Tuesday

Joined

• started 184 topics
• posted 2,281 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Tuesday

• 
  22

  Tim Kilgore vs. E-Watchman GETS BLOODY!!!

  by Tuesday in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey folks, again the videos aren't as exciting as the title makes them seem.

  i'm trying to be pun-ny since we're dealing with the blood doctrine here.. i think here is a fantastic example of how you can respond to the textbook answer about how fractions of blood are accepted, even to the point of reconstituted blood and not the whole blood itself.

  it does involve a slight knowledge of what makes up blood, but not a whole lot.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Tuesday

  Hey folks, again the videos aren't as exciting as the title makes them seem. I'm trying to be pun-ny since we're dealing with the blood doctrine here.

  I think here is a fantastic example of how you can respond to the textbook answer about how fractions of blood are accepted, even to the point of reconstituted blood and not the whole blood itself. It does involve a slight knowledge of what makes up blood, but not a whole lot. The first video is my initial Tough Question, the next one is E-Watchman with a very stock JW answer to the question and finally my response to this stock answer. I hope it helps everyone here....

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4j5dKQwW7s
  
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY2ATtj41EE
  
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28SYaM6mKkY
• 
  30

  Ex-JWs, How Many People Have Left the WTBTS Due To Your Efforts?

  by ziddina in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  and, while we're at it, what did you feel was the best technique/were the best techniques for 'awakening' jws to the problems/threats within the wtbts??.

  i was initially awakened by the realization that the bible writers had no clue about how the earth really worked - which meant that their god had no clue, either.

  when exodus 19: 16-19 was read in the kh, i realized (as a young child, 7 or 8 if i remember correctly...) that those bible verses were describing a volcanic eruption - and the isra-el-ites - and their 'god' - were totally clueless as to the true nature of that eruption and mountain.... that was my first eye-opener... then there was the fellow - a householder - who said to me when i was a cute kid at the door helping 'spread the word', "those people are using you!".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Tuesday

  Right now the number that left due to my videos is 115. I find the most effective thing is the JWs hate speech towards my questions that I ask. I try to be as open and honest as I can be, by doing that people see me as a person they know I'm not putting them on or anything.
• 
  53

  Totally Busted and Scared!!!!!!

  by 2pink in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my husband and i have been fading/disappearing for a few months now.

  we haven't been to meetings in quite some time, but most of our family members live out of the area, so they don't know yet.

  so with the spirit of joy that comes from newly exiting a doomsday cult, we have been celebrating all the holidays as well as my 5 year old's birthday (she turned 5 on december 2).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Tuesday

  "I have not had a birthday party for my daughter, however I am planning one for my daughter. If you find it necessary to no longer be in contact with me due to my decisions that is fine with me as I do not need people in my life who's love and care of me is conditional."

  That would be my response.
• 
  13

  E-Watchman vs. Tim Kilgore Resurrection/Recreation Smackdown!

  by Tuesday in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  alright so it's not as heated as i make it seem in my opening, but i said i'd keep everyone posted on this.

  i would've posted the video here to get everyone's feedback but the response wasn't anything i hadn't dealt with a hundred times before, now it's just in video form.

  in fact it was supposed to be an answer to my first tough question about resurrection vs. recreation but it didn't even answer the question at all, at least i feel.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Tuesday

  By the way Tuesday - i am really looking forward to seing these videos, after i saw you destroy biblethumber. But i think there is a huge problem here about the soul : Its really not very well defined (ei. no scientific theory of the brain, so IMHO even from a scientific standpoint, the soul is not 100% ruled out, at least not if we allow for a wide definition), and i am afraid nothing more than semantics can come out of it - did he choose the topic?

  Besides that - i think its really cool of you to take him on. I hope you get to touch more difficult topics.

  Oh yes, my old friend BibleThumper, he actually challenged me again but this time on his channel. I'm uploading a video responding to him. Basically my argument is that if God recreates a body and a mind but implants a soul there is something the same about a person and it makes perfect sense to me how someone could have every physical and conceptual part of them recreated yet still remain the same. The usual next argument is that your own body is constantly creating new cells to replace decayed and dead cells and your memories are constantly being lost and replaced with new memories and therefore you are not the same person than you were 5 years ago, however I simply argue that the cell recreation and memory replacement is staggered and at anytime you will have remaining cells since the last point of completed cell/memory regeneration.

  My personal favorite thing to do is Michael being Jesus, he asked if he could make response videos to my videos so I'm at the mercy of whatever video he decides to make a response on. I'm hoping for more interesting topics, but bear in mind I've been getting something like 20 messages a day along with comments on my videos with all the essential apologist answers, I'm well versed in what people answer these with and with what to use to counter them. The reason this one didn't seem to difficult is because I already had a basic response, the question being answered lended itself to a quick response to any answer given (like all of them are structured), it's really not to difficult to counter their apologetics and dismantle them....but oh they'll keep trying LOL.
• 
  13

  E-Watchman vs. Tim Kilgore Resurrection/Recreation Smackdown!

  by Tuesday in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  alright so it's not as heated as i make it seem in my opening, but i said i'd keep everyone posted on this.

  i would've posted the video here to get everyone's feedback but the response wasn't anything i hadn't dealt with a hundred times before, now it's just in video form.

  in fact it was supposed to be an answer to my first tough question about resurrection vs. recreation but it didn't even answer the question at all, at least i feel.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Tuesday

  My reaction after Tim's first video: This sounds like a purely semantic argument. Unimportant.

  My reaction after Robert's response: Yup, this is a purely worthless semantic argument.

  My reaction after Tim's final response: AHA! So THAT is what makes this argument important. Well played, Tim.

  Conclusion: If you watch the first or first two videos and feel like you're wasting your time, don't quit. It all comes together in the third one. Or maybe I'm just dense and didn't "get it" until the third one. Either way, I recommend watching them all.

  This made me laugh, alot of people do that with my videos. "Eh, that's just a question of semantics" but I specifically worded them to come up with the automatic response which leads to a larger question and finally a conclusion of "Faith", just like I say in my introduction video. Or even a final conclusion of "That's wrong". I'm glad finally someone made a video response to that which lead me to my conclusion finally after a year of having it posted (more than that actually). I've been leading people down this same path of logic the whole time the video's been up, but to finally get it on video is fantastic. I'm hoping to get a response, but I have a feeling that I won't. He seems like a nice guy though, sincere, polite, couldn't ask for much more in a video opponent. What I remember reading on his site years ago though was quite crazy.
• 
  13

  E-Watchman vs. Tim Kilgore Resurrection/Recreation Smackdown!

  by Tuesday in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  alright so it's not as heated as i make it seem in my opening, but i said i'd keep everyone posted on this.

  i would've posted the video here to get everyone's feedback but the response wasn't anything i hadn't dealt with a hundred times before, now it's just in video form.

  in fact it was supposed to be an answer to my first tough question about resurrection vs. recreation but it didn't even answer the question at all, at least i feel.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Tuesday

  I probably should've posted this first, I missed the point about a soul. Gah, well if he responds to the video I'll make sure to mention about the immortal soul. I somewhat alluded to it with the "There's got to be something else". Thanks for the comments guys, the teleportation idea is phenominal, I can't believe I didn't think of that.
• 
  13

  E-Watchman vs. Tim Kilgore Resurrection/Recreation Smackdown!

  by Tuesday in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  alright so it's not as heated as i make it seem in my opening, but i said i'd keep everyone posted on this.

  i would've posted the video here to get everyone's feedback but the response wasn't anything i hadn't dealt with a hundred times before, now it's just in video form.

  in fact it was supposed to be an answer to my first tough question about resurrection vs. recreation but it didn't even answer the question at all, at least i feel.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Tuesday

  Alright so it's not as heated as I make it seem in my opening, but I said I'd keep everyone posted on this. I would've posted the video here to get everyone's feedback but the response wasn't anything I hadn't dealt with a hundred times before, now it's just in video form. In fact it was supposed to be an answer to my first tough question about resurrection vs. recreation but it didn't even answer the question at all, at least i feel. He essentially used my same example I used that makes the whole idea fishy as an example of why it's possible, which obviously I pointed out. Anyway so here's the series, this is my initial video (which most of you have seen)....

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7B14DsW9O4

  Here is E-Watchman's response to this video...

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHE9m5LoOmI

  Finally here is my response to E-Watchman, which I'm hoping pointed out everything but if it didn't feel free to leave comments....

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq2B03AfZBM

  Thanks folks, hope you enjoy!
• 
  36

  Any Comment On The Amanda Knox Verdict?

  by acolytes in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i think the verdict was not based on anti-americasim as the boyfriend was italian and was also convicted.. i think the irresponsible journalisam and charactor assasination on a persons character to sell newspapers and gain t.v ratings reflect badly on english journalisam.

  i think this must have effected the thinking of a jury allowed to be exposed to such media frency.. sadly english jounalisam has been responsible for helping convict innocent people in the past.

  the wimbeldon common murder and false conviction of colin stagg was a classic example.. i also remember how in america (many years ago)a au-pair from england was convicted of shaking a baby to death.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Tuesday

  Amanda Knox did try to frame an innocent barman.

  Wasn't this after the police had her head in a vice grip?
• 
  36

  Any Comment On The Amanda Knox Verdict?

  by acolytes in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i think the verdict was not based on anti-americasim as the boyfriend was italian and was also convicted.. i think the irresponsible journalisam and charactor assasination on a persons character to sell newspapers and gain t.v ratings reflect badly on english journalisam.

  i think this must have effected the thinking of a jury allowed to be exposed to such media frency.. sadly english jounalisam has been responsible for helping convict innocent people in the past.

  the wimbeldon common murder and false conviction of colin stagg was a classic example.. i also remember how in america (many years ago)a au-pair from england was convicted of shaking a baby to death.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Tuesday

  I heard the press on it and was thinking that she might be guilty. Italy doesn't have one thing that I think is pretty key in order to receive a fair trial. A sequestored jury. The jury could go home every night and hear all about the trial on the news, in the news papers. So they couldn't possibly make a decision based solely on the evidence. According to the media Richard Jewell was guilty of the bomb set off at the Atlanta Olympic games, it was proven however he wasn't since another well known bomber took credit for it when he was captured. The grand jury was sequestored and found that the evidence wasn't enough to even merit a trial against Jewell. I looked at strictly the evidence they had for the murder, the only proof they have of Knox being at the scene at all is a coerced police statement which she was physically assaulted, and a speck of her blood intermingled with the victims blood on the bathroom sink near the drain. So literally if before Rebecca left she brushed her teeth, her gums bled a little bit so that when she spat there was a bit of blood left over, then the killer spilled some of the victims blood in the sink, Rebecca was convicted on this. For the boy it's even worse, the only evidence they have of him even being in the house at all is the fact he said he called the police and they didn't show signs of him calling 9-1-1 (instead he called his relative that worked in the police department directly); and the proof he was in the house is some non-distict foot prints that may or may not have come from him.

  It's a pretty ridiculous railroading. The fact they had a full blood stained handprint in the room of a man who was already convicted of the crime strikes me as insane that they didn't just drop the charges completely.
• 
  6

  New Agers and Creationists should not be President

  by daniel-p in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  new agers and creationists .

  should not be president by roger ebert on december 2, 2009 11:24 pm |permalink | comments (386)new age beliefs are the creationism of the progressives.

  i move in circles where most people would find it absurd to believe that humans didn't evolve from prehistoric ancestors, yet many of these same people quite happily believe in astrology, psychics, reincarnation, the tarot deck, the i ching, and sooth-saying.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Tuesday

  And Young Earth Creationists should not be president.... er.... I guess about 8 years too late on that one.