Rod P

Joined

• started 33 topics
• posted 673 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Rod P

• 
  46

  "Science is not Bad, but there is Bad Science."

  by Rod P in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  don't get me wrong here.

  nor will i deny that there are men and women of science who do not work for money or fame or glory, but rather for "truth", and even for the good of the human race and this planet.. scientists are supposed to be unbiased in their research using the universally accepted "scientific method", being completely objective, and working in the sterile environment of the laboratory, removed from outside contamination and social influence.

  they themselves are supposed to approach a subject or investigation with patience and open-mindedness, without prejudice or pre-conceived notions.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rod P

  Sad Emo,

  Interesting, but where did you get your information?

  Rod P.
• 
  16

  Penetrating the GB's deceptive facade of christian love.

  by greendawn in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the gb of the jws either directly or more often by implication consistently try to come across as people that deeply care about and love the so called truth, jehovah, and all the brotherhood.

  this is however a pretence something totally artificial and out of their character as they are in fact deeply into practicing deceit and exploiting the "brotherhood".

  what instances can you recall where you managed to see through that deceptive loving persona the face of the rapacious ruthless wolf underneath?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rod P

  One of the big ideas they have is the thing they call "Agape - Love" (from the Greek). In plain English, it means "Principled Love".

  This is in serious contrast with "Eros - Love" (from the Greek), which is called "Romantic Love".

  The love between a husband and wife is, for the most part "Eros". But JW's are supposed to show love primarily on the basis of "Agape". What does that mean?

  Well, if you do something wrong or bad, then the Elders are supposed to correct you and counsel you out of Agape Love. And if you do not repent, then they must punish you, even disfellowship you, which they also see as Agape Love. They think that if they give you the ultimate punishment- DF, that this will cause you to see the error of your ways, and motivate you to repent and come back into the fold.

  When I was married, I loved my wife deeply, and at the start, the feelings were quite mutual. This was Eros at its best. But then, I converted to Mormonism, and suddenly we were living in a spiritually divided home. Since I was DF'ed, my wife could no longer discuss anything that had to do with matters spiritual, even if it had to do with how we wanted to raise our three lovely daughters.

  For the first six months in this state, my wife used to tell me "I cannot love someone who does not love Jehovah." I tried to convince her that I did not love God less than her. It's just that what I believed about God was different than the JW version. Of course, that fell on deaf ears. I wrote away to the WTBTS headquarters in Toronto, Ontario stating my wife's position, and then asking them if it was OK for her wife to love her husband, even if I was disfellowshipped. It took them six months to answer my letter, but they did say that they understood how my wife felt, but that scripturally speaking, she was still required to show love towards her husband. When I showed my wife the letter, she did not dispute it. On the other hand, she then began to tell me how she would "give her husband his due", but everything she did would be done on the basis of Agape, not Eros.

  After years of living like this, one thing became quite evident. Agape is very, very COLD and INDIFFERENT and IMPERSONAL. In my opinion, it is all a facade and an excuse, and even amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. This is what I see as the "GB's deceptive fraud of christian love", as stated in the title of this thread.

  Rod P.
• 
  32

  Should dubs be hanging out in casinos?

  by unbeliever in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  mom and i went to have a bite to eat at one of her favorite restaurants which is in a casino.

  lo and behold as we were leaving in walks 5 of her dub friends who were going to eat at the same place.

  she was talking and talking and i got tired of standing there being ignored so i walked away and started playing the slots which was well in their eye site.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rod P

  1 Thessalonians 5:22:

  "Abstain from all appearance of evil." (KJV)

  The idea here is that as a "Christian" one should be careful about appearances, as you may stumble someone against accepting the "truth" simply be creating the wrong impression. It is not merely the avoidance of evil, but avoiding even the appearance of evil.

  Suppose, as a JW, you knocked on the door of a householder last weekend. He/she invites you in, and you have a nice discussion, as a minister of Jehovah. You share this JW message about having the "truth", and how you let the Bible be your guide, and you talk about the end of this "wicked system of things" which is soon to come. This householder listens with intense interest, and you see that he/she would be an excellent candidate to start having bible studies with.

  Now, this same person, who felt this high degree of respect for you as a representative of Jehovah, now sees you in this gambling establishment. This householder thinks to himself/herself,"What's this minister of God doing here doing in a place like this, if he/she is supposed to be Christian? Well, that looks like a hypocrit to me, so I don't think I am interested in further conversations with that person, if that's the way these JW's are!"

  Do you see how easily this can be a cause for "stumbling"? It is all about the "appearance of evil", which must be avoided.

  I remember when I was a JW back in the 1960's that we had a lot of discussion about this whole topic. One of the fellows back then told me another incident that might happen. Suppose I was at the Kingdom Hall, and I saw a brother wearing this loud tie that really bothered me. Then it would be the duty of that brother, in a spirit of humility, to not wear that tie, lest it be a cause for stumbling of another Christian brother. The Apostle Paul had a number of comments about this, but I don't recall which scriptures they were in the New Testament without doing some research. But they are there and they are pretty plain.

  Gambling and casinos are filled with people who are into drugs and prostitution and all kinds of evil and worldly things. Legs are broken, even murders committed (putting contracts out on people) who do not pay their gambling debts, etc. Many lives and families have been destroyed or ripped apart over gambling. This is the real world of the gambling environment. Would a true minister of Jehovah want to create a wrong impression about spending their time in such environments, rubbing shoulders with bad associations who are steeped in this worldly wicked system of things of whom Satan the Devil is its god.

  Now, having left the JW's many years ago, I no longer subscribe to all these premises. I am simply trying to get across the point that if you choose to be a true JW, then you must not, at the same time, spend your time in such establishments to save a few bucks on a meal, when doing so runs the risk of stumbling someone who might otherwise see the "truth" by your Christian example.

  Rod P.
• 
  46

  "Science is not Bad, but there is Bad Science."

  by Rod P in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  don't get me wrong here.

  nor will i deny that there are men and women of science who do not work for money or fame or glory, but rather for "truth", and even for the good of the human race and this planet.. scientists are supposed to be unbiased in their research using the universally accepted "scientific method", being completely objective, and working in the sterile environment of the laboratory, removed from outside contamination and social influence.

  they themselves are supposed to approach a subject or investigation with patience and open-mindedness, without prejudice or pre-conceived notions.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rod P

  VM44,

  Thank you for that interesting article.

  However, I was intending to start a whole new thread dedicated to the Big Bang Theory, which you are going to see here on JWD Forum very shortly. Please watch for it. Would you then mind posting this article again, but on that thread? Appreciate it.

  Rod P.
• 
  18

  sect or cult that does not eat pork?

  by carla in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  any one offhand know of any sect or cult that does not allow it's members to eat pork?

  other than jewish.

  thanks, carla

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rod P

  Hmmm. I might be interested in joining your cult IF you serve us all breakfast in bed.

  Rod P.
• 
  32

  What happend to Japan and its explosive Growth??????????????

  by JT in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  when i was at bethel during the 80's japan was the darling of the society, gb lyord barry, used to brag about their zeal all the time and dog us in the west-.

  they set and all time record of all 100-200 consective peaks in pub and growth, then all of a sudden the bottom fell out, what do you think happend.

  i do recall barry mentioning that their culture is one that makes them good follers.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rod P

  This is all news to me.

  I left the JW's back in 1966. In the 1970's I was reading from non-JW sources about what was happening in Africa.

  In the jungles of Africa there were many different tribal chiefs. If the JW missionaries converted a chief to the JW religion, then that became the religion of the whole tribe. So, for example, if a tribe had 1500 members in that community, they automatically had 1500 new members (i.e. men, women and children, with baptisms for any who were of the age of accountability).

  Then afterwards, when the Chief decided he didn't believe the religion anymore, they had to disfellowship not only the chief (for apostasy), but the rest of the tribe as well, since they followed their chief into whatever he believed next..

  I am not saying Japanese society operates exactly like Africa, but aren't there a great many Japanese villagers who follow their leaders, and hence they have a lot of cultish groups?

  Therefore my question is "If the numbers were/are dropping off, is this part of the influence?"

  Rod P.
• 
  46

  "Science is not Bad, but there is Bad Science."

  by Rod P in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  don't get me wrong here.

  nor will i deny that there are men and women of science who do not work for money or fame or glory, but rather for "truth", and even for the good of the human race and this planet.. scientists are supposed to be unbiased in their research using the universally accepted "scientific method", being completely objective, and working in the sterile environment of the laboratory, removed from outside contamination and social influence.

  they themselves are supposed to approach a subject or investigation with patience and open-mindedness, without prejudice or pre-conceived notions.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rod P

  Tetra,

  Thank you for your comments. I take many of your points, and don't really have a problem with them. I was trying hard NOT to compare or liken Science and Scientists with Religion and Religionists. Perhaps I was not totally successful in that regard, in which case your critical or editorial comments have served a useful purpose.

  Part of where I am coming from is my association with two individuals over the years who I sincerely feel have not been treated fairly or kindly by the scientific community. I have a number of books written by one in particular, and he has spent his whole life sincerely dedicated to his cause and research. He has presented his material to a number of scientists for peer review, and I have seen some of their interesting replies. Many find his theories and thesis quite fascinating and of merit, but stop short of any kind of public endorsement or support precisely because of their own positions and reputations. One states this in his reply letter as a candid admission to that effect. My friend the scientist just does not fit into their mould. Funding has been somewhat successful, but in spite of, not because of their support. Still, he is not bitter nor anti-establishment. We call him "Mild-Mannered Mel".

  "Working in the sterile environment of the laboratory" is, of course, a bit rhetorical, as we all know that scientists do do work "in the field" and not just in the laboratory. I was trying to emphasize the notion of scientific objectivity, operating without prejudice or outside influence that might compromise the research and the outcomes.

  At the same time, I am sure you are aware that there are instances where science and scientists have been placed on pedestals, and treated almost like they were invincible and beyond question. Bias and motive ARE factors, and we must all be aware and wary of that. After all, scientists are human too. The examples I mentioned serve to illustrate that.

  Anyway, onward and upward.

  Rod P.
• 
  129

  JWD maps - Where are you?

  by Lady Lee in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  due to a problem with the server i was using for the maps i have had to move them so we can still have access to them and post them here.

  so if you were wondering where we are from.

  or how close you are to other jwd posters in your area just take a look.. ballistic has done an amazing job with the map of the uk you can find it at .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rod P

  I wouldn't mind being put on the map for British Columbia, Canada (near Vancouver)

  Rod P.
• 
  46

  "Science is not Bad, but there is Bad Science."

  by Rod P in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  don't get me wrong here.

  nor will i deny that there are men and women of science who do not work for money or fame or glory, but rather for "truth", and even for the good of the human race and this planet.. scientists are supposed to be unbiased in their research using the universally accepted "scientific method", being completely objective, and working in the sterile environment of the laboratory, removed from outside contamination and social influence.

  they themselves are supposed to approach a subject or investigation with patience and open-mindedness, without prejudice or pre-conceived notions.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rod P

  Don't get me wrong here. I am not anti-scientist, nor anti-science. Nor will I deny that there are men and women of science who do not work for money or fame or glory, but rather for "Truth", and even for the good of the human race and this planet.

  Scientists are supposed to be unbiased in their research using the universally accepted "Scientific Method", being completely objective, and working in the sterile environment of the laboratory, removed from outside contamination and social influence. They themselves are supposed to approach a subject or investigation with patience and open-mindedness, without prejudice or pre-conceived notions. Experimental measurements and results are supposed to be meticulously recorded and subjected to review by their peers, and the results must be replicable by other scientists.

  In the real world, however, that's not what takes place. How is scientific research accomplished? First of all, scientific research projects require funding. Whoever puts up the money, more often than not, prescribes the conditions and the mandate for the institution they are funding, whether it be governments, multi-national corporations or private investors.

  If you were a scientist working for a corporation whose reason for being in business is to make a profit, then the scope of research for the employer you work for will be narrowed down to areas of research with economic profit potential only. If, on the other hand, you worked for a governmental military operation, or the CIA, then certain social constraints would be imposed (eg. human embryo cloning, weapons of mass destruction, space travel).

  When it comes to the academic process of scientific investigation and experimentation for developing new knowledge, there is a certain socialization that goes on. In the university environment, professors of various scientific disciplines build their own careers within the boundaries, methodologies and conventions of their chosen disciplines. Their peers and predecessors have an almost unwritten code that you stray from the narrow path at your own peril, even if your novel or maverick approach would lead you to new and valuable discoveries.

  This is a powerful social or political tool to keep everyone in line with the prevailing "wisdom" of the day. Fail to conform and you will be criticized, ridiculed, branded, even expunged from their little academic club. After all, the Professors who have already established their prestigious careers and published their works cannot afford to have individual and collective establishment "wisdom" successfully challenged or overthrown, least of all by some young and budding scientific "upstarts". Too much has been invested thus far, and too much is at stake. The best way to do this, from a position of political power and security of tenure, is to brand the underling as a heretic or a quack. Cast him/her/them out from their midst, and let them then be forced to find the nesessary funding on their own, which is almost impossible if your reputation and credibility has been slandered or discredited.

  Hence, today there are many legitimate scientists who are conducting their own private and independent research projects from outside the "establishment". By sheer weight of personality, communications skills, etc. they did manage to arrange certain funding for their favorite project(s).

  Some of these, on the other hand, are new and innovative thinkers who deserve to be heard, but are hampered by the lack of funding.. Perhaps some of their new discoveries and insights are at the very frontiers of new scientific breakthroughs, which may well stand the conventional scientific community on its collective head.

  From the annals of science we find several examples of scientific bias at work. Here are a few:

  1) Science and Racism- where things like craniometry and phrenology and I.Q. tests were used to prove that non-white races were inferior.

  http://www.sciencelives.com/racism.html

  2) Science and the Tobacco Industry- The tobacco industry has used a lot of their own scientific research for years to discount the real compelling scientific eidence that there was a connection between smoking and cancer. However, even their own research showed there was a direct causal link, and this information was kept hidden away.

  http://www.idrc.ca/research/ev-28826-201-1DO_TOPIC.html

  3) "Drinking Milk Prevents Breast Cancer" (NOWAC breast cancer study)

  I am not certain which side of the issue to regard as "the truth" here, but it seems clear that one side or the other is biased. Perhaps both?!!

  Robert Cohen- Critic of the Study http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/notmilk/message/716

  Syd Baumel- Critic of Robert Cohen http://www.mts.net/~Cohen_Bias.html

  4) Global Warming and the Kyoto Accord

  While there is a lot of good science being done here, and scientists cannot seem to reach a consensus at present, I am, at the same time, skeptical of the motives of big governmnets with wealthy economies as well as big business (especially the multi-national corporations), and who I think are in league with each other on this issue. I suspect that they are all maneuvering to find excuses to delay taking the necessary steps to reduce pollution and our over-dependence on fossil fuels, and the massive clear-cutting of the rain forests (the lungs of the earth). I think that governments and businesses are therefore funding a lot of scientists to find ways to justify those excuses, thereby protecting their vested interests:

  http://www.ctv.ca.servlet/ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/1037236865105_50/?hub=SciTech&subhub=Pri

  http://www.cei.org/utils/printer.cfm?AID=4404

  http://global warming.org

  http://www.physorg.com/news3842.html

  So what am I getting at, after all of the above? I am suggesting that it is Bias, both from within and without the scientific community that impedes real scientific progress, and indeed, is the real enemy. And because of this, I think that more consideration should be given to those areas of scientific enquiry and research that are not under the thumbs of the Academic Establishment, Big Government and Big Business.

  Furthermore, I would contend that there is some very interesting and non-conventional science that does give us some real pause to question the prevailing wisdom and scientific opinions that are extant today. And I would challenge each of you scientifically-bent readers on this JWD forum to consider them "without bias or prejudice". Instead of just pouncing on it because it is new or different or not the norm, I would invite you to suspend judgement long enough to consider it's possible merits, and then give reasons why you think it cannot be true or a scientific possibility, even probability. Then let's all discuss it fairly and rationally? How about it?

  Now, the first topics I want to get into with you all is about the following:

  1) The Big Bang Theory of the Universe

  2) Einstein's General and Special Theory of Relativity. This will include the question of the finite limit of the speed of light, the question of the Ether (Aether) and the Michaelson-Morley experiment.

  During the course of these two discussions, I would also like to get into a discussion as to the possible implications for these.

  I will be posting these on new and separate threads shortly, owing to their length. I will deal with the Big Bang theory firstly.

  Rod P.
• 
  14

  Versions of the Bible

  by damselfly in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  although i do not have any plans to immerse myself in religion in the near future, i am curious as to which version of the bible would be recommended by fellow posters?

  and why do you prefer other others?.

  damselfly

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rod P

  Terry,

  So where are your 2 Stories of Noah? Your last post makes reference to them, but I don't see your reconstructed accounts anywhere.

  Great post, BTW.

  Rod P.