First principles

[Danmark]

Descartes famously asked 'What do we know? How do we know it?'
He started with 'cogito ergo sum,' I think therefore I am.
How do we know anything?

All religions start from the premise that a member of their tribe was told by a god that this is the truth, that there is a god. Thousands of cultures have come up with a god that is the god. How does one determine which god is true? How does one determine if there is a god?

The proposition for debate is that if there really is one true god, a real god, would not he/she/it communicate this truth to all people? Presuming a universal creator god who wants us to believe 'him/her/it' exists, wouldn't that god communicate this truth directly to all people, all cultures? Why would this god rely on a single tribe, sect, or person to present this truth to all people?

[William]

[Replying to post 29 ]

Elijah John: I think that's his point. Only Judaism began with a national, mass epiphany. Christianity did not. Sinai is a long way from Bethlehem.

William: Not much of a point though, even as strictly speaking the Tribes followed the one leader...that didn't work out to show anything substantial which can be used to compare whatever is being compared....rate of success? Something else? Unless the whole nation even now claims to be the worlds leading instrument of The Creator?

Also it appears that Jesus' mission was about 'the others'...

[Zzyzx]

.

Truth is not established by popular vote, if it were the earth would still be flat.

"would still be flat"?

When was the Earth flat?

How is 'truth established'?

Did anyone know 'truth' before JW religion developed (1870 in Pittsburgh)? Who?

[Danmark]

The proposition for debate is that if there really is one true god, a real god, would not he/she/it communicate this truth to all people?

NOTE All posts I write represent my personal faith based beliefs a

s one of Jehovah's Witnesses


Yes in his own due time in accord with his will and purpose.

As I alluded in post 23, this is a crucial point. Why wait 200,000 years?

Biblically man has'nt been around for 200, 000 years, we have been here a mere 6,000 which still seems a long time but in the scheme of things isn't very long at all. Why wait 6000 years? Because it has taken this long to settle the issues raised in Eden.

Can you agree that was an extremely misleading quote cut of yours. You cut out my next sentence. I wrote:

As I alluded in post 23, this is a crucial point. Why wait 200,000 years? Why wait even the 6000 or so encompassed by the Biblical time frame?

This kind of thing is typical of 'pro religion' arguments. They typically, just like this example, distort the facts. I guess you need to.

At any rate, 6000 years is virtually all of human kind's recorded written history. If it's taken 6000 years to "settle the issues raised in Eden" why shouldn't it take 6000 more, or 200,000 for that matter?

There appears to be no time limit on the amount of nonsense the religious believer can swallow.

[Avoice]

[Replying to Danmark]

It was a misspelling. I meant to type God. I apologize.

"There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch. Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee. Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God.

For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened 6unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee so to do. The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will n that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.[strike][font=Georgia][/font]

There is much to be gleaned in the above passages. Christians, of course, believe that the prophet God will raise up is Jesus. In reality it is theJoshua who led us into the promised land. If Christians believe it is about Jesus then they should take heed how this prophet is described. First- we need to identify the one/s describing this prophet. Moses is telling the nation what God said about the prophet. If Jesus was God then God would not have said the following to Moses:
"And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee,

LIKE WHO? If JESUS WAS GOD THEN GOD WOULD HAVE SAID LIKE UNTO ME when he spoke to Moses. He didnt He said "like unto thee" LIKE MOSES. NOT LIKE GOD

[Zzyzx]

.

Biblically man has'nt been around for 200, 000 years, we have been here a mere 6,000 . . .

The Bible does not say how long humans have existed.

The six thousand year figure is based on 'calculations' by Archbishop Ussher in 1658 'The Annals of the World', claiming the Earth was created on October 23, 4004 BCE based on extrapolation from Bible tales.

During the three and a half centuries since he made that claim, people who actually study human and Earth history (including anthropology, archeology, geology, paleontology, etc) have come to very different conclusions regarding human and Earth history.

Some religionists still prefer the 4004 BCE date of creation -- and may claim that the world's scientists (for centuries) are in a grand conspiracy against their religion.

But thank you for providing readers with a religious perspective on the matter.

[Mithrae]

Alternatively, a teacher or parent who hands all the ansers to a child, leaving them no opportunity to figure things out for themselves, is perhaps even worse than the one who offers confusion. According to some stories Yahweh introduced himself to Moses as simply "I am who I am" and forbade any further attempts to put an image or form to the name; other stories insist that Yahweh is jealous and vengeful and obsessively concerned with what people use their naughty bits for. Did the clarity really improve things any?

If there were indeed a god, I wonder what information she should be expected to unambiguously communicate with us, assuming all the 'damned to eternal torment if you don't believe everything Bob tells you' stuff is nonsense?

The Socratic method is a great tool for the teacher, in some situations. It's great for helping the student think, to learn how to learn. OTOH, sometimes the student simply needs raw data. If you don't have basic knowledge, you have nothing to work with, no blocks to manipulate no matter how skilled one may be in building with blocks.

The "I am who I am" announcement is for me the most profound statement in the Bible, perhaps in all of theology. At the opposite end of the spectrum is the tedious and infinite detail found in Levitical nonsense.

Another favourite of mine is:
“They have styled him, Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is the celestial, well-winged Garutm�n, for learned priests call one by many names as they speak of Agni, Yama, Mataṛṣvan.� (Rig Veda Saṃhit� 1.164.46)

What is so transparently nonsensical for me is the notion that this great I AM, this universal ultimate of existence, would choose to make itself known just like all the other phony man made 'gods,' as a 'god' of one specific tribe. To claim that one culture, or one person is such a God's only conduit to mankind suggests a God who is either stupid or likes to promote strife; certainly not a compassionate and wise God.

If there really is a great I AM then surely it respects the very people who reject these tribal imposters.

Or doesn't much care what we believe one way or the other; why would he? But an interesting (or perhaps worrying) implication of universalism is that folk should be about as likely to acquire anything they really need just from the Bible as if they spent their lives studying all the world's religions. Universal truths which require universal expertise would be even more absurd to imagine than truths gained and presented only by one culture; if this way of thinking about god were correct, it would imply that each culture (or certainly most major surviving religious branches) already contains pretty much all god needs people to know. I wonder if that actually is the case of the Bible?

[Danmark]

Out of 2.42 Billion 'Christians' today, only 8.5 million (JW's) managed to get it right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... of_members

Yes that's exactly what the official Jehovahs Witness belief is. (There were only 8 people that survived the flood, that should give you an idea how God feels about numbers.) Truth is not established by popular vote, if it were the earth would still be flat.

Anyway apart from proving you can count and know how to use wikipedia did you a have a point to make in relation to the OP? Is it that if there is one God everyone on earth would agree about how to worship him, even atheists?

Are you really doubling down on the notion that only JW's got it right? I fully realize that truth is not determined by popular vote. After all, true absolutist atheists are in the minority. But the point of the OP is that this supposed one true God is not described in the same way by ANYONE. IOW, no one agrees on who or what this God is or if it exists. As I said, even the JW's disagree. The point, since you confessed you missed it, is that God does not exist... or... 'he' is a horrible communicator... or 'she' just doesn't care what we think.

[Danmark]

Or doesn't much care what we believe one way or the other; why would he? But an interesting (or perhaps worrying) implication of universalism is that folk should be about as likely to acquire anything they really need just from the Bible as if they spent their lives studying all the world's religions. Universal truths which require universal expertise would be even more absurd to imagine than truths gained and presented only by one culture; if this way of thinking about god were correct, it would imply that each culture (or certainly most major surviving religious branches) already contains pretty much all god needs people to know. I wonder if that actually is the case of the Bible?

Agreed. What I find interesting is that many of the world's religions, and humanism, share common beliefs, a common ethic and ethos, that we should treat each other well and that there is more to life than accumulating material wealth. We don't need religion to teach us that. Most mammals share that.

Just watched an interesting program on wild dogs in Africa.
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/dogs-in ... ode/16807/

[Avoice]

[Replying to Danmark]

Might as well start with the Christian Testament's very first 'supposed' fulfilled prophecy. The BIG one. The one that is the pillar of the church:
THE VIRGIN BIRTH PROPHECY

It doesn't exist. The writer of Mathew claims it was foretold. Then proceeds to quote a verse from the book of Isaiah chapter Christian actually believe the Messiah was to be born from s virgin because 'Mathew' said so. Jesus Chtist! If they go read chapter 7 of Isaiah theyd see it is about a pending battle that king Ahaz is worried about.. And God sent Isaiah to Ahaz to tell him not to worry. And Ahaz was given a sign:

"Behold the young woman is with child ...." (What it really says in the original Hebrew)

"Behold a virgin will conceive..." (as stated in the Christian Testament) THIS IS A LIE

It doesnt say virgin it says young wonan. Yes, a young woman was often a virgin but in Hebrew the word betullah (virgin) is used to convey sexually purity. Ha almah (young woman) is a reference to age. .And it says THE young woman. (s particular woman) More importantly it says IS WITH child not WILL CONCEIVE. The young woman was already pregnant when Isaiah went to Ahaz
Debating with Christians on this is the most unbelievable experience. All they focus on is that "a young woman was a virgin therefore the word virgin is not a lie." UNBELIEVABLE!

THE CHILD IN ISAIAH 7 IS MERELY A CALENDER. That by the time the child reaches a certain age King Ahaz' won't have to worry about those who are about to war against Ahazs southern kingdom becsuse they will no longer be a threat. That Ahaz should not worry. WHY? OH EMMANUEL. BECAUSE GOD IS WITH US. Meaning God will be with the kingdom of Judah. Christians think because it says God with us (Emmanuel) that it means God with us in the flesh

CHRISTIANS NEED TO LOOK AT THE VERY FIRST SENTANCE OF THIS NARRATIVE.
"AND IT CAME TO PASS IN IN THE DAYS OF AHAZ.. "
It happened already. Its not anmbout an event that happened 700 years after later. It came to pass during Ahazs lifetime; What comfort would Ahaz get out of a child born 709 years later? He wouldn't. The sign was for Ahaz to see. And if you keep readibg Isaiah vyou will see that it DID come to pass as it states in the opening sentance.


There is no virgin birth prophecy.



[font=Impact][/font]

[1213]

…All religions start from the premise that a member of their tribe was told by a god that this is the truth, that there is a god. Thousands of cultures have come up with a god that is the god. How does one determine which god is true? How does one determine if there is a god?

I personally would start with, what the alleged God has said. And after that I would think, would I keep that one my God, if it would be true. And by that I have come to conclusion, Bible God is the only one that I would keep as my God. It really doesn’t matter do the others even exist, I wouldn’t keep them as my God. And then there remains the question, is the Bible God real and existing. I believe He is, because things seem to go as the Bible has told. And I can’t believe humans could have done the Bible without God’s influence.