Posts by Iron Rod

28

grateful to my Elders..No talks, no FS time, no privledges....no problem!

by oompa in

so one year of lots of questions and showing doubts, and missing quite a few meetings but still going out in service, doing mics, reading, hall projects...then i get the new light from society regarding the letter i sent them (wow, stunned me, blew me away) and i let them know how i felt about it and i quit the ministry after 40 active years.

nobody says anything about this, no counsel, no will you go out with us on saturday.

not a single "were is your time for the month" phone call.

Iron Rod

Hey oompa..I love to read your posts.You have a great sense of humor!

Glad to hear that your Hellders are leaving you in peace. My situation has been the same so far. In fact,there is a "brother" that a few months ago I would have said was my best friend who won't even talk to me.My JW wife called him to ask him to "talk some sense into me." He said no;he was washing his hands of me. Keep in mind that not only have I not been disfellowshiped,no one (including my wife) knows how far gone I am. 99% of the people at my hall probably haven't even missed me. So much for "By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves" huh?

BTW...I would like to see that letter you were talking about if you wouldn't mind PMing it to me.

60

Iranian leader's opening rant...sounded like a JW

by restrangled in

jw
friends

it was a total sermon about their (islam) version of god and how he feels about the entire scientific and academia communities.

.

your take on the whole thing?.

Iron Rod

AllTimeJeff....I'm glad that you said that you were kidding about the "Republican saddle" comment( I hope that you read my post to hillary_step above) I've never even voted for anyone. Up until about nine months ago, I was a good little Shrub who was "no part of the world."

Thank you for finally addressing Salman Pak. I was beginning to think that everyone was going to ignore that.The info that you provided was interesting and I'll certainly do some more research on it as well.I think that this story,like the story concerning Wissam Al Zahawie going to Niger to buy uranium may never be proven conclusively right or wrong, but it does seem that the consensus is going against them at this point.( The last that I heard, British Intelligence still maintained that the Niger story was true,though I know that they are in sparse company on this) I assure you that it wasn't my intention to play games with semantics concerning your assertion that there were no terrorists in Iraq. I honestly took your statement literally because I have in fact debated people who have said just that.(BTW -at this point you made a comment about O'Reilly...in case you missed my comment about him on another thread, I can't stand him. I think he's an arrogant prick)

I congratulate you on sitting through the hearings,you're a better man than I. I couldn't sit through all of them. I can also assure you that I would not try to insult your intelligence. Of course the Administration wanted people to make their own mental connections about Saddam and Al-Queda. But I,like you try to be as accurate as possible,and again I debate with many people who make all manner of incorrect statements about all of this. I'll tell you what, from now on I will take for granted that you are intelligent and well informed,thus not one to make that type of broad (and incorrect)generalization.

I never said that Iraq was involved in 9-11,so thats not relevant to our discourse. (but I do understand why you mention it)

As far as WMD's my earlier comments to you regarding the things that Bill Clinton said in the late 90's are key.Recall that at that time he was saying that Saddam had WMD's,and many other world leaders were agreeing with that. Now, because I'm a reasonable guy, I'm willing to admit that all those countries may have been wrong. Intelligence gathering is tricky business. However, I would hope that you would grant the possibility that perhaps they were right. That is: Saddam had WMD's and that the 14 month UN pontification-fest afforded plenty of time to move them. There were convoys of trucks seen by satellite leaving Iraq during this time. (No, that doesn't prove anything conclusively,but it is not an unreasonable hypothesis.)

Your voting decisions are your business...as I said I've never voted at all. Personally, I think that, with a few exceptions,they all(regardless of whether there is a "D" or an "R" in front of their names) have their heads way up their asses.

Like I told hillary_step, my concern is stopping terrorism. I would be interested to hear what suggestions you might have on how to do this.( That statement was not meant flippantly. I respect your intelligence and I like to consider other opinions. Well....if its the opinion of an intelligent person.)

60

Iranian leader's opening rant...sounded like a JW

by restrangled in

jw
friends

it was a total sermon about their (islam) version of god and how he feels about the entire scientific and academia communities.

.

your take on the whole thing?.

Iron Rod

hillary_step...I would like to say that I tip my hat to people like you and AllTimeJeff. It's really great to be able to debate these issues with civil,principled, and intelligent people. Its awesome that here (unlike your local Kingdom Hall) we can have different opinions and even discuss them rationally.

I actually agree for the most part with your view regarding the political parties. I am not a member of either party, and you wont see me debating other political issues. I,like many people around the world, was deeply affected by 9-11. I believe that terrorism should be the number one issue to address. Thats my focus here,not one party over another. Even my earlier comments to Jeff regarding the Democrats flip-flop regarding Iraq was not meant as an all-encompassing endorsement of Republicans.( there was actually another point I was trying to make there,I'm sure that you probably got it). For example, Joe Lieberman is a Democrat, and he has been consistently in favor of the Iraq war from the beginning. I am also relieved to have been mistaken regarding the point you were making vis-a-vis Bush causing the terrorism. As well informed as you are, I'm sure that you are aware that there are people who try to infer that.

I do have to question your use of Donald Trumps statement. He is not exactly scolar or statesman. I turn your attention to his recent very public spat with Rosie O'Donnell. I would say that that situation made him look like an "idiot" or shameless publicity hound.

Anyway,have a good day!

60

Iranian leader's opening rant...sounded like a JW

by restrangled in

jw
friends

it was a total sermon about their (islam) version of god and how he feels about the entire scientific and academia communities.

.

your take on the whole thing?.

Iron Rod

hillary_step...The one point that I will concede to you is that you indeed did not say "Bush linked Saddam to 9-11." I'm so accustomed to people saying that that I jumped the gun. I will be certain to read more carefully what you write. After all, I would hate to be accused of having "reading comprehension issues" by one of my friends here on JWD.......As for my "second point being even more misinformed"...It appears that you missed my second point.You talked about how Bush,through his blunders, had provoked nations like Iran. (referring to them as part of the "Axis of Evil" etc.) Now I've heard that arguement before,too. Usually the reasoning is that Bush caused all of this;there was no terrorism or hatred of the West before he came along,etc. No, I'm not quoting exactly word for word what you said,but you know which statements I'm referring to. Was that not your point? If I'm misconstruing what you meant,by all means correct me. Anyway, thats the way I took it,so I listed some of the terrorist acts that took place long before Bush took office and challenged you to find a way to blame Bush for those. You then launched into a diatribe about the Shah and America being rotten SOB's,totally side-stepping my actual point.(For the record-I don't think that you have reading comprehension issues. You were just in a hurry to get on with displaying your vastly superior intellect. That was your point in your closing remarks about education, was it not?) You also (in another previous post) went on a bit about what a great country Iran is.. (no, I'm not going to tell you to move there) Did you miss my earlier statement to AllTimeJeff that my issues with Iran center on the Iranian government, not the Iranian people? I wholeheartly agree with you regarding the rich history of the Middle Eastern people as far as education,philosophy,etc. One would have to be ignorant of history not to.

AllTimeJeff, with all due respect, how can you say that there were "No terrorists in Iraq"? Just one quick point: Twice on this thread I have mentioned Salman Pak.No one here has addressed that.They trained terrorists how to take over a passenger plane there. Who do you think the trainees were?

Something that Democrats don't want to talk about is how in the late 90's,Bill Clinton was sounding all the same warnings about Saddam that Bush later did. He spoke of the necessity of taking Saddam out. Elected Democrats(almost to a member) agreed. What makes this really amazing to consider is that these same Democrats, who had no problem with what Clinton was proposing pre 9-11,suddenly had major issues with it when Bush was saying it post 9-11. Wonder what the difference was ...

Satanus, the obvious reason for the statistic you cited (if accurate-source please) is that they don't argue over the death penalty there.

barry..if you're still listening out there...heres to youand John Howard

17

The Universal court case is rigged.........or unwinnable.

by Iron Rod in

first let me say that i'm at a point in my life where i don't even buy the idea that the bible is gods word.

this is just a thought exercise.

second, since there are so many smart folks on this board, this has possibly already been discussed.

Iron Rod

Hey Narkissos, I meant to say this in my last post,but I forgot. Thanks for correctly pointing out that this is a JW-specific doctrine. I should have specified that. I supposed that "I was carried away in the power of the spirit"and painted with too broad a brush.

Also.....It's been said that "Brevity is the soul of wit." You are a great example of that. You nailed my point more effectively in a few lines than I did in a couple of dozen.I've noticed that you have a way of doing that........

Thanks again!

60

Iranian leader's opening rant...sounded like a JW

by restrangled in

jw
friends

it was a total sermon about their (islam) version of god and how he feels about the entire scientific and academia communities.

.

your take on the whole thing?.

Iron Rod

hillary_step,

First of all, the Bush administration did not link Saddam to 9-11.That is often put forth by people,but they didn't. I often wondered why they didn't. I suggest for example that you check the info on Salman Pak, as I said before. It doesn't prove Saddam was involved in 9-11, but it proves that he was training terrorists in how to take over airplanes. Lets see....did that happen on 9-11....

Second, I always love it when people try to blame Bush for the animosity that the Iranian government (and others in the Middle East) have for America. Lets see....who held American hostages for 444 days in the 70's? Oh yeah, Iran (Amadinijad was involved in that one,too.Just in case you didn't know) I'd love to see how you can blame Bush for that. Or the WTC bombing in '93...or the U.S.S Cole? Bill Clinton was President then,remember?

Now ,I'm not saying nuke Mecca or anything extreme like that...but for crying out loud...you have to take the actual terrorists seriously. I guarantee you that they do.

17

The Universal court case is rigged.........or unwinnable.

by Iron Rod in

first let me say that i'm at a point in my life where i don't even buy the idea that the bible is gods word.

this is just a thought exercise.

second, since there are so many smart folks on this board, this has possibly already been discussed.

Iron Rod

Thanks for the great responses everyone! I knew there would be some good ones.

Now, heres something else closely related to consider: Why should there even be a universal court case to start with? Think about it.....Satan,Adam and Eve were supposedly perfect,so when they sinned they should have been executed immediately(since that is supposedly Gods standard...."soul that is sinning,etc...)

Of course the JW answer is "Well, God couldn't do that.The angels were watching. They might have wondered whether or not Satan was right." Wait a minute...angels? Beings who, as I said before,are superior in every way to us? Beings who shared a close relationship with God for perhaps millenia? Beings who knew better than we ever could that God is "a God of justice,in whom there is no injustice"..? They would have doubted the rightfulness of Gods judgement in destroying the rebels? Does that seem reasonable? In fact, it seems to me that possibly the reason that one-third of the angels defected ( as the story goes)was because they obsered that what Satan said in Eden came true.

Not to put too fine a point on it,but....We inferior little "grasshoppers" were consigned to suffer,toil and die just to avoid the possibility that some of the angels might have had doubts? Is that sick or is is it just me?

17

The Universal court case is rigged.........or unwinnable.

by Iron Rod in

first let me say that i'm at a point in my life where i don't even buy the idea that the bible is gods word.

this is just a thought exercise.

second, since there are so many smart folks on this board, this has possibly already been discussed.

Iron Rod

First let me say that I'm at a point in my life where I don't even buy the idea that the Bible is Gods word. This is just a thought exercise. Second, since there are so many smart folks on this board, this has possibly already been discussed. (As I'm typing, I'm thinking that it sounds like a subject that Terry might bring up. Thats a complement Terry; you're a deep thinker.) Okay, here goes: JW's(and other fundies)believe that a Supreme Being created the angels(including Satan) then for an undisclosed amount of time part of the universe and somewhere along the line...humans. Science and common sense dictate that there had to be a long time in between the angels creation and that of humans. (Perhaps millenia,it would have taken a long time for the Earth itself to be ready for human habitation) So,God(s) allows Satan, a vastly superior in every way being (a being who,as noted above had thousands of years or more knowledge and experience) to test his new creation (who were comparatively,infants)and of course,they fail. Now....fast forward to now. We,thanks to original sin,are now inferior to Adam,yet we're supposed to face that same vastly superior in every way adversary and his cohorts? That's impossible! At this point the JW's would say "Yes,but we have Jehovah's Spirit to help us." Okay, then this trial is rigged and proves nothing. Remember, Satans challenge was that humans could get along fine without God. He also challenged God to remove the "hedge", or protection, from Job and see if he(and by extension,you could say us) would then turn away from God. So if God is helping us,Satans challenge goes unanswered. If God doesn't help us,we are in a no-win situation. It seems to me that the only way to settle it fairly would be to lock up Satan and the Demons now,so they can't interfere,then give humans a specific length of time to govern their own affairs. What do you guys (and gals) think?

35

Would you pay to meet me in person??

by IP_SEC in

jw
friends

hypothetically

Iron Rod

No, but I would pay to meet in person any of the gorgeous ladies whose avatars grace this thread.

BTW- i ccan typpe wwwwwithh oonee hhanddd.

76

Bill O'Reilly- Restaurant was nice, ''even though it's run by blacks''

by nvrgnbk in

jw
friends

september 26, 2007 by faiz shakir, amanda terkel, satyam khanna, .

matt corley, ali frick, and jeremy richmond/div> o'reilly surprised restaurant was nice, 'even though it's run by blacks': fox news' bill o'reilly recently dined with the rev.

al sharpton at sylvia's, a famous african-american-owned restaurant in harlem.

Iron Rod

Sorry, but I just don't see the "out of context" arguement.

Just to put what I'm about to say in context....I'm a conservative minded person myself, but I can't stand Bill O'Reilly. He comes across as a pompous jerk to me.

What do you think.....is this another ImusGate?