Is there a site for fading JWs who remain non-trinitarian Christians?

by deborahs_song 42 Replies latest jw friends

fjtoth

Many groups use a rejection of the trinity to simply write off all other Christians as false believers.

Ahem! Of course, Trinitarians don't write off others, do they?

To quote the Athanasian Creed:
"Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity . . ."

Catholics and Protestants have burned non-Trinitarians to death at the stake, even as late as the 19th century, but I've never heard of non-Trinitarians doing the same to them.
Frank
steve2

Ahem! Of course, Trinitarians don't write off others, do they?
Excellent question. Some posters paint way to dark a picture of how JWs view trinitarians. This coin, however, is very much two-sided.
JWs have definitely not cornered the market on making inaccurate claims and insulting assumptions about other people's doctrines.
I well recall being mentally pummeled as a young teenager by ardent born-again Chrisitians who harangued and threatened me with hellfire and damnation for not believing in the trinity. One of my seemingly nice young born-again peers called me "Jehovah-Devil Boy" or JDB for short.
drew sagan

Ahem! Of course, Trinitarians don't write off others, do they?
Which ones? This is a blanket assertion made about millions of people you don't know. To group people into such arbitrary categories of behavior is all too JW like. There are Trinitarians that do this, and their are not.
Catholics and Protestants have burned non-Trinitarians to death at the stake, even as late as the 19th century, but I've never heard of non-Trinitarians doing the same to them.
If I remember correctly this exact argument is used in the Watchtowers 'Trinity' brochure. In all fairness this is a pretty illogical proposition.

I think the simplest way to see through this reasoning is to ask yourself what exactly would have happened if a unitarian theology was embraced early on by the Christian community and then upheld throughout the centuries. Would the Churches still contain people who would be dogmatic and overbearing in their assumptions about the truth of their theology? Would the various wrongs committed by Trinitarians have been just as likely if unitarianism was the norm? Or would the moral being of people change because they accepted a more unitarian theology?

Just because a certain belief or understanding is held by many people does not make it true. But it does not stop there. Because a belief may be held by a minority of people (even persecuted by the majority) their views do not become any more likely to be correct.

The assumption that there may be a greater moral character in those who hold to non-trinitarian beliefs is just absurd.

I well recall being mentally pummeled as a young teenager by ardent born-again Chrisitians who harangued and threatened me with hellfire and damnation for not believing in the trinity. One of my seemingly nice young born-again peers called me "Jehovah-Devil Boy" or JDB for short.
I had a similar experience. A guy invited me inside his house only to start screaming and yelling at me about such things. Because I eventually came to accept the doctrine does not mean that guy was any less of a jerk and a moron. His own actions and character are his alone.

You can walk away from a person like that thinking that he represents all people who hold to his beliefs, or you could see him as a person. While I was in the WTS I would group people into categories and label them as such. Now that I'm out I see things differently.
fjtoth

Drew,

I made no "blanket" assertion. I simply tried to show that your blanket assertion concerning non-Trinitarians should not be ignored. It seems to me you haven't much room to talk when suggesting that the behavior of others "is all too JW like."

You wrote that "Many groups use a rejection of the trinity to simply write off all other Christians as false believers." Who are those "many" groups? Can you name 5 or even 2 that reject the Trinity simply to "write off" all other Christians? Can you point to some reputable authority to substantiate your claim?

Just because JWs state that Trinitarians burned non-Trinitarians to death doesn't make the statement false. Non-JW historians make the same observation. Are they also "illogical" in your opinion?

Your "reasoning" is hypothetical when you ask "what exactly would have happened if a unitarian theology was embraced early on by the Christian community . . .[?]" That is something you don't know and about which you have no basis for making assumptions. The facts are in history, not in speculation.

Frank
...
drew sagan

I simply tried to show that your blanket assertion concerning non-Trinitarians should not be ignored.
When did I do this? I never once grouped all non-trinitarians into any category. I do admit I was rather vague in using the phrase 'many groups' to describe some non-trinitarian organizations (I was actually referring to bible cults that practice shunning and the like) but not once made any kind of blanket assertions regarding all non-trinitarians. I also agreed with you that there are some trinitarians who are judgmental as you describe, but pointed out that this is not a fair representation of all of them.
You wrote that "Many groups use a rejection of the trinity to simply write off all other Christians as false believers." Who are those "many" groups? Can you name 5 or even 2 that reject the Trinity simply to "write off" all other Christians?
I would first like to clarify that the 'groups' I was referring to would be 'high control groups' that practice shunning and other control methods over their believers (like what is practiced in the Watchtower).

Some larger more noticeable groups would include the LDS church, the now defunct Way International, followers of Herbert Armstrong (World Wide Church of God before it was reformed), Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Unification Church (Moonies) to name a few.

This is not to say that all non-trinitarian groups exhibit this kind of behavior! But some do.
Just because JWs state that Trinitarians burned non-Trinitarians to death doesn't make the statement false. Non-JW historians make the same observation. Are they also "illogical" in your opinion?
I never said it wasn't true!
Non-JW historians make the same observation. Are they also "illogical" in your opinion?
What observation have they made? If you are talking about historical events then there is no disagreement. If you are talking about historians noticing a higher moral character in non-trinitarians then I think you are off the mark.
Your "reasoning" is hypothetical when you ask "what exactly would have happened if a unitarian theology was embraced early on by the Christian community . . .[?]" That is something you don't know and about which you have no basis for making assumptions. The facts are in history, not in speculation.
My main point was simply that 'folks is folks' and that if the tables where turned and non-trinitarians where in the Christian majority you would more than likely see the same kind of dogmatic behavior that is displayed by some of those in the majority.

Do you really think that if non-trinitairianism was embraced by Christians throughout history there possibly could have been a differance in some of the fanatical dogmatic religious behavior of those in the Christian majority?

I really don't think we are that far off in our opinions. I entered this tread to point out that balance is needed. There are people of all beliefs that do bad things. I believe their actions represent who they are as people.
fjtoth

Drew,

Are you being honest?

I merely wrote "Trinitarians," and you claimed that was a "blanket statement." I didn't accuse all Trinitarians. My point was that there are Trinitarians who do what you accuse non-Trinitarians of doing. That is obvious from the question I raised. You pointed to bigotry on one side of the argument while ignoring it on the other side.

What's fair is fair. If you can label what I wrote as a "blanket statement" when it was no more comprehensive than what you wrote, why can't I identify what you wrote as a "blanket statement"? I think your bias against others is showing, just because their theology is different from yours.

Your argument against me that I claim non-Trinitarians have a higher moral character is baseless. I never made the claim so why argue with me about it as if I did?

Frank
...
White Dove

You can try the Unitarian Universalist Church website which welcomes all faiths, and I do mean ALL. It's a very welcoming group located all over the U.S.
drew sagan

You pointed to bigotry on one side of the argument while ignoring it on the other side.
No I didn't, in my original reply to your post I specifically stated "There are Trinitarians that do this, and their are not." I don't know how that counts for ignoring one side of it, I clearly agreed with you to a point!
I think your bias against others is showing, just because their theology is different from yours.
Are you kidding me? I have absolutely no problem with people who hold to a different theology. People are free to believe what they choose. I don't know how this could have been derived from my posts.

On the other hand you said:
Catholics and Protestants have burned non-Trinitarians to death at the stake, even as late as the 19th century, but I've never heard of non-Trinitarians doing the same to them.
What is the point you are trying to make by saying this? It's hard to see a statement like this mean anything other than non-trinitarians are better than trinitarians (thus my remark about a 'higher moral character').

To make it clear my personal belief is that people on both sides of this particular issue can be overbearing and dogmatic. It goes both ways.
steve2

Catholics and Protestants have burned non-Trinitarians to death at the stake, even as late as the 19th century, but I've never heard of non-Trinitarians doing the same to them.
So, what does that prove? That non-trinitarians are somehow more enlightened and better behaved? Or, more likely, that the more dominant a group is in terms of numbers and influence, the more resources it has to enforce its teachings? Look at the non-trinitarian Moslems for an example of a tenous link between doctrines about God and behaviour. Tenuous because having the same beliefs about the nature of God produces such a huge variety of behaviours.
M.J.

"Jeff,

I'm intrigued by your post. As a mother I have the authority to tell my children what to do and how to do it and yet I can also say to them that their father is the head of the house. I have all the authority yet I'm not their father. Jesus position is the same. He has all authority but he is not the Father.

Deborah "

Deborah, your illustration actually does support the Trinity!

The Trinity maintains that the Father is distinct from the Son, and is the head over the Son. Yet, they are of equal nature. In other words, while the Father is a superior being to humans and to the angels, He is not a superior being to the Son. Would you say you are a lesser being, a lesser life form, than your husband? I doubt that. Yet your husband can still maintain his relative position as the head.

Now on to the question of whether or not you and your husband can be distinct persons, yet at the same time you can also be considered to be "one".

In Mark 10:6-8 Jesus says, "But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become ONE FLESH; SO THEY ARE NO LONGER TWO, BUT ONE FLESH." (Genesis 2:23,24 declares the first human couple to be one flesh prior to their procreation so their 'oneness' doesn't depend on marital relations)

So on the human level, at least, here is an illustration that two persons in a sort of established union can be considered "one".

This serves to illustrate the concept of a close unity between persons, even if it's not sufficiently analogous to the nature of God.

If you were to ask your children, "who is your boss in this family?" What would the right answer be?

Oh and as for a non-trinitarian site:
http://www.commentarypress.com

Is there a site for fading JWs who remain non-trinitarian Christians?

Share this