by still thinking 778 Replies latest jw friends
I just notice that whenever someone claims to know what God wants, their version of what God wants seems to coincide with their own desires and what THEY want.
Agreed. Which is why just knowing that he is real means nothing without doing his will as well. Or at least doing your best to do his will.
Peace,
tammy
I just notice that whenever someone claims to know what God wants, their version of what God wants seems to coincide with their own desires and what THEY want...palmtree
I hear that palmtree
TEC: I think they [gospel accounts] are a good place to learn about Christ. They corroborate one another on his teachings; they give witness to the existance and life of Christ. They might not all be first-hand witness testimony... and instead some have written down that first hand witness testimony that others have shared to them.
Also known as hearsay, my good lady. Is that kind of 'evidence' admissible in a court of law?
Since these writings are the foundation of a person's knowledge of Christ, I'd like to post the first chunk of chapter 17 of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan.
Standby for transmission...
I exist therefore I am...ballistic.
Thanks for joining us ballistic...that little phrase could fit quite nicely into Wizards reasoning I think...
So, are you saying that God is real to you because we exist and that is evidence?
Long post but Carl Sagan is worth it... (and you can find the PDF of the entire book online if interested.)
Insight, untested and unsupported, is an insufficient guarantee of truth. - Bertrand Russell, Mysticism and Logic (1929)
When we are asked to swear in courts of law that we will tell 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth', we are being asked the impossible. It is simply beyond our powers.
Our memories are fallible; even scientific truth is merely an approximation; and we are ignorant about nearly all of the Universe. Nevertheless, a life may depend on our testimony. To swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to the limit of our abilities is a fair request. Without the qualifying phrase, though, it's simply out of touch. But such a qualification, however consonant with human reality, is unacceptable to any legal system. If everyone tells the truth only to a degree determined by individual judgement, then incriminating or awkward facts might be withheld, events shaded, culpability hidden, responsibility evaded, and justice denied. So the law strives for an impossible standard of accuracy, and we do the best we can.
In the jury selection process, the court needs to be reassured that the verdict will be based on evidence. It makes heroic efforts to weed out bias. It is aware of human imperfection. Does the potential juror personally know the district attorney, or the prosecutor, or the defence attorney? What about the judge or the other jurors? Has she formed an opinion about this case not from the facts laid out in court but from pre-trial publicity? Will she assign evidence from police officers greater or lesser weight than evidence from witnesses for the defence? Is she biased against the defendant's ethnic group? Does the potential juror live in the neighbourhood where the crimes were committed, and might that influence her judgement? Does she have a scientific background about matters on which expert witnesses will testify? (This is often a count against her.) Are any of her relatives or close family members employed in law enforcement or criminal law? Has she herself ever had any run-ins with police that might influence her judgement in the trial? Was any close friend or relative ever arrested on a similar charge?
The American system of jurisprudence recognizes a wide range of factors, predispositions, prejudices and experiences that might cloud our judgement, or affect our objectivity, sometimes even without our knowing it. It goes to great, perhaps even extravagant, lengths to safeguard the process of judgement in a criminal trial from the human weaknesses of those who must decide on innocence or guilt. Even then, of course, the process sometimes fails.
Why would we settle for anything less when interrogating the natural world, or when attempting to decide on vital matters of politics, economics, religion and ethics?
But we're not in a court of law, SBC. Oral traditions in that time cannot be conclusively compared to how we handle hearsay today, with our technology and recording devices, etc. Should be noted that hearsay is sometimes allowed for consideration in a court of law today, if the witness is deceased.
Peace,
tammy
Agreed. Which is why just knowing that he is real means nothing without doing his will as well. Or at least doing your best to do his will....tec
But, even if we are doing our best to do HIS WILL...doesn't it still come down to what we personally believe his will to be? And wouldn't that be based on what WE think it is?
How can we be sure we are doing his will and not ours, convincing ourselves we are doing his will, therefore proving to ourselves we are right? *OMGosh, did that make sense to anyone other than me?*
*OMGosh, did that make sense to anyone other than me?*
Absolutely.
*OMGosh, did that make sense to anyone other than me?*
It made sense to me, lol.
I look to Christ to know His will. Yes, I look to the teachings that are written. I also look to see if my act or word comes from a place of love and/or mercy. If I am being self-serving, or serving others. A good test is also the golden rule.
How do I know that it is his will I do and not my own? I may well confuse the two at times, and sometimes I do my will, instead of his (and this always turns out badly). But other times, I do what He asks, over what I want. Like say I don't want to forgive someone... but his will is that I show mercy and forgiveness. That is following his will, over my own. Especially since my own will in this instance is being guided by a lack of mercy, unforgiving manner, and anger or hurt.
Peace,
tammy
Should be noted that hearsay is sometimes allowed for consideration in a court of law today, if the witness is deceased. ..tec
Yes, and it is recognised as hearsay isn't it? And I am sure a judge goes to great pains to make it clear to the jurors that this cannot be taken at fact...just hearsay. They are forewarned that what they are hearing may not be true...but they can take it into consideration.
That was interesting sweetbaby...it's interesting that they vet people the same way for doing surveys..because they know our opinions are formed, based on what we already think and are exposed to. Whether we think so or not.
This is exactly the type of bias I am trying to cut through...but I am starting to see that as humans it is nearly, if not entirely impossible.
