by berylblue 10 Replies latest jw friends
...the Trinity. Or that Jesus was God. That disfellowshipping is unscriptural (it may be unloving, it may be unwise, but it does not appear to be unscriptural). That immorality is tolerated by Jehovah.
This is just for starters.
This is an honest plea for help. I'm not trying to stir up trouble; I just still can't buy into the Trinity or the deity of Jesus.
Anyone?
Beryl
You must believe what the available evidence compels you to believe.
I don't see that you need "help," necessarily.
Sure, God isn't a trinity. Cool. Lots of people who believe in God believe he isn't a trinity.
Lots of people in lots of religions don't believe that Jesus is God, either. Cool.
Is disfellowshipping unscriptural? Probably not. Many horrible, inhumane things are scriptural; shunning may indeed be among them.
Does Jehovah tolerate immorality? Depends. Sometimes he does, when it's convenient for procreation and so forth. Incest didn't seem to bother him too much when Lot got drunk and slept with his daughters, if memory serves. But then, there's a lot of stuff Jehovah doesn't tolerate. Making fun of bald people, for example. If you're ten years old and you want to point out that a bald man is bald, better set some bear traps first.
See, some of this stuff just doesn't matter to anyone but you (I mean that in a good way) -- because the sort of "evidence" you're looking for will only be substantiated by faith. You'll make interpretations and come to conclusions and that's your right, but you won't find some scientific, object proof of your beliefs. Hence, faith. So believe whatever you think is best. Just remember that you can't empirically prove that you're right, and that's okay, so long as you don't get arrogant about whatever it is your faith does for you.
Dedalus
For scriptural evidence on the Trinity and the deity of Christ, I have found an excellent resource at:
http://www.calvary-tricities.org/trinity.html
As far as disfellowshipping, sure, it's in the Bible. What is not in the Bible are:
Some people seem to get to a place where the heart just can not put up with the tiny and limited fundamental and traditional anthropomorphic concepts of God. The more you try to accept such a god, the more it ties you in knots. This has been my experience. It may be happening to you too. Perhaps looking into Christian Mysticism, Zen, Taoism, and teachings along these lines may open up a far more beautiful understanding of God that may bring you some peace. JamesT
Your thoughts are common for those who want to keep their faith in the Bible. The JWs tried set themselves up as the most rational when it came to Bible doctrines. This was especially true of Russell. You could even make a good argument to show that his reasons for believing nonsense (like prophetic dates found in pyramid measurements) were rational.
I'm sorry to make this so long, but I think I need to back up a bit into the JW history to make my point. A lot of this is my own conjecture, but for me it helps explain a lot of things about the confusion we have when we first try to pull ourselves away from the JWs.
Russell started what he thought might be a new "NON-religion." He was only 22 when he looked for and began collecting a very appealing theology for non-religious Christians and "almost-religious" Christians. The people it attracted were confused about the obviously irrational definition of a Trinity, the irrationality of a God who tortures people in hell, and they needed a more rational explanation for why God permits wickedness. Most other Christian religions were just going along with "accepted" Bible evidence, and Russell was collecting "less accepted" Bible evidence that led to different conclusions. Almost all of it was from other religions and commentators, but for someone so young, Russell was very well organized in his thinking and business skills, and, of course, very talented as a writer and speaker. In some ways he did the Christian religious world a "big favor," in the same way that Waldo, Tyndale, Wycliffe and Luther had supposedly done by bringing a more rational, explainable religion to the "common" people who saw the bigger religious systems as irrational. Russell (and those others) knocked away at the pretensions of the clergy and priesthood who spoke in an incomprehensible language.
Lest anyone get the impression I'm a Russellite, I think Russell developed a very sophisticated form of haughtiness, especially after 1896, and around 1904 or so, it led him to dishonesty, especially around the time of the Russell-Eaton debates. (If anyone has evidence of dishonesty before 1904, by the way, I'd like to hear about it.) Rutherford appealed to an even less religious crowd. His NON-religion was managed as a company of book sales, of campaigns and quotas, sales talks and booming pep talks. (Also, he was able to hide extreme politics behind a cloak of "neutrality.") It may have been an accidental stroke of genius, in 1935, to start attracting people who wanted to feel important and special, but who knew they didn't quite deserve heaven.
So the JWs still use a foundation that is very rational from the perspective of the type of person who was attracted to it in the first place. That doesn't mean it's completely Biblical. There was evidence in the Bible for the exact oppposite of JW views, too, in most cases. And they've obviously heaped a big smelly load of stupidity on top of a fairly rational foundation.
I know this confuses a lot of people. It confused me for years, when I thought I should continue working from the inside to try to help break down those doctrines that I thought were wrong, but could somehow leave the foundation. I know this probably won't help much unless the specific doctrinal issues are also addressed, but I've run on way too long already.
Gamaliel
Well said funkyderek...and if I may add, just don't forget you might be wrong.
Is disfellowshipping unscriptural? No, it is not. Neither is slavery.
Don't forget that the Bible says that you should kill stubborn children and people who blaspheme, and that crippled persons should not be allowed into the assembly of God.
You must realize that a literal interpretation of the contents of the Bible will lead you into a bizaar and indefensible position. Take it with a grain of salt.
As for the nature of God. You're right, he's not a trinity, and Jesus isn't God. However, I have come to this conclusion on the basis of God being a fairy tale, which is a position that is much easier to defend than either his triune or singular natuer.
Neither can I .... hard innit ?
Hi Beryl,
For me the very things that made me doubt the Watchtower also made me start to question other things, such as the bible. It seems to me that the folks who jump out of the witnesses and then into another fundamentalist religion do so because even though they have climbed out of the smaller box of the watchtower society, they do not allow themselves to think beyond the boundries of the bible box. They say well, seeing as the Watchtower isn't the truth, then this other thing must be true....well what if neither is true? Examine everything, including the origins of the bible...not just what the fundmentalists and creationist put out. I recommend 101 myths of the bible, The Jesus Mysteries, and a video entitled The naked truth. I don't think that the bible is worthless, but neither do I think it is any more relevant than any other holy book. Best of luck to you in your search for meaning and truth this time round :)
bw
