The solution is simple: When the Bible talks about the earth, it means an overlapping Earth, that is to say, whatever celestial body that humans from earth are able to reside on. Consider: if humans did establish a colony on Mars then what will one human say to another human if, while both are walking outside, they encounter an object protruding out of the Martian soil? Will the one human say to the other: "what is that protruding out of the Mars"? That hardly seems likely. No doubt the human will ask the other: "what is that protruding out of the earth?". So evidently the word earth as used in the bible, does not refer specifically and exclusively to planet earth but rather, has an overlapping application, referring to whatever solid surface of dust that humans reside on.
Island Man
JoinedPosts by Island Man
-
61
Would human settlement of Mars invalidate Bible prophecy?
by truthseeker ini don't think this topic has been discussed before but yesterday i read something to the effect that trump wants a human mission to mars to be completed within his presidency.. with that being said, the watchtower teaches that what started on earth ends on earth, in other words, the fall of adam and eve would end with the passing of the 1,000 year millennial reign when christ destroys all his enemies, rebellious "perfect" humans, and the devil and his demons who are let out the abyss for a short while.
he then hands the kingdom back to his father.
an elder in my old congregation once told us during a public talk that he was an ardent astronomer but then referenced the scripture where it says, "the earth he has given to the sons of men" (psalms 115:16).
-
-
-
115
Could a petition to make shunning illegal work?
by aboveusonlysky inwe're currently watching leah remini's series about scientology and the main thing she seems to focus on is the shunning policies of the scientology organization which let's face it are very similar to jw procedure.. i was wondering with all that's in the media recently about bullying could a petition be put together to get the goverment to consider making religiously mandated shunning illegal?
has such a thing been tried before?.
https://petition.parliament.uk/help says the following - .
-
-
Island Man
I don't think you can make it illegal for someone to choose to shun someone. The law can't force you to communicate with someone.
But, I think a strong case can be made that it should be illegal for an organization, religious or otherwise, to coerce members to shun others. It can be made illegal for an organization to teach members to shun a certain segment of society - including ex-members. I think there is a chance that such a law can be passed since there already exist laws that make it illegal to incite hatred of certain groups.
The key factors that have to be looked at is incitement and duress. Watchtower incites the members to shun and Watchtower uses a form of duress - the the very same threat of shunning - to coerce the members to shun those who leave.
People should be free to choose whether or not they wish to shun someone, without being incited to do so against a particular segment of people - ex-JWs - and without being coerced to do so.
So this should not be approached from the standpoint of making shunning illegal. Rather, it should be approached from the standpoint of making it illegal to publicly incite by speech or in print, to shun a particular segment of people; and to make it illegal to coerce persons to shun a certain segment of people, by the threat of being punished if they refuse to do so. This is all that needs to be done.
Once this is done, more JWs will feel free to talk to ex-JWs knowing that they cannot be penalized for doing so or else those penalizing them could face legal action with legal teeth.
-
-
-
Island Man
JWs believe in a cold, psychotic kind of love called agape love, that is based on principle and devoid of sentiment. It's the kind of love that allows them to shun their own children as doing so is an expression of Jehobers love for them. It's the kind of love that allows a JW to feel justified in not giving any material assistance to the needy because filling the minds of the poor with Watchtower theology is more beneficial to them than filling their hungry bellies.
-
25
A baffling physics question
by FatFreek 2005 infor several weeks i've been treating myself to a hot chocolate milk (well, soymilk) before bedtime.
some 16 oz soymilk which i heat on high in our microwave oven.
this is just enough time where the liquid begins to bubble along the top edge.. i then take it out of the microwave and place it on my kitchen gram scale, stir it good enough to redistribute the heat, then reset the scale to zero grams.. next, i squeeze in the hershey's sytup, "special dark mildly sweet chocolate" (fat free) into the warmed soymilk till the scale reads some 30 grams.
-
-
Island Man
It's not a 10% reduction in weight. The whole thing originally weighed a 16oz then you added in the 30g of syrup. so that's a little more than 17oz. So when it drops from 30g to 26g that's not reflective of a 10% drop in mass because the scale was set to show only the difference over 16oz, remember? So the difference is actually much less than 10% - something like a little over 0.5%. I find this very believable and easily attributable to evaporation of some of the liquid owing to the heating in the microwave and exacerbated by the agitation of the hot liquid due to stirring.
-
58
Just a quick Poll...Do you think the GB is sincere?
by NikL ini've been thinking about this the past few days and curious what the honest consensus is here just for fun.. show of hands,.
is the governing body.... a: completely sincere.
they really do believe what they teach.. b: somewhat sincere.
-
-
Island Man
D: It's a mix.
They are sincere about their belief in Jehovah and the bible and much of the more sobre, "mainstream" JW teachings. But they are insincere about their tactics of manipulation and some of the more crazy Watchtower teachings. They have deceived themselves into thinking that their manipulative tactics, policies and crazy teachings somehow serve as a protection to the organization and the rank and file JWs whom they oversee. They subscribe to the philosophy of "the ends justify the means" so they feel justified in lying to the rank and file and the public to serve the greater ends of protecting and preserving "Jehovah's Organization".
If you look at first JW broadcast that Samuel Herd did, you'll notice what he said about the accusation that JWs use brainwashing. He didn't deny the accusation. Instead, he sought to put a positive spin on their use of brainwashing by saying JWs minds are washed from the filth of the world. This is a perfect illustration of how they subscribe to the philosophy that "the ends justify the means".
A part of them also enjoys the prominence and authority they have and they will resort to vulgar and unethical means to preserve and protect it - like declaring that they alone are the faithful and discreet slave. But they will rationalize such actions by deceiving themselves and saying that it's not their status they're protecting but the organization. The spanking new headquarters with amenities and living quarters that they will enjoy - is all for Jehovah, you see...
-
60
Marc & Cora on YouTube causing unnecessary divisions
by jambon1 inwhat is it with this pair?
why do they have to constantly have a bitch about guys like john cedars?
a very recent video of them shows them calling him a 'village idiot' and making other disparaging claims.
-
-
Island Man
That is one thing Wt has got over apostates. They have a united front. It may be faked, forced or phoney but Wt is united. Apostates are just to fragmented.
I disagree. True unity is the ability to work together despite having differences and while respecting others's differences. Watchtower does not have that. Watchtower has a stifling, dystopian, enforced conformity.
They foolishly think that disagreement is a bad thing. It's not. An environment in which disagreement is permitted and respected, is an environment that is friendly to new ideas - an environment that fosters creativity and innovation. An environment with enforced conformity is one of intellectual stagnation where needed changes and innovation come very, very, very slowly - perhaps too late.
I personally don't think banning is the solution. Mandatory public education in critical thinking, the dangers of coercive persuasion and cults in general, is.
-
60
Marc & Cora on YouTube causing unnecessary divisions
by jambon1 inwhat is it with this pair?
why do they have to constantly have a bitch about guys like john cedars?
a very recent video of them shows them calling him a 'village idiot' and making other disparaging claims.
-
-
Island Man
Respectful and peaceful disagreement is something that ex-JWs never learned from their time in Watchtower. They were indoctrinated to believe that there can be no harmony and unity unless all have the same beliefs. They were indoctrinated to believe that there is one correct way and those disagreeing with it are divisive troublemakers. They equate disagreement with division and rebellion and strife. They see those disagreeing with them as being bad.
-
56
"There is evidence of a Creator if you just look for it"
by unsure in(for the record, i’m agnostic who is earnestly seeking an objective, honest and concrete hope for something greater).
“there is evidence of a creator if you just look for it”.
many of us have heard similar sentences from believers regarding proof of creator, proof that their religion is the correct one, proof that their particular sect is the right one, proof that their individual sects interpretation of a certain religious text is the right one, proof that their own personal interpretation of a certain religious text is the right one; the list goes on.. in one of my previous posts, i shared the following thought of mine:.
-
-
Island Man
There is also much "evidence" for ghosts, for those who look for them. lol.
One can find
confirmation bias"evidence" for just about anything that one is looking for. -
7
Russia - JWs Counterclaim
by Listener inthe witnesses lodged a counterclaim against their lawsuit on the 30 march, 2017.their argument is that the actions of the ministry of justice against them are 'political repressions'.the following link states "in the lawsuit numerous instances are cited testifying to the fact that prosecution of jehovah's witnesses is politically motivated."http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/170402a.html.
it is a contradiction to what they have written in their "political neutrality' leaflet which states.
jehovah’s witnesses do not involve themselves in political issues or governmental affairs.
-
-
Island Man
Apart from the issue of political neutrality, JWs have also stated that being "no part of the world" means not meddling in the social and other controversies. Well isn't the Russian govts' crackdown on religious extremism a controversy of sorts? Aren't JWs involving themselves in this controversy by writing Russian govt. officials on the issue?
-
2
You can defeat lies with truth. But you can only suppress truth with censorship.
by Island Man inwatchtower bans jws from visiting apostate sites and reading apostate literature.
banning is the tool of the weak and the cowardly, those lacking the courage and/or strength to defeat the enemy face to face.
we ban - quarantine - infected ebola patients from the rest of the population because it's a strong disease and we lack a cure for it.
-
-
Island Man
Watchtower bans JWs from visiting apostate sites and reading apostate literature. Banning is the tool of the weak and the cowardly, those lacking the courage and/or strength to defeat the enemy face to face. We ban - quarantine - infected ebola patients from the rest of the population because it's a strong disease and we lack a cure for it. Banning a religion only makes it seem strong, and the one doing the banning - a weak coward. But isn't the Watchtower religion actually very weak. Yes, it's a strong and smooth talker but it is weak, lacking in substance. It is built on lies - 607 BCE, 1914, 1919 FDS appointment, etc. In the fight between truth and lies, the lie is the weak coward and the truth is the invincible, courageous fighter.
What chance does a weak coward stand in a fight with an invincible courageous fighter? None. His only option is to run and hide from the invincible fighter. Provable truth is the invincible courageous warrior and lies fostered by ignorance is the weak coward. Thus, Watchtower, on the side of the weak coward, runs and hides from those on the side of truth - the apostates. How? By censorship. By banning apostate information. It's the only workable option they have because they can't directly refute the truths exposed by apostates. Because provable truth always defeats lies fostered by ignorance, hands down.
But if the weak coward is running and hiding how is the invincible fighter to defeat him? The invincible, courageous fighter must find the weak coward in order to defeat him. Imagine if the invincible fighter thought he could defeat the coward by refusing to fight him and instead gets a restraining order to prevent the coward from coming within 100 feet of him. What would people think? 'Oh, I guess that so-called invincible fighter is worried that he can't win in a fight with that so-called coward, huh. Maybe that so-called weak coward is actually a badass in chicken's feathers ...'. That's analogous to what the Russian government is doing. By outlawing the JWs the government is actually drawing more curiosity and interest in the religion than the JWs themselves are able to do by their own preaching efforts - you know what they say about forbidden fruits...
It's a battle between truth and lies, strength and weakness, knowledge and ignorance. Banning promotes/fosters/continues ignorance and thus serves the side of the lie. Openness promotes the flow of information - paving the roadway for truth to walk up and face the lie square on and fight him. So banning is not the solution. Openness is. The Russian government - all governments - need to deal with religious cults by being more open with the population as a whole. How? There needs to be greater emphasis in schools on the subject of critical thinking and identifying logical fallacies. There also needs to be rigorous education campaigns sensitizing the public about the subject of cults and coercive persuasion. That's fighting the cults head on by inoculating minds (Inoculating vulnerable populations with an ebola vaccine is so much better at fighting the disease, than quarantining victims after infection, don't you think? Isn't that how polio was almost eradicated?) Make it illegal for parents to not send their children to state accredited schools, and make education on critical thinking and cult tactics mandatory subjects in all schools with state accreditation. All cults will be defeated this way - without having to ban anyone; without having to single out any cult by name and making them feel like special martyrs.
How can any cult fight this? They can't take their children out of the schools to prevent them from being educated in critical thinking and the dangers of cult tactics because then they would be breaking the law and will be liable to having the state take custody of their children. They can't set up their own cult schools that refuse to teach critical thinking and the dangers of cults because they will lack state accreditation and the parents who send their children there will be breaking the law that says your child must be educated in a state accredited school.
Make it impossible or extremely difficult for cult members to avoid information on critical thinking and cult awareness. Make it an essential subject in schools like Math and English. This is the weak coward being actively engaged by the invincible warrior and having nowhere to run and hide. This is how governments can defeat the JWs and all cults.
Seems like the Russian govt. has bought into the JWs lie of "The Truth" and thus they're resorting to the tactic of censorship