But there's a stark contradiction here: Women are allowed to preach to men in the house to house ministry. So it's not just sexism. It's bigoted sexism. It's ok for JW women to instruct non-JW men in the ministry because worldly men are somehow inferior. Baptized JW men are superior. Us vs them and sexism rolled into one.
Island Man
JoinedPosts by Island Man
-
19
Women must not instruct men, even by singing a theocratic song.
by Ultimate Axiom ini did a quick search and this doesn’t appear to have been commented on here, but if it has been, i apologise in advance for starting an unnecessary thread.. regarding a change to a song title, the study article on page 7 paragraph 17 of november 2017 watchtower explained, “the change of the title “guard your heart” to “we guard our hearts” was most considerate.
in the audience at our meetings, assemblies, and conventions are many new ones, interested ones, young ones, and sisters who by singing the words would be put in the awkward position of telling others what to do.
so the title and the lyrics were modified.”.
-
-
-
340
Calling Cofty and others regarding evolution
by dubstepped inso i have started down the path of trying to understand evolution, and to get the linear lies that the jws planted in my head out of it.
i bought an audiobook called "evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters" by donald prothero.
i heard it recommended on an atheist podcast that i listened to.
-
-
Island Man
First of all I think it's probably best if you discard the whole micro vs macro evolution duality. In reality, there isn't any real difference between the two. That is to say, microevolution isn't a thing unto itself that is somehow distinct from macroevolution. These are purely linguistic constructs. Evolution is evolution. Adaptation is evolution. Small changes accumulate over long periods, eventually resulting in an evolved population being reproductively incompatible with its ancestral population many, many, generations ago. In other words, speciation.
The important thing to keep in mind is that evolution occurs over very, very long periods of time. Yes, evolution is still happening but you won't see any significant changes in your lifetime because it takes place so very, very slowly. There are new species developing right before our eyes but it's a very slow process - too slow see in totality (in most cases). Here's an important thing to keep in mind: The transition from one species to another is not a sudden leap that occurs in one generation. Rather, it's a slow murky transition spanning many generations and not a sudden crisp dividing line. An animal of one species isn't going to give birth to an animal of another. Throughout the transition from one to another animals continue to give birth to young that is of their same species! You can only see a new species has developed when you compare animals of generation z with the ancestors of generation a. Never by comparing generation y with generation z. And we typically don't live long enough to span the time from generation a to generation z.
Think of yourself as being like a fly watching seedlings of giant sequoia trees and finding it difficult to imagine these tiny plants growing to trees hundreds of feet high. You stare at the seedlings for long seconds of time but you can't see any growth happening before you eyes. Throughout your entire life of about a month you hardly notice any change.
Another way to think of it is to liken the move from one species to another to the transition from the brightness of midday to the darkness of night. Imagine each generation is like 1 second of time. Can you pinpoint any single second that separates the brightness of midday from the darkness of night? No. The transition is too gradual to span such a small time difference. And each second of time is followed by another second of time that is only ever so slightly darker. You would be hard pressed to ever be able to point at any second of day being followed by a second of night. The transition is too slow for that situation. Yet, you can clearly see that night is much darker than at midday.
Apart from humans and chimps, there are other examples of animals having significantly more dramatic outward differences compared to their genetic difference. Dogs come to mind. Look at the dramatic differences between different breeds. Yet, genetically, they're of the same species! Different dog breeds is due to evolution by artificial selection. The difference between evolution by artificial selection and evolution by natural selection is purely philosophical. Different dog breeds are like different species in the process of developing but not yet there (as different species).
-
315
Flat earth vs round earth
by Jrjw inmy brother has been talking about the earth being flat and some big conspiracy going on to make people beieve otherwise.
what are people's thoughts on this?.
-
-
Island Man
I just got some exclusive footage of Kairos having a conversation with JWs, trying to bring up the flat Earth issue. Not surprisingly, the JWs are unable to make any scientific points to counter Kairos' arguments. But the JWs do admit that JWs are conspiracy theorists, so to speak. lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUqfMoiYkU4&index=22&list=WL
-
315
Flat earth vs round earth
by Jrjw inmy brother has been talking about the earth being flat and some big conspiracy going on to make people beieve otherwise.
what are people's thoughts on this?.
-
-
Island Man
Kairos, I find it very difficult to believe that you're actually this stupid. If you're truly this stupid there's no way you would have escaped from Watchtower's clutches. I believe you're trolling us. Admit it.
-
315
Flat earth vs round earth
by Jrjw inmy brother has been talking about the earth being flat and some big conspiracy going on to make people beieve otherwise.
what are people's thoughts on this?.
-
-
Island Man
Walk me through it!
Ok Kairos. Here's an easy way to explain it. A tennis ball is smaller than a soccer ball. If you hold a tennis ball close up to a camera mimic the effect of being on the tennis ball or very close to it, and you then proceed to view a soccer ball 20 feet away, the tennis ball will appear larger because of its closeness to the camera. Take a picture. Then go outside and place the tennis ball on the ground. Then place the soccer ball 20 feet away also on the ground. Then go a distance of about 50 feet away and, using a camera, position yourself such that the tennis ball and soccer ball are directly in line of sight like an alignment and zoom in and take a picture and you will see that the soccer ball now appears larger than the tennis ball even though you're now further away. Because you magnified the image with the zoom feature. It's that simple!
Why are there no stars? The exposure is reduced when taking the images because the brightness of the earth's and moon's albedo effect would distort the clarity of the details. Reducing the exposure also has the effect of making the stars invisible. The ambient light from the earth is strong enough to overpower starlight of stars in close visual field proximity so you wouldn't see them even if the exposure was not reduced. As proof of the fact that the exposure was reduced, note how the moon looks dull rather than the bright color we see in the night sky with the naked eye.
-
315
Flat earth vs round earth
by Jrjw inmy brother has been talking about the earth being flat and some big conspiracy going on to make people beieve otherwise.
what are people's thoughts on this?.
-
-
Island Man
Flat earth nonsense is not worthy of any response other than ridicule.
Ummm....I don't know...I mean it truly is nonsense but I think history has demonstrated that you can convince a lot of people to believe ridiculous nonsense when the intelligent people who know better choose to remain silent because they underestimate the level of ignorance in society and overestimate the intelligence of the masses. It's easy to lose touch with the reality of ignorance when you gain a lot of knowledge. It's easy to assume that everyone knows or should know the things you do. Those are dangerous assumptions because they foster the kind of silence that allows idiocracies to take over.
I don't think it should be looked at as being unworthy of response. It should be looked at as safeguarding the collective knowledge of reality from the pernicious inroads of pseudoscientific charlatans. Never underestimate the potency of stupidity. Never underestimate the credulity of the masses!
-
315
Flat earth vs round earth
by Jrjw inmy brother has been talking about the earth being flat and some big conspiracy going on to make people beieve otherwise.
what are people's thoughts on this?.
-
-
Island Man
[photo of earth over the horizon of the moon's surface]
[photo of moon transiting earth, giving the appearance of being close to the earth]
Which NASA photo below is real?They're both real. The first photo is taken from the surface of the moon. The second photo is taken a great distance away from both the moon and the earth. It's a great distance away but because the moon is transiting the earth and the photographer zoomed in, it gives the illusion of the moon being close to the earth.
-
121
Did man really go to the moon?
by atomant inl have researched this subject and come to the conclusion that no we didn't.what do others think?.
-
-
Island Man
"...i tell you that the continents are not sized right on one vs the other, and so its overwhelming evidence that nasa doctors pictures and releases them as official satellite imagery"
What a very interesting point you make there, MrRoboto! Do you know why the relative sizes of the continents on NASA images don't seem to match the relative sizes shown on world maps? It's not because NASA has doctored the images. Quite the contrary! The NASA images are an accurate reflection of the actual sizes! It is the maps that have been doctored!
First of all, it is impossible to make a perfect projection of all the continents showing accurate relative sizes, on a map, while preserving continuous, uniform latitude and longitude lines. The reason is that you're transferring from a globe to a flat surface. If you attempt to make perfect relative sizes then you will have to break up the longitude lines and you get a map with huge gulfs of nothingness (imagine deflating a ball and trying to get a perfect continuous rectangle shape out of its skin). So for convenience, world maps stretch out the polar regions more to achieve a more uniform coordinate system and avoid breaks.
Secondly, this erroneous map projection system portrayed the northern countries - typically the location of the colonial powers - as being larger and more imposing than they actually are so for political reasons those projections became favored over a more accurate projection that would render them smaller and truer to actual reality.
In reality, Africa is larger than Russia, and Greenland isn't quite as big as it seems. NASA is showing the truth! That's precisely why their images don't match world maps. If they were really trying to cover up the truth they would have sought to make the NASA imagery match the erroneous maps!
-
315
Flat earth vs round earth
by Jrjw inmy brother has been talking about the earth being flat and some big conspiracy going on to make people beieve otherwise.
what are people's thoughts on this?.
-
-
Island Man
To be fair, Flat Earthers are correct in saying the Bible teaches a flat earth. They're just wrong in assuming that the Bible is an unassailable authority of truth. The Bible simply espouses ancient cosmology which is rooted in myth and ignorance.
-
121
Did man really go to the moon?
by atomant inl have researched this subject and come to the conclusion that no we didn't.what do others think?.
-
-
Island Man
Lt. Colonel in the Air Force Strategic Command in charge of a number of ICBM missile silos and security officer for his base.
How does this prove anything?
Yep, definitely an argument from authority fallacy.
But when you delve into both side and you understand the science involved it becomes clear that the conspiracists are in error about their claims. Other nations have visited the moon with unmanned spacecraft and have seen and photographed the remnants of the apollo missions. There's enough evidence to prove that we really did go to the moon.