Faith.

by wearewatchingyouman 44 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • wearewatchingyouman
    wearewatchingyouman

    So, I usually describe myself as an Agnostic Theist with Fideist tendencies. What this boils down to is that, for me, faith and reason are independent of eachother. I believe in God even though It makes no rational sense to me. I don't claim to know that God exists. I just believe, have faith, that God exists. I also think, reason, that this is the way God, if He truly exists, wanted the whole arrangement. If God wanted us to know who "He" is, and how he was going to carry out his plan, I think He, as an all knowing all powerful force, would have made it all a little clearer and simpler. But what if I had faith that he has indeed, but somehow I'm blinded to it?

    So, purely hypothetically, how do you think such a philisophical viewpoint would be accepted by Jehovah's Witnesses if I applied it to their faith. If I was to seperate the knowledge that I have of all of the misgivings of the Organization, and said "While from a reasonable standpoint I don't possibly see how this could be God's active channel, I have faith and believe that the Organization is the FDS giving food in due time."

    What if I, a fourth generation born in who was never baptised, has accumulated all this knowledge and still chose to be baptized? I mean let's be completely honest here. There is absoloutely no way any reasoning person can look at what was being taught between 1914 and 1919 and say, "Oh yeah, it makes total sense that Jesus would have looked at every single Christian religion and picked this one.", or, "Yeah, I've looked at secular and biblical history, and 607 makes perfect sense to me."

    However, how would the brother's react if I were to say, "Well, I know this statement in the current Watchtower to contradict the knowledge that I have. See so and so Watchtower from so and so time.", or, "Well this quoted source, when read in context, is actually saying the opposite of what the WTS is claiming." etc. etc. etc. "However, even though in my own reasoning, and anyone else's who looks at things objectively, that these statements can't be construed as anything else but dishonest I have faith that Jehovah has a reason for this."

    My question is basically this: I can't unlearn all of this stuff. I was never baptised. I have an extensive library starting with Russell's "Studies from the Scriptures" and going forward. There is no possible way I can unlearn what I know. What if I still decided I want to be a Witness? Purely on faith. What if I was straight forward and honest from the very beginning of starting to study agin about what I know to be TTATT. What if I were to show the brother's from their own older publications the knowledge that I have about certain things, but still believe and have faith in the things that the Orginization teaches? What do you think the reaction would be? Would I still be able to be baptised? Could I become a MS or Elder?

    Just to be clear this is purely hypothetical. I'm not looking for questions as to why I would do this. Or criticisms as to how stupid or ignorant this path would be. I was just thinking last night about how my personal philosophy could be applied to being a Witness, so I figured I'd throw it out here and get people's opinions as to how this would be handled by the Elders on up.

  • wearewatchingyouman
    wearewatchingyouman

    I see nobody wants to touch this with a ten foot pole... lol

  • Oubliette
    Oubliette

    wearewatchingyouman: So, purely hypothetically, how do you think such a philisophical viewpoint would be accepted by Jehovah's Witnesses if I applied it to their faith.

    I found my ten-foot-pole!

    First, it would have to be published in a WT magazine. Then, although most JWs wouldn't even understand what it means, they would all apply it to their faith with enthusiasm and zeal!

    TFP

  • wearewatchingyouman
  • adamah
    adamah

    WAWYM said-

    So, I usually describe myself as an Agnostic Theist with Fideist tendencies. What this boils down to is that, for me, faith and reason are independent of each other. I believe in God even though It makes no rational sense to me. I don't claim to know that God exists. I just believe, have faith, that God exists.

    FWIW, the agnostic/gnostic moniker is as useless as teats on a bull, since it is utterly meaningless (the attempts to differentiate between one's knowledge and beliefs is based on an old theological model, which has been long-disproven by findings of how the brain actually arrives at conclusions, based on studies from neurology. The term 'agnostic' should be discarded, just as the Ptolemaic Model of the Solar System was abandoned as evidence came out that the Earth wasn't in center stage).

    Your statement above indicates you are actually a 'hard theist', since you state that you believe God exists. You should be prepared to defend that claim with supportive evidence (which requires the use of reason).

    HOWEVER, the problem is you just admitted that you believe in God, DESPITE a lack of evidence. That's irrational and contradictory to the principles of skepticism, so you're clearly not a skeptical thinker, since faith needs NO evidence (and requires you to IGNORE all evidence to the contrary to continue to believe, EVEN AFTER you know it isn't so).

    So why are you even trying to use reason if you place faith ABOVE reason?

    If you're thinking of getting baptized, then what you really need to do is master cognitive-dissonance techniques, as THAT'S what you're going to need to do to suppress doubts and TTATT. The JWs won't change their policies and beliefs since YOU want them to do so; you fit to them, not vice-versa.

    WAWYM said-

    My question is basically this: I can't unlearn all of this stuff. I was never baptised. I have an extensive library starting with Russell's "Studies from the Scriptures" and going forward. There is no possible way I can unlearn what I know. What if I still decided I want to be a Witness? Purely on faith. What if I was straight forward and honest from the very beginning of starting to study agin about what I know to be TTATT. What if I were to show the brother's from their own older publications the knowledge that I have about certain things, but still believe and have faith in the things that the Orginization teaches? What do you think the reaction would be? Would I still be able to be baptised? Could I become a MS or Elder?

    Yes, not only is it quite possible to turn off one's brain and go along with the crowd, EVEN KNOWING it's immoral and contrary to reason. THat's what faith leads to: dogmatism, and a need to have rose-colored glasses stapled onto one's face.

    Do you want to do that, sacrificing your logic and reason on the altar to faith to other men? Some do, and I suspect there's many more than we think that are quite WILLING to live such a life, due to the power of the group.

    Adam

  • wearewatchingyouman
    wearewatchingyouman

    AH, but that's just the point. I'm not hypothetically proposing shutting off my brain. Nor am I putting on rose colored glasses. In this scenario I would be very open and honest about what I know to be TTATT. I'm hypothetically proposing the seperation of my brain from belief and faith. I'm literally saying I know "this", but I believe "this" based on faith.

  • Oubliette
    Oubliette

    Recently, in response to a query regarding tentative career options, a young person I know sarcastically replied that he wanted to be a NY City hot dog vendor.

    I thoughtfully retorted, "Excellent! I am a Buddhist monk. Would you please make me one with everything?"

  • cofty
    cofty

    No the Watchtower would not accept a person who said they wanted to be a memebr despite not actually believing it. They demand thought control.

    I realise it's not your main theme but...

    I believe in God even though It makes no rational sense to me. I don't claim to know that God exists. I just believe, have faith, that God exists.

    I applaud you for your intellectual honesty. If only more believers would untangle faith from evidence.

  • adamah
    adamah

    FWIW, I define 'beliefs' as a sub-set of knowledge, where beliefs are those ideas that I personally accept as truths; it's the information I let into my brain and use to make decisions.

    I define 'knowledge' as ALL of the INFORMATION that is available in the World, which includes that information that is accepted as true, false, or which is contested as to it's truthfulness. If it's known, even if debunked, it's knowledge. That's a standard model used in science, which is opposite to that used in theological discussions (since some knowledge was said to be even superior to beliefs, being God-given (gnosis, which is where the term 'agnostic' stems)).

    But back in the JW World, JWs likely won't bite, and you'd likely end up DFed. They're not looking for truths or reality, just those who agree to accept their flavor of dogma. That's kinda the point, and if tomorrow the GB says the sky is actually green, everyone else is supposed to bow and say how it is green and convince themselves it DOES look green, just to stay in lock-step. It's like a living reenactment of Hans Christian Anderson's, "the King's New Clothes".

    Adam

  • wearewatchingyouman
    wearewatchingyouman

    I don't know how I could possibly end up DF'd if they allowed me to be baptised when I was honest from the beginning. If I ever actually did this I would have things so well recorded that they wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on.

    I understand your definitions as they are mine. It's just that I seperate the truths that I hold based on faith and the ones that I have based on knowledge.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit