1) REGARDING THE INABILITY OF JEHOVAHS WITNESS THEOLOGY TO ANSWER SPECIFIC, BASIC, QUESTIONS.
Clear said: “Walter, I think it is reasonable not to have all of the answers to certain theological questions.
However, IF the Jehovahs Witnesses do not have answers and theology/beliefs for such basic questions, then what is the motivation to offer scriptures that are unrelated to or do not answer the question you are actually being asked?
Walter responded: “Thank you but the only resource I have is Bible context.”
I am not sure what the claim to use “Bible context” means to you other than, in the same manner as other Christians tend to do, you clothe your interpretations in biblical text, but not the historical, biblical, context of early Judeo-Christian worldviews under which ancient Judeo-Christian texts were written.
I agree that your belief system only seem to have only the resource of a modern, English, western, bible which is interpreted through the 1700-1900s lens of a newly created Jehovahs Witness religious movement.
However, this context and interpretive lens is NOT the same “biblical” context as possessed by the Ancient Judeo-Christianity which was able to use the more ancient AND, more original lens of early Judeo-Christian beliefs with their ancient, but more original Koine Greek and eastern bible with their ancient, but more original doctrines and belief system.
The relatively modern creation of Jehovahs witness theology seems (to me) to be much more anemic and less logical and less intuitive than the Christian religion that characterized the earliest Judeo-Christian religion as described in their ancient literature.
2) ARE CERTAIN BASIC ANCIENT CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES REALLY THAT IMPORTANT?
Clear posted: “I don't understand the logic of being asked a specific question and offering information that has nothing to do with the question.
Why not simply admit there are scriptural questions the Jehovahs Witnesses do not have an interpretation for, or an answer to?”
Walter responded: “Is the details that the Bible does not specifically explain really that important?”
Understanding that certain basic principles have importance is, itself, important.
Most individuals will, at some point, tend to ask themselves very basic, but theologically important questions that form their values that underlie their actions, and their character and motives and goals as they negotiate mortality.
For example, Christian religionists, and others tend to ask themselves at some point some of the following questions:
1) What is the nature of mankind?
Is there a God?
If so, what is his nature?
What was God doing and thinking before creating mankind that motivated him to create mankind?
If God created mankind, why create moral imperfection in mankind that results in so much sin and oppression and suffering?
What is the reason to create sin and suffering and then provide a Christ – why not simply forgive mankind if they learn not to do evil?
2) What is the purpose of mankind during mortality?
If there is a purpose for mankind, what is that purpose?
Are we here to simply believe in and accept the sacrifice of a Messiah and are thus guaranteed some sort of heaven for doing so or are there other purposes and things to accomplish during mortality?
If there are other purposes, what are they and how are they to be accomplished?
3) Is there a life after mortality?
If there is, what is its nature?
Are there rewards and punishments after this life?
How does God decide what sort of eternal life (i.e. reward vs punishment) a person should be assigned to?
IF God created mans Character with evil tendencies, how is it just to punish mankind for tendencies God himself placed into mankind?
Such basic questions are important since such basic doctrines form the basic underlying framework upon which other and more detailed doctrines are attached and strengthened and made rational.
I agree that certain basic doctrines are not important (e.g. Which way do the “pearly gates” swing – inward or outward?), but many basic doctrines have great importance.
I am not trying to fault Jehovahs Witness theology for not having answers to important, basic, questions (especially since it is a relatively young religion without having had a millennia to evolve and “work out its kinks".
However, I do not see any advantage to espousing a new religion over the ancient Judeo-Christian religion that did have answers to these basic questions.
Ancient Judeo-Christianity offers answers that seem (to me) to be much more rational, more intuitive, and which contains answers to basic question which more firmly support the broader and more detailed theology it possessed.
I honestly think you are quite courageous for starting a thread that you knew was going to face basic questions.
Walter, I wish you well in searching for and forming a theological basis that will provide correct answer to such important, but basic questions.
Good spiritual journey to you Walter.