What hope is there then?

by sayitsnotso 290 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  sacolton

  sayitsnotso, I'm not familiar with no-blood being part of the Ten Commandments. If it was such an important issue that could lose ones salvation - you'd think it would be included? Nope. Did Jesus mention it? Nope. Have you read the full scripture that relates to this no-blood doctrine from Acts 15:29 and not just the part that says "keep abstaining from blood"?

  Just in case you don't want to look it up ...

  The Council's Letter to Gentile Believers

  22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. 23 With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

  You notice that it's talking about IDOL SACRIFICES? That whole paragraph is related to things used and for idol worship. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with life saving blood transfusions. As I said, it's not in the Ten Commandments and Jesus did not speak of it ... two things that, if so important, would have been mentioned at least by one of these sources.
• 

  undercover

  If the Blood transfultion teaching is inaccurate, and people made choices like those young people based on the information they currently had at had, what was wrong with that? My reference to Romans 8 is because there was nothing wrong with eating the food that was from an animial sacrificed to idols, unless it bothered the concience of the person eating. Those young ones made a choice based on their faith. That was noble.

  What if one's conscience allowed them to take blood?

  Matthew 12:1-50

  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? 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. 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. 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? 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.

  The principle of Christ is plain.... Life is more important than the law. Who would break the law to save a life? Even of livestock? blood represents life but life is life. Which is more important to preserve...that which represents life or the life itself?

  The WTS doctrine of not accepting blood is putting that which represents life above life itself which is not the principle that Christ showed.

  It wouldn't be a problem if the WTS allowed each Christian to decide for themself but they don't. They impose this restriction on its members.. to the point of punishing and shunning those who do break that command.

  Which would you follow...the principle of Christ or the principle of the WTS?

  </form>
• 

  White Dove

  Before you can attempt to prove that there is an organization on earth that belongs to God, you must prove there has ever been an organization in the Bible that belonged to God, since the WTS claims that it is the closest to the ancient congregation described in the Bible.

  There was NEVER and org. of God's in the Bible, so why did the WTS run ahead of God and create one thousands of years after the Bible had been written?

  Don't add to or take away from the Holy Scriptures or you become EVIL!

  Are you EVIL, Sayitisntso?

  You, Sir, seriously need to kiss the monkey.
• 

  PSacramento

  I think saying the WTS glorifies death is inaccurate at best.

  What do you call putting the faces of dead children on their AWAKE Magazine?

  What is wrong with someone choosing to die than damage their relationship with God?

  And there is the first and most serious error, one that the WT and JW's will have much to answer for !

  What Gives YOU ro THEM the right to say that LIVING and SAVING a life will DAMAGE a realtionship with GOD ??

  Are you God? is the WT GOD?

  God wants love, NOT SACRIFICE !
• 

  sayitsnotso

  UnderCover:

  I've researched the end time proficies. Even the notion that the late 19th century bible students believed 1914 was to be the end of the last days, not the beginning. This is something that is, as far as I know, not explicitly acknolweded in the WTS literature.

  The way I see it is like this:

  How long are the last days? Who knows!

  JWs due to anticipation try to determine when the end days have started and look at any scripture related to this concept. Does trying to figure out what the bible means when it talks about the last days and providing their best guess make them liars? Labeling someone a liar implies they are being malicous. I don't see malicousness on the part of JWs and their GB.
• 

  PSacramento

  Those young ones made a choice based on their faith. That was noble.

  No, they were TOLD a lie and they based their faith on a LIE and while they, being young and impressionale and innocent, will not have anything to be forgiven about for commiting "suicide", their parents and the WT will indeed have MUCH to answer for, this I know for a fact.
• 

  sacolton

  7) “You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you saying,

  8) ‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.

  9) BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS THEIR DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’”

  10) And he called to Himself the multitude, and said to them, “Hear, and understand.

  11) “Not what enters into the mouth defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”

  Blood transfusions weren't known back then, but Jesus said "not what enters into the mouth defiles the man". So, even if someone were to drink blood back then - they wouldn't lose their salvation. No where in the bible does it even HINT that taking blood makes one lose their salvation. A Jew would only be unclean for ONE EVENING if he misused blood, but the WATCHTOWER says a person is eternally condemned and will lose their salvation if they accept a blood transfusion.
• 

  undercover

  Does trying to figure out what the bible means when it talks about the last days and providing their best guess make them liars?

  Best guess?? You're fucking kidding me, right?

  They....the Watchtower Society...didn't give 'best guess estimates'... they said, in God's name when to expect it.. and it didn't come in the time frame they said to expect it. So yes, that makes them liars.

  Can you admit that the WTS was wrong about their predictions about the end of the world?
• 

  sacolton

  What does the Bible say about those who "best guess" prophecy? Let's look:

  Deuteronomy 18:20-22 (New International Version)

  20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

  21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

  --- and ---

  Luke 21:8

  He replied: "Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and, 'The time is near.' Do not follow them.
• 

  mindmelda

  It's believing that there JUST has to be MORE than just living an fulfilling ordinary human life span that the WTS sticks in your head to get you to buy their snake oil.

  What does there NEED to be to be for a human to be happy? Selling utopia is nothing new, not really. All you have to do is first convince someone that they need or deserve more than what is ordinary or that it's the big answer to all of mankinds admittedly numerous problems of various sorts.

  But, how do you know that living forever is what makes humans happy? No one has ever done it, so how do you know that works? What's being played on there is the normal fear of pain, disease and death.

  If we weren't afraid of it, we'd not do too much to help or keep ourselves alive. It's just normal to have a sense of self-preservation, but using that to convince people they'd be happier if they never died is pretty theoretical. There's absolutely no way to prove that, who would you use as a test case to prove the point,there's no human anyone alive now has ever met who hasn't experienced aging and death.

  Imagine a world where no one ages or dies. The first thing you'd get rid of is procreation or we'd be up to our chins in humans! The only reason sex is so intrinsic to our nature now is we have to replenish the species or it'd die out. So, no sex necessary. Sounding great so far? Well hell no, because we have a lot invested in reproduction, nurturing children and families and all that, quite a bit of our nature is involved in making social connections that further all that!

  But, no need for any of that in the deathless future world, unless you want to volunteer to jump into the oven ala Logan's Run at age 30 to make room for new humans or take your chances with some sort of afterlife.

  I'm afraid that some sort of afterlife is the only metaphysics you can sell folks that doesn't involve a total reworking of human nature like some bizarro Star Trek future world full of deathless sexless unchallenged people who run around feeding Val...I mean worshipping Jehovah.