Originally posted by menace71watchtower articles are nice and fluffy with a sweet caramel center.
LOL 😉 Can there be truth in the Watchtower?
Manny
no really, as long as they don't make absurd claims about the bible they really serve moral stories on a platter, advices that should be followed by any decent being, be they muslim or christians or priests of Thor
Originally posted by ZahlanziIt takes about 90 hours to read the Bible from cover to cover. An hour a day and in three months you'd be done. Do that a couple of times and familiarize yourself with it's contents.
how would you know what is his will? we are talking about a being that doesn't speak directly but through proxys. how do you know the proxys, humans prone to weakness, are telling the truth.
Then you'll know.
Originally posted by josephwI have met a number of people who have read the Bible from cover to cover. Some of them even claim to know Gods will.
It takes about 90 hours to read the Bible from cover to cover. An hour a day and in three months you'd be done. Do that a couple of times and familiarize yourself with it's contents.
Then you'll know.
Sadly, none of them can agree on what that is. Looks like there is a flaw in your methodology.
Originally posted by twhitehead"Sadly, none of them can agree on what that is."
I have met a number of people who have read the Bible from cover to cover. Some of them even claim to know Gods will.
Sadly, none of them can agree on what that is. Looks like there is a flaw in your methodology.
Proves nothing.
Nobody agrees 100% on everything. That doesn't change the truth.
What are we talking about? God's will? What is a "will" anyway? I have a will. You have a will. What point are we trying to make?
God wills this and God wills that. So what? It was God's will to flood the earth. Next time it will be God's will to burn it with fire.
God's will is that you trust His Son's cross work on your behalf so that you can have eternal life.
Do you want to die? Or what?
Originally posted by josephwso basically what you are saying is that i won't understand and unconditionally believe in the bible until i unconditionally believe in the bible.
It takes about 90 hours to read the Bible from cover to cover. An hour a day and in three months you'd be done. Do that a couple of times and familiarize yourself with it's contents.
Then you'll know.
do you see a problem in this assumption? it may be too subtle to see but it's there
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwEDIT: you say twhite's argument proves nothing. but you said that all i need to do in order to understand the bible is to read it. but if i reach a different conclusion than yours, who is right and who is wrong? doesn't this mean you need another criteria to discover who is "righter"?
[b]"Sadly, none of them can agree on what that is."
Proves nothing.
Nobody agrees 100% on everything. That doesn't change the truth.
What are we talking about? God's will? What is a "will" anyway? I have a will. You have a will. What point are we trying to make?
God wills this and God wills that. So what? It was God's will to flood the earth work on your behalf so that you can have eternal life.
Do you want to die? Or what?[/b]
if nobody can 100% agree on something then at most 1 of us is right. maybe not even that someone.
God wills this and God wills that. So what? It was God's will to flood the earth. Next time it will be God's will to burn it with fire
i don't agree with this claim. which one of us is correct and why? bear in mind i don't disagree with god, only with the flood passage in the bible.
God's will is that you trust His Son's cross work on your behalf so that you can have eternal life.
so why is the flood story relevant to this?
Originally posted by josephwActually, it proves everything. You claimed that reading the Bible would enable Zahlanzi to know what Gods will is. (I'm I correct?)
Proves nothing.
The fact that people who have read the Bible have significantly different views of what Gods will is demonstrates incontrovertibly that this method is not a reliable way of finding it out.
So either Zahlanzi is an exception (and will succeed for some special reason), or you are not giving him sound advice.
Originally posted by josephwThats quite a different issue altogether. No I don't want to die, but then I rather suspect that we are talking about two very different meanings of the word 'die'. Whats your definition?
Do you want to die? Or what?
Whenever I go into this subject with theists they very quickly descend into vagueness or simply stop posting.
In other words you are telling me that by following God will I can avoid something and possibly gain something, but you can't actually tell me what those somethings are so you hide your ignorance behind nice sounding or scary words like 'everlasting life' or 'die'.
Originally posted by meEvery attempt to objectify any aspect of the system must be made, i.e., verify what can be verified. Once established--- if established--- you have your starting gate.
How can you be so sure that it is not someone holding opposing views to yours that is charged with holding the only version of truth?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Every attempt to objectify any aspect of the system must be made, i.e., verify what can be verified. Once established--- if established--- you have your starting gate.
I'm clearly not so clever as you but my interpretation of this response goes as follows:
You must strive to take a critical perspective and show to be true that which has the capacity to be shown true. If you succeed in this endeavour then you can make further progress
I fail To see how this adequately deals with
How can you be so sure that it is not someone holding opposing views to yours that is charged with holding the only version of truth?
Since it could be claimed that someone else is succeeding in doing what you said in your last response; whilst unknown to you; your efforts are completely failing.
Originally posted by AgergMy faith has evolved and changed many times in certain areas. It's always a work in progress. To obstinately stay the same is to not learn and grow.
Just a little question for theists here: as you are all exposed to differing versions/accounts of the god you accept to be true do you find yourselves relaxing the properties youattach to it/Him/(Her)/etc...?
What I mean here is that if you believed god does/did/is X and you hear others saying god does/did/is A,B,C,... (none of which being equal) are you no ...[text shortened]... you believe to be true is more correct (in all ways you can think of) than other interpretation?
Originally posted by knightmeisterHas that change been a series of throwing away of one conviction in favour of another or has it been such that you acknowledge you cannot say for sure which of the views (including your own) is most accurate?
My faith has evolved and changed many times in certain areas. It's always a work in progress. To obstinately stay the same is to not learn and grow.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI bet I can find many points of agreement between them as to what some characteristics of God's will are.
I have met a number of people who have read the Bible from cover to cover. Some of them even claim to know Gods will.
Sadly, none of them can agree on what that is. Looks like there is a flaw in your methodology.
Give me their email addresses and I'll prove it. That is the two people you say read the Bible from cover to cover.
Let me question them and demonstrate that they agree on many points about the will of God.
Or are you just putting out bluster ?