Hi standfirm. Welcome. I do have a question though. You said are talking points are logically deficient. Could you please state a specific example? Better yet, would you care for a nice debate on a new thread? I would enjoy that, and I promise to be on my best behaviour...
Pika_Chu
JoinedPosts by Pika_Chu
-
151
Introducing Myself
by StandFirm inhello to jwn!
this is standfirm.
i mainly post on the topix jehovah's witness forum, but i decided to give it a try over here also.
-
-
-
-
-
Pika_Chu
Okay, PEMDAS, please excuse my dear aunt sally, Bedmas, those are all correct, what needs to be understood is that multiplication may come first in the acronym, but multiplication and division are part of the same step and on the same level of priority. Thus, the problem is done left-to-right.
The problem depends on whether or not 2(1+2) is in the denominator or not. In other words, is the equation asking "six divided by everything to the right of the division symbol" or simply "six divided by 2, also, 2 times the quantity of 1 plus 2?" If the equation was asking the former, then it would be written as follows:
6/[2(1+2)], the brackets being used to indicate that the denominator includes EVERYTHING TO THE RIGHT OF THE SYMBOL. Since these brackets are not there, then there is no reason to assume that the equation is asking that you divide by everything to the right of the symbol, thus we conclude the equation is saying the same thing as 6/2 times (1+2).
6/2(1+2), step one, no matter what, is parentheses (or brackets, because brackets are like second-level parentheses), then we get 6/2*3, if we work left to right, we get 3*3, or 9, for the value of x.
To verify, we break the equation down into all of its seperate parts. Can we all agree that the left of the equals sign states the following?
6 divided by 2 times 3? If so, then there are three numbers we are dealing with here. If I move things around a bit in the equation 6/2*3=x (by way of dividing both sides by 3), I can make the equation look like this:
(6/2*3)/3=x/3.
The threes cancel out on the left side, I am left with 6/2=x/3, and 6/2=3, so
3=x/3, we multiply both sides by 3 to get x, and again, we get x=9.
For FURUTHER verification, we can substitute 9 with x back into the equation, like so: 6/2*3=x, x=9, so that means 6/2*3=9, then I divide both sides by three again:
I get 6/2=9/3, reduce the fractions, we get the following:
3=3. The statement is true, therefore, x=9.
Now I'll substitute the alternative solution and see if it works, given x=1.
6/2*3=1, first step, we divide both sides by 3, we get:
6/2=1/3, reduce the fractions, we get this result:
3=/=1/3, 3 is NOT equal to 1/3, so 1 is an incorrect value of x. Thus, the correct answer was the afforementioned x=9. Oddly enough, though, 3 and 1/3 are INVERSES...interesting...
-
125
JWs Not Allowed to Post on Websites?
by StandFirm inthis seems to be a favorite topic to bring up to any witnesses who post on any website where there are any opposers, either here or topix or anywhere.. so, here is the one and only place i will be discussing it.
who can prove that witnesses are specifically told not to post on websites about them?.
-
-
Pika_Chu
Hi Standfirm. While the Society doesn't exactly say to stay off the internet, they worn JWs about internet "dangers." Most of the time, this means apostate websites. I think you should know that this website is overrun with apostates (hint: I'm one too). Just know that you are posting here at your own risk. It wasn't too long ago that I thought like you and I began to explore websites like this. And, well, look how I ended up. So, you have that to think about. Now, I noticed you said earlier that the elders and the society aren't going to micro-manage your life, and I respect that. If it doesn't violate your conscience to be here, then that's fine, let's talk more. Trusting your trained conscience versus trusting in imperfect men with authority is a sign of maturity and reasonableness. Good for you then. But I also have to warn you that you are outnumbered here, and you can expect to get bashed around if you provoke us. Like I said, you are here at your own risk.
-
114
StandFirm Says The Watchtower Society Has Never Lied!
by LostGeneration incheck it out:.
http://stayawake-standfirm.blogspot.com/2011/04/watchtower-society-has-never-lied.html.
standfirms disclaimer is that the definition of a lie is: "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive"-emphasis added.. of course, other definitions of lie include: .
-
-
Pika_Chu
Okay, whenever you lie, you are deceiving even if you don't mean to. And when you realize it's wrong, you correct it. And if you are REALLY interested in the REAL truth, you make sure your info is accurate. That's what truth is. And the WT doesn't do that.
-
69
Any videogamers here?
by R.F. inthis is my #1 hobby.
i have a ps2, psp, and xbox.
i was mainly an xbox kind of guy until they completely abandoned it soon after the 360 was released.
-
-
Pika_Chu
BUMP! Great thread! Gotta ressurect it!
Anyway, games are one of my favorite passtimes. I like the classic arcade ones, the modern first-person shooters, the adventure games. I like the Sims, but they're too repetitive. Smash Brothers is awesome, the Tony Hawk, snowboarding, and wrestling games are awesome and I like fighting games. Also, I like the pokemon gameboy games and other RPGs. So, yeah, all kinds! Video Games are awesome!
-
-
-
Pika_Chu
Yay!!! This WAS the droid I was looking for!
-
-
-
Pika_Chu
Um, wasn't God partial to the Hebrews? And they were commanded to kill people of other tribes on the bases of race and religion? This is just a way to frame things to where Darwin and Evolution get demonized.
-
-
-
Pika_Chu
Oh, yeah, and Stephen Freakin Colbert...he's great. I don't know about not being opinionated, but I prefer my misery and world events with coffee and a laugh. Gotta be positive sometimes and just realize politics is BS and a game we can laugh at.
-
-
-
Pika_Chu
Uh, no, they don't exist. This "unbiased news network" is the magical unicorn you seek but will never find, no matter how many damn rainbows you spot! Sorry, had a Glenn Beck moment. Oh wait, that would be Hitler-unicorns or something. The closest thing to that is probably your local newspaper, oddly enough. I find that to be true of mine. And, what I do is read papers, watch TV, read stuff online, all from a variety of sources, and I try to just take it all with a grain of salt, hoping the biases will cancel out. This is where skepticism is a must. There's too much Bull**** circulating in the news. ALL the news. Yes, Fox, you are biased as all hell too. Yes, internet, sometimes your info isn't reliable. Yes, CNN and HLN, sometimes you don't focus on the important stuff. I just try to make sense of all the crap, synthesize and analyze.
-
17
So if God didn't mean a literal day when he said "Day," doesn't that mean the NWT isn't the most accurate translation?
by Pika_Chu inif the hebrew word rendered "day" has multiple meanings, why was the most accurate translation of the word not used?
why doesn't it say "eons" in the nwt?
if god really meant to say "eons," why didn't he make sure it said "eons" instead of days.
-
-
Pika_Chu
Hi. Sorry I disappeared.
@Terra Incognita: good point, but I was kind of already getting to that. If it doesn't make sense because of the word choice, then people usually resort to non-literal interpretations. The problem is that, once you go that far, you can pretty much say the Bible is saying anything. I mean, who has the right interpretation if a passage requires special interpretation? Who am I supposed to believe has the right idea if it's symbolic? And, no offense, but this is one of my points for atheism: why would God speek to us in code and symbols? Wouldn't the Bible be easier to understand if it's just straightforward? If it's supposed to be a guide for our lives, I prefer the instructions be written in plain English (yeah, I know it was Hebrew, but still). If God really doesn't want anyone getting confused about whether or not the Genisis account is to be taken literally or symbolically, shouldn't he have given us a legend or a decoder right there on the first page? And if "day" is symbolic and not literal, I mean, wouldn't God just say it was?
@Black sheep: Now that I think about it, I'm not sure they use the word "eons" specifically, but I'm pretty sure they do. But, like you said, perhaps they were talking about the time before the creative days. I believe they use the word "epoch" most of the time. Either way, it's definately not a 24-hour day.
@Possible-san: Thank you for your concern, but I thought my post would be informative and get people thinking. Well, that was my intention, anyway. Maybe some will complain that this argument is petty or that other translations are guilty for doing the same thing, but the point I was trying to make is that the NWT is no MORE accurate than other Bibles.
@hamsterbait: yes, like you said, the Society reinterprets the meaning of "day" in a 20/20 kind of way. There's no indication that Moses (or whomever wrote Genesis) meant anything other than 24-hour days. Since the Jewish Sabbath and week length was based on the creative days (Exodus 20:11), I'm thinking Moses must have really meant a 24-hour day, versus epochs. Did the Jews have Sabbath every epoch or so? I don't think so...
@Radhysm: wow, that's interesting. I'm not convinced of any creation stories, however, but I guess that was another way to look at things.