Paradise on Earth

[onewithhim]

When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden and the restoration of mankind to the perfection and endless life that Adam forfeited, I was thrilled. Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"? I don't think very many people would say that.

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 330 by Joe1950]

Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"?

I don't think very many people would say that.

I think most normal people with a measure of health would agree with the above.

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29

The above is a fact: the bible does indeed hold out a hope of living on this our planet earth under excellent living conditions.


JW

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 329 by onewithhim]



[center]
Seeking to agree[/center]

Well, I appreciate your post here.

Thanks...
I don't like that style very much....

Hardly any poetry, you see.
It was dry... very dry.. the only relief was when I refer to myself by my nickname.. ( which I like very much )

I'm a cool, cool cat who blasts.

And someone suggested that pic... I used to make my own avatars..
There's a reason I'm not a famous graphic artists....

I know you and I have been around and around without getting anywhere, but perhaps it was I who didn't have patience enough.

Just to be clear, I wasn't singling you out.. I was talking in general.. Religious people get really frustrated with ME, as well. Translation religious language into secular language like this is extremely frustrating at times.

You seem to have changed your mind about me... and here we are engaging on a way more meaningful level than ever.

This is very encouraging..
And I really do think that words of encouragement helped me a lot, too.

I'm almost a bit paranoid that Christians don't like me... I get too much of that.
I'm not deluding myself that all Christians are... unreasonable, but some of them are.. and oh my... some atheists are, too. No question about that.

I've been very unreasonable in the past.. I'm a work in progress in that regard.
We all get impatient... meh.. we are all human.

Correcting our mistakes is an extremely vital part to an honest discussion.
You might not be aware of how REFRESHING it is to have a debate opponent even SUGGESTING that they might have made a mistake like being "impatient".

I can't stress this enough.

You didn't even ADMIT to the mistake.. ( and I'm not asking you to... ) the mere suggestion that you are fallible.. is a real breath of fresh air in here.

So, all that was very personal.. and a bit against the rules..
Personal but positive, I hope.

I also think that to search for agreements is a good thing.

It's one of my PRIMARY goals in here...
In fact, I play a game.

I try to agree as much as I can.
I could play the game a bit better ... ok, I invented the game a few days ago.

I think that in order to BUILD understanding, we have to go one step at a time.. each agreement, no matter how small, is a step in the right direction. And that's going UP.

I want to go up with people.
Now down together in a beautiful, but holy ship.

I tend to want to blast certain people, but I'm learning to cool it. To agree on the meanings of terms is necessary, and I don't know how that will prove to be possible!

Ah.. well... yeah.
That may be so.

But maybe if we give it a real good try... I learn something new almost every day...
Wouldn't it be spectacular if we could arrive at an agreement as to the meanings of at least SOME religious words?

We could write a book about it...
Wanna collaborate?

( I even know an editor )

Achhhh! "Soul" is always a term that people can't come to an agreement about, no matter what someone says.

I agree that hardly anyone really agrees.

Again, these words were written down in a way that was WAY more poetic than philosophical. Trying to make sense out of poetry is an art in itself.

What does the Mona Lisa mean?
In the eye of the beholder. Thousands upon thousands of words have been used to explain it.

What does the Iliad mean?
A whole LOT, I suppose. Again.. whole careers have gone into explaining it.

The Bible and the Quran and the Bhagavad Gita are the same.. very poetic.
What do they MEAN?....

Opinions differ.
Thousands upon thousands of genuinely honest theologians have and still do attempt.

A thought I have on people not totally agreeing on what Truth is, even in the same religion.....I think JWs agree on the basic doctrines, else they wouldn't be JWs.

Right.

A religious group usually at least TRIES to have common ground. And it seems to me that JW like to be a bit more "lockstep" or rigid in their language than other religious sects.

But I don't have any more success at understanding their language than I do for any other kind of religious group. They might use the same words, in the same way as each other, but I'm usually left completely confused as to any precise MEANING.

And when someone makes a valiant effort such as yourself to spend the considerable time and effort to explain, it all seems so completely arbitrary... or "ad hoc".
I hear: "We believe this but not that.. "

The "why" is just like any other religious group, when it really comes down to it : We believe it because we do. "

Or in other words: "That's the way we happen to interpret our holy book."

They all seem to invent meaning as they go.
Heaven on earth?... what does THAT mean, precisely?

A new kind of government with less over-population?
Good people get to live forever, and bad people don't... Or just the ones that God decided get to go... the rest.. just die a normal death... who knows?

I sure don't.

I know you can set me straight about JW beliefs in general.. Heck, I can go search for it on the internet. Of course, even JW might disagree on some subtle points. But I am WAY WAY less interested in the particular beliefs you have... and more more more interested in how you got those beliefs.. and why.

But first, we at least have to understand what one another is talking about.... so definitions come first. If we can't agree about those.. yeah.

Bit of a problem understanding the other... right?
If you want to ultimately proselytize.. and I don't know what you MEAN?

It's a waste of our precious time.
You might as well be speaking ancient Greek to me.

I might as well go for a pizza, instead.

No hell-fire, no Trinity, Jehovah alone is God, the soul is not immortal, and there is no spirit that consciously lives on when a person dies.

These are some of your beliefs, I take it.

That is real, hard truth to each of us, and we think of them as facts.

You think of them as facts.
That's an opinion.

You might as well have written : "It's my opinion that my beliefs represent facts".
Unfortunately, not everyone shares your opinion, or your belief.

Those are personal.
They are subjective, or "to the person".

You take your beliefs as true, and therefore, to you, are facts.
The key term his is "TO YOU"... these so called "facts" are not facts for everyone.

Personal, subjective facts are... not public. objective ones.
WE are getting acquainted these days with "false news", and "alternative facts".

People have trouble with the concepts "fact" and "truth".
That's very normal.

We aren't born epistemologists.
But we CAN all learn.

I believe that they ARE facts, according to what the Bible actually says.

I get that... you have a certain set of beliefs, and one of those is that you believe in actual facts.

I believe that anyone would see that if they really checked it all out.

You must believe that other people don't read the Bible very carefully. Apparently, others can't be reading what the Bible ACTUALLY says.

I wonder just what they are reading?
The "FAKE NEWS" , while the JW are reading the "GOOD NEWS"?

I truly do not believe that most of the people in the world really get into it enough to know what the Bible teaches.

Are you imagining that people outside of your faith are all sloppy readers?

Again, I feel "facts" are, in relation to the Bible, there to be known. It is a FACT that God is not a Trinity, for example, and that can be discerned by an open mind.

Feeling facts... unfortunately, your emotions aren't going to convince an outsider of your "facts". You will just have to rely on "reason" instead of "feeling", like the rest of us.

I know that you consider your beliefs to be FACTS, but in my book what you just expressed are firmly held OPINIONS or in other words "BELIEFS", and NOT facts.

You have an alternate definition for the word "fact" going on.
I use the more common definition found in most English dictionaries.

Believe it or not, I had an open mind when I started conversing with a JW.

I do believe it.
Why would you lie?

I was going to show them that they were wrong, but shortly I realized that I really didn't know much about the Bible, being a Southern Baptist.

If you assumed that they were wrong, you weren't as "open minded" as you could have been You had yourself a case of negative bias going on if that was your intent.. but go on.. that's just a quibble. But when you stated earlier that you approached JW with an open mind.. you made a mistake. You weren't as open minded as you might have imagined. I spot biases.

I hunt for them.
Then I blast them.

Consider yourself blasted.

Forget about that mistake for now, you were talking about your previous ignorance of the Bible..

Knowing the Bible by heart and interpreting it CORRECTLY are two completely different things. The JW might be able to recite the whole Bible without looking at it.. doesn't mean he understands word ONE.

You might have decided that your previous religious group did not interpret the Bible correctly, and that the JW did. I would call that a personal opinion of yours.. if you are convinced.. then I would call it a belief. I guess the Baptists you once belonged to would not agree with your opinion.

As an outsider.. I watch on.. and see interpretive disagreements.
Or as I put it before, theology is : "Interpretations of interpretations of God only knows how many interpretations of what God only knows, if God is more than just another interpretation".

I analyzed what I was being told and what the Scriptures were actually saying. I could see clearly what the Bible really says about God, and that many versions are lacking in their honesty.

I take that to mean that you were impressed by the JW interpretations.
Interpretations are opinions, not facts.

I do agree that most "religion" is about belief and not facts.

Just most... yeah, we get a lot of that in here...
Each person likes his own brand, don't they?

All the OTHER religions aren't true...
And you just HAPPEN to have lucked into the ONLY one that truly is true, good for you.

I am a bit skeptical, if that's what you think, because that's what EVERY fundamentalist believer says ... his is the true way.. all other are not true Scots.

I searched for facts concerning what is really being said in the Bible.

I suppose that reading the actual Bible will afford you with those words ( or "facts", as you seem to call them )

The words are a little bit different depending on the translations, of course. Translation is again, more of an art than a science. We always have to remember that when we read an English bible.. we are reading a translation.. which is an interpretation.

And then, each and every reader has to interpret that interpretation further. And since most of the Bible is POETIC, that's interpretive too.

So, in here, what we REALLY get are interpretations of interpretations of interpretations of what are MAYBE facts. ( but may not be )

I find that the majority of people don't want to concern themselves with facts.

Well, I think that most people I talk to think that they do.

Unfortunately, it's been my experience that most people over-estimate their reasoning abilities, which is a shame, but a bit of a "thing". It even has a name.. it's called the "Dunning-Kruger effect". We aren't born critical thinkers.. we have to LEARN those skills. And one aspect of our education system is that critical thinking skills are underrated. We seem to want ( or need ) conformity, instead. It's really only at the highest levels when one is encouraged to think critically.

I think most people confuse opinions for facts.
( an expert in knowing one from the other would be a seasoned journalist )

That's one of the most common mistakes that people do.
Donald Trump is already famous for that.
This isn't a purely religious foible.. but a human one.

I'm guilty of it a LOT... but I take considerable pride of being able to recognize the error and when I am lucky enough to root it out.. I CORRECT it asap.

_____________________

For the record:

I make a whole lot of mistakes
______________________

(The Bible clearly calls animals "souls," but, try as you may, by showing them the FACTS, they still will say that "animals don't have souls." I want to pull my hair out. They don't have souls, they ARE souls, just like humans, but that FACT will not be allowed into their minds.)

Anyway, I probably haven't made any sense, but that's the way I see it.

I have to disagree.

You have made perfect sense.... the PROBLEM is that you haven't really demonstrated that your beliefs are INDEED "facts". And I'm not too sure what you mean by "belief" or "fact" or "truth". These are complicated words. Definitions are boring.

In philosophy, definitions are crucial.

But now.. I am guilty of not giving you my definition for the term "fact".
So you may not know what I mean by the term.

This part may be boring.... it may not be so pleasant, either..
But I hope that it's clear.

Some definitions:

When I say, for example that you are expressing a belief, but not a fact, in order for that sentence to really make sense to you, you would have to know what I meant by "Belief" and "Fact". I don't use them interchangeably.. they are NOT identical to me.

We can believe in things that are not factually true.
A fact HAS to be true.. we call something "factual" which represents a true bit of information concerning real. A fact is something real.. and is therefore true.

Fact and real and true can be used interchangeably.
A fact HAS TO BE about something that is real.
A fact HAS TO BE about something that is true.

And so on.

An opinion doesn't have to be about something that is real.
An opinion doesn't have to be about something that is true.
An opinion doesn't have to be about something that is a fact.

A belief doesn't have to be about something that is real.
A belief doesn't have to be about something that is true.
A belief doesn't have to be about something that is a fact.

Do you see the distinction I'm trying to make?
I think it's a crucial one.

It would be great if we can agree on this.
Let me know, if you will.

[Joe1950]

Good point. If we cannot agree on what is a "fact" and what is a "belief" it is not probable to find any common ground.

I tend not to use the word "fact" because there is some disagreement about it.
I would rather take the position that your conclusions or suppositions must be derived from verifiable evidence.

Evidence , I suppose, are the basis for facts.

So, what is the nature of "evidence"? Holy books are "evidence " that people believe in god, but they are not evidence that the books themselves are accurate representations of real events. . A book, in and of itself, is not evidence.

I tend to be a pragmatist. Which is why I am an atheist. I expect any explanation of the real world to be independently verifiable. For example. If I claim there is a theory of gravity I can test that in a number of ways. And all my tests will verify that objects attract. I can read about it in a textbook. But if my ONLY evidence that gravity exists is because I read it somewhere, that, to me, is not evidence.

I think that many Christians, while proclaiming belief in the Bible, are secretly doubters. Why? Because they seem to be constantly trying to verify the Biblical accounts using outside evidence. They look for Noah's Ark, evidence of a worldwide flood, the Ark of the Covenant, the burial place of Jesus, etc. They search for verifiable evidence outside the words of the Bible.

My point of view tends to be: If you have evidence that an be examined and verified I am happy to consider it. That is what scientists do. They are always willing to listen to evidence. But if the only evidence you can offer is that someone wrote it in a book, that does not cut it. That is simply blind faith. And blind faith does not lead to good things, usually.

[William]

[Replying to post 330 by Joe1950]

Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"?

I don't think very many people would say that.

I have to agree that this is the case with a lot of people. I also think that people would get board with it after a few thousand years, and perhaps even sooner.

At present there are scientists working on prolonging human life indefinitely. This is a serious pursuit and well invested in.

When you only know one thing (this experience called 'life on earth') and there is no other reality known to compare it to, it is normal enough to want to extend that thing indefinitely. 'Better the devil you know.'

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29

The above is a fact: the bible does indeed hold out a hope of living on this our planet earth under excellent living conditions.


JW

Personally the though of living on this one planet forever in this universe is less appealing the more I think it through. Especially if there are better alternatives.
I would like to be fully informed as to options before making any choice.

'Excellent living conditions' are not exactly what the universe offers, so one would have to have a none biological form for a start.

There would also have to be no sense of the right of ownership or monetary values or political structure of disparity.

Defining 'excellent living conditions' in relation to this universe seems oxymoron, without seriously changing the physics of the universe to accommodate.

Sometime what appears to be a great idea, when though through, can be seen to be not so great at all.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 333 by Joe1950]


[center]
Being catty about pragmatism[/center]

Good point. If we cannot agree on what is a "fact" and what is a "belief" it is not probable to find any common ground.

Then I enjoin you to join my group "Define your terms".
I payed a grand for it...

Tokin' tokens, if you will.

I tend not to use the word "fact" because there is some disagreement about it.
I would rather take the position that your conclusions or suppositions must be derived from verifiable evidence.

Evidence , I suppose, are the basis for facts.

Ha ha the cat pounces.
You just used the word "fact".. handy word, hard to get rid of.

You been blasted ....

The way that I understand it, a "fact" is a concept. We call certain hypotheses "Fact" or "fiction" and so on. The word "Fact" as I use it means "what comports with reality". I have pretty much the same definition for the word "true" as well.. what is true is a fact, what is a fact is real.. and so on...

And I would have to agree that we only KNOW we have a fact if it's been tested, verified, observed, and so on.. the best method we have to know if we have a "fact" on our hands is the method called "science". ( quite the ambiguous word, but there it is )

Some facts aren't very USEFUL.... ( at least not quite yet ) so the pragmatist might say that it's not REAL.. or not a fact.. or not true.. but usefulness isn't as handy an epistemological tool as skepticism is.

I'm a big skepticism promoter.

When I want to get something DONE... then, I'm a pragmatist.. I want the best method to get the job done. But skepticism demands that too.. no time wasting.. why waste time?

Just get 'er done.
Skepticism insists on using the right tool for the job.

We can use a screwdriver to bang in a nail... ( got the tee shirt ) but wouldn't we prefer a good hammer?

I think so...
Pragmatism doesn't have a MECHANISM by which to tell what is more useful or not. Skepticism does. Skepticism is a method.

Pragmatism, as far as I know, is an attitude.
When I did use a screw driver as a hammer.. I was being pragmatic.

The skeptic in me was thinking : "Oh.. how I wish I had me a hammer. "

So, what is the nature of "evidence"? Holy books are "evidence " that people believe in god, but they are not evidence that the books themselves are accurate representations of real events. . A book, in and of itself, is not evidence.

I have to disagree.
In these forums, I have found it necessary to be as nit-picky as I can be.

I do call the Bible "evidence" for certain religious beliefs.
I don't consider the Bible to be IN ANY WAY "good" evidence.

It's about the worst kind of evidence ( self-referential ) there can BE.
But it's on the spectrum... at the extremely bad end of the spectrum, but still.

Religious folk can plunk it on the witness stand.
It makes a hefty BOOM.. of authority, too.

I tend to be a pragmatist.

I tend to hunt them as snacks.

Which is why I am an atheist.

Ok, this is VERY interesting... I'm a skeptic, and that's why I'm an atheist..
I don't think pragmatism is the best path to atheism...

I sneak up on pragmatists.
You might never see me coming, either...

I'd love to see how you get from pragmatism to atheism.

I go from skepticism to atheism in 3 easy steps. Patent pending.
All rights reserved.
Our highly qualified and friendly operators are standing by right now to take your orders.

I expect any explanation of the real world to be independently verifiable.

You expect way too much.
I can explain.

Theories need NOT be verified to be useful.
Some even can't.

Evidence : those theories that couldn't be verified in the past, but were later. Ohhh, yeah those.

For example. If I claim there is a theory of gravity I can test that in a number of ways. And all my tests will verify that objects attract. I can read about it in a textbook. But if my ONLY evidence that gravity exists is because I read it somewhere, that, to me, is not evidence.

Well, a book about gravity is a handy tool to explain the theory, and the tests.
We can have pictures, of the tower at Pizza, too.

If I can trust the editors of the book, it's a heck of a shortcut to doing all of that research myself. But I do have to trust the editors.. I want to CHECK what they represent. Richard Dawkins, for example, writes about the theory of evolution.

I trust HIM... so I trust what he says about the theory.
I trust him because I think that Oxford has a very good reputation...

And I just like his accent.. who doesn't?
It's so "Oxfordian".

So, basically, I believe in the TOE because I like the RD accent.
Yeah.. I'm that shallow.

I think that many Christians, while proclaiming belief in the Bible, are secretly doubters.

Of course.

We know that for a FACT.. even Christian preachers are telling us that. Richard Dawkins again, among many others ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovering_from_Religion

And I also think that the real purpose of apologetics is to keep the faith. Not to convince outsiders... new recruits tend to be way more vulnerable people.

Why? Because they seem to be constantly trying to verify the Biblical accounts using outside evidence. They look for Noah's Ark, evidence of a worldwide flood, the Ark of the Covenant, the burial place of Jesus, etc. They search for verifiable evidence outside the words of the Bible.

I think that atheists should do that research, too.
One way or the other.. the Bible is an extremely important book. I don't have any problems with their looking for evidence somewhere else. I'd LOVE for them to find it.. can you IMAGINE? ( I don't suggest holding your breath )

It's one of the mostest.
And yeah.. the cat is eyeing it ... with a bit of bad intent, I'm afraid.
Another tasty treat.

Blast fuel, perhaps.

My point of view tends to be: If you have evidence that an be examined and verified I am happy to consider it.

That, to me is good skepticism.. another word I would use is "critical thinking" or, perhaps "sound reasoning". Pragmatism is a little different. Pragmatists are only concerned with what "works".. and like it or not.. religions DO work, and work a LOT.

But religions can be oh so wrong... useful AND wrong..
That's the problem I have with pragmatism as a way of knowing.

I know that it's just a word.. but it's better to get the correct word, don't you think?

I use "skepticism"... It's shorter to write than "pragmatism", and is broader than simple usefulness. Even FALSE ideas can be useful up to a certain point.

But as we try to get further on.. the false ideas won't be as useful as the true ones.
So, I think that trying to figure out the true ideas from the false ones would be a great first step. Let's check for truth of our cherished beliefs that we might find very useful, indeed. The religious people are always telling me about how their beliefs are so very USEFUL in their lives, you see.

Yeah, to a point, they may be.
But only SO far.

And the best way to verify a theory, is to test for EVIDENCE.. test for the predictions it makes.. see if the theory agrees with every OTHER theory we think are true.

So, I'm mostly agreeing with you.. it gets real subtle at this level.
And oh boy.. I'm not as subtle as I'd like to be.

I'm a bit of a clod, you see.
And right now.. not too much in a serious mode.. please, don't take offense.

I bought some hardware that doesn't work right now.. and I need a pragmatist RIGHT HERE.. it's kinda frustrating. I bet you could help.

That is what scientists do. They are always willing to listen to evidence. But if the only evidence you can offer is that someone wrote it in a book, that does not cut it. That is simply blind faith. And blind faith does not lead to good things, usually.

I have no choice but to agree with that one hundred percent.
If something is JUST in a book.. oh oh..

Oopsie.. that's what I call "fiction".
I love my fiction books.

[dio9]

When I learned that the Bible speaks of a restored Garden of Eden and the restoration of mankind to the perfection and endless life that Adam forfeited, I was thrilled. Who doesn't want to keep living on this beautiful earth, with our loved ones, and being able to do all the things we love to do---endlessly?

If God said to you today, "When do you want to die?" would you say "now!!"? I don't think very many people would say that.

We CAN live forever here on Earth. The Bible tells us that we can.

Matthew 5:5
Psalm 37:9-11,29

I don't believe in the live forever part but do believe we can make this world while we are living here that place.

[JehovahsWitness]

Personally the though of living on this one planet forever in this universe is less appealing the more I think it through. Especially if there are better alternatives.
I would like to be fully informed as to options before making any choice.

So are you under the impression that, rather being and unmerited gift, you somehow have the right to choose what God offers you?

Bible believing Christians understand that anything God kindly offers we don't deserve and if, in his mercy and undeserved kindess He offers everlasting life, we would do well not to tell him, we want somthing "better".

J

[Joe1950]

[Replying to post 335 by Blastcat]

Oh. So THAT's how you are!

I have not figured out how to clip parts of quotes so I will just try to respond to a few points.
When I say I am a "pragmatist" I do not mean a fully developed field of philosophy. Just that I am practical. Maybe A "practicalist" would be a better term, maybe not.
But, since we are picking nits, how about this. Can you be BOTH an atheist and a skeptic? Doesn't the philosophy of skepticism take the position that knowledge is never attainable fully. In that case, wouldn't you be an agnostic?

I would think that a skeptic would not be concerned with using the right tool for the job, but would instead question the very idea of using any tool? Perhaps even the idea of doing the job in the first place! But my knowledge on the subject is superficial, but good enough to get by (practicalist).

My point in regard to the idea of a "fact" is that we cannot seem to agree with our religious friends as to what constitutes a "fact". Like you, I consider verifiability a key component. They do not . (At least outside of a Holy Book).

As I stated , any EXPLANATION of the world must be based on evidence. I never implied that we cannot use the world if we do not understand it. For example, the automobile. I would estimate that that 99% of the people who use cars (myself included) would not be able to explain HOW they work in any detail. Because I cannot explain the theory or the operation does not make a car any less useful to me. I don't need that information. I can use the world without explaining it. (Practicalist)

When you say you "trust a book" what you are really implying, I think, is that you trust the EXPERTISE that went into writing the book. You understand that there is a large amount of scientific study, etc. that went into the book. you are not really trusting a book JUST because it is a book. You trust Dawkins because he has the qualifications and cites sources in his works. He does not claim divine inspiration.This differs from the Holy Books . The only "expertise" involved in them is their own claim to be the word of god. That is a book of a different color.

Do organized religions really "work"? Define your terms . What does "work" mean? BLAST!
Like any organization I would suggest that organized religion is beneficial and harmful. And the harm it has caused on the personal, psychological, political spheres far outweigh the benefits. Religion has not been beneficial to millions.

[onewithhim]

I just joined this forum but let me suggest the following. First, I am an atheist.
I KNOW the Bible is an historical piece of literature written over hundreds of years by various members of a tribe who began as goatherds and later developed into urban dwellers. It is not inspired by a supreme being.
I KNOW this just as certainly as a fundamentalist KNOWS that the Bible is the inspired word of god.
And the liberal Protestant KNOWS that the Bible is inspired by god but not every word is to be taken literally.
And the Roman Catholic KNOWS that the pope is god's representative on earth.
And the Jew knows that the New testament is not part of the Holy Book and not inspired by god.
And the Muslim knows that as an infidel I am condemned to hell. And so forth.

My point is that people who follow religious doctrine are not alike. There are liberal and moderate and conservative and fundamentalist Jews, Christians, Moslems, etc.
This can make debate and discussion very difficult because the very basic nature of the issue is not agreed upon by the different parties.

This should not cut off discussion by any means, but I have difficulty discussing with a fundamentalist. Why? because we BOTH know we are starting from diametrically opposed understanding if the nature of the universe and life. I know there is no god and they know they have a direct line to god.
This does not mean we shouldn't talk, of course. But it is probably frustrating for all of us when we cannot agree on the fundamentals.

Yes, truly. That is why I like to stick to---not what a particular religion believes, but---what the Bible actually SAYS. Most "religion" out there is based not on what the Bible says but what their particular church leaders SAY the Bible says.

If we can discuss just that---what is it that the Bible really says?---then we can avoid a lot of nonsense and frustrating conversations. People must be willing to respect others' points of view and answer their questions patiently and as honestly as they can. Any discussion will be greatly interesting if we can do that.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 332 by Blastcat]

Yes, Blast, I agree with what you're saying about opinions and beliefs vs. facts. I did understand that from your previous few posts.

You are helping me to hone down my thoughts and be clearer in my own mind and also clearer in how to express them.

I do think that most people are "sloppy readers," yes. That is an opinion of mine. Another opinion is that I think if people were more thoughtful they would believe the same as I do, and if they don't believe the same as I do, they know they are wrong but want to take advantage of others. Like the clergy of "Christian" religions. They have quite a racket going. That's my opinion.

I agree with what you said: "Knowing the Bible by heart and interpreting it correctly are two completely different things. The JW [or anyone] might be able to recite the whole Bible without looking at it, but that doesn't mean he understands word ONE." Yes. I know many people like that, esp. in my old religion. I believe that Satan knows plenty of Scripture as well.

Can there be a "fact" associated with the Bible? I say that there can be. Couldn't we take the Scriptures, in their original languages, and determine what they really are saying? Is it possible? If we could, then we could ascertain FACTS---facts according to the Scriptures. Facts in line with the Scriptures. Facts describing what is IN the Scriptures. Do I make sense?

Can we say that one "fact" is what the original languages actually SAY? What they say can be considered factual for the Scriptures, even if not for anything else. See what I mean?

E.g., it is universally understood, I think, that the Bible actually states that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) That is a "fact" in association with the Bible. It is not a fact with a believer in one of the ancient Mexican or Egyptian religions, but it is a Biblical fact. Am I getting across my meaning?

So a Biblical "fact" is in association with the Bible itself. "God created"---a Biblical "fact."