Theological Arguments, Human Realities

by AllTimeJeff 161 Replies latest jw friends

  • tec

    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 was kind of curious about that comment myself.

  • AllTimeJeff

    For anyone reading, I can say with equal passion that the Bible L Ron Hubbard is correct, that if you were just a little more educated, a little more sensitive, and just a little more smart, you would see things my way.

    If you were to ask me for proof, or WHY I believe that, I could answer, or I could just try the disingenuous tactic of reframing the debate to discredit who is questioning me.

    I could imply that YOU aren't smart enough to ask me anything. In fact, to explain the wonderful doctrine of the Trinity Scientology would be a waste of time, because in all likelihood, you aren't reflective, sensitive, or smart enough to get it anyway.

    But trust me, you're wrong. I'm right.

    Hey Sulla.... I'm your huckleberry.....

  • Sulla

    Jeff: 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.

    I keep typing the words and you keep ignoring the words. Debates about the Trinity are a waste of time. Meditate on those words.

    I do say your arguments against the Trinity are childish, I do not say that is why you reject the teaching. And, since you are not a self-reflective man, I (again) point out that you are the one who was offensive and self-elevating before I was offensive and self-elevating. You do recall saying that the reason debates about the Trinity are a waste of time is because those who believe it are not logical? You, of course, don't see those comments as offensive and self-elevating because, well, you made them.

    Jeff: 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.

    Look, dumbass, I've said 100 times there is no point in discussing the issue on a site like this. Any knucklehead with access to one of the interwebs can find some big, sophisticated book by a Jesuit explaining the whole thing. If you don't like reading big, sophisticated theology books, fine. But at least admit you don't care to engage the question in a serious way.

    The difference between the Trinity and your stupid Scientology example, of course, is that the Trinity has 2,000 years of theological reflection by the best minds in the West. Augustine, Aquinas, and Scotus don't mean anything to an intellectual stud like AllTimeJeff, who discovered the whole thing doesn't make any sense. Do you think it is possible that you could get over yourself?

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

    Hmm. I think ex-Gilead student AllTimeJeff, trained by the finest theological minds the Watchtower Society has, is an idiot. AllTimeJeff thinks Thomas Aquinas is an idiot. One of us certainly should develop some humility.

    Jeff: 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.

    Pointing out that you don't know anything about the teaching you reject is hardly a claim to have absolute truth, Jeff.

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

    That would be my comment I made where I was critical of "some ex-JWs"? I leave it as an exercise to find the flaw in your reasoning.

    Jeff: 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.

    You're ranting. Of course, what it really takes is humility, the kind of humility that allows itself to imagine that 2,000 years of theological reflection may, perhaps, have produced a core Christian teaching that is not entirely illogical. The kind of humility that can swallow the concept that men whose writings are still consulted and argued about 1,600 years later (Augustine, for example) or 800 years later (Aquinas) just possibly might not be dumber than I am. The kind of humility that rejects the idea that, because the anti-Christian cult you just left is wrong, therefore Christianity is also wrong.

    I've said elsewhere that I believe the original sin of the JWs is pride: they are idiots but think they are smarter and better than everybody else in the world. I have suggested that many people who are drawn to the JWs are also arrogant idiots. The problem I have with some ex-JWs is that they retain both their arrogance and their stupidity after they leave; you are exhibit A, Jeff. But that's you: often in error, never in doubt.

  • AllTimeJeff

    See you tomorrow Sulla. :)

  • Sulla

    I hope not, Jeff. You're exhausting.

  • tec

    I have suggested that many people who are drawn to the JWs are also arrogant idiots.

    Some perhaps.

    But I would suggest that MANY are turned off by mainstream Christianity, the hypocrisy that can be found within it and the doctrines, but are still 'looking' for the truth. Along come JW's claiming to have that, and them being so different from mainstream with a couple great selling points right off the bat - no war (certainly not against fellow Christians - that's a big one), and no hell - another big one.

    Takes a while to get to know that they're no better, and are often worse than (modern day) Christianity. The hypocrisy in them is quieter, since they're smaller, and you really got to be 'in' in order to see or feel it. Then people get out of them too.

    All of this only applies to people who join jw's, and as adults. Not born-ins.



  • AllTimeJeff

    It is now tomorrow. ;)

    Sulla, the problem with theology is that in it's purest form, it is nothing more then mental masturbation. I am really glad you get off on how much you think you know about your invisible god. It's your god, so it's your rules.

    I believe that I am exhausting you because you seem very intent on making this conversation about me and my education, which you know little about. Do you know? You don't know me, nor do I care to defend where I come from. If I don't know what I am talking about, that will be plain. If you know what you are talking about, that will also be plain.

    But you don't want to talk about a subject. And I am through defending myself to you, you pompous ass.

    I would have a healthy debate with you on your superiority, which of necessity would also bring the Trinity into play, but you have acknowledged being unwilling to do that. So that is where we are.

    It seems easier for you to attack me then to actually address some (any, one) of my points, but that is on you.

    I absolutely disagree that Christianity is the true religion. There are many beneficial points to other religions in the world, and other views of spirituality.

    I dont' want to insult other Trinitarians or Catholics by coming across as attacking their religion. If you and others respect Aquinas among others, then that is fine. Name dropping Catholic theologians who have been dead for hundreds of years means nothing.

    One premise of my initial treatment, as noted in the theme, is that theology is not only very limited in value, it is actually very limiting. Instead of focusing on people, (like Jesus did) many who are interested in theology put their theological ideas ahead of people, putting it of higher value than the people that Jesus supposedly die for.

    What is really nice about where I am spiritually is that I can actually take points of value from Jesus or Aquinas, and reject others. I am actually a very big fan of the gospels, esp where Jesus talks about practical matters.

    I give you another famous bible philosopher, Paul, who consistently contradicted himself on the following verses in my view. But nevertheless, I agree with this following passage and put it to you Sulla for your consideration.

    1 Corinthians 13:1-4 (New American Standard Bible)

    1. If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. 4. Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant......

  • designs

    Sulla- a jar full of air. His teachers- the guys describing the jar and the air and the lid.

    But he didn't answer Jeffs question- was Sulla a JW.

  • bohm


    There is a funny thing going on here. First off Sulla claim most definitions of the trinity are exceptionally bad, inconsistent and wrong so it make little sence to treat individual definitions. fair enough.

    Then Sulla write this:

    You're [AKJeff] ranting. Of course, what it really takes is humility, the kind of humility that allows itself to imagine that 2,000 years of theological reflection may, perhaps, have produced a core Christian teaching that is not entirely illogical.

    So apparently 2000 years of carefull theological reflection by the best minds produce a gazillion variants of an idea which are all really, really awfull, yet we need to look at this process and go: "Oh, just because the 2000 years of theological delibrations has mainly produced crap, Sullas favority definition --which he does not bother to give us-- is properly correct!"

    am i missing something?

    AKJ: Good to see you back :-).

    Btw sulla, if you are interested in something else than the trinity, i pointed out some inconsistencies in your last reply on this thread:

  • bohm

    designs: I noticed that as well...

Share this