by purplesofa 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
This is a scan from the March 2010 Awake. I thought it ironic that Jehovah would not want people to handle snakes to worship
him because it might cause suffering, pain, and even death, but would want his followers to refuse blood that can cause the
same thing. Maybe the practice of refusing blood to save lives will be outlawed as snake handling.
It's seems to all be in the interpretation of scripture.
purps
I would rather handle a snake than tell a surgeon that I don't accept blood products.
It is interesting that they reject the translation of the scripture on which this is loosely based...does the NWT also leave this out?
I spent 20 years in the JWs and always thought the position was that immunity from snakebite was a "gift of the spirit" and died out with the laying on of hands by the original apostles.
New light?
Mark 16:17, 18 from NWT
Furthermore, these signs will accompany those believing: By the use of my name they will expel demons, they will speak in tongues, 18 and with their hands they will pick up serpents, and if they drink anything deadly it will not hurt them at all. They will lay their hands upon sick persons, and these will become well."
OK, so this Awake calls into question the translation of the NWT???
Wow, if I am getting this right...
But, typical WT; if a scripture is inconvenient for your belief system, just ignore it.
Here is the full article.
I guess it was not a fair comparison on my part
as I was comparing the two as a religious practice and a belief.
But when snake handling is as a form of idoltry,
abstaining from blood would not be considered the same thing.
Still, I found the last sentence ironic,
Surely, handling snakes and possibly suffering pain, sickness and even death as a result is not
what Jehovah and Jesus desire.
As long as it is worship to Jehovah it is ok any suffering, pain, sickness or death that occurs.
Even more interesting - it IS new light (IMHO) -
Never before in JW literature have I heard this referred to as "animal or serpant worship" by the Witnesses.
And what about the "copper serpant" of the Israelites - I thought that was presented biblically as a proper order through God to them?
And, again INHO, with those primative southern evangelicals, it IS NOT ANIMAL WORSHIP. It is a (misguided) expression of faith in the gift of immunity from snakebite from their "holy spirit".
Note, I am not saying we should play with rattlesnakes, but this whole article seems a little off kelter (and really dumbed down) to me. What would be wrong with the old argument that the immunity to snakes was "done away with"?
They easily point to something ridiculous/insane about another religion, clearly pointing out, though the other religion uses a scripture, but the interpretation is obviously unacceptable. Doing something that causes, "suffering pain, sickness and even death as a result is not what Jehovah and Jesus desire for their followers!" Yet, that is exactly what they do regarding the blood issue, choosing to die than to take a blood transfusion.
The GB are as deceptive and insane as the snakes handlers.
And, Purplesofa, I agree with your analogy to blood transfusion.
There is just about as much (more really) scriptural admonition to handle snakes as there is to refuse blood transfusions. There is NOT any NT reference specifically AGAINST worshipping snakes, as the article seems to suggest.
And this article rejects snake handling on the basis of reason and avoidance of sickness, suffering, and death.
So, what about blood transfusion indeed?
