If I use my oven to make every meal then I can say all my food is oven based.
Technically it's true, but it's not really the truth.
Is Jehovah's Organization Truly a Bible-based Religion?
by Celestial 11 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
kepler
Early on in what unfolded into the sequence of events that drew me to this website, someone close to me came up to me one day out of the blue and asked, "Don't you think you need someone who is an expert to talk to you about the Bible and what it means?"
I was rather surprised by that. I had presumed that since JWs were a branch of the Protestant movement and Luther's objections in 1517 were in large a reaction to having just that sort of expertise hanging around already, I was taken aback. It started me reading about Protestantism, a book titled "A Dangerous Idea", which was about the history of the Protestant idea of the common man and his direct interpretation of the Bible. It was interesting, but prepared me not at all for the issues within the 2nd Adventist movement.
But back to Bible-based. Isn't everybody?
I just ended my last post on an angry note. So I am going to try to change course. How about instead of answering the posed question, maybe more questions should be asked:
What does it mean to have a "Bible-based religion?" Is that even a good thing? Are some religions more Bible-based than others, and if they are, does that make them any better off?
At least three times the Bible addresses the creation or beginning. In Genesis 1 and 2. And then in the first verses of John's Gospel. I suppose discussions in Hebrews and elsewhere could be added. If a religion is going to explain things, it would seem as though it would have to address some fundamental things. And then move on to an incident like Moses at Sinai bringing down rules from on high.
But a whole lot of the Bible reads of violence, vengeance and murder. These are literally Chronicles with a point of view, but a very taciturn one at that. Why Josiah might be a better king than Manesseh or David better than anyone else, one is left to a lot of conjecture.
But let us examine one issue - genocidal war. When I asked the brothers/elders who used to meet with me about incidents related in Joshua, they went off in a huddle and came back the next week. "Yes, genocide is acceptable when it comes under God's sanction like it did at Jericho and Ai." But otherwise it is a sin. The younger of the two who had been instructing me, told me how he had once struggled with the idea, but came to terms with it and was convinced. Subsequently he referred me to a couple of articles in the WT on the evils of war that made the same point.
Parenthetically I wonder what was the content of the radio broadcasts about two decades ago that kicked off the action in Rwanda? I don't know for sure. But by the same logic of the WT and that brother who was instructing me on "What the Bible Really Teaches", that's where one can end up anyway: Unthinking allegiance to a theocrat (the Organization) that has already declared on this issue - and one broadcast away from taking up a machete. Rationale: Bible-based.
There is still the conundrum that here in the "West", most of our notions of justice and mercy are derived from the Biblical record. Our codes of ethics are Bible-based. Our desire to attempt to be the Good Samaritan is Bible based.
The mesages of Joshua's conquering campaigns, Christ's parables and the Sermon on the Mount are in the same bound book. How do we draw distinctions? Or do we let an expert authority take care of the matter for us?