by LittleToe 92 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Little Toe: No need to apologize, to me anyway. I was, just as you were, stating my opinion. The comment I made regarding the 'emotional' nature of the subject was not in reference to you. It was referring to other posters who seemed to be frustrated that the points they were trying to make were being misunderstood or misconstrued.
By the way, congratulations on your engagement.
LT In all fairness. Do you think part of the problem is this format? It has led to misunderstandings. We (me and you) agree on many points and have managed to tweek each other a few times. For example, you are starting to make me think "hyper" is Calvins middle name.
ya, no need to apologise. i have been quite intrigued by this thread during the course of this last week. some super cool points brought up.
and i also read portions of all the links you posted. thanks for those. as has already been brought out, i had to adopt the "presumption cap" approach to the material. sort of like reading fantasy novels. "okay, well, here are the implicit assumptions of the inhabitants of planet X, so this is what they might be trying to comes to grasp with", or in the implied opposite: "these organisms truly have an incredible grasp on the supreme weirdness of existence." if i struggle with the latter, it's because the former seems more parsimonious.
however, indeed, in order to discuss the subject, one needs a vocabulary in it. based on the definitions of theology i find on princeton wordnet and wikipedia, i think that the discussion of evolution might actually even fall under the philosophical umbrella of theology for the time being, because evolution does have an effect on theology. theology is after all a reasonable and rational discussion about God. if a scientific theory had philosophical implications about the christian God's roll in the process of biology, then it must bear testimony in fact, so that its implications may be clear in the whole debate. and yes, there is debate as to the manifest reality of most christians idea(s) of God. so much so that biology plays a roll in the theology department, since the auspices of theology are so vast. but when the umbrella begins to show so many holes in it as a result, of even simple reason, one would have to wonder when the study of theology will have been forever merged with the study of mythology. none the less intriguing though.
what was not always evident is if theology should play a part in the biology department. i would say only as a case study, and not as a discipline, lol, sorry. which brings us back to the question of whether theological knowledge is orginating from inside us or from outside us. considering how dark and mangled our psychological past as mammals must be, my vote is for 'inside' pending any new understanding about the difference between outside and in. none the less beautiful though.
that said, change the definition/assumptions of/about "god", and theology (or discussion thereof) changes radically too. and i certainly do not bemoan thinking caps!
but anyways, thanks for the links ross!
tetra
DDog:
And as you know, I just love yanking your chain with the ole "hyper" routine. Tis about only Ellderwho and yourself who gets that it's a sly jibe and a personal joke that's been running a couple of years
Josh:Very well put.
Religion takes the a priori asumption that there is a "God" of some description, even if it is only a "god of the gaps". Starting from that point I would posit that theology is a scientific examination of the subjective experience of mankind through the ages; having evolved, adapted and refined its theories through peer review. Modern day scientific minds might eschew the premise because of a dissaffection with the foundational assumption, but the process was the very melting pot from which the scientific method emerged. To that end I find some of the arguments foisted against "believers" a little ironic.
The original assumption having been stated, and never having been proved false, there is no reason why various hypothesise cannot be explored by those so inclined. At least that is how I conduct my theological studies. I quite understand that others may start from the null assumption of there being no God. Another sweet irony appears to be that some of the results are unaffected by this.
Coming back to the original reason for the thread; I think that assailing someone for using a theological term, when they are clearly defending "belief", shows a little ignorance on the behalf of the assailant. Noone enters into a debate with absolutely no knowledge, so to treat them like imbeciles is beyond condescending. I will totally grant that "believers" should also reciprocate by getting educated, especially if they intend to take forays into the scientific realm. In the case of some [believers] I only wish that they would also get an education in theology, as well!
At this juncture I succumb to addressing an earlier point made in the thread:
Kid-A:
There may not be any "Doctors of Divinity" on this forum, but there are a few of us who have studied at Diploma level, and have close friends who are. I personally count at least two, one of whom I was embroiled in debate with just two nights ago. I never speak of this because [with the usual effect of education] I've come to realise just how broad the subject is and how little I know. I wouldn't deem myself an expert, but I can't help reflect that those that believe they are are a little misguided. Hence my comment, which you quote:
"It has been my experience that because folks have been part of one religion (i.e. JWs) they often have the misguided belief that they are experts in theology or the Christian faith."
While we are all in a conciliatory mood, I just want to say that the debate is a healthy one. I for one am not surprised at the emotional responses. One might say that how we see and describe the world is not reality; in other words, how we describe the world doesn't show how the world is, but describes who we are.
That isn't to say that facts don't exist. Theology is an exercise in determining which invisible things to believe in, and which invisible things we choose not to believe in. For example, the Roman Catholc Church recently deliberated on the doctrine of limbo. (again) Thirty theologions got together to discuss what happens to unbaptized babies when they die. 2 lines of thought have these babies enjoying bliss forever in limbo, or go to hell and burn forever, all for not being baptized. (mind you, this is a recent debate) Even though it isn't a part of scripture or offical Catholic dogma, it is firmly entrenched in the traditional Catholic teaching. One must wonder what evidence was presented on the subject as to the eternal fate of unbaptized children after death. Such is the exercise and disciplines of religious theology. It most frequently invents questions about made up, unrealistic scenarios based soley on traditions, only to come up with answers based on... ??? (you tell me)
In any case, to understand the arguement of the person you are debating/discussing a subject with is very helpful. If a debate based on ideas and facts takes place, it does take a lot of emotion out of the equation, with the requisite hurt feelings. I don't think that everyone who leaves JW think they are experts on religion or theology, but there are a few who have taken the time while in and out of JW to educate themselves about the beliefs of others. I would also point out that JW are unique as a religous movement, because their activities necesarrily put them in contact with people of different faiths, and many, myself included, did take the time to allow people to express their own ideas about god and what their own religion means to them. (such expressions made were stunning in their variety while lacking a coherent idea of who god is and even what their own religion believes and teaches) I would say it does give an ex JW certain "freeness of speech" if you will to talk on some competent level about the beliefs of others, if only because they did talk with common people about their own faith on a weekly, often daily basis.
So, the debate will continue. (or discussion, or polite conversation...lol)
ATJ
I would also point out that JW are unique as a religous movement, because their activities necesarrily put them in contact with people of different faiths, and many, myself included, did take the time to allow people to express their own ideas about god and what their own religion means to them.
What makes you any different than lets say Mormons or Evangelicals for example?
LT
This also brings up the different ways different groups use the same Theological terms. Like Mormons and Christians.
Coming back to the original reason for the thread; I think that assailing someone for using a theological term, when they are clearly defending "belief", shows a little ignorance on the behalf of the assailant.
Ross, in that particular case, imo, (1) you still have the "assailant" and "defender" positions reversed; (2) the "theological term" couldn't had been used as an aggressive weapon had it been "correctly" understood by the believers themselves; (3) once it has been used this way it is a bit disingenuous to hide under the "official," non-agressive, definition of the term.
So next time, instead of simply discussing the notions of people as they understand and use them, let's make sure to first point out how they misunderstand their own technical terms. It will be slightly more pedantic, condescending, and intimidating, but never mind.
So, Perry and Deputy Dog... as you seemed to be referring to the Calvinistic notion of "depravity," you failed to see that this notion by no means separates the believer from the unbeliever as far as the realm of "common grace," including reason and ethics, is concerned. Iow, the denial of God puts the unbeliever in no more "dangerous" position than the believer as to how he practically construes and builds his personal life or his society. A point Hugo Grotius, for instance, correctly understood when he constructed international law as something which has to work etsi deus non daretur, even if God did not exist. That's how things must work, from a Calvinistic perspective, in the realm of "common grace". The difference between the believer and the unbeliever is strictly limited to the field of special grace, i.e., eternal salvation -- a field which, as you know, it is useless to debate inasmuch as everything depends on God's election and calling.
Nark
So, Perry and Deputy Dog... as you seemed to be referring to the Calvinistic notion of "depravity," you failed to see that this notion by no means separates the believer from the unbeliever as far as the realm of "common grace," including reason and ethics , is concerned.
What would cause you to think I don't see this?
Didier:
I was pondering whether or not I should mention that I've thusfar being using a specifically Calvinistic definition of "depravity", but concerned it might muddy the waters further. I confess I made the assumption (which I still believe to be correct) that Perry was using this definition. I've yet to see him respond to clartify this. Maybe I should drop him a PM to alert him to this thread, in case he's missed it. As I commented earlier, if his intent was more aggressive I'll happily apologise for getting the wrong end of the [assailant/defender] stick. As for DDog, I know he's a Calvinist so I am certain that he is using this definition.
Its all a learning process. Thanks for throwing in a very worthwhile two francs.
DD,
Your wording was certainly more cautious than Perry's, but you did jump on his boat, implying that the notion of depravity as he used it first was being misconstrued by "unbelieving" posters, instead of pointing out that the actual Calvinistic notion was totally irrelevant to the topic, i.e., whether atheism (not to mention "evolutionism"!) is practically or epistemologically dangerous -- implying, more dangerous than the theistic stance.
You also contributed a bit to the confusion of "depravity" with the psychological sense of guilt or moral inadequacy (cf. your response to funkyderek for instance).
If I say to someone in an argument "you are an idiot," and when the person takes offence I run to one little reference book of mine (not his!) which stipulates that "we are all 'idiots' and this has nothing to do with our mental abilities," and then complain about the (other) "idiot'"s "ignorance," is that supposed to be fair play? Why did I say it in the first place if I didn't mean it to be "misconstrued" as offensive?
