Problems with Jehova's witnesses

The JW culters rather send their daughters, sisters, girlfriends, wives, and mothers to their certain death than allow them to have a blood transfusion.
When it comes to themselves, they just don't want to die.

Originally posted by menace71
While I respect the JW's here are problems.

1. Denial of who Christ really is namely God.

2. Denial of the Holy Spirit also being God.

3. Believing that abstaining from certain foods or drink will make them holy.

4. Blood issue not being able to comprehend the difference between a blood
transfusion and actually eating or drinking blood. t ...[text shortened]... and
can be proven.

8. I can go on & on but I think the point is made.

Manny

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Riiiiight, and Christian churches NEVER:

- cover up embarrassing bits of their own history
- change their doctrinal beliefs
- react defensively or with hostility to outside criticism
- twist scripture to fit their doctrines
- disagree on doctrinal points and split into a hundred different denominations over it
- come up with their own translation ...[text shortened]... ays believed the same thing for 2000 years. Christians don't all believe the same thing today!]

Originally posted by galveston75
I'm not even going to get into this as none of you are wanting to see that just maybe we have progressed with the truths of the Bible just as was fortold and by those looking for the truth and ridding ourselves of old paganistic beliefs.
We do not use blood in anyway because the Bible is very clear on God's rules on forbidding the use of blood for anyt from ones like yourselves which again is the fulfillment of scripture. Thank you for that....

Originally posted by menace71
True 🙂 you got me on this. I was actually just reacting to G-75's problems with the trinity thread. I can't argue that though a lot of Christian denominations do change doctrines.





Manny

But this is an important issue.

I have asked "How many christian religions are there?", and my own answer is "As many as there are christians." Why? Because no christian belief are the same as the others, right?

There are snake-worshippers, there are suicide cults, there are people who rather let their sister die than give her a blood transfusion, there are ... all kinds.

I have asked once: "What is a christian?" By JW culters I get the answer: "Christians are only those who are like us, the others only think that they are." Says it all.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Read your answer once more and find five errors...
Perhaps then you'll excuse us for laughing.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
are you sure you dont also have the wrong thread!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Your postings make me laugh quite often, even if it wasn't your intention. Doesn't matter what thread, what posting. But now I had a particular one in mind.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Fabs as you know it is the virtue of a joker to make others laugh, if i have even raised a smile, it is enough for me 🙂

Originally posted by menace71

4. Blood issue not being able to comprehend the difference between a blood
transfusion and actually eating or drinking blood. two different things.

Originally posted by menace71
The problem is G-75 your not going to convert anyone at least on this forum on this chess site. I was going to let the trinity thing rest. You brought it up in a different thread. You have to understand you will be challenged. You say there is a God! Someone is going to counter with prove it or the trinity doctrine is false. Dude I think you assume the pe d after a while. You really are limited because you put God in a box so to speak.

Manny

Originally posted by galveston75
The point here is you are attacking my religion and I don't believe I've ever attacked yours by name is I don't know what it is. The only thing I'm doing is trying to establish the fact that this one doctrine is not taught in the Bible and has pagan origins. I'm not here to convert anyone from any religion to another but by sharing these obvious facts of ...[text shortened]... e others here "just might" look into it and realize it will not be accepted by God.......

Originally posted by Conrau K
But you are refusing to engage in debate. Twice I have said that the Trinity is not of pagan origin and so the responsibility is yours to prove that it is. Yet you have not done so. You have said that the bible does not teach the Trinity but, as others have pointed out, there is compelling scriptural evidence to support the Trinitarian belief. Colossians does not present any obstacle because the Nicene creed explicitly uses it.

Lots of people hold beliefs that lots of other people find weird. Sometimes there are paradigmatic differences that make just understanding—let alone any agreement—difficult.* Most of our arguments on here really end up being little more than information sharing, that can at least promote understanding (in my opinion, argument—or debate, if you prefer—is a very good way to do that), but hardly ever results in any agreement. At best, it results in an impasse in which we understand a bit more about one another.


This seems also true of arguments over what one should accept as evidence for belief formation. The exception seems to be where one person (or group) can identify actual contradictions in another’s views. But who would not welcome that?


So, I have pretty minimal expectations in any of these arguments. I expect to learn more about the other, to (hopefully) force the other to defend their views in such a way that I at least come to understand them, and to have my own views challenged in such a way that I have to re-examine them (and how I articulate them). That’s really all.


Galveston and Robbie have shown themselves as capable as their opponents in arguing their positions. I may disagree with them across the board (after all, I am not a Christian at all), but I am willing to hear them—and I find arguments of content interesting. If I want to press them on their arguments, I will (and have)—but I no longer consider myself “qualified” to argue points of Christian doctrine (history of those doctrines, perhaps, a bit; but Conrau does a good job of that).


A fundamental dictum that I adhere to is this: the very willingness to argue with someone is an expression of respect (no matter the tone of the argument). Proclamations followed by dismissals of any competing views are not. Having read his stuff before, I think that Manny fully intended to start such argument with this thread (that is, I don’t think he’s into “proclamations and dismissals” ).

__________________________________________


* For example, when I started studying Judaism a number of years ago, I discovered that Judaism and Christianity (as both have evolved) are paradigmatically different religious views. Words like “messiah” and “salvation”—to which Christians have given clear doctrinal definitions—are subject to broad and varying understandings in Judaism (without any centralizing doctrine). Scriptural hermeneutics are so vastly different that the two religions (no matter which denomination in which religion) just don’t understand “scripture” (and its role) in anything like the same way (or even an analogous way) at all—and this aside from the fact that Jews do not recognize the NT and Christians do.


So, to argue something like “Judaism versus Christianity” in a forum like this would be a fruitless endeavor. It can be at best, as I said above, information sharing to further mutual understanding. That, in itself, is difficult enough.