by EntirelyPossible 34 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Oh, gun.
You wacky Americans. I've been offered a 2 year contract in San Antonio Texas and was warned about you weirdo's and your guns. It scares me a bit...
LOL Shamus, Texans carry guns to church. It's usually not a problem. My friend in North Carolina thought it was odd that anyone would object to guns in church because it's so common.
Mostly you won't get shot. Er uhm, but you might want to tuck that red pelt in!
NC
Oh, and as for the "it wasn't Einstein saying that" I was just joking that it was the theory predicting that, not Einstein saying it.
Riemannian manifolds... I've tried to read up on and really understand them, but I absolutely do not have the math background to really grasp it except in the abstract.
New Chapter, Clint carried both a gun AND a monkey. It's all good.
Where's your "I love this thread so much" kitten, EP? I need it ;)
I don't understand all the technical terms of your post, but I like the gist - there is so much we don't understand... hell, even if it looked like a theory was wrong, or incomplete, we might realize later on down the road with another discovery that it was right way back at the beginning. I like the journey and discovery of science.
Peace,
Tammy
Just for you, Tammy :)
And yes, I agree, science is amazing and how something we thought was right later was thought wrong and then later thought right (and it's NOT new light and flip flopping) as new evidence and better tools come into play to find out new things.
One good example is Lamarck and epigenetics. At one point, it was thought that parental behavior could change their childrens DNA, either pre-conception or in-utero. Later we figured out that couldn't happen and thought it was all BS, then we discovered it kind of COULD happen, the underlying DNA wasn't changing, but the way genes were EXPRESSED was changing.
Granted, it's a little more complicated and nuanced than that, but you get the idea. It's AWESOME.
Greetings, dear EP, and the greatest of love and peace to you! I am going to try and be brief (as brief as I can - I did say "try"!) so as not to entirely derail your thread (although some derailment might take place).
I do not want to deviate from the topic of your OP - Einstein's theory, itself. I've only posted because of your reference to my thread, to say that Einstein's THEORY was not the issue. I only used that example because of the questions recently raised and issues currently up in the air BECAUSE of some findings that some SUGGEST may go beyond his theory. As I stated, some state "There is nothing faster than the speed of light" as truth. The current experiments ask, "Or IS there? IS there something faster?" and what that means for the "truth" as indicated by the finality some often indicate when referencing Einstein's theory. I used this particular situation BECAUSE of its scientific relation, to offer that even science can change in its "truth." Since Einstein's theory is one of the most "final" theories believed true, I thought it appropriate to use. That's it, that's all.
A current statement by you, however, brings ME back to that question:
how something we thought was right later was thought wrong and then later thought right (and it's NOT new light and flip flopping) as new evidence and better tools come into play to find out new things.
Your comment above goes back to the question I asked in the thread referenced in your OP: what is truth? Is it: (A) something we thought was right, or (B) later was thought wrong, or (C) and then later thought right... or NONE of these... because they are ALL only what we THINK is right... AT THE TIME... and not necessarily what IS right... or "true"... at all?
You don't have to respond/answer; my question is rhetorical, truly. But I can't help but ask (rhetorically, of course!), couldn't this thinking be applied to faith in, as well as, the spirit realm: something "we" once though was right, but now think wrong... and perhaps later find out... "as new evidence and better tools come into play"? Something people long, long ago though was true... but now we believe is wrong... but later come to know is true? Because this is what I've been trying to say for some time now, that we don't currently have the physical TOOLS to empirically realize that which is spiritual; however, we have OTHER tools available to us, which must be accessed outside/beyond the abilities of the physical body.
As some have pointed out, the early/ancient explanations are based on words, items, and comprehension abilities of the people AT THE TIME, which things would be considered inadequate now (and thus, create an environment where such thinking is not only considered outdated... but untrue). Because of this, then, MOST perceive the spirit realm as some ancient ideology... with ancient "people"... ancient "language(s)"... ancient appearance, etc. But that really is NOT the case: my observation has been that it... and all associated with it... is far, far ADVANCED. So far, our very limited PHYSICAL abilities can't even comprehend... yet. The "language" that I hear is NOT "ancient"... other than some people in our ancient history spoke/understood it. But its origin, as I related, far surpasses "words". Even "math."
I truly do not get how, given OUR limitations, personally and via "tools", anyone can say that the spiritual does NOT exist... simply because they are unable to prove... empirically... that it does... and so completely dismiss the record(s)... because what is described by people long ago was not done in words, terminologies, and formulas that we understand NOW.
Again, I bid you peace... and, again, you really don't have to respond/answer.
YOUR servant... and a slave of Christ,
SA
a canned sermon is never off-topic on a thread about an experiment to test relativity.
a canned sermon
Or is an attempt to explain what was referenced here but apparently misunderstood elsewhere, dear Bohm (peace to you!). Which should be perfectly understandable to you... but perfectly understandable if it isn't... since you and/or others sometimes misunderstand/are misunderstood, as well. Indeed, in this very thread, actually...
Peace!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
** off topic-ish**
Yeah, I'm still considering San Antonio. Bottom line: They need to pay me a boatload of cash to do it. Everyone wants to immigrate here, not the other way round. ;( I have an appointment with a lawyer on Monday to discuss the pros and / or cons. There may be better opportunities in South America or Thailand, or even here in Canada. It seems I have multiple job offers these days, and it's hard to decide what to do. But it seems everything is pushing me out of Canada, which is fine in one way and not in others. I enjoy taking 2 months off a year to travel, and that may not be possible if I change jobs.
But your guns - it's just so not done up here. ;D I don't know what to think about it.
You have three razors? Holy frick! Moneybags. And what kind of cloth strop do you have? I have a leather strop and a cloth strop that seems to be acrylic of some type and coarse. I use both, naturally - cloth first then leather. Perhaps I have been stropping backwards or something.
Hi Shelby. I only referenced your thread so people didn't think I was just now seeing it. I wasn't really going back to the original question, I just learned something that I felt was a common misunderstanding and wanted to share.
Since you asked your question again, I will attempt to answer it.
Your comment above goes back to the question I asked in the thread referenced in your OP: what is truth? Is it: (A) something we thought was right, or (B) later was thought wrong, or (C) and then later thought right... or NONE of these... because they are ALL only what we THINK is right... AT THE TIME... and not necessarily what IS right... or "true"... at all?
Truth has many frames of reference. It is true I am not hungry. It is also true that I will be. That truth changes over time and with circumstances. That is a subjective truth. What it true for me has no bearing whatsoever on that truth for other people.
Some truths depend on perspective and are more opinion than anything else. Some people think that because I work for a huge multinational I have sold out and am part of the problem with corporations and lobbyists and whatnot. They think that is true. I think that, given what I due, there is a very small field of places to work and whether I work here or not has no bearing on corporate law.
Some truths are true for everyone. Gravity, for instance.
So, where does science fit into this mix? Nowhere. Absolutely nowhere. Science doesn't seek truths, it seeks refinment, to learn more, better theories that fit more evidence. That's it. It doesn't seek absolute truth, it seeks to sort out what explains the past and present and can predict the future. As we learn more, science is applied and knowledge and theories refined.
Where does religion or faith fit into the mix? Subjective truth only. They are only true because people believe it subjectively. It has, many times been falsified. For instance, the voice you hear has told you many things about me that turned out to be incorrect. It got the past wrong. It won't tell you what color and style shirt I am wearing. It cannot explain the present. I have never heard you say it was uttering predictions that could be understood without some vague interpretation, so it's not predicting the future. It's not science by any stretch and any comparison is false and invalid.
Others hear voices they claim is god speaking to them and he says totally different things to them. It's not something that is true for everyone. Indeed, it seems to be very different for almost everyone. At BEST it is a subjective truth completely and utterly unfasifiable, IOW, no way to test whether or not it is true in an objective sense.
So, what is truth? It's lots of things. It depends on the context and subject under discussion.
