Theological Arguments, Human Realities

by AllTimeJeff 161 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AllTimeJeff

  As I have sunken to a new low in condescending posts (according to botchtowersociety, who truthfully IS an expert on all things bullshit), it did occur to me that discussions, debates, and mud slinging insult matches on this board often have a common root.

  Let me put out there that I am NOT an atheist, nor an agnostic. Frankly, I respect your right to believe that god is a trinity. That he is Jesus. Allah. Diana Ross or Dolly Parton. Have at it.

  That isn't harmful or divisive.

  Where we ALL go wrong though is what the theological premise to discussions on the nature of god means in practical terms.

  To argue the nature of god is to argue the unseen. YOUR impressions of god are finitely your own. Theological arguments for sure exist, and some are better than others.

  Jehovah's Witnesses for example TOTALLY mis-represent the Trinity. They purposfully lie about the Trinity. There are many theological arguments on the Trinity that in no way match the one way street JW's would argue the Trinity. No wonder it insults Trinitarians, regardless of how superior or inferior their arguments might be.

  But is that the point? Does the stronger theological argument better the stronger reality?

  Let's use the Trinity as one example. Let's take a Trinitarian apologist of note, like Sulla (whom you can look up all of Sulla's posts and see the superior theological arguments he uses to support the trinity). If Sulla's theology is superior, what does that mean? What's next?

  Do I have to worship Jesus? Do I have to accept that all good people go to heaven, and the bad go to hell? Do I have to worship with a particular denomination? Will that alienate or unite me with others who may differ in belief?

  What's the point of having a "superior" theology on the matter of the nature of god if the reality of that belief doesn't positively effect our life now?

  Here is where I have a problem, not just with the Trinity, but with Christianity. I don't worship Jesus, although I consider myself a disciple in the sense that I view him often as a "great teacher".

  However, do I view Jesus as God? No. So there goes your trinity.

  You see, Jesus was just a man, and there is no EVIDENCE (that's spelled E V I D E N C E) that Jesus is god. There is barely any evidence outside of the bible that a man named Jesus even existed. (although it is there for each person to decide)

  In addition, I honestly, really do respect anyone's right to worship Jesus or think of him as part of a Trinity. We will certainly disagree, but maybe we would be better off not to talk about it too much.

  Honestly, who gives a shit if you have a superior, theological argument on the existence of someone whom I consider to be a fictional character as god, though a real person as a man.

  The reality that we all have to deal with in real life is awesome, and for those leaving JW's, it can be esp daunting. When I first left, I was VERY angry. Though I WANTED to be an atheist, deep down, I never was. I was just an angry agnostic for a time.

  My beliefs though don't, and more importantly, SHOULDN'T matter to you.

  Neither should any self righteous Trinitarians who insist that "superior" arguments exist for the Trinity, though they consistently fail to point to even one argument of note.

  To argue theology is a nice hobby. But on an internet board devoted to all things JW, I hope not too much offense is taken when exiting JW's point out that, once again, the emperor truly is not wearing any clothes.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  I will throw in what I have to say, but I won't bother with the back-and-forth arguments here on that subject anymore.

  A recent couple of threads have demonstrated beyond doubt that some are basically trolls looking to keep stirring the pot on the subject. At least one poster is definitely posting under other names to set themself up for pats on the back. (Don't even ask me to elaborate as I am just sure without proof. If I am wrong, they are still collaborating to set each other's comments up, so forget I mentioned that.)

  I view it slightly different from ATJ. I don't argue these things face-to-face with people, but this forum is pretty well designed for debate. While the staunch sides don't really give way to the others, I think plenty of unsure fence-sitters appreciate many of the fine points brought out in such debates.

  However, I left the JW's for personal peace. I will not go back-and-forth anymore on threads for the same reasons.

  I think another way to express what some are doing would be to say they need to know that "the game is afoot." They aren't about winning, just about prolonging the game so that they have something to post about. Well, there is always something else to post about.
• 

  Farkel

  Jeff,

  Only an uninformed person or a fool would even dare attempt to describe the nature of the Creator. That's like a bacteria trying to explain quantum mechanics.

  Farkel
• 

  wobble

  It's interesting re the Trinity, that the best explanation of the doctrine I ever read was by a Christadelphian theologian, and they do not support the doctrine, I guess he decided to get a good grasp of the doctrine before he rejected it, something JW's have never done.

  The WT's "Trinity" brochure was the first time I came across their dishonest quoting, they had made it look as though the DD they were quoting cast doubt on the doctrine, but I had the full quote in my possesion, and he was a Trinitarian through and through.

  Good thread ATJ, I agree that for those of us who, at best, would say Jesus may have been a real historical figure, but even so was just amortal man, the very best Theo. arguments are a waste of time , believers may find them interesting though.

  I think that some who have left the WT, but would still describe themselves as believing Christians, retain some of the JW attitude that we must believe as they do or we are damned, and anyone who does not believe exactly as they do must be corrected, what nonsense !

  It annoys me too, the arrogant way some believers present their faith as though it is fact, saying "God will...." do this or that, or He says" or "thinks" this or that, as far as I am concerned, their God is a fictional character, and I "don't give a shit", to use your elegant phrase, what he "thinks".
• 

  leavingwt

  May I ask you a question? You've stated something here, that I recently heard someone else say, on another forum.

  Let me put out there that I am NOT an atheist, nor an agnostic.

  My question is this: Are you a theist?
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Hi there leavingWT.

  My question is this: Are you a theist?

  No. I think a deist is more accurate in describing my views on higher powers. I don't believe that a specific god, born of a specific religious dogma, is my god.

  In that sense, I don't have a god. I do believe that a higher power exists. I wouldn't argue for my position though. It is my intuition, and if someone were to say I was wrong, I would probably agree to the point that I couldn't prove what I feel (not believe) at all.

  My belief that a higher power exists helps me to understand spirituality in myself and others. For me, that is it's primary benefit.
• 

  wobble

  An old gentleman I know said he believed in God because there was so much love in the world. That is not an argument that convinces me, but it fits well with many people who simply have a gut feeling that there is "something out there".
• 

  Sulla

  I guess I have to agree with Chesterton: every argument is a theological argument. If we are going to suppose that Jesus really was raised from the dead and that his death really did fix us, then there are certain implications of that statement of faith. The Church takes those faith statements as axiomatic and argues from there.

  One is perfectly able to reject the essential Christian insight and say Jesus was not raised and his death did not give us salvation. And, as I read AllTimeJeff, it seems this is his position. But, and this is the point, we shouldn't imagine that our different statements about reality (Sulla: Jesus is Lord of all. ATJ: Jesus is not Lord of all) are meaningless. AllTimeJeff and I happen to disagree about the meaning of the universe and our place in it; how do you get a more meaningful disagreement than that?

  And perhaps that is why I think that this sort of forum isn't particularly good for discussions of things like the Trinity: it's too serious for the room. Look: Jeff says, " To argue the nature of god is to argue the unseen." St. John disagrees. He says we saw that which existed since the beginning, we touched it, we listened to it: that Word is life, made visible to us. And the Word insists he is the truth and the life.

  I'm not surprised that some ex-JWs, upon leaving an anti-Christian cult, remain dedicated anti-Christians. I would similarly suspect that, say, Branch Davidians who left that cult have remained outside of the Christian belief system they rejected before they joined that cult. Neither am I surprised that the unearned pride that so many JWs feel, as well as the inchoate hatred of Christianity, remains a driving force for some after they leave the JWs. There was, after all, a reason they joined the JWs in the first place and it ain't because they were the smartest, most reflective, most sensitive kids on the block.

  But I have discovered that Jeff almost always writes exactly the opposite of what he means. He writes that it is pointless to debate the Trinity, and then insists that I offer up reasons for believing the Trinity. He writes that he doesn't care if anybody else believes the Trinity, and then calls me out by name to criticize me for being a self-righteous Trinitarian. Or, was it I who has begun several threads on the topic?

  But let me be clear: Jeff, I promise I don't care about your beliefs. And I promise not to try to make you believe the Trinity, no matter how many times you start threads on the subject.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  But I have discovered that Jeff almost always writes exactly the opposite of what he means. He writes that it is pointless to debate the Trinity, and then insists that I offer up reasons for believing the Trinity.

  Sulla, you are odd. After having acknowledged on one thread that I started that I did indeed debate the Trinity when I said it was a waste of time, you have discovered whatever you feel supports your world view, nothing more.

  Your manner of debate is to not say anything at all.

  He writes that he doesn't care if anybody else believes the Trinity, and then calls me out by name to criticize me for being a self-righteous Trinitarian.

  Yes. Because you are self righteous, not because you are a Trinitarian. You are soooo close to figuing that one out.

  Or, was it I who has begun several threads on the topic?

  Again, you are so close here. You have said nothing. That was my whole point, and why I chose to argue with you on the Trinity on my previous thread. (of course, you, like anyone else on this board, can see what threads I have started here. Nice try though....)

  You merely claim that there are superior ways to define and explain the Trinity, yet fail to offer even one. You condescendingly say that I and others reject the Trinity based on inferior information, or that I am limited by my JW background. What you say is offensive and elevates yourself, and just in case you're curious, that is why I believe you to be self righteous and superior acting.

  It's as if you are hoping to make a point by implying their are better ways to understand the Trinity, that the rest of us haven't figured out whatever you claim to have figured out, all the while dodging and avoiding having to explain whatever it is that makes your take on the Trinity better/superior/(whatever) to others.

  The following I am going to put in bold for you.

  I have no qualms with your right to believe the Trinity Sulla.

  I call you out (still, nothing has changed here) for saying you have a superior argument on the trinity, and not presenting it.

  I truly hope that your faith makes you better person.

  I think your next goal for your faith would be to develop a little bit of humility.

  I absolutely contradict whatever statement that you would put out there that your god and your take on god (trinity or otherwise) is the one and only way to worship.

  I have no desire to in general to spend a lot of time debating the Trinity with you per se Sulla. What motivated me to confront you is the appearance you gave (in my view) that you have the absolute truth. That isn't correct. I don't think that debating the trinity in that context with you is a waste of time, because the point isn't your personal belief (i.e. what is good for you) but your supposition that your personal belief is THE one. (i.e. the trinity is THE truth for everyone)

  I got one more for you, but that will be my next comment.....
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  I'm not surprised that some ex-JWs, upon leaving an anti-Christian cult, remain dedicated anti-Christians. I would similarly suspect that, say, Branch Davidians who left that cult have remained outside of the Christian belief system they rejected before they joined that cult. Neither am I surprised that the unearned pride that so many JWs feel, as well as the inchoate hatred of Christianity, remains a driving force for some after they leave the JWs. There was, after all, a reason they joined the JWs in the first place and it ain't because they were the smartest, most reflective, most sensitive kids on the block.

  I joined the Jehovah's Witnessees when my two JW parents had sex one night, caused my birth, and raised me to be a JW.

  Were you ever a JW?

  You really look down on former JW's. I base that on your comment that I quote above.

  Does it really take superior education to worship god? Does God only like 'smart, more reflective, more sensitive' worshipers... like you? If so, I think that rules out your god and your version of god specifically right there. If it is an exclusive club, then your god, like you, is a superior, aloof, self righteous jack ass.

  Sort of like Jehovah.

  Of course, in my (very educated) view, the gods we espouse reflect more of who we are then who god actually is. Little wonder you chose a god just like you.