Posts by Island Man

11

Interesting find in the bible last night

by Crazyguy in

so i was reading genesis chapter 10 and 11 to see how it explains the man who supposedly is the offspring of noah and he and his offspring become the nation known as egypt.

in some bibles they actually call him egypt.

well as i was reading chapter 10 i noticed something.

Island Man

No, no, no. There's no contradiction there. Chapter 10 is just an aside telling you how the different nations came to be from Noah's offspring, but that does not mean that chapter 11 continues the story from after these nations all come into being. That is an unreasonable assumption to arrive at.

Bible books aren't written in perfect chronological order. Writers often make chronological detours to make a particular point. Genesis 10 is a detour from the regular chronology of Genesis for the purpose of explaining human lineage from Noah. The main story thread runs from Genesis 9 straight into Genesis 11. Genesis 10 is like a fork that branches out to a separate story thread that explains human lineages from Noah. The timeline of that thread goes beyond the timeline of Genesis 11. But that thread terminates at the end of chapter 10.

There are plenty real contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible but what you mention in your first paragram, ain't one of them.

24

Can baptism be considered a legal verbal agreement?

by StarTrekAngel in

based on the requirements set forth and the questions answered at the end.

i believe this question has been asked before.

the fact that you can only be expelled after having been put under this oath of allegiance and that you have witnesses to you making this agreement ( i remember my name was shout to the crowd when i entered the pool ).. if it can be considered so, would there be a legal ground to say minors can not enter this agreement?.

Island Man

I believe there are some legal trappings involved - not in the actual baptism, but in having the candidates answer "yes" to the questions before an audience of witnesses.

I especially believe the question that says:

"do you understand that your baptism identifies you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit directed organization"

... is for purely legal purposes. It serves to establish that the person agreed to the term that membership in the religion is tied to association with the organization. That way it is difficult to sue the organization if a person is involuntarily disassociated or disfellowshipped for disavowing the organization.

78

How to argue with a JW who says the org never said the end in 75

by dogon in

i have argued with several jws who are now being trained to deny the org ever said the end in 75, what is your approach?.

Island Man

JWs will exploit any and every frivolous technicality to defend the org. On a Y!A question about JW false predictions, I saw a JW respond by saying that JWs never made any false predictions - that such predictions were make by Bible Student groups before the group named Jehovah's Witnesses came into existence in 1931. Yes, they will stoop that low.

When mentioning the 1975 issue, it's best avoid saying or implying that the org explicitly predicted the end in 1975. Instead, it would be better to say that the org. "implied" or "insinuated" through innuendo that the end would come in 1975. Such a claim would be more difficult for a JW to weasel out of.

Keep in mind too, what the org says about Satan's words to Eve at Genesis 3. This could prove very helpful for exposing the hypocrisy of the "the org never explicitly said so" defence argument employed by JWs. How so? Well Satan never explicitly told Eve that God was a selfish ruler withholding good from humans and that humans are better off ruling themselves, did he? Yet the org. reads those insinuations into Satan's words and charges him with being just as guilty as if he had explicitly said it! So since the org. judges others for what they do not explicitly say but insinuate; then it is only fair that others also judge the org. for what it does not explicitly say but clearly insinuates. They clearly insinuated that the end would come in 1975!

10

A conversation with my ultra dub relative

by joe134cd in

here's a conversation i just had with my relative a few minutes ago i'll let you decide.. relative : would you like to read your grandfather the days txt (she passes joe the phone).

joe : sure.

(then proceed to read it to my grandfather and explain it).. after discussing the points joe says to relative.. hey what's the story arnt they printing books any more.. relative : no they arnt necessary any more.. joe : really why is that.. relative : it's all on line.

Island Man

Google "Gaslighting". JWs often practice a form of gaslighting when confronted with inconvenient truths of their past - especially the 1975 fiasco.

127

Racial Insensitivity

by Coded Logic in

"blue" lives matter!

- sheriff david clarke at the rnc.

this bs really makes my blood boil.

Island Man

This is why we need robot police who will evaluate a situation based purely on logic and untainted by favoritism or forms of irrational discrimination.

26

Rank & file are seeing the money-grubbing

by Zoos in

spoke with a fellow apostate from my own area.

she and i bailed out about the same time and kept in touch.. she used to do secular work with one of the local elders in his cleaning business until she got dfed.

this same elder was one of the more profound dickheads on my reinstatement committee, before i turned around two years later and daed.. business required her to contact the elder on behalf of an old client.

Island Man

There are many JWs who realize that all is not well with Watchtower, but they choose to remain, being psychologically chained by fear of missing out on paradise if they leave.

Their rationalizations often involve separating "Jehovah's organization" from the "imperfect" or even "corrupt" leadership (GB) at the helm. They will agree with you on all the ills and hypocrisies of Watchtower as you point them out. But they draw the line when it comes to leaving Watchtower. They will tell you that even if the GB is teaching falsehoods or are corrupt, they must still stick with the organization out of loyalty to Jehovah and trust that Jehovah will rectify matters in his own time.

They will sometimes draw parallels to Israel of old under the leadership of corrupt kings and say the Israelites were still God's people and one had to remain with the nation to please Jehovah. And I'm sure we're all familiar with the now ubiquitous, Watchtower cookie-cutter platitude of "Where else shall we go? Who has the truth?"

They are awake, but they are afraid to get out of the Watchtower bed because they see it as the safest place to be, because they have been fooled into thinking that there is a monster under the bed waiting to grab them by the foot and pull them under and eat them alive, if they ever get out of the bed.

22

I have proof Noah built the Ark just like God told him to

by KateWild in

.

Island Man

"Belief in this story in its entirety is a measurement in gullibility."

... and/or logistical and scientific ignorance.

62

Noah's ark once again. I hate beating a dead horse, but.

by James Mixon in

the altitude problem.

mt.

everest today is 29042 feet high and i know some will say it.

Island Man

I'm not sure if there really is an issue with lack of oxygen and the flood. I believe that if you cover the globe with water covering the highest mountains, then the atmosphere gets displaced upward. So you will still be at sea level floating in the ark - the sea would just have risen and the atmosphere would have risen with it. The atmosphere would get a bit thinner though, because having been displaced upward on the global sphere means that the same amount of gas is now spread over a greater circumference. But the difference would not be so great as to make breathing very difficult or impossible.

There are lots of things wrong with the flood story and which disprove it. But I don't buy the argument about the elevated altitude making it impossible breathe.

36

But where else should we go? Can you answer this question?

by purrpurr in

jw
friends

having watched many jc youtube videos one question that gets asked is "where else would you go?".

in other words if not jehovah's witnesses then what other religion or organisation would you go to?.

it's one that i have trouble answering, what would you say?.

Island Man

I would respond by saying:

"Is that a question you thought up yourself; or are you just parroting a self-serving platitude that Watchtower has fed you to make themselves seem relevant and to manipulate you to continue as their hapless dependent and slave?

Maybe we don't have to go anywhere. Maybe we're still in the midst of the apostasy and there is no true organization at present, just as the org. teaches there was no true org. for centuries after the apostles died. Maybe we're still in the midst of the apostasy and all organized religions are false. They certainly all give evidence of being corrupt - including Watchtower. Revelation says to get out of them - but it doesn't say where to go, because maybe there isn't anywhere to go.

Go read 2 Thessalonians 2. Paul wrote that the apostasy will come and the man of lawlessness will be revealed who will be destroyed at Christ's presence. Paul gave no hint that there will be a restoration of organized true worship before the end comes. The bible seems to indicate that the apostasy will continue right down to the very end when the angels are sent to separate the wheat from the weeds during the great tribulation.

Watchtower talk of a restoration of organized true worship before the end, is nothing but self-serving propaganda designed to make the organization seem relevant and indispensable - to hook and enslave people to the organization."

532

I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild in

your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.

k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.

in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.

Island Man

Well your conclusion doesn't seem to be based on any real evidence. I mean, It's not like there aren't any credible, logical, natural explanations for the LH amino acid issue. I get the sense that you just want to believe there is a god and so you're using bias to see the LH amino acid issue as evidence for a god when it really isn't.

To me the whole issue of an all-powerful, super-intelligent God using guided evolution to create his designs makes about as much sense as using a Rube Golberg Machine to flip a light switch.