Jehovahs Witnesses article attacking the Deity of Christ again

[ffg]

What about when physical reality exists of something that is illogical, but because you were told about this reality, you will not believe until you are able to use your senses to confirm the reality.

Human nature is to doubt even your closest friends and family.

But doubt doesn’t have an effect on the reality.

 

[PRmerger]

No because this was the physical reality before him! That is my point in this.

Just so I am clear about your position: you do NOT consider the little boy (see referent) to be an egotist because he declares he sees a bunny and not a butterfly.

Right?

 

[Amo_a_Jesus]

We have to pray for them, in every rosary and pray we make, with all our heart, we have to ask Jesus that show them the Truth also ask Our Beautiful Mother Mary to help us fro the conversion of our lost brothers, and help them to do what she told us… Do whatever he tells you.

 

[Lokadottir]

What about when physical reality exists of something that is illogical, but because you were told about this reality, you will not believe until you are able to use your senses to confirm the reality.

Human nature is to doubt even your closest friends and family.

But doubt doesn’t have an effect on the reality.

Like quantum physics? Highly illogical but it still has quantitative proof. I can’t see it but their is proof. And if someone proposed a new and viable theory I would consider it, voice why I find it inadequate, still respect it as a viable theory, and move on.

 

[Lokadottir]

Just so I am clear about your position: you do NOT consider the little boy (see referent) to be an egotist because he declares he sees a bunny and not a butterfly.

Right?

Except in the story the emperor, everyone in fact, “saw a bunny” too and denied it. This story involves physical reality with hard proof before people’s eyes.
However I use the analogy of a Rorschach test because people agree there is an inkblot and that it is black (but does everyone’s black look the same in their minds? ) and that it is a shape. But one may see one thing and another individual see another. Such as the butterfly you linked I saw skulls in its wings.
I am fine you see a butterfly if I didn’t understand why and you could point out the things that make it a butterfly and I’d acknowledge that interpretation. I could then show you where the skulls are.
It only becomes egotistical when you deny the skulls or their importance.
Though that would be imperfect example as you intentionally linked something that was not an inkblot but rather an artistic rendering of a butterfly.

 

[PRmerger]

Except in the story the emperor, everyone in fact, “saw a bunny” too and denied it. This story involves physical reality with hard proof before people’s eyes.

Excellent.

So you are of the position that there is indeed a Truth, and for someone to proclaim this Truth is not to be an egotist, but to be a person who is consonant with reality.

That is the Catholic position.

Now to your point regarding physical vs nonphysical reality: why should nonphysical reality be any different? Why can’t logic and reason be able to discern One Truth, and a person who proclaims this nonphysical reality’s Truth is not being egotistical, but rather proclaiming a Truth achieved by one’s intellect?

 

[Lokadottir]

Excellent.

So you are of the position that there is indeed a Truth, and for someone to proclaim this Truth is not to be an egotist, but to be a person who is consonant with reality.

That is the Catholic position.

Now to your point regarding physical vs nonphysical reality: why should nonphysical reality be any different? Why can’t logic and reason be able to discern One Truth, and a person who proclaims this nonphysical reality’s Truth is not being egotistical, but rather proclaiming a Truth achieved by one’s intellect?

Because it is logic and reason ALONE. This is the misunderstanding I think. Proof is the line between the physical and nonphysical. Logic alone is faulty. Raw logic promoted the idea that the Sun orbits the earth, until proof was found presenting otherwise. Now there isn’t solid proof in religion so multiple avenues of logic are viable. Therefore no religion can be definitively true. Heck in science things aren’t definitive look at how the understanding of atoms has evolved, but science inherently makes this concession.

 

[PRmerger]

Because it is logic and reason ALONE. This is the misunderstanding I think. Proof is the line between the physical and nonphysical. **Logic alone is faulty. **Raw logic promoted the idea that the Sun orbits the earth, until proof was found presenting otherwise. Now there isn’t solid proof in religion so multiple avenues of logic are viable. Therefore no religion can be definitively true. Heck in science things aren’t definitive look at how the understanding of atoms has evolved, but science inherently makes this concession.

Heh. And yet here you are using your “faulty” logic to make an absolute conclusion “Therefore no religion can be definitively true.”

You cannot be proposing both things at the same time.

Either your logic is faulty, and therefore we cannot conclude that “no religion can be definitively true”.

OR

Logic is indeed a credible means of accessing truth, and we can conclude that you believe that "therefore no religion can be definitively true.

Which is your position? The former, or the latter?

 

[ffg]

Like quantum physics? Highly illogical but it still has quantitative proof. I can’t see it but their is proof. And if someone proposed a new and viable theory I would consider it, voice why I find it inadequate, still respect it as a viable theory, and move on.

Somewhat, but we must be careful with theory vs reality.

As a foundation, I guess we should make sure this is accurate:

You are ok with a claim of proof in this subject (quantum physics) you can’t see, but can’t hold the same comfort in a claim of proof in another subject you can’t see (non-physical), but with the caveat on the second subject that not only do you not have comfort, but that there is no truth in the matter, though you are comfortable stating there is truth in quantum physics?

Let’s take something as simple as a baseball game. We turn off the tube when our team is down by 24 runs, bottom of the ninth, 2 outs, 2 strikes, bases empty.

We learn in the morning from a relative, our team won. But of course, we don’t believe it, we read the paper, even then we think the paper could be wrong, we check another source.

We eventually get tape of the game and watch every pitch to see for ourselves the reality using our sense of sight (the other team threw 112 balls in a row and walked home 25 runs).

So that is one way to believe the reality of the illogical, but our actions are quite illogical.

We can use logic, with reason to conclude reality (truth) in the illogical without using our senses. Thus we could have stopped researching our doubt with our relative’s information. But they are kooks, so the paper could have been a finality to understanding the reality, similar to the quantum physics proof papers.

So marrying this to what appears to be the quite illogical non-physical discussion, what are our proof papers? Events in time. How do we learn about events in time? Through word and writing. (writing more for those of us that doubt much)

 

[Lokadottir]

Heh. And yet here you are using your “faulty” logic to make an absolute conclusion “Therefore no religion can be definitively true.”

You cannot be proposing both things at the same time.

Either your logic is faulty, and therefore we cannot conclude that “no religion can be definitively true”.

OR

Logic is indeed a credible means of accessing truth, and we can conclude that you believe that "therefore no religion can be definitively true.

Which is your position? The former, or the latter?

You are correct I phrased that as a definitive truth. I apologize. I may be wrong about that. I may be right too I’ll lean toward correct. You clearly don’t. You respect me and I respect you. I think we all find what we believe to be true but no one can PHYSICALLY prove it. So I think it is pointless to assert one view over another ESPECIALLY when it is so illogical as the trinity.

 

[Lokadottir]

Somewhat, but we must be careful with theory vs reality.

As a foundation, I guess we should make sure this is accurate:

You are ok with a claim of proof in this subject (quantum physics) you can’t see, but can’t hold the same comfort in a claim of proof in another subject you can’t see (non-physical), but with the caveat on the second subject that not only do you not have comfort, but that there is no truth in the matter, though you are comfortable stating there is truth in quantum physics?

Let’s take something as simple as a baseball game. We turn off the tube when our team is down by 24 runs, bottom of the ninth, 2 outs, 2 strikes, bases empty.

We learn in the morning from a relative, our team won. But of course, we don’t believe it, we read the paper, even then we think the paper could be wrong, we check another source.

We eventually get tape of the game and watch every pitch to see for ourselves the reality using our sense of sight (the other team threw 112 balls in a row and walked home 25 runs).

So that is one way to believe the reality of the illogical, but our actions are quite illogical.

We can use logic, with reason to conclude reality (truth) in the illogical without using our senses. Thus we could have stopped researching our doubt with our relative’s information. But they are kooks, so the paper could have been a finality to understanding the reality, similar to the quantum physics proof papers.

So marrying this to what appears to be the quite illogical non-physical discussion, what are our proof papers? Events in time. How do we learn about events in time? Through word and writing. (writing more for those of us that doubt much)

There are proofs for quantum physics I may prefer it over another theory but I still acknowledge it could be wrong or amended.

 

[ffg]

I see, so the issue for you in the non-physical, is that people conclude it won’t / can’t be changed or amended?

 

[PRmerger]

You are correct I phrased that as a definitive truth. I apologize. I may be wrong about that. I may be right too I’ll lean toward correct. You clearly don’t. You respect me and I respect you. I think we all find what we believe to be true but no one can PHYSICALLY prove it. So I think it is pointless to assert one view over another ESPECIALLY when it is so illogical as the trinity.

I must assert, Loka, that even you don’t believe what you are positing here.

You do believe that what you are saying is true. Otherwise, your position and arguments here have as much philosophical “oomph” as an assertion such as, “Turnips are the best root vegetable!”

Who wants to have a discussion that is based solely on opinions about what are the best root vegetables?

No one.

Thus, the fact that you are here and proposing certain beliefs is testament to the fact that you do believe what you have to say is true.

QED.

 

[Lokadottir]

I see, so the issue for you in the non-physical, is that people conclude it won’t / can’t be changed or amended?

And that theirs is absolutely right with no concession of belief being involved.

 

[Lokadottir]

I must assert, Loka, that even you don’t believe what you are positing here.

You do believe that what you are saying is true. Otherwise, your position and arguments here have as much philosophical “oomph” as an assertion such as, “Turnips are the best root vegetable!”

Who wants to have a discussion that is based solely on opinions about what are the best root vegetables?

No one.

Thus, the fact that you are here and proposing certain beliefs is testament to the fact that you do believe what you have to say is true.

QED.

They are my beliefs, they could be wrong, but I believe them. I’m not asserting a simple preference I’m presenting my complex view of the spiritual that I have arrived at through the experiences of my life. The admission of a lack of certainty does not mean I believe it less.

 

[PRmerger]

They are my beliefs, they could be wrong, but I believe them. I’m not asserting a simple preference I’m presenting my complex view of the spiritual that I have arrived at through the experiences of my life. The admission of a lack of certainty does not mean I believe it less.

Egg-zactly.

You have at least a moral certainty that what you are professing is true.

And that is the same paradigm that Christians embrace.

 

[Lokadottir]

Egg-zactly.

You have at least a moral certainty that what you are professing is true.

And that is the same paradigm that Christians embrace.

Except I know it may not be therefore I don’t say you should become a follower of Odin because yours is equally likely to be right or wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

Except I know it may not be therefore I don’t say you should become a follower of Odin because yours is equally likely to be right or wrong.

Then, again, what you are proposing is as impactful as, “I believe that the sun is prettier than the moon!”

No one will have an interesting dialogue if that’s the extent of one’s theological beliefs.

What you are proposing is “I believe that my belief in Odin is ‘prettier’ than your belief in Jesus.”

Inutile!

 

[ffg]

To believe in God absolutely does take faith, but that doesn’t mean it has to be blind. We work out a foundation for our faith through logic and reason. Doing so in light of world history (events in time) helps build confidence in faith.

When someone asks us why we believe what we do, we should be able to give a logical reason. ‘Because I choose to’, we might as well discuss our favorite veggie.

The existence of many religions, doesn’t mean that there is no truth. It’s also putting the cart before the horse.

If there are 100 religions, there must have been a time when there were 99, then 98, then 97. There must have been truth before it was warped so many times over.

Since truth can’t change by definition, humans have and are creating twisted and false ‘religions’ over time.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Is Jesus God?
“No man has seen God at any time.”—John 1:18.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY
Many people believe that Jesus is not God. Still, others point to Bible verses that supposedly indicate that Jesus is equal to God.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS
The Bible does not portray Jesus as being Almighty God or equal to God. On the contrary, it clearly teaches that Jesus is inferior to God. For example, the Bible records Jesus’ own words: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28) The Bible also says: “No man has seen God at any time.” (John 1:18) Jesus cannot be God because many people did in fact see Jesus.

Jesus’ early followers did not claim that he was God. For example, the Gospel writer John said concerning the things he recorded: “These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.”—John 20:31. *

May the Lord have mercy on these Heretics

The JW position just simply doesn’t make any sense. If Jesus Christ is not divine, then there is nothing much special about Him, apart from being a fairly brazen prophet of His time. If Jesus isn’t consubstantial with the Father, then there’s no point for any of us to even be talking about Him here in 2013, and we may as well all just go bowling or something.