ros

Joined

• started 20 topics
• posted 321 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by ros

• 
  264

  Furuli's New Books--Attempt to Refute COJonsson

  by ros in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i just heard that the norwegian watchtower apologist, rolf furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the societys chronology, assyrian, babylonian, egyptian and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible.. title of this first volume is: persian chronology and the length of the babylonian exile of the jews.. i hear that although carl olof jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "gentile times reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute jonssons excellent study which has exposed the watchtowers 1914 date as total folly.. .

  the book can be ordered now from furulis new personal website:.

  http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  I just heard that the Norwegian Watchtower apologist, Rolf Furuli, who esteems himself a biblical scholar of Semetic languages, has completed the first of two volumes he plans to publish on the Society’s chronology, “Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Persian Chronology Compared With the Chronology of the Bible.”
  Title of this first volume is: “Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews.”

  I hear that although Carl Olof Jonsson is not mentioned by name, or reference made to his book "Gentile Times Reconsidered," it is nevertheless apparent that these volumes are an attempt to refute Jonsson’s excellent study which has exposed the Watchtower’s 1914 date as total folly.

  The book can be ordered now from Furuli’s new personal website:
  http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/

  The site even sports his picture.

  ~Ros
• 
  118

  Would some of us be better off as Witnesses?

  by Jerry Bergman in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  i have often wondered if many people would be better off if they stayed witnesses.

  some people i have known have really gone off the deep end after they left the watchtower.

  most all of my family have left now (not due to me as i was cut off from them for years) and many others i know who have left are now bitter atheists or have become pagans and worship stones or new ageers playing with crystals.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  Hi, Jerry!!!
  Nice to see you here.

  For lack of time I haven't read most of this thread, but just wanted to say "HI !!!"

  We haven't corresponded in a long time. I'm delighted how well Diane's book is doing.
  Still cherish the cruise memories.

  Blessings,
• 
  53

  To Ros, Re. "Ouija Please"

  by IslandWoman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hi ros, .

  i was just wondering what the phrase "ouija please" means and what is it's significance?.

  iw

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  IW wrote:

  Just noticed the Forum C Administrator's post, which initiated the original post on this thread, has been removed. Why it was I do not know so am left only to speculate. IW

  It is?? What post? Do speculate, please. :-)
• 
  53

  To Ros, Re. "Ouija Please"

  by IslandWoman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hi ros, .

  i was just wondering what the phrase "ouija please" means and what is it's significance?.

  iw

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  IW:

  In the particular instance you are referring to, it was a play on words as well as intended to convey to certain ones that I am aware of some things that I will leave alone at this point.

  ~Ros
• 
  112

  Thinking about Bill Bowen...

  by Pathofthorns in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was looking over the thread... "should i support bill bowen?".

  i realize i am one of the few people that gave bill somewhat of a difficult time pretty much from the beginning when it was not "fashionable" to do so.

  it was never my hope to see the man reduced to what he has, but rather to gain a better understanding of the issues involved, the intents and goals of silentlambs and to see reasonableness govern everyone's actions in the whole affair.. imo, i don't think there is any other single person in the last while that has done so much to help address the issue of child abuse among jw's while at the same time exposing them for what they really are.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  My apologies if this has already been presented somewhere in all the discussions on this topic. In case not, I thought it might be of interest to quote the "Flock" book:

  Page 93 under the definition of Porneia:

  ... Also included are sexual abuse of children, including practices involving a catamite (a boy kept for purposes of sexual perversion).... Victims of sexual abuse need to be treated with extreme thoughtfulness and kindness. Elders should always do what they reasonably can to protect children from further abuse; follow the Society's directives on such matters. (g85 1/22 p.8)

  Under the topic "Handling Judicial Cases", subheading "What kind of evidence is acceptable?" page 111:
  Quote:

  What kind of evidence is acceptable?There must be two or three eyewitnesses, not just persons repeating what they have heard; no action can be taken if there is only one witness. (Deut. 19:15; John 8:17) . . .Strong circumstantial evidence, . . .
  If there are two or three witnesses to the same kind of wrongdoing but each one is witness to a separate incident, their testimony can be considered. Such evidence may be used to establish guilt, but it is preferable to have two witnesses to the same occurrence of wrongdoing.

  On seeing the above reference in the first quote here to the Jan.22, 1985 Awake!, I looked it up. The magazine featured three articles on child abuse.

  ~Ros

  Edited by - ros on 21 November 2002 23:45:35
• 
  184

  Questions for Creationists

  by IronGland in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what does creationism explain?.

  what does it predict?.

  what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  Realist wrote:

  a question...would you consider the idea that the world rests on a gigantic turtle as naive? i hope so!

  "Naive" is not the word. Try "absurd". Sorry, nonsensical argument imo.
  You also said:

  well i am a geneticist...so i know what i am talking about.

  So is Dr. Francis Collins. And from all indications, he is at a considerably higher ranking in notability than you. (He has been compared in one or two reports as on par with Einstein for our time.)

  Regarding your questions about why a God would make things the way they are, couldn't the same questions be asked of macro-evolution?
  I do have my opinions about it--but they are opinions. And in my opinion, my opinion makes more sense than that evolution made it the way it is. But if it makes you feel better to believe nothing made it that way (i.e., macro-evolution made it that way), then believe it that way. I don't try to convert atheists. I don't think God does either. (Btw, Dr. Francis Collins was once an atheist, too.)
• 
  184

  Questions for Creationists

  by IronGland in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what does creationism explain?.

  what does it predict?.

  what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  Sorry to bring this to the top again.

  Realist,

  Notice your obvious condescending bias. (That should suggest something even to you.)
  You wrote:

  ros,
  
  its great if a person can combine a naive idea such as creationism with a scientific mind and interest. however most people are not able to do so. therefore i don't think its a good idea to teach creationism at highschools as an alternative to evolution.

  And you do this without any viable argument of the points mentioned. I happen to consider myself at least as intelligent as you (naive as it may seem), not to mention the likes of renouned scientists such as Dr. Francis Collins.

  That being said, I agree with you that creationism should not be taught as an alternative to evolution. It is not.

  ~Ros
• 
  184

  Questions for Creationists

  by IronGland in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what does creationism explain?.

  what does it predict?.

  what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  Realist said:

  in principle everyone can believe how he pleases. the only problem is that believe in creation hampers scientific progress and understanding. many children grow up with this superstious nonsense and therefore are prevented from getting interested in biology and many other scientific fields. therefore especially the US (in contrast to europe) looses many good people.

  Personally, I think I have seen the reverse to more aptly be the case--especially among people who leave a high-control fundamentalist religion. Once they leave the fundy religious perspective, they seem inclined to reject any viability for faith, which I can understand since they may have little in their frame of reference to draw on. My Christian faith and biblical faith has very little in common with the fundamentalist perspective. I don't generally get into it on public forums because it get just as in-depth and time-consuming to debate as certain scientific theories, including evolution.

  Many notable scientists are theists and even Christian. An outstanding example is Dr. Francis Collins. Here are some links (and quote) if you're interested.

  ===============================================

  http://www.genome.gov/page.cfm?pageID=10000351
  http://www.counterbalance.net/bio/coll-body.html

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/human_genome/753711.stm
  The healer-believer: Francis Collins

  Francis Collins is a committed Christian and heads the publicly-funded National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in Washington DC, US. [He is quoted]:

  "It's interesting when you read the life of Christ how much of his time he spent healing the sick."
  

  Francis Collins
  He describes himself as a physician-scientist and says his sole aim is to cure disease.

  Dr Collins has been directly involved in ground-breaking human gene research. With colleagues, he identified the gene for cystic fibrosis in 1989, the gene for neurofibromatosis in 1990 and the gene for Huntingdon's Disease in 1993.

  Dr Collins draws much of his inspiration and scientific drive from his faith.

  ======================================

  This is but one example.

  ~Ros
• 
  184

  Questions for Creationists

  by IronGland in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what does creationism explain?.

  what does it predict?.

  what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  Rem:

  If the skeptics would always be as explicit as you in making clear their argument is with FUNDY-creationists, and not simply those who believe in creation by a creator, rather than evolution from nothing, I would not disagree. The implication constantly arises from skeptic presentations that one cannot--for example--be a notable scientist and a Christian. (Course, I also stand on the point that one can be spiritual, even a Christian, without being infected with religion.)

  ~Ros
• 
  184

  Questions for Creationists

  by IronGland in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  what does creationism explain?.

  what does it predict?.

  what about blind cave fish with residual eyes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  ros

  The argument between atheists/agnostics versus believers comes down to the definition of terms, and neither side seems to stay on track.

  Creationism does not necessarily mean fundyism. I consider myself a "creationist" because I believe everything came from a creator rather than from nothing.

  It is a fallacy promoted by skeptics that Creationists necessarily reject evolution. It's not creationism versus evolution; it's creationism versus atheism.

  ~Ros