What if Satan repents?
Will he still be shunned?
african GB member
WHY can't Jehovah "REINSTATE" Satan?
by african GB Member 36 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
Quirky1
Because he lost his membership card...and the key to the pool..
-
reniaa
Hi vinny if I read your post correctly you are trying to say Jws are especially wrong in some way but lets examine the evidence. I also have had time to think since last year vinny. let us discuss some from scripture if possible.
Is blood policy horrendous? what change my mind on that was the realisation that the only thing I had against it was that it was life or death issue, I realised if it didn't involve life of death issue I would easily agree that lifeblood belonging to God from the many many scriptures saying it is, also includes human blood as well.
Christianity plays down the blood issue despite the fact the appostles keep it as a serious sin and in fact it is kept as something sacred not to touch as the Jews viewed it, this one wasn't overruled as the rest of the Jewish law was.
- 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 strangledanimals and from blood.- Acts 15:29
You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangledanimals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.- Acts 21:25
As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."We cannot pretend these scriptures don't exist as christendom does they have to be addressed as followers of God and his bible. You may think Jws are incorrect to apply them to transfusions but is that just because you think life and death is involved or that you actually thinking blood they talk about is only animals or only applies to eating it? a early christian would die rather than eat blood sausage, thats how serious they were.
Did you know homosexuals cannot give blood because they are considered a high-risk group? Did you know people who have had transfusions cannot give blood because they are considered a high risk group? Did you know in england we are no longer are allowed to give our blood to other countries because of human variant of Bovine-cjd cannot be detected in blood supplies and a number of people have already died of it from transfusions they recieved in this country? the health issues on blood are unique because of the ability for deseases to be transfered through blood undetected.
You may not agree with the blood issue but it is not a simple one to be just dismissed. Yes it is life and death but that does not wipe out the bible verses on it. Would a jew die rather than eat blood? Chrisitians should feel the same we maybe able to eat all the animals that jews cannot but the blood issue didn't change.
Now look at expelling-disfellowshipping while the greek scriptures do not go into detail the fact is they did expel members of their congregation is the bible lying when it talks about expelling?
1 Corinthians 5:12-13 (New International Version)
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
- Acts 15:20
-
reniaa
hi vinny you say I cannot become a witness unless I can accept all there teachings which is correct but I am allowed to have doubts. The sort of sureness some of the people on here want only comes with perfection.
I once realised that if I imagined myself a jew in Jesus's day and hear Jesus saying I must eat his flesh and blood and heard others saying he did the things he did by demons and knew nothing else especially at a time full of false messiahs those would have been arguments that could have stumbled me. The appostles stayed with Jesus after others withdrew from him not becasue they understood what he meant but because they had faith in him as Gods son. Doubts are allowed they are natural but like I said yes in one sense all religions in christianity play on the same playing field of imperfection and this can affect every aspect of their religion hense why we need the bible in the first place!
The bible is the standard to measure the message people say are from it by and the scriptures actually recommend we do!
The Jehovah's witnesses are the only group to follow Jehovah by name and a majority of teachings I happily accept as biblical.
Christendom follow a number of teachings that I consider unbiblical and actually cause their followers to do serious sins as in the case of the idolatry of the cross.
Religion isn't about finding a religion to suit our own personal viewpoint but one that follows God's word the bible!
If someone tells me I should be praising Jesus as Almighty God and giving my worship to Jesus instead of Jehovah I would say 'Rubbish' to them 'that just isn't biblical and I can show it in any bible'. I can also show it isn't an either or situation with JEsus and Jehovah as some people try and make it, that you can have God and his son without contradiction if you follow what the bible actually teach on them.
1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, throughwhom all things came and throughwhom we live. -
Vinny
After a year of running, Reniaa finally Writes:
"Hi vinny if I read your post correctly you are trying to say Jws are especially wrong in some way but lets examine the evidence. I also have had time to think since last year vinny. let us discuss some from scripture if possible. Is blood policy horrendous? what change my mind on that was the realisation that the only thing I had against it was that it was life or death issue, I realised if it didn't involve life of death issue I would easily agree that lifeblood belonging to God from the many many scriptures saying it is, also includes human blood as well."
**** But it absolutely DOES INVOLVE LIFE AND DEATH at times. Surely you know this Reniaa.
My question to you (and still unanswered), has been, "DO YOU ALLOW YOUR DAUGHTER TO DIE IF BLOOD COULD SAVE HER"?
Yet you continue to avoid this question. Just answer up Reniaa. If yes, then you should simply say yes. If no, you will not allow her to die, then say that as well.
First of all Reniaa, the bible's prohibition against blood ALWAYS had to do with eating the blood of (((ANIMALS))). Every single time. No exceptions. LET'S TAKE A LOOK:
Deut 12:15... “However, you may slaughter and eat meat within any of your gates, whatever you desire, according to the blessing of the LORD your God which He has given you; the unclean and the clean may eat of it, as of the gazelle and the deer. 16 “Only you shall not eat the blood; you are to pour it out on the ground like water."
Lev. 17:13-14 “‘As for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst 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. For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: “YOU must not "eat" the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.” Lev.7:26 “‘And YOU must not eat any blood in any places where YOU dwell, whether that of (((FOWL or that of BEAST))). 27 Any soul who eats any blood, that soul must be cut off from his people.’” ****** So we can clearly see Leviticus 7:26 specifically says "fowl or beast" .... those are what? Animals is what they are. MOSES SAID THAT, NOT VINNY. If Reniaa has a hard time with what Moses said then go take it up with Moses then. One could not, under the law covenant eat or drink the blood of any ((( ANIMAL))) . It had to be "POURED OUT". A blood transfusions is nothing like this. No animals involved. No eating or drinking involved.
Rather, a living donor provides the needed volume of blood for another living human in need. And that is it.
Continue further by considering what the law has to say about animals that died of natural causes or perhaps were killed by a predator.
Leviticus 17:15-16 "As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening ; and he must be clean. 16 But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, he must then answer for his error." Yes, you can imagine a situation where an Israelite might find himself lost or stranded and without food. If he came across a dead animal he would realize that it had not been properly bled. The law allowed for him to eat this animal as provided above as long as he followed what is clearly a ritual of the law code. If God would be willing to permit an Israelite to (((EAT BLOOD))) under these circumstances would he be willing to permit someone to have a blood transfusion to preserve life in a medical emergency? It is only reasonable to conclude that he would. You see Reniaa LIFE IS VALUABLE. More valuable than the misapplication of a law by JW's. This is why every religion on earth and bible scholars throughout the earth say blood transfusions are acceptable today and the JW'S ARE WRONG ON BLOOD. Including the most conservative and orthodox of Jews, who will not eat meat with even traces of blood in it today, demanding Kosher. YET THEY DO TAKE BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS TODAY!!! These folks are so careful not to break the laws that are recorded in the bible they will go far out of their way to do so. Yet they see no problem with accepting a blood TRANSFUSION... FROM A LIVING HUMAN BEING. Here is just one bible scholar that was compelled to speak out against the sorry JW policy, which causes people to DIE WITHOUT REASON: From: http://www.culthelp.info/index.php?id=2079&option=com_content&task=viewVICTORIA (CP) - A biblical scholar says he woke up Friday morning convinced he must wade into the blood battle in British Columbia involving four babies, their Jehovah's Witness parents, their church and the government.
Religious scholars have evaded the Jehovah's Witness blood issue because they didn't believe it had academic merit, but it's a story that must be told, said Prof. Michael Duggan, who teaches biblical literature at St. Mary's University College in Calgary.
Duggan said he's been in Alberta hospitals telling doctors his academic perspective on what the Bible says about blood and what many Jehovah's Witnesses believe the biblical scriptures say about blood.
But the message needs to be made more public, he said.
"The point that I make to the physicians is none of these texts has to do with human blood," said Duggan. "Certainly, they never had to do with transfusions."
"What they have to do with is the handling of animals that are slaughtered and the cooking and the procedures in cooking the meat so as to be free of contamination and disease."
Four babies fighting for their survival in a Vancouver hospital are at the centre of a debate about religious freedom and the power of the government to protect its citizens.
The babies are the surviving sextuplets born almost three months' premature in Vancouver last month. Two of the six babies have died.
The parents are Jehovah's Witnesses who say they were horrified when the government seized custody of three of their children and gave two of them blood transfusions, a procedure their religion forbids.
The B.C. government said it was obligated by law to temporarily seize the babies and administer the blood transfusions for health reasons against the wishes of their parents.
Last week, the government took custody of three of the remaining children so doctors could perform transfusions. The government withdrew a seizure order Wednesday and the parents regained custody.
But the government can legally move in again.
The group that speaks for Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada issued a statement that said hospitals in Canada and the United States have treated extremely premature infants without blood transfusions by taking smaller samples of blood and accepting lower hemoglobin levels, among other things.
Premature babies have extremely low blood volumes, are prone to anemia and require frequent blood tests.
When asked why the religious denomination refuses blood transfusions, spokesman Mark Ruge pointed to the Jehovah's Witnesses website.
On it, the organization cites Bible passages to back up the belief. They include Leviticus 17:10-14, which reads in part:
"And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people."
The group also cites Acts 15:19-20, which states that God's followers must "abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."
Duggan said the blood passages in the Hebrew Bible - Old Testament - often cited by Jehovah's Witnesses as their reasons to refuse blood transfusions are safe cooking instructions that date back to the 5th Century.
"That needs to be said," Duggan said. "The way the Jehovah's Witnesses read the biblical text is simply wrong."
The texts in the Hebrew Bible are mainly taken from Genesis 9:4-6 and from the book of Leviticus 17, he said.
"They speak about the life being in the blood, but the blood they are talking about is the blood of animals," Duggan said.
The case of the British Columbia sextuplets and other similar blood tranfusion battles in Alberta have him wanting to take on the Jehovah's Witnesses academically.
"I'm just concerned that people don't get victimized any more by this," Duggan said. "I mean this is life and death for people."
"It means I've got to write this article," he said. "As absurd as it seems to me to say this, I really do. I got up this morning realizing I have to do this."
A former Jehovah's Witness said the blood ban isn't always as strict as it appears.
Kerry Louderback-Wood, whose Jehovah's Witness mother died of a heart attack after refusing a blood transfusion late in her life, said the blood policy has shifted over the years.
Organ transplants weren't allowed in the 1960s, but they are now, she said.
Louderback-Wood, from Fort Myers, Florida, said the lives of the Vancouver babies should not be put at risk for a religious doctrine that has changed over the years and could likely change again."
Why do you think this bible scholar decided to speak out Reniaa? Let's now see what Jesus Himself said that may add some light on this issue Reniaa. FROM JESUS HIMSELF: ( USING JW's NWT bible: Matthew 12:1-14): 1 At that season Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath. His disciples got hungry and started to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 At seeing this the Pharisees said to him: “Look! Your disciples are doing what it is not lawful to do on the sabbath.” 3 He said to them: “Have YOU not read what David did when he and the men with him got hungry? (KEY POINT) 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, (((((something that it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests only?))))) 5 Or, have YOU not read in the Law that on the sabbaths the priests in the temple treat the sabbath as not sacred and continue guiltless? 6 But I tell YOU that something greater than the temple is here. **(MAIN POINT HERE)** 7 However, if YOU had understood what this means, ((((I WANT MERCY AND NOT SACRIFICE)))),’ YOU would not have condemned the guiltless ones. 8 For Lord of the sabbath is what the Son of man is.” 9 After departing from that place he went into their synagogue; 10 and, look! a man with a withered hand! So they asked him, “Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath?” that they might get an accusation against him. ( TO DRIVE JESUS POINT HOME) 11 He said to them: “Who will be the man among YOU that has one sheep and, if this falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not get hold of it and lift it out? APPLICATION OF JESUS MESSAGE FOR ALL CHRISTIANS THEN AND NOW: 12 All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do a fine thing on the sabbath.” 13 Then he said to the man: “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and it was restored sound like the other hand. 14 But the Pharisees went out and took counsel against him that they might destroy him. ***** Now, Reniaa, please read this entire account. From beginning to end read it. And then tell the JWD in your own words that Jesus would say to the parents of a three year old child, that was in an auto accident, that was the fault of some drunk driver for example, who was about to DIE due to severe blood loss, but yet whose life COULD be saved by accepting a blood transfusion, from a LIVING human donor, that Jesus would tell that parent, "NO, THIS CHILD MUST NOW NOW DIE". OR TO THIS MOTHER OF TWO LITTLE INFANTS AND A YOUNG HUSBAND, "NO THIS MOTHER MUST NOW DIE". http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491791/Jehovahs-Witness-mother-dies-refusing-blood-transfusion-giving-birth-twins.html And (((DIE))) she did Reniaa. Sad to say. If you believe that Jesus would say just that, then you JW's are LOST AND CONFUSED AND IN DENIAL ONCE AGAIN. Just like you are in denial here on Oral Sex: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/174245/11/Sunday-Public-talk-that-talked-about-oral-sex If you believe that Jesus would do just that, tell those parents their child must now die, then you JW's shave MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT OF THOSE VERSES RENIAA!!!! First of all, Jesus says, in his OWN words, from the New World Translation, that "David entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was (((NOT LAWFUL))) for him to eat, nor for those with him, but "for the priests only". Why did Jesus even mention this account, Reniaa? David was told beforehand that this was Holy Bread. Yet he requested that bread, received it and ATE it anyway. Yet NOBODY WAS PUNISHED. AND JESUS HIMSELF USED THAT VERY ACCOUNT (((( FOR A REASON )))). What was Jesus point in using that account? Why don't you tell us Reniaa. Before healing the man's withered hand and before his, "if a sheep falls into a pit" illustration, Jesus makes the entire point very clear. He says: However, if YOU had understood what this means, (((I WANT MERCY AND NOT SACRIFICE))),’ YOU would not have condemned the guiltless ones. This is called End of Story. Done, finished over and OUT the sorry JW, "people must die instead of accept blood" , arguments go. JESUS DOES NOT WANT LIFE "SACRIFICED" UNNECESSARILY RENIAA !!!!!! So what part of what Jesus just taught does Reniaa or the WT Society NOT GET? EVEN AN ANIMAL'S LIFE WAS WORTH SAVING!!!! HOW MUCH MORESO A (((((( HUMAN ))))) LIFE TODAY? What JW neat dance trick will you try to use on this, Reniaa? You are stuck. Acts 15:28,29 had to do with ANIMALS BLOOD. DO NOT EAT THE BLOOD OF THE "SLAIN" --slain means dead-- (((ANIMAL))). The JW's misapplication of ACTS 15 has been refuted JW's. Not by me, but by God's only begotten Son Himself. What JESUS said and taught with those verses destroys people needlessly dying for a gross MISAPPLICATION of scripture! The JW's like Reniaa cannot get out of this hole they are in. J esus own words, taken IN CONTEXT, make it clear to anybody reading that "mercy" and "life" are far more important than sacrifice of life. Which is exactly what happened with that young mother of two and literally TENS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER JW'S AS WELL. This account from Jesus himself applies perfectly to a person in need of a modern day blood transfusion. Jesus values (((LIFE))) over the ((((sacrifice of a life))) due to a gross misapplication of scripture. This is why every other religious group on the earth today, including every single one that adheres to any portion of the bible, allows blood transfusions to be used. ALL Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Jews... EVERYBODY . It is a personal decision with all of the world's faiths, and not one that should be forced on its members, at risk of expulsion, as is with the JW's. Now Reniaa , the WT Organization has a terrible record in times past and currently with regards to medical, doctrinal and historical mistakes . One of the worst anywhere! When an organization decides to make decisions for all of its members, with very significant penalties imposed on those that do not follow such decisions, should not such an organization have a REPUTATION OF EXCELLENCE in general, or at least in regards to similar kinds of issues; in this case medical issues that can have a very significant impact on people's lives? What do you think Reniaa? Reniaa, w hat does the fact that the WT Society was outright WRONG on previous medical prohibitions (such as against Vaccinations as well as Organ Transplants, which literally cost lives to be lost unnecessarily), say about the Watchtower Society to you? Reniaa, does having the VERY SAME religious organization, as listed above, also making end of the world predictions NUMEROUS TIMES, in writing, all of which proved false , give even greater reason for concern with such an organization today that now forbids life saving blood even in emergency situations? Is the past reputation and trustworthiness of the JW organization itself relevant to you in regards to these MANY other current issues? Reniaa, what effect should all these past problems have on the overall credibility of this organization that is currently standing ALONE amongst all of the other world faiths by prohibiting blood transfusions of its members? Should these previous numerous mistakes and bad policies be examined in light of their current prohibitions? So Reniaa, can you see why many people say the JW's are wrong on blood today? And there is a TON more I could post for you. So Reniaa, does your little girl live or die if blood could save her? These things do happen you know. Accidents are a very real part of living today. Will you let her die or not? Do YOU die if blood can save you Reniaa? And then have somebody else to take care of and raise your daughter? Yes or no Reniaa. And Reniaa, do you push this blood deal on other families and bible studies in your territory before they become baptized? It is good for you to go down this road Reniaa... before it actually happens. More later. It's late out here. Aloha, Vinny -
isaacaustin
1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, throughwhom all things came and throughwhom we live.Has been asked and answered- solidly refuted on two othe rthreads in direct reply to you. You really like to hear yourself talk don't you Reniaa.
-
isaacaustin
1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (New International Version)
5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Ok Reniaa...using your reasoning- assuming that this verse is using god as a distinguishing title from lord...if there is only 1 god then there is only one lord.
matt 11:25
At that time Jesus said in reply, 14 "I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike.
Hmm, the father is Lord
You have already been knocked down on this one one pretty badly and it has been shown clearly that lord and god are used interchangeably here...not as contrasting titles. The worlds has many so called lords and gods...we have one who is Lord and God...3 persons who operate as one flesh.
you really do like to repeat yourself Reniaa and have that JW short memory where soemthing is proven false and you claim it again as though proven fact.