** What makes a so-called Christian religion false? Will all those that belong to false religion be destroyed by God because they have supported a false religion?** Excellent questions. I will venture my opinion. (smile) The Bible is not a handbook for a religion. One only has too look at all the religions which use the Bible to see just how many interpretations there are of what is actually there in that very remarkable book. There are persons who devote their entire lives to the study of the ancient languages in which the Bible was written in an effort to better understand its meaning and stillthere are so many versions and opinions of what the authors were trying to say. Who is there that has the unchallenged expertise to authoritatively say, definitively, what the Bible actually says on a given topic? There is no one. To say dogmatically that this doctrine is wrong or that this doctrine is right is to be ignorant of the aforementioned fact. We must conclude that God is cognizant of that fact and of the difficulty we humans are having in determining what is truth. That being the case, how does one point to a particular religion and say that it is false? Inasmuch as the truth is hidden so well, how could one be blamed for not having found it? Still, inasmuch as the truth is just that, then ANY religion not possessing the complete truth could be said to be false. That would mean every last one of them. Then there is also the disturbing question of whether the Bible is really THE word of God to the exclusion of all other works. That throws a different light on the matter all together when the possibility that there is divine truth in other sources as well is considered. Should a religion openly confess that it is merely a seeker of truth rather than the keeper of it I think this would be a start in the right direction. If that religion would be a means of providing an environment for the association of persons seeking God and a forum for the expression of those within, I think this would be more constructive. If that religion would recognize that each individual is created in Gods image and is capable of grasping his tiny part of the big picture rather that subscribe to the concept that God only favors the leadership then it would be moving closer to what religion is really supposed to do. Whenever a religion comes to realize that the leadership, in claiming to be Gods spokesman, is in effect, placing itself between God and man, thereby removing the Christ from the picture, then it recognizes that we are all in the same situation here, we are all humans seeking God. A religion like that, to me, would not be false inasmuch as it would be true to its claim. Rather than impose doctrines on its membership it should provide the means to learn from one another and allow each and every person his God given right AND responsibility to make the final choice, without fear of peer pressure and punishment from his Christian associates, as to what is right in Gods eyes on ANY matter. It seems to me that God is perfectly capable to write down very plainly when the end will come if he wanted that information revealed. The Society, starting with Russell, (along with other religions as well) has repeatedly attempted to second guess God on this matter. Their predictions have, of course, all been wrong. There have been other teachings from things as silly as trying to pinpoint the exact location of Jehovahs throne and saying that Jesus was clean shaven to the long standing doctrine of the generation of 1914 that was pushed with such zeal and conviction until it was suddenly killed in the Watchtower of 11/1/95, to the absurd statements first in the book: "The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah How?" on page 216, pp 8: "Shortly, within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom." And the other statement in Watchtower 1/1/89 issue that reads: "The apostle Paul was spearheading the Christian missionary activity. He was also laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our twentieth century." Interestingly enough the wording in that Watchtower was changed when they made the bound volume and the CD so you will have to find the actual magazine to be able to read it. Now I leave it to those reading this post, here and now in the twenty-first century, if those statements were false or not! If and when a religion steps up and claims to be the voice of God, to be Gods spokesman to mankind then it can rightly be judged by its claim. If and when a religion claims to have THE TRUTH then it must demonstrate that quality or else it is false by virtue of not being what it claims to be. It cannot be continuously making errors and attempting to correct them under the guise that God is progressively revealing things to them while, at the same time, condemning other religions for not having what it considers, at that very moment, to be the truth. A brief example: That business of Jesus not having a beard that was mentioned previouslywho had the truth when "Christendom" depicted Jesus with a beard and we pictured him clean-shaven? Disturbing question is it not? And just because they were right on this particular point, does that make the right on all the others? I think not. So it would appear that no one is ever right all the time when it comes to doctrine. My question is: Why bother with doctrines at all?! (smile) | 
