selena vertolomo, former jehovah's witnesses who was sexually abused in watchtower, went to visit tony morris in north carolina.
selena and her sister call in and explain their position.
callers dial in from around the world and ask plenty of questions.
What I did not get from either sister was what exactly they are accusing Tony Morris of. He is directly and personally responsible for what? ignoring CSA??? promoting CSA??? participating in CSA??? covering up CSA??? all of the above???
Was anything made clear to you?
for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
The point that you do not want to admit, as evidenced by your unwillingness to answer the question being asked is just this.
The doctor would not be upset with the patient for disobeying his instruction to abstain from meats, because the patient did not disobey that instruction by having a liver transplant.
Simple as that.
But what he did do by having that transplant, was receive billions of white blood cells from the organ donor.
So am I to gather that you also believe Jehovah is against organ transplants?
for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
@E.P.
Do you believe a doctor who told a patient to abstain from meat would be upset if he found out his patient later had a liver transplant?
"Whether that particular doctor in your illustration gets upset probably depends on whether the insurance provider was willing to completely pay him for the surgery or not"
This is not a joking matter E.P.
Why do you think the doctor would not be upset to learn his patient had a liver transplant? Could it be because his patient did not disobey his instructions? Do you think the patient disobeyed his instructions?
for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
@EP
Here are some direct answers to my questions
1. Should Christians ask conscience questions at a feast hosted in the home of a pagan who regularly eats meat previously sacrificed to idols?
Correct answer: No, unless there is a brother with a weak conscience present.
;
2. Should Christians ask conscience questions at a feast hosted in the home of a pagan who was known to enjoy eating things strangled?
Correct answer: No, unless there is a brother with a weak conscience present.
;
3. Did Jehovah allow Jews under the law to eat unbled meat if they found one of their flock or herd had died in their field?
Correct answer: Yes, provided they washed and changed their garments. Obviously not a serious defilement that would result in being cut off from God's people.
for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
Hi E.P.
"Keep abstaining from blood."
It seems you know alot about how God feels about this subject. Here are 6 questions I'd like clarification on.
1. Do you believe blood is always sacred to God? If a Jew had bled some blood from an animal without killing the animal, would the extracted blood have been acceptable as a sacred sacrifice to God?
2. Do you believe a doctor who told a patient to abstain from meat would be upset if the patient later had a liver transplant?
3. Do you believe a blood transfusion would be acceptable to Jehovah if it was the person's own blood that was stored for transfusion? If not, why not?
4. Do you believe Jehovah is against blood tests? Why or why not?
5. Do you believe Jehovah is against dialysis? Why or why not?
6. Do you believe Jehovah is against hemophiliacs using blood clotting fractions
VIII and IX which are derived from the donated blood of others?
for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
Hi E.P.
Not all of the meat sold in the shambles was from the temple of idols. You don't think pagans had a taste for bloody meats. Should Christians have asked conscience questions at a feast hosted by a pagan who was known to enjoy things strangled?
Do you agree that it was alright for early Christians to eat meat even if it had previously been sacrificed to idols? If Acts 15:29 was a command, was that command rescinded...or was that simply wise instruction given to facilitate fellowship between Jew and Gentile believers, i.e., not stumbling a Jewish brother.
Do you agree that Jews could eat unbled meat if they found one of their flock or herd had died in their field?
for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
Hi E.P.
1Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
1Co 10:24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.
1Co 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
1Co 10:26 For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
1Co 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
"Whatsoever is sold in the shambles - In the market. The meat of animals offered in sacrifice would be exposed there to sale as well as other meat. The apostle says that it might be purchased, since the mere fact that it had been offered in sacrifice could not change its quality, or render it unfit for use. They were to abstain from attending on the feasts of the idols in the temple, from partaking of meat that had been offered them, and from celebrations observed expressly in honor of idols; but lest they should become too scrupulous, the apostle tells them that if the meat was offered indiscriminately in the market with other meat, they were not to hesitate to purchase it, or eat it."
Asking no question for conscience’ sake - Not hesitating or doubting, as if it might possibly have been offered in sacrifice or strangled. Not being scrupulous, as if it were possible that the conscience should be defiled. This is a good rule still, and may be applied to a great many things.
So do you agree that it was alright for early Christians to eat meat even if it had previously been sacrificed to idols? If Acts 15:29 was a command, was that command rescinded...or was that wise instruction given to facilitate fellowship between Jew and Gentile believers, i.e., not stumbling a Jewish brother.
Do you agree that Jews could eat unbled meat if they found one of their flock or herd had died in their field?
for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
for a christian, only the moral commandments of the old testament are binding (as they cannot change), but the various liturgical, social, and other so-called casuistic laws no longer apply to them.
this includes dietary habits, such as the prohibition of pork or fat, as well as the prohibition of blood.. take a look at the following verses: mt 15:11, mk 7:15-19, acts 11:7-9, 1 tim 4:3-5.. the jehovah's witnesses say that, yes, but in the acts of the apostles (15) the consumption of blood, idol meat, and strangled animals is also prohibited, meaning the new testament still forbids it.
for catholics, the council of florence settled this issue, stating that this apostolic regulation was only a temporary measure to facilitate agreement between jews and gentiles in the early church.
Watchtower has determined that the instruction to abstain from blood would include transfusions. My take is that the dietary instructions in Acts 15 were agreed upon to facilitate Jew and Gentile fellowship and as such there is nothing inherently immoral about eating unbled meat.
Otherwise Paul would not have instructed Christians not to bother asking conscience questions about food provided in the home of a pagan unless there were other weak-consciece brothers (Jewish brothers) present who might be offended.
Even in the law, Jews were permitted to eat unbled meat of clean animals found dead in their fields.
You see, Paul had learned from Jesus that nothing that goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the heart.
You guys are a bunch of Pharisees, making advice into commands while toying with the lives of children.
the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one!.
thank you for your kind patience.
his request to have lazarus dip the "tip" of his finger in "water" and "cool" his "tongue," tells us: there is no water in the world of the dead.
El
hombre rico y Lázaro
Como
SÁTIRA
:Una
alternativa interpretativa
acercamiento a Lucas 16
Rick
Vanderhoven y Larry Urbaniak
La
sátira se puede definir como “ingenio mordaz, ironía
o el
sarcasmo utilizado para exponer el vicio o la locura...”.1
Y la
buena sátira nunca deja de inspirar “risas,
el desprecio, o el
horror, ya que busca corregir la
locuras y abusos que descubre”.
2
Mucho antes de que Jonathan Swift escribiera su famosa "Una
propuesta modesta" o que Alexander Pope compusiera "La
violación de la cerradura", Jesús de Nazaret se distinguió
como maestro satírico por su asombroso relato de "El hombre
rico y Lázaro". Solo se espera que este ensayo sirva para
revelar y glorificar a Él, cuya habilidad única para usar este
género literario, para atormentar al establecimiento religioso y
hacer avanzar el Reino de Dios, no tiene paralelo en la historia.
Es
interesante que, cada vez que Jesús trató con los gobernantes
religiosos de Israel, parecía encubrir deliberadamente la verdad en
el misterio de la imaginería, la parábola y la alegoría. Sin
embargo, cuando se trataba de la condena real de la élite religiosa,
Jesús solía ser mucho más directo, contundente y, a veces,
"abiertamente antagónico". Incluso entonces, ese
antagonismo se disfrazaba ocasionalmente en una parábola o alegoría
satírica que contenía un puñetazo o una puñalada (ingenio mordaz
e ironía) diseñada para alterar las percepciones falsas de esas
mismas autoridades religiosas. Lucas 16, casi en su totalidad,
incorpora este tipo de indignación velada; donde la facción
religiosa objetivo (es decir, los fariseos), estaba siendo
ridiculizada públicamente por revelaciones inesperadas de sus vicios
ocultos, incluida la codicia, la justicia propia y la hipocresía.
How's my Spanish on a scale of 1-10 (ten being tops)?
