by jgnat 163 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Tetra:
...i even have a list of things that i would accept as reason enough to reconvert back to xianity.
Well, there's a novelty. Why would you choose Christianity when there are so many other theistic paradigms to choose from? Further, when were you ever a Christian - I didn't think you believed in reincarnation???
thanks jgnat!
hey ross :),
Well, there's a novelty. Why would you choose Christianity when there are so many other theistic paradigms to choose from?
only because i was already talking with a xian. somehow i doubt she really cares if i became islamic.
Further, when were you ever a Christian - I didn't think you believed in reincarnation???
ha ha! i see what you're saying. JWs are not true xians. i, personally, think this is rather arrogant. sure they're idiots, no doubt! but to say that they are not "true" xians, is like them saying that you're not. hubris. see the "real christians" thread.
if i have completely mistaken your take on the subject, then please do let me know.
Oldsoul,
man, i love bantering with you and LT and jgnat. really. it's a compliment.
I am willing to admit that I could be wrong. However, since I am going to live as though I am right it doesn't really matter that I may be wrong.
same, it's really only for the sake of debate, so that the opponents do not think they are wasting their time. that said, i would HOPE that if my arguments were better than someone elses, they would at least think personally about the subject. like: "hmmm, he did raise some pretty good points. perhaps i should re-evalute my thoughts on the matter." i know i would. and i'm being honest. at the position i am at in my worldview, i am really not affraid of change at all.
That being the case, the question of whether I may be wrong becomes a futile device as surely as the one who challenges the existence of anything will still behave as though things exist.
okay. i behave as though you exist (stay out of it LT). i do not behave as though god exists, however. so i don't really get what you arer saying. it's not futile, if one is intellectually honest. or you will have to explain yourself better.
BTW, speaking of debates, it's still your turn in our other discussion.
yes, i know sorry. and i saw the discussion between you and SNG too. perhaps i should just bring the discussion here? anyways, i have rounded up some sources for neuroscience and the documentation of simple emotions. and am working on the case for complex thoughts and emotions being made of those smaller emotions. "reductionism! - the loathsome beast!" i'll re-post over here and send you a PM.
ts
TS,
i'll re-post over here and send you a PM.
Sounds like a plan.
The comment about not believing in anything relates to the futile argument that nothing is really real. It is futile because the person that believes this still acts as though reality is real.
The comment wasn't intended to compare your thoughts on God to mine. Just stating that unless you can change more than my mind I will likely continue to believe in God, just as I believe in that 18-wheeler you mentioned in another thread. I know at an atomic level there is more space than matter, but it seems that the grill on the 18-wheeler is solid enough to permanently dislocate much of my genetic material. Just for kicks, I will continue to behave as though it is really real. My life is benefitted by this acceptance of a reality that includes belief in 18-wheelers.
Looking forward to continuing the discussion in any venue.
Respectfully,
OldSoul
No proof of God you say? The fact that you are here, aware that you are alive and working at a computer terminal (which had a designer!) should give you some idea that there is a God. This is what seems to be lacking amongst the unbelievers, common sense judgments.
Rex
The fact that you are here, aware that you are alive and working at a computer terminal (which had a designer!) should give you some idea that there is a God.
Um, no, actually. This proves 1) that my parents had sex and my mother conceived me, and 2) The the fine folks at IBM, using the scientific method, were able to manufacture a very fine computer terminal.
If this is the extent of your "proof of god" you are in very sad shape.....
From Kidder,
This proves 1) that my parents had sex and my mother conceived me, and 2) The the fine folks at IBM, using the scientific method, were able to manufacture a very fine computer terminal.
If this is the extent of your "proof of god" you are in very sad shape.....
Three words: life, miracle, design.
Rex
Rex/Shining One, stop hijacking. This is my Bible/Faith thread, not a God thread.
No one is hijacking anything, Jgnat. Since when is Bible/Faith not dealing with God? I am just answering replies to me so the rest of the proles don't start whining about me not answering.
Rex
Jgnat - An excellent post and thread, its always great to read a thread from someone that has and prepared to show that they have intelligence as well as faith, quite often within JW circles you dont find this.
If people choose to believe in the bible then they have to do so in light of the fact that there are few independently verifiable facts to rely upon, largely where the facts are not verifiable belief has to be formed on the basis of faith alone. Some choose to exercise it, some choose not to.
Personally I am quite a factual person and prefer to deal with empirical evidence; there are some facets of my belief system which are not supported by fact however but my beliefs are largely based upon my own perception of probability and personal experience as opposed to being just 'blind faith' (for want of a better expression). As far as the bible goes I think a lot of what is written is based on life back in those times - as far as being inspired by God... or a God...I really doubt it....although I think it was written by people who clearly believed in a God and does set out a codified view of what is moral and what isnt.
DB74
DB:
Nice perspective.
I'd just like to throw something else into the pot, though. As with a lot of other ancient literature, the text is "evidence" in it's own right.
Just as we learn about Julius Caesar from ancient texts, so we learn about King David, et al. There are occasionally pieces of corroborating evidence. They aren't proving the text itself, but rather the events and characters portrayed therein.
So often the argument seems to be about disproving the bible, etc., when the bible is just a record (however accurate or inacurate that may be).
Just my 2p
