Is all religion wrong?

by Crystal 15 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Crystal
    Crystal

    Titus;
    [10] A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
    [11] Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

    subverted, subverting, subverts
    To destroy completely; ruin:
    To undermine the character, morals, or allegiance of; corrupt.
    To overthrow completely:

    "Hereticks are the ones who start denominations over doctrines!"

    Christians today, especially Protestants, act as if "Denominations" must be one of the Books of the Bible. They act as if a hair trigger for spotting "false doctrines", which require separation of entire groups of believers from one another, is one of the Fruits of the Spirit. But perpetuating denominations is what a "heretick" does, according to the Greek definition of the word. This age, by contrast, defines "heretic" as someone with really, really unacceptable doctrines, whom we must speedily excommunicate.

    At least the present age changed the spelling, too, along with the definition. To reduce confusion, we will use the modern spelling, "heretic", when thinking of the modern definition, (someone with excessively imperfect doctrines), and the KJV spelling, "heretick", to refer to God's definition (someone who divides Christians).

    The "hereticks" we are supposed to "separate" from are the "hereticks" who separate from "heretics" because of their "heresies".

    "ONE WHO PERPETUATES DENOMINATIONS" IS GOD'S DEFINITION OF "HERETICK"

    Nowhere in the Bible will you find words like "Methodist", "Episcopalian", "Catholic",Jehovahs Witnesses or even the word "Denomination". There is another Bible word which is defined the same as "denomination": "divisions". But the Bible doesn't praise people who start them. In fact, the Bible says that anyone who causes them should be "avoided"!

    Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid [Gr: "shun"] them.

    Isn't a church split a pretty serious division? And isn't a denomination the grandaddy of all divisions? Doesn't this verse tell us to shun those who cause such divisions?

    And yet, this verse is popularly quoted to justify causing new denominations! To justify splitting churches and keeping them split! The founders of entire denominations are hardly shunned! They are modern day heroes!

    [Not that many founders of denominations shouldn't be regarded as heroes of the faith. Many of them had no more intent to start a denomination than Paul did, 1 Corinthians 1-4 (See chapter 8). But they are venerated, today, for "founding" the very divisions which grew despite their best efforts. (See Appendix, "Example: Luther Was Not Divisive")]

    Preachers today even claim support for their praise of founders of denominations in this very verse which condemns denominations!

    How is this possible?

    By making a case that a "false doctrine" is an "offense", which causes "divisions". Thus "false doctrines" is substituted for "divisions and offenses", giving us the translation, in effect, "mark them which PREACH FALSE DOCTRINES contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." Thus we conclude that Paul meant to split a church, rather than remain in communication and fellowship with those who teach the Fundamentals of Faith imperfectly. We must not worship with people who teach "false doctrines".

    Such interpretation is actually fairly sound logic, until we notice that divisions of Christians within a city are absolutely contrary to the doctrine which the Romans had learned! And until we notice that Romans 14 lists some of the greatest doctrinal disputes that divide Christians to this day, and yet Paul said the only thing to worry about was that we not use doctrinal differences to put "offenses" in the way of our brothers! (Romans 14 is analyzed verse by verse in Chapter 13.)

    With this context, we must read Romans 16:17 as:

    Mark them which cause divisions [church splits] and offenses [obstacles on the path to Heaven] contrary to the doctrine [Romans 14 portrays judging others, for honest theological disagreements, as a burden to those "weak in the faith"] which ye have learned; and avoid them.

    Edited by - Crystal on 26 September 2002 10:34:46

  • Sentinel
    Sentinel

    I looked up the word "religion" in the dictionary, and it says basically that it is the belief in a creator of the universe.

    How unfortunate that the reality of the word, has come to mean so much other crap.

    Take the good, discard the rest.

    Love and Light,

    Sentinel

  • Crystal
    Crystal

    religion

  • A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
  • denomination A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.
  • logical
    logical

    Another angle...

    basically look at all the religions, no matter what they are, and look at their fruits. Wars, harboring peadophiles, cheating, all sorts of stuff going on, cowering behind their "god" claiming they are doing all their evils in his name and for his purpose.. Are these the good fruits a good tree only can bear? OR are they the bad fruits only a bad tree can bear?

    A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

    Although this is a valid definition for religion, I dont associate myself with the word as it has become universally associated with all you see in mainstream and cult religions.

    I choose to TRY to follow Christ's example, and all I can do as an imperfect human is try, to love God and love others. Thats all there is to it. No other complicated stuff, its really simple, and you do NOT need to be involved with ANY religion to do it, cos all religion does is place themselves between us and God when the only true intermediary is Christ.

    So the answer to your question, is yes. All religions are wrong. The only way to JAH is through Christ, and man is NOT Christ and cannot occupy the same place as him, no matter how much they try to lie and trick you into beliving.

  • Carmel
    Carmel

    So Miss Logical,

    You have personal experiance with "ALL" religions? Betcha you don't!

    carmel

  • gsx1138
    gsx1138

    another definition: Religion: an opiat for the masses.

  • musky
    musky

    Logical, There is wisdom in what you say.

  • funkyderek
    funkyderek
    Is all religion wrong?

    Yes!

  • Ormond
    Ormond

    Is all religion wrong?

    yes think so BUT 100%? impossible!

    I'm concept (opinion):

    JW High Priest = 95% up
    JW Elder = 90% up
    JW members = 80% up
    14 Lessons = 70% up
    11 Lessons = 60% up
    no Lessons = 30% up
    Catholic = 25%-50% up
    Mormon = 30%-90% up
    Baptist = 40%-80% up
    Unitarian = 20%-70% up
    144,000 Government JW = 99.9% up
    Jehovah's Ormond Church = 50% up

    Amen!

    Edited by - ormond on 27 September 2002 12:12:5

    Edited by - ormond on 27 September 2002 12:21:58

  • Valis
    Valis

    The earliest forms of religion were meant to explain the unexplainable like the movement of the planet around the sun, the location of constallations in the sky, earthquakes, eclipses, and any other natural occurence one can name. This slowly evolved into something not only political but a means of controlling the parishioner, which is a far cry from worshipping any sort of diety IMO. As well, there are only a couple of reasons people follow religion anyway...one, they are born into it and guilted into staying, they seek spiritual validation in their lives that they can't seem to find on their own, or they do so for the social aspect (which is not so bad). So I guess my answer would be yes...they all suck, just some more than others.

    Sincerely,

    District Overbeer

  • Share this

    Google+
    Pinterest
    Reddit