19 Sep 10
Originally posted by divegeesterFor probably about the 10th or so time from me, why can't you accept the answers given to you on this subject from Robbie and myself?
robbie and galv, I will "back off" as we are getting nowhere and the point is proven even if the questions remain unanswered. I apologise for my impatience being manifest as abruptness and an increasing demand for these answers.
I find it is difficult to have a decent conversation with JW's because you (both of you here, and those I have met in the ...[text shortened]... you get them) will tell you everything you need to know about the root of the organisation.
We have gone all over this forum explaining why it is not a yes or no answer. It is not that we're being evasive but there is NOT a yes or no answer.
You can keep waisting your time and get all bent out of shape but stop retyping that same question. Perhaps you should go back and reread the postings that have clearly explained this subject to you.
And to settle your mind we are not taught to evade answers to any questions ever so it shows you don't have the right understanding of us at all.
If you want to know what we believe and why we believe the things we do, ask us and not go off the words of non JW's. If you want advice from a doctor you don't go ask a lawyer do you?
19 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, you're not pointing anything out to me I haven't heard. I know that the devout structure their entire lives around their faith, and that their faith informs how they perceive and interpret the world. So what? Everybody has core beliefs and commitments. Everybody has values that inform how they perceive and interpret the world. Religion is not special in this regard. My philosophical beliefs go down just as deep as your religious beliefs.
I'm not taking you to task; I'm pointing something out to you.
I don't think you value religion to think that a parents views on their religion
can be just turned off as if were no big deal, for you some of these topics you may
feel are no big deal, just little things; however, it may not be to them! You think
their views are ridiculous, that shows a ...[text shortened]... s what, your views and standards are the ones that all the
rest of us have to go by?
Kelly
Yes, I think that some religious beliefs are ridiculous. If you believe that eating shellfish is properly punishable by stoning, then you have a ridiculous belief. If you think that it is better that your child die than to receive a blood transfusion, then you have a ridiculous belief. That is all there is to it. There are no good reasons for these beliefs; there are no good arguments in their favor. There is simply a text, variably interpreted, that some people hew to unthinkingly. There is nothing magical about shellfish. There is nothing magical about blood. There is no invisible sky-father that will punish you for eating shellfish or getting a transfusion. No minimally credible account of God as an entity that is good, just, merciful, loving is consistent with these restrictions. And that, really, is the difference. I can give you reasons to be compassionate, just, merciful, loving. I can explain why these are important. I can point out that your own moral beliefs commit you to agreeing with me about these things. Everybody who counts as sane and not evil takes these things as basic. These function as moral axioms, against which religious beliefs and philosophical beliefs are judged. If some religious person said "God commands that I rape women on Tuesday", you would think he was crazy. Why? Because God would never command that. Why? Because God is not a prick. I mean, really. Get serious.
You think these beliefs should be honored? Then you are accommodating cruelty, stupidity, and pride. You are placing tolerance on a pedestal, and refusing to think carefully about the distinction between a reasonable belief and a crazy belief. Not all beliefs should be honored, and it doesn't make a belief more deserving of honor that some idiot really, really, really believes it.
Finally, I don't think that everybody has to live by my rules. I think it's stupid to ask "who am I to say what is right and wrong". When you ask that question, there is only one response: I am somebody who thinks seriously about what is right and wrong. What other credentials could there be?
19 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75hes a borg, its all ones and zeros, black and white, yes and no! i blame society for its purely legalistic rule based structure, for thinking on principles and evaluating the different factors so as to come to a consensus takes time and involves reflection and the exercise of ones own conscience!
For probably about the 10th or so time from me, why can't you accept the answers given to you on this subject from Robbie and myself?
We have gone all over this forum explaining why it is not a yes or no answer. It is not that we're being evasive but there is NOT a yes or no answer.
You can keep waisting your time and get all bent out of shape but f the words of non JW's. If you want advice from a doctor you don't go ask a lawyer do you?
19 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieLol... Anyway he'll have to take that last answer as that's all he's getting from me.
hes a borg, its all ones and zeros, black and white, yes and no! i blame society for its purely legalistic rule based structure, for thinking on principles and evaluating the different factors so as to come to a consensus takes time and involves reflection and the exercise of ones own conscience!
19 Sep 10
Originally posted by bbarrNice post. I wish the JWs here can read this post and give an intelligent response. But that s wishful thinking.
Kelly, you're not pointing anything out to me I haven't heard. I know that the devout structure their entire lives around their faith, and that their faith informs how they perceive and interpret the world. So what? Everybody has core beliefs and commitments. Everybody has values that inform how they perceive and interpret the world. Religion is not speci ...[text shortened]... thinks seriously about what is right and wrong. What other credentials could there be?
19 Sep 10
Originally posted by galveston75I don't accept your responses because they don't answer the questions; no other reason than that.
For probably about the 10th or so time from me, why can't you accept the answers given to you on this subject from Robbie and myself?
We have gone all over this forum explaining why it is not a yes or no answer. It is not that we're being evasive but there is NOT a yes or no answer.
You can keep waisting your time and get all bent out of shape but ...[text shortened]... f the words of non JW's. If you want advice from a doctor you don't go ask a lawyer do you?
19 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMock my reasoning all you want, the questions remain unanswered.
hes a borg, its all ones and zeros, black and white, yes and no! i blame society for its purely legalistic rule based structure, for thinking on principles and evaluating the different factors so as to come to a consensus takes time and involves reflection and the exercise of ones own conscience!
19 Sep 10
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75Read the post I mentioned. There is much that a theist can learn from an atheist. Open your eyes and free your mind.
So you like his post? The one here where he says there is no God? You agree with that?
Paul persecuted the Christians and God chose him for a reason. I would guess that part of that reason is that Paul (then Saul) had the required conviction and guts to stand up for what he believed. So all that was required was to get Saul to change sides. So dont go condemning people including atheists. They might get eternal life before you do.
Your continued condemnation of virtually everyone in the world shows clearly that your loyalty is to the JW organisation and not to Christ.
19 Sep 10
Originally posted by galveston75The basic point of my post above is not that there is no God. Rather, it is that if there is a God, he is probably not so cruel as to prohibit things like blood transfusions. If there is a God, he probably would prefer that humans not see their loved ones die on operating room tables. If there is a God, he probably wouldn't establish a host of bizarrely capricious requirements dealing with blood, shellfish, cattle, fibers, or call for the stoning of those who run afoul of these requirements. In short, as I wrote above, if there is a God, he's probably not a prick.
So you like his post? The one here where he says there is no God? You agree with that?
Now, you can worship whatever fantasy you want. You can get all your apocalyptic death-cult blood-magic rapture-ready literalists together and decide you'd prefer not take advantage of efficient medical technologies. Hell, I wouldn't mind if you all decided to forgo medical treatment altogether. But if you subject your children to this nonsense, then you're not fit to be parents. It's as simple as that.
19 Sep 10
Originally posted by Rajk999I hate no one or condemn anyone as I am no judge. If you'd open "your eyes" and read back over every single post I've done here you'll never see me condemning anyone personally ever. It's the religions they are a part of that follows traditions of man made doctrines that I condemn.
Read the post I mentioned. There is much that a theist can learn from an atheist. Open your eyes and free your mind.
Paul persecuted the Christians and God chose him for a reason. I would guess that part of that reason is that Paul (then Saul) had the required conviction and guts to stand up for what he believed. So all that was required was to get Saul t ...[text shortened]... eryone in the world shows clearly that your loyalty is to the JW organisation and not to Christ.
And by your glowing comments and admiration that some athiest make it shows you've opened up your mind too much and are diviating from Bible truths.
19 Sep 10
Originally posted by bbarrBlood part #1:
The basic point of my post above is not that there is no God. Rather, it is that if there is a God, he is probably not so cruel as to prohibit things like blood transfusions. If there is a God, he probably would prefer that humans not see their loved ones die on operating room tables. If there is a God, he probably wouldn't establish a host of bizarrely cap ...[text shortened]... our children to this nonsense, then you're not fit to be parents. It's as simple as that.
In the Bible, the soul is said to be in the blood because blood is so intimately involved in the life processes. God’s Word says: “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it.” (Le 17:11) For like reason, but making the connection even more direct, the Bible says: “The soul of every sort of flesh is its blood.” (Le 17:14) Clearly, God’s Word treats both life and blood as sacred.
Taking Life. With Jehovah is the source of life. (Ps 36:9) Man cannot give back a life that he takes. “All the souls—to me they belong,” says Jehovah. (Eze 18:4) Therefore, to take life is to take Jehovah’s property. Every living thing has a purpose and a place in God’s creation. No man has the right to take life except when God permits and in the way that he instructs.
After the Flood, Noah and his sons, the progenitors of all persons alive today, were commanded to show respect for the life, the blood, of fellowmen. (Ge 9:1, 5, 6) Also, God kindly allowed them to add animal flesh to their diet. However, they had to acknowledge that the life of any animal killed for food belonged to God, doing so by pouring its blood out as water on the ground. This was like giving it back to God, not using it for one’s own purposes.—De 12:15, 16.
Man was entitled to enjoy the life that God granted him, and anyone who deprived him of that life would be answerable to God. This was shown when God said to the murderer Cain: “Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground.” (Ge 4:10) Even a person hating his brother, and so wishing him dead, or slandering him or bearing false witness against him, and so endangering his life, would bring guilt upon himself in connection with the blood of his fellowman.—Le 19:16; De 19:18-21; 1Jo 3:15.
Because of God’s view of the value of life, the blood of a murdered person is said to defile the earth, and such defilement can be cleansed only by shedding the blood of the murderer. On this basis the Bible authorizes capital punishment for murder, through duly constituted authority. (Nu 35:33; Ge 9:5, 6) In ancient Israel no ransom could be taken to deliver the deliberate murderer from the death penalty.—Nu 35:19-21, 31.
Even in cases where the manslayer could not be found on investigation, the city nearest the site where the body was found was counted bloodguilty. To remove the bloodguilt, the responsible city elders had to perform the procedure required by God, had to disclaim any guilt or knowledge of the murder, and had to pray to God for his mercy. (De 21:1-9) If an accidental manslayer was not seriously concerned over the taking of a life and did not follow God’s arrangement for his protection by fleeing to the city of refuge and remaining there, the dead man’s nearest of kin was the avenger authorized and obligated to kill him in order to remove bloodguilt from the land.—Nu 35:26, 27; see AVENGER OF BLOOD.
19 Sep 10
Part #2:
Proper Use of Blood. There was only one use of blood that God ever approved, namely, for sacrifice. He directed that those under the Mosaic Law offer animal sacrifices to make atonement for sin. (Le 17:10, 11) It was also in harmony with His will that His Son, Jesus Christ, offered up his perfect human life as a sacrifice for sins.—Heb 10:5, 10.
The lifesaving application of Christ’s blood was prefigured in a variety of ways in the Hebrew Scriptures. At the time of the first Passover, in Egypt, the blood on the upper part of the doorway and on the doorposts of the Israelite homes protected the firstborn inside from death at the hand of God’s angel. (Ex 12:7, 22, 23; 1Co 5:7) The Law covenant, which had a typical sin-removing feature, was validated by the blood of animals. (Ex 24:5-8) The numerous blood sacrifices, particularly those offered on the Day of Atonement, were for typical sin atonement, pointing to the real sin removal by the sacrifice of Christ.—Le 16:11, 15-18.
The legal power that blood has in God’s sight as accepted by him for atonement purposes was illustrated by the pouring of blood at the base, or foundation, of the altar and the putting of it on the horns of the altar. The atonement arrangement had its basis, or foundation, in blood, and the power (represented by horns) of the sacrificial arrangement rested in blood.—Le 9:9; Heb 9:22; 1Co 1:18.
Under the Christian arrangement, the sanctity of blood was even more strongly emphasized. No longer was animal blood to be offered, for those animal offerings were only a shadow of the reality, Jesus Christ. (Col 2:17; Heb 10:1-4, 8-10) The high priest in Israel used to take a token portion of the blood into the Most Holy of the earthly sanctuary. (Le 16:14) Jesus Christ as the real High Priest entered into heaven itself, not with his blood, which was poured out on the ground (Joh 19:34), but with the value of his perfect human life as represented by blood. This life right he never forfeited by sin, but he retained it as usable for sin atonement. (Heb 7:26; 8:3; 9:11, 12) For these reasons the blood of Christ cries out for better things than the blood of righteous Abel did. Only the blood of the perfect sacrifice of the Son of God can call for mercy, while the blood of Abel as well as the blood of martyred followers of Christ cries out for vengeance.—Heb 12:24; Re 6:9-11.
To whom does the prohibition on the eating of blood apply?
Noah and his sons were allowed by Jehovah to add animal flesh to their diet after the Flood, but they were strictly commanded not to eat blood. (Ge 9:1, 3, 4) God here set out a regulation that applied, not merely to Noah and his immediate family, but to all mankind from that time on, because all those living since the Flood are descendants of Noah’s family.
Concerning the permanence of this prohibition, Joseph Benson noted: “It ought to be observed, that this prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his posterity, and repeated to the Israelites, in a most solemn manner, under the Mosaic dispensation, has never been revoked, but, on the contrary, has been confirmed under the New Testament, Acts xv.; and thereby made of perpetual obligation.”—Benson’s Notes, 1839, Vol. I, p. 43.
19 Sep 10
Originally posted by galveston75Bible truths ? Whats that? Eternal life is through Christ... not the Bible. The Bible is mostly a history of the Jews, via a series of books complied by men. The only thing relevant to eternal life is the words of Christ.
.. you... are diviating from Bible truths.
Please point out one deviation I made from what Christ said.
I started a thread which lists restrictions of the JW organisation 99% of which Christ never said. So you as a JW have severely deviated from the teachings of Christ. I have not.
Paul was an atheist before he met Christ, so dont go blindly condemning all atheists.