This review is really too agressive, but I repost it here for reference purposes. Originally posted back in 2008.
If you
have a very special sense of humour, you might actually like this book. It is
written by a Protestant fundamentalist who disapproves of the Jehovah's
Witnesses. Apparently, they are the wrong kind of fundamentalists. For
instance, they don't believe that non-believers go straight to eternal
damnation in Hell. No, the Witnesses believe that these people simply die and
remain dead, and that those who are unhappy enough to live when Jesus returns,
will be fried and killed, but not tormented forever. To counter this blasphemy,
which - if you believe in it - might give *you* a one-way ticket to Hell, the
author has written this little booklet. Thank you. There is also a companion
volume titled "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's
Witnesses" for those who want more.
Essentially, thus, the book is written by one cultist to counter the ideas of other cultists. This is rather like listening to Stalinists arguing with well...other Stalinists. What more, the author isn't even very good at it. Sure, the Witnesses often interpret the Bible in absurd ways. But so do the Protestant fundamentalists. Is Dispensationalism Biblical, for instance? Occasionally, the booklet is downright disingenuous. However, I don't think the author is conscious of this. Dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalists seldom are. Rhodes writes that the individual believer has the right to interpret Scripture by himself. Therefore the Watchtower Society just aint Biblical. But Rhodes believes that everyone who, by himself, interprets the Bible in another way than Rhodes, risk embarking on the highway to Hell! It's difficult to see how this position is *really* different from that of the Watchtower Society.
The author also believes that Scripture is plain for all to see. If that's true, how come most people disagree with Rhodes? Perhaps he does need a little organization after all... The booklet also triumphantly point out that the Witnesses have changed their doctrines and positions on a number of questions, and that their prophecies have come to naught. But the New Testament also contain failed prophecies (of course, neither Rhodes nor his opponents would ever admit this), the later epistles attributed to Paul contradict the earlier ones, the Gospel of John is very different from the synoptic Gospels, etc. And, yes, the Trinity wasn't officially adopted until AD 381.
Books like this can serve at least one good function: they can make you realize that too much of what passes for Christianity is based on purely subjective speculations over old and sometimes badly translated scriptures.
Essentially, thus, the book is written by one cultist to counter the ideas of other cultists. This is rather like listening to Stalinists arguing with well...other Stalinists. What more, the author isn't even very good at it. Sure, the Witnesses often interpret the Bible in absurd ways. But so do the Protestant fundamentalists. Is Dispensationalism Biblical, for instance? Occasionally, the booklet is downright disingenuous. However, I don't think the author is conscious of this. Dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalists seldom are. Rhodes writes that the individual believer has the right to interpret Scripture by himself. Therefore the Watchtower Society just aint Biblical. But Rhodes believes that everyone who, by himself, interprets the Bible in another way than Rhodes, risk embarking on the highway to Hell! It's difficult to see how this position is *really* different from that of the Watchtower Society.
The author also believes that Scripture is plain for all to see. If that's true, how come most people disagree with Rhodes? Perhaps he does need a little organization after all... The booklet also triumphantly point out that the Witnesses have changed their doctrines and positions on a number of questions, and that their prophecies have come to naught. But the New Testament also contain failed prophecies (of course, neither Rhodes nor his opponents would ever admit this), the later epistles attributed to Paul contradict the earlier ones, the Gospel of John is very different from the synoptic Gospels, etc. And, yes, the Trinity wasn't officially adopted until AD 381.
Books like this can serve at least one good function: they can make you realize that too much of what passes for Christianity is based on purely subjective speculations over old and sometimes badly translated scriptures.
No comments:
Post a Comment