Kinda colorful, though we hate to admit it

Join a laid-back, close-knit community of mixed interests Get a free account!

Jehovah Witnesses thread

  1. #191362012-03-22 04:21:40 *crazymexican said:

    @Lumiex yes bone marrow transplants are perfectly ok blood transfusions are the ones we cant accept

    acts 15:29 "to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!”

    as u can see accepting blood is put up there with fornication note "the good health for you" part. many studys have shown that blood causes many complications and that there are many risks when accepting blood transfusions. so good heath comes with abstaining from blood

    @eterno Michal Jackson was at one point a jw. but he disassociated(renounced his faith) himself. and even if he had stayed he would have been disfellowshiped for his actions regarding the child molistation

  2. #191602012-03-22 05:37:12eterno said:

    disfellowshiped for his actions regarding the child molistation

    Wait, you can get kicked out of the religion?

  3. #191622012-03-22 05:49:33Wolfangle said:

    @eterno its like you did some stuff really bad, like warning you at stuff first and offering help..when you've finally gone overboard, you get disfellowshipped..after time has passed and you've recovered or got better with that issue..then yea, you can come back in, a.k.a reinstated

  4. #191722012-03-22 06:44:43 *Sogran said:

    @crazymexican

    I'd like to start this out that I consider myself a christian fundamentalist who does not follow any particular doctrine other then that outlined in the bible and I do not align myself with any particular faction within the church (that is Alliance, Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Roman Catholic, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh Day Adventist, Mormon (which is more of a cult really; since it follows an additional doctrine (and a false one, none the less; I won't rule out the possibility that other prophets have existed since Jesus' time) or otherwise). Also, that turned out to be a far longer opener then I had anticipated.

    Now then, I'm here to challenge two of the points outlined in this thread, that is the rejection of blood transfusion as well as the non-existence of hell.

    (1) Blood Transfusion

    Your quote from the bible appears to be quite accurate; different translations will obviously have slight changes, but the overall message stays the same. My bible has it as Acts 15:20 "Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." in reference to the gentiles. But that's beside the point. Let's look at it; why is he referring to abstaining from blood? There is no particular context surrounding the statement, however, abstinence from blood is previously mentioned in the Bible, specifically in Genesis 9:4 "But you must not eat meat that has it's lifeblood still in it".

    www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+9:4,Leviticus+7:26,Leviticus+17:10,Leviticus+19:26,Deuteronomy+12:16,Deuteronomy+12:23&version=NASB

    That is a link to a website of bible references and quotes that also regard blood, including the one I just referenced. There are also several different bible versions available for your viewing pleasure. I think it is quite clear that this is not meant to be regarded as something against blood transfusion (which did not exist at the time) but rather against eating bloody meat, which could cause sickness due to the fact that if meat is bloody, it's probably raw or undercooked (although the symbolic position of it may very well be important as well, this is Gods law and as such I am in no position to hypothesise the reasoning behind it). I personally feel that to give blood to someone is to save their life, which may very well allow for their conversion to Christ in the future, which is quite important as I shall outline in my next point. By this I would rather donate blood and have someone receive it and potentially live to receive Christ later then to have them die not knowing Him based on scripture being taken out of context (I have serious doubts that those pieces of scripture were meant to dissuade those of us thousands of years in the future from donating blood).

    (2) The Existence of Hell

    There are many, many references to Hell in the bible, all of which refer to it as a physical place. To claim that current existence on Earth is Hell is rather ridiculous in my mind and allow me to explain why. First of all, God created Earth. Mankind has since fallen and there is the matter of The Curse, but nowhere in the bible does it claim that the result of The Curse or the falling has resulted in Earth ceasing to be Earth and instead becoming Hell. Second, the references in Hell refer to it as being someplace else. For example:

    Matthew 5:22 "But I tell you anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement. Again, anyone who says to his brother Raca (an Aramaic term for contempt) is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says "You fool!" will be in danger of the fires of hell."

    Matthew 5:29 "If you right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body then to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell."

    These passages can be taken both literally and figuratively; however either way they promote one to separate themselves from things that cause them to sin. But this is besides the point I'm trying to make, both of them refer to hell as being a different place. Then of course, we have the book of Revelation:

    Revelation 14:9-11 "A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name."

    This clearly shows that there is eternal punishment.

    Revelation 21:14-15 "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

    This does not reference the current Hell, but is still important.

    Additionally there is Luke 16:22-23 "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he as in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side."

    Although this is one of Jesus' parables, there are no grounds to say that He is not describing a possible, if not factual, situation. I am quite sure there are many other references to Hell that I have not placed here, but let's go with these for now. Basically, what we can understand from the passages is that:

    A) Hell is a real physical place. B) People currently in Hell await the final judgement in torment and separation from God. C) Those who (at the end of the age) take the mark of the beast will be thrown not into temporary torment but eternal torment for their transgression. D) All those who do not take the mark but are currently/will be in hell will enter the second death, which to me at least implies that they will cease to exist entirely.

    I'm not claiming that God wants us to suffer permanently. He doesn't. God is perfectly merciful, perfectly loving and perfectly good. But He is also perfectly righteous and perfectly just. Everyone who has sinned (that is, everyone who has fallen short of the glory of God, which I will stress is EVERYONE) is deserving of death and Hell. But Father loved us so much that he sent us Jesus to pay for our sins in his flesh, that is, he sent a part of himself to suffer and die on the cross for us as a form of atonement, only to raise Jesus (Or Jesus perhaps raised himself? The bible says that death couldn't hold him--It's something of a grey area for me, at least) 3 days later. How could He do that and not love us? But those who don't accept Christ's free gift of life must have the punishment Christ paid for them merited out.

    If I had to explain it more simply, it's like having a loan at the bank. You may be friends with the bank manager there who can and will cancel your Debt if you ask Him to, but that doesn't mean you can just ignore the problem and assume He'll take care of it for you without talking to Him about it. Of course God doesn't want us to suffer, your quote of Timothy is quite correct (1 Timothy 2:3-4 "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth"). But just because God loves us doesn't mean he shouldn't judge us according to our sin. If we don't accept Christ's intervention on our behalf that pays the price for us, there is no salvation.

    Done. Finally. That's like an hour (and now an addition 15-30 mins of editing typos and spacing and the like) of work. I hope I have significantly proved my point.

  5. #192052012-03-22 10:56:57TokoyamiSenshi said:

    Religion is like quantum mechanics. There's a slight chance you're right, but no matter how many times you look at the wavefunction, you're not getting any smarter about it.

    I find it rather irrational, refusing treatment because of religion. Does God want you to die because of a rule that might be what he meant?

    Then again, entering this thread and ranting about how irrational religion is, there must be something wrong with me too.

  6. #192622012-03-22 16:09:44 *crazymexican said:

    @Sogran oks say with me its gonna take me a bit to answer reply to every thing i mentioned first off blood After Cain killed his brother Abel, Jehovah told Cain: “Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground.” (Genesis 4:10) When God spoke of Abel’s blood, he was speaking of Abel’s life. Cain had taken Abel’s life, and now Cain would have to be punished. It was as if Abel’s blood, or life, were crying out to Jehovah for justice. The connection between life and blood was again shown after the Flood of Noah’s day. Before the Flood, humans ate only fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts. After the Flood, Jehovah told Noah and his sons: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you.” However, God set this restriction: “Only flesh with its soul [or, life]—its blood—you must not eat.” (Genesis 1:29; 9:3, 4) Clearly, Jehovah links very closely the life and the blood of a creature. We show respect for blood by not eating it. In the Law that Jehovah gave the Israelites, he commanded: “As for any man . . . who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. . . . I said to the sons of Israel: ‘You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh.’” (Leviticus 17:13, 14) God’s command not to eat animal blood, first given to Noah some 800 years earlier, was still in force. Jehovah’s view was clear: His servants could eat animal meat but not the blood. They were to pour the blood on the ground—in effect, returning the creature’s life to God. A similar command rests upon Christians. The apostles and other men taking the lead among Jesus’ followers in the first century met together to decide what commands had to be obeyed by all in the Christian congregation. They came to this conclusion: “The holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [leaving the blood in the meat] and from fornication.” (Acts 15:28, 29; 21:25) So we must ‘keep abstaining from blood.’ In God’s eyes, our doing that is as important as our avoiding idolatry and sexual immorality. Does the command to abstain from blood include blood transfusions? Yes. To illustrate: Suppose a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcoholic beverages. Would that simply mean that you should not drink alcohol but that you could have it injected into your veins? Of course not! Likewise, abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all. So the command to abstain from blood means that we would not allow anyone to transfuse blood into our veins.

    as for hell(or Hades, seol) now this is where some ppl get confused depending on the bible they use because some of the following texts can vary in translation seol, hades, hell or grave have been used to translate the same word. tho thay all have the same meaning they are used in diffrent contect. but they all discribe the place where the dead go when they die. it is not a place of torment but more of a holding cell.(giant usb memory-stick) jesus mentions of how Laz′a·rus death. John 11:11-14) "He said these things, and after this he said to them: “Laz′a·rus our friend has gone to rest, but I am journeying there to awaken him from sleep.” 12 Therefore the disciples said to him: “Lord, if he has gone to rest, he will get well.” 13 Jesus had spoken, however, about his death. But they imagined he was speaking about taking rest in sleep. 14 At that time, therefore, Jesus said to them outspokenly: “Laz′a·rus has died" note that this was not a parable but an actual event.

    also note the condition of the dead in Ec 9:5 "For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten." now when compered with the parable that Jesus used, we see that he was not describing the dead rather he was sating how the man in hell had lost all chance of attaining any treasures in heaven.

    there is a chance of salvation from hell Jesus speaks of himself as having “the keys of death and of Hades” (Re 1:18), and he uses these in releasing those held by death. (Joh 5:28, 29; Re 20:13) Jehovah God’s release of Jesus from Hades serves as a “guarantee to all men” of God’s future day of judgment or reckoning and provides assurance that there will be a resurrection of those in Hades. (Ac 17:31; 1Co 15:20, 21) Those inheriting God’s Kingdom in immortality are described as triumphing over death in their resurrection, so that its “sting” is overcome.—1Co 15:50, 54-56; compare Ho 13:14; Re 20:6.

    now for the second death “The lake of fire” into which death, Hades, the symbolic “wild beast” and “the false prophet,” Satan, his demons, and the persistent practicers of wickedness on earth are cast is shown to mean “the second death.” (Re 20:10, 14, 15; 21:8; Mt 25:41) Initially death resulted from and was passed on to mankind as a result of Adam’s transgression; hence “the second death” must be distinct from this inherited death. It is evident from the cited texts that there is no release possible from “the second death.” The situation of those in “the second death” corresponds to the outcome warned of in such texts as Hebrews 6:4-8; 10:26, 27; and Matthew 12:32. On the other hand, those represented as gaining “the crown of life” and having part in “the first resurrection” are free from any possibility of harm by the second death. (Re 2:10, 11) These, who are to reign with Christ, receive immortality (deathlessness) and incorruption and hence are beyond the “authority” of the second death.—1Co 15:50-54; Re 20:6; compare Joh 8:51. in simple words the second death is total destruction meant for the devil, demons, death, and the exetrea.

    now if u take into account that death is also faces this second death(i think that makes sence) and death beeing a condition reather than a litteral being. and as such cannot feel pain nor toment. it makes sence that this second death is complete destruction.

    At Isaiah 25:8 the prophetic promise is made that God “will actually swallow up death forever, and the Sovereign Lord Jehovah will certainly wipe the tears from all faces.” The sting producing death is sin (1Co 15:56)

    now i will expain hell and the second death for the rest of us

    people are like files in your computer. when they die its like u eraze them and they go into the recycle bin icon (death) the program or file cannot be used nor can it opperate. its just sitting there. now u can restore the program or file.(example jesus resurrecting Laz′a·rus) now when u empty the recycleing bin(second death) all the files and programs are lost forever.

  7. #192652012-03-22 16:17:42 *TokoyamiSenshi said:

    So basically, you're saying that:

    a) Humans were herbivores before the flood, and science disagrees. b) It's disrespectful towards life to use one's blood to save someone else. c) Injecting alcohol in one's veins(kills you) is the same shit as injecting blood(saves you).

    I won't ask you to reconsider the nonsense this is, but if God is that much of an asshole, I don't mind burning in hell.

    edit: @eterno: figures.

  8. #192712012-03-22 16:49:45crazymexican said:

    @TokoyamiSenshi im not saying that they where herbivores. just god didn't approve of humans eating meat before the flood

    @Nandaba the definition of Christians is the belief in Christ as savior. Catholics, jws, and protestant religions are all christian

    and now i go to class.

  9. #192932012-03-22 19:51:28Trev said:

    Fascinating stuff. Remind me to call you guys when I eventually make a thread about atheism and Pascal's wager.

  10. #263092012-05-17 20:35:30squareof3 said:

    Im happy some one of my faith decided to make a thread like this. And i was not aware of how many Jehovah's Witnesses were on this site. The disrespectful towards life thing was an interesting argument but,and I'm gonna get grilled for this, there are many studies that have been done stating that it would be better for a person to take a bloodless surgery rather than a transfusion. I have to admit I do like the way you worded that. Any way peace off.