i've been reading around this subject of late and it seems to make a lot of sense.
i'm wondering if anyone is convinced and/or has seen anything that can substantiate or corroborate the 'facts' set out in these arguments.. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bloodlines/russell.htm.
i was particularly fascinated to read the following:.
I consider myself a skeptic rather than a cynic, but I've been called naive more than once on these threads. Simply for trusting that institutions generally operate under the mandate by which they were formed.
Sticks and stones. I tend not to take to heart those who call me down because they don't agree with me. It reflects more on their character than mine.
let's assume, as most of you probably believe, that the anointed christians are not the fds.
if the anointed are not the fds, who are?.
I'm the Faithful and Discreet Slave.
Or Wayward and Naughty Slave if Mistress deems it so.
i was trying to think of all the many many people i've ever met and conculded that none of them could be termed "normal".
some of them might have seemed normal to start with but on further inspection most definatly not!.
in answer to the obvious question no i do not think i'm normal neither, i don't think i would want to be either.
What is normal depends on who you ask. And what you care about.
jesus said that the true religion would be evident in the lives of the people who practice it.
by their fruits you will recognize them, he said.
every good tree produces fine fruit.
There's a true religion? Really? Who told you that?
any suggestions?
attending an invite (strange we're invited but hoping to make it worth my while) but i don't want to suffer big consequences as i've already said enough wrong stuff.
i'm stuck reading hassan's ccmc book (about half way --- just don't have time and not into it).
"Millions Now Living are Dead"
Props to posts and users of unknown origin
i have been repeatedly pleaded with to read the books of ray franz in my short stay on this board.
apparently these are all the all-powerful, wt crushing arguments, that lead so many to leave jw's and become ruthless opposers of god's people.
we can discuss any claims/statements/scriptural arguments presented in either of his books, as long as it somehow proves jehovah's witnesses are not god's people.
To hell with Recovery and the OP, it's a waste of time. He/she already had their mind made up, obviously; the thread is just trolling
Those who wish honest and sincere answers do not put limitations on same.
The only decent thing here are the answers given to those who didn't ask for it.
Well, we know that now...:)
So, what is reality, if not the ideas that represent facts we think we know?
Are the ideas less real than the uncertain facts they describe?
Is an old model any less real than a new one?
And now back to our regularly scheduled programming...
"Newton's laws" are IDEAS, AKA models of reality that exist inside the human mind in an attempt to explain and predict behaviors observed in the "real" World. His laws aren't "real", since ideas aren't physical "things".
Ideas aren't physical things, ok. However, his ideas were/are real enough. Thinking differently won't soften the fall.
They are based on subjective perceptions that MAY be shared, and even accepted as a shared "reality", but whether that represents what they actually ARE is a philosophical debate well beyond the limits of this forum.
Not subjective as per above. There is no doubt of their "shared reality", it's real enough for everyone and everything Newton's laws are a fact within the context of their application, classical physics at the macro level, applicable to all. The fact we have ideas that supercedes this now is expected.
If Newton's rules fail at the micro level, are they real?
They must be, we know about them because someone figured out the math ;)
Has it failed though? In his time, what he discovered was far beyond what was known 500 years before his time. Is it unrealistic to think that 500 yrs after him that now we have knowledge that brings us out of his "dark ages"? What we now consider real is to Newton as what was real then to the dark ages. The fact we didn't know about it didn't make it any less real.
Not much has changed since, we've just dug the rabbit hole a little deeper.
TRUTH according to wiki has two components - facts and reality. The scientific method tries valiantly to put the two together imo. do you guys agree?
What reality exists without facts?
Can facts exist and not be real?
i've been reading around this subject of late and it seems to make a lot of sense.
i'm wondering if anyone is convinced and/or has seen anything that can substantiate or corroborate the 'facts' set out in these arguments.. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bloodlines/russell.htm.
i was particularly fascinated to read the following:.
A critical requirement of thinking is not to believe everything you hear until it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
At one end of the spectrum are the naive and gullible, at the other are the cynics and paranoids. Rationality lies somewhere in between IMO.
