by JH 17 Replies latest jw friends
Did you have a pet while being in the Jehovah Witnesses? Having a 40 hours/week job and going to all my meetings, and being an aux.pioneer, I hardly had any time left for my cat. I knew many families who also were so busy with that religion, that they had to get rid of their pet. Did that happen to you?
Edited by - jh on 4 December 2002 20:1:14
JH. Being a JW made no difference to me I had at one time 33 cats and kittens. They were the love of my life. But because I was going to leave my husband and couldn't take any with me I started finding homes for them and sought the help of an animal shelter that help place them in permenant homes and foster homes. Many of the kittens were easy to place in homes. The grown cats were harder but they were beautiful and had great personalities and so with the assistance of another organization I found places for the girls. I was sad for a long time. I kept one and I knew when I left my ex I thought my son was going to stay with him but he didn't want to stay with his dad so my son left my favourite and beautiful orangefatcat with that ex. I have seen him several times not the ex the orangefatcat and he is as beautiful as ever and my son told his father if you ever get rid of moms cat you'll have to deal with me. So my son sticks up for me.
I miss my cats big times
Love Orangefatcat..
w03 4/1 31 - Q: Are cats suitable for Christians?
Questions from Readers
Is it appropriate for a Christian to own a cat, in light of their past
pagan religious affiliation and the medical information that is now coming
to light? -J.J., U.S.A.
It would be misleading to answer this question with either a simple 'Yes'
or a 'No.' The Scriptural answer of necessity must be a 'qualified' one,
and it is easy to see why. Many conscientious ones among Jehovah's people
today have wondered if Christians should own cats in view of their somewhat
sordid past and many health risks. While we would not wish to express an
opinion on what may remain a matter of personal taste, what may be
acceptable to one person may, although unintentionally, stumble another.
This can become a life-or-death issue since to move the steps of a brother
from those of Christ's ransom sacrifice is tantamount to 'putting a
millstone around the neck and being thrown into the sea.' -Matt 18:6.
Clearly, in a matter where our eternal salvation is involved, the mature
Christian will not pursue a purely selfish course based on his own personal
preferences.
First let us consider what most scholars agree is the original Koine Greek
for the English word 'cat'. Unlike the Latin 'Felis Cattus Domesticus', it
is 'cur.o bes-tia', meaning literally 'a contemporary housecat with all of
its beastly identifying characteristics and behavior.' A faithful servant
of Jehovah would quickly notice that the nature of a cat is 'beastly'. The
Bible makes clear reference to this condition when describing parts of
Satan's organizations, past and present. For instance, consider the
fearsome 'beasts' as described in Daniel or the 'scarlet colored wild
beast' in Revelation 17:3. The demons entered the swine when rebuked by
Jesus showing the potential harm and malevolent spirit control that a
Christian may potentially expose themselves, and others, to. Lest we forget
the condition of God's enemy when being humbled by Jehovah, Nebuchadnezzar,
is it by accident that the Bible in the book of Daniel describes his
experience as a 'beast' of the field? Hardly!
Clearly the Bible by using this kind of Original Greek shows beyond a doubt
that the basic nature of cats, while created perfect by God, has become
evil or 'beastlike'. This is a development of the condition borne by the
'Original Serpent', the 'Great Dragon' - Satan the devil. (Gen. 3:1)
There are numerous reasons why a loyal dedicated servant of God should use
their Bible-trained conscience to arrive at a proper understanding of why
cats are not advisable as pets or companions for Christians. Consider,
then, the following facts:
It was a common practice in ancient Egypt to worship or idolize cats as
'gods'. Indeed, after death many cats were mummified, venerated and
sacrifices were made to them. As Christians we observe not only the Mosaic
Law, but also the 'necessary things,' identified by the Apostles at
Jerusalem, to include the following:- '(1) Abstain from sacrifices to
idols'. We are to 'guard ourselves from idols' and 'worship no other gods'.
Such feline influence could lead to idolatry and thereby 'grieve Jehovah's
Spirit' with tragic consequences. May we never take for granted Jehovah's
wise and generous counsel!
Modern studies of classification of cats, while not necessarily being
reliable as they are based on the discredited 'theory' of evolution,
strongly associate felines with serpents.
The Bible does not say that cats were not present at Herod's birthday party
when John the Baptist was beheaded. History shows that cats were most
likely present at this tragic party that Jehovah did not approve of.
Clearly then, as loyal Christians, why would we even want to associate with
animals that are without a doubt of such bad influence, remembering how
true are the Bible's words: 'Bad associations spoil useful habits'! -1
Corinthians 15:33. Some have exposed themselves to possible spiritual
contamination in this way. To invite cats in our house is to toy with
disaster. Can one deny that the chance exists that the same grave
consequences could visit your home that fell upon John? Clearly, God
disapproved of this 'birthday' party. Should we not then disapprove
(without showing any malicious intent, only Godly hatred) of cats the way
the scriptures recommend?
Throughout history, particularly in the middle ages and reaching its climax
in the Salem Witch trials of the 1600s, cats were recognized by the forces
of Christendom as carriers if not direct incarnates of demons. While, in
common with most beliefs of the empire of false religion, no evidence has
ever been found to support this, the symbolism of cats still remain. Since
cats were associated with the devil, could we as faithful and dedicated
servants of God therefore associate ourselves with a 'living symbol' of
satanic incarnation? How would this reflect on God's name and that of his
visible, earthly organization? Would we want to be associated with a symbol
of Satan, the 'god of this beastly system of things'?
The careful student of the Bible will acknowledge that nowhere within it is
any species ('kind') of cat referred to in favorable terms. In fact was it
not lions of the first century who the Devil used to devour faithful
Christians? Jehovah Himself 'stopped up the mouths of the lions' (Dan.
6:22) in Daniel's day. True, the small housecats of today are not lions,
but being of the same accursed animal family used by God's enemies on
numerous occasions throughout history, would it be wise or appropriate to
own one? In addition, by owing any type of cat (feline), would we not give
an appearance of condoning their evil deeds throughout recorded Bible and
secular history? The Bible makes clear that God's people are 'no part of
this world' (John 15:19) and that we are 'not to share in the sins of
others.'
The demeanor of a cat can be seen by any honest-hearted observer to reflect
some supernatural, unnatural proclivity. It is a well-known fact that cats
are impossible to tame or teach. While the animal itself may be unaware of
this, it serves only its true master - the devil.
The scriptures clearly indicate that neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
faithful Job, the Apostles, Jesus nor any other human bearing God's favor
himself owned a cat. Should we simply assume that this is a mere
coincidence? Surely not! This was most likely because they didn't want to
be like the pagan contemporaries of their respective days who showed no
regard for how God feels about owning a cat. In harmony with the pattern
set by the faithful prophets and worthies of old, it would therefore not be
fitting for the true Christian today to own a cat.
But, the most modern scientific evidence also supports the Biblical view.
Contrary to popular beliefs among worldly people, cats are unhygienic
animals. Recently the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced that
'Cats .. can shed Salmonella in their feces, which can spread the bacterial
infection to humans'. Salmonella (salmonella typhimurium) creates a
condition of 'week-long diarrhea, abdominal cramps and in some instances,
hospitalization.' Would we be showing the proper respect to our life,
Creator and to our 'neighbor' by exposing ourselves and others to this
potentially deadly disease? Would this be seen by your brothers as giving a
good witness?
Additionally, cats practice many unclean habits not befitting a Christian
household: coughing up fur balls, licking inappropriate body areas
(inappropriate handling), urination on the floor, eating dead animals often
with their blood, vocal promiscuity and widespread sexual misconduct
without the benefit pr sanctity of matrimony, abuse of catnip (an
intoxicating herb), stealing food from the table, and so on. What sort of
example does this give our young ones endeavoring to faithfully serve
Jehovah? The Bible clearly shows that 'neither fornicators .. nor thieves
. nor drunkards .. will inherit the Kingdom.' (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
The matter of the wanton consumption of undrained bodies filled with God's
sacred blood is not one to be trifled with. In an earlier issue of The
Watchtower, we have shown that it would be improper for a Christian to
permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to his pet, for animal
feed known to contain blood to be served to a pet or a farm animal under
one's jurisdiction, or to employ any fertilizer that is known to have blood
in it (w64 2/15 127-8). By allowing one's cat to roam uncontrolled, the
Christian becomes a party to this serious breach of God's law of life.
In addition, the Apostle Paul admonishes us to 'quit mixing in company ..
not even eating with such an unclean [one].' -1 Corinthians 5:9-11; Mark
2:13-17. Although Paul was speaking primarily about Christians who fell
into sin, there is no reason to conclude that this inspired Biblical
principle can not be applied to association with cats. Uncleanness in any
form is condemned by Jehovah and the fact that the Apostle Paul made no
distinction when it came to associating with housecats proves beyond a
doubt to the right-thinking worshiper of Jehovah that loyal Christians must
avoid all association with all sources of uncleanness. This would logically
include animals that harbor these tendencies - or indulge in such
practices. Of course, while expressing one's obedience to God's
clearly-expressed commandments, one must do so without any spirit of
meanness or ill-will towards these Satanic creatures, representing God's
enemies. Instead, they 'feel a loathing' toward those who have made
themselves God's enemies, and they leave it to Jehovah to execute
vengeance. -Job 13:16; Romans 12:19; 2 John 9,10.
Are we not grateful for this insight on God's viewpoint regarding such
matters? True worshipers follow closely God's mandates on cleanness to
their eternal benefit! Sister N.K. from Virginia tells us that since
getting rid of her cat, she has not had to be preoccupied with cleaning the
litter box or the burden of purchasing cat food. This has allowed her to
spend more time to go pioneering and finds that it is now easier to meet
her allotted hours in field service. Dan, a brother from Sierra Leone, puts
it this way: 'I'm so grateful that God's organization is kept clean! It has
freed me from the burden of owning a cat and all the spiritual pitfalls and
financial commitments that go with it. I hope all the brothers will realize
how the Devil subtly uses cats to corrupt and distract us from the
preaching work.' (Matt. 24:14)
What fine examples of faithfulness! As loyal followers of Jehovah's
thinking on this matter, we can rejoice in the fact that in the new system,
the incoming World Order, the 'lion will lie down with the lamb' -Isaiah
11:6-7. Yes, when Satan is finally abyssed, the 'beastly' nature of felines
will be gone, and they will be fit companions for humans on Paradise Earth!
But until that rapidly-approaching time, God will reward all of our efforts
to maintain integrity by loyally submitting to the leading of his spirit
expressed through the loving guidance of the 'faithful and discreet slave'.
-Matt. 24:45-47
For completeness I supply the above-referenced article from The Watchtower:
w64 2/15 127-8 - Q: Blood transfusions for pets?
Questions from Readers
Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a
veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? And what of animal food?
May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? Also, is
it permissible to use fertilizer that has blood in it? The psalmist
declared at Psalm 119:97: 'How I do love your law! All day long it is my
concern.' Such a love of God's law and a concern for it would surely cause
a dedicated servant of God to avoid any violation of God's law whatsoever.
God's law on blood is very clear. Blood is not to be used as food and, when
withdrawn from a body, it is to be poured out on the ground. (Gen. 9:3,4;
Lev. 3:17; Deut. 12:16,23,24; Acts 15:20,28,29) Christians certainly would
not wish to do anything in violation of Jehovah's law on blood. Love for
God and for the righteous laws and principles of his Word calls forth that
response from them in matters pertaining to blood. Since God's law on blood
has not been altered over the centuries, Christians today realize that they
are bound by it. Please note, however, that it is not fear of some reprisal
that moves them to comply with Jehovah's law on blood. They do not obey
God's law simply because violation of it might result in the imposing of
sanctions by the Christian congregation of which they are a part. They love
what is right. Furthermore, because of their love of God's law they will
not rationalize or seek ways in which it appears possible to circumscribe
it with seeming impunity.
How, then, must we answer the question, Would it be a violation of the
Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood
transfusions to a pet? By all means, to do so would be a violation of the
Scriptures. To use blood for transfusion purposes, even in the case of an
animal, would be improper. The Bible is very clear in showing that blood
should not be eaten. It should not be infused, therefore, to build up the
body's vital forces, either in the case of a human or in the case of a pet
or any other animal under the jurisdiction of a Christian. In harmony with
this, surely a Christian parent could not rationalize to the effect that a
pet belongs to a minor child and thus this unbaptized child might, on its
own, authorize a veterinarian to administer the blood. No. The baptized
parent bears the responsibility, for that parent has authority over the
child and over the pet and should control the entire matter. That is the
parent's obligation before God. -Eccl. 12:13,14; Jas. 4:17.
What, then, of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe
there is blood in it? As far as a Christian is concerned, the answer is No,
on the basis of principles already mentioned. Therefore, if a Christian
discovers that blood components are listed on the label of a container of
dog food or some other animal food, he could not conscientiously feed that
product to any animal over which he has jurisdiction. He could not conclude
that doing so would be excusable, for this would not be a case of an animal
killing another animal and helping itself to the blood of that creature.
No, this would be a direct act on the part of the Christian, making him
responsible for feeding blood to a pet or other animal belonging to him. Of
course, if there is no indication on the label of a package of animal food
that the product contains blood, a Christian might conclude that it could
be used. Still, his conscience might trouble him. In that case he should
put his conscience to rest by making reasonable inquiry and acting in
accord with the information he receives, for a Christian surely desires to
have a good conscience before God. -1 Pet. 3:21.
But now, what about fertilizer that has blood in it? One who is going to
show respect for God's law on blood would not use it. True, according to
the Mosaic law, blood when taken from a body was to be poured out upon the
ground and covered over with dust. (Lev. 17:13,14) The objective was,
however, that the blood should serve no useful purpose when thus disposed
of. It was not placed on the ground with the thought in mind that it would
serve as fertilizer. Hence, no Christian farmer today could properly spread
blood on his fields to fertilize the soil, nor would he use commercial
fertilizer containing blood. Such blood use would be a commercializing on
something that God has reserved for himself. It would be a violation of
God's Word.
--
Focus
( [email protected] Class)
God didn't create them for martians, did he? If you don't like cats then change your profile picture to a Jackass.
Edited by - jh on 5 December 2002 9:58:34
JH scolded:
God didn't create them for martians, did he? If you hate cats, then change your profile picture to a jack ass.
1. How do I know if God created them for martians? Are Martians Christians? Do you have a WT reference for that, if the matter has been decided, please?
2. Why do you think jackasses hate cats?
3. The profile picture you suggest is already taken by my friend "donkey".
4. I am far from a cat-hater. But "Godly hate" is a requirement for every Christian, is it not? "Haters of God and His people are to be hated" (WT 10/1/52 p596 et seq), "in order to hate what is bad a Christian MUST HATE the person with whom the badness is inseparably linked.. Jesus did not mean for us to love the hardened enemies of Jehovah" (WT 7/15/61 p420), "DO YOU KNOW HW TO HATE?.. These very strong words are an expression of godly hate, and you too must have this quality to be pleasing to God. Hate causes a feeling of disgust to well up inside you. You loathe, abhor, despise the object of your hatred" (WT 7/15/74 p442), "More than that, WE WANT TO HATE THOSE who willfully show themselves haters of Jehovah, haters of what is good" (WT 6/15/80 p8). So I ask you in all fairness, do you not see the relevance of this to those feline tools of Satan? After all, "when the bad becomes so ingrained that it is an inseparable part of their makeup, then A CHRISTIAN MUST HATE .. those who have inseparably attached themselves to the badness." (WT 10/1/93 p19). What could be clearer?
I hate to have to ask this - but given the non-upbuilding tone of the above, and your amazing contribution to http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=41765&site=3 it is prudent for me to ask - are you an "apostate"?
Edited by - jh on 4 December 2002 21:7:20
And what you wrote the first time around was a little unbrotherly, JH! At whose table have you been feeding?
And carefully checking the dates on quoted pubications is always wise, as Jehovah is a God of Progressive Reverberation, and New Light may shine forth at any juncture.
--
Focus
(Felis Pardus Class)
I thinkk Focus was doing like Quotes does and showing us in the WTBS's own words what they think of cats.
Although they leave it open to us these answers to questions are very MUCH leading a direction of Anti-Cat owner ship for very superstious reasons!!
I realy almost don't blame the WTBS for this though...because.....WHO ARE THESES PEOPLE WHO SEND IN SUCH QUESTIONS ????
I mean if people would just live thier lives and not keeping RUNNING to the Governing body for every little thing....then the GB wouldn't be focusing on HOW we all breath!!!
When people write those kind of letters over and over and over.......person after person......I can see how The GB would think they have to decide for the masses. Makes it look like we're all spiritual IDIOTS!
You know people can go to the library do thier own investigation into matters and decide for themselves.
If you realy did read in an undertone day and night of the scriptures...you'd have a prety good idea what you could and could not do.
What I think happens alot is people ALREADY know what it is they want to do about things....but they can't stand so many others don't see it that way....so they write The GB hoping they will get reflected back to them what they are already sure they knew was right......and then now that The GB confirmed it for them we ALL have to conform to thier conscience!!
My Oppinion is The GB gets so many such letters that they MUST be getting frustrated to an extent...LIKE Moses did and then now they have and continue to sin as Moses did.....The People agrivated Moses and so then He says....I HAVE GIVEN YOU WATER....and he ment this in his heart......thus his punishment of not going to the promised land. So now The GB says WE GIVE YOU THE SPIRITUAL FOOD AT THE RIGHT TIME.......Both represented Jehovah...Both have made the same mistake......possibly....not for me to say....still possibly both will have been punished the same way....what that means is up to Jehovah.
I have known JW's who opted not to have pets due to these articles and others.....There was an article I remember that spoke of how would you find someone to take care of your pets while at convention all those days...etc. And of course all the articles on the health problems associated with pets. 2 of my fav people on the planet refuse to have pets due to that. Still and all I think it thier choice. They're my best friends and yet I have always had pets.....and I read the same articles and my dear friends have shown me the articles OVER and OVER again,.....can't believe someone as nice and me would not take the ADVICE of The Slave. I just smile and make sure later that week or month I do something nice for them since they care so much about my health and Ever Lasting Life.
bye bye 4 now
agape,
Utopian_Raindrops
Utopian: Are you saying that the article Focus is quoting doesn't exist? I seem to recall reading that exact article previously. I'm sure it's been published.
Puzzled.
---Dan
No Danny...I am asking who these people are that WRITE such questions to The WBTS....I mean who needs direction for such SMALL things that would normally be something of personal choice.
To choose not to have cats based on they once were worshiped or used in black magic is SUPERSTIOUS....the bible claimes Jehovah FREES us from superstition!
We're not to be AFRAID of anything.
Cats came before the fall of mane and were made for mankinds enjoyment....just like the rest of creation!
It is Satan and mans own wickedness that PERVERT the original purpose for creation.
At one time SUPERSTIOUS people killed cats almost ti extinction in the U.S.A. and Wolves also. Because of Folk Tales and fear due to lack of knowledge.
Jehoavhs' people are suposed to have knowledge not IGNORANCE.
We should not hate animals Jehovah created but spiritistic practices that Satan and men think up!
ok....My 2 cents worth......
bye bye 4 now
agape,
Utopian_Raindrops
Utopian_Raindrops wrote, without properly checking dates - very important when dealing with matters of esc(h)atology:
I thinkk Focus was doing like Quotes does
But "Focus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Quotes was, I am." cf. John 8:58
WH0 ARE THESES PEOPLE WH0 SEND IN SUCH QUESTI0NS ????
Who indeed... The person who thought of that "cat" question must have been possessed of the most extraordinary degree of perversion.
I must add that certain types of people suggest that most letters are concoctions of the Writing Department. I ask you, could there even be a grain of truth in such an accusation? every honest-hearted one knows the answer to that question.
Only the truth is to be found at HTTP://WWW.WATCHT0WER.0RG - I C0MMEND Y0U TO CLICK ON THAT SITE. Avoid other ones with similar names, they are snares containing the lies of disgusting apostates.
New Light is expected on the question of the suitability of cats for Christians, so no hasty actions should be taken.
--
Focus
(Bushels of Restitution Wheat Class)
Edited by - Focus on 4 December 2002 22:25:5
Utopian: Thanks for clarifying your viewpoint. Since I no longer subscribe to anything published by the Watchtower Society, I depend on this forum for the latest scoop.
Focus:
without prior eschatological checking
It strikes me that the checking needed was more of the scatological variety, with emphasis on aromatic characteristics.
---Dan
