What is "truth" - COULD Einstein Have Been Wrong?

by AGuest 197 Replies latest jw friends

  • AGuest
    Shelby You did choose the word TRUTH in the title here for a reason, no? Or is it just a coincidence? ;)

    No, for a reason, dear Twitch (again, peace to you!): as shown in my question "What is 'truth'". I did not give my usual response anywhere (that "Christ is the Truth"). I didn't even go there... because that wasn't what this thread was about. Unfortunately, the "blinders" that so many now where (most probably due to their previous experience with religion)... didn't allow some to see that.

    One could say it's similar to previous threads you've started with similar subject matter and a similar tack. Surely you can see that? Others can and have.

    I really do not, dear one. Truly. I saw an article. Given that I recalled someone stating somewhere (and not necessarily on this board, but perhaps so)... that "nothing travels faster than the speed of light"... and that statement being accepted as truth... I thought "Wait a minute... if there IS something faster then the statement re the speed of light can't be TRUE. What if it's NOT true? What, then IS truth? WHEN do we deem something to be the "truth"?" And I was reminded of how the WTBTS said "something" was "true" in 1940-something... then something ELSE was "true" in 1960-something... and, as someone who is concerned with truth (given not only how much I was lied to while in the WTBTS... but how much I apparently lied to others as well)... I wanted to know what others would say as to WHEN truth is actually TRUTH.

    Thus far, I don't see where a single commenter has addressed that. What's sad to me is that... I think I knew no one would when I started the post. I was hoping someone would... would "see"... that in THIS world... truth is relative, subjective... and NOT objective... as so many seem to state it is. And that it is because of this subjectivity and relativity... that I have a most difficult time understand how others think regarding truth.

    Was not to be, obviously...

    You chastise me for not being honest with myself, you can't even admit the reasons for your own threads and the reason behind them "oh, I don't mean to provoke but this is interesting".

    That was the truth... and if you knew me... and how I think (which I have openly admitted)... you would have known it was the truth. If it wasn't, I would have stated whatever the "real" reason was. I did so state the real reason: to ascertain what others believe IS truth, based on when it comes about.

    The level of passive aggressive "baiting" is all too apparent and if I was the only one who saw it, I might be wrong but I'm not.

    Again, you've mispegged me. My title asks "COULD Einstein Have Been Wrong?"... and some of the responses indicate to ME... that some don't believe so. That his theory is absolutely and unbreakably correct and therefore, the truth. Which I am not disputing. However, if there IS something faster than the speed of light... Mr. Einstein's theory would be replaced... by ANOTHER "truth", yes? So, let's say that occurs: which one is the TRUTH... and was not the replacing theory "true"... even before it replaced the current theory?

    That's ALL I'm asking... and I have to say that I was quite surprised at HOW offended some got at the question. Perhaps some took the title of the thread as provocative (because it suggested that Mr. Einstein might be wrong)... but I'm not the one suggesting he might have been: SCIENTISTS are suggesting that! And it's STILL a "could" or "might". Not an "is." I only used this particular article because of the questions it raised in ME... as to what "we"... man... tend to deem as "truth."

    What's fascinating to me is that some of you absolutely start threads designed to provoke. Even hurt. With all intention. Yet, because I don't speak as YOU do or word things as YOU do... you assume that I was coming from a place, well, perhaps YOU might. I was not... and did not.

    Call it a goose, it still walks like a duck.

    But a goose is NOT a duck. And this was neither a goose NOR a duck. Just because it has webbed feet doesn't even mean it's a BIRD: it could've been a dang platypus! But it wouldn't have made a difference, surely. No matter HOW I titled it, worded it, phrased it, whatever, some of you would have gone where you went. Regardless. A look back on our interchanges shows that. It's the same old, same old... tired old... back and forth. And if I ignore any of you... well, then... of course, you've shut me up, locked me down, I have nothing to say because I can't respond, etc. If I DO respond, well, I'm crazy delusional, dishonest, misleading, what have you. Again, the whole Salem witchhunt game: damned if I do... damned if I don't.

    And the best part is the spin where you post something looking for responses and chastise those who disagree with the theme.

    No. Adamantly and vehemently NO. Because I STATED, IN WRITING, TWICE:

    "... no provocation... and no invitation to debate/discuss physics, evolution, religion, etc. Just some things on my mind... why certain things "confuse" ME. You may not agree, they may not confuse YOU... and that's entirely okay. But I thought the article interesting... and perhaps thought-provoking for someone other than myself. My comments, therefore, are as to what we believe to be TRUE... versus what may actually BE... true."

    I made myself VERY clear. That you and some others CHOSE to ignore that... and become provoked on your OWN... is on you. You could just have easily ignored the thread... and me. That you COULDN'T... has absolutely NOTHING to do with me, nothing at all. There are all KINDS of provocative threads on this board... on a daily basis. Some literally intending TO provoke. Do I allow them to compel ME? Heck, no. It's an INTERNET board! Why in the WORLD would I let a thread MAKE me respond... heck, even open it... if I didn't really WANT to know what the poster had to say? Seriously?

    Somehow I didn't think you posted on other discussion boards which is understandable but not for the reasons you give (i.e. "I wasn't sent to them by the Lord"). I would think it could only widen your audience and help more of the lost and confused, those seeking that which they do not know.

    I don't have an audience, dear one. I am a small rock crying out in the wilderness. A very small rock. In fact, that's what my name means: "little rock." If I am to "help" more... then they will find me or me them. It is not random: Christ chooses, not me.

    I would think that if what you hear is really TRUTH, it should be shared with everyone, at any time. Why limit the WORD?

    I am not limiting it, dear one. I am merely going to the "house" that I have been sent to. If others are not going where THEY are sent... that's on them. As for it being shared "with everyone"... that is not my understanding. My understanding is the MY "territory"... is the Household of God, Israel, and those who go with... who are here. Now, that some who are NOT of that House get to hear, too, is... well, not my concern. Perhaps some of such ones will "go with" Israel as a result. If so, wonderful! If not... not my call. It's between them... and the One calling. I'm just a little rock.

    Surely it would stand up against any opposition, no? Perhaps you could ask whats-his-name if he's sent someone to the SDA or perhaps the Westboro Baptists as those people really need some TRUTH, no?

    I did ask... and he said HE is the One who calls his sheep out. So, if you notice, I am not sharing INSIDE the WTBTS... but with those who have been called OUT. Why? Because apparently, although some heard the call and came out... they didn't know where to go after that. But that's because there IS no "where" but only a "whom." They were never TOLD that... when they were IN, though... so they may not know it.

    Or do they have it already?

    Are they clean? Or touching something unclean?

    One might think your views on god and what you've been told would be welcome discussion.

    Why would one think that? That was not what I was told... nor, as a result, what I expected. Where did YOU get that it would be anything other than a "torture" tree/pole? I knew that's what it would be... and I took up mine, anyway.

    Apparently though, this is not the case but I would love to be a virtual fly on the cyber wall if you should ever decide to discuss your views with a wider audience.

    Unfortunately, my understanding is that that day will come... and this is merely part of my "training" in preparation for that. If you think it's bad for me, here... apparently, "we ain't seen nuthin', yet."

    As for your request for me not to read your threads, you are saying I should keep my opinion to myself?

    No, no... of course not. I am saying that if my threads/posts so offend you and you become provoked... to the point of calling me names, questioning my sanity, speaking abusively, etc.... perhaps you should just refrain. Why get your chonies in a bunch over me... and what I have to say... about ANYTHING? Why does what I share MATTER to you folks?

    That I should refrain from voicing an opinion if it's in disagreement with yours or the topic?

    Absolutely not. Never said that, never meant that. Find it interesting that YOU think that's where I was coming from, though...

    Well, since you play the WTS card often with others, I guess it's ok for me too as well in this instance since the shoe fits.

    I disagree. You don't HAVE to believe what I believe... or not read my posts... or remove yourself from my "synagogue". Nor will I remove you or ask you to BE removed. You have EVERY right to believe what and as you do. Unfortunately, you are the one imitating the WTBTS... in your attempts to either persuade me to not believe as I do... or call me names/insinuate a lack of sanity, etc. for doing so/not believing as YOU do.

    But I post because it's my prerogative on a public forum.

    Ummmmm... likewise, dear one?

    I've never told you to refrain from voicing your opinion and wouldn't but you can follow your own advice and ignore my posts if you don't like what's said. I'm not really posting for your benefit or to change your mind or beliefs anyways; this is not about you or me.

    Then my sincerest apologies, because your comments above lead me to believe otherwise. You may not have SAID to refrain, but surely you realize that labelling someone with things like "passive-aggressive"... which supposedly has a NEGATIVE connotation (and most people who don't want to be viewed negatively cease whatever it is that makes them appear such)... is designed to have that affect?

    Despite your analysis, I have no problem with christians or god, in fact, if your opinion is that I'm somehow trying to work out some internal issue with god, it would stand to reason that I would debate anyone/everyone on it. Do I? Please direct me to threads where I rail against christianity and god in general on an ongoing basis.

    Dear Twitch... if that is NOT the direction you're coming from (and forgive me if I've misunderstood you)... then what is the POINT of your comments to me? You know, the ones such as:

    "The level of passive aggressive 'baiting'"... "Call it a goose, it still walks like a duck".... and "the best part is the spin", etc.

    Basically, you're calling me dishonest and a liar... which I would accept if it were TRUE. It is not. I know what I meant... and what I intended.

    I work with a couple diehard christians; we get along fine. I have couple good friends who are christians, some wiccans, some atheists, the odd buddhist, some hedonists, a good mix in fact. And if and when the moment arises, I will discuss it much as I do here.

    Same here. I don't make any distinction, dear one. People... are people.

    Think of me as you will; I don't mind and certainly won't be offended by your opinion or chastisement or whatever you're saying about the reasons for why I do what I do. As if you know me better than I do.

    Interesting comment. Do you folks TRULY not see the double-standard and hypocrisy? TRULY??

    Bottom line it really doesn't matter as we both are settled in our beliefs and affect the world as best we can. I'm with those who are skeptical of "holy ones" who speak with god and preach their version of TRUTH. And I like it that way.

    And that is entirely your prerogative. You did not see me post, "You must believe as I do and accept what I think/feel/believe/post, Twitch." You will NEVER see me post such a thing. I threw out what I think on a matter... what confuses ME... and why. Which, again, no one, including you...has addressed. You've addressed a LOT of things... most of which have absolutely NOTHING to do with what I posted... but not the jist of the post. Wanna do that, now?

    But I'm not surprised you don't post your unorthodox beliefs to a more challenging and diverse audience; much easier soil for sowing here.

    Sigh. Sowing what... and easy how, dear one? I've been here for 10 years. Where is all of the "wheat"? Sure, there are some... but in comparison to the number of members, they are less than even a "little" flock. And even so, their "growth" has absolutely nothing to do with me. Sure, some of what I share resounds with them. But like you, they are free moral agents... and have every right to CHOOSE... FOR THEMSELVES... who they will follow. That it sometimes turns out the be my Lord (and theirs), the Holy One of Israel, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH... has absolutely nothing to do with me.

    For what it's worth, I'd have much more respect and admiration for you if you could hold your own in other forums. Let me know if and when that happens...

    For what it's worth, your lack of respect doesn't keep me up nights, sorry. I will go to another forum if and when I am sent. I have gone a few times due to invitations from those here... and can't seem to "see" there. I don't hear, either. I then realize it's not MY work... and so not MY choice as to where I DO the work. That would be presumption on my part.

    But thank you, as well, for all of YOUR "concern"... and, again, peace to you!

    YOUR servant (yep! for the same reason that I am to the others), and a slave of Christ,


  • AGuest

    So funny (peace to you, all!)...

    Some of ya'll could... did... believe... for YEARS (decades, in some cases)... that God spoke... without even going through His Son... to a bunch of old guys living high on the hog in NYC... but cannot fathom that He MIGHT speak... through His Son (just as He said He would)... to some little old-ish lady in California.

    The former? Perhaps. The latter... oh, H*LL no!

    LOLOLOLOL! You may think you've shaken off all the the WTBTS taught you... but you might wanna consider that perhaps you haven't.

    Since the jist of the OP was never actually addressed, I say it's time we all moved on. Who's with me?

    Peace... and hopefully we're all done here...

    Servant to the Household of God, Israel, and all those who go with... and a slave of Christ,


  • tec

    I'm sorry, Shelby, but I would like to respond to a couple comments (though none of my answers are much different than yours), if I may. I understand completely if you are done... you've been here all day, it seems! I've been at work though.

    Qcmbr - I don't know how to respond to you. You are so black and white. There is no middle ground for you and you don't even want to discuss for the sake of understanding. You look forward to debating believers so you can knock off their beliefs. You said that in another thread, I'm sorry to paraphrase though. But you are wrong. When you talk about what believers think and believe in, or what they do, you are not talking to or about ME... but rather to or about who you think I am.

    Perhaps because of who YOU were, when you believed?

    I don't know. But it makes it very difficult to talk to you. I'll try though.

    Evolution is perhaps the single most proven mechanism there is so somewhat ironic that you should use that to illustrate in comparison to the bogus 6 day magic / post flood wizardry fairytales to explain species.
    Evolution as a mechanism is proven, it has been observed occurring and it will not be overturned though new change vectors will be discovered.

    But I wasn't talking about the mechanism of evolution. (and even if I was, something new could come be discovered that would change what we think we know about it anyway - doesn't necessarily mean overturned/just means changed or added to or whatever) I was talking about people try and who use evolution to disprove God.

    Even though we may or may not have found particles that can travel faster than light under certain circumstances we still know that it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light - that observed rule still holds.

    Sure, okay. But only until something comes along that causes scientists to rewrite that rule - or add an ekception to that rule. Same as this... IF it is proven true.

    That atheism uses scientifically discovered principles to provide counter argument to the bat shit crazy is to be expected since simple observation , logic and rational thought aren't enough to persuade the gullible or proud that they are invested in sillyville.

    LOL... ah, yeah, see above 'black and white.'

    To a religious person like AGuest or Tec or me several years ago imaginary beings are real and no evidence is required, just emotional commitment and a tangible, painful fear to avoid confronting the obvious.

    Yes, see, here you are speaking about yourself. The only person you CAN speak about, because you have not walked in my shoes. You only think you have.

    My faith is based on evidence. Not proof. But evidence, yes. Which evidence has been added to... serving to strengthen my faith even more.

    I have no painful fear to confront the obvious. Have I ever been afraid to confront any doubts about faith? Yes, I have. But each time I have done the "confronting" despite my fear, I have realized I had nothing to fear after all.

    And your obvious is 'obviously' not the same as my obvious ;)

    You are absolutely entitled to believe or not as you so choose. As am I. I don't ridicule your lack of belief, or YOU for your lack of belief. I don't lack respect for you because of your lack of belief either. You cannot say the same, at least not according to your words here.

    Peace to you (and yes, that sticks in my throat a little - not because I'm annoyed by you (even though I am a little) - but because you might not think it sincere. But it is)


  • tec

    The love I have is directed to all, generally, simply because they are fellow human beings. I don't have to know them personally to have such love for them. If I saw YOU laying in the street... or standing outside a store with your hand out, LOVE... would prompt ME to try and do something. Not wait for someone else to do something... or give my money to someone else so that THEY could do something, instead of me. I can look another's need in the eye... and personally act.
    I also have love for those I have come to know... not necessarily because I have met them face to face... but because of their words to me and others posted here and elsewhere. Or through their voices on the phone. Through these, I often get to "see" the person behind them... and my heart overflows. I am not so empirical a being that I can't love, say, a penpal, unless/until I see them face to face. I can fall in love with someone by the SPIRIT they show me, the man they are on the INSIDE... which they present to me through their words... even if I NEVER see the man on the OUTSIDE.

    Yes. What 'she' said.

    Peace to you,


  • Qcmbr

    Some valid comments tec. I can't respond till tonight when I get the internet at my hotel - dashing for my train now :)

    Have a good day all!

  • Awen

    Responding to the original topic.

    What is Truth?

    MY definition of Truth is: a series of observations that validate a hypothesis.

    Scientific hypothesis

    People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis, often called an "educated guess" because it provides a suggested solution based on the evidence. Experimenters may test and reject several hypotheses before solving the problem.
    According to Schick and Vaughn, researchers weighing up alternative hypotheses may take into consideration:

    Testability (compare falsifiability as discussed above)
    Simplicity (as in the application of "Occam's razor", discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
    Scope - the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
    Fruitfulness - the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
    Conservatism - the degree of "fit" with existing recognized knowledge-systems.

    So for myself certain experiences become subjective truth after having been tested. Someone else may come up with their own methods of testing and when compared to mine, they find the results are in agreement. Hence the subjective truth now becomes a mutually accpeted relative Truth (as far as the two of us are concerned) but still be considered by others to be subjective, objective or a relative truth because they have not done their own testing. Or if they have tested the theory they encountered different results due to a variation in the testing process.



    Truth has several definitions and perhaps for the subject of this discussion it needs to be addressed as to what particluar type of truth we are referring to.

    Various theories and views of truth continue to be debated among scholars and philosophers. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective or objective, relative or absolute .

    So it seems to me many of us are using different definitions of Truth while not realizing it. So for the sake of this discussion when a person replies, perhaps they might say for example "In my opinion the belief in God is a subjective Truth." That is to say based upon their own experiences but possibly different from those of others. "Or I feel the belief in God is bat-sh*t crazy because it's an objective Truth." In other words it's untestable and therefore unknowable.

    However this is where it gets tricky. Though both persons are speaking about Truth, they are in fact speaking about different types of truth. Also Einstein's Theory of special relativity (discussed in the original linked article) is being presented as an example of one type of Truth (as it was then), another type of Truth (as it's regarded today) and a completely different type of truth (compared to others things).

    The theory of special relativity seems to fall under the definition of objective and relative truth. It would be like saying: "Einstein came up with this theory with the use of mathematics (objective) and not because he thought it was a good idea (subjective). Others tested his theory and concluded it was an objective (based on evidence not opinion) truth. So today when discussing this theory we all agree that the theory is both relatively (based upon our own opinion) and objectively (testable) True."

    Belief in God would fall under subjective Truth (based upon individual experience). It can also be seen as an objective truth (based upon the results of testing) done by the individual. However, unlike Einstein's Theory the results may not be accepted by others because of the type of testing done.

    So to answer Shelby's question.

    Does Truth change?

    Yes it does.

    Einstein's Theory although accepted in his time is undergoing a possible change just as Newton's Theory had to be modified.

    Newton's theory versus special relativity

    A comparison can be made between Newtonian relativity and special relativity.
    Some of the assumptions and properties of Newton's theory are:

    The existence of infinitely many inertial frames. Each frame is of infinite size (covers the entire universe). Any two frames are in relative uniform motion. (The relativistic nature of mechanics derived above shows that the absolute space assumption is not necessary.)
    The inertial frames move in all possible relative uniform motion.
    There is a universal, or absolute, time.
    Two inertial frames are related by a Galilean transformation.
    In all inertial frames, Newton's laws, and gravity, hold.

    In comparison, the corresponding statements from special relativity are:

    Same as the Newtonian assumption.
    Rather than allowing all relative uniform motion, the relative velocity between two inertial frames is bounded above by the speed of light.
    Instead of universal time, each inertial frame has its own time.
    The Galilean transformations are replaced by Lorentz transformations.
    In all inertial frames, all laws of physics are the same.

    They are virtually identical except for a few modifications.

    When it comes to belief in God Truth can also change.

    The Truth of Jesus that one held while a JW is no longer the same Truth that is held (by some) as an exJW.

    They are both still Truths, simply different types.


  • Qcmbr

    tec - I feel a little guilty that I made you dance with the devil this morning. Since your normal modus operandi is less confrontational it means a lot that you stepped outside your comfort zone to post as you did. That deserves a more considered reply than my usual ripostes.

    Black and white thinking.

    In this public forum and with the meagre tools of a few hundred words it is indeed a rare skill, certainly poorly mastered by me, to pour in a nuanced, emotional, raw set of feelings won through an ongoing cult exit story. Part of that search was a genuine ache for a personal god, any god, something to turn the tide of evidence that mounted day by day that every philosophical aspect of my religion was built upon lies. For decades I had read the same facts and created my own reality, that reality was god based and my every thought was filtered through a religious mindset. Now the facts point elsewhere, a new truth is evident and it is superior.

    This is partially what I inferred by truth being constructed by brains. Neuron link by neuron link I built my cage so that I perceived a world which testified of a god. Twenty year old Dave Q knew god existed and had plenty of evidence to back that up. Except I didn't, I didn't really have any evidence I just thought I had, I was blindly convinced I had. My brain received input, ran it through the grown and nurtured god wiring and saw divine. There was a time and a place in my past when I was incapable of perceiving my folly.

    As I faced the fear that all I had built my being on was a sham it was painful, scary and humbling. Bloody hell I ,I was wrong. That thought is now hung over my mental fireplace as a reminder that truth is relative. Thus I can accept that God is as real as the sun to you, AGuest and a billion+ humans.

    Thus my words can often seem a little black and white not because that is all I am but because the grander the claim, the more dressed up the message then the more direct the response I feel is needed to expose the core assertion and therefore examine its validity. Having spend 30 years learning to hide fundamentals, from the world and from myself, under the cloak of verbal, religious pomposity I now find it liberating and useful to strongly question and critique. Words are wonderful for hiding what one wishes to hide. I admit that in my hands they can seem like a leaden mallet.

    I am driven to respond more often to AGuest's posts - possibly unfairly often - because I find in her a perfect study of the art of religious language saying incredibly strong assertions via misdirection - its maybe not intentional(!?) but then again AGuest is here on a mission and is a smart woman. There are plenty of the faithful on this board and generally they are an awesome bunch who provide thoughtful and wise input - I rarely post when I see things by PSAc etc. because they are here to share but every now and then we get a preacher. They make me sit up and read what they said - you see I know what they look like, I was one, and I got people to commit to my world of crazy, that haunts me.

    Apologies that took so long.

  • AGuest

    First, thank you for your... clarification, dear Q (peace to you!). I would like to respond to only one thing, if I may - thank you!

    you see I know what they look like, I was one, and I got people to commit to my world of crazy, that haunts me.

    This is where you and I have, well, let's call them similarities... and differences. It starts with your ASSUMPTION that I "look" as you USED to. You have that perception, however, because you're not looking at ME... but at what YOU once WERE. I know this because I once looked as you did.

    Like you NOW, however, I am NO LONGER that image. And for the same reason as you.

    Thus the similarity: just as you are chagrined at the lies you (perhaps unknowingly) accepted and told... which perhaps caused some to commit to your "world of crazy"... and so, have probably personally vowed to NEVER let that occur again, even perhaps try to undo/prevent it... the same applies to me. I am just as chagrined.

    As a result, therefore, and here the difference... I did not lose my love for and faith in GOD... but just in RELIGION and those who head them up.

    Thus, while we may each similarly pursue our perception of truth... we both may have also similarly vowed to never to be misled... or mislead anyone... ever again as to these matters.

    We have chosen, individually, to accomplish that, however, differently: you by putting your faith in science and its empirical evidence... and me, in the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies, and His Son and Christ, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit, my Lord, JAHESHUA, His Chosen One... whose evidence is SPIRITUAL.

    Now, you find a little harder to pursue truth MY way because, in YOUR opinion... it's no different than what you and I engaged in before. But it IS different, in EVERY way. NOTHING is the same. Not even the "persons" involved. There is no "Jehovah" or "Jesus"... and the Bible is only involved because for some what IT says is the "evidence" (or provides the evidence) THEY need. Since they are the ones "searching," and the Bible is the ONLY "source" they accept, I refer to it. Because like you... they, too, wouldn't believe what I shared without the empirical (what they see with their eyes) "evidence."

    Now, if I said to you, "Q, YOU must believe as I do... or you're lesser/unworthy/gonna die/gonna burn in hell," etc., I could see where you have a problem. But I DON'T. The ONLY discussion I have with atheists are regarding "truth" - either as to what it is (and, for me, that means WHEN it is), or whether something put forth AS truth (i.e., human evolution) truly IS the truth. Other than that... I don't even go there. Indeed, if you read my posts, you'll find that there have been time when I've stated that what science "says" is RIGHT... that it either corroborates something my Lord has told me... or vice versa!

    Some have developed SUCH a hatred for the WTBTS (and by connection, religion)... and understandably so... and so are SO blinded by their "hatred" of all that such is and stands for... that they cannot see that not all faith... or spirituality... is related to religion. If Christ himself CONDEMNED the ONLY form of religion sanctioned by God... how can one claiming faith in him truly be FOR religion? Such one cannot - religion is ANTI-God... and thus ANTI-christ (yes, I know - I will most probably hear the outcries from the religious, now... but that should tell you, I am NOT "part" of them!).

    You all don't like it when you're lumped into a group... because the beliefs of a group can be diverse, run the gamut. Worse, though, if you're not even PART of a particular group. Like being Honduran but called "Mexican" simply because you speak Spanish. Sure, some don't mind... but some will let you know they are NOT Mexican (bad analogy, but you get my drift).

    To you... based on your response to my question re truth, above... truth is something that changes, that is what we say it is at a given time, based on what we know at that time. To ME... truth... is always the truth... and does not change. Either blue is the truth or red is the truth (and I'm not talking in terms of black and white - please bear with me). What I mean is that either the truth is that Christ returned in 1914... or the truth is that he didn't. Regardless of what we UNDERSTOOD then and/or understand NOW... only one can be true.

    So, when the WTBTS publishes something as being "true"... yet, something says to ME, "Hey, wait, that can't/might not be true, because..." and I can't express my doubt that it IS true... then I know something is wrong WITH that "truth." Because if it is true, it cannot be undone... and so there should be no fear with me questioning it - it will stand. Unless it is NOT true.

    For ME... it is the same with [certain] scientific claims. For example, "There is nothing that travels faster than the speed of light." My IMMEDIATE reaction is "Well, how do we know THAT?" And then I get a buttload of "Well, this theory says and that theory showed...". Then, you get an article like the one I brought up. To ME... wouldn't it be better... indeed, the TRUTH... to say, "There is nothing THAT WE CURRENTLY KNOW OF that travels faster than the speed of light... and we highly doubt anything exists... but COULD be"?

    In the same light, the WTBTS COULD have said, "We THINK Christ will arrive/arrived in 1914... and WHAT WE CURRENTLY KNOW points to that... but COULD be that he didn't."

    Just like anything that "smacks" of religious-speak and does not have its foundation in scientific theory and resolution makes the hair on the back of YOUR neck stand up... anything that smacks of "it is the TRUTH"... that does not have its foundation IN the Truth, which, for ME, is my Lord, the Holy One of Israel... makes the hairs on the back of MY neck stand up. Just like your gut "speaks" to YOU... MY "gut" (spirit) speaks to ME... on things like this.

    Unlike the WTBTS, I tolerate you... even if what you believe differs from what I do. LIKE the WTBTS, however, you have diffculty tolerating ME. I am sorry, but for ME... there are just too many NEGATIVE "similarities"... between what I have experienced from the WTBTS since leaving... and what I've experienced from atheists.

    As a result, I cannot join up with EITHER camp. Both would be a lie... and hypocrisy... on my part.

    I hope this explains... and thank you again, for trying to clarify.

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

    SA, who openly admits that she doesn't "think" like most people, so...


    AGuest - Reading trough this thread and others, I have come to the conclusion that you are feeding off the people on this forum. Not just those who don’t believe in Christianity but also those who do. The posts get longer and more aggressive, with thousands of words and no substance or evidence to back the rhetoric.

    I have allowed myself to be drawn into this trap. My feeble attempts to reason have been met with subterfuge, misdirection and duplicity. I salute you but see through your game. My apologies to Tec who supports you and seeks to see the best in everyone.

  • bohm
    Aguest: No you did not. in your 7719 posts, you have not provided ONE shred of evidence which support your hallucinations are anything more than manifestation of some underlying neurological disorder or disturbance.

    Aguest: Sure I did, dear Bohm (peace to you!). I have stated... more than once... more than perhaps a hundred times... what I heard and what I saw. What I observed... after conducting my "test."

    No you have not. For the 3rd time, what you observe is entirely compatible with a neural disorder or other abnormal state.

    any person suffering hallucinations could write thousands upon thousands of posts stating the hallucinations seem real. In fact that is the problem: The hallucinations seem as real or more real than the real world. It does not proove a thing, only indicate your state is persistent. You need to ask yourself: Why have the voice i hear NEVER said ANYTHING that could proove it was not only a hallucination? again consider seeking help.

    Thus, I would send them to my Lord, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit... JAHESHUA... the Chosen One of JAH, the MOST Holy One of Israel. I mean, he IS the best physician, both spiritually AND physically. So...

    but he is not real. consider how poor this advice this would be to a person suffering hallucinations: just listen to the voices, they know best. People often do, sometimes with disastreous outcome.

    WHAT hallucinations? What have I shared here... that even equates with a hallucination?

    I cant interpret this any different than you being in a state of denial. You HAVE seen this JAHESHUA character while awake? you have heard his voice?

Share this