BLOOD, FAITH and imputed qualities

by Terry 5 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Terry

  Who is the person most associated with faith by the major three monotheistic religions?

  Answer: ABRAHAM.

  Why is he considered so?

  Abraham was willing to kill his own son.

  Did he kill his own son?

  No.

  But, he was WILLING to.

  Abraham was stopped by an angel of the most high. The deed of sacrifice was IMPUTED to him even though the deed was NOT carried out.

  Jehovah's Witnesses who are willing to allow their children (who are diagnosed as needing blood transfusions to live) to die rather than violate their faith in regards to the blood issue (A misreading of the law of the sons of Noah which really applies to shedding blood) are often stopped by courts of the land.

  If the Superior Authorities (of scripture) stand placed in their relative positions over us by God's own permission--who are these JW's to decry the stopping (as by an angel) of the deed itself?

  Why fight it? Their righteousness is evident. Their faith would be imputed (like Abraham). So, what is the problem?

  Clearly, it has to be a desire to grandstand as martyrs to curry favor with the big Guy in the sky (and more importantly, with the Governing Body and the local Kingdom Hall.)

  Am I wrong?

  Terry
• 

  TheListener

  Terry, I'm glad you're back posting again. I missed your insightful (inciteful?) thoughts.

  It has been noted by early christian historians (notice there's no reference) that the early christians almost looked forward to becoming martyrs for their faith ( I believe, but may be mistaken that Polycarp fits this category). They were fanatical. Was it for favor with the big guy, to impress others to convert or did/does the faith simply draw fanatical individuals? I don't know, but I do know some fanatics.
• 

  Crumpet

  What a brilliant thought! I shall remember this if I ever get chance to use it in witnessing to a JW or my family. I really appreciate it!
• 

  diamondblue1974

  Terry I have not had the pleasure of seeing many of your posts but the ones I have seen are brilliant; really do make you think and this is an example of just one of those.

  Cheers for sharing that with us.

  DB74
• 

  alw

  terry, exellent reasoning,

  i would think though that the jws would argue that the angel was directed by jeh himself while men, govts, superior authorities or not are only standing in to try to keep a little control.

  mr.alw.
• 

  Terry

  Some of my historical (as opposed to hysterical) reading reveals that there were many Jews and early christians who felt that the Roman Empire was God's own instrument to bless or punish by his mighty hand.

  This notion is rife through history in many lands; all things that happen (for good or ill) are brought upon man as reward or punishment by the direction of God. Government was one such notion.

  In reading about the history of the King James Bible I discovered that, in the early 1600's, the sporadic bouts of plague that swept Europe was definitely thought to be the wrath of God visited upon those deserving woe due to their own personal sinfulness.

  In our own time, AIDs was used by certain conservative Christians as an example of God's agency in punishing homosexuality.

  The Superior Authorities (placed as they are by God) certainly have the cachet of rendering God's blows or mercy. It just suddenly struck me as strange that the JW's governing body would not seize upon the idea themselves: to wit, Jehovah would not allow parents to complete their child sacrifice over the blood issue; but, instead intervene with the courts.

  It is obvious the Governing Body has no ideas of mercy in its collective purpose. It is all about the propaganda effect of displaying dead children and waving them about as banners of righteous faith. Billboards of submissive success these dead and dying are; the mighty hand of Brooklyn rules from cradle to grave.

  Terry