A certain Catholic XJW (Jeff Schwem) and I have been following the same blog for several months. In this blog, the young woman has been documenting her conversion to JWism. I have not always been so kind in my comments as Jeff has been, but I have been honest. I have also, for the most part, steered away from trying to convince her of other doctrine.
Thus, my question. Over the course of 4-5 months, I have seen several people present detailed pro-Trinity arguments. I don't understand why. It seems to me that the Trinity is the primary doctrine that the average JW is "proofed" against. (Jeff, I do admit, seems very aware of this, and is not overt in his suggestion of Biblical support of the Trinity.)
It also seems to me that arguing the Trinity with someone who has rejected it, and is using this rejection as the foundation of her belief of why the JWs have the "truth," is more than a little short-sighted. After all, repeated assertions of the validity of the Trinity will only make her MORE inclined to believe she is under siege by Satan. I wonder if most arguments with JWs about this subject are equally doomed to failure. I wonder if there is even any doctrine LESS effective to argue with a JW convert than the Trinity. In all my time on these boards, I have only heard of two people who left the WT solely because they became believers in the Trinity doctrine.
I feel that arguing the Trinity with a JW, 99x out of 100 will do more harm than good, ESPECIALLY when coming from an X-JW, as it gives them "proof" that, once a person "leaves Jehovah," they become susceptible to all manner of demonic thought. (In the JW's eyes.)
Anyways, I would love to hear from people who have left the JWs, or who try to help them, WHY you choose to discuss the Trinity with a JW, and what you feel it may be an effective strategy. (Especially Jeff Schwem. I do not agree with his doctrine, but I do respect his tone. FTR.)
Strategy: Jehovah's Witnesses and the Trinity.
by Odrade 68 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Odrade
-
AlmostAtheist
Just a vote to agree with you. Arguing the trinity is like arguing the "best color" for a house. No answer possible.
-
Odrade
IMO, arguing the Trinity with a JW is like arguing Day-Glo Purple is the best color for a house. SOMEONE might agree with you...
-
in a new york bethel minute
that is a great point odrade,
i have never thought of it that way, and, now that you mention it, it does seem like a silly approach. i know back in my strong-to-the-tower days, i would never have accepted any amount of evidence (even biblical) as proof of a trinitarian God. i think you have to break the whole "God's channel" thing first, then the rest will fall. i still don't know how to do it, but i think that's the most effective way.
bethel
-
Finally-Free
Over the course of 4-5 months, I have seen several people present detailed pro-Trinity arguments. I don't understand why.
Some people feel very strongly about the Trinity, but being an ex-catholic as well as an ex-jw, I don't think it's the best way to get through to a person who believes JW doctrine. I've always believed the most effective weapon against the watchtower is it's own literature.
W
-
MegaDude
When JWs have brought up The Trinity being a false doctrine I usually counter it's about as false as JWs saying Jesus is Michael the ArchAngel whereupon they usually clam up. Also, I ask, is appropriate to call Jesus our lord and god as Thomas did? Jesus didn't correct him. I agree arguing The Trinity is not a good strategy in dealing with JWs. Not when there are obvious better ones like their false dates, blood doctrines, et cetera. -
Odrade
Well that's just it, there are a few proselytizing groups, (including JWs,) that focus on the most effective way to persuade someone, NOT the doctrine they feel most strongly about. Unless that doctrine happens to be a particularly convincing one. (like the pedophile/two witness issue.)
For example, I admit, since I've exited, I tend to focus on the doctrines I feel are most important... blood, the two witness rule, the deceit of the WT surrounding the Cross issue, etc. But I recognize that the "Cross" discussion is best left for a later time, when the audience has already started to wonder about the intellectual honesty of the Organization. I would never start with that one. -
garybuss
I can't use dis-beliefs to prove anything. I don't believe a Ford is a horse, so that proves a Ford is the best car.
To understand something, reduce it to the ridiculous. -
in a new york bethel minute
i remember a brother saying he had a return-visit with a pentecostal man. i told him to offer him the "trinity" brochure. the brother argued that this would not be a good approach, as it would get his back up. it's better to break him down about other things first, then the rest will fall into place.
this is a great example of how to approach a JW, in my opinion.
bethel
-
kid-A
I honestly think the whole trinity issue is pretty low on the totem pole. If I wanted to discourage a potential dub, I would aim for more vital organs, like the 1914, 1975 fiascos, the biblical mistranslations in the NWT, the child killing blood policy and their entire history of medical mayhem, Russells involvement with Pyramidology, etc.