I imagine part of the draw of the JWs is the fact that they claim to have all the answers and the ultimate truth. It's true they seen to on the outside provide many "answers" to many questions but now that i know these answers aren't the absolute truth that i once thought they were my mind is now open to a whole new world of ideas and theories and explanations. Assuming that logically there is only one absolute truth in the universe (that in itself is a huge assumption but bare with me) then it is easy to get tied down and overwelmed by the shear volume of differing info and ideas available to mankind. To accept one idea is to deny another. To claim to know the ultimate truth is to deny the infinte realm of possibilities that exist beyond that.... I wrote a three page essay on this issue for school but i just wanted to hear some other opinions on the topic. I feel like pilate at times "what is truth"....
"what is truth"....
Is the thought or idea of a tree, a tree?
Anything the mind presents is not the reality you seek. Look into what sees all thought.
hmmm i'll have to ponder that for a while... reaaly interesting point though...
I always liked Farkel's dub definition of "truth":
"The Truth" - a series of perpetually changing understanding of prophecy, doctrines, rules and regulations. The "light" (see "New Light") is said to get "brighter as that Day approaches". Obviously, then, that "Day" is a long ways off. According to the current "light" as now understood, we may well see another ice age or two before the "truth" really becomes known.
Why don't you ask Morpheus?
I feel compelled to take in many possible truths. JWD, other websites, books, films, conversations
all give thoughts on what might be the ultimate truth. I can ponder all of them, even if I don't
exclusively marry one. I know what you mean- To accept one idea is to deny another.
Currently, I reject the Bible as a book from God. I read ideas about it's origins and development.
This rejection forces me to reject any Judeo-Christian belief, because it would be based on the
assumption I rejected of the Bible.
I don't know a whole bunch about Buddism and Islam, but I don't feel the urge to pursue that
knowledge- similar with study of philosophy. I can only learn and ponder so much.
I accept that we will likely never know what the absolute truth is.
I talk a little about this subject in my own essay. I split it up 3 ways. I know some won't agree, but that's okay. Hopefully I can explain it here in a way that makes sense. If not, then blame the author (me).
There is Absolute Truth: The way it is, no matter what we think or do. This is unobtainable to us. There are too many layers of abstraction between our awareness and our reality.
There is Evidential Truth: The way it probably is given the evidence and the most objective reasoning on that evidence the human intellect will allow. Objectivity requires us to be brutal with our worldview--we must be willing to set it aside if changing evidence denounces our current view of things. That means the Evidential Truth is always in motion (always changing) because we must force ourselves to change as new evidence keeps rolling in.
And there is Personal Truth: The way it is when we take the evidence and try to fit it into our preconceived ideas about the world. As far as I can tell, humans are probably wired to think this way by default. We tend to form an opinion of how things work early in life that seems functional and we tend to stick with that unless something forces us to change. Any new evidence that can't be made to fit into that worldview may even get tossed aside and rejected, when it should really (in my opinion) work the other way around.
Anyway, hope this gives you ideas...or even ones worthy of disagreeing with. Both the Evidential and the Personal have their limits. Both have the potential of creating false certainty about the world around us. I called all 3 of these "truths," but really the last two should probably be called truisms. Only the Absolute Truth is really, totally true. But the others seem to be true to us when we use them in figuring out our world.
BTW, I agree with you, thebiggestlie, about the WTS. I think the sense of certainty was also what drew me in. The other Christian doctrines I'd heard before didn't make sense to me, so I rejected them. When I first stopped participating in the Society, I still thought their doctrines made sense--I just didn't think the Society's actions and attitudes were correct. It wasn't until later that I questioned their beliefs as well, and much later that I dared to call myself an atheist. I already was one, though.
Truth is what is, what has been, and also what is going to be.
And without Him was nothing made that was made.