by UnConfused 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
It actually has been quoted, in a footnote. You CANNOT trust the WT Library CD anymore for finding occurrances of scriptures in publications. It used to be that you could click on the verse number and all the occurrances would appear. This is no longer the case. However, the search itself will yield results. I caught this scripture when it first appeared. Here's the reference:
w12 2/15 p. 30 (footnote): "Eating with unbelievers is not forbidden in the Scriptures.—1 Cor. 10:27."
unbelievers = non-jws (not ex-jws that have da'd or been df'd) per the WTS
The WTS is thinking more of non-jw family, neighbors, workmates, acquaintances (jws cannot have non-jw "friends")
I remember it being quoted:
Awake 1979 4/22 p27 "When Another's Concience is Involved
How can persons who desire to please God show that they consider the personal interests of others “superior” to their own? This can be done especially by considering how one’s conduct affects the consciences of others.
Note carefully the following Scriptural counsel with regard to a Christian’s being invited to dinner at the home of an unbeliever:
“If anyone of the unbelievers invites you and you wish to go, proceed to eat everything that is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience. But if anyone should say to you: ‘This is something offered in sacrifice [to idols],’ do not eat on account of the one that disclosed it and on account of conscience. ‘Conscience,’ I say, not your own, but that of the other person.”—1 Cor. 10:27-29.
The Bible presents similar counsel for the conduct of Christians with fellow believers: “Stop tearing down the work of God just for the sake of food. True, all things are clean, but it is injurious to the man who with an occasion for stumbling eats. It is well not to eat flesh or to drink wine or do anything over which your brother stumbles.” (Rom. 14:20, 21) Clearly, when another person’s conscience may be injured, it is proper to refrain even from something normally as unobjectionable as eating certain foods.
Awake 1972 8/22 p 7
Thus, while it would not be wrong under such circumstances to eat the food, the question of how one’s eating would affect others needs to be considered. A Christian would never want anyone to think that he was sharing in worship of an idol. Therefore he may wisely refrain from eating to avoid giving a wrong impression, and perhaps stumbling someone.—1 Cor. 10:25-29.
Couldn't you apply this to the ever-dreaded Birthday cake? Lol
You would notice also that the attitude that scripture encourages chrisitians to have is diametrically opposite to the attitude that JWs have. That scripture shows that christians don't need to go through the trouble of finding out the origins of some seemingly harmless custom or practice to determine whether or not they should participate. By contrast, JWs are taught to have the attitude of first finding out if some seemingly harmless practice or custom has some pagan roots or not before they participate.
JWs worship a God who stigmatizes harmless activities if there is any remote pagan connection to them in their distant past. But the scripture you quote shows that God does not stigmatize food or practices based on their past or origin. If he did, then under no circumstances would it be right for a christian to eat meat that was once in a pagan ceremony. But Paul's words show that a christian can eat such meat if his conscience and the consciences of others permitted it due to ignorance. Just as there is nothing wrong with eating meat sacrificed to idols in a non-religious, non-pagan context, in the same way there should be nothing wrong with celebrating a birthday if it's not done with any religious or pagan intentions - once the consciences of others won't be adversely affected.
Yes, because nothing that goes into the man defiles a man. Dietary laws are null and void for the Christian. It's what comes out of the heart that defiles. That distinguishes fornication from the dietary laws encouraged in Acts 15. The dietary laws could be ignored as long as no one was offended.
JWs are reluctant to consider this verse because it is contrary to their extra-biblcal teachings about blood. The animals in the shambles could have been strangled or even offered to idols (who we know are not prone to eat that much anyway). Christians were not required to ask questions of conscience, because idols are nothing and eating meat improperly bled is not inherently wrong or evil. So, enjoy / Bon apitite!
I remember a time when JWs were asking their butchers about the ingredients in the making of sausages to make sure byproducts wasn't blood. In our house we didn't eat peperoni pizza for a long time...we even avoided certain brands of bread and ice cream that contained lecithin...The quoted scripture says there's no need for such an exercise.
Island Man,
Couldn't you apply this to the ever-dreaded Birthday cake? Lol
That is exactly one of the places they\we used it. If somone brought extra cake to work and we didn't know it was birthday cake we could eat it.
The reason this scripture is such an embarrassment to the WT, and so hardly gets a mention, is because it comes under the heading of New Light.
(" Clarification")
According to the WT the "Councel" held in Jerusalem in Acts 15 took place around 49 C.E Pauls words in his letter to Corinth they say were written around 55 C.E, and so, are the latest "Light".
Now, if all the fuss they make about the use of blood was that important, don't you think Paul would have been inspired some 5 or 6 years later to mention it again, to underline it as "Jehovah's will" ?
But what does he do ? he advises these mainly gentile christians in Corinth to not worry about what was said in Jerusalem to the extent of following it to the letter, no he says to follow the spirit of what was decided in Jerusalem, i.e, that no Christian should offend another by what he does.
All of this makes a total nonsense of the WT's murderous teaching on blood transfusion.
The WT, and the Governing Body thereof are very very guilty of causing multiple unnecessary deaths.
May they answer for their guilt soon !
Great point Vidiot. I never thought of it that way.. Adding to the mental archive. :)
