pseudoxristos

Joined

• started 37 topics
• posted 504 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by pseudoxristos

• 
  22

  Millions Then Living Did Not Survive

  by Fred Franztone in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it's almost 2018, almost 100 years since 'judge' rutherford confidently prophesied that 'millions now living will never die!'..

  so how many of those millions are left?

  well, since it was 100 years ago, all we need to do is find out how many people of age 100 and above are currently living.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  pseudoxristos

  "Millions now living in overlapping generations will never die!"
• 
  48

  Adam and the Dinosaurs

  by The Real Edward Gentry in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  here is a fascinating subject.

  according to the bible , one of adam's first assignments was to name all the animals including the sea creatures and dinosaurs of course.

  we don't know how long this took but, as all witnesses know, the time period is crucial in working out the timing of armageddon).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  pseudoxristos

  Apparently, according to Ken Ham, the dinosaurs survived the flood only to later become extinct, or perhaps they still survive deep in some unexplored area of earth. For a good laugh, read the following:

  https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/when-did-dinosaurs-live/what-really-happened-to-the-dinosaurs/

  So God had Noah save the dinosaurs from the flood and then allowed them to die off later because conditions on earth after the flood were too harsh for their survival. I'm beginning to think that Ken Ham is really an atheist mocking Christians with this ridiculous nonsense.
• 
  10

  Anyone remember LP album circa 68 with Awake on back cover?

  by cabasilas in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have a memory of some rock artist of the 60s placing a pic of herself and some guy in bed and her reading an awake magazine on the back cover.

  it could have been "is time running out for mankind" or something like that.

  anyone remember?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  pseudoxristos

  
  
• 
  19

  Debating a Christian at work.

  by pseudoxristos in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  a christian at work has been after me for more than a year to go to his church and be saved.

  i like the guy and consider him a friend and have been politely trying to avoid the subject.

  i have recently decided that enough is enough and i told him i would discuss religion with him.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  pseudoxristos

  Today, I finally started the discussion with my friend on Genesis chapter 1. As I expected, we were only able to cover the first 5 or so verses in over 2 hours of discussion (with some interruptions).

  I tried to get him to read information from some of the sub-headings in the Wikipedia article:

  Genesis creation narrative

  I got the impression that he really didn't wanted to bother with it, but want to start the discussion instead.

  (The following is extremely condensed and paraphrased. I hope that I accurately portray his thoughts)

  Previously he had told me that the Bible states in Gen 1:1-5 that On the first day, God created the Heavens (universe) and earth (without form), then light.

  Basically, I tried to establish the idea that Gen 1:1-2 was not part of the Creation account and it acted more like an introduction. Each of the creative days follow a textual formula where God commands an action, followed by the occurrence of that action, followed by the phrase "...then it was evening and morning, the xth day".

  He claimed that every creative day ended with the phrase "...then it was evening and morning, the xth day" and it included all of the previous actions not included from the previous day, so he didn't see a problem with including Gen1:1-2 with Gen1:3-5. I pointed out that it would be more consistent to view each creative day starting with "And God said ..." and ending with "...then it was evening then morning". I think he finally saw the point and conceded that it didn't really matter and we moved on to Gen 1:3-5.

  Surprisingly, he chose to argue that God did indeed create light on the first day even though the sun was not created until the 4th day. He chose to believe that God was able to illuminated the sky (since he is the creator, and not bound by his creation) even though the sun was not created until day 4.

  I argued that I thought that was inconsistent and he was using the "God did it argument".

  I brought up my idea that the ancient Hebrews may have not necessarily felt that the illumination of the atmosphere was tied to the sun and if the account was viewed in this manner, it made more sense. At one point I asked him if the source of illumination of the sky was the same on day five as it was for day one. He indicated that by day 4 the sun would have taken over and illuminated the sky.

  Eventually I suggested that we agree to disagree, even though overall we kind of agreed that light was present without the sun, we just varied on the details. He still insisted that his view was consistent.

  I'm pretty sure that I've really done nothing to persuade him to see my point of view and it will likely take a long long time to get to that point. I am a little irritated that he seems to think that we can go over one or two minor issues and I should be persuaded to become a Christian.
• 
  19

  Debating a Christian at work.

  by pseudoxristos in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  a christian at work has been after me for more than a year to go to his church and be saved.

  i like the guy and consider him a friend and have been politely trying to avoid the subject.

  i have recently decided that enough is enough and i told him i would discuss religion with him.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  pseudoxristos

  scratchme,

  All good questions. I sometimes wonder, why I'm even bothering to debate him. I don't really think that I will be able to convince him that his beliefs are not consistent with reality. He seems to be the one to always want to talk about it and save my soul. In a way, I'm wondering if his world view is the result of his upbringing as a Christian and maybe his lack of knowledge in some areas. Maybe I'm just curious about what makes him tick. He is obviously very intelligent. I'm just amazed at how different his world view is from mine.

  He believes that a shoulder problem he had in the past was "faith healed" (although it flared up again recently). So his personal experience with religion will probably have a big influence on facts or logic I try to present.

  jp1692,

  Good idea. I had thought about getting him an inexpensive "flat earth" book to try and contrast some of his illogical beliefs with more illogical beliefs.
• 
  19

  Debating a Christian at work.

  by pseudoxristos in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  a christian at work has been after me for more than a year to go to his church and be saved.

  i like the guy and consider him a friend and have been politely trying to avoid the subject.

  i have recently decided that enough is enough and i told him i would discuss religion with him.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  pseudoxristos

  Thanks for all the responses, good info and links. I enjoyed the videos.

  We had a small discussion today concerning "demon possession". I had mentioned that I didn't find the Creation account credible because of the talking animals mentioned within it. So, now we have to go through the idea that "demonic possession" is real.

  I'm afraid that as some have suggested, we won't really get very far in the discussion of Genesis because rationality doesn't seem to be very high on the list.
• 
  19

  Debating a Christian at work.

  by pseudoxristos in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  a christian at work has been after me for more than a year to go to his church and be saved.

  i like the guy and consider him a friend and have been politely trying to avoid the subject.

  i have recently decided that enough is enough and i told him i would discuss religion with him.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  pseudoxristos

  days of future passed,

  The Guy claims to be very logical. He develops Computer Apps (he is a programmer, C++) for our company. So I assume that he is very detail oriented.

  Drearyweather,

  Thanks for bringing that up. I should probably expect him to try and go down that route.
• 
  19

  Debating a Christian at work.

  by pseudoxristos in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  a christian at work has been after me for more than a year to go to his church and be saved.

  i like the guy and consider him a friend and have been politely trying to avoid the subject.

  i have recently decided that enough is enough and i told him i would discuss religion with him.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  pseudoxristos

  A Christian at work has been after me for more than a year to go to his church and be saved. I like the guy and consider him a friend and have been politely trying to avoid the subject. I have recently decided that enough is enough and I told him I would discuss religion with him.

  I consider myself an Atheist and believe that Science, though not always perfect, does a better job of explaining the universe. He is basically a "Young Earth Creationist" and puts a lot of emphasis on "the religious experience" (he and his wife go to a "healing church").

  I think I've finally got him to agree to discuss the problems I find in the Bible (instead of the emotional experience of the Lord coming to be with him, which I have no idea how to debate).

  Anyway, here are some of my rough notes on the first few verses in Genesis.

  I would like help in making my points clearer and help fixing any mistakes in grammar. It would also be nice to point out any weak points or completely wrong concepts.

  Quotes from: English Standard Version

  1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

  So, did God create the heavens and earth without form. It sounds like the first verse is an introduction, and verse 2 is what was done. See Gen 2:4. If this is the case, then God didn't actually create the heavens and earth, he just organized things, which is really what the verses that follow imply (see Young's Literal Translation)

  Young's Literal Translation
  In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

  3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

  Light created first, before the sun?

  Although entirely possible to create light without the sun, it doesn't really make sense that there was a cycle of light called 'Day' and darkness called 'Night'.

  "And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."

  The only way this makes any sense is that:

  Man did not realize that the bright blue sky (or atmosphere) was being illuminated by the rising sun. To them it may have appeared as if 'light' (called 'Day') occurred independently from the Sun (The atmosphere is illuminated even though the sun is not visible just before sunrise and just after sunset, therefore they could be seen to occur independent of each other).

  So, in view of this concept it is possible to have a 'Day' (light) and 'Night' (darkness) without the sun?

  6 And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 7 And God made b the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven.c And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

  Again, a 'Day' and 'Night' cycle without the sun?
  

  So, there are waters 'above' and waters 'below' the expanse, does this make sense?

  It does if you have to come up with a way for it to rain without knowledge of the complete hydrologic cycle. Perhaps the blue sky resembled a large body of blue water. Light or 'Day' illuminated this overhead body of water making it appear blue, similar to the waters 'below'. During darkness or 'Night' the the body of water 'above' appeared black, again similar to the waters 'below' at nighttime.

  9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth,d and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
  11 And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

  A third 'Day' and 'Night' cycle without the sun?
  

  This doesn't really sound like the creation of the planet we call earth?

  It does fit the geocentric view held almost universally until around the sixteenth century. The shock of admitting that the earth (and consequently 'Mankind') was not the center of the universe was likely unbearable for many Christians.

  14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons,f and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

  Finally the Sun is created on the fourth day!

  Interesting that the Moon shares the same status as a 'great light' although it is considered the 'lesser light'. The Hebrew word (Heb., ma·ʼohrʹ) used here can be translated as 'luminaries' (see: Young's Literal Translation)

  Young's Literal Translation
  And God saith, 'Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years,

  The Hebrew word used in verse 3 (Heb., ʼohr) is translated as light (see: Young's Literal Translation)

  Young's Literal Translation
  and God saith, 'Let light be;' and light is.

  The concept of the Sun and the Moon as two luminaries existing separately from light ('Day') and darkness ('Night') is further illustrated by these verses. The Moon as a luminary to rule over night during 'darkness' only makes sense if the luminaries are not the source of light (Heb., ʼohr). This concept allows the Sun and the Moon to both be a luminary without being the source of light (Heb., ʼohr) during the Day and Night.

  
  
• 
  9

  Why do some British journalists ...

  by LoveUniHateExams in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ... go full retard whenever an arabic name appears on the autocue, and 'give it the full arabic', so to speak?.

  rageh omar is a british somali of sunni muslim heritage so it's understandable when he pronounces arabic names with an arabic pronunciation/accent.. but what about people who have nothing to do with arabic - huw edwards, emily maitlis, moira stewart, etc.?

  they don't speak arabic, do they?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  pseudoxristos

  I've always wondered why "Nike" (the footwear and sports apparel company) is pronounced NY-kee in the US, but in Spanish speaking countries (and other non-US countries, according to Wikipedia) it is pronounced NYK.

  It makes sense that the final 'e' is pronounced, since the company takes the name 'Nike', from the Greek goddess of victory where the final 'e' was originally pronounced, but it doesn't make sense that Spanish speaking countries would ignore their own rules of pronunciation and pronounce it as an English word.

  So, the end result is the pronunciation is reversed in both languages.
• 
  5

  Russell and the Jehovah's Witnesses are mentioned in article: "Will the world end on Saturday?"

  by pseudoxristos in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  google news featured the following article.

  will the world end on saturday?...then there were the followers of charles taze russell, a 19th-century preacher who looked for jesus’ return and the resurrection of the dead (christians only, please) in 1878 (and again in 1914).

  they became jehovah’s witnesses, who now ring doorbells around the world (and are persecuted for it in some places — looking at you, russia).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  pseudoxristos

  Google news featured the following article

  Will the world end on Saturday?
  ...
  Then there were the followers of Charles Taze Russell, a 19th-century preacher who looked for Jesus’ return and the resurrection of the dead (Christians only, please) in 1878 (and again in 1914). They became Jehovah’s Witnesses, who now ring doorbells around the world (and are persecuted for it in some places — looking at you, Russia).
  ...

  follow link for full article:

  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/09/20/world-end-saturday/685041001/