Originally posted by duecerI love that! are You so dull that you still don't understand?
Christ answers the question for us in matthew 15: 10Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "
12Then the disciples came to him and asked, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this ...[text shortened]... 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI ask because, 'abstain from blood' could hardly mean to refuse a blood tranfusion in the time the Bible was written. A certain degree of interpretation has been applied, to me the obvious interpretation is 'abstain from blood' with blood meaning meat, that's why i asked. But it seems Mr Russell liked his steaks too much.
i was vegetarian for maybe six years, but it was not as a result of adopting Christ as a model. i was walking down great western road in the west end of Glasgow when a Hari Krishna offered me a book on a donation basis. i really felt some sympathy for her as everyone was rejecting her on the street, so i gave a donation and received the book, i st ...[text shortened]... My younger brother who is not religious has been a strict vegetarian for years. why do you ask?
Intriguing that the doctrine on blood transfusions wasn't passed until 1945, and it only became a disfellowshipping offence to conscientiously accept a blood transfusion. Is it still practise that pets aren't allowed blood transfusions?
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobas i stated my learned noobster, understanding is progressive. abstain from blood, as you rightly say, could not have meant at the time refrain from blood transfusions and this is where the beauty and flexibility of the principle comes in. for example there is no direct command to abstain from smoking, however there are certain principles which have a bearing on this, for example, the most obvious, can we truly be loving our neighbour as ourself if we are intent to subject them to second hand smoke inhalation in view of recent scientific findings? no it would not be loving. thus, the prohibition to 'abstain from blood', while also being a religious principle based on conscience and the right of self determination, has more far reaching consequences than that for which it was originally intended.
I ask because, 'abstain from blood' could hardly mean to refuse a blood tranfusion in the time the Bible was written. A certain degree of interpretation has been applied, to me the obvious interpretation is 'abstain from blood' with blood meaning meat, that's why i asked. But it seems Mr Russell liked his steaks too much.
Intriguing that the doctrine pt a blood transfusion. Is it still practise that pets aren't allowed blood transfusions?
as for pets, i never heard of such a thing?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe pets issue comes from here -
as i stated my learned noobster, understanding is progressive. abstain from blood, as you rightly say, could not have meant at the time refrain from blood transfusions and this is where the beauty and flexibility of the principle comes in. for example there is no direct command to abstain from smoking, however there are certain principles which hav ...[text shortened]... than that for which it was originally intended.
as for pets, i never heard of such a thing?
The Watchtower, November 15, 1964, p. 680-683.
Originally posted by Proper Knobits old hat Noobster my friend, nineteen sixty four is way back. we have progressed somewhat since then, one would hope. This is perhaps the main difference my friend, in that we are constantly trying to refine our understanding and bring it ever more into harmony by what we perceive the scriptures to indicate. You must remember The Watchtower is not inspired of God, nor infallible, nor a substitute for Bible understanding, its merely a publication to disseminate what we understand to be the truth of the matter at that given time. if we find that our understanding is erroneous, it gets refined and adjusted. this has happened on numerous occasions, of which i am really happy about, for id hate to think that we had stagnated and clung to some ancient tradition borrowed from the Greeks and Romans.
The pets issue comes from here -
The Watchtower, November 15, 1964, p. 680-683.
Originally posted by robbie carrobielet me know when they refine their erroneous conclusion that the trinity isn't real😉
its old hat Noobster my friend, nineteen sixty four is way back. we have progressed somewhat since then, one would hope. This is perhaps the main difference my friend, in that we are constantly trying to refine our understanding and bring it ever more into harmony by what we perceive the scriptures to indicate. You must remember The Watchtower is ...[text shortened]... k that we had stagnated and clung to some ancient tradition borrowed from the Greeks and Romans.
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo something written in 1964 is considered 'old hat', yet scripture written millennia ago isn't. Surely that should be the other way around?
its old hat Noobster my friend, nineteen sixty four is way back. we have progressed somewhat since then, one would hope. This is perhaps the main difference my friend, in that we are constantly trying to refine our understanding and bring it ever more into harmony by what we perceive the scriptures to indicate. You must remember The Watchtower is ...[text shortened]... k that we had stagnated and clung to some ancient tradition borrowed from the Greeks and Romans.
for id hate to think that we had stagnated and clung to some ancient tradition borrowed from the Greeks and Romans
Please tell me that was a joke.
I'm intrigued by the JW's unfulfilled predictions and how they resonate with you. I've been reading a little about the JW's and this particular aspect seems a little strange to me. In 1892 predictions were made that Armageddon would come in October 1914, Mr Russell declared the date was
"definitely marked in Scripture",
and that
[i]"We see no reason for changing the figures – nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours."[i/]
Evidently he was completely wrong. Now if he was wrong about that, and other numerous predictions, what makes you so sure he was right about antything else he talked about?
Originally posted by Proper KnobLol, it is simply because of the fact that we hold the Bible to be inspired of God. The watchtower is nothing of the sort. the entire purpose of the watchtower is as commentary on scripture and its application, nothing more, thus while the interpretation and its understanding may change, scripture does not.
So something written in 1964 is considered 'old hat', yet scripture written millennia ago isn't. Surely that should be the other way around?
[b]for id hate to think that we had stagnated and clung to some ancient tradition borrowed from the Greeks and Romans
Please tell me that was a joke.
I'm intrigued by the JW's unfulfilled predictions a ...[text shortened]... edictions, what makes you so sure he was right about antything else he talked about?[/b]
the date 1914 is still held to be a significant year and who can deny that the events of that epoch were world shattering. They did not herald forth what he was expecting, yet in the October of that year WWi changed the fabric of society for all time, the repercussions of which have reverberated down to our own time.
As for Mr Russell, he is simply another person who sought to establish the truth of the matter, nothing more. i have his first publications, he wrote a series of books, the divine plan of the ages, in which it is quite evident that many of his ideas were quite erroneous. it matters very little since he has never claimed infallibility not divine inspiration.
The point my dear sir is that when knowledge is partial, we are bound to be in error, but as time progresses, so does knowledge and we can see a little more clearly. this is even true in the medical field, for who now prescribed blood letting and poultices made with mercury for ailing patients?
he is only one of many who have contributed to the general consensus dear Noobster. I am happy that you are researching this subject, but please be careful that you do not succumb to looking at the spot on the paper rather than the white which surrounds it.
2 edits
Originally posted by menace71you can say what you like, i don't hold it to be inspired by God, and if you are looking for the head honcho, you had better write to Jehovah himself.
Somewhere one of the WTS Head honcho's under oath said that the WT was indeed inspired by God. I will find the reference.
Manny