So what Im saying is that by the time the article I wrote actually gets published it has been butchered so much (not just edited) that it may be barely recognisable as my article anymore. Paragraphs here and there may be the same and that is all.
doubtfull1799
JoinedPosts by doubtfull1799
-
13
The anonymity of Jehovah's Witness material
by stuckinarut2 inis it vital for credibility to have the name of the writer of an article referenced?.
does this allow for honesty and accountability?
does this assist in ensuring that whatever is presented is as factual as possible, or not biased in some way toward the religion's ideas?.
-
-
-
13
The anonymity of Jehovah's Witness material
by stuckinarut2 inis it vital for credibility to have the name of the writer of an article referenced?.
does this allow for honesty and accountability?
does this assist in ensuring that whatever is presented is as factual as possible, or not biased in some way toward the religion's ideas?.
-
-
doubtfull1799
I don't know that it would help with credibility, except to say that knowing the writers and and their lack of qualifications would only destroy any credibility. What is more important is the quality of the sources they are using and wether they are using them correctly. It would certainly add credibility of they cited all their sources etc so they could be checked. But we all know where that leads... we find out how much quote mining they do. If their sources were credible and their understanding and application of those sources was good then that would add credibility.
However it would certainly make a difference to accountability to know who the authors are. As it stands, the anonymity means no one can be pinned down or held accountable for what they write individually. So really the GB is intimately responsible for everything that gets published because they are the final editors. They are accountable, bit of course, as we well know, they refuse to accept that accountability.
My experience in the writing department brings up another issue though. It is very difficult to actually attribute many articles to a single author. Because of the way things are done it is almost like "writing by committee." An article that I would send in would be amended by the branch office and then amended again and perhaps combined with, or have other things added to, that other authors were writing about on the same subject. For any given article they may have a number of brother working on material from different writing departments around the world, and then they combine and mix the material together....
-
4
100 million year old Australian dinosaur has same skeletal structure as us
by doubtfull1799 insince leaving the faith i have come to accept the facts and reality of evolution.
and of course i've read much about comparative anatmony and how it helps us to see the links between our common evolutionary ancestors.
however, its another thing to see it live in 3d.
-
-
doubtfull1799
Since leaving the faith I have come to accept the facts and reality of evolution. And of course I've read much about comparative anatmony and how it helps us to see the links between our common evolutionary ancestors. However, its another thing to see it live in 3D. It is so obvious when you see a real life model of the skeleton such as this Australian dinosaur.
As you can see in the picture, the limbs are structured exactly like ours with a single bone in the thigh/upper arm, and then two bones forming the lower arms and lower legs, just like we have. You can see the complex system of phalangeal bones forming the feet and hands. You can see the shoulder blade like we have etc. You can even see five fingers, though this dinosaur probably seems to have three fingers that were more prominent than the other two which you can easily see could have led to an opposable thumb and pinkie. The rib cage, the vertebrae, all look very similar to our own.
So if you are still struggling with the idea of evolution may I please encourage you to visit a natural history museum (something I have never done before, this happened to be in our local national museum as a special display) and see the skeletons for yourself and ponder just how similar they are to a modern humans.
-
10
Eavesdropping on a home Bible Study
by doubtfull1799 inmy mil held a bible study round to our place today and i was home so was interested to listen in from the next room to see what the quality of the study was like.
and whether the new clam meetings are helping jw’s to be better teachers at all.. .
participants:.
-
-
doubtfull1799
I like it Steve2, a Tuppaware party indeed - thats exactly what it was....
Thats incredible stuck, shows the true motivation....
-
10
Eavesdropping on a home Bible Study
by doubtfull1799 inmy mil held a bible study round to our place today and i was home so was interested to listen in from the next room to see what the quality of the study was like.
and whether the new clam meetings are helping jw’s to be better teachers at all.. .
participants:.
-
-
doubtfull1799
My MIL held a Bible Study round to our place today and I was home so was interested to listen in from the next room to see what the quality of the study was like. And whether the new CLAM meetings are helping JW’s to be better teachers at all.
Participants:
Conductor 1 (C1) - my 84 year old MIL (who I do love by the way, not trying to pay her out because she’s my MIL)
Conductor 2 (C2)
Student 1 - a lady that has been studying for years and has finished the Bible Teach Book
Student 2 - a new lady just starting her study that is friends of Student 1
Cameo - C2’s young son
Time: 90 mins
Proceedings:
First half hour - coffee and chit chat
Prayer - neither my MIL who was conducting the study or the sister who prayed wore a head covering despite me being in the house. Apparently the headship principle doesn’t apply any more when the man is not going to meetings. Of course that’s not what the official policy is, but who cares right?
10 mins - more general chit chat about how miserable life is, then watched video of children signing kingdom song because…. well isn’t it cute? And don’t we have a wonderful hope? And doesn’t watching children sing make you even more emotional about how all your problems are going to be solved?
10 mins - discussing which book they’re studying and where they’re up to, getting their iPads organised
10 mins - C1 describes her experience growing up Presbyterian and bags them out for never having taught her anything at Sunday school except to learn scriptures - so she decided to study with JW’s along with her parents. She was only 11 years old at the time but apparently this immense life experience already provided her with all the information she needed to know that “NO OTHER religion in the world teaches you how you can be God’s friend, or teach you anything for that matter - they only read scriptures, they don’t explain them.” (Not wanting to defend any religion here, but just maybe the Presbyterians are wise enough to know that children shouldn’t be indoctrinated too much before they are even a teenager and thought Gods’ word could speak for itself)
So were more than 30 mins into the study proper and they finally read the first paragraph. They read first few paragraphs and just share more testimonials. They agree on how hard the Bible is to understand and how miserable life is again. Student 1 goes on about how her Bible study has changed her life (but not to the extent that she can give up smoking apparently - see below)
C1 explains that she is still learning new stuff about the Bible in her 80’s (what exactly? It’s not like they’re teaching anything new at the meeting, so I’m not sure where she is learning this stuff!)
Then they waffle on for another 10 mins about how learning about the Bible doesn’t help with problems, it just helps you cope with them. C1 explains all the trouble in her life and how the Bible helps her cope. This is a woman who pops a valium every day, and freaks out if she doesn’t get them. Medication helps her cope, not God.
After reading paragraph 4 on how people question how a loving god permits suffering the iPad jams and they fuss over that for a while. Then more personal testimonials about how much they cried learning about the reasons for God permitting suffering, then off on a sidetrack as Student 1 expressed their struggle with cigarettes and how they feel like the worst person in the world.
They discussed “how can we be sure that god is not responsible?” Answer: “just trust us, he isn’t, because he says he isn’t.”
Then the study was interrupted because one of the conductors children was dropped off.
General Comments:
Conductors keep explaining what they like abut the scriptures read instead of asking questions to sound out the students understanding.
Students just keep reaffirming how life changing they feel it is learning about the bible (when they haven’t learnt anything yet!) Very little of substance was actually discussed.
Conductors asked student about illustrations used. Student doesn’t get them so conductors read them agains and explains them instead and still have no idea if student gets it.
Student expressed what a mess their life is (JW prey on the vulnerable) and the advice? Keep praying. Though they just discussed earlier that God doesn’t actually do anything to help you.
Other student has been studying for over 3 years and still can’t quit smoking - Is God powerless to help?
So what did the new student learn?
1. People ask questions
2. People have problems (this was what they spent 90% of their time on and I’m sure the student new this before she came)
3. Problems don’t go away just because you pray about them
4. The Bible gives you answers and hope.
5. Gods got a good reason for letting you suffer - just trust us on that one for now, we’ll give you the reason months from now in chapter 11 after you’re sufficiently emotionally invested to accept the reason and not question it.
Don’t worry, be happy!
-
18
"We never solicit donations" - really?
by doubtfull1799 ininspired by this weeks clam article which again "reminds" the brothers pdf their obligation/privilege to donate "voluntarily" i have complied a list of articles or videos in the last 5 years where donations are indeed solicited or encouraged.
the society may argue that these are not actual solicitations because no plate was passed around.
but a donation box is just a more discrete and subtle version of the plate.
-
-
doubtfull1799
Inspired by this weeks CLAM article which again "reminds" the brothers pdf their obligation/privilege to donate "voluntarily" I have complied a list of articles or videos in the last 5 years where donations are indeed solicited or encouraged. The society may argue that these are not actual solicitations because no plate was passed around. But a donation box is just a more discrete and subtle version of the plate. And they make this comment in their online article "Can you trust religion regarding money":
"Do the religions in your area imply direct or subtle pressure to obtain money? Is that in harmony with the Bible?"
They may argue it is not direct, but I can't see how one could argue it's not "subtle pressure."
If I've missed any please feel free to add to this list: (seems things have really ramped up since 2015)
2012
w12 1/15 p21-25 - Making whole-souled sacrifices for Jehovah
km 4/12 - Our district conventions
w12 8/15 p3-7 - I am with you
w12 10/15 p12-16 - What kind of spirit do you show?
2013
w13 8/15 p3-8 - You have been sanctified
km 12/13 p8 - Announcements
w13 11/15 p8-9 - How can we help to meet the needs of others?
w13 12/15 p9-14 - Will you make sacrifices for the kingdom?
2014
w14 1/1 p11 - Did you know?
km 4/14 - Maintain your conduct fine among the nations
km 11/14 Announcements
w14 12/15 p4-5 - Jehovah richly blesses a willing spirit
2015
2015 - Jehovah will care for our needs video
w15 3/15 p24-29 - Loyally supporting Christ’s brothers
km 4/15 p5-7 - Convention reminders
km 4/15 p3-6 - Conduct that glorifies God
May 2015 Broadcast
w15 6/15 p27-32 - Live in harmony with the model prayer
w15 7/15 p27-31 - This is our place of worship
w15 9/1 p6 - How our ministry is financed
w15 9/15 p27-32 - How can we show that we love Jehovah?
km 11/15 p4 Announcements
w15 11/15 p15-15 - Show appreciation for Jehovah’s generosity
Dec 17 2015 letter - Supporting WWW
2016
Jan 2016 Broadcast
CLAMwbb16 Feb p5 - Faithful worshippers support theocratic arrangements
May 16 2016 letter - Donations to the WWW using jw.org
Sept 21 2016 letter - Global assistance arrangement
w16 Nov p4-8 - Keep on encouraging one another each day
w16 Nov p19-20 - The work is great
Dec 29 2016 letter - Donations in support of kingdom interests
2017
w17 Jul p3-8 - Seeking riches that are true
w17 Jul p7-11 - Making a donation to our WWW
CLAMwb17 Oct p5 - How to donate to the WWW
CLAMwb17 Dec - Take firm hold of the robe of a Jew
w17 Nov p18-19 - The generous person will be blessed
Dec 1 2017 letter - Donations in support of Kingdom interests
2018
w18 Jan p17-21 - Why give to the one how has everything?
-
12
A little critique/commentary on the first of the new Public Watchtowers (No.1 2018) - Corrections and additions welcomed
by doubtfull1799 in“all scripture is inspired of god and beneficial.”—2 timothy 3:16.”.
what/which scripture was paul referring to?
how is it possible to know with any certainty without being speculative or dogmatic?
-
-
doubtfull1799
So, all in all, considering their claim in the November broadcast to be writers and journalists of the highest standards and integrity, with every fact researched thoroughly and fully supported, I think this is a very poor start to the new series.
-
12
A little critique/commentary on the first of the new Public Watchtowers (No.1 2018) - Corrections and additions welcomed
by doubtfull1799 in“all scripture is inspired of god and beneficial.”—2 timothy 3:16.”.
what/which scripture was paul referring to?
how is it possible to know with any certainty without being speculative or dogmatic?
-
-
doubtfull1799
“All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial.”—2 Timothy 3:16.”
What/which Scripture was Paul referring to? How is it possible to know with any certainty without being speculative or dogmatic? Without being able to determine for sure, of what use is this statement?
Does “all” mean ALL? If so, then why is so much of theology based on a few dozen key passages while large swathes of the text are routinely ignored or avoided?
“This issue of The Watchtower examines the Bible’s claim that it can guide us in every aspect of life.”
Of course the Bible's claims about itself are meaningless. They are not independent proof of anything, they are just an assertion. Its no more valid than if J.K.Rowling had written a postscript in her Harry Potter books claiming that the lessons in them could guide people in all aspects of their life.
“Is the Bible's guidance relevant today? Some say no. One doctor compared using the Bible for guidance to using a textbook from the 1920’s for teaching a chemistry class.”
"Some say no" is a pretty meaningless statement. It is saying some people are of this opinion. Well, so what? Is their opinion valid? Is their opinion based on evidence or expertise in the subject?
Which doctor? Why is his opinion relevant? Being knowledgable about medical matters does not make him an expert on the Bible does it?
So obviously the author of this article is disagreeing with this doctors point of view, but they have not demonstrated why this comparison is invalid. A few cherry picked verses from the Bible later on in the article, that appear to be still relevant today, are in no way a solid argument that this comparison is false, especially when so much else of the Bible that is not relevant is ignored.
This is also a straw-man argument - the doctor is not claiming that ALL of the Bible is out of date, just that much of it is. No doubt even a chemistry textbook from the 1920’s would still contain some useful information that is correct, even if much of it wasn’t up-to-date anymore.
“TV pundits and talk shows feature a stream of knowledgeable psychologists, lifestyle gurus, and authors.”
What makes these lifestyle gurus and authors knowledgeable? Some may be, others are probably not. It has no bearing on wether the authors of scripture are any more or less knowledgeable on a particular subject. The only things we can say for sure is that they were ignorant of much science that has been done since their time.
“With all that up-to-the-minute information available, why turn to the Bible—a book that was completed almost 2,000 years ago? Would not sceptics be right in saying that using such an ancient book for guidance is like using an outdated chemistry book or computer manual?”
Good questions that were not adequately answered. Only very superficial arguments, shallow research, and religious apologetics were offered in answer.
“Science and technology change rapidly, but has human nature changed?”
Yes it has. Society and human values have changed enormously since the Bible was written. Morality has evolved. We are less violent, we legislate for human rights. We no longer tolerate slavery, racism, abuse, subjugation of women. Society has worked hard to greatly reduce levels of poverty, famine, disease etc.
“People still want to find meaning in life as well as to have a reasonable measure of happiness and security, good family relations, and rewarding friendships.”
I think this is inarguable and generally true. However millions of people are able find happiness and define meaning in their life, as well as enjoy good family relationships and rewarding friendships without the help of the Bible.
“What is more, it claims to convey counsel that is timeless—advice that never becomes obsolete!”
It is true that some of the so-called “wisdom texts” of the Bible offer fairly universal and timeless advice.
However most of those parts of the Bible are not unique to the Bible, and are in fact found in common with many other religious texts from Zoroastrianism to Buddhism to Confucianism etc.
Also, the claim that EVERYTHING in the Bible is timeless advice has been disproven many times and to claim that it never is obsolete only works if you again cherry pick the wisdom literature.
“Is it out-of-date, or is it really the most relevant and practical of books”
Again, the author fails to make the case that it is the MOST relevant book. 3 or 4 pages of cherry picked data are not a thorough enough examination of the subject, let alone a subjective and balanced comparison with other book that claim to be relevant and practical to make that assessment.
“It is a very ancient book—older than most.”
That may be true, but it is not the oldest. It is a quite meaningless statement. What is the point?
“But like eroded old monuments, most old writings have been badly damaged by the passage of time. Their statements on science, for instance, have been contradicted by new knowledge, provable facts.”
In this respect the Bible is no different from these other ancient books - there are many examples of statements the Bible makes that have been contradicted by current scientific knowledge and provable facts.
The author refuses to acknowledge this of course, but can only do so by using a fallacy called special pleading. The argument goes like this: When the Bible says something that contradicts science it is not actually making a scientific statement; it is merely being poetic or metaphoric and is to be interpreted in a theological way. No doubt the same could be said for these other ancient books, but a false comparison is made.
The other way to deny the contradictions is to simply deny the quality of the science. In other words any science that does not harmonise with the Bible is simply deemed to be science that is for some reason not supported by “provable facts.” This claim is made by people who usually have no knowledge or expertise in the science in question. They therefore have no basis to make that claim.
“Their medical counsel often seems more dangerous than helpful.”
Again, the bible is no different in this regard. Its medical knowledge is just as flawed, sometimes just as dangerous, and sometimes just bizarre, especially is dietary restrictions. What does God have against pigs and shellfish?
“The Bible, though, stands out as different.”
Simply false - it does not. No matter how forcefully you make the claim.
“Yet the Bible is intact.”
Intact in what way exactly? This is a false and misleading 20th century viewpoint that is unsupported by any evidence.
There are many apocryphal books, gospels and letters. There are many lost Jewish & Christian texts (some of which are even mentioned as reference material in the Bible itself). There are many different extant versions (both longer and shorter) of the books we do have in our current canon. So how can one possibly claim to know that the collection of writings that make up the Bible we have today is EXACTLY the book some divine being intended it to be. If we had the original manuscripts and an original catalogue from this divine being listing which books he actually “inspired” we perhaps could make this claim, but we don't.
“If people lived by these values, would the world be a better place?”
Probably, but they are universal values that do not originate from the Bible. The problem is that while the Bible may espouse these values in select passages, in many more passages in demonstrated the opposite.
“Happy are the peacemakers,”
God is not a peacemaker. Though he claims to abhor violence, the Bible is full to the brim with God’s violent acts. It is preferred solution to everything. From punishing children with wild bears to ethnic cleansing of the Promised Land, to the complete genocide of the whole human race at the flood.
“Jehovah* freely forgave you,”
Where was Gods patience, mercy & forgiveness of Lots wife? Of Uzzah? Of the thousands of Israelites who accidentally saw the ark etc etc?
“God is not partial,”
Tell that to the Midianites, Amalekites, and Ammonites etc etc. Explain it to the millions in the East (Asia) and the Americas, whom God apparently chose not to reveal himself to for the first 5,500 years of man’s 6,000 years existence! And when he did reveal himself to them it was by the sword of Christian missionaries…
“We wish to conduct ourselves honestly in all things.”
Where was that honesty in Abraham and Jacob?
“Really, then, Bible principles are more relevant and timely than ever!”
Again, these are not exclusively Bible principles. They are universal principles. The fact that they happen to be in the Bible does not make it more relevant than any other book, even if it does make it culturally significant.
“Delphine turned to the Bible in her hour of need. What it did for her is remarkable.”
That’s great that Delphine found help in the Bible, but millions of other examples could be quoted where people coped with or survived the same things Delphine did by finding comfort in other religious texts or merely through their own resilience.
“Leading scientists once felt strongly that the answer was no. Now they generally accept that there was a beginning to the universe. The Bible said that clearly all along.”
Which scientists? Leading in what way?
The question of whether the universe had a beginning is a 50/50 proposition. Either it did or it didn’t. How remarkable is it really to have guessed one way and happen to be right? This is not evidence of divine wisdom ahead of its time, it's just evidence of luck.
What would be more remarkable (and perhaps even constitute evidence of divine inspiration) is if the Bible had explained HOW the universe began. Instead it presents a new version of older reaction myths, which admittedly happens to be slightly closer to reality. But it is still in no way harmonious with modern science. Examples: Claiming it was all made in 7 days. The order is wrong - it claims seed bearing land plants appeared before marine life - it is the other way around. It claims God placed the sun and moon in our atmosphere below a heavenly body of water etc.
“In the fifth century B.C.E., Greek scientists suggested that it was a sphere. But long before that—in the eighth century B.C.E.—the Bible writer Isaiah referred to “the circle of the earth,” using a word that may also be rendered “sphere.”
This is really stretching things to breaking point to try and make it fit. If Isaiah meant to say the earth was a sphere, why didn’t he use the actual word for sphere? (It is a separate word that he actually uses in Isa 22:18) And why does the NWT not translate the word in that way? Because the word just means “circle.” The only evidence the author provide here that it can mean something else is their own footnote! The fact is the author of Isaiah was not ahead of his time. He believed the earth was a flat circle.
“Greek scientist Aristotle, of the fourth century B.C.E., taught that decay happens only on the earth, while the starry heavens could never change or decay.”
I'm guessing this is a reference to Aristotle’s theory of the persistence of Material Substance. I’m not sure this is an accurate representation of Aristotle’s ideas?
“Lord Kelvin noted that the Bible says about heaven and earth: “Just like a garment they will all wear out.”
But he failed to note the other Bible verses that say the opposite that the earth will endure?
Does this poetic text really anything to do with the scientific concept of entropy?
“But in the book of Job, of the 15th century B.C.E., we read that the Creator is “suspending the earth upon nothing.”
Firstly, in the same book of Job we read about the earth’s socket pedestals and foundations? So which is it? The Bible seems to be confused on this issue, not ahead of it’s time! Job’s explanation of the earth was no clearer that Aristotle’s.
Secondly, Job’s statement is not in harmony with science. Neither the earth, nor any other heavenly bodies, is just hanging in a void, it is being actively controlled by the force of gravity.
Now if the book of Job had actually explained gravity and Newtonian laws of motion THAT would have been ahead of its time!
“Until late in the 19th century, physicians often worked on corpses and then on living patients—without washing their hands in between. That practice caused many deaths. Yet, the Mosaic Law stated that anyone who touched a dead body was ceremonially unclean. It even directed that water be used for ceremonial cleansing in such cases. Those religious practices surely had health benefits as well.”
If the Bible was ahead of its time in this area why did the “God of love” not enlighten humankind with the germ theory of disease? This would have saved millions of more lives over the centuries. Besides, simply washing with water is not what prevented medical deaths. It was the soap! Why did the Bible forget to mention that soap was a necessary component of the hand washing? It was only a ceremonial thing, was nothing to do with actual health.
“The Mosaic Law said that human waste should be buried, disposed of away from human habitation.”
Humans have no doubt been doing this from the dawn of time - ancient sanitation systems were much more sophisticate than we imagine. It doesn’t take a genius (or a divine being) to work out its better to keep that smelly waste away from your living area. Ever been camping?
“waiting for over a week before circumcision was a wise protection.”
Would have been even wiser not to demand circumcision in the first place would it not?
Genital mutilation - What a bizarre and strange way of marking your people? Worse that branding your cattle with an iron.“A joyful heart is good medicine”
Not particularly outstanding medical insight really. You'll feel and be better if you're happy! Really? -
2
Time Magazine person of the year is.... MANY OF US!
by doubtfull1799 inthe time person of the year for 2017 is "the silence breakers.".
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/dec/06/metoo-movement-named-time-magazines-person-of-the-year.
this article got me thinking.
-
-
doubtfull1799
The Time Person of the Year for 2017 is "The Silence Breakers."
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/dec/06/metoo-movement-named-time-magazines-person-of-the-year
This article got me thinking. First of all, that like those women who are currently breaking the silence of sexual harassment and/or violence against women in the entertainment industry, we are part of a growing movement to break the silence on the Watchtowers spiritual abuses as well as their covering up of child abuse.
This shows that society is continuing to evolve ethically and morally in a positive direction (in contradiction to the WTS propaganda that the world is becoming more and more depraved. It may be a slow process, and we will no doubt always have cases of abuse like we always have had in the past, but gradually society outlaws the institutional nature of these kinds of harmful behaviours.
Once we accepted slavery until enough "Silence Breakers" spoke out against it.
Once we accepted limiting womens rights until enough "Silence Breakers" spoke out against it.
Once we treated same-sex attracted persons as subhuman until enough "Silence Breakers" spoke out against it.
Once we treated racism as acceptable until enough "Silence Breakers" spoke out against it.
Now we are hopefully seeing the beginning of the end of silently accepting child abuse, sexual assault and violence against women etc.
Maybe one day, if enough people break the silence, we will also see an end to harmful religious indoctrination and propaganda too......
Don't be afraid to stand up to religious abuse - speak out. Condemn it for what it is.
-
5
Implications of gender and racial imbalance in JW population.
by doubtfull1799 inthis was inspired by a recent post by nike and the comments that followed re gender balance in the org.
if jw's accept the concept that the gb continue to push - that people only become believers if they are "rightly disposed" and are thereby "drawn by god.".
then given the huge gender imbalance and also the huge differences in percentages of jw in some lands vss others only two things can possible follow from that:.
-
-
doubtfull1799
This was inspired by a recent post by Nike and the comments that followed re gender balance in the org.
If JW's accept the concept that the GB continue to push - that people only become believers if they are "rightly disposed" and are thereby "drawn by God."
Then given the huge gender imbalance and also the huge differences in percentages of JW in some lands vss others only two things can possible follow from that:
1. Women are much more likely to have the right heart attitude than men. (meaning men are more imperfect or there is some design flaw in the male psyche when it comes to spirituality?) And certain races are more likely to have the right heart attitude than others. For example white anglo-saxons in Western countries (where the ratio of JW to population is 1:300) vss Asians (where in Bangladesh for example the ratio is 1:1,000,000 or,
2. Genders/races are equally likely to have a good heart but GOD is simply gender biased and racist and selects more of some groups than others.
P.S. It would be interesting to take that further and find out what the gender and racial balance of the "anointed" is! I suspect that the anointed remnant of this century have been predominantly anglo saxon males???