore?

>
> (and how do you explain your rejection
> : of either faith without bashing the other)?
>
> $$$ I could care less what either believes as I am free of all that
> religious nonsense now.

"I could care less" certainly does seem to sum
things up.

Thanks for the reply.
-mark.

#(*0*)#

unread,
Mar 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/11/99
to

Mark Sornson <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in article

<36E6A8BF...@zk3.dec.com>..
: That doesn't surprise me all that much, I guess,

*** It shouldn't as not all JW's are shoe lickers, brown nosers and
slaves to the GB.

: because I know that there'll always be people associated


: with JWs (some of whom actually become JWs) who
: have, or may develop, a bitter spirit towards the
: WT/GB.

*** More of them then you'd ever admit too and most will and do leave
eventually.

But it just seems rather pointless to me,
: and actually somewhat insincere, to have associated
: with this religion for so long when just about all the
: while you had a spiteful attitude toward the
: beliefs

*** Spiteful? Not spiteful... spite is a waste of time and for kids.
Should I have got down on bended knee and worshipped the GB?

and practices that were really at the core
: of what JWs were all about.

*** I came to see the "whole truth" let us say long before I stopped
associating with them. Like may other JW's I stayed because of friends
there... not because I was so in love with the selfish, greedy GB and
their self serving beliefs.
: : >
: > $$$ Their approach? I was a lonely housebound new mother and they


: > were company. Don't ever say they don't BASH other religions
because
: > they do... it's part of the indoctrination they use to get you
involved
: > with their own false religion.
:
: Your answer begs the question, I think.
: And besides, since you hung out with JWs for
: many years (more than 10 - prior to 1975
: and into the 80s, right?), you can't
: use the excuse that you were a "lonely

$$$ Of course not. Within a year or so of my son's birth I had made
non JW friends. But that didn't mean I'd drop the JW's and shun them
as they do others. The friendships held.

: housebound new mother" as the reason for


: being involved for the entire duration.

$$$ See above. I had both JW and non JW friends.
:
: If they did "bash other religions", that


: must not have been a significant concern
: for you, since you stayed with them
: for such a long time.

$$$ It was a concern of mine and I asked them to please stop talking
about it to me and most of them complied.
:
: And you now bash all religions, it seems ...

$$$ Only the fanatical, harmful and cultlike ones that HARM people and
do nothing for them.

: so is that part of the "indoctrination"


: used upon you to get you "involved" with
: your current set of beliefs (or non-beliefs)?

$$$ After reading the Bible twice on my own, without the so called help
of the JW's I saw that they were full of male bovine manure. I also
saw that the Bible was a book of ancient myths written by egotistical
men looking to control the masses of their day with supernatural
story's most kids today would see right through. It was fables and
fairy tales. And the books on evolution I had studied made a lot more
sense to me then these silly story's from the dark past.
: :
: But yet you went for years and years.

$$$ Perhaps once a week, sometimes less. So?

: There's something that just doesn't connect


: between your actions and your stated feelings.

$$$ Like what?
:
: Like I said, you really must have been a
: glutton for punishment.

$$$ The GB and elders never got the chance to PUNISH me! Should they
have? I did as I pleased.

Did you go to the
: meetings just to spite yourself?

$$$ Huh? Are you psychotic?
: : > :
: What you say above about the meetings being


: "boring, tedious, juvenile, repetitious and
: mind numbing for the most part" sounds pretty
: close to "all the while" to me.

$$$ I went to as few as possible so as not to hear their lectures.
:o) And meanwhile I talked to them about the lies of the WT, the way
they were being used, the selfishness of the GB, evolution... and
gained the trust of many of them. Many had their own doubts but
wouldn't dare mention them least they be DF'd etc.
:
: It hardly strikes me as significant for you


: to imply that "for the most part" means there
: were a rare number of occasions when you felt
: your visits were worthwhile.

$$$ None were worthwhile that I can recall. It was all the same old
same old same old.... but I did plant the seeds of doubt in many. :o)
:
: > : > $$$ See above? I like the few couples I was close too but the


society
: > stunk as far as I was concerned.
:
: But what was the point of going to meetings for
: years and years just for the sake of "the few
: couples" you got to know?

$$$ Again see above... made as FEW as possible.
--
Carol....
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*

===========long winded fundy stupidity snipped==========
:

campb...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Mar 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/11/99
to

> > Some of the JW's I have
> > >noticed are not content to just practice their own religion but also want
> > to
> > >criticize everybody elses.
> >
> > You could easily erase "JWs" from this paragraph and
> > just leave a blank that anyone could fill in with a different
> > religion based on an encounter with a person of
> > some other faith with a similar degree of disdain for
> > other religions. There was a time, for instance, when
> > Catholics (such as in Canada) actively persecuted JWs.
> > The Greek Orthodox church in Greece has similarly been
> > intolerant of JWs. And the Russian Orthodox church
> > is currently intolerant of every faith that is non-Orthodox
> > [to the point of instigating legal action against JWs,
> > and of inducing the Russian Duma to pass a law that
> > puts every 'Christian faith' except Russian Orthodoxy
> > out of favor with the govt].
> >
> > I guess my point is that you've hit on a personality trait
> > that a LOT of people have, that isn't necessarily caused by
> > religion, per se, but rather is caused by being conditioned
> > to a pattern of thinking [formed by many factors] that
> > predisposes the person to be critical (as a knee-jerk
> > response) rather than tolerant (and more reflective).

Of course this trait is not particular to any religious group, look at the
wars that have been fought over different interpretations of the Bible. But
I guess I would expect "better than average" from a group that claims to
have the best interpretation of the Bible and the people that adhere to it
most diligently. What about that whole "judge not...." part? There seems to
be just as much judging coming from JW's as from any other faith.

I have seen numerous posts here from former JW's who say they still believe
in most of the same thing JW's believe, but have decided to no longer
practice the religion because of either factors within their congregation or
that they disagreed with certain doctrinal points. As a result of their
decisions, some of them tell terrible stories of being cut off from families
and friends because they essentially exercised their freedom of conscience. I
don't think they necessarily hold their faith in low regard, they just felt
they were not spiritually fulfilled within a particular denomination. I
think it is very sad that these people are ostracized simply because they now
choose a different path.

What about people who grow up in the JW faith, get baptized because it is
expected and then find spiritual fulfillment elsewhere? Should they lose the
approval of their family just because they have changed their religious
affiliation?

> > Though we don't begrudge others the privilege to
> > make other choices, we claim the right to highly
> > esteem our own faith as superlative (in our own
> > view) - and thus we cannot highly esteem the
> > choice for a person to accept and then later
> > reject what the rest of us consider to be so valuable.
> > To paraphrase a thought in the NT, it would be
> > better for them not to become JWs at all.
> >

Certainly it would have been better for all concerned for them not to become
JW's but I am sure that for children brought up within a JW family there
would be pressure to become one. When one later discovers that perhaps this
is not the optimal religion for them, why should they be castigated? Most
everyone who practices feels that their religion is superlative, but it seems
that other faiths tend to be more tolerant of people finding different paths
to God than the JW's. I don't hear of Presbyterian families divided by
conflict because a family member decided to become baptist, or that a
Methodist grandparent won't speak to their grandchild because his family is
Lutheran. I appreciate that you value your faith, but I wonder why this has
to be mutually exlusive to accepting the religious choices made by others.

Steve Champagne

unread,
Mar 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/11/99
to
campb...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> I think it is very sad that these people are ostracized simply because they now
>
> choose a different path.

Me too. But then I wonder why anyone would believe in a God thatallegedly comes
right out and says that He intends to ostracize others
in the most ultimate, irreversible way ("eternal death in hell") simply
because they chose a different path.....

In a way it makes sense that individual images of God would be chips
off the Old Block in this regard..... or am I missing something, here?

campb...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Mar 11, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/11/99
to
In article <36E7F75B...@yahoo.com>,

Steve Champagne <ia...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> campb...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > I think it is very sad that these people are ostracized simply because they
now
> >
> > choose a different path.
>
> Me too. But then I wonder why anyone would believe in a God thatallegedly
comes
> right out and says that He intends to ostracize others
> in the most ultimate, irreversible way ("eternal death in hell") simply
> because they chose a different path.....
>
> In a way it makes sense that individual images of God would be chips
> off the Old Block in this regard..... or am I missing something, here?
>

I guess that since we each create our own God that those of us who tend to be
vengeful are mroe likely to believe in a God that is vengeful also. I also
think that if people think God is vengeful, they feel more justified in
mistreating others. Fortuantely for me, my God isn't into hell and
damnation.:)

> --
> I know we're the same because I hurt when I hurt you
> and feel good when I treat you as though you are me.
> ~
> "Steven R. Champagne" 2 lines, 106 characters
>
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

Steve Champagne

unread,
Mar 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/12/99
to
campb...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> I guess that since we each create our own God that those of us who tend to be
> vengeful are mroe likely to believe in a God that is vengeful also. I also
> think that if people think God is vengeful, they feel more justified in
> mistreating others. Fortuantely for me, my God isn't into hell and
> damnation.:)

This all makes perfectly good sense to me!

Although it might be more accurate to say that we our
own image or representation of God rather than literally
our own God. But perhaps that's what you meant anyway.

Mark Sornson

unread,
Mar 12, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/12/99
to
#(*0*)# wrote:
>
> Mark Sornson <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in article
> <36E6A8BF...@zk3.dec.com>..
> : That doesn't surprise me all that much, I guess,
>
> *** It shouldn't as not all JW's are shoe lickers, brown nosers and
> slaves to the GB.

The ones who *think* they are slaves end up
out the door (like you). The ones who consider
themselves spiritual brothers to the GB members
do just fine.

>
> : because I know that there'll always be people associated
> : with JWs (some of whom actually become JWs) who
> : have, or may develop, a bitter spirit towards the
> : WT/GB.
>
> *** More of them then you'd ever admit too and most will and do leave
> eventually.

You really don't know what I'd "ever admit too".

In Jesus' parable of the sower, about the seeds sown
along the road, only 1 out of 4 seeds landed in
the "fine soil". So just taking that as a rough
guideline, I'd be willing to "admit" (or really
accept) a ratio like that [though I really don't think
it's close to that].

I think the NT (especially the epistles) makes
it pretty plain that enough people came and left
the early Christian congregation to be significant
(i.e., significant enough to mention as a fact
of life).

Something else to factor in is that although
people *do* leave (of their own accord, or are
tossed out as disfellowshipped), *some* do come
back.

>
> But it just seems rather pointless to me,
> : and actually somewhat insincere, to have associated
> : with this religion for so long when just about all the
> : while you had a spiteful attitude toward the
> : beliefs
>
> *** Spiteful? Not spiteful... spite is a waste of time and for kids.

I agree that spite is a waste of time, but it
looks to me as though you *are* wasting your time
being spiteful.

> Should I have got down on bended knee and worshipped the GB?

Well, it appears to me that throughout all the
years you associated at the KH, you didn't 'get down
on bended knee' to worship ANYTHING, including God
[which is the reason you should have been there].

Remember, the Kingdom Hall is a place of worship.
If you thought all they did was 'worship the GB',
then you only have yourself to blame for going there
all those years.

>
> and practices that were really at the core
> : of what JWs were all about.
>
> *** I came to see the "whole truth" let us say long before I stopped
> associating with them. Like may other JW's I stayed because of friends
> there... not because I was so in love with the selfish, greedy GB and
> their self serving beliefs.

As you know, since JWs don't pass the plate or
make any other mandatory contribution, the
'greedy ol GB' can't get their hands on anything
that isn't freely donated. And given that recent
surveys indicate that in the US, the per-capita
donation rate is about $4 per person per month (a
whopping $48 per year per person by today's
standards) - MOST of which goes directly to the
local congregation for its expenses, if we
back-project this rate to 1960-1980 era dollars,
that's just not a whole lot of money to get
"greedy and self-serving" over.

Just out of curiousity, how many GB members did
you ever meet in person?

Like I said before, something just doesn't add up.
To me you seem to be spinning more of an after-the-fact
story.

All this emphasis of yours on material selfishness
and greed suggests to me that you had some sort of
personal, material expectation in connection with
the JWs that was dissappointed.

> : Your answer begs the question, I think.
> : And besides, since you hung out with JWs for
> : many years (more than 10 - prior to 1975
> : and into the 80s, right?), you can't
> : use the excuse that you were a "lonely
>
> $$$ Of course not. Within a year or so of my son's birth I had made
> non JW friends. But that didn't mean I'd drop the JW's and shun them
> as they do others. The friendships held.

But the question is, were you or were you not
passing yourself off (to your JW friends) as
a JW, or at least as a person who was very interested
in becoming one? Did you, perhaps, become
a fixture such that people might have
assumed you were baptized?

How long did you go to meetings? Wasn't it from
the late 1960s until the mid-1980s?

If you never actually joined JWs, then
talk about "shunning" and all that is a moot
point, for that only applies to those who
become JWs and then leave.

And again, the question is, did you really drop
JWs (eventually), or did they drop you?

>
> : housebound new mother" as the reason for
> : being involved for the entire duration.
>
> $$$ See above. I had both JW and non JW friends.

Do you "still* have JW friends? Do they consider
you to be their friend? [It doesn't count if
they are ex-JWs at this point.]

> :


> : If they did "bash other religions", that
> : must not have been a significant concern
> : for you, since you stayed with them
> : for such a long time.
>
> $$$ It was a concern of mine and I asked them to please stop talking
> about it to me and most of them complied.

So, there you go. *Most* of them were more than
willing to accomodate you. But what did it buy
them? for you didn't become a JW, and that's really
what JWs hope those who associate with them will
become.


> : And you now bash all religions, it seems ...
>
> $$$ Only the fanatical, harmful and cultlike ones that HARM people and
> do nothing for them.

A carefully enumerated and documented list, I see.

>
> : so is that part of the "indoctrination"
> : used upon you to get you "involved" with
> : your current set of beliefs (or non-beliefs)?
>
> $$$ After reading the Bible twice on my own, without the so called help
> of the JW's I saw that they were full of male bovine manure. I also
> saw that the Bible was a book of ancient myths written by egotistical
> men looking to control the masses of their day with supernatural
> story's most kids today would see right through. It was fables and
> fairy tales. And the books on evolution I had studied made a lot more
> sense to me then these silly story's from the dark past.

And it took you *how many years* in association with
JWs to get to this point? More than 10, and possibly
even 20? Given that JWs really do encourage people
to read the Bible on their own, you can only blame yourself
for having taken so long.

What you say, of course, sounds a lot like a
predisposed attitude waiting for an excuse to
justify it.

> : :


> : But yet you went for years and years.
>
> $$$ Perhaps once a week, sometimes less. So?

In most other religions, a person who went to
'church services' once a week would be considered
pretty regular, and reasonably committed to the
faith. Plus that you did it for years and years
AS AN ADULT who was not forced in any way means
that you went because it meant something to you.

I think all this invective against the GB and etc.
has all been invented after-the-fact. There's
*something* significant that you're leaving out.


> : There's something that just doesn't connect
> : between your actions and your stated feelings.
>
> $$$ Like what?

Like you tell me.

You weren't forced by anyone to be involved.
No one in your family opposed you.
You attended meetings for 10-20 years.
But you never got baptized or got involved in
the JW ministry.
You had JWs friends and non-JW friends of
your choosing (to give you a wide perspective
on the social side of life).

With such a long record of association of
your own accord, with no apparent pressure to
*make* you conform [for you insist that you
were quite the individual, who didn't 'bow to
the GB, blah blah blah'], you go from that
point to complete and utter, disdainful rejection.

Something must have happened that was the
catalyst for your 'big break' [although that
you had such a break isn't surprising since
you really didn't lay a solid foundation to
stand upon].

> :


> : Like I said, you really must have been a
> : glutton for punishment.
>
> $$$ The GB and elders never got the chance to PUNISH me! Should they
> have? I did as I pleased.

A ridiculous, and even paranoid statement, except
that perhaps it reveals that you did something
that they *could* have punished you for had you
been a baptized member of the congregation.

>
> Did you go to the
> : meetings just to spite yourself?
>
> $$$ Huh? Are you psychotic?

Only if replying to you is part of the definition.

> : : > :


> : What you say above about the meetings being
> : "boring, tedious, juvenile, repetitious and
> : mind numbing for the most part" sounds pretty
> : close to "all the while" to me.
>
> $$$ I went to as few as possible so as not to hear their lectures.
> :o) And meanwhile I talked to them about the lies of the WT, the way
> they were being used, the selfishness of the GB, evolution... and
> gained the trust of many of them. Many had their own doubts but
> wouldn't dare mention them least they be DF'd etc.

Don't make me laugh.

You went about once a week for 10-20 years, or
perhaps a 2-3 times a month [which, over that
long still adds up], but you didn't want to
"hear their lectures"?????? Give me a break,
already.

There's just no way any congregation would
tolerate a person like you hanging out with them
for that long whose primary goal was to "talk to them
about the lies of the WT ...," sowing doubt.

You may have been able to do that for a little
while [near the end of your stay], but it just
doesn't add up that you did that for such
a long time.

If you did this, did the last congregation you
were associated with finally toss you out?

> :


> : It hardly strikes me as significant for you
> : to imply that "for the most part" means there
> : were a rare number of occasions when you felt
> : your visits were worthwhile.
>
> $$$ None were worthwhile that I can recall. It was all the same old
> same old same old....

But for all those years, which began when
you were an adult? No way.


> but I did plant the seeds of doubt in many. :o)

What a good, sincere friend you were.

> :


> : > : > $$$ See above? I like the few couples I was close too but the
> society
> : > stunk as far as I was concerned.
> :
> : But what was the point of going to meetings for
> : years and years just for the sake of "the few
> : couples" you got to know?
>
> $$$ Again see above... made as FEW as possible.

Over 10-20 years? Associating for that long and
going to "as FEW [meetings] as possible" are
contradictory goals. The story you tell just
is NOT believable.

-mark.

Tallyman

unread,
Mar 13, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/13/99
to

bijou2 wrote:

> ...we speak out with fearlessness
> he is the god of true profesy
> all he foretells comes to be!!!!!!
>
> i am a jehovah's witness i am proud to be one i have been disveloshipped
> last year may and i am making a real effort to go back because i now know
> they live by the bible

Hey NumbChuck,

They'll Disfellowship your ass again if they catch you posting in this
newsgroup.

You have no Watchtower-Right to be here!


TT

bijou2

unread,
Mar 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/14/99
to

Drew Arrington

unread,
Mar 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/14/99
to
Hi, just thought I'd throw in a few sense of my own.

Being of no particular religion myself, and never aspiring to become a
part of one, perhaps my point of view might be valid here as being, at
least, fairly nonjudgemental (can't say that I'm completely
nonjudgemental, for then I'd really be a hypocrite).

Take a look at a religion as a school that is setting out to
teach people to love themselves ("Love thy nieghbour as thyself", to
quote a phraze from one of the rule books). At least lets take a look
at that being its origional purpose. If we compare this to the
current school system, we can come to realize that we cannot judge a
school by its students. For instance, when we walk into a
kindergarden room, we find children yelling and screaming, throwing
things at one another, wiping thier noses on there sleeves, and doing
all manner of things that would be revolting to us in any other
circumstance. Do we judge the school by how these children are
reacting? No, they are children and that is what children do. Yet
when we walk into a grade 2 class and see the children there are more
well behaved, yet still they have many of the tendancies of the
kindergardners, though much more mature. We find that as we go up the
grades, we will find the same thing, more maturety, less childlike
tendencies, and more intellegent beings. Of course, no school is
really alike. Each has its own method of instruction and discipline.
And also, we run into the problem of the school being only as good as
it's teachers, for if the teacher cannot instruct the way a student
needs to learn, then all the instruction is for not. This, of course,
is not to say that the school system itself is not corrupt or straying
from the origional purpose. It is to say, however, that, in any
religion, we run into students of varying grade levels, each has
learned only a few things and to varying degrees. And so to make an
all incompassing statement of "All JW's are alike" is simply a
judgement that is truely lacking any experience. I do agree that JW's
have similarities, due to the dicipline that that school uses, though
so do catholics, and buddists, and hindus, and .... Many people that
are in religions (or philosophies or belief systems) are judgemental,
yet so are the ones that are not, for they are judging the people in
the religions, just as the people in the religions are judging the
ones who are not. No two people are completely alike. There are
people behind those dogmas. Each with there own fears and angers to
work through, just like you or I. Perhaps, by looking at religions in
the way that I am describing, you can find it in yourself to release
your judgement on the students and allow them the opportunity to
learn and be learned from in whatever way they choose to learn and
from whatever school they go to. And maybe, just maybe, find it in
your heart to praise them for wishing to become more than what they
perceive themselves to be. They are all really looking to transend
judgement and learn how to love themselves. There are some good
things about religions and there are some things that may need
changing. So what? Each person is doing his/her best to find love
and joy, we just go to different schools.

With gratitude,

Drew Arrington.
We sit around and talk of masters, while the masters walk the talk.

Jabriol

unread,
Mar 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/14/99
to
> Hey NumbChuck,
>
> They'll Disfellowship your ass again if they catch you posting in this
> newsgroup.
>
> You have no Watchtower-Right to be here!
>
>
> TT

ok here goes..

my congregation is south camden spanish
I am a servant..

now I will await one week to see if I get expelled.

If I do you say the truth..
if I don't you lie.


Antonio L. Santana ( Precusor Auxilar en Marzo 99)
South Camden Spanish

ICQ: 8967074
Powwow: jab...@cris.com
webphone: jab...@cris.com
Personal E = spid...@hotmail.com,

emergency contact = 16095...@omnipoint.com (must be 160 characters or
less in plain text. Should be used to direct me to my personal-e without
@omnipoint
it is my cellphone)

game?

Drew Arrington

unread,
Mar 14, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/14/99
to
Hello Mark and Froggy,

Thought I'd write down some thoughts :-).

Froggy,

I believe what you are saying here (and correct me if I am inaccurate)
is that you have chosen another path, other than the JW one and that
is the path that you are on now. In your writing, though, it seems
that you are not so comfortable on the path that you travel at the
moment. The reason that I say this is that I see in your writing that
you must justify choosing that path through a hostility twards your
past association with the JW's. Now, of course, this is only taken in
the context of the few words that you have written here. I don't
proffess to know you or the totality of who you are, by hypothising
from a few writen statments. Like I said, it just SEEMS to be. At
any rate, on with my discourse. If this is true, you might want to
ask yourself a few questions. Firtsly, "Why do I feel the need to
justify where I am?". When someone feels the need to justify
something, that usually means that he/she is not wholey in acceptance
of the responsibility of where they are. They have some lingering
guilt or fear that they may be doing the wrong thing (either
consciously or unconsciously). Secondly, "Am I really taking
resposibility for my life now?". Taking responsibility alows you to
move forward on your path much more quickly. Taking responsibility,
means accepting the past and honoring that it was a series of things
that led you to the place that you are now and releasing the
blame/shame/guilt that you have associated to it so that you can focus
on learning the lessons that are happening now, rather than the ones
that happened then. By focusing on the past and placing the
judgements on yourself and blame on the situations that happened back
then, you are wasting energy that could be put to good use in your
life in the now. Now, of course, all of the things that I typed here
are easier said, than done. Also, I could be completely off base for
you and where you are in your process. Just a few things you might
want to look at.

Mark,

I believe that you are doing your best to show Froggy that her
hostility is missplaced. Yet in doing so, you seem to have become
just as deffensive. You might want to ask yourself this question: "Am
I responding because I intend to instruct and be instructed or am I
responding out of my own insecurities?". If we feel that we need to
defend our point of view, then, again, we are not really comfortable
with it and may want to ask why we are not. Again, just my hypothisis
of the situation. Thanx for the listen.

With gratitude,

Drew Arrington


+++ (*).(*) +++

unread,
Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99
to

Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article

<7cgmt9$o...@chronicle.concentric.net>...:
: ok here goes..


: : my congregation is south camden spanish
: I am a servant..

$$$ A servant? Heaven help that cong. Can you imagine this person
teaching your children?
:
: : : now I will await one week to see if I get expelled.

$$$ They wont expel you as they're in dire need of people to bring in
new converts and money. It just goes to show what type of person they
now keep in their congs. But then they always did, they just keep it
quiet before the internet.
:
: If I do you say the truth..


: if I don't you lie.

$$$ So now the WT/JW's allow people like jabbers to represent them.
Who'd want to belong to a cult like that? You'd have a better chance
with a David Koresh or the Heavens Gate wingnuts. If you sent Jab's
posts to his cong' they think they were great! I wonder what the
mentality and educational lever of that Camden cong. is?!?!?! to put up
with the likes of him.
--
Carol....
"I intend to live forever - so far so good."
*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*~~~*
: Antonio L. Santana ( Precusor Auxilar en Marzo 99)
:

+++ (*).(*) +++

unread,
Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99
to

Drew Arrington <noad...@this.post> wrote in article
<36ed4365.1692523@news>...
: Froggy,


: : I believe what you are saying here (and correct me if I am
inaccurate)
: is that you have chosen another path, other than the JW one and that
: is the path that you are on now.

### Yes. I now believe in Evolution 100%.

In your writing, though, it seems
: that you are not so comfortable on the path that you travel at the
: moment.

### I am quite comfortable since I am now free of all religions and
their beliefs, their bigotry's, and their endless use of fear (do this
or God'll getcha).

The reason that I say this is that I see in your writing that
: you must justify choosing that path through a hostility twards your
: past association with the JW's.

### I had hostility towards the WT long before I left the JW's behind.
Why should I need to justify my belief in evolution? Why does anyone?
Do I need to justify my belief that the sum comes up every day, that
the tide comes in and goes out?

Now, of course, this is only taken in
: the context of the few words that you have written here. I don't
: proffess to know you or the totality of who you are, by hypothising
: from a few writen statments.

### Good... :o)

Like I said, it just SEEMS to be. At
: any rate, on with my discourse. If this is true, you might want to
: ask yourself a few questions. Firtsly, "Why do I feel the need to
: justify where I am?".

### Sorry but I don't have that NEED. Evolution makes sense to me.

When someone feels the need to justify
: something, that usually means that he/she is not wholey in acceptance
: of the responsibility of where they are.

### I'm comfortable where I am. Are you? And it is my responsibility
for being where ever I am.

They have some lingering
: guilt or fear that they may be doing the wrong thing (either
: consciously or unconsciously).

### The wrong thing? For me that would be to pretend to be something
I'm not... like a religious fundy.

Secondly, "Am I really taking
: resposibility for my life now?".

### Who else can? My kids? My grandkids? My friend up the road?

Taking responsibility alows you to
: move forward on your path much more quickly. Taking responsibility,
: means accepting the past and honoring that it was a series of things
: that led you to the place that you are now and releasing the
: blame/shame/guilt that you have associated to it

### What shame/blame and guilt? Are you projecting your own
shortcomings on me? I feel no guilt for selling WT lies to the public
or society. I feel no shame that I hated the mindless KH meetings and
no blame on any one person for why I started to believe in evolution.
After reading the Bible twice, on my own sans a JW spoon feeding me the
WT interpretation I saw the Bible for what it was, not what I had been
told it was.

so that you can focus
: on learning the lessons that are happening now, rather than the ones
: that happened then.

### Lesson #1.... plant the seeds of TRUTH about this cult and save
others before they become ensnared.

By focusing on the past and placing the
: judgements on yourself and blame on the situations that happened back
: then,

### Lesson #2..... I'm focused on planting the seeds of truth.... see
above.

you are wasting energy that could be put to good use in your
: life in the now.

### I am putting my energy to good use... I spreading seeds of truth
and doubt so others can see for themselves.

Now, of course, all of the things that I typed here
: are easier said, than done. Also, I could be completely off base for
: you and where you are in your process. Just a few things you might
: want to look at.

### Thanks for your concern. ;O)

Drew Arrington

unread,
Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99
to
Hi Carol,

Thanks for the response. Not projecting what-so-ever. Just throwing
an oppinion out there, not a judgement. thanks for the listen.

Drew Arrington
Behind anger, there is always fear. Dispite what the psychologis say,
anger is not a base emotion. There are only two: fear and love.
Which do you wish to come from?

Jabriol

unread,
Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99
to

> ### Yes. I now believe in Evolution 100%.

then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in evolution.


Mark Isaak

unread,
Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99
to
In article <7cjbut$4...@journal.concentric.net>,

Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> > ### Yes. I now believe in Evolution 100%.
>
>then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in evolution.

Just the opposite. Women are by far the strong sex, as any actuary can
tell you. Lots of species don't even have males.

Jabirol, you are reinforcing my opinion that you will tell any lie, no
matter how large and vicious, to put down anything that disagrees with
your personal opinion.
--
Mark Isaak atta @ best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"My determination is not to remain stubbornly with my ideas but
I'll leave them and go over to others as soon as I am shown
plausible reason which I can grasp." - Antony Leeuwenhoek


Jabriol

unread,
Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99
to

> just the opposite. Women are by far the strong sex, as any actuary can

> tell you. Lots of species don't even have males.

evidence please?, then how is it per evolution, that male's dominate
about every aspect of social Human life.

duhhhhh what happen to Natural selection........???


di...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99
to
In article <7cjbut$4...@journal.concentric.net>,

jab...@cris.com wrote:
>
> > ### Yes. I now believe in Evolution 100%.
>
> then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in evolution.

Well Jabs, once again you demonstrate your ignorance of evolution. Nowhere
does evolution indicate such a thing. Various religions, including the bible
based fundamentalist ones, make that claim.

>
>

Dick, Atheist #1349
email: dic...@uswest.net

alex

unread,
Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99
to


Jabriol,

Sorry to contradict you but if you told the elders in your congregation
that you posted to this group and that *DF's* were on this group then I
believe that you WOULD get reproved and told not to associate with them,
wether or not you were supporting and witnessing etc.

Sorry buddy, I don't buy it.

Alex

>
> > bijou2 wrote:
> >
> > > ...we speak out with fearlessness
> > > he is the god of true profesy
> > > all he foretells comes to be!!!!!!
> > >
> > > i am a jehovah's witness i am proud to be one i have been
> disveloshipped
> > > last year may and i am making a real effort to go back because i now
> know
> > > they live by the bible
> >
> >
> >
> > Hey NumbChuck,
> >
> > They'll Disfellowship your ass again if they catch you posting in this
> > newsgroup.
> >
> > You have no Watchtower-Right to be here!
> >
> >
> > TT
>

> ok here goes..
>
> my congregation is south camden spanish
> I am a servant..
>
>
>

> now I will await one week to see if I get expelled.
>

> If I do you say the truth..
> if I don't you lie.
>
>
>
>

> Antonio L. Santana ( Precusor Auxilar en Marzo 99)

> South Camden Spanish
> ICQ: 8967074
> Powwow: jab...@cris.com
> webphone: jab...@cris.com
> Personal E = spid...@hotmail.com,
>
> emergency contact = 16095...@omnipoint.com (must be 160 characters or
> less in plain text. Should be used to direct me to my personal-e without
> @omnipoint
> it is my cellphone)
>
> game?
>
>

n


Boikat

unread,
Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99
to

Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article

<7cjbut$4...@journal.concentric.net>...


>
> > ### Yes. I now believe in Evolution 100%.
>
> then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in
evolution.

That'a a nice lie Jabby. Did you come up with it yourself?

Boikat
>
>


Jabriol

unread,
Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99
to

> Jabriol,
>
> Sorry to contradict you but if you told the elders in your congregation
> that you posted to this group and that *DF's* were on this group then I
> believe that you WOULD get reproved and told not to associate with them,
> wether or not you were supporting and witnessing etc.
>
> Sorry buddy, I don't buy it.
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> >

they alredy know. And I follow the guidelines. Usenet is public domain.
I may run into any Df's in any newsgroup in any part of the net.

Jabriol

unread,
Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99
to

> > then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in
> evolution.
>
> That'a a nice lie Jabby. Did you come up with it yourself?
>
> Boikat

please explain why Men dominate socially and physicly.
are you saying the delvelopment of gender and their roles within a species
is not an evolved trait?


jeff wiel

unread,
Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99
to
Jabriol (jab...@cris.com) wrote:

: > just the opposite. Women are by far the strong sex, as any actuary can

Well, it certainly passed you by.


Boikat

unread,
Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99
to

Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article

<7ck9um$u...@chronicle.concentric.net>...

It's more of a social thing with humans Jabby, there are societies where
the women rule the roost. Also, in nature, there are species where the
female is larger than the male. Also, "might is right" does not truely
apply to humans because most of us are able to control 'primitive'
impulses. The exception being the low-brow knuckle-dragging wife beaters,
and jerk wads that kick their children out into the street permanaantly
because they do not "conform".

Know anyone like that Jabby?

Boikat
>
>


Boikat

unread,
Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99
to

jeff wiel <jw...@world.std.com> wrote in article
<F8o0L...@world.std.com>...

"It is, after all, an imperfect universe."
Ambassador G'kar, Babylon 5, 2362

>
>


Jabriol

unread,
Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99
to

> > please explain why Men dominate socially and physicly.
> > are you saying the delvelopment of gender and their roles within a
> species
> > is not an evolved trait?
>
> It's more of a social thing with humans Jabby, there are societies where
> the women rule the roost.

in welfare america maybe..

I think you be watching to much Xena..

please tell us which country do they rule?

so men donitae women as a social thing and evolution has nothing to do with
it?

> Also, "might is right" does not truely
> apply to humans because most of us are able to control 'primitive'
> impulses.

no such thing as primative impulsive's, to suggest this would defy evolution
entirely.

> The exception being the low-brow knuckle-dragging wife beaters,
> and jerk wads that kick their children out into the street permanaantly
> because they do not "conform".

nothing wrong with the above.. it is part of evolution.. natural selection,
ya get rid of the garbage.. didnt hitler do this?

no moral in evolution.


Boikat

unread,
Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99
to

Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article

<7ckhpj$9...@chronicle.concentric.net>...


>
> > > please explain why Men dominate socially and physicly.
> > > are you saying the delvelopment of gender and their roles within a
> > species
> > > is not an evolved trait?
> >
> > It's more of a social thing with humans Jabby, there are societies
where
> > the women rule the roost.
>
> in welfare america maybe..

No, many African and Asian cultures have Matriarchal family units.


>
> I think you be watching to much Xena..

Nope.

>
> please tell us which country do they rule?

I don't know the current status, but in the past, there was Margret
Thatcher who was the PM of England. Ever hear of Endera (SP?) Ghandi?.
Speaking of England, and Europe, ever heard of "Queens" as opposed to
"Kings"?

Woman have been sitting in the seats of power since the concept of "Who's
in charge here"? was first asked.

Let's not forget Cleopatra, either.

>
> so men donitae women as a social thing and evolution has nothing to do
with
> it?

In human socity, basically, yes. Especialy if their religion (A major
factor in determining the values of a culture, usually) tells them that
women are property.

Boikat

Honus

unread,
Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99
to
Jabriol wrote:
>
> > > then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in
> > evolution.
> >
> > That'a a nice lie Jabby. Did you come up with it yourself?
> >
> > Boikat
>
> please explain why Men dominate socially and physicly.

Why? You never listen.

> are you saying the delvelopment of gender and their roles within a species
> is not an evolved trait?

What does this have to do with your confusing the differences between
"superior" (your word) and "different?"

--
To reply via e-mail, replace the anti-spam "strangeflesh" with "net".


Raven

unread,
Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99
to
In article <7cjbut$4...@journal.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com says...

>
> > ### Yes. I now believe in Evolution 100%.
>
> then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in evolution.

....which you've got wrong, yet again.

Let's see, that's about 11334 things about evolution Jabby's got wrong.
1 thing Jabby got right, but I can't remember what that was.
----------------------------
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"

cem...@sprintmail.com


Boikat

unread,
Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99
to
Piggybacking my own post:

Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in article
<01be6f5c$12108720$1965d6d1@bigroy>...


>
>
> Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
> <7ckhpj$9...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
> >
>

[snip]

> >
> >
> >
> > > Also, "might is right" does not truely
> > > apply to humans because most of us are able to control 'primitive'
> > > impulses.
> >
> > no such thing as primative impulsive's, to suggest this would defy
> evolution
> > entirely.
> >

Are you that stupid?

> >
> >
> > > The exception being the low-brow knuckle-dragging wife beaters,
> > > and jerk wads that kick their children out into the street
> permanaantly
> > > because they do not "conform".
> >
> > nothing wrong with the above.. it is part of evolution.. natural
> selection,
> > ya get rid of the garbage..

Only for low-brow knuckle-draggers, which you just admitted to being.

>> didnt hitler do this?

No, Hitler was a nutcase.

> >
> > no moral in evolution.

Bo brain, no gain.

Boikat
> >
> >
>
>


John Wilkins

unread,
Mar 15, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/15/99
to
In article <MPG.1157732449591bbf9897eb@news>, cem...@home.net (Raven) wrote:

|In article <7cjbut$4...@journal.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com says...
|>
|> > ### Yes. I now believe in Evolution 100%.
|>
|> then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in evolution.
|
|....which you've got wrong, yet again.
|
|Let's see, that's about 11334 things about evolution Jabby's got wrong.
| 1 thing Jabby got right, but I can't remember what that was.

And does anyone have the address of that tenant? I think I'd like to meet her...

--
John Wilkins
Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Melbourne, Australia
<mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>


Raven

unread,
Mar 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/16/99
to
In article <7cjvff$l...@chronicle.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com
says...

>
> > just the opposite. Women are by far the strong sex, as any actuary can
> > tell you. Lots of species don't even have males.
>
> evidence please?, then how is it per evolution, that male's dominate
> about every aspect of social Human life.

They don't. Maybe it's your sexist way of thinking (as well as bigoted
and racist) that makes you think it's so.

> duhhhhh what happen to Natural selection........???

It's there, you just don't understand it.

maff91

unread,
Mar 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/16/99
to
On 15 Mar 1999 22:42:23 -0500, cem...@home.net (Raven) wrote:

>In article <7cjbut$4...@journal.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com says...
>>
>> > ### Yes. I now believe in Evolution 100%.
>>
>> then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in evolution.
>
>....which you've got wrong, yet again.
>
>Let's see, that's about 11334 things about evolution Jabby's got wrong.
> 1 thing Jabby got right, but I can't remember what that was.

He's a Manpanzee.

Jabriol

unread,
Mar 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/16/99
to

> Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
> <7ckhpj$9...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
> >
> > > > please explain why Men dominate socially and physicly.
> > > > are you saying the delvelopment of gender and their roles within a
> > > species
> > > > is not an evolved trait?
> > >
> > > It's more of a social thing with humans Jabby, there are societies
> where
> > > the women rule the roost.
> >
> > in welfare america maybe..
>
> No, many African and Asian cultures have Matriarchal family units.
> >

Well in america, You have matriarchal African American Families that is
sponsored by the state. Most african American men, can not or wont maintain
a family. You have Matriarch that indeed may have children from different
men.
as many as five. Since the teaching of evolution in public school america
has
subsituted religion, no morals are tought in school.

evolution moves on.

> > please tell us which country do they rule?
>
> I don't know the current status, but in the past, there was Margret
> Thatcher who was the PM of England.

and england maintains the custom..?

Ever hear of Endera (SP?) Ghandi?.
> Speaking of England, and Europe, ever heard of "Queens" as opposed to
> "Kings"?

duh,, they are exception to the rule, and experiment by social engineers
that
manipulate cultures, an evolutionary trait?

> Woman have been sitting in the seats of power since the concept of "Who's
> in charge here"? was first asked.

yup the glass ceiling and all that.


> Let's not forget Cleopatra, either.

a dyke


> In human socity, basically, yes. Especialy if their religion (A major
> factor in determining the values of a culture, usually) tells them that
> women are property.
>
> Boikat

so you subscribe to the idea, that religion interferes with evolution.


Jim Phillips

unread,
Mar 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/16/99
to
On 15 Mar 1999, Raven wrote:

> In article <7cjbut$4...@journal.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com says...
> >
> > > ### Yes. I now believe in Evolution 100%.
> >
> > then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in evolution.
>
> ....which you've got wrong, yet again.
>
> Let's see, that's about 11334 things about evolution Jabby's got wrong.
> 1 thing Jabby got right, but I can't remember what that was.

Jabby got something about evolution right? Talk about your
extraordinary claim!

--
Jim Phillips, jphi...@bcpl.net, Skep-ti-cult member, unofficial Cahooter
If Jesus *really* loves me, he'll forgive me for not worshiping him.

Honus

unread,
Mar 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/16/99
to
Raven wrote:
>
> In article <7cjbut$4...@journal.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com says...
> >
> > > ### Yes. I now believe in Evolution 100%.
> >
> > then she must believe that men are superioir. that is a tenant in evolution.
>
> ....which you've got wrong, yet again.
>
> Let's see, that's about 11334 things about evolution Jabby's got wrong.
> 1 thing Jabby got right, but I can't remember what that was.

The spelling.

Splifford

unread,
Mar 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/16/99
to
In article <7cljg0$8...@journal.concentric.net>, jab...@cris.com wrote:

> > Jabriol <jab...@cris.com> wrote in article
> > <7ckhpj$9...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
> > >
> > > > > please explain why Men dominate socially and physicly.
> > > > > are you saying the delvelopment of gender and their roles within a
> > > > species
> > > > > is not an evolved trait?
> > > >
> > > > It's more of a social thing with humans Jabby, there are societies
> > where
> > > > the women rule the roost.
> > >
> > > in welfare america maybe..
> >
> > No, many African and Asian cultures have Matriarchal family units.
> > >
>
> Well in america, You have matriarchal African American Families that is
> sponsored by the state. Most african American men, can not or wont maintain
> a family.

You wouldn't happen to have figures to establish that 'most', now would you?

You have Matriarch that indeed may have children from different
> men.
> as many as five.

You wouldn't happen to have figures for that, either, now would you?

Since the teaching of evolution in public school america
> has
> subsituted religion, no morals are tought in school.
>
> evolution moves on.
>
>
>
> > > please tell us which country do they rule?
> >
> > I don't know the current status, but in the past, there was Margret
> > Thatcher who was the PM of England.
>
> and england maintains the custom..?

Maggie T. was merely the latest in a long line females with Serious Power
in Britain. Others include Boadicia, Elizabeth I, Bloody Mary (Liz 1's
sis) Mary Stuart (the one that Liz 1 had shortened by a head) the Mary
half of William and Mary (so beloved by all Irishmen) Eleanor of Aquitaine
(wife of Henry II, mother of Richard I Queen of the English and a major
reason that the 100 Years War started) and, of course, Victoria.

Other females with power in UK-style parliamentary democracies include
Indihra Gandhi (India), Benazir Bhutho (Pakistan), Golda Mier, one more
each in Bangadesh and Sri Lankha, and at least two Norwegians whose names
I can't recall off hand.

>
> Ever hear of Endera (SP?) Ghandi?.
> > Speaking of England, and Europe, ever heard of "Queens" as opposed to
> > "Kings"?
>
> duh,, they are exception to the rule, and experiment by social engineers
> that
> manipulate cultures, an evolutionary trait?

Gandhi was in India. Not exactly the most female-oriented society on
Earth. Her daughter-in-law has a real shot at becoming Prime Minister
there, too. Benazir Bhutto and the Bengali ran _Muslim_ countries. Golda
Mier, like Maggie T., ran her country 'cause she had more balls than the
rest of her cabinet combined. Seeing as Moshe Dayan was in Mier's cabinet,
messing with Golda was a non-habit-forming activity. Just ask Sadat.

>
>
>
> > Woman have been sitting in the seats of power since the concept of "Who's
> > in charge here"? was first asked.
>
> yup the glass ceiling and all that.
>
>
> > Let's not forget Cleopatra, either.
>
> a dyke

Hmm. That so? Someone should have told Julie Caesar and Mark Anthony...

>
>
>
>
> > In human socity, basically, yes. Especialy if their religion (A major
> > factor in determining the values of a culture, usually) tells them that
> > women are property.
> >
> > Boikat
>
> so you subscribe to the idea, that religion interferes with evolution.

--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive
ignorance with incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
person incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible
true believer.


Honus

unread,
Mar 16, 1999, 3:00:00 AM3/16/99
to
maff91 wrote:
>
> On 15 Mar 1999 22:42:23 -0500, cem...@home.net (Raven) wrote:

> >Let's see, that's about 11334 things about evolution Jabby's got wrong.
> > 1 thing Jabby got right, but I can't remember what that was.
>

> He's a Manpanzee.

Say, that reminds me! In another thread in talk.origins, something about
an effort to grant human rights to the great apes, someone gave a link
to a site with an article about said effort. I noticed that one of the
pictures accompanying the article was of two bonobos having sex. My
question is this: if Jabriol sees it and it gives him an erection, is it
porn?

Jabs...ask me nicely, and I'll post the link for you. (wink, wink)