Posts by Island Man

11

Woman was created first! It's science.

by wannabefree in

woman was created first.. every human being has 46 chromosomes arranged in 23 pairs, the first twenty two are autosomes, or matching, the twenty third pair matches in the female (xx), however, the male is mismatched (xy).. notice what is missing from that second x?

yes, one of its ribs has been removed.. clearly, in a female, since all are matching pairs, it makes sense that woman was created first as the male xy combination is the mutated pair.

why would god create the mismatched dna first?

Island Man

It's why men have nipples. What, did God make Adam first with useless nipples? Or does it make more sense that he inherited nipples from his female progenitor?

16

A powerful JC recording from 1984!

by Island Man in

this jc from 1984 features a brother and his wife, who were evidently about to be df'd for apostasy.

but the brother knew his ttatt well.

the elders really couldn't muster any half-way convincing arguments to refute the damning facts on 607 and 1914. even 1975 was touched on.

Island Man

This JC from 1984 features a brother and his wife, who were evidently about to be DF'd for apostasy. But the brother knew his TTATT well. The elders really couldn't muster any half-way convincing arguments to refute the damning facts on 607 and 1914. Even 1975 was touched on. Enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5UwRTvEgyc

6

Closing in on the Genetic background to Same Sex Attraction

by fulltimestudent in

many christians keep insisting that homosexuality is a choice, and they are 'right' to insist on legal prohibitions (in spite of living in a pluralistic society).. they claim divine revelation as basis for these legal prohibitions.

sadly for them, it does look their god is somewhat schizoid on this matter.. if yahweh is the source of sanctions against those who are sexually attracted to the same sex, then we would not expect any genetic indications for that attraction.

if you think along those lines, the this report from the uk independent will interest you.. largest ever study into the gay gene 'erodes the notion that sexual orientation is a choice'.

Island Man

Great pun, DATA-DOG!

11

PLEASE don't read this . . . if you have O.C.D. tendencies or are superstitious

by Terry in

what if there were no such things as arabic numerals (0123456789)?.

what if you only had your alphabet?.

you could use letters as numerical values.

Island Man

I believe the bit about the writer of Revelation intending 666 to be a cryptic reference to Nero. It's the most reasonable and logical interpretation of 666 that I've seen so far. But when it comes to the chapter and verse numbers in the bible, one has to remember that those were added centuries after the bible was written so we can't really attach any significance to the numbering of verses in correlation to what the verses say. The original authors of the bible verses had no say in their much later chapter and verse numbering.

60

How Do You Answer Someone Who Says JWs Are Not False Prophets?

by minimus in

jw
friends

it used to bother me that people would say that about my well meaning religion.

how do you prove that witnesses are indeed, false prophets?.

Island Man

This is a subject that has come up often on Yahoo Answers.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140524052943AAYDs9v

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140709120223AATSwt0

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140831000159AACV2LO

JWs typically respond to the charge by using ridiculous technicalities to fudge the definition of what it means to be a false prophet. Their responses are typically as follows:

~ They would say that they never came up with any original predictions but were only explaining existing prophecies in the bible. In other words for them to be accused of being false prophets they have to come up with a completely original prediction that's not based on anything in the bible. Of course this argument is ridiculous. The bible does not give such technicalities as a basis for excusing some from being guilty of false prophesy. Also at Luke 21:8 Jesus indicated that persons would come in his name and make false predictions about the timing of the end. Such persons are obviously not making original predictions because the bible speaks about the end. And given that they come in Jesus name it stands to reason that they profess to be christian and would likely base their bogus predictions on existing bible prophecies by twisting scriptures. Thus Luke 21:8 implicitly invalidates this particular technicality.

~ They would say that they never made their predictions in the name of Jehovah, that they never said 'these are the words of Jehovah...' or something to that effect. But does a prophet have to explicitly spell this out? If a prophet deliberately gives his audience the impression that his message is coming from God, while not explicitly saying so, is he any less guilty of speaking in God's name? The Watchtower has repeatedly and indisputably given the impression to readers that what they print is not coming from men but from God. There are statements in the literature about "God's direction through his Word and Organization" which convey the idea that the Organization's teachings and direction is coming from God and not from men. There have been bogus claims that Jehovah is the writer/editor of the Watchtower and no man's opinions are found in the literature. There is the claim that the organization is spirit directed, thus ascribing the organization's actions and teachings as being the work of God through holy spirit. To this day, elders and other representatives of the organization can be heard speaking of the direction coming from the organization as coming from Jehovah. At the recent annual meeting one Governing Member, while speaking about all the changes taking place in the organization, was heard saying that even the Governing Body has trouble keeping up with Jehovah's Chariot. What was he implying? He was implying that the changes are not coming from men - not from the Governing Body - but from Jehovah himself. All of the foregoing examples show that Watchtower implicitly claims to act in Jehovah's name. They implicitly ascribe all their doings as the doings of Jehovah. It is therefore disingenous for JWs to claim that their false predictions were'nt made in Jehovah's name. Hypocritically, Watchtower understands that baptizing someone in Jesus' name does not involve having to explicitly say 'I baptize you in Jesus' name' when immersing the person. So how is it they don't apply similar logic to making predictions in Jehovah's name? Shouldn't they see that it's also possible to implicitly make false predictions in God's name without explicitly spelling it out?

One of the most damning indicators of Watchtower's guilt as a false prophet is their own Reasoning Book. Just read through their section on false prophets and see how they conveniently invent their own rules of what it means to be a false prophet - rules that conveniently omit focusing on the aspect of making false predictions. It is very telling that throughout that entire section, not once is the very pertinent Deuteronomy 18:21,22 discussed! Why did they avoid those verses? Because they know they fit the bible's description of false prophets and so they didn't dare discuss those verses. In desperation they had to concoct their own definition and rules so as to hide their own guilt.

51

Deposition of Richard Ashe

by truthseekeriam in

jw
friends

http://watchtowerdocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/lopez-11exhibit-8-to-dec-of-copley-iso-opp-to-plnts-mfs.pdf.

did any of you guys sit down and read this??

it's long but i assure you it's a great read.. .

Island Man

"Really, they have files on murder?"

Sure they do. Just take a read of this letter Watchtower sent to a body of elders . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fQJeVHCamc

30

"You can't believe anything science says, they're always changing their minds.."

by disposable hero of hypocrisy in

jw
friends

i know this is going to come up in a conversation shortly, how would you respond to this?

i've had it said to me before, specifically about health, one week wine/eggs/milk/axle grease is good for you, next week it's not..

Island Man

I did an OP some time ago contrasting the wisdom of the scientific community with the folly of the religious community:

"Jesus prayed that all his followers be united as one. But we see christianity divided into thousands of denominations. This division is partly due to the fact that the book that christianity claims is the truth, the inspired word of a supremely wise God, was not written in a sufficiently unambiguous manner as to make its one true meaning indisputably clear throughout.

By contrast take a field of science - say physics. How many different brands/versions/sects/denominations of physics are there? One! Barring respectful differences of opinion among physicists on matters not yet clearly understood, the field of physics is united. Physicists don't go off forming their own 'church' of followers resulting in different denominations of physics being taught in schools. Physicists the world over are united on all the major teachings of the field that have been established though experimentation. What the universe reveals through testing and experimentation is unambiguous, provable, repeatable, demonstrably true. Are we to believe the same God who created this universe and its consistent, unambiguous laws was unable to also inspire a book whose meaning is similarly clear and unabiguous throughout?

Christianity condemns doubt and scrutiny of its teachings as a show of lack of faith and as trying to destroy the faith of others. Often, a christian who openly exposes a teaching of his church as being in error is branded as divisive and expelled - sometimes even shunned, as ex-JWs can attest to. Christianity claims to be about seeking truth but its behavior reveals that its leaders are really about maintaining their power and their traditions. Christianity's inflexible and unreasonable demand of unquestioning conformity to tradition - even those not explicitly taught in scripture - often results in friction and conflict that leads to honest-hearted truth seekers being expelled and going off to form their own denomination, thus compounding the division in christianity.

By contrast, science welcomes doubt and scrutiny of its theories. Working to disprove a theory is seen as a good thing. It is precisely because of such scrutiny that scientific knowledge has increased and been refined. The scrutiny inherent in the scientific process serves to filter truth from error. Science does not condemn scrutiny of its theories - it feeds on it and grows as a result - because science is genuinely about seeking truth - not preserving the power of a particular leader or organization. Scientists respectfully have different hypotheses on matters not yet clearly understood or proven one way or the other. They don't let let their differening views on such matters divide them into different denominations that condemn each other.

Christianity seeks to unite followers through obedience to an ecclesiastical authority of one kind or another. Many christian denominations claim that without such centralized authority or organization there would be division and God's will (such as having the good news preached in all the inhabited earth) could not be successfully accomplished. The top down approach is employed where teachings flow from the central authority down to the followers. The irony is that such authorities are the ones that often foment divisions.

By contrast, science has no one central hierarchy demanding adherence to its theories. What unites scientists is truth itself. When a hypothesis is demonstrated through experimentation to be true, scientists the world over can't help but be united in agreement based on the hard facts proven through math and experimentation. This isn't to say that there aren't authorities in the field of science. There are multiple universites and other bodies that set standards and rules for research etc. But there is no one central body that seeks to impose its theories on others by pulling rank. There is no 'faithful and discreet experimenter' appointed to give hypotheses in due season which must be accepted by all without question. There is no magisterium. Knowledge flows from the bottom up - from individual scientists and researchers who prove their hypothesis to the universities and other bodies that publish them.

I find these stark contrasts between science and christianity to be very revealing. Didn't Jesus say that wisdom is proved righteous by its works? So compare the fruitage of science re unity and getting at the truth with the fruitage of christianity. How is it that christianity - a system professing belief in an allwise God of order - can be so divided, whereas another system that professes no belief in God can be so united? For me this comparison reveals exactly who is in error and stupidity and who is in truth and prudence. Science puts christianity to shame!"