New here

by Delta20 145 Replies latest jw friends

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos
    Christianity seems to me to hokd the truth, and so far as I have seen they give the best arguments and seem to have the most historical and biblical correct vision and interpretation of the bible.

    I'm afraid you are mistaking inner consistency for truth.

    If you think Christianity holds the truth, do you realise that the JW doctrine (namely, the "two hopes") will teach you that most of the New Testament is not for you? Read it before you go there, just to know what you'll miss.

    If you become a JW and at some time have children, will you let your child die rather than have a blood transfusion (which is clearly beyond the scope of any Bible teaching)?

    Just wondering.

  • Delta20
    Delta20

    Narkissos,

    I dont know what the two hopes doctrine is, so cant say much useful about that.

    About the bloodtransfusion, besides that the bible forbids taking blood ("You shall not partake of the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood"), and besides the fact that theres alternatives to bloodtransfusion. Also besides the possible dangers of bloodtransfusion, I think I'd be a person who will really love his children and would do anything to save them.... as long as its not going directly against the laws of God.... for what good would that do to them? And where do you draw the line? safe their lives by bloodtransfusion.... why not safe their lives by letting them fight in the Nazi army? or by bowing for a statue. Especially the last is a simple thing to do (in this case it was about the lifes of themselves), i mean, bowing isnt so hard. But the book Daniel specifically tells us that it was wrong to do so. So where do you draw the line?

    I find this a very hard question, and I am very hopeful to see more alternatives in medicine. But I cannot know what I would do when my own child would lie there.... I have never been in such a test of faith. But I do understand why JW dont do bloodtransfusions. Remember when people were laughing at JW because they werent allowed to smoke? "Those stupid JW, such a strict religion, may not even smoke". We know now how much the JW's were right on that call. Bloodtransfusion is still a thing that is under development (new ways, cleaner ways, alternatives, etcetera are being created as we speak), so I think we must wait what the future holds. But that the JW follow the bible in a strict sense doesnt take away the potency of their religion... the opposite, it makes it stronger, although I have to agree that its hard in this particular case, but as I tried to say before, this isnt the only case imaginable.

  • Double Edge
    Double Edge

    WELCOME Delta!

    I've never been a JW, but I have a close friend who is one. I also have several Morman friends... they too know the Bible. I've attended meeting in both churches as well as numerous other Christian Churches. Leaving doctrinal issues aside, if I had to pick between the two fringe groups...i.e. JW or Morman... I'd much rather be a Morman. They really help other people and have fun activities. My JW friend always seems to be on the fringe of a nervous breakdown...and heaven forbid if our religious discussions touch a nerve... my friend ceases to speak to me for a couple of weeks (ignoring the "worldly" one). With the Mormans, it's just the opposite... we get in heated discussions and then laugh alot....each to their own.

    I think you need to ask yourself if you primarily want a relationship with God or an organization. Myself, I choose God. As far as an organization that helps me with that relationship, I want one that will be positive and lift me up, and one that tries to follow the example set by Jesus Christ. For me, that is almost impossible to find in the JWs. If I lived in Houston, I would be a part of Joel Osteen's congregation. Very Bible based and uplifting.

    btw, have you taken the short quiz at Beliefnet.com .... answer about 20 questions and they'll tell you which religions align with your beliefs:

    http://www.beliefnet.com/section/quiz/index.asp?sectionID=&surveyID=27

    Good luck....

    D.E.

  • Double Edge
    Double Edge
    But I do understand why JW dont do bloodtransfusions. Remember when people were laughing at JW because they werent allowed to smoke? "Those stupid JW, such a strict religion, may not even smoke". We know now how much the JW's were right on that call

    Perhaps. But what about their call on not being immunized for small pox because it was "of the devil"... (1930's I believe).... I wonder if a small pox vaccination would have saved any JWs who refused to go "against Jehovah" by not being immunized.

  • poppers
    poppers

    "does anyone know of a better religion then the JW's, which give you both knowledge and love? If so I'd love to hear who, where and why!"

    The track record of religion promoting knowledge and love is not a good one - seems to me that religion does more to separate people from god and each other than anything in this world. Why limit yourself to religion in seeking these? From where does this assumption come that religion is the key?
    Isn't every religion conceptually based, and aren't concepts by their very nature limited? Have you looked for that within you which is prior to the conceptual? Perhaps what you are looking for will be found there. Rather than relying on something which by its very nature can only provide a set of ideas, why not explore what every idea arises in?

  • TD
    TD

    Delta,

    First of all, there are not always quality alternatives to blood products. That is a myth promulgated by Jehovah's Witnesses. There is for example, currently no substitute product for platelets and none on the forseeable horizon.

    Please, obtain your religious information from religious sources and your medical information from medical sources. Don't mix the two. Always, always, always discuss the intended benefits versus the potential risks of any medical procedure with your physician.

    Secondly, the Bible does not forbid "taking" blood. You, like the JW's are equivocating here. The Israelites were forbidden from the more specific act of eating blood.

    The transplant of human tissue is neither physically, nor morally equivalent to the eating of human tissue.

  • willy_think
    willy_think

    Hi Jaron from the Netherlands,

    There are 2 types of religions

    One has questions that it can?t answer.

    The other has questions you can?t ask.

  • NewLight2
    NewLight2

    Jaron, here is another thread you should read:

    I'm thinking of going back
    http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/84847/1.ashx


    NewLight2

  • Delta20
    Delta20

    Double Edge,

    The link you gave is dead. But I do agree with you on the small-pox. But didn't they admit that was a mistake? Same goes for 1975? JW's are people, and people make mistakes. I now they say they are the organization of God on this planet, but that doesnt make them angels, it means that they do God's work, but can and will make mistakes in doing it. And as I said before, when a problem arises you should try to solve it, not hide it (like some of the child-molesting threads suggested that JW's did), not demand that no one talks about it... but solving it!

    poppers,

    Well, I am convinced that God exists, and that the bible is the Word of God, and that we should follow the way of the apostles, and I think a religion that does that helps, encourages you to do so. It is always much harder to do things by yourself then if you do it with a group. Why do the former if you can have the latter?

    TD,

    Actually, the word used in Exodus, Deut, and other passages doesnt come from the hebrew word "le'ochel", which means eating, but it can better be described as taking. So I don't think JW are wrong there. Furthermore, the Jews also believe that its wrong not only to take blood, but even to have it on your hands. Remember that when a priest touches blood he is unclean? And remember the story about the samaritan? So Jews were even stricter then JW are. Why then do Jews take bloodtransfusions? That's because they believe in a very hypocritical rule which to my believe is against some points in the bible. They believe they should hold on to God's word UNLESS its life threatening. In some cases this makes sense, if you are not to eat (some days like Jon Kippur you are not allowed to eat and drink, theres a word for it forgat what it was in english) or drink and you feel bad, then of course you are allowed to eat or drink some, theres no reason to die from that (and this also is written in the Thora). But there are countless examples. like bowing for another God, etcetera, where God specifically says that its not allowed. I think it was Maimonides who started this rule, at the time jews were being persecuted by christians (medievals) and they could only flee to muslim areas. But afrer a while the muslims gave them a choice, die or become muslim. And the 'great Maimonides' told the jews that they could convert to the islam, but remain Jewish in their hearts. And I was like, you are kidding me. You Jews know the story told in Daniel.... did the 3 there bow for the statue but remained jewish in their hearts... no! So at the end I think that JW interpret that statement very well, not too light, but also not too strict.

    NewLight2,

    Well, In the few days ive posted here so far I found out the following. You have different types of posters. You have people who:

    Attack the person for being stupid ("Well, if that's the case you're an idiot, sheep, whatever the word is")

    Tell the person about the horrible things/stories they have about the WTS and/or prtoblems they had with the elders.

    Tell the person to make up their own mind

    Tell the person that they should watch carefully, and think through every step, because this is an important decision

    Tell people how every religion is bad and God loves everyone

    Those are, I think most of the answers people get here when posting. But what I still miss is this one: What makes the religion itself bad? And, is there any religion that is better without having to resort to "yourself" etcetera? Because people can change, organizations can change, but the basis of them, the religion itself cant. And I am not calling the bible the religion. I am calling the bible + the interpretation the religion (so no trinity, no blood) etcetera. From the things above, only people who tell you to watch carefully are actually helping and being nice. The othes are disgrunted (for good reason perhaps) or are longing to a normal life or dont believe at all (ive see thats the case with some people whos family and parents have been JW and were pushing them etc). But these do not falsify the religion itself. Note: Doctrines arent interpretation. Theres are diference between not believing in the trinity because it says so nowehere in the bible, and having 3 meetings a week because thats handy for the organization etcetera.

    And again, don't think that what you all say doesnt help and that im brainwashed and that kind of stuff. I am building up a tekstfile with things im gonna need to ask to an Elder, and as I said before, I'm a critic. Here I criticize what you guys stand for, but in the KH I criticize what they stand for. Thats the best way imo to get to knowledge. Sometimes you cannot show thats a religion is true, but often you can show that its not true ;)

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Delta,

    As for the "two hopes" stuff: with no scriptural grounds, the JWs teach that there are two categories of Christians: (1) the 1st-Century kind ("anointed"), of which there are just a few left; to those only the NT really applies; (2) a "second class", whose relationship with Christianity depends on help and obedience to those of the first class. As you could imagine, the only relationship between those classes is through the Watchtower.

    Before you go there, please read at least the Gospel of John and the epistle to the Romans. Note what you love in it. Then ask a JW what in those texts really apply to you. You'll be surprised (if s/he answers honestly, I mean).

    As to the blood issue:

    - the medical use of blood is historically out of the scope of any Bible text.

    - the prohibition against "eating blood" is part of the so-called "apostolic decree" in Acts 15, which equally forbids "food sacrificed to idols"; interestingly this "decree" is unknown in the Pauline letters, which advocate an entirely different stance as to the "food sacrificed to idols" (1 Corinthians 8; 10). Bottom line: the "apostolic decree" reflects only a part of early Christianity.

    - in Rabbinical Judaism, which follows the old tradition of Pharisaism, there is a clear principle that any commandment can be broken to save a life. The synoptic Jesus refers to and agrees with the same kind of principle when he mentions saving a sheep on Sabbath day etc.: "the law is made for man, not man for the law", is actually a point of agreement between Christianity and rabbinical Judaism. Only a monstruously ignorant modern religion can ignore this absolutely overruling principle.

    - martyrdom always implies a persecutor. In that case there is none.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit