Would acceptance of the gospel change the world?

by greendawn 37 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  seattleniceguy

  To consider whether the Bible or part of the Bible can accomplish good in this way, it is helpful to compare it to other books that actually have accomplished good.

  To Kill a Mockingbird is on many lists of the top 100 books of the 20th century (from the Boston Public Library: http://www.bpl.org/research/AdultBooklists/influential.htm). People report changing their lives for the good after reading this book. The book does not require belief. It requires serious consideration of thematic elements that apply in the real world. If a person is not willing to expend the effort to consider what the author has to say, nothing changes. It is difficult to conceive of someone becoming a worse person as a result of reading it.

  How about the Bible? Readers are promised other-worldly rewards, but only if they believe that the contents of the book came from God. They therefore have a selfish incentive to accept the contents, even when these describe killing and maiming by God and his followers. It is not difficult to imagine bad results coming from a book like this. It is not necessary to detail the way the book has been abused.

  Why is the Bible, and not To Kill a Mockingbird, abused like this? Because of the nature of the contents. If the authors/compilers wanted the Bible to make the world a better place, they did a very, very poor job. Indeed, one would have to consciously work to create a book that causes more discord.

  It is possible to write books that are clear, thought-provoking, and beneficial to their readers. The Bible is simply not one of these books.

  SNG
• 

  hmike

  Dustin,

  What do you think of this passage?

  Like 12:51-52...

  "Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three."

  The gospel, by its very nature, creates conflict. Some will choose one way, others will choose another. Jesus never called for his disciples to make war against those who disagree with him, but he acknowledged that many would make war against him and his followers.
• 

  Daunt

  The problem with this division is that it's more than just "divide yourself", it's a division of family, of cultures, and it's easy to exploit. That division creates opposition because you know how much people hate being called wrong, and the bible promotes this intolerance. Thus creating major conflict, which creates fights and whatever have you. They are nice words but on a grand scale, just not feasible. I'd rather come up with a plan that is feasible.
• 

  LittleToe

  LOL @ Derek. Nice one

  Pity help ya if ya apply that when the missus is PMSy, though
• 

  hmike

  Dustin & Daunt,

  The peace that Jesus came to offer is peace between God and people, not necessarily person-to-person, at least not in this age. The teaching that Jesus is the only way is going to create division; we see it right here in the forum. To sugar-coat it or water it down to make it more acceptable does a disservice to everyone involved.

  Throughout the NT, an essential part of "loving God" means to believe the testimony about Jesus as His Son, the Christ (and remember, Jesus was referring to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob--the God of the Jews).
• 

  Daunt

  And that division that you speak of hmike is the exact thing that makes this worldwide gospel theory irrelevent. It just won't work. There will always be reason because nature gives us a reason to reason eh. There will always be divide and that divide will not cause world peace.
• 

  hmike

  Daunt,

  That depends on whether or not the gospel is supposed to bring about world peace.

  Among those who hold that Scripture teaches a visible, literal return of Christ to set up a literal kingdom on earth, some hold that his return will be preceeded by a great, worldwide revival--the work of the Holy Spirit will grow the kingdom to where Christ just comes in and takes over. More prominent, however, is the understanding that the return of Christ will be preceeded by a great apostasy and tribulation so that Christ has to turn things around when he arrives. In this case, the gospel serves as a source of salvation for those who accept it, but as a source of condemnation for those who reject it. Here it serves to separate the wheat from the chaff.
• 

  googlemagoogle

  you all remember those "experiences" told at the conventions bout someone stating that "if everyone would be a JW, this world would be a better place". duh! if everyone would be a blond white nazi, there probably wouldn't be any problem on this world either, because there wouldn't be a source of conflict if everyone has the same ideology.
  
  first of all, you suggest that there is a "genuine interpretation" of the gospel. well, you know, just about every christian sect has the "genuine interpretation". next is the question, which gospel? according to mark? john? thomas? judas?
  
  history has shown us, that using biblical principles where secular laws should have been applied, is not a good idea. no, it's a bad idea. indeed it would change the world. it has. and breaking free of it has changed the world too. for better.
  
  now if everyone would become a lefty humanist atheist, the world would be a better place too. but what would be left to discuss?