Allow me please to quote myself, since I see a lot of mental masturbation going on here..... (with apologies to Thomas Aquinas, and that other fellow..... Jesus)
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.
Sulla, BTS, and other Trinitarians, you personally believing in the Trinity, or engaging in theological discussions is in of itself, not bad.
Where we ALL go wrong though is what the theological premise to discussions on the nature of god means in practical terms.
My whole thread here was not discussing the contributions of theology in our modern times. The more liberal and accepting theology has become, the greater it's value in our modern times. However, I started this discussion on the narrow premise of theology and the discussions it engenders as to the nature of god.
No. Seriously. Look at my first post on this thread. I actually said that.
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?
If this helps Sulla or BTS, or any other cranky, theologically superior Trinitarians, I would like to clarify this statement: If your view of theology gives you a viewpoint of god that positively affects your life (esp post JW) more power to you.
Please though, be honest. There are MANY competing theologies out there. More then ever, mankind now has the ability to consider for the first time, at the click of a button, the basics of most known religious and secular theologies. The fact that Christianity is a minority religion on the world scence, and that other theologies exist today which benefits non Christians around the world (Buddhism anyone?) proves that at best, Christian theology (trinitarian or otherwise) is merely one option among many to be considered seriously.
Simply put, what I have an issue with is the presentation that your god, with your religious theology, is somehow superior. There simply is no logical basis to put one theology ahead of another, when all have the same amount of evidence to back it up.
It simply isn't necesarry to have theology, old and proud as you may view it. That is a lesson that the 20th century taught us in spades.
The value of our life now is what matters.
Do you need to believe in theology to be a good person and live a quality life? No.
Do you need to believe that Jesus is part of a Trinity to be a good person and live a quality life? No.
Does it matter whether or not your version of the Trinity is strong or weak or different from the way JW's frame it to be a good person and live a quality life? No.
Is this overly simplistic? No way. It allows for hundreds of millions of people today to do something that the Catholic Church was scared of allowing for centuries, esp during those nice little Inquisitions, where Christian theology was SO helpful to so many people. That is to say, it allows people to freely consider the evidence on their own, and weigh it against alternatives.
I don't have to take Sulla's word for it. BTS's. Or Thomas Aquinas. I can actually compare the theology to our modern times, to see if it is relevant.
Clearly, the evidence shows that while theology can be relevant for you personally, it is not needed for a life of value, contribution, and merit.
Thus, why I titled this thread "Theological Arguments, Human Realities".
Lest you trip up on the word "reality", I will add this handy definition (not from Thomas Aquinas)
Wikipedia " In philosophy, reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined."
Merriam Webster: (1) " the quality or state of being real" (2B) " something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily"
Of necessity, the Trinity, as with other theology related to the nature of god, is derived from sources postulating on matters that can't be verified. It is dependent on those who will put faith in it. God himself does not speak. Aquinas opines. Sulla and Botchtower speak. Sadly, that is the best we can do for verification of theology, considering God's maddening silence on the matter.
As an aside, faith is another matter entirely You are free to have faith. I do. My discussion here doesn't include faith. It is about the value of presenting theology which can't be verified as a superior, trumps all else presentation regarding the nature of god.
Faith, like theology, has it's limited value to the beholder of it. Nothing can be verified. Although as we clearly show in this and other threads, we can argue and argue and argue about it.
The funny thing to me is, we aren't even arguing about a subject. We are arguing about the ground rules to discuss the subject. Even if I were to agree that a theological discussion as to the nature of the Trinitarian god meant something to me, it must be allowed that god, as usual, is letting a lot of his kids do his dirty work for him.
Sulla, BTS, you are talking for (your) god. Quote Aquinas all you want. At best, the source material for your own theology is whatever you choose to believe. That IS reality.