I noticed today that Jim Penton has responded to one critic. Here is what he said on the Channel C Forum:
CommentFrom Viewer made the following statement:
“I propose to Jim Penton that religion does precisely what the word implies. Religion is thought to be derived from Religare...ligaments which bind,
hence the binding of loads upon devotees. He said, "Were it not for
translators, biblical scholars, historians, archaeologists, and others
working within the context of religious organizations over the centuries,
how could we know anything about Christ and his message?" This statement
seems to lack the faith that God has the ability to oversee the availablity
of the knowledge about himself and his son, scripture even supposing that
stones might cry out."
Frankly, I find this a novel interpretation of the meaning of "religion." Yes, the word originally meant to bind together, but there is nothing in the word that says this means "the binding of loads upon devotees." Sometimes that may well be the case, sometimes not. Secondly, words are not bound by or to their etymological roots. To assume that they are is to fall into the genetic fallacy. Hence, the meaning of a word is determined by context, not by etymology. So religion may be very bad or very good depending on how the term is used and experienced. Yes, God could well have made knowledge of Himself and his Son known to us by direct revelation. He could have angels come to us personally (as J.F. Rutherford thought they were doing with him) or He could have had the stones cry out. But how often have any here had angels appear directly or in dreams to give them the latest “present truth”? And who, recently, has had a conversation with a stone? Most of us think that the Bible, mediated through imperfect humans, was and is God’s revelation to us. And because the various books of the Bible were written at different times, in societies with very different traditions and values from our own, and in languages which few understand today, I think it reasonable to assume that Christian men and women—often quite imperfect and sometimes very sinful—carried the Christian tradition on throughout the ages so that we may have the text of the Bible in recensions and translations which, although not completely accurate, reflect the basic will of God for humankind. So I feel strongly that those who isolate themselves and become Lone Ranger Christians are fooling themselves. Someone here noted that the Lone Ranger had Tonto as his only companion. Well yes, but look up the word tonto in a Spanish-English dictionary and you will see it means “stupid, , ignorant, silly, foolish, fatuous” as an adjective and “fool, dolt, dunce, nincompoop, noodle, numskull” as a noun. So without wishing to be unkind, I hope that none of our Lone Rangers here on Channel C have no one or nothing but Tonto or tontería (foolishness) as their companion. Christ talks directly of his church, and when there are disputes that can’t be settled privately, he tells us to take them to the church—surely a body of more than two or three. Paul talks about our gathering together to celebrate holy communion, the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper. He also tells about the appointment of elders and deacons. And Hebrews tells us not to forsake the gathering of ourselves together as some have the custom. So I don’t think the stones are going to speak to us or an angel come to us individually if we ignore Christ’s and the apostles’ commands.
http://www.channelc.org/ChCForum/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=1&msgid=5670
