If truth were unreachable, then even the statement "you will never arrive at truth" would be meaningless. Because to say that with certainty, you would first have to know what truth is and that no one else can find it. That is a contradiction in itself. You compare religion to herding cats with sheepdogs, a chaotic mess of contradicting ideas. And you are right—if you only look at the surface, the world of belief appears to be an endless maze with no clear path. But complexity does not mean impossibility. If something is difficult to find, does that mean it does not exist? If perfection is hard to reach, does that mean we should stop striving for it? If a trader thought like that, he would never take a trade. If a scientist thought like that, he would never pursue discovery. If humanity had thought like that, we would still be in caves. The fact that many fail to reach something does not prove it does not exist. It only proves that not everyone is willing to do what it takes to find it. You say "Give it up." Why? Because it is hard? Because the road is unclear? Because people get lost along the way? That is true for everything worthwhile in life. The fact that many get it wrong does not mean that no one ever gets it right. So no, I will not give it up. Because even if the path is difficult, even if I am constantly refining my understanding, even if perfection is something beyond reach—moving toward truth is always better than standing in the dark and pretending the light does not exist.
Governments have always played a role in shaping religious freedoms, sometimes granting privileges, sometimes restricting them. But does the decision of a government determine what is true? If Norway takes away the religious status of Jehovah’s Witnesses, does that suddenly make their beliefs false? If another country grants them more recognition, does that make them more true? Truth is not decided by legislation. History is full of examples of authorities revoking religious status for political, ideological, or bureaucratic reasons. Jesus himself was labeled a threat by his government. Early Christians were outlawed by Rome. Many religious movements have faced restrictions—not because they were wrong, but because they were inconvenient. If someone celebrates Norway’s decision, they should ask themselves—does truth depend on legal status? If the state tomorrow revokes the religious recognition of another group, does that mean their beliefs have suddenly lost value? If a government one day outlawed atheism, would that prove God exists? Truth does not bend to policy. It does not become invalid because it is unpopular or inconvenient. It remains the same, whether governments recognize it or not. Thats a weak Argument.
Did you have any type of connection to the Watchtower religion as a youth or did they find you at a not so great period in your life?
I honestly do not know why the reputation of Jehovah’s Witnesses is mocked so often. As I already mentioned, I believe in most of it, though I am not baptized. To me, based on facts and reasoning, this religion makes the most sense. Are many of its followers a bit different? Sure. But that does not make them bad people. To answer your question directly, I am 20 years old, and I do not pretend to have all the wisdom in the world. But I have spent a lot of time thinking, questioning, and researching religion, and that is exactly how I came across Jehovah’s Witnesses—through a friend, not through personal crisis or desperation. In fact, I was in a good phase of life, not a bad one. What drew me in was not an emotional need, but the depth of study, reasoning, and consistency I found in their teachings. I do not believe in something just because it feels good. I believe in something because, after examining it, it holds up to scrutiny better than the alternatives.
I was younger than you when I got suckered in to an evangelical cult. When a group claim’s to have “The Truth and be the one and only true religion” don’t you agree with Carl Sagan “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Truth should never change or it wasn’t the truth? I wish I had read and understood this quote as a child. “"New light never extinguishes older "light," but adds to it. , "So is it with the light of truth; the true increase is by adding to, not by substituting one for the other." Charles Taze Russell I tried defending JWs for my first wife’s sake but couldn’t after my own personal deep dive.
I appreciate your perspective and respect the fact that you took the time to deeply examine what you once believed. That is something many people never do and regardless of where it led you the willingness to question and search is something I can relate to. Carl Sagan’s statement that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is a fair principle and I agree that truth should not contradict itself or shift with the tides of human interpretation. But does that mean truth can never expand Can our understanding of it never grow If a child learns basic arithmetic and later studies calculus does that mean math has changed or has the child simply come to see a broader picture When Charles Taze Russell spoke of new light he was not describing the replacement of truth with something different but rather the natural process of clarity unfolding over time. The truth itself does not change but our ability to grasp it more fully does. The same applies to science philosophy and even personal understanding. If you reject something the moment it deepens or refines itself you risk rejecting all knowledge that evolves including your own. That being said I do not expect anyone to accept something blindly nor do I believe in defending something just for the sake of loyalty. I believe in testing examining and weighing whether something stands up to scrutiny. You took that journey and came to your conclusion. I took that same journey and found something that still holds firm under examination. Not because it has never changed in presentation but because its core its foundation remains solid no matter how closely I look at it. Truth is not about never encountering change. It is about whether that change is growth or contradiction. And in my search I have found growth not inconsistency.
You should do good at trading, if you are constantly learning, challenging, testing everything to make sure it’s sound. I wish you success!
I appreciate that. Trading, much like searching for truth, is about constant learning, questioning, and refining one’s understanding. The difference, of course, is that in trading, results are immediate and measurable. Either the strategy works, or it doesn’t. In matters of faith, the process is more complex—some truths unfold over time, requiring deeper examination before their full weight is understood. I have only been trading for two years, so I am still on my way, refining my approach, learning from my mistakes, and constantly testing what holds up under real conditions. Just as with anything else, I do not base my trades on emotions or blind belief but on tested probabilities, data, and sound strategy. If you are interested, I have shared my Forex trading plan and backtest results in the thread. Feel free to take a look. Whether in trading or in matters of belief, conviction should come from what withstands scrutiny, not from what simply feels right in the moment. That is the mindset I apply to both. And that is the path I continue to walk. Wishing you success, in trading, in thinking, and in whatever truly matters to you.
The meaning was "you will never know the truth about god." Humans strive in vane with their pathetic religions, all coming up with stupid myths. Imo, jesus and god the father and god the holy spirit is just jewish stupidity, which the stupid political west grasped onto for stupid reasons of control.
You might be right. Maybe no one will ever fully know the truth about God. Maybe every religion is just a human attempt to grasp at something beyond our reach. Maybe the stories, traditions, and doctrines are just reflections of human nature, shaped by culture, history, and power. But then again, maybe not. Maybe there is something deeper, something that holds up when examined beyond just the surface of human corruption and political influence. Maybe truth, if it exists, is not found in institutions, but in the principles that endure despite them. I do not claim to have all the answers. I just follow what makes the most sense to me after testing, questioning, and looking at the bigger picture. If that proves to be wrong in the end, so be it. But if I ignored it entirely, I would not be any closer to truth either. In the end, believing in nothing is just as much a choice as believing in something.