After having read and responded to a person on this board who declares themselves to a
dhere to an atheist ideology, I came away feeling that I’ve been discussing matters with
a theistic dogmatist. It was quiet unusual because their attitude towards others was
belittling of those who held a belief system different then their own, much the way the
Witnesses tend to do so. In fact, it was exactly the way JWs do it, except the subject
matter was different. In the eyes of the atheist, those who adopt Christianity were
subjected to statements of ridicule—simplifying their beliefs to make it read as
impossible to be taken seriously, not as declaration of what this individual believed
but as the main subject of their post.
While I am not against free speech nor atheism, I am alarmed not so much at the fact
that it was Christianity that was treated this way, but that the atheist who, likely
from a JW background of the rest of us, was still acting like a Witness, being judgmental
in a manner not only unbecoming to other atheists but making a blanket statement
condemning all Christian ideologies without any reference to how this related to
JWs, posting this in the area “Beliefs, Doctrine & Practices: What Jehovah’s Witnesses
believe and why they do what they do.” None of these things were touched upon by the
self-proclaimed atheist, and the efforts of others to show that his original statements
were erroneous were constantly ignored until 5 pages later where the atheist finally
admitted to making unverifiable statements, but still not conceding to the rest of
the data offered by others.
This is not to be taken as an attack on the individual who made the original post.
On the contrary, I believe in the innate right of all persons to be free to follow
the dictates of the conscience in matters of belief or adoption of ideology. This
right to such freedom of conscience should be protected by law, and no individual must
be forced to act in any way contrary to their conscientious dictates. As a Christian and
theologian I agree with the findings of the ecumenical council of Vatican II
that declares that not every instance of positive atheism—the explicit rejection of
God—is to be regarded as the result and expression of personal sin. In other words, the
individual who takes such a stand not just as a synonym of the label skeptic, but as a
conscientious enlightened philosophy for life may not be considered to be of the same sort
of a person who is just acting obstinate in rebellion against the teachings of Christ.
Why not denying the tenet of salvation through Christ, the Christian themselves should
acknowledge the explicit difference between these two types of individuals.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses indoctrinate their adherents so thoroughly that those who leave
their organization find they must unwind layer after layer of learned behaviors and
attitudes towards others that reflect only the unique stand of the Witnesses to the
non-Witness population. This is often true immediately in regards to religion, as those
of us who leave may still literally fear entering other houses of worship, saying “God
bless you” after someone sneezes, returning holiday wishes, or even keep from adopting
religious views of other religious systems because we are still convinced that the Witnesses’
definition of them is correct even though we no longer believe their religion is.
This “post-traumatic” effect can also cause a person to adopt a pseudo-atheistic attitude
based on the Witnesses reinterpretation of what should and should not be allowed in
religious matters. When the judgmental behavior of the claimed atheist imitates the behavior
of the Witness in demeaning all other belief systems but their own, the atheist may less
likely have adopted a true trenchant form of atheism and may have adopted a stand stemming
from an emotional reaction in rejection of Wathctowerism. Contrary to blaming the subject
for their behavior, what is more insidious is that the techniques of indoctrination by the
Witnesses can be so mind bending that life choices of survivors may take years to undo the
damage caused by adopting the skewed view of realities adopted by the JWs. This can mean that
a person may adopt or fail to adopt certain things in life still in fear of some condemnation
taught by the Witnesses which in reality does not exist.
The atheist did nothing wrong in declaring their stand against theism, by the way. But the is
sues brought forth, the techniques used in the critique, and the arguments presented were quite
foreign to the philosophy. They were limited in scope to what the Witnesses teach on religion,
namely that true religion stems from the Bible. Even in the view of sola scriptura, such a view
is considered highly radical and without merit, but this was ignored again and again by the atheist,
and this belied the claim to enlightenment which is so important a part of a true conscientious stand.
We must unlearn what the Witnesses teach, unlearn the behaviors and attitudes, and only then
are we able to move forward in true freedom that is so necessary to live the life of our true
selves, whether we adopt theism or reject it as a result.
The Origins of Religion for the Christian
To fully answer the atheist’s challenges, however, please permit me the chance to explain
that from the Witness point of view your arguments do seem right. However the JW view is
not based in reality. While the way you presented the Christian story may seem simplistic
to you, even 'laughable' as you point out, this neither proves that Christianity is based on
either your take on their "story" or on literal stories to begin with.
Speaking in strict theological terms, Christianity is based on what is called “Revelation.”
Revelation is God’s self-disclosure, the free action by which the Creator makes himself
perceived by the intellect of humans. Revelation not only makes it possible for people to
know God, it makes it possible for people to respond to God. It is a supernatural act, not
only stemming from beyond the ability of human beings, but enabling people to love God far
beyond their own natural capacity. While seen as complete in the person of Jesus Christ,
Revelation has not been made fully explicit however. The full significance of Revelation is
only grasped by means of Christian faith over the course of human history.
In more practical terms, while an atheist might ridicule Christianity as based on “silly”
stories or fictional mythologies, Christianity is actually the response to this self-disclosure
of God, a human history that God “invades,” if you will, to show his literal involvement and
concern for people. This concern has been played out in covenants—the covenant with Noah,
with Abraham, with the nation of Israel, and finally with the Church. Theology calls this
Revelation the “history of salvation.” It is this “history” that Christianity is built upon.
The “culture of disbelief” may still thumb its nose at such an explanation. However, those
that do cannot be expected to be taken serious when they attempt to discredit Christianity.
Authentic rejection of Revelation can only be an educated one, one in which Revelation has
been examined, tested, and found wanting. When this has not been done, even the individual’s
claim to atheism is in question. Authentic atheism appeals to logic, whereas atheism that is
adopted as an emotional response such as distaste for theism is no more authentic or reliable
than theism or religion adopted via an emotional response. Unless the atheist truly knows
what they are rejecting, their rejection is not an enlightened one, and their response is
no different than a religious one based on credulity.
Case in point, the mistake continues to be made by many that Christianity is based on the
stories found in the Bible. While these stories are cherished, and while they move and shape
the religion of Christians, these stories are but a part of Revelation. Christianity is about
the self-disclosure of a God, a Person. While these stories explain this “invasion” of the
mundane by the Divine, they are not all that encompasses Revelation. The collection and canon
of Scripture itself proves this as there is no text within the Bible that declares all the
books in its collection as destined to be part of Revelation. Some of the books seem
completely absent of the thought. Part of God’s self-disclosure is found in the act of
canonization itself, something that cannot be determined explicitly within the verses of Holy Writ.
The historical actions of the Church are part of this Revelation in as much that the actions
of the Church are inspired by God. This action of the Church is called “liturgy,” meaning the
“work of the Church.” The Church has been guided by God to create, collect, and canonize the
library of books that make up the Bible. While there is no text of Scripture that says that
“such-and-such book and such-and-such letter” should be included in the Divine Library, the
Church, by virtue of acting under the direction of the Holy Spirit, is authorized in its
liturgical act to state which books are part of God’s self-disclosure and those that are
not part of this Revelation.
While recognized by other words in various denominations of Christianity, specifically
those that adhere to sola scriptura, technically speaking all aspects of Revelation,
those written and those performed by the Church liturgically, make up what is generally
called Christianity’s “Tradition.” This differs from traditions, meaning customs developed
by people that are not part of Revelation, and customs found within different ways of
worship, but it is similar and often synonymous with Tradition as used by faiths like
Orthodoxy and Catholicism, while encompassing even those liturgical acts of Protestantism
that are also part of Revelation but may be described in different terms depending on the
theology of the denomination.
As to how any parts of written Revelation, namely Scripture, can be taken as accurate when
some parts are considered by Christians themselves to be allegory, an atheist must remember
that the word “bible” means “library.” Libraries are composed of different books. One would
not read a book on American history the same way as one would read a novel by Jane Austin,
expecting both to be of the same nature just because they are found in the same library,
would they?
The same is true regarding the Bible. Some of its books are history, sometimes very dry history.
Other books are made up of laws. Then you have books of poetry, books of history told through
allegory, and even fictionalized accounts of true stories, much as the famous The Miracle Worker
is a fictionalized account of the true story of Anne Sullivan and Helen Keller.
When an atheist therefore tries to discredit the Bible with an argument that doesn’t take this
into account, of course the argument of the atheist is ignored and the atheist immediately
discredited. Atheists are supposed to be enlightened people, and any enlightened and
well-educated person would know that parts of the Bible are meant to be read allegorically,
others as history, etc., because various forms of writing were employed to tell the religious
truths found in Revelation. Recall that Revelation itself is transcendent and not yet fully
understood. Something that was not yet explicit in human history could not be expected to be
absolutely literal. Even if it all were literal, that which still transcends would still not
appear so, would it?
A side note is that truths found in the written portions of Revelation are in scholastic circles
called “mysteries” and “myths,” but of course the vernacular definitions of these words is not
what is meant. The word “mystery” means a truth that cannot be perceived entirely by means of
human reasoning. The word “myth” means a story that tells the truth or a truth preserved in the
medium of storytelling instead of the medium of history. Scholastically speaking almost all
portions of the Gospel accounts are “myths” in that the writers did not attempt to paint a historical
account of Jesus but a theological one. Again these terms should not be confused with the popular
definitions of mystery and myths as used to describe detective novels or false stories.
But it happens a lot, because critics of the Bible often get their hands on a theological work
and then point to it as “proof” that Christians believe the Bible to be filled with “myths.” This
is an uneducated mistake and grasping at straws because such a critic has acted in ignorance of
higher study and its vocabulary as applied to the Scriptures.
In Conclusion
While I understand this is a very long post, I felt the need to help people realize that the
Watchtower really cheats people of higher learning in all aspects, including theology.
They are literally absent of it, in fact. Their indoctrination can also stay with us so much
longer than expected because we forget that what we may believe (i.e., holding to the Witnesses’
definition of the Trinity doctrine is one such example) is based not on reality but on
pseudo-facts, if you will.
While the information above surely differs in detail, and this is not an attempt to speak
against other ideologies who insist on these differing details, the basic structure remains
relatively the same for all Christians. How sad that the Witnesses have misrepresented such
things or refused to acknowledge them in the first place. Their quest is not one for knowledge
or truth but control and satisfying an ego that wants to have some special place in God’s
arrangement by being privy to some knowledge that others do not or cannot have. It is my hope
that this posting, long though it is, might help others to recognize the dangers of the JW
religious system and the need for resources to help fully heal us as we make our journey to
personal freedom and fulfillment.