Three 16th-Century Truth Seekers—What Did They Find?

a reply to: namelesss

no it wasn't a "fallacious and ad-hom attack", it was a prediction (and guess) what you were going to do (cause I've heard it all before, figuratively speaking), and I was right, and I forced you to change your response from using the verb "accept" to using the verb "know" (which I also predicted allthough without that detail) followed by some elaborate philosophizing and dancing around a simple question as if you're performing some kind of ritual around it and also a vague distracting reference to "certain very structured conditions" and "other conditions", neither of which you specified what you were exactly referring to (and I probably shouldn't open that door for you either, but whatever, can't stop people from spreading their illogical philosophies/beliefs about reality while contradictory pretending not to have beliefs and that it's even an infection to have any sort of belief; actually... regarding the illogical philosophies/beliefs that you've been spreading and quoting in this thread, the word "infection" is much more applicable and by quoting Wilson for example, someone influenced by and promoting the Satanist Aleister Crowley and those philosophies and ways of thinking, you demonstrate to me how much you've been affected by this infection).

But OK, I got it now, you do not believe (or pretend not to believe*) that 1+1=2. And there's nothing I can say about the verb "believe" to change your mind, thank you for your answer. I hope it helps others see what's going on here.

* = to yourself and/or others

Ok, since I've got some time, let's analyze Wilson's belief/philosophy about realities/truths or what is true or false for a moment:

"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." -Robert Anton Wilson

This philosophical statement is really funny to me. Too bad there are actually people that believe that there is enough merit and value in this statement to quote it on ATS for example (that merit and value being related to a correct understanding of reality, allthough I guess for some people spreading as much nonsense as possible is the main goal). Let's take it one step at a time, he says:

"All statements are true in some sense..."

Is that really true? (oh boy, I can't even ask a normal question with this amount of warping, let me rephrase that question: Is that a correct description of what is the case? Rhetorical question for everyone else cause I already know your views.)

The statement that 2+2=5 isn't true in any sense (even Baldrick gave a smarter answer with "some beans", at least that was still true). The statement that 2+2=5 is totally false (and again, someone going along with the philosophy/belief above is negating the validity of all true and false questions in IQ-tests, and a whole lot more than just IQ-tests). Back to Wilson (suddenly I'm reminded of Tom Hanks and his volleyball):

"All statements are ...false in some sense..."

That would be suggesting that also the statement that 1+1=2 is "false in some sense", how can you do any IQ-test that way? This is just nonsense. Everything I said above counts again but then in reverse (swap "false" for "true").

All statements are ...meaningless in some sense..."

Again I can't agree with "all", (allthough this is a slightly more dubious and complicated subject that is more susceptive to someone capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, one of the primary tactics of philosophers like Wilson spreading their illogical philosophies/beliefs).

"All statements are... true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense."

He already said all that in the first part, can he be any more redundant in his attempt to sound sophisticated and clever as he's hiding the illogical ways of thinking in his philosophies/beliefs? Again, rhetorical question.

No wonder this guy was influenced by the Satanist Aleister Crowley according to wiki. And interesting again that this way of thinking is also copied, spread and promoted by those who claim to be so anti-religious. Satanism (like Aleister Crowley's version) is a religion. And also interesting to see those who claim to be atheists assisting you as you spread those beliefs in conjunction with the whole propaganda game of twisting the points I'm making in this thread and painting a picture on me as if I don't know the difference between facts and beliefs, truths and beliefs or realities and beliefs (while they are twisting and warping the understanding of those words people might have). Which you, TerryDon79 and joecanada did numerous times (repetition of lies and twists, standard propaganda technique). I seem to only attract one type to this thread (with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions).

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: namelesss

no it wasn't a "fallacious... blah...

Last word was yours.
I hope that it made you feel better.
Have a nice night.

a reply to: whereislogic

It's better than following a cult that calls themselves religious, yet are against human freedom of choice.

Try this link to help you decide about your cult

originally posted by: whereislogic
...can't stop people from spreading their illogical philosophies/beliefs about reality while contradictory pretending not to have beliefs and that it's even an infection to have any sort of belief; actually... regarding the illogical philosophies/beliefs that you've been spreading and quoting in this thread, the word "infection" is much more applicable and by quoting Wilson for example, someone influenced by and promoting the Satanist Aleister Crowley and those philosophies and ways of thinking, you demonstrate to me how much you've been affected by this infection.

And since Raggedyman assisted nameless and others here in their play of painting a picture on me as if I... quoting Raggedyman:

...can't distinguish the difference between faith and facts

And quoting nameless:

That is what people say when there is no rational logic, they start spouting terms, ignorantly, like 'truth[s]/facts'.

Between brackets is mine. Quoting some others here who played the same painting game to discredit and twist and demonstrate how much you're all on the same bandwagon when it comes to the facts/truths that matter while pretending to be debating eachother on ATS; while some of you are promoting those affiliated with Satanism while others on the same bandwagon that I just described including that propaganda game you're playing on me claim to be Christians. Why are your techniques, behaviour, comments and argumentation all so similar? And why doesn't Raggedyman correct the one quoting from those influenced by Satanism rather than assist nameless in painting his picture?
joecanada11:

You are the one confusing beliefs with facts.

TerryDon79:

Stop confusing belief with truth.

Repeating myself for those who missed my prediction that people were going to pretend that I was conflating or confusing "truths/facts" and "beliefs" (which I made very clear are different, the / indicated where I'm using a synonym, the words truths, facts, certainties, realities are all synonyms that can be used interchangeably, the word "belief" however is not a synonym and should not be confused with those words, that does not mean you can not believe a fact to be true, that's just normal english language and logic to say it like that and should not have to be debated or argued with people if they're being honest and not trying to paint a picture on someone as if I wasn't clear about that from the very start of this thread):

All of these synonyms ... can be googled (before anyone tries to twist my point and pretend that I'm saying that beliefs and facts are the same thing or can be used synonymously).

I'll leave it at that for now since no one talks about the content in the OP anyway, much more interested in painting a negative picture on others and positive picture on themselves; dragging someone through the mud and then tell everyone how loving (,enlightened, intelligent) and openminded they are as opposed to that other person explaining the difference and relation between facts and beliefs or the verb "believe".
Have fun doing whatever you feel like:

Yes... but isn't it true that the 16th century truth seekers found that seeking is the only truth.

a reply to: whereislogic

You sound just like the watchtower. Claiming your making predictions when there is no evidence of them.

The thing is Mr logic you make claims of what truth is and state that facts are only facts when they align with your doctrine. Sorry but that's not the way it works.

The comment above is why I added in the phrase "and guess" when I decided to use the word "prediction" cause it is very predictable what twist some people are going to play. I guessed right again.

a reply to: whereislogic

And I predict you will continue to post your JW/watchtower cult website as "evidence".

Sounds like you need some help. Maybe you should check out this site?

a reply to: whereislogic

You are the one confusing your faith with truth. Faith is faith and it is not based in facts or evidence. If you have faith that's great I'm happy for you but don't pretend your belief system is the only truth when it's based on faith and not facts or evidence.

a reply to: whereislogic

This happens a lot on ATS. I've seen other threads posted b Jehovah's Witnesses where people go in to personally attack the person and totally ignore the OP. And have even seen the OP reason with them, and ask moderators to delete the thread drift and name calling.

And not only does ATS ignore it, they then will delete certain threads of the OP.

Who do you think is running this website buddy? It certainly isn't anyone who wants truth to get out.

And reading through your posts I can see you realize this attitude goes with the religious community as well as the atheistic community that both believe in false dogma.

And you know they are wrong and can prove it to them. They both will never answer any of your questions, and will only attack you and smear you with slander and propaganda. And yet at the end of the day your posts are the ones that will be removed if you expose them for calling them out for what they are doing.

They're all in mental darkness. All of them, with the same "spirit" that operates upon this wicked system of things and permeates through all strata of society alienated from God.

originally posted by: Pinocchio
Yes... but isn't it true that the 16th century truth seekers found that seeking is the only truth.

(Psalm 119:160) . . .The very essence of your word is truth,. . .

Also:

(2 Samuel 7:28) And now, O Sovereign Lord Jehovah, you are the true God, and your words are truth, and you have promised these good things to your servant.

(Psalm 12:6) The sayings of Jehovah are pure; They are like silver refined in an earthen furnace, purified seven times.

(John 17:17) Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth.


As far as seeking for truth? That is good. In that case you WILL find it, you will not just seek:

(Proverbs 2:4-6) . . .If you keep seeking for it as for silver, And you keep searching for it as for hidden treasures;  5 Then you will understand the fear of Jehovah, And you will find the knowledge of God.  6 For Jehovah himself gives wisdom; From his mouth come knowledge and discernment.

(Matthew 7:7) . . .Keep on asking, and it will be given you; keep on seeking, and you will find. . .

a reply to: PeterH

Right because the JWs actually have found the truth! Maybe the issue is that the poster whereislogic has dismissed actual science and evidence as lies. Then uses JW propaganda pieces and presents them as facts without any actual evidence to prove it.

a reply to: PeterH

Quoting scriptures doesn't prove a thing. What makes that book more true than any other religious doctrine?

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: PeterH

Quoting scriptures doesn't prove a thing. What makes that book more true than any other religious doctrine?

Well we know that its prophecy comes true.

For example Jehovah, the God who inspired the words in Holy Scripture, says in prophecy:

(Isaiah 43:10, 11) “You are my witnesses,” declares Jehovah, “Yes, my servant whom I have chosen, So that you may know and have faith in me And understand that I am the same One. Before me no God was formed, And after me there has been none. 11 I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.”


Notice Jehovah said he was going to have witnesses for his name. That they would understand who he is, and have faith in him.

Now the roll of Isaiah was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls dated to the 3rd century B. C. E. That is over 2,300 years ago. And we know that the scroll of Isaiah was around hundreds of years before that.

If God is powerful enough to inspire that he will have witnesses, Jehovah's witnesses that long ago, that is a pretty powerful testament to his Godship.

Notice that in the same prophecy he challenges all the other gods to raise up witnesses for themselves to declare what is going to happen. And not one single god has ever answered Jehovah's challenge.

So who do you think is real?

He also said that in the final part of the days, times in which we live, he would call out of the nations a people for his name, which is Jehovah.

(Acts 15:14) 14 Symʹe·on has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name.

Here is the challenge Jehovah gives to all the other gods:

(Isaiah 43:9) Let all the nations assemble in one place, And let the peoples be gathered together. Who among them can tell this? Or can they cause us to hear the first things? Let them present their witnesses to prove themselves right, Or let them hear and say, ‘It is the truth!’”

(Isaiah 45:21) Make your report, present your case. Let them consult together in unity. Who foretold this long ago And declared it from times past? Is it not I, Jehovah? There is no other God but me; A righteous God and a Savior, there is none besides me.


Jehovah here gives you the challenge. He has given his witnesses to and foretold what is going to happen.

Can you do it, or anyone else?

Who is the living God?

It is really quite simple really. And he can prove it.

a reply to: PeterH
Yeah, what can you do but to continue trying to make as much sense as possible even when everything you say is interpreted to facilitate in dismissal and not taking someone seriously or thinking about what they're really saying rather than what a person wants to hear to conform to their views (of both reality and the person they want to dismiss or misrepresent what they just said).

a reply to: PeterH

First off. There is nothing special about a group who calls themselves witnesses. Nor would I call that prophecy being fulfilled. In fact there are biblical prophecies that were not fulfilled. Many of the prophecies that were supposedly fulfilled are nothing more than stretching interpretation.

a reply to: PeterH
Isaiah chapter 45 has such a strong message from Jehovah, especially for those who refer to themselves as Christians but have issues with using that name in their bible translations, which prevents a proper understanding of Isaiah chapter 45 if you keep on saying "the LORD" where it actually says "Jehovah". Names are important for identification and telling people apart. Thinking for a moment about what Joecanada11 said about "stretching interpretation", Cyrus was named specifically in a prophecy hundreds of years before he played his part in it (but no point in going into details and what archeological evidence is available regarding the fulfillment of this prophecy since he doesn't care about it and you probably already know, but you're welcome to add details). I just want to share Isaiah chapter 45 in its entirety (where Cyrus is named, but the message is more important, especially for Trinitarians, Binitarians and even Unitarians who still use bible translations where God's name has been replaced with the generic title "the LORD", i.e. not specific which Lord):

originally posted by: PeterH

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: PeterH

Quoting scriptures doesn't prove a thing. What makes that book more true than any other religious doctrine?

If God is powerful enough to inspire that he will have witnesses, Jehovah's witnesses that long ago, that is a pretty powerful testament to his Godship.

Notice that in the same prophecy he challenges all the other gods to raise up witnesses for themselves to declare what is going to happen. And not one single god has ever answered Jehovah's challenge.

Which reminds me of certain other challenges or questions that are often left unanswered or completely ignored when making comments or threads on ATS. This thread included (and then in particular the OP and the parts in my commentary where I tried to get back on-topic of God's identity vs the doctrine of the Trinity).

Michael Servetus—A Solitary Quest for the Truth: Awake!—2006

BY AWAKE! WRITER IN SPAIN

On October 27, 1553, Michael Servetus was burned at the stake in Geneva, Switzerland. Guillaume Farel—the executioner and vicar of John Calvin—warned the onlookers: “[Servetus] is a wise man who doubtless thought he was teaching the truth, but he fell into the hands of the Devil. . . . Be careful the same thing does not happen to you!” What had this unfortunate victim done to deserve such a tragic fate?

MICHAEL SERVETUS was born in 1511 in the village of Villanueva de Sijena, Spain. From an early age, he excelled as a student. According to one biographer, “by the time he was 14 years of age, he had learned Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, and he had an ample knowledge of philosophy, mathematics, and theology.”

When Servetus was still a teenager, Juan de Quintana, the personal confessor of Spanish Emperor Charles V, employed him as a page. In his official journeys, Servetus could observe the underlying religious divisions in Spain, where Jews and Muslims had been exiled or forcibly converted to Catholicism. [Spanish authorities banished 120,000 Jews who refused to accept Catholicism, and several thousand Moors were burned at the stake.]

At the age of 16, Servetus went to study law at the University of Toulouse, in France. There he saw a complete Bible for the first time. Although reading the Bible was strictly forbidden, Servetus did so in secret. After completing his first reading, he vowed to read it “a thousand times more.” Probably, the Bible that Servetus studied in Toulouse was the Complutensian Polyglot, a version that enabled him to read the Scriptures in the original languages (Hebrew and Greek), along with the Latin translation. His study of the Bible, together with the moral degeneracy of the clergy that he had seen in Spain, shook his faith in the Catholic religion.

Servetus’ doubts were reinforced when he attended the coronation of Charles V. The Spanish king was crowned emperor of the Holy Roman Empire by Pope Clement VII. The pope, seated on his portable throne, received the king, who kissed his feet. Servetus later wrote: “I have seen with my own eyes how the pope was carried on the shoulders of the princes, with all the pomp, being adored in the streets by the surrounding people.” Servetus found himself unable to reconcile that pomp and extravagance with the simplicity of the Gospel.

His Quest for Religious Truth

Servetus discreetly left his employment with Quintana and began his solitary search for the truth. He believed that Christ’s message was not directed to theologians or philosophers but to common people who would grasp it and put it into practice. Thus, he resolved to consult the Bible text in the original languages and to reject any teaching at odds with the Scriptures. Interestingly, the word “truth” and its derivatives appear more often than any other word in his writings.

Servetus’ historical and Biblical studies led him to the conclusion that Christianity had become corrupted during the first three centuries of our Common Era. He learned that Constantine and his successors had promoted false teachings that eventually led to the adoption of the Trinity as an official doctrine. At the age of 20, Servetus published his book On the Errors of the Trinity, a work that made him a principal target of the Inquisition.

Servetus saw things clearly. “In the Bible,” he wrote, “there is no mention of the Trinity. . . . We get to know God, not through our proud philosophical concepts, but through Christ.”* He also came to the conclusion that the holy spirit is not a person but, rather, God’s force in action.

* = In his work A Statement Regarding Jesus Christ, Servetus described the doctrine of the Trinity as perplexing and confusing and noted that the Scriptures contained “not even one syllable” in its support.

...

To be continued...

Servetus did provoke some favorable response. Protestant Reformer Sebastian Franck wrote: “The Spaniard, Servetus, contends in his tract that there is but one person in God. The Roman church holds that there are three persons in one essence. I agree rather with the Spaniard.” Nevertheless, neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Protestant churches ever forgave Servetus for challenging their central doctrine.

The study of the Bible also led Servetus to reject other church doctrines, and he considered the use of images to be unscriptural. Thus, a year and a half after publishing On the Errors of the Trinity, Servetus said with respect to both Catholics and Protestants: “I do not agree or disagree in everything with either one party or the other. Because all seem to me to have some truth and some error, but everyone recognizes the other’s error and nobody discerns his own.” His was a solitary quest for the truth. [While in prison, Servetus signed his last letter with these words: “Michael Servetus, alone, but trusting in Christ’s most sure protection.”]

His sincerity, however, did not prevent Servetus from reaching some mistaken conclusions. For example, he calculated that Armageddon and the Millennial Reign of Christ would come during his own lifetime.

Searching for Scientific Truth

Forced to flee from his persecutors, Servetus changed his name to Villanovanus and settled in Paris, where he obtained degrees in art and medicine. His scientific curiosity led him to practice dissection in order to understand the workings of the human body. As a result, Servetus became perhaps the first European to describe the pulmonary circulation of blood. His findings were included in his work The Restitution of Christianity. Servetus’ comments were made 75 years before the complete circulatory system was described by William Harvey.

Servetus also prepared a new edition of Ptolemy’s Geography. It proved so successful that some have called him the father of comparative geography and ethnography. Later, at his trial in Geneva, Servetus was denounced for his description of Palestine as a sparsely cultivated, sterile land. Servetus defended himself by arguing that his description applied to the present time rather than to the age of Moses, when it doubtless flowed with milk and honey.

Servetus also wrote the Universal Treatise on Syrups, which provided a new, balanced approach to a type of medicine. The wealth of medical knowledge found in that book made him a pioneer in the field of pharmacology and the use of vitamins. In view of Servetus’ expertise in so many fields, a historian described him as “one of the greatest minds in human history, one who contributed to universal culture.”

A Formidable Opponent

Seekers of the truth have always had many opponents. (Luke 21:15) Among Servetus’ many adversaries was John Calvin, who had established an authoritarian Protestant state in Geneva. According to historian Will Durant, Calvin’s “dictatorship was one not of law or force but of will and character,” and Calvin “was as thorough as any pope in rejecting individualism of belief.”

Servetus and Calvin probably met in Paris when they were both young men. From the outset their personalities clashed, and Calvin became Servetus’ most implacable enemy. Although Calvin was a leader of the Reformation, he finally denounced Servetus to the Catholic Inquisition. Servetus barely succeeded in escaping from France, where he was burned in effigy. However, he was recognized and imprisoned in the frontier city of Geneva, where Calvin’s word was law.

Calvin meted out cruel treatment to Servetus in prison. Nevertheless, in his debate with Calvin during the trial, Servetus offered to modify his views, provided his opponent gave Scriptural arguments to convince him. Calvin proved unable to do so. After the trial, Servetus was condemned to be burned at the stake. Some historians claim that Servetus was the only religious dissenter who was both burned in effigy by the Catholics and burned alive by the Protestants.

To be concluded...