Why are Jehovah's Witnesses reluctant to discuss their faith?

[Jose Fly]

The truthful religion should not interfere with science.

Well, I don't think any religion should interfere with science, but to be fair I don't believe Jehovah's Witnesses actually "interfere" with science.

JW's should amend their approach to science. Right, please?

That's not really what I'm getting at with this thread. I'm not advocating for the JW organization to do anything or fundamentally change how they operate. I'm just pondering why the Witnesses here at RF completely refuse to acknowledge that being a Witness (and all that entails) influences their views on science.

 

[paarsurrey]

Well, I don't think any religion should interfere with science, but to be fair I don't believe Jehovah's Witnesses actually "interfere" with science.


That's not really what I'm getting at with this thread. I'm not advocating for the JW organization to do anything or fundamentally change how they operate. I'm just pondering why the Witnesses here at RF completely refuse to acknowledge that being a Witness (and all that entails) influences their views on science.

Science identifies its domain and goes on its own course independent of any world-view/no world-view.

Regards

 

[tas8831]

I will address this in the new thread, but I do find that comment most... projective, seeing as how you rely on an essay by 2 creationists published on the CNS website which is not considered a reliable source due to its far right extremist bias:

CNS News - Media Bias/Fact Check

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE


A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate CNS News Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of propaganda and numerous failed fact checks.

Let me guess - that site is 'biased', too?

And I will also add that I am duly impressed that you copy-pasted from your unreliable source as your primary means of response.

Not off to a good start, but I expected little else.

I suppose that it could be just a coincidence, but I note that after I exposed hockey's source as fake news, and started a new thread to discuss the creationist lies, he stopped replying to me, and apparently reported my new thread as a "call out" (which is why it was deleted).

Again, it must just be a coincidence, for a good Christian chap could not possibly be so disingenuous...

 

[Jose Fly]

I suppose that it could be just a coincidence, but I note that after I exposed hockey's source as fake news, and started a new thread to discuss the creationist lies, he stopped replying to me, and apparently reported my new thread as a "call out" (which is why it was deleted).

Yeah, the Jehovah's Witnesses seem to be quite adept at reporting posts where anyone calls them on their behavior. I guess this is the kind of forum where you can come in, post all sorts of nonsense, and behave dishonestly, but if anyone points out that behavior, mgm't will delete it. Pretty strange IMO.

 

[paarsurrey]

Well, I don't think any religion should interfere with science, but to be fair I don't believe Jehovah's Witnesses actually "interfere" with science.


That's not really what I'm getting at with this thread. I'm not advocating for the JW organization to do anything or fundamentally change how they operate. I'm just pondering why the Witnesses here at RF completely refuse to acknowledge that being a Witness (and all that entails) influences their views on science.

JW's are very active to preach, they cannot be reluctant to discuss/debate.
JWs, please!

Regards

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yeah, the Jehovah's Witnesses seem to be quite adept at reporting posts where anyone calls them on their behavior. I guess this is the kind of forum where you can come in, post all sorts of nonsense, and behave dishonestly, but if anyone points out that behavior, mgm't will delete it. Pretty strange IMO.

I don't recall ever directing any attention to management concerning another's post. (If I have, staff can call me on it.) I've approached people privately, through conversation mode, and told them to stop rating my posts as "funny", which is a violation. Someone did that just recently, but I didn't mention it to them.

Some here bring attention to themselves, attacking the poster's intelligence, education or motives, rather than the content of their post.
Sometimes I'll just ignore them.

What 'bad' behavior, exactly, do you think I've exhibited?

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't recall ever directing any attention to management concerning another's post. (If I have, staff can call me on it.)

That's good.

What 'bad' behavior, exactly, do you think I've exhibited?

Why do you ask that?

 

[tas8831]

Some here bring attention to themselves, attacking the poster's intelligence, education or motives, rather than the content of their post.

The content - like the stuff you plagiarized? I ask about that because when someone copy-pastes the work of others and presents it as their argument, and replies to any attempts to discuss the merits of the copy-pasted stuff via ignoring them, dismissing the counter-arguments, and/or reiterating the material in question, then it certainly does speak to their motives and knowledge, does it not?

I mean, you told me to watch my bias, even as your "counter argument" was to link to some idiotic right-wing propaganda written by 2 creationists and published on a site considered unreliable due to frequent failures of fact-checks and for pushing fake news.

Amazing - the lengths religionists will go to in order to prop up their failing beliefs.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The content - like the stuff you plagiarized? I ask about that because when someone copy-pastes the work of others and presents it as their argument, and replies to any attempts to discuss the merits of the copy-pasted stuff via ignoring them, dismissing the counter-arguments, and/or reiterating the material in question, then it certainly does speak to their motives and knowledge, does it not?

I mean, you told me to watch my bias, even as your "counter argument" was to link to some idiotic right-wing propaganda written by 2 creationists and published on a site considered unreliable due to frequent failures of fact-checks and for pushing fake news.

Amazing - the lengths religionists will go to in order to prop up their failing beliefs.

“...replies to any attempts to discuss the merits of the copy-pasted stuff via ignoring them....”

Lol.
“Ignoring” someone is not replying.

You think you ‘attempt to discuss’? Please spare me. Man, all you do is berate and belittle. And you wonder why I ignore you?

“Failing beliefs”? You don’t even know what I believe, let alone understand them.

And Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide are growing, not failing.

 

[tas8831]

And you wonder why I ignore you?

I am pretty sure I know - same reason nPeace and Deele do - I have called you out on your plagiarism and reliance upon incompetent and biased sources, even as you foolishly accuse of others of doing this. I have exposed your ignorance and dishonesty.

You cannot stand that your hypocritical and childish antics are exposed and hope that ignoring it all, it will all go away.

I care not - I rather enjoy exposing the hypocrisy, ignorance, arrogance, etc. of religionists with near zero competence in the things they pretend they can discuss.

 

[tas8831]

BEHOLD - the preferred source of information of our own @Hockeycowboy:

CNS News - Media Bias/Fact Check

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE


A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate CNS News Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of propaganda and numerous failed fact checks.

 

[savagewind]

“Failing beliefs”? You don’t even know what I believe, let alone understand them.

I know what you believe. But, you are right that nobody (but the Jehovah's Witnesses) can understand that you believe the Bible wholeheartedly except for the parts that say do not trust in men which you do and it is why I had to leave the organization.

Psalms 146:3; Psalms 60:11; Psalms 108:12; Psalms 118:8-9; Isaiah 2:22; Jeremiah 17:5

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't recall ever directing any attention to management concerning another's post. (If I have, staff can call me on it.) I've approached people privately, through conversation mode, and told them to stop rating my posts as "funny", which is a violation. Someone did that just recently, but I didn't mention it to them.

Some here bring attention to themselves, attacking the poster's intelligence, education or motives, rather than the content of their post.
Sometimes I'll just ignore them.

What 'bad' behavior, exactly, do you think I've exhibited?

Someone(s) does that to me all the time or uses the rainbow or the tool rating. I didn't know it was a violation to do that. I truly find what I rate as funny to be funny. I guess I will have to re-evaluate and stop doing it to some posts just in case. Though, I doubt the people that use ratings as a back-handed attempt to denigrate will re-evaluate or stop doing it.

 

[tas8831]

This is so... bizarre...
This article was linked and quoted as evidence of discrimination against shoddy ID 'scientists'...

Really! I’ve been hoodwinked? Not you and others?

“A recently released Congressional report accuses senior officials at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) of having harassed, discriminated against, and retaliated against research associate and journal editor Richard Sternberg for allowing publication of a scientific paper supporting intelligent design (ID) in 2004....

OK, looks bad... But keep reading...

Smithsonian and NMNH officials investigated Sternberg's allegations and found "no basis for his complaints," Kremer told The Scientist. "Sternberg still has an office here, and he has full access to the research facility," Kremer said. "If he feels people are hostile to him, it's his feeling. It's all in the eye of the beholder." Sternberg's appointment as an RA expires in January 2007. NMNH officials had previously offered to renew the position, but have since changed the post to that of research collaborator, which is a role for someone "less academically qualified," Sternberg said.

... ."Sternberg filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel(OSC), the federal agency that investigates and prosecutes prohibited personnel practices, in late 2004. OSC staff attorney James McVay reported in an 11-page letter having found evidence to corroborate complaints of religious and political-affiliation discrimination and retaliation....However, because Sternberg was an unpaid RA and not a Smithsonian employee, the OSC lacked jurisdiction and did not pursue the matter. In August 2005, the subcommittee staff initiated its own investigation, resulting in the current report, which largely corroborates the OSC findings. In an email to The Scientist, NCSE's Matzke asserted that both investigations were politically motivated, with Souder being "the leading ID supporter in Congress" and OSC chief Scott Bloch having been "widely criticized for using the OSC office for right-wing culture wars."...

Hmmm...

Some additional info:

...In December 2006 a partisan report was issued by Mark Souder,[49][50] on the basis of information he and fellow Republican representative and intelligent design advocate Rick Santorum (author of the pro-ID Santorum Amendment) had requested, calling into question the Smithsonian's treatment of Sternberg and repeating many of Sternberg's claims.[13][51][52] The report was commissioned by Souder in his capacity as subcommittee chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, written by his subcommittee staff, but published by Souder as an individual representative without it being officially accepted into the Congressional Record.[53] This is contrary to oft-repeated claims by the Discovery Institute and other design proponents that the report represents an official position by the Committee supporting Sternberg's claims of discrimination....

And @Jose Fly wants to know why I’m reluctant to bring up religion in debates science! Lol!

I rarely do....I post evidence.

You post evidence?

OK....

Like your posted "evidence" on that 'Third Way' meeting? The "evidence" was a 3rd rate hack essay by 2 zany creationists on a right-wing fake news site.

THAT 'evidence'?

 

[tas8831]

It’s a shame the government had to get involved, and subsequently investigated and verified his ill-treatment.

Except that they didn't - some dopey right -winger had a dopier right-wing staffer write up (more like write down as Sternberg whined) a sob story that took Sternberg's version of events at face value.

 

[Polymath257]

*** Mod Post ***

Just to clarify, call-out threads without the target's approval are against the rules. Talking about someone in the third person is often against the rules (depends a bit on context). Overuse of the 'funny' rating as a means to express disagreement is against the rules.

1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.

3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:

1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.

2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.

All the rules:
RF Rules
Abuse of the "Funny" Rating

Finally, moderators are not allowed to discuss specific acts of moderation. We cannot say who filed a report, or how we acted towards another member.

 

[shmogie]

Since you believe that you have "The Truth" and all the rest of us are under the yoke of Satan and will be destroyed, while you are bound for divine reward, why do you care what comes out of science or what others say about it or their own beliefs? I don't get that. If you are all set and comfortable and special, what difference does it matter what anyone else says or does? If you think science is making a mockery of your religion, why does that matter to you if you are so strong in your faith and "The Truth". This all seems like a defensive position where the defense should already exist in the strength of your faith and full knowledge of your truth.

Can you explain all that?

Edit: It is not just a question to you, but to all fundamentalists. For a group of people that believe they are saved and special in the eyes of God, you all sure act like anybody and their uncle can just come along and snatch it away without any effort.

Do you get special recognition in your church for publicly denouncing science and going head to head with atheists, other Christians and non-Christians?

I consider myself a Christian fundamentalist. What makes you think that we consider ourselves "special¨ ?

I will take issue with that characterization. We aren´t special, we simply have been able to grasp the concept of how God has revealed Himself. That isn´t special, all people, have that ability, if they choose to exercise it.

There are some denominations that consider themselves special, they have the ultimate truth, and the rest of us believers do not.

For a Christian, there is only one truth, Jesus Christ, and the revelation of him.

 

[paarsurrey]

I consider myself a Christian fundamentalist. What makes you think that we consider ourselves "special¨ ?

I will take issue with that characterization. We aren´t special, we simply have been able to grasp the concept of how God has revealed Himself. That isn´t special, all people, have that ability, if they choose to exercise it.

There are some denominations that consider themselves special, they have the ultimate truth, and the rest of us believers do not.

For a Christian, there is only one truth, Jesus Christ, and the revelation of him.

"Jesus Christ, and the revelation of him."

Did Jesus dictate anything or write himself from his Revelation from G-d, please?
If yes, kindly give its reference, please?

Regards

 

[shmogie]

"Jesus Christ, and the revelation of him."

Did Jesus dictate anything or write himself from his Revelation from G-d, please?
If yes, kindly give its reference, please?

Regards

Yep, the entire New Testament was written by men guided by the Holy Spirit, the active member of the Trinity, of Which Christ is part.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yep, the entire New Testament was written by men guided by the Holy Spirit, the active member of the Trinity, of Which Christ is part.

Nothing written by Jesus or dictated by Jesus not even authorized by Jesus. Right, please?

Regards