2 SURVEY QUESTIONS

by Terry 53 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

Island Man

#1: If there were no Holy Book in existence--what would you or anybody else KNOW about God and how would you know it?

Nothing. But the idea that holy books really reveal otherwise unknowable facts about God is actually a red herring. We must not lose sight of the fact that the concept and details about God necessarily pre-date the existence of all holy books. So really the existence of holy books do not cause us to know anything that would not have already been known by those who wrote those holy books. The holy books didn't miraculously fall from heaven.

I believe that God is a concept that was ultimately born out of ignorance and superstition. In an effort to make sense of the world around them and to explain unknown phenomena and because of the fact that the human brain evloved to look for patterns and tries to make sense of the world, early men saw apparent purpose and apparent design in the workings of the natural world which led to them hypothesizing the existence of a supreme man - a God. The concept of God evloved in different ways in different cultures throughout the passage of time, with some cultures putting it down in writing, thus the holy books.

Man knows nothing about God - he only believes about God. Only the most deluded theist believes he knows about God without accepting that his knowledge is really just a belief.

#2: If whatever Holy Book(s) turned out to be unreliable for any reason (or at least hit-and-miss) would that be any different from being totally wrong?

It depends on the context in which you are evaluating the book. If the context is determining whether or not the book is the inerrant, divinely inspired word of God, then yes, it would be totally wrong. But if we are only evaluating the truthfullness of its contents, some error would not make it totally wrong - nor totally right. It would just be a book containing some truth and some error - just like any other literary work of limited human knowledge and understanding.
friendaroonie

1:: nothing

2: no difference. We would have only our eyes ears and nose and sense of logic perhaps to draw conclusions badef on nature. We would, like all animals, use the scientific method to gain knowledge.
LucidChimp

"(the bible is not one book)"I know. It's a bible. I was answering your question: "We do not throw away books and dismiss their contents simply because they do not claim to be inspired, right?"

"Would you throw out the subject OF a book, if you found out there were errors in that book?" Perhaps not out of hand, no.

But if the book was the ONLY reason I had for thinking the subject was anything other than make-believe... AND the book didn't just contain errors, it contained outright lies designed to maintain control over the people who believed the lies therein: I would, I do.

"True." Well, ok, I guess that's that.

"I cannot KNOW without knowing from Christ. I can reason, I can think, I can ponder, I can believe... but I KNOW when He confirms something or tells me something. Be that in words or in spirit." It seems odd that we can think, ponder and reason our way into knowing all sorts of wonderful things... But that process isn't enough to know anything about "The Truth".

Just plain weird for god to give us such brilliant tools for understanding and then make understanding "The Truth" such a counter-intuitive struggle.

"However, if something is not against love, and you do not know that it is not true, then why have a problem with it?" I don't, I've a problem with all the hatred of various sorts that goes with it. And there exists no rational way to separate the two.

Also, a side-note from earlier - "The bible is not the word of God". Do you object to any part of the bible being refered to as the word of god? Because Jesus called at least some scripture something pretty close (Mark 7 v 13) (Matt 15 v 6) depending on your translation. (I ask because I at no point capitalized it, so no John 1 v 1 mix up in meaning or whatever... if you follow me? I'm curious that you seem so concerned by it)

Peace back at ya.
NewYork44M

QUESTION #1:

If there were no Holy Book in existence--what would you or anybody else KNOW about God and how would you know it?

Answer:

No one knows about god even with the holy books so this questions is irrelevent.

QUESTION #2:

If whatever Holy Book(s) turned out to be unreliable for any reason (or at least hit-and-miss) would that be any different from being totally wrong?

Answer:

People are looking for an easy answer. If a holy book, even if flawed, comes along you will find people willing to follow. Is all you have to do is look at the book of Mormons and you have your answer.

Now for the purpose of asking these survey questions:

No, I have not purchased you book yet. I did not see the lower price on Amazon that you quoted earlier. But I will purchase the book, I will read it, and I will tell you it is the best book I have ever read. I will do all of that, but I need to spend less than 8 bucks.
tec

Perhaps not out of hand, no.

But if the book was the ONLY reason I had for thinking the subject was anything other than make-believe... AND the book didn't just contain errors, it contained outright lies designed to maintain control over the people who believed the lies therein: I would, I do.

Well, then we go back to the first question then don't we, lol?

The book is not the only reason for thinking the subject is real. Else there would have been nothing to write about to begin with. Though the book itself is not useless (it does act as a witness... many witnesses... to the Truth; and does record events of the past, and hold his words that others wrote down)... it is simply not perfect.

It seems odd that we can think, ponder and reason our way into knowing all sorts of wonderful things... But that process isn't enough to know anything about "The Truth".

I don't think that is what I said. I can reason, ponder, think... and come to the Truth, and come to understand what the book is pointing toward. I can KNOW for SURE what is in error, if it is against that Truth (Christ)... and especially things that may be in question, or where the context is not clear.

I mean, I did not always hear Christ speaking... but I did hear/recognize truth in his teachings, and I did (do) love him from what i learned about Him according to what he said and taught. But no lie comes from the truth, so if I put my faith in Him as the Truth, then I had to believe ALL that He said... or nothing, including what He said about His Father. Kind of the way some feel about the bible... only the bible is not the Truth, nor does it claim to be the truth. Just a compilation of history, metaphor, laws, prophets, witnesses... all pointing to Christ.

Just plain weird for god to give us such brilliant tools for understanding and then make understanding "The Truth" such a counter-intuitive struggle.

Understanding the truth is very simple. Look at Christ. That is even the conclusion of the bible, and the only things that ARE in error, are against love as well as Christ. So you can reason your way to that... and certainly people can reason their way to love being the "law" by which we are to live BY.

I don't, I've a problem with all the hatred of various sorts that goes with it. And there exists no rational way to separate the two.

I have a problem with all the hatred and lies too. But it is very simple to separate the two... once you do know the truth, because you will also know the truth about God. You will be able to see what came from Him... and what man mistakenly attributed to Him (or added as exaggeration to make enemies of Israel afraid... or at least wary enough to think twice about attacking them).

So one can reason and rationalize to these points also, even just going off more modern examples of similar things.

Do you object to any part of the bible being refered to as the word of god? Because Jesus called at least some scripture something pretty close (Mark 7 v 13) (Matt 15 v 6) depending on your translation. (I ask because I at no point capitalized it, so no John 1 v 1 mix up in meaning or whatever... if you follow me? I'm curious that you seem so concerned by it)

I am concerned by it for a few reasons.

a) It is not true, and there are enough falsehoods out there about God. No need to add more.

b) Calling the bible the word of God... should mean that it speaks only truth... but that is not the case with the bible. The word that God spoke to men (moses and prophets) is true and without error; but that word was then subject to men and scribes and their errors and misunderstandings; even their desire for control to call their own understanding truth so as to lord it over others; their adding - their own understanding - and/or taking away, according to their own understanding. (we have a perfect example of that in the wts version of the bible)

c) Calling the bible the word of God has given people cause to look at it, or again, to lord it over others (by saying that you cannot understand it without them, men)... over looking at Christ alone, as the Truth of God. So that some go back to the OT and the law... and excuse their actions and their teachings because it is written somewhere in the bible (even in the NT taken out of context)... and never mind what Christ... the ACTUAL Word of God... taught. Because NOTHING will be against Him; but He corrected things that had become twisted and/or abused.

d) Calling the bible the word of God has set it up over Christ in some people; so that they cannot move past the written word... to the Spirit that is Christ and listening to Him. (people have called the bible the Living word of God... but the bible is not alive; people have said that we do not need Christ to be present or the Spirit... or prophets or gifts of the Spirit... because now we have the bible. I am sorry, but that is a poor trade-off, lol... and people stop thinking that they CAN hear the Spirit or that there CAN be gifts of the Spirit anymore; and then they are also subject to men calling themselves leaders over them and their faith)

The bible is tool, a witness, a finger pointing to Christ... but not Christ, Himself. At some point, you've gotta leave the training... and go to Christ Himself.

I mean, even things that are written without error... people twist. The account of Adam and Eve has God warning them that if they eat of that tree, they will die. It does not say... eat and I will kill you. But the latter is how many people READ it, even those who believe in God, and then they teach that falsehood to others.

Hope that helps explain why that saying bothers me so much, lol. Sorry for the length!

Peace to you,

tammy
Terry

I find it interesting the word-of-mouth spread of Christianity was finally written. A written rumor is no less a rumor.

When Paul was writing his letters they were just that, letters. They weren't holy or inspired. Yet, eventually they were

copied, imitated, passed around and created a tangible influence. AFTERWARD, the Gospels pop up.

Paul's letters weren't saved, preserved, treasured. We don't find any in any repository.

Strange. The gospels and the epistles seem to live in different universes.

Only after the Protestant Reformation was the bible puffed up into THE HOLY BIBLE magic 8 ball.

The Watch Tower Society has sought to pretend the Bible is important and yet--logically, having Jehovah whispering "Truth" in their ear would certainly

be far more spectacular grounds for bragging rights. They can't seem to bring themselves to the point they supercede scripture with revelation and visions.
Fernando

I have found the gospel message, hidden in plain sight throughout scripture, to be a detailed solution and response to all that ails us humans, in particular religion.
Ucantnome

i don't think i can answer what i would know or not know in a situation that doesn't exist i can imagine it but i don't think that helps

other things may also be different in the situation that i would not be aware of at present. maybe God would make the rocks talk.
Terry

. . . maybe God would make the rocks talk.

We do we automatically always rule out the more logical conclusion?

If God wanted humans to know something true--He could simply speak without fooling around. A loud voice from heaven would do the trick.
OnTheWayOut

Tec: Would you throw out the subject OF a book, if you found that there were errors in that book? For instance, if you found that there were errors in a science book from a hundred years ago (and you definitely WILL find errors)... would you throw out science?

No, you don't throw out "science." You don't throw out that old book, either. But you publish the new information without the known errors from the old book. You might even refer to the old book and say why it was wrong. Serious evolutionist scientists don't read Darwin and stop there. It seems many creationists think that evolution should be thrown out because Darwin was wrong on details, but scientists update with the newest information and write new books. They tell us what Darwin did not know and what we now know.

So, please call Jesus and publish the new "The Word According to 'HIM.'" He can tell us how the disagreements between the gospels developed and what really happened. He can add new books that explain creation. Maybe He can tell us how to capture the cure for cancer to give weight to His book to stop the doubters.

2 SURVEY QUESTIONS

Share this