Can a religion claim: “Only we have the truth”?

by Kalos 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Phizzy
    Phizzy

    Surely for something to be established as "the truth" it needs to be tested by all sorts of people, it needs to be scrutinised by a "Jury" of sceptical experts in the field within which the truth claims to hold sway.

    This is what happens in the world of Science.

    In the world of religion it is not so easy to apply the scientific method, but it is not impossible, for each religion that claims to have, or worse, to be, the truth, tends to bring forth "proofs" for their claims. These proofs can be forensically examined.

    In my experience, as soon as such examination takes place, the "proofs" prove to be nothing of the sort.

  • cantleave
    cantleave

    All religion is a mix of mythology and superstition and can not be it's fundamental nature have "Truth".

  • Kalos
    Kalos

    Bugbear

    Let us make it simple.

    If you do not perceive anything, as far as you are concerned universe and people do not exist—but only you—the consciousness exist! That means this universe, life and the life-support systems have meaning only if you the consciousness exists. In other words, these objective world came into existence for the sake of consciousness. That means consciousness is primary and the physical world is secondary. What I meant is that when we put things in their right order, life becomes meaningful!

    We cannot simply leave everything to the senses. We take for granted how our mind puts everything together. When we dream everything we see seem as real as everyday life. Our mind somehow create this spatio-temporal experience out of electrochemical information. Now come to the real life--life as we know it is defined by this spatial-temporal logic, which traps us in the universe with which we’re familiar. Like my dream, the experimental results of quantum theory confirm that the properties of particles in the “real” world are also observer-determined.

    Loren Eiseley once wrote: “While I was sitting one night with a poet friend watching a great opera performed in a tent under arc lights, the poet took my arm and pointed silently. Far up, blundering out of the night, a huge Cecropia moth swept past from light to light over the posturings of the actors. ‘He doesn’t know,’ my friend whispered excitedly. ‘He’s passing through an alien universe brightly lit but invisible to him. He’s in another play; he doesn’t see us. He doesn’t know. Maybe it’s happening right now to us.’”

    Like the moth, we can’t see beyond the footlights. The universe is just life’s launching-pad. But it won’t be rockets that take us the next step. The long-sought Theory of Everything was merely missing a component that was too close for us to have noticed. Some of the thrill that came with the announcement that the human genome had been mapped or the idea that we’re close to understanding the Big Bang rests in our innate human desire for completeness and totality. But most of these comprehensive theories fail to take into account one crucial factor: WE’RE CREATING THEM. It’s the biological creature that fashions the stories, that makes the observations, and that gives names to things. And therein lies the great expanse of our oversight, that until now, science hasn’t confronted the one thing that’s at once most familiar and most mysterious – consciousness.

    Reality is simply an information system that involves our consciousness. Until we understand ourselves, we will continue to blunder from light to light, unable to discern the great play that blazes under the opera tent. Now return to the first para: In other words, these objective world came into existence for the sake of consciousness. That means consciousness is primary and the physical world is secondary. What I meant is that when we put things in their right order, life becomes meaningful!

  • flipper
    flipper

    " Can a religion claim : " Only we have the truth " ? Any religion can claim anything they want - but it doesn't make it factual or the truth. I could claim I could jump off a cliff and sprout wings to fly- doesn't mean it's the truth or a fact

  • Terry
    Terry

    Can a religion claim: “Only we have the truth”?

    The answer is: Only if you cheapen the concept of truth into a watered down, provisional, highly interpreted opinion often failing to match reality.

    The bulk of what has been sold door-to-door amounts to millions of publications printed by the Watchtower Society.

    This mountain of nonsense is useless on the shelves because it has all been tampered with by the great amateur minds of the Governing Body.

    The shelf-life on "truth" is static and unstable.

    In short: THESE PEOPLE MAKE UP THEIR TRUTH AS THEY GO ALONG.

    They know this--but--because they want everybody unified (on the same page) they are willing to demand absolute conformity.

    This denomination is only 1 out of 41, 000 Christian denominations betting winner-take-all on very slim odds of success!

  • Cold Steel
    Cold Steel

    Any church can claim anything. But it would be idiotic to believe that any church would have all truth, or that all those who aren't members of that church be damned to an eternal, burning Hell...or annihilated. Jesus established his church during the meridian of time. The WTBTS does not claim to be a church, so one wonders how it could claim to be the sole repository of God's truth? Man is imperfect in his experience and judgment, so why would a loving, compassionate God condemn to an eternal Hell all those who failed to find and join a church? No church or society can claim to have a monopoly on the truth -- and if it does, its members should take a closer look at it.

  • Ocean1111
    Ocean1111

    What is truth?

    —Pontius Pilate (John 18:38)

  • Cold Steel
    Cold Steel

    The Truth is that which was,

    That which is,

    And that which is to come.

    -=Anonymous=-

  • Hairtrigger
    Hairtrigger

    Ocean1111. Exactly.

    So far every religion concocted by men, on this planet, has failed to prove on even a portion of their contorted"truth" being compatible with the real world. Or being possible in the real world.

    And then again you have "philosophers "; Arriving at their own facile conceptions of what makes humans and "creators" tick.

    Isn't the latter the forerunner of the former? Which came first? Religionists or philosophers?

  • yadda yadda 2
    yadda yadda 2

    It's a silly notion. It's like asking "can a culture claim it is truer than another culture?", or an ethnic group saying "our race is better than every other race?"

    Ever notice that there are thousands of religions and there are thousands of cultures, nationalities and languages?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit