Jump to content
The World News Media


Recommended Posts

  • Views 4.5k
  • Replies 24
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hi  guy's....  I  just  found  the  answer,  it  reminds  me  of  an  answer  in  the  past !   Here  we  go : All humans begin life in the womb as females. If no Y chromosome is present in the f

What you have observed if it was true ... is EVOLUTION.  Future generations are shaped by what happens to existing generations. If this were true ... after 4,000 or more years ... all Jewish male

Melinda: It is not a bad idea that when doesn't have the slightest idea about something to say "I don't know". I don't know! BUT.. I can GUESS out the wazoo without being intellectually

Posted Images

  • Guest

Ummm..... very good question.

or could it be that women just have "enhanced" nipples 2.0 while we only got version 1.0 genetically? ;-)

I must say that women really are the better version of human on this planet.  Maybe one could look at women in general as human 2.0 while we males are human v1.2?

Not to say that we males don't still have a couple areas of strength. But overall women are the better half of us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Hi  guy's....  I  just  found  the  answer,  it  reminds  me  of  an  answer  in  the  past !   Here  we  go :

All humans begin life in the womb as females. If no Y chromosome is present in the foetus, then the embryo will continue to develop as and be born as a female. If there is an  Y chromosome present in the embryo, the male sex hormone testosterone restricts the full development of breasts to just nipples, the labia fuse to become the scrotum and clitoris develops fully to become a penis. If the Y chromosome prevails in producing a male, this is not done without a fight. Male babies are weaker as a result than female ones, occounting for the slightly higher death rate in male babies...    That's  it  I  think  ;-)

Good  night  for  today  ~~~~~~~~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

@Melinda Mills....   Maybe  we  not  find  all  details  in  the  Bible....   In  our  current  time,  men  asking  to  that  nipple - theme :)  Perhaps  you  will  find  any  Bible scripture  to  that ?  Adam  got  his  nipples  from  Jehovah,  also  Eve !   Since  Kain  &  Abel,  all  Babies  growing  in  a  womb.  But  first  the  modern  time  can  give  special  answers  to  this  and  that....  I  think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

But Jehovah would have purposed that the nipples be there so it would go into the DNA of the human or whatever species.    My husband had freckles on his nose and my son  has them too.  I had a burn near  my right thumb from pulling off a pressure cooker cover when I was about 10 and you can still see it.  My son was born with a mark there too.  Says something about the copying of the parents characteristics and features.  I don't quite understand the science, but Jehovah knows why he put the nipples in the first man; and personally think they are attractive in a man as well. Look at a body builder!   

I think Jehovah engineered it that way because the man and the woman are the same species and the hormones then make the difference. But if he did not put it in the man how could it go into the DNA to be copied to the children?  This is my simplistic way of explaining it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
8 minutes ago, Melinda Mills said:

  My son was born with a mark there too.  Says something about the copying of the parents characteristics and features.

What you have observed if it was true ... is EVOLUTION.  Future generations are shaped by what happens to existing generations.

If this were true ... after 4,000 or more years ... all Jewish males would be born circumcised.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

@ JamesRook   I am not saying it is true - as I have not studied these things, but you make an interesting point too. 

Tell me what you think about the science behind this:

(Genesis 30:37-42) 37 Jacob then took freshly cut staffs of the storax, almond, and plane trees, and he peeled white spots in them by exposing the white wood of the staffs. 38 Then he placed the staffs that he had peeled in front of the flock, in the gutters, in the drinking troughs, where the flocks would come to drink, that they might get into heat in front of them when they came to drink. 39 So the flocks would get into heat in front of the staffs, and the flocks would produce striped, speckled, and color-patched offspring. 40 Then Jacob separated the young rams and turned the flocks to face the striped ones and all the dark-brown ones among the flocks of Laʹban. Then he separated his own flocks and did not mix them with Laʹban’s flocks. 41 And whenever the robust animals would get into heat, Jacob would place the staffs in the gutters before the eyes of the flocks, that they might get into heat by the staffs. 42 But when the animals were weak, he would not place the staffs there. So the weak ones always came to be Laʹban’s, but the robust ones became Jacob’s.


I believe this is what also influence some of the old women's sayings in  connection with children born with strange features, e.g.  "His mother must have looked at a ....  when she was carrying him."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Just once I’d like to see a Pharma ad in which the actors, rather than acting out the touted benefits of the drug, instead act out the side effects of the voiceover—gasping, clutching their throats, turning blue, hair falling out, doubling over, dropping dead, straining on the toilet to ‘go’, swiveling about in dizziness.
    • Journalists who go rogue often do it for me. https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust RFKjr is turning out a fine source as well. Look how he says 60 years ago most people (80%) trusted government and now 90% do not: https://x.com/vigilantfox/status/1777710201937732085?s=61&t=fM8K_zHB-Zw9l_mM_4QHqg
    • My overall point is that most Witnesses I know in the United States are very political and don't even know it. Often much more political than their neighbors who vote. There are certain limits to what we will say about our political views, but I think we don't recognize that those political views often come out inadvertently in other ways. In fact, I've seen strong political views among Witnesses who only use the line "we don't take sides in politics" when they wish to shut down an argument they disagree with. My parents and many relatives were of the type that said they wouldn't be fooled by all the lies and exaggerations from MS-NBC supposedly on the "progressive left." Nor the lies and exaggerations from FOX News on the supposedly "conservative right." But that didn't stop them from being fooled by thinking that CNN was not mostly "state-sponsored media" that would cherry-pick stories now and then to keep up the ruse that they weren't. As long as they continued to support corporate sponsors, including "Big Pharma" and "Big Military Industrial Complex," it was clear what side they were going to take. And although Trump was golden to all networks for his ability to spout controversy, one of his biggest sins for CNN was the fact that he went 4 years without getting the USA involved in any new wars.  We were watching CNN once, not on purpose, and although many segments were introduced with "Brought to you by Pfizer" one was introduced "Brought to you by McDonnell-Douglas." As if any of us watching were about to go out and buy McDonnell-Douglas fighter jets and missiles for accessories. Of course, even the segments brought to you by Pfizer weren't really for any of us to be swayed in our pharmacy choices, either. As with all corporate media, those ads are really just payments to CNN; they are all just a way for corporations to PAY (bribe) the news writers and commentators to realize on which side their bread is buttered. They are merely buying influence. ---- All this was probably just my own rationale to excuse my own tendency to throw in opinions about politics, politicians, and the mainstream corporate media. There are no easy answers to how someone should go about getting their news, or how to feed their own opinions. But I would be happy to hear about the various sources people use when trying to find the "truth" about various world events. 
    • Here was the general conversation, skipping a part where I had just explained how 30,000 Palestinians, largely women and children, had been killed, and the majority of major news outlets were still equivocating about whether Israel had gone too far. But when half-a-dozen mostly "white" aid workers were killed, suddenly Nancy Pelosi (friend of the aid organization founder), Joe Scarborough, Elizabeth Warren, and a bunch of others turn on a dime to stop giving Israel a free pass -- embarrassing their own man Biden.  THEM: Well, anyway, we don't take sides about literal Israel, and we don't discuss political sides of who supports whom. ME: But that last part is just information, even history. THEM: History is one thing but the Bible says don't speak against the King. What's that it says in Ecclesiastes? (Ecclesiastes 10:20) . . .Even in your thoughts, do not curse the king, and do not curse the rich in your bedroom; for a bird may convey the sound, or a creature with wings may repeat what was said. ME: Yeah. That's where we get the expression: "a little birdie told me." Basically, it means that someone on Twitter will turn you in. Or all the government agencies will be listening in on Twitter.   THEM: Very funny. You mean "X." ME: Yeah, but they still call them "tweets." THEM: But still we don't take sides, we don't even say anything against any ruler, whether he's good or bad. We only pray that they make decisions that are good for us.  ME: I don't think it's wrong to say something against a ruler. Don't you think Hitler was a bad ruler? THEM: But he's not a king now is he? He's dead. ME: I mean even when he was alive. THEM: Well, of course, because he was attacking Jehovah's people. ME: But it would have been wrong to say he was bad while he was attacking millions of Jews? THEM: [changing subject] But look how respectful Paul was talking to Felix, he never said a word against him. ME: Maybe not, but Luke tells us he was probably looking for a bribe. That's pretty negative. ME: continuing . . . And Jesus called Herod a fox. THEM: Well maybe he was "foxy" -- "crafty" not always a bad thing. ME: You don't believe that . . . and even if it was a good thing, then Jesus was taking sides. THEM: Anyway . . . it's wrong.
    • The conversation went like this: ME: I'm just now seeing the new article on the front of jw.org, about whether Bible prophecy points to literal Israel. That seems to be on everyone's mind. THEM: Absolutely. One of my studies just asked that question and I went through the usual scriptures, especially Galatians  6. I hadn't seen the article yet. I wish I had. ME: Yes, the article uses Matthew 23:37 "your house is abandoned to you" and Galatians 6, and Romans 11. THEM: I think I used Romans 11, too.  ME: I just noticed that the article says one thing that might be confusing though. “A dulling of sensibilities has happened in part to Israel until the full number of people of the nations has come in, and in this manner all Israel will be saved.” (Romans 11:25, 26) . . . By the expression “all Israel,” Paul meant all of spiritual Israel. ME: continuing . . . Actually, I don't think that will make sense to most people though. I mean, ultimately, yes, it's spiritual Israel that is saved. We know that from Galatians 6, but in this context people are going to notice that Paul actually was speaking about the two olive trees and the LITERAL Gentiles getting grafted into the tree representing LITERAL Israel.  THEM: But it means all of spiritual Israel will be saved. ME: That's the only way it works out in the long run, yes. But doesn't it make more sense that as many of literal Israel as possible get saved because it's these people of the nations who now have Jehovah's blessing, and this makes some of natural Israel jealous? And that helps lead to the salvation of as many natural Israelites as possible. (Romans 11:11) etc., etc. Who is right on this point is not important here, it's the next part of the conversation. Next post . . . 
  • Members

    • Anna

      Anna 5,082

      Last active:
    • JW Insider

      JW Insider 9,726

      Last active:
    • Many Miles

      Many Miles 703

      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Newest Member
    James Hume
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.