Jump to content
JWTalk - Jehovah's Witnesses Discussion Forum

Ferb

Full Access Users
  • Content count

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Ferb

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Personal Details

  • Gender
    Brother
  • First Name Only
    David
  • Displayed Location
    Britain
  • Publisher
    Yes
  • Baptized
    Yes
  1. http://people.com/books/leah-remini-talks-embracing-catholicism-after-scientology/ She's decided that true religion is supposed to be about not doing anything - no requirements, no morals, no hard work, just 'finding peace' and all that wishy washy stuff. If she starts off her program by drawing her listeners into that premise - that it's bad for a religion to have any moral requirements or involve any hard work - not difficult to persuade her audience of because most will already believe that - she doesn't even have to lie to make true religion sound bad. Probably will anyway, of course.
  2. I'm not certain, but I think when trying to sing along, my estimation is often an octave off. Apparently it's not uncommon to have difficulty telling a C in one octave from a C in another. And when I've tried generating a sine wave tone in Audacity, and then singing along to it and taking the spectrogram of what I was singing, I found my singing to be an octave above the notes that I was actually trying to sing along to, which explained why it was so difficult to hit any notes much above a G. But you've heard my attempt so far - if you think it's OK the way it is, you can leave it like that. I may not have been doing it at the time, I'm not sure I do that so much when singing along to another male voice. (I think it's a habit largely picked up because until my late teens, most of my experience singing was from the Kingdom Hall, where the only really audible voices to sing along with were sisters!) I don't see it either - I see a page with a OneDrive header at the top, but apart from that it just says 'Sorry, an error has occurred'.
  3. Interesting. I likewise think 'Heavenly Father' seems like a title of grandeur, but to me, that's exactly what I dislike about it. I feel like prayers are supposed to be said in natural language, and I find it hard to imagine that Jehovah is impressed by fancy titles. You suggest an interesting possibility that people's feelings about the terms 'dad' or 'daddy' are connected to what their own fathers are like. You're not the first to say it seems demeaning, and if it were being suggested to be demeaning to the person saying it - because it makes them sound more like a child - that could be understood, though why it's a bad thing for us to be humbled while speaking to Jehovah still wouldn't be entirely clear. But why it should be considered in any way demeaning to Jehovah has never really been explained by anyone making that argument, as far as I recall. But if the argument is primarily being made by people who grew up using that term for people who displayed unlovable personalities that they wouldn't want to associate with Jehovah, well then, the argument is more understandable. Now I think about it, we've kind of heard that point before. In the Imitate Their Faith book, in the chapter on Joseph, it points out, "By that time in his life as a boy, Jesus already had warm feelings about the word “father”—feelings shaped largely by his years with Joseph." In most of our cultures today, the way we come to understand the word 'Dad' will similarly be quite subjective depending on our upbringing - for some that word will invoke trust and warmth, an implication of a totally trusted provider, for others it will be equally emotionally associated with the idea of someone begrudging or even negligent in their responsibility and may well seem insulting. It's a word that can mean very different things to different people, which is perhaps why some find it appropriate and some not. 'Dad' is probably therefore inappropriate for public prayers, even if you find it appropriate for private prayers, just because you can be quite sure not all of your audience are going to understand the same meaning from that word as you do. 'Father', though, not usually being the term we used to address our Dads as children, perhaps doesn't have that same emotional connection, whether positive or negative depending on our childhood, so it's a more neutral and objective term.
  4. I think I might find it helpful just to hear the melody and maybe try listening to it transposed down an octave - could you just post the midi file to play around with? (I tried making a file of the melody myself, but only got through the first few lines.) There's a link on your YouTube page, but the links are all dead, they just go to an IIS default page. I tried practising a few deeper songs today - I know I used to be able to sing deeper, but after a time a few years ago when I had a chest-infection for a year or so and basically had to learn to sing from scratch again afterwards, it's a skill I never quite got back into, so I've been practicing it again now!
  5. Although you need iron and may need to be supplemented with it if you don't have enough, like many things you need, even water and oxygen, it's still toxic if you have too much of it. That's probably a better explanation. It is true that some bacteria mainly feed on iron though - it just depends on the species. I've never heard of any of those species living in our bodies though, it's hard to imagine there being enough iron for them to survive.
  6. Funny, I was having the same idea at about the same time this thread was posted, but didn't see this thread until now. Admittedly I was thinking it about a Kingdom Song rather than one of the 'original songs', one of the ones that's still arranged as a four-part harmony. When I fill in the form, am I supposed to just select one song, like a vote, or just click any song I'd be willing to participate in? I'd be willing to participate in any really.
  7. Kim of the North

    I think this just shows how distrustful we should be of what we hear from the media of our own countries. I was looking at TASS the other day, the Russian news service, and reading about how bad America is, and how jealous American's are of Russia's strength, and how America is trying to start a new cold war - knowing that the Western media equally points out how bad Russia is, and how Russian citizens want to emulate the West and have more freedom, and how Russia is trying to start another war. There's no unbiased media in any country.
  8. I'm not sure I understand since this is described as a home phone and yet at some points in the conversation it seems to be essentially a mobile phone rather than a landline. Since at some points you're discussing the differences between what works on Apple and Android, I'm getting the impression that it's a mobile device, but set up to work as the home phone. (I've never seen such a setup, but I could imagine it's more common in other countries.) For a mobile phone, I just block the numbers one by one. I think any device supports blocking individual numbers, doesn't it? At least you only have to deal with each caller once. It's surprising how much the same few call centres are used for all different types of calls, at least in this country, and how quickly the number of calls diminishes once you start blocking a few numbers as they call. I disallow numbers that that don't show the numbers - one sister in the congregation does this so her calls don't get through, but if she will insist on a practice that is mainly used by phone scammers... For a landline phone, I have no particular advice - this is just why I would choose not to have a landline, if given the option. (Since I'm not the only one in my house, it isn't really up to me - but I do unplug the phone if I'm the only one here for a week or so.) I suppose you could get a phone service that provides caller ID and a phone that provides most of the same service as a mobile, potentially allowing for the same solution - but it seems easier to me just to have a mobile. When you can see the phone number before picking up, then even if it isn't someone in your address book, and the call hasn't been blocked, you can fairly reliably tell which calls are genuine - people wanting to buy your hay will probably be from fairly local area codes (I presume you have those where you live) whereas junk calls will come from call centres in big cities (in this country, usually London, hence the number starts with 020). You can also then let a number ring a bit and then decide whether to call back - type a phone number into Google, and the first thing to come up will be websites reporting whether the number is connected with any nuisance calls, and if it is you can block it. (A note of caution - my phone has no setting to block calls but not texts - often the same numbers used for making bulk calls for phishing will sometimes by used for bulk calls for more legitimate purposes, like 'here is your authorisation code...' when confirming a bank transaction, but fortunately I still have the capability to sort through my blocked texts and find the text I know I should have just received.)
  9. At least it doesn't say it's happening yet, only that it's authorized. It seems like something they would have a hard time doing en masse, they wouldn't want to have to invest the resources in actually doing this - there's no advantage in it. Much like Satan could kill us, but he doesn't want to, he just wants to threaten it. (A bit more in-depth information here: http://www2.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/171115a.html ) Maybe it will happen to a few, to try to scare people, but I suspect they're more interested in this to use as a threat than as a real option. Similar to the imprisoned brothers - they think by imprisoning several well-known brothers they can break the spirits of the rest, but they wouldn't want to imprison all witnesses - telling people their taxes are paying for such a large cost, for no real benefit, in a country already under economic strain, would just give the population further incentive to revolution, which Putin already fears. And such intimidation tactics, even with children, isn't really that different from anywhere else. I've seen court cases right here in Britain where a judge threatened to take someone's children away because they were a witness, and placed a court order on them to prevent them from taking them to meetings or teaching them about the Bible. The law doesn't really allow that here, but judges can usually act illegally - who's going to stop them? 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' But this is why they're called critical times.
  10. 20,000 More

    But why would anyone have expected that anyway? What could possibly have been special about the year 2000 from Jehovah's point of view? The idea of a cataclysm around that time was, I suppose, one that was common in the world at the time, even though it wasn't particularly among God's people. "I'm telling everyone the world will end in year 2000. My compelling logic is that 2000 is a big round number." - http://dilbert.com/strip/1994-03-24 "The creator of the universe works in mysterious ways. But he uses a base ten counting system and likes round numbers." - http://dilbert.com/strip/1994-03-25 I've heard people speaking about whether it would be 100 years after the setting up of the Kingdom and so on - but I don't remember any time when Jehovah cared what is 100 years after what. If he's been interested in a period of time, it's been 70 years or 120 years or something like that, or even 2520, but not 100! That's just an amount humans care about because we have ten fingers! If there were any particular numerical significance to the timing of the paradise or the Great Tribulation by which it could be calculated, Jesus would not have needed to say that concerning that day and hour nobody knows, since he would surely have had all necessary knowledge by which to make an accurate calculation. Regarding the original subject, it's hard to draw any conclusions from the baptism data. In general I'd say it's hovered around 300,000 for a few decades, with just random fluctuations on top of that. Certainly anything that causes people to want to rush to get baptized, like maybe wanting to get baptized at an international assembly, will cause the numbers to rise that year, but dip the next year as people who would naturally have left it until that year are then missed out of the next year's statistics. But I'm surprised it makes a noticeable difference. And in fact, I'm surprised the number varies as much as it does at all - with such a large sample size, I'd expect variance to be fairly small. To get any real information I think you'd need to look at each country individually and see what patterns their statistics show - and how it relates to average birth rates in each country, perhaps revealing any correlation to how many of the baptisms are down to children of witnesses getting baptized, perhaps how it relates to political instability in that country, economic factors - and see what relationships come out of that which might apply to the larger sample, i.e. the world. But it would be a lot of work, and any such conclusions aren't really beneficial! Well, not to me, anyway - I wouldn't be surprised if somebody in a branch office has the job of trying to figure out this sort of stuff, helping to determine things like what kinds of ministry have been more effective, and what problems may particularly need addressing. They probably established that the metropolitan witnessing, for instance, was having a beneficial effect before rolling it out full scale.
  11. I know KhanAcademy has some computer science content, but I don't think it gives any qualification as such. Computer Science is the kind of subject you can often get by without any qualification in, job-wise - the 11th item on 'The Joel Test' is 'Do new candidates write code during their interview?', basically meaning it's recognised in the industry that you should test candidates' abilities when hiring them, instead of asking what qualifications they have. A qualification in CS may be of some use, but I've never seen a job offer requiring one - they always ask for experience instead of qualifications. And there's loads of material on YouTube covering it at every level, from stuff aimed at children to stuff aimed at professionals. In any case, training children towards an actual job in computer science may be undesirable - I know a few brothers with such jobs, they tend to be forced to miss meetings and be unable to progress in the truth due to lack of time. I (and a brother I knew who later became a circuit overseer) do the same thing self-employed, but of course, that allows much more control over my time, and qualifications are irrelevant - I can just learn stuff from YouTube or other websites when I need to.
  12. The Universe Should Not Exist

    Let's suppose that there's some philosophical reason Jehovah can't break the physical laws - though I think it more accurate to say simply that as a God of order, he would choose not to. When we lift an object off the floor, we aren't 'breaking' the law of gravity, just acting against it. Momentum is still conserved, energy is still conserved, but we make things happen that the laws of physics by themselves wouldn't naturally cause. Can't Jehovah do the same? I expect Jehovah took care to be as orderly as possible to conserve energy and momentum when parting the Red Sea - perhaps the water cooled to compensate for its increase in gravitational potential energy. But by doing such a thing, was he breaking the laws of physics? If so, then he is incapable of doing anything (and I think there are philosophers in Christendom who subscribe to this view). Quantum physics makes it a bit clearer. While it remains true that quantities must be conserved, like charge, energy and momentum, a lot of things are down to probability - so the splitting of the Red Sea, so long as energy was conserved as mentioned earlier, didn't even violate any physical laws, it was just an incredibly unlikely event. After all, the sea could fall down again, so it could certainly go up - anything that can happen can happen backwards, that's the T in CPT symmetry. Things just tend not to happen backwards on a human scale because the larger a scale you get to, the more unlikely it becomes. But while unlikely, it's still not physically impossible, so Jehovah hasn't broken any laws of physics by causing it. Yes, but those cosmological theories usually work on the basis that God doesn't exist. So they have to assume that anything after the Big Bang was caused only by natural laws. Frequently even those proposing it recognize that the theory doesn't really work - so they have to assume invisible unverifiable things to try to make it work, regions of unobservable dark energy or dark matter perfectly distributed to have pushed things together in the right way - because there can't possibly be any god that pushed things together in the right way, that's unthinkable. Other than the fact that they have to take this view to be considered acceptable among their atheist peers, I don't think they have any logical basis for it - and it would be a very strange way of creating things, don't you think, not making what you want to make, but trying to set up all the pieces so that they fall into the shape of what you want to make once you set them moving? It's hard to see any reason why Jehovah would have got the Master Worker to take such an unusual way of making things, just to try to conform to the theories that atheists would one day come up with to rationalize not believing in Him.
  13. Having done a search for 'plasma definition', 'plasma in geology', 'earths core plasma', it doesn't seem like earths core is widely considered to be plasma - there are more proponents of the theory than I thought, but it doesn't seem like a popular view. As I said, whether it's true or not isn't something that can be directly observed, so I'd be willing to grant him that assumption - and if he's only speaking about plasma in the sense of the other examples you mention, being partially ionized, it's less of an outlandish claim than it at first sounded, though when he says 'a plasma behaving as a solid' (I looked him up while searching), it still basically sounds to me like he's describing ordinary metal, which always has a fairly loose grasp on its electrons, and that wouldn't be enough to constitute a plasma. But it doesn't make the rest of the claim make any more sense. Whether the core is solid, liquid, gas, or fully ionised plasma, it's still big, highly energized, and heavily insulated from any electrical activity on the surface by miles and miles of earth, and the LHC is still a relatively minor consumer or emitter of energy compared to all the others on the planet. It's like the question about whether what effect we would have on the earth if we all stood in one place and jumped. We're so small compared to the Earth, even billions of us put together, we can't possibly have a measurable effect on the earth like that - and neither can the LHC. And apart from blood, the things mentioned do seem to be the same kind of plasma, from the sources I've looked at - some things are just more so than others. It's like the difference between solid and liquid - there are times when it's a bit of a grey area between the two, like toothpaste or cream, but I wouldn't say those things are a 'different type' of liquid or solid, more that they are just partway between the two. As things go from solid to liquid to gas to plasma, there are often some in-between things which are hard to classify - and flames or electrical sparks are still mainly gas, but partway toward being plasma. The stuff seen in a plasma-ball still isn't fully plasma, but it's quite a bit closer. I don't know of anywhere on earth where you'd find fully ionized, 100% plasma - well, at the Joint European Torus tokamak facility, apparently. Which looks like a cool place to visit on one of its open days, but 3 or 4 hours drive from me, so that's probably unlikely. Maybe we'll have one in the new system, huh?
  14. I don't think he could have done much math to back that up. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Earth's core is made of plasma - it's usually thought to be solid rock, but I suppose that can't have been directly observed. What's fairly sure is that it's big - really really big. And if it is plasma, then to stay in that state, it must be thousands of degrees in temperature. So it has a massive amount of energy. To make any significant difference to the amount of energy in that plasma would take far more than a nuclear blast. And the supercollider at CERN doesn't really produce anything like that much energy - if it did, it would blow up the supercollider. Its current operating energy is 13 TeV, or about enough to heat a jug of water by about one billionth of a degree celsius. True, the LHC consumes a lot of electricity in the process too. But an average city consumes much more, and discharges all that to earth too. And since most of that is alternating current, the earth is constantly being exposed to both positive and negative electricity, and so remaining neutral. It seems more like he's seen a coincidence and tried to come up with a reason to justify it, just like all the evolutionists who spot a coincidental similarity between two life-forms and try to come up with contrived reasons for it.
  15. Woman Marries Her Mother

    I was just re-reading Thomas Walker's "Just See Yourself", and reading the bit where the ones who rebel against the new system are talking about how good they used to have it, and Nick ends up comparing it to 'The Emperor's New Clothes'. It struck me how good an analogy that story is for our times. How many people can seriously believe that incestuous marriage is good, or that a girl having a fully developed male reproductive system and no female organs and yet genuinely being a girl is scientifically or logically possible? But they don't want to let it be known that there's anything about this immorality they dislike - they know how hypocritical that would be when they themselves are benefiting from this world's tolerance of all forms of immorality. You know, where the tailors in that story went wrong was not to give everybody in the town their own invisible suit - then most people wouldn't have dared start laughing at the emperor, even after the little boy did, because keeping up the pretense that this all made perfect sense would be their only way not to admit that they were naked themselves. So instead of laughing at the emperor, they would just get angry at the little boy.
×

JWTalk 19.10.11 by Robert Angle (changelog)