Theological Arguments, Human Realities (page 3)

designs

bohm-

I'm fascinated by the guys who for 2000 years of >careful humble reflection< could go forth and plant a Cross on foreign soil, usually through someone's chest...

designs: its amazing what 2000 years of contemplation of our best minds in theology has produced in terms of overwhelmingly clear arguments which can readily convince any honest believer. Truly the church would be a fragmented, sectarian mess without such efforts!

On a more serious note, i think the idea that there are "really smart and serious men" who sit on their ass and think "really smart and serious thoughts" which are 100% correct (like this mysterious correct version of the trinity), but all other people are simply to stupid to understand it is something which appeal to Sulla.

bohm

The scientist in me wonder how serious contemplation of the trinity looks like in practice. the image i keep getting is 2 stoners eating Kinder Surprice and going: "woooaaaa... chocolate.. and toys... and surprice... its like 3 things in one.. and man.. the toys is a mystery.."

designs

bohm-

We need to get us an Incense Burner, I think with the right Incense all will be made clear www.catholicsupply.com

Pistoff

Arguments about the trinity, divinity of Jesus, resurrection, etc etc are all arguments within the frame set by christians.

Look outside the frame; look at the history of belief in non human entities, look at the similarities between the bible and pre-bible literature and look at the features of christianity that are remarkable similar to zoroastrianism and the mystery cults.

An analysis of the gospels and christian imagery is illuminated by looking at what forces shaped it's creation in the first and second centuries.

AllTimeJeff

Pistoff, that is a great point, and you cut to the chase way better then I did.

A study of the Trinity in the realm of theological Christianity alone is actually disingenuous, and ignores (dare I say it) the rest of the world.

I understand that the Trinity, like Theology, is most comfortable for a believing Christian when amongst fellow believers. As I recall, I felt the most comfortable about JW theology when I was around fellow head nodders. My least comfortable times? Talking to someone at the doorwho was read up on me and had some points to make. Made me think. Expanded my world view.

There is a difference between being getting knowledge and receiving a real education. Many people are well read, and would kick any theologians ass in their understanding and arguments of religious subjects and theology. They have not limited themselves to one point of view.

The history of the Trinity, like many other Christian/Catholic theologies and subjects, can be very enlightening. However, at the end of the day, they provide only one glimpse, one side of a multifaceted story.

It certainly doesn't explain god. As a planet, we are moving away from a one size fits all view of god. Like it or not. And by the way, you can be a Trinitarian if that is good for you and what you need.

But don't sit there and pretend or imply that it is THE way.

If you can't explain it outside of your little club, it's probably best to stay in your little club.

designs

Human Realities- Thank a young German brother and sister, William and Caroline Herschel, amatuer astronomers, who in 1789 built a 40' telescope and looked into deep space and discovered Reality, and who a few years later discovered Infrared Radiation in Light, again a Reality. The ancient gods of the Bronze Age would forever fade into history.

Sulla

Tec, I readily agree we are dealing with generalities and that there are plenty of exceptions and counter-examples to anything we would say about the conversion process. That said, I think your generalization is worse than my generalization when it comes to thinking about JW converstion.

So, turned off by hypocracy and burdened by doctrinal disagreements, people turn to the even more bizarre doctrines and bottomless hypocracy of the JWs? I don't think you are entirely wrong to think of the process this way, but I do think you are missing the key elements of the process. Consider a couple facts.

The sine qua non of the JWs has always been the claim to have cracked the secret bible code, the one which tells us when the End comes, to within just a few years. That, and the claim that whatever orthodox Chrsitianity says about anything is wrong. Your idea that the JWs get points for being anit-war and anti-hell doesn't seem to have much explanatory power: if someone wants to hang out with nice, pacifist, universalists, why not join the Unitarians? Unitarians won't expect you to forswear education or sacrifice your baby if he needs blood -- significant benefits in most people's calculus, I'd think.

For that matter, if the converts' disagrement is over doctrine, how is it that the JWs' magnum opus against the Trinity (to pick an example) manages to completely misunderstand the doctrine? How is it that JWs seem entirely innnocent of any knowledge of the tradition of Just War, developed over 1,500 years or so, if pacifism is so important?

No, I think something else is requred to understand the process. That something, I suggest, is an unlovely desire and willingness to agree that a) the entire corpus of Christian thought is entirely mistaken in its essentials, b) the dudes who run a tiny American New Religion are the ones who finally got it right, and c) such information makes them morally superior to everyone else. Such a willingness is arrogant and stupid; it is the same sort of mindset that wants to rename the months of the year (Thermidor, anyone?).

designs

...but Sulla still avoids the question...

Sulla

Bohm: There is a funny thing going on here. First off Sulla claim most definitions of the trinity are exceptionally bad, inconsistent and wrong so it make little sence to treat individual definitions. fair enough.

Not sure what you mean, bohm. I think what I've said is that discussions on boards like this are not useful because popular definitions and understandings of the teaching are pretty weak. Indeed, I have maintained ATJ's problem is that he does not have an adequate grasp of the teaching and, therefore, says that it is illogical.

What I've said on this thread is that you are free to reject Christian teachings like the Trinity because you think they are untrue, but you aren't free to say it is not logical. You are especially not free to say it is illogical without reading enough about it to gain a reasonable understanding of it. ATJ clearly hasn't read enough to form an opinion that should be taken seriously.

Theological Arguments, Human Realities

Share this