Ask about Jehovah's Witnesses (beliefs, choice, Satan, Adam and Eve)

[WitnessofJah]

Originally Posted by kreeden

" Over-zealous members " ? An interesting way to refer to Charles Russel .

I have studied the Bible with the Jehovah’s Witnesses , and I have to say this much for you , you do know that Bible . However , when I studied , they wouldn't eat blood ever after it was cooked . Wieners were a big issue , because of the blood in the " by-products ".

We refuse to eat raw blood because of what it represents, but after the blood has been cooked, the sacredness of the blood is no longer there because the blood is dead, so it is edible. And even then, we try and drain the blood from the food product as much as possible. As far as 'Weiners' is concerned, sorry, I have never heard of it, however, whether a christian eats the microscopic blood by-products or not comes down their personal conscience, since it is also almost impossible to avoid these things. For example, all chocolate contains lecithin, which is a blood by-product, so does that mean we are not allowed to eat chocolate?

I think the original point of abstaining from blood has been lost and forgotten about in this thread. The reason why we abstain from it is because of what it represents and because it is considered holy to God and represents life. The Bible commands us at Acts 15:29: " To keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!"

This is a simple and straightforward command, which only requires a simple and straightforward action. People on this site overcomplicate it by going into microscopic detail which is impossible by human terms to regulate, which can only realistically regulated by it coming down to the individuals conscience.

[cardero]

Keeping in line with this current discussion a friend of mine said he met a few Jehovah’s Witnesses at the door and they were promoting a new book that came from their organization. They wanted to place this publication with my friend and my friend gave them a book that he wanted them to read (which was not a Watchtower Tract Society book) but the Witnesses refused it so my friend refused to take their publication.

My question is: Are Jehovah Witnesses interested in learning other people’s beliefs to help discern their faiths/beliefs so that they can eventually arrive to the TRUTH or is this dependant on the individual?

Are Jehovah Witnesses encouraged not to engage in reading non-fiction literature (preferably of a spiritual NATURE or websites that offer alternative viewpoints of their religious organzation) that does not coincide with the organizations beliefs/traditions or is this an individual’s choice?

[WitnessofJah]

Originally Posted by Druidus

Then if the person you take blood from is dead, does it matter?

Yes it does. And who would want a blood transfusion from a dead person? Like I said to a previous poster, I think the original point of abstaining from blood has been lost and forgotten about in this thread. The reason why we abstain from it is because of what it represents and because it is considered holy to God and represents life. The Bible commands us at Acts 15:29: " To keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!"

This is a simple and straightforward command, which only requires a simple and straightforward action. People on this site overcomplicate it by going into microscopic detail which is impossible by human terms to regulate, which can only realistically regulated by it coming down to the individuals conscience.

NT was written after Yeshua, so it must have been OT. OT was written by the Jewish, correct? The Jewish do not accept the man you speak of as the Son of God. Since it was a Jewish prophecy, and the Jewish have not accepted it, I would not count that as true. Has the bible predicted anything verifiable today, and not just confirmable from within it's own bindings? We don't even had real proof that Jesus existed, just the second hand accounts of the bible.

This prophecy go's back to Abraham - before the Isrealites and Jews were even a nation, so it was not during the Jewish time period. God promised Abraham a "seed" which was later revealed to be Jesus Christ (Gen 15:1-6). We can confirm that this prophecy was true by looking at Luke chapter 3 and tracking the lineage between Abraham and Jesus.

As far as Jesus existing, he definitely did exist. A person who never existed could never make as large an impact as Jesus has worldwide among religions and peoples lives. There is simply too much to deny. Also, the NT copies are dated back to the times that Jesus existed, and despite some of these writers never meeting, there is too much of a similarity in their writings to conclude that Jesus was fabricated.

There are many contradictions within the bible. I will not list them here, however. There are other Holy Books that have these criteria. All of them. Are they accepted as the word of God too?

First of all, there are no contradictions in the Bible. I have personally gone through most of them through my research, and in actual fact, they are not contradictions but verses which have been taken out of context and misunderstood.

As far as other books meeting that criteria, what other books do you have in mind?

I have played the game numerous times, and have much experience in it. I too am a dungeon master. There are no games where murder, arson, torture, rape or highway robbery occur. The people playing are championeering for good, and fight evils in order to save other people (NPCs, or Non-Player-Characters). For instance, in one game, an evil ogre tried to use his army to attack several towns, kill the people and take their belongings. The players job was to save the towns and people. Is that wrong? It is not improper to imagine the ogre and his army as demons. Therefore, they are only killing that which is purely evil. Is their anything wrong with killing evil to save good? Imagine if this were a real scenario. If you were the only person who could save the towns, would you? Or would you allow the ogres to pillage the towns and kill the inhabitants, merely because you dislike violence? If such things as John Holmes listed were common in games, it is only what the evil did, and the Good partook of themselves to destroy.

Some of the things you have mentioned in the game are against the bible, therefore, unplayable for a Christian. Ask yourself this question: Would God, despite repeatedly telling us his laws in the Bible, suddenly be happy for us to play these things he hates in a game?! Draw your own conclusion.

[WitnessofJah]

Originally Posted by linwood

Witnesses have decided after much critical media over the issue that blood transfusions should be left up to the individual.

Whether or not they "advise" differently in private I don`t know.

Wrong.

The Jehovah's Witness organization has never backtracked on this subject. They have however made a slight modification to the rule of blood transfusions. The reason why it was changed was because a tiny majority of people in our organization were taking blood transfusions (which violated the Bible) and were therefore expelled. They, in response, took our organization to court in protest of being disfellowshipped, which in every case they lost. These regular court cases against our organization are costing us thousands of dollars in our donation funds, and wasting countless of hour of court time in which better time could be better spent. The new rule is that whenever you take a blood transfusion, you automatically get banned due to your own free will, and therefore, does'nt have to go through a long and drawn out process where it goes through the courts.

As usual, it has been mis-reported, and in no way, shape, or form does it affect the Bible law of abstaining from blood - which is still a command.

[WitnessofJah]

Originally Posted by kreeden

The blood issue is still very much alive Linwood .

http://www.rickross.com/reference/jw/jw169.html

http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/bethany.htm

But you may be correct in saying that it is more of a personal choice . Very much of the local beliefs appear to be left up to the local Elders , with the Watchtower more or less being a guideline . { I know that I worded that poorly , my brain is about to explode after trying to explain Jung in another thread ... }

The decision is not left to the local elders, and the watchtower (a magazine publication) is not left as the guideline. The Bible is the ultimate guideline as the base of all our beliefs, including blood.

[WitnessofJah]

Originally Posted by linwood

You`re right kreeden it is still a controversy but I think it`s reached a point where you don`t necessarily risk excommunication by choosing a transfusion over death.

Odd it should be an issue at all.

For the record, a blood transfusion is a poor source of medication. There are better alternative treatments that JW's use instead of blood. It's not blood or die, it's blood or the state of the art alternatives. The alternative treatment we use is actually better thany any blood medication. To read more in it read this:

http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/...article_03.htm

And as we're on the subject, I want to tell you a true story. A close friend of mind had a son who contracted leukemia at the age of 5. Against the will of his parents, they forced on him a blood transfusion and his body actually rejected the blood and his system started to rapidly shut down and he died soon after. Had he had a bloodless treatment, he may have lived and be alive now.

[WitnessofJah]

Originally Posted by precept

Any posing as a "Witness of Jehovah" had better get their facts from Jehovah Himself: Or else! Jesus pronounces the eternal sentence " Whosoever therefore shall BREAK one of these least commandments, and shall TEACH MEN SO, he shall be called the LEAST in the kingdom of heaven...." as contrasted to "Whosoever shall DO and TEACH the least of the commandments of God, the same shall be called GREAT in the kingdom of heaven.

The NT itself says that the Mosaic law was void now that Jesus had arrived on earth. Don't believe me? Look up Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8:6-13 in your own Bible, not mine, and see what it says. If you disagree with me, can you please tell me what these scriptures actually mean then?

The "Watchtower Witnesses" have changed and revised their representation of "what God says", so many times, that they automatically disqualifiy themselves from being the witnesses of a God who never changes anything He says...not today, yesterday, tomorrow or ever! "I Am The Lord! I Change Not"; says God!

Before you make blanket statements like that, you have to give references, in which you cited none. In actual fact, the NWT is actually one of the most accurate translation out there today, which include God's name, Jehovah. If you look at most translations today, even though correct in content, have excluded God's name from their translations - even though the name "Jehovah" is present in the original greek and hebrew texts.

The development of the NWT translation was a huge project which took around 30 years to complete and another 10-15 years to perfect. The NWT was developed by intensively looking at the original hebrew and greek scrolls we can find today in museums, and translating it into modern day English so that we can understand it. Our bible was completed by non-JW sholars who had no loyalties to us.

As far as our Bible being changed, re-read this thread and this time, use your own Bible to look at the scriptures I have cited and you will see that the underlying message remains the same - honestly, we have nothing to hide.

Also; being called least in the kingdom of heaven is a condemnation enjoyed by all who BREAK the commandments of God. All who BREAK God's commandments are judged by the law as sinners. The scriptures teach that "the wages of sin is death".The bible also says "I had not known sin but by the law of God".
If one then BREAKS the law of God and does not repent he as a sinner is condemned to eternal death...and certainly one who BREAKS AND ALSO TEACHES others to BREAK God's commandments, would as a result be a TEACHER opposed to the oommandments of God and would be as condemned to eternal death as any sinner who BREAKS God's commandments without seeking forgiveness.

Read the scriptures I posted at the top of this post and let me know what you think.

The Mosaic law + 600 other laws in the OT had been developed to reflect the culture, traditions, and the era of the jews, not for the period from Jesus until now. This is only rational and logical - and also backed by scriptures.

[WitnessofJah]

Originally Posted by robtex

What have you learned about your community from going door to door......how has your door to door impacted one or two of them (as opposed to telling me about all of them) and has your preceptions changed from your door to door over the years?

We have learned that most people are simply not interested, however, you do ocassionally come across people who want to learn what the Bible has to say. Also, the response you get can also depend on the culture/race of the householder. For example, most of the white people tend not to be interested, but asian/afro-carribbean tend to be more receptive and friendlier because of their background/culture.

My perception of the preaching work has actually got better over the years. When I first started, I was reluctant to to knock on 'stranger doors' to talk to them about the Bible. However, as the years have passed and you get more experienced and confident in the preaching work, you begin to enjoy it more. And also, because you have a positive message to give them, you enjoy even more so.

As far as personal experiences, I have had the priviledge of studying with people the Bible, in which they responded well. Some friends and family of mine have also had the priviledges of bringing these people as far as dedication and baptism. These people who are baptized are now doing well and are a great members of Jehovah's Witnesses.

[WitnessofJah]

Originally Posted by carrdero

Keeping in line with this current discussion a friend of mine said he met a few Jehovah’s Witnesses at the door and they were promoting a new book that came from their organization. They wanted to place this publication with my friend and my friend gave them a book that he wanted them to read (which was not a Watchtower Tract Society book) but the Witnesses refused it so my friend refused to take their publication.

My question is: Are Jehovah Witnesses interested in learning other people’s beliefs to help discern their faiths/beliefs so that they can eventually arrive to the TRUTH or is this dependant on the individual?

I cannot speak for other Jehovah's Witnesses as regards to whether they decide to research other religions or not, but talking from personal experience, I have looked into many other religions and researched what they had to say. I love the topic of religion and I have done more research than even most non-JW people, and if any religion has anything interesting to say that is of merit, I am willing to research their point.

Our organization has never encouraged/discouraged the right to research what other religions have to say, and you are right when you say that it comes down to the individual.

Are Jehovah Witnesses encouraged not to engage in reading non-fiction literature (preferably of a spiritual NATURE or websites that offer alternative viewpoints of their religious organzation) that does not coincide with the organizations beliefs/traditions or is this an individual’s choice?

Again, it comes down to the individual. I personally have done more than my fair share of researching other religions by researching and reading non-JW publications and websites. Our society has never not encouraged the ability to read non-JW publications, and to do so would be to infringe on our god-given right of freedom of thought and speech.

[SoulTYPE]

Witness dude, I have a lot of time for you. Although I do not follow the same religion and choose not to. I respect the time and effort you have put into this whole thread. You have earned my respect.