Could a religion ... possibly be "true"?
That's all the question needs to be.
i recently had a discussion with a witness in which we were talking about the catholic church.
i led them out with talk about the fraud and child abuse scandals and everyone was agreeing and making comments about how terrible it is and how obviously wrong they are.
after about 30 minutes of solid rapport building in this manner, even incorporating scriptures regarding some doctrinal errors in their doctrine (catholic), i said this:.
Could a religion ... possibly be "true"?
That's all the question needs to be.
have you all read this weeks study article?.
oh my word it is full of fear inducing tactics....doom and gloom outlooks.... anxiety inducing methods to develop absolute control over witnesses and cripple them in any attempt to think for themselves!.
(notice i am saying "themselves" rather than "ourselves"?!
have you all read this weeks study article?.
oh my word it is full of fear inducing tactics....doom and gloom outlooks.... anxiety inducing methods to develop absolute control over witnesses and cripple them in any attempt to think for themselves!.
(notice i am saying "themselves" rather than "ourselves"?!
From that picture of them hunkered down in a basement being read to, it looks like Jehovah's saving words might come in the form of a letter rather than from The Watchtower.
Presumably a BOE letter from the GB, rather than Jesus appearing in the sky or whatever.
I wonder if it'll be mailed or if it'll be a download?
What's in the white liquid (?) containers in the upper left of the image?
in addition to the above question, why do citizens of the two above mentioned countries, or other countries, feel the necessity to tell americans how they should interpret the american constitution for localized issues?.
i fairly much have an idea what the general population in the usa feels in regards to the first question.
this could be one of the possible reasons cnn piers morgan poor ratings and eventual firing.
It just seems perverse that the nationals of a country that espouses freedom and free speech object when people freely talk about issues.
What does it matter where people are from? If they're interested in a topic, why should their contribution be questioned for validity based on their nationality? Is it not self-evident that all men are born equal?
If one wants to limit contributions based on country of origin, don't use a free platform like the Internet. Go somewhere geographically limited, like the town hall or local watering hole.
i keep reading that jehovah's witnesses are in effect monsters.
i keep reading that they kinda leave chaos and distrust in their wake.
so i simply wondered if anyone had anything nice to say about them?.
Based on what's at the linked website, the OP seems to be the same author as andrekish who posted Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie - I just ain't Charlie.
See Andre Kish's trove of assorted articles on all sorts of topics:
https://plus.google.com/109148396898361925401/posts
a basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material.
the most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of jesus that transformed their lives, etc.
this is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in.
I just disagreed with your methods of trying to determine if Jesus was resurrected or not.
I don't think the OP had anything to do with determining anything about Jesus resurrection (or lack thereof). It was just saying the threshold for forming a faith belief is lower than for establishing other kinds of beliefs on similar evidence, and the inference is available that the threshold is too low for resultant beliefs to be given much credence.
It'd be more interesting to know if anyone believes Polonius killed his wife on the evidence provided.
i keep reading that jehovah's witnesses are in effect monsters.
i keep reading that they kinda leave chaos and distrust in their wake.
so i simply wondered if anyone had anything nice to say about them?.
I thought it was satire, and posted so. Then I read the link and changed my mind. More likely an articulate troll or sorts called Andre Kish.
a basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material.
the most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of jesus that transformed their lives, etc.
this is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in.
People once believed the earth was a circle hanging upon nothing.
They changed their minds when the evidence for it being a sphere held in place by gravity was no longer repressed by bible believers.
The bible still says now what it said then - a circle (circles are flat).
There's limited reason to think the bible is any more accurate that any other ancient writings.
a basic problem with christian apologetics when applied to the bible is that it relies on the tacit assumption you can draw reliable conclusions on the material.
the most common form of apologetics start out by certain claims (the tomb was found empty, the disciples had post-crusifiction experiences of jesus that transformed their lives, etc.
this is hearsay since the person who made the statement cannot be sworn in.
Why would anyone care to dissect the events surrounding Jesus' resurrection in order to know the truth about it?
I think you miss the point. The issue is whether the bible is of any value in determining what happened in the past and thus whether the bible is of any use in establishing beliefs for the present. And if it's not, then the foundation of the Western religions is just a historic curiosity of no more value than this stuff about some guy called Polonius. It's a pretty fundamental question in a Judeo-Christian context.
I can't understand why anyone would want to or even attempt to try to change a person's believe about Jesus' resurrection because I believe it is a very private matter between the person and the creator, if there really is one.
Other people's fervent belief in things for which there is no evidence has driven world politics and impacted individual's lives for good and ill for millennia. Challenging the weak foundations of others' beliefs is essential for human progress: otherwise we'd still be in the Dark Ages. Or fighting against the establishment of a Caliphate and terrorism (oh, that's right, we are...).
In my opinion (yeah, I have one of those too. I'm sitting on it) each person has the privilege of believing it or not and no one will be able to change their minds no matter what 'evidence' or suppositions they provide.
Rubbish. History proves this fatalistic passivity wrong, and hazardous.
Good post bohm.
i wanted to share an experience i had and see if anyone else had encountered this same matter.
we always tried to make an extra effort to ensure we stood on the approved hotel lists when going to our special day conventions or district conventions or what they now call regional.
we use to stay many nights a year and i would save up my hotel points to use at a later time.. i remember checking in at popular chain hotel and asked the hotel clerk how many points would i earn for the 3 night stay?
I knew I was gone when making plans for a trip to a convention with another couple. There were so many other things I wanted to do at the location there wasn't time to go to the sessions!
The other couple were less un-devout than me and seemed to notice! I know they did coz they said 'what about going to the convention?'. To which there was no answer (I was an MS)!
LOL!
I stopped going to meetings soon after, so that must have answered their question.
And I sneered at the hotel list. That might have been noticed too.