Don't Blame Me For Not Accepting Jesus

[Deeje]

I'm a retired physician - an internist. I don't take scientific advice from the religious. I'll rely on my studies and experience instead, which contradict you.

You'll be pleased to know that your knowledge and experience have been superceded.

Today many physicians are seeking out the advice of Jehovah's Witnesses because of their unique experience with bloodless medicine. Our Hospital Liason Committees are up to date on all the latest bloodless medical techniques. Statistically, Witness patients do better than those who had blood transfusions for the same procedures, leading to a rethink of the efficacy of the procedure.

As I said, we are living proof that blood is not a necessary part of medicine anymore. I know of so many Witnesses who were told point blank by their physicians that they would die without blood....none of them did. In fact they recovered very quickly and were discharged after a very short stay in hospital. It is very sobering indeed to understand that doctors can bury their mistakes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Does that round things off for you?

No, because it doesn't suggest god "hides the truth from obvious places" because if he did then he wouldn't be filling his kingdom with those who desires.

"During"?
That doesn't seem difficult to me. You don't revoke consent "during". You've consented.

Tom

But you don't consent to everything. The most extreme example I can think of that "prank" where a guy has approached his partner from behind, only to switch with another guy (who ends up having sex with someone that did not receive consent) while the original guy offs so his partner can see him somehow and discover the change.
Or it could be things like consenting to only oral sex, or only if a condom is used, and of course people can change their mind, and if they say no more then no more (kind of like how you may legally end your participation in a science study at any time and have your information removed even though you initially gave your informed consent).

 

[Muffled]

This is one of those 'double edged' issues.

It begins with understanding what it even means to state that one "accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and savior". Because this phrase means some very different things to different people. The phrase, itself, is somewhat abstract and symbolic since Jesus does not physically exist in our world and is not physically saving anyone from anything. One is claiming allegiance to an ideal, here, not an actual person. So what IS that ideal?

If we ask 100 Christians what this ideal is, and we press for specifics, we will get a lot of different answers, ranging from the most literal, to the most supernatural, to the most practical, and everything in between. So that if we are rejecting the ideal of "Jesus Christ as our lord and savior" it may be our own fault, as we've never bothered to determine for ourselves what that ideal might really mean: how it could make sense, to us, before we rejected it as being nonsensical.

On the other hand, anytime I've ever been asked this question it was being asked by someone who was intent on standing in judgment of me. Someone who believed that his/her interpretation of the Jesus story is the only possible correct interpretation and so they were seeking either my agreement, or presuming my error. And either way they were not really interested in me, or in what I believed. So I've never seen any logical reason to bother answering them just so they can pass their own self-righteous judgment on me.

I believe the lack of physicality doesn't mean that it is abstract.

I don't believe He ever physically saved anyone. He performed miracles not surgery.

I believe some people might view it that way but I don't.

I believe the person is God: Father,Son and Paraclete.

I suppose the problem is that you are not rational enough to recognize the right answer.

I believe it makes sense that the same Spirit of God in Jesus working miracles can work in us to keep us from sin.

I believe Jesus is saying that you have already been judged by God and found guilty. So the only questions left are whether you are willing to accept a pardon and the terms of your parole (good behavior).

 

[Muffled]

Jesus himself said that God must first draw a person to him, before that person can accept, or even "see" him. -- The self-righteous are very violent.

I believe He also said that He would draw all men to Him by going to the cross.

 

[Muffled]

In light of Jesus' remark where he makes the distinction between himself and god, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” by highlighting the above I hope you recognize the logical fallacy you've committed here. Not that it matters to me, but it might help in cleaning up your thinking.


My, aren't you a sweetheart. I don't buy into the guilt trip Christians like to lay on all those who don't join their fraternity. So I'm no better than those who rape and kill five year old girls. Whose your mentor, Donald Trump?

.

I believe there is none to recognize.

I believe you ought to respond instead of ducking the issue.

I believe I call them the way I see them.

I believe you have to recognize your guilt in order to recognize your need for pardon and to have Jesus manage your life.

I believe my mentor is Jesus.

I believe the rumor that I have heard is that Trump is a baby Christian and might not know near as much about it as me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I believe you have to recognize your guilt in order to recognize your need for pardon and to have Jesus manage your life.

What guilt?

 

[Sleeppy]

I believe He also said that He would draw all men to Him by going to the cross.

John 12.

1) Who was referring to? Himself only?
2) Refer back to "my Father's hand". How does this apply?
3)Are all men drawn, following his being "lifted up/removed"?

It's not contrary to what I'm saying.

 

[Kenny]

I never said it translated to just JW's. Labels do not impress the judge. It is living up to the meaning of the word "Christian".
JW's are individually just as prone to hypocrisy as anyone else. It isn't what you call yourself......its what Jesus calls you that matters.

That's a statement that I can agree with... it wasn't what you projected.

I don't recall Jesus ever advocating bloodshed...do you?

It depends, doesn't it? What is Jesus going to do when He comes back?

Christians were hated in the Roman world for practicing their religious beliefs. They kept separate from the world because Christ told them to. It didn't make them popular. (John 15:19)

I don't think point a = point b.

Yes... they were hated and, at certain points, weren't ALLOWED positions of authority because of their hatred. Separate from the world = be different... stop lying, cheating, living for self, don't be covetous etc.

In a climate of rebellion, they refussed to join the zealots in plotting against Rome. So they did not hold political office, and they refused military service. As a result, they “were represented as men dead to the world, and useless for all affairs of life,” according to historian Augustus Neander.

I rather go by the Bible.

Cornelius, a believing Centurion, was not commanded to release his position. He remained a soldier
John the Baptist did not command the soldiers not to fight but rather be satisfied with their salary
Sergius Paulus, a proconsul, became a believer and wasn't told not to be involved in politics.
King David was in politics as a King
Jesus is the King of Kings.

Ambassadors do not meddle in the politics of the nation to which they are sent. Their diplomacy is in keeping peaceful relations with their own nation and the one to which they were sent. Christians are to be "peacemakers"....not "peacekeepers". Do you understand the difference?

Keeping peaceful relations is dealing in the arena of politics... do you understand that Ambassadorship has everything to do with politics?

I can't recall Jesus ever telling us not to become involved in the commercial aspects of life. He told his disciples to buy food as I recall. He was a carpenter...the son of a carpenter, so like Paul who was a tentmaker, they earned a living by providing services to others.

I don't recall Jesus ever telling us not to be involved in politics. Not to mention that very specifically He placed Joseph, Daniel, Shadrack, etc. etc etc etc etc etc in politics.

He changeth not.

The part of the world that they were not to become part of was mainly political. It was the political elements of satan's world that tried to interfere with a Christian's efforts to preach the good news

That is an opinion. And Satan's world will use ANYTHING to stop us from preaching the good news.

and to refrain from shedding human blood in their polituical power struggles. It is even today. Didn't Jesus say that if we 'lived by the sword, we would die by the sword'.

Didn't Jesus also tell his disciple to get a sword? And the application had nothing to do with wars or self defense. If you are to die for the Gospel sake, then YES, do not take up the sword. But if you are a policeman and your job is to defend the innocent then there is no problem for taking up the sword.

The CORRECT application was that Jesus was about to die for the Gospel sake.

I believe that it is what comes from a person's heart that comes out of their mouth. I'll let Jesus judge that too.

Agreed.

The trinity was a fourth century adoption from paganism. Google pagan trinities and see where they come from.
There is no trinity in the Bible. There is no trinity in any of the Abrahamic faiths.....its only found in Christendom.

Christendom IS an Abrahamic faith.
Old Testament DOES speak of a Godhead
The Godhead WAS around WAY before the fourth century.
Paganism ALWAYS imitates the truth in some form or fashion. Even Satan quoted the word of God.

Tertullian, often called "the father of the Trinity" for being the first person to use the Latin Trinitas, wrote in A.D. 200:

The simple, (indeed, I will not call them unwise and unlearned), who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation [of the Three], on the ground that the very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God. They do not understand that although he is the one only God, he must yet be believed in with his own order of things. (Against Praxeas 3)


And he didn't pull that out of thin air either.

The Bible translators were fully indoctrinated with false teachings well before the Bible was ever available to the common man in his own language. Those doctrines were woven into scripture by one who is a master deceiver.

Baloney. In as much as we now have early fragments as well as some complete books, your position is a matter of opinion based on your indoctrination. IMV.

There is no trinity....no immortal soul......and no hellfire in Christ's teachings. You can't see it but all of those doctrines are designed to misrepresent the God of Jesus Christ. It means that you worship a completely different God to the one that I do. Sadly, we shall soon see which one is true and which one is a fabrication.

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:.......
.....Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.
2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?
3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?
4 Have you experienced so much in vain—if it really was in vain?
5 So again I ask, does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?

 

[Kenny]

Who is "we"? I see that there are some local isolated churches in the USA that do attempt to preach door to door....but JW's are an international brotherhood who do so in all nations as far as is humanly possible. We preach one united message in every nation, not a mish-mash of conflicting messages from people we never see.

LOL... you see "churches"... I see one church with many parts. Mormons preach a united message in every nation too -- does that make it right?
All of CHRISTENDOM preach Jesus crucified, died, risen and coming again.

Please go to our website and see for yourself how extensive our preaching work is. JW.ORG

??? Mormons have an extensive work too.

"Evangelists"? Are you serious? Who is more evangelical than Jehovah's Witnesses? Who is more disliked for being so? (John 15:18-21)

no more and no less than all the Christians who preach the Gospel. But as far as "more"???

Well... I don't need to pat you on your back... you are doing just fine yourself.

So you did turn the channel and rejected the message... was just checking

 

[Sleeppy]

John 12.

1) Who was referring to? Himself only?
2) Refer back to "my Father's hand". How does this apply?
3)Are all men drawn, following his being "lifted up/removed"?

It's not contrary to what I'm saying.

1) The Son of Man. Mankind.
2) It applies. Yet another redundancy.
3) Every man must be lifted up; but when two are in the field, and the first is lifted up and removed, the last is being drawn. Elijah blessed Elisha being removed, according to himself, but John furthered the completion of his spirit, according to the resurrection of the Son of Man.

All men are drawn to one another, for the Father's purpose.

 

[Deeje]

No, because it doesn't suggest god "hides the truth from obvious places" because if he did then he wouldn't be filling his kingdom with those who desires.

As the sovereign ruler of the universe, the Creator has the right to require certain behaviors of the citizens of his Kingdom. All governments have requirements and the right to terminate citizenship and deport any who treat the laws and government with disrespect. Should God do any less?

God has allowed a rebel to rule an equally rebellious people because he wants us all to see where that takes us. This is a situation that brings out either the best or the worst in people. A separation is what God is facilitating....only we are the ones who separate ourselves, just be the choices we make. At the end of the day, there are only "sheep" and "goats"......we demonstrate who we are by how we respond to the Kingdom message. Its that simple.

For those who demonstrate that following the reasonable rules is natural for them, citizenship is bestowed with gratitude. It isn't easy to step away from the mob and say you disagree with their actions and behaviors, particularly when they seem attractive to so many. But the Creator is a rewarder of loyalty and obedience to his reasonable requests. He has no time for rebels so he has established precedents in this world so that rebellion will never again interfere with his purpose in the eternal future.

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

I know if there was a big gold nugget buried in my backyard, it wouldn't be greed that motivated me to dig for it....it would be the good I could do with that money for my own nearest and dearest.

Not a donation to the Watchtower??? Don't blame you, I'm sure the organisation shakes down a fortune from the faithful. Your nearest and dearest are way more important.

I saw Castaway too and "Wilson" was not terribly good company.

Yep, that was in my mind when I wrote that, a fine movie though, it illustrates how we all need people - but not a deity in our lives.

OTOH, I have read about many of our brothers who were put into prison because of neutrality issues, some of whom were placed into solitary confinement. They came out as sane as they ever were due to constant communication with their God.

Sure, lots of religious people claim similar, but I might say they went into prison with a "Wilson" already inside their heads. I suspect all people converse with themselves, I know I do, I once heard a cleric say that is possibly where the idea of god being a 'community' originated - hence the Trinity. We were created in the image of god according to the bible right? Could be you are wrong about the Trinity! (insert shocked/smiley/winking emoji as applicable here).

And no one could answer my endless questions. I have the answers now. None of them are a stretch.

I disagree Deeje, they are all a damn stretch, they just don't comport with the reality I experience, with my reason, with my logic. Can't help that gal, it is all I have to navigate my way through life, no point in trying to convince myself of something I don't believe in right? A crazy old world that would be!

The Deity is not lonely, nor is he a megalomaniac demanding anything. His first purpose will go ahead, with us or without us....we choose our own destiny by the decisions we make. God has no desire to make a small band happy whilst destroying the rest......he would rather all "attian to repentance". He is offering citizenship to all who will agree to qualify for residency according to his terms. This is his earth to govern as he sees fit....we can choose to live here, or we can be disqualified.

Thanks but you don't need to explain "The Fall" to me, I know the story and with hindsight to be blunt I'd call it dumb - never mind 'unjust' or 'cruel' dumb is the appropriate adjective. I'm not trying to offend you, just being honest. It really makes no sense that this thing made us so that we are 'toxic' to it, and can only escape annihilation by blind faith in a world apparently dominated by satan whose raison d'être is to deceive us into other paths. According to your beliefs, god entrusted the bible to satan for centuries until the Watchtower came along!

Just asserting the deity is not 'lonely' (that is a kind of bizarre but interesting philosophical idea btw), or a megalomaniac does not make it so. If you are to believe the bible literally, you have to believe god wiped out the entire population of the planet except for one family he deemed to be "righteous" (because they worshipped him right?). God done so because it had all gone wrong and he wanted to start afresh...but it all went wrong again. Not a megalomaniac? I wouldn't want him as my dad!

If you mean you used to be a church goer...then so did I. And I also came to a point where I could "not believe this stuff anymore". But I didn't throw the baby out with the bath water. I never lost my faith in God...only in his lousy representatives and their failure to follow his instructions.

That is where you and I differ, I didn't think there was a baby to throw out, just bath water. I don't rail against "Christendom", it isn't "evil", it is just people after all, like the Watchtower. I suspect you like to get the last word in so I wouldn't be surprised if there is another round between us, but I've enjoyed our conversation regardless. "Atheist and Theist Have Civilised Conversation Shock!"

 

[Olinda]

You'll be pleased to know that your knowledge and experience have been superceded.

Our Hospital Liason Committees are up to date on all the latest bloodless medical techniques.

I know of so many Witnesses who were told point blank by their physicians that they would die without blood....none of them did. In fact they recovered very quickly and were discharged after a very short stay in hospital. It is very sobering indeed to understand that doctors can bury their mistakes.

Oh really?

Today many physicians are seeking out the advice of Jehovah's Witnesses because of their unique experience with bloodless medicine.

JWs are not the only people to refuse a recommended blood transfusion, so could you explain how you are unique?

Statistically, Witness patients do better than those who had blood transfusions for the same procedures, leading to a rethink of the efficacy of the procedure.

Please provide a link to these statistics. Evidence that the present medical cautions on blood transfusions were 'led' by any JW information would also be needed to support your position.

As I said, we are living proof that blood is not a necessary part of medicine anymore.

For that to be so, ALL blood transfusions refused by JWs would have led to a better outcome. Perhaps you have forgotten the JW publication "Awake" of May 22, 1994 which not only didn't say this, but lauded children who died after refusing blood transfusions?
Still waiting on replies to my earlier comments, but not all that hopefully

 

[Deeje]

It depends, doesn't it? What is Jesus going to do when He comes back?

When Jesus comes as judge, he will do battle with opposers using his own angelic forces....not human ones.

2 Thessalonians 1:4-10:
"As a result we ourselves take pride in you among the congregations of God because of your endurance and faith in all your persecutions and the hardships that you are suffering. 5 This is a proof of the righteous judgment of God, leading to your being counted worthy of the Kingdom of God, for which you are indeed suffering.
6 This takes into account that it is righteous on God’s part to repay tribulation to those who make tribulation for you. 7 But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels 8 in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9 These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength, 10 at the time when he comes to be glorified in connection with his holy ones and to be regarded in that day with wonder among all those who exercised faith, because the witness we gave met with faith among you."

Christ never advocated violence for his disciples......ever.

As Paul said....
"Return evil for evil to no one. Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men. 18 If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men. 19 Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” 20 But “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals on his head.” 21 Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good."

You think returning evil for evil was something Christ advocated? Not according to Paul. We are to "conquer evil with good"....not guns.

Yes... they were hated and, at certain points, weren't ALLOWED positions of authority because of their hatred. Separate from the world = be different... stop lying, cheating, living for self, don't be covetous etc.

It wasn't that they were not allowed...they did not seek political office until the foretold apostasy was well and truly established. Bloodshed was common under Constantine and continued for centuries.

Christians were to be imitators of Christ who never once involved himself in the political situation of his own people under the oppressive Roman yoke. He made no comment about the political situation....his primary focus was the religious mess his people were in.

I rather go by the Bible.

Or perhaps it is more correct to say it is your own favored interpretation of the Bible....I once followed that interpretation too and it bugged me to death. Seeing the blatant hypocrisy for myself first hand caused me to seek God elsewhere.

Cornelius, a believing Centurion, was not commanded to release his position. He remained a soldier

There is not one scripture that says Cornelius remained in the military after his conversion. History attests to the fact that the very early Christians refused to fight for their governments.

“A careful review of all the information available [shows] that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.”—The Rise of Christianity.

“The behavior of the [early] Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.”—Our World Through the Ages.

Because Christ’s disciples refused to serve in the emperor’s legions, the Romans put many of them to death.

John the Baptist did not command the soldiers not to fight but rather be satisfied with their salary

John the Baptist was talking to Jews, not Christians. If you recall, John was killed before Jesus was. Christianity was not yet separated from Judaism.

Sergius Paulus, a proconsul, became a believer and wasn't told not to be involved in politics.

Again, there is no indication from scripture that Sergius Paulus, (who was already in political office when he became a believer under Paul's guidance,) remained in that office. It may well be that after a thorough study of Christ's teachings, he saw the need to separate from the political world.

King David was in politics as a King

David was a Jew, not a Christian. They are two completely separate systems, not because one is more "right" than the other, but because the Jewish religion by the time of Christ was well and truly apostate. Jesus ministry was a correction for that religious system, which they failed to heed.

Christianity was a new arrangement, under a new covenant. The old one was done away with, as a written code, but the principles remained.

Jesus is the King of Kings.

Appointed by God himself to rule in his Kingdom with other who were specially chosen for that role.

Keeping peaceful relations is dealing in the arena of politics... do you understand that Ambassadorship has everything to do with politics?

"An ambassador is an official envoy, especially a highest ranking diplomat who represents a state and is usually accredited to another sovereign state, or to an international organization as the resident representative of their own government or sovereign or appointed for a special and often temporary diplomatic assignment. The word is also often used more liberally for persons who are known, without national appointment, to represent certain professions, activities and fields of endeavor such as sales." (Wiki)

It is a diplomatic role reserved specifically for ensuring peaceful relations with a foreign country to which they are assigned, to look after the interests of their own nation. An ambassador has nothing to do with the politics of the nation he is sent to.

 

[Deeje]

I don't recall Jesus ever telling us not to be involved in politics. Not to mention that very specifically He placed Joseph, Daniel, Shadrack, etc. etc etc etc etc etc in politics.

Again you are confusing the Jewish system with the Christianity. Joseph existed before Israel became a nation. He was used to make sure that the "seed" od Abraham survived to eventually produce the Messiah.

Daniel was also used help to keep the faithful ones of his nation from succumbing to the Babylonian influences whilst they were exiled for their disobedience....his loyalty to his God was admired by the King who lost sleep worrying about Daniel in the lions' den.

Shadrack, Meshak and Abednego were among those faithful ones whom the Babylonian King was tricked into sentencing to a fiery death. He was pleased to see that Israel's God was stronger than the gods of Babylon when he delivered them. They were all Jewish.

Satan's world will use ANYTHING to stop us from preaching the good news.

That is true....but the political elements have always been at the forefront of the persecution....religious influence was next, just as it was in Jesus' day.

Didn't Jesus also tell his disciple to get a sword?

And if you remember, Jesus chastised Peter for using it. The whole idea was to demonstrate that even though they were armed, they would NOT resort to violence. Two swords against an armed mob was hardly going to gain them a victory. Jesus said he didn't need the swords because 12 legions of angels could be dispatched at his request.

And the application had nothing to do with wars or self defense. If you are to die for the Gospel sake, then YES, do not take up the sword. But if you are a policeman and your job is to defend the innocent then there is no problem for taking up the sword.

The CORRECT application was that Jesus was about to die for the Gospel sake.

And in what situation of war are Christians to die for the sake of the gospel? They die as victims of injustice, not as armed combatants. JW's were killed in Nazi Germany for refusing to heil Hitler and serve in his military forces. They were also persecuted on the other side for the same reason. (John 15:18-21) That is what political neutrality looks like.

Christendom IS an Abrahamic faith.

Judaism, Islam and Christianity can all claim to be "Abrahamic"....yet they could not be further apart. For Christendom to adopt a trinity when the others still refuse to this day, says something IMO. There was no trinity in the OT. There is no trinity in the NT either.

Old Testament DOES speak of a Godhead

Where? Please quote chapter and verse.
As far as I am aware, Israel was unique in having just one God......and he never had three heads. Pagans had plenty of them. Look up pagan trinities and you will see.

Deuteronomy 6:4:
"Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one."

The Godhead WAS around WAY before the fourth century.

Yes it was, but only in pagan religions.

Paganism ALWAYS imitates the truth in some form or fashion. Even Satan quoted the word of God.

Indeed, but Christianity NEVER imitated paganism......Christendom did that.

Tertullian, often called "the father of the Trinity" for being the first person to use the Latin Trinitas, wrote in A.D. 200:

Anything written, or anyone who wrote after the close of the first century cannot be counted on to speak unadulterated truth. The foretold apostasy was already snapping at the heels of the apostles who were acting as a restraint until the writing of the Christian scriptures was completed. (2 Thess 2:3-7) The last apostle (John) died after completing his final letters and his Revelation at the end of the first century. From the beginning of the second century Christianity went into a steady decline until the birth of Roman Catholicism, which was the final nail in the coffin of true Christianity. It wasn't until "the time of the end" that God would re-establish his truth by making "knowledge" available to those who would spread his message. (Daniel 12:9-10)
Those intent on clinging to false doctrines would understand nothing.

The simple, (indeed, I will not call them unwise and unlearned), who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation [of the Three], on the ground that the very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God. They do not understand that although he is the one only God, he must yet be believed in with his own order of things. (Against Praxeas 3)

Since Jews did not, and still do not believe that God is a triune being, Christ as a devout Jew, never taught such a lie.

And he didn't pull that out of thin air either.

No he pulled it out of paganism. He did not get it from Judaism.

Since when can a single god have three distinct personalities? Where one part of God prays to another part of himself? That the Father can know things that the son does not? Where is it written in scripture that Jesus ever said "I am God Almighty"?

We are made in God's image and if we manifest multiple personalities, we are treated for mental illness, not as having God's attributes. It is a symptom of extreme abuse usually, so nothing good produces multiple personalities in humans.
Calling YHWH one god even though he is promoted as having three heads, is still a plurality of gods.
It is polytheism thinly disguised.

Jesus referred to his Father as "my God" even after his return to heaven. (Revelation 3:12) Can God have a God in heaven? Does he worship himself? Seriously?
The holy spirit is never called "God" in any verse. There is no trinity in the Bible. There is no immortal soul in the Bible, nor is there hellfire. All are adoptions from paganism. All grossly misrepresent the Father.

In as much as we now have early fragments as well as some complete books, your position is a matter of opinion based on your indoctrination. IMV.

Indoctrination is not just applicable to us....look at yourselves. You are just as indoctrinated as you believe we are. Time will tell who has the truth....I am content to wait and see.

 

[Deeje]

Not a donation to the Watchtower??? Don't blame you, I'm sure the organisation shakes down a fortune from the faithful. Your nearest and dearest are way more important.

They would receive a portion as part of my nearest and dearest. I'd share.....no problem. No organization can function without money. We have no paid clergy, so that saves us a lot of money.

Can't help that gal, it is all I have to navigate my way through life, no point in trying to convince myself of something I don't believe in right? A crazy old world that would be!

You're right....."a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still"....no one can convince anyone of anything that they don't want to believe. No problem. The message itself is a divider of people......which is as it should be.

According to your beliefs, god entrusted the bible to satan for centuries until the Watchtower came along!

Actually it was Daniel who spilled the beans on that one. (Daniel 12:9-10) "The time of the end" was when an "abundance of knowledge" was to be revealed to God's servants, meaning that they had to cleanse themselves of the defilements that had crept into Christendom over many centuries......the timing was spot on.

If you are to believe the bible literally, you have to believe god wiped out the entire population of the planet except for one family he deemed to be "righteous" (because they worshipped him right?). God done so because it had all gone wrong and he wanted to start afresh...but it all went wrong again. Not a megalomaniac? I wouldn't want him as my dad!

The flood, whether one accepts it as real or allegorical, was meant to be nothing more than a stop gap measure designed to stop humans succumbing to a corrupting influence (that came from outside of the human family,) too soon. God did not save Noah, but simply instructed him on how to save himself. It wasn't a small exercise, but one that demonstrated that salvation will not be a piece of cake for us either. It was used as an illustration of things to come. (Matthew 24:37-39)

I suspect you like to get the last word in so I wouldn't be surprised if there is another round between us, but I've enjoyed our conversation regardless. "Atheist and Theist Have Civilised Conversation Shock!"

See......We are living proof that it can be done!

 

[Deeje]

JWs are not the only people to refuse a recommended blood transfusion, so could you explain how you are unique?

I realise this. After the HIV scare in the 80's lots of people began to question the safety of blood transfusions. But the main group who consistently refused blood was JW's.

“For many years, the emphasis was on making blood safer,” says Eduardo Nunes, the senior director of standards, advocacy, and patient blood management at the AABB (a membership organization for the field of transfusional medicine, formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks). . . .

But more recently, Nunes says, attention has shifted: “Now, our focus is on being more efficient in our use of blood products.”

Some of the most vocal advocates for widespread blood-management programs, Nunes says, are Jehovah’s Witnesses, who number roughly 8 million worldwide. A core part of their faith is the refusal of blood transfusions, based on the Biblical commandment to “abstain from blood,” which they interpret to include both ingesting blood (e.g. eating meat with blood in it) and receiving it intravenously. In the past few decades, he says, Jehovah’s Witnesses have developed extensive medical-outreach programs to raise awareness of surgical techniques that align with their religious beliefs.

Nunes says he has interacted with Witnesses extensively over the years through his work with AABB, inviting church representatives to address AABB members at workshops and seminars.

“As a group of patients,” Nunes says, “Jehovah’s Witnesses are very well informed ... The way they have been able to organize and educate their community, and then to work with the medical community to make sure they know how to care for them, is really very impressive.
It really is a model for how a patient population with unique needs can really get serious about helping medical professionals meet them,” he adds. . . .

According to the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery, blood-management programs help hospitals cut down on unnecessary blood draws and the amount they spend acquiring and storing blood. Blood management has also been linked to shorter patient recovery times and reduced risk of infection.

Some blood-management experts say that the practice may also help reduce the number of medically unnecessary transfusions. In a 2011 study in the journal Transfusion Medicine Reviews, researchers analyzed nearly 500 previously published case studies of “typical inpatient medical, surgical, or trauma scenarios” in which blood transfusions were used. Around 59 percent of those transfusions were “inappropriate,” the researchers determined, while around 12 percent of transfusions were deemed medically necessary (the authors were unsure about the remaining 29 percent).

Could Blood Transfusions Soon Be A Thing of the Past?

For that to be so, ALL blood transfusions refused by JWs would have led to a better outcome.

Just like all blood transfusions led to complete recovery, you mean? Physicians have noted that JW patients recover faster with less hospital stay time than patients who accepted blood for the same procedures.

I believe that more transfusions caused death than ever saved lives. It wouldn't be on the death certificate though.
We are living proof that the dire consequences predicted by doctors hardly ever happen. Those who died because they refused blood would in all likelihood have died anyway.

Perhaps you have forgotten the JW publication "Awake" of May 22, 1994 which not only didn't say this, but lauded children who died after refusing blood transfusions?

To lose one's present life in order to preserve our future life is acceptable to us and to God. It is the reason why all Christian martyrs chose death rather than to compromise their convictions. These children did not choose death, they chose obedience to God's command knowing that their illnesses would inevitably lead to death anyway under orthodox medical care. The courts deem these children as "mature minors" who are fully aware of the consequences of their decisions and make them voluntarily. We do not fear death. We do not believe that it should be preserved at all costs.

Still waiting on replies to my earlier comments, but not all that hopefully

Been there, done that. You are entitled to your beliefs, but no one should ever declare that blood transfusions "safe".

 

[The Holy Bottom Burp]

No organization can function without money.

No, of course not, it is common to all religions, though you'd think god would demonstrate his presence in the one true religion by providing all for them, fish and loaves style. It would give them a USP, something they could point to as a sign of divine authenticity.
It always seems to be the case that there are people (men, always men) at the top of religious organisations that do quite well out of it. Funny that...

You're right....."a man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still"....no one can convince anyone of anything that they don't want to believe. No problem. The message itself is a divider of people......which is as it should be.

I don't choose to believe in what I believe though, which is perhaps what your "want" implied. I experience reality, I look at the evidence for any and every claim that comes on my radar, and I weigh up the probability of it being true. I'll decide it to be true, false or "I don't know" based on that. I might not be an atheist for the rest of my life if compelling evidence of a deity or deities ever comes to light, just don't think it has so far though. Edit: I realise that post is flawed to say the least. I do choose after looking at the evidence, but that is something I cannot feign is perhaps what I wanted to say. Give me your best evidence for Leprechauns, stories, eye witness statements, YouTube videos and so on, I'm still going to be incredulous in the sense that I am unable to believe.

Actually it was Daniel who spilled the beans on that one. (Daniel 12:9-10) "The time of the end" was when an "abundance of knowledge" was to be revealed to God's servants, meaning that they had to cleanse themselves of the defilements that had crept into Christendom over many centuries......the timing was spot on.

Spot on? After a couple of thousand years give or take? All those millions who come and went without "the abundance of knowledge"? You're not persuading me with your bible 'prophecies' Deeje!

The flood, whether one accepts it as real or allegorical, was meant to be nothing more than a stop gap measure designed to stop humans succumbing to a corrupting influence (that came from outside of the human family,) too soon.

Sure, a "stop gap measure" to stop them by drowning them! I don't believe the flood ever happened in a literal sense of course, despite Young Earthers pointing to the Grand Canyon as "evidence", and I'm not quite sure what an "allegorical flood" means. I think it becomes a case of "Cafeteria Christianity" when you relegate parts of the bible that don't sit easily with you to allegorical, and keep the parts you like as literal. Do you believe Jonah literally spent three days inside the belly of a fish for example, or is that allegorical?

While we are about it do you think we should be killing anyone who declares themselves to be a witch? God orders us that we should not suffer a witch to live, a clear command just like the ingesting blood thing correct? Jesus said he did not come to change a single letter of the law, so how come you are ignoring god's command to kill witches? A rhetorical question of course, you don't kill witches because you are not an insane psychopath, you are a decent human being who knows such a thing is superstitious barbaric nonsense. So why does the bible command us to kill other human beings? Not another allegorical one is it?

 

[JustWondering]

Then again, some people need eye glasses.

Lol, I ask for a good argument and all you have is a snide remark. Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

But aren't you contradicting yourself? If you have no free will... why are you asking?

I'm programmed to.

Not everyone can be as good as you... us low-lifes need help.

LOL. I'm not perfect, but I did learn to cut the crap.

If you knew there was a 5kg nugget of gold buried in your backyard, what kind of effort would you make to dig for it?

If you don't, it's just a pretty rock. It's worth zilch until you assign it worth.
edit: And then there's THIS problem:

The kind of freedom Jesus offers is not something humans have ever had.

What promise? Eternal life? Peaceful afterlife? Pretty sure others advertised such things way before Jesus.

You might remember the 40 year trek through an inhospitable wildreness that the Israelites made because they demonstrated a complete lack of faith in him?

By having faith in Moses' sense of direction, a week-long walk took 40 years.

Food was miraculously produced every day along with enough fresh water for millions of people.

I seem to recall them complaining about food, which is why God sent them bug poop and probably poisoned or diseased birds.

and that visible indication of God's presence with his nation, they still demonstrated a lack of faith in him and disobeyed his commands.

Anyone from the region probably understood it was a week-long walk. I'd lose faith in someone who took me on a 4 decade jaunt because it proves he's a moron.

This is the selfish side of fallen human nature that needs self-dicipline....something most of us have difficulty with.

They were ripped from their homes, encouraged to loot and possibly kill (I suspect the Exodus story of lamb's blood and an angel of death are talking about some terrorism thing where tagging your door allowed you to live as the rebels swept through the neighborhood, because I just have trouble believing God can't tell a Hebrew from an Egyptian like an average racist), and were forced to follow a religious terrorist 4 decades for a week-long trip. I'd be mad too.

I guess its the difference between a having a backbone and a wishbone.

But you only wish the bible were as true as you think.

Add to that the fact that it is a multi-million dollar industry and you have your answer as to why many doctors refuse to believe the results of the data.

It's a multi-million dollar industry because dead people don't pay their medical bills.

The first to recommend washing after handling dead bodies and before consuming food. They had no idea why they had to do those things....we do today.

If they were advanced, they'd know how to screen blood for problems.

We do, after all.

The cytoscan in the video I linked to demonstrated what happens when whole blood is administered compared to normal saline solution used as a volume expander. Oxygen delivery to the vital organs was impeded, not facilitated.

You cannot replace your blood with normal saline and be alive. Blood is the deciding factor. You are confusing living thanks to increased blood pressure and living because oxygen and other nutrients are reaching your cells.

If that was the case, then please explain why whole hospitals dedicated to non-blood management of their patients are springing up all over the world.

Recently had a patient spend some time in the hospital instead of the nursing home. She had to have a procedure done because of a blood clot. They sent her back without the problem that can cause strokes being fixed because .... wanna take a guess? Hope she likes an increased risk of paralysis, mental degradation, and death...

God loves the world of mankind generally because he was responsible for creating them....but he hates the ones who disobey his very specific commands.

Amusingly enough, I was under the impression Parents should "Parent" Their kids...

It depends, doesn't it? What is Jesus going to do when He comes back?

And beating people up with bullwhips (showing us that as one judges, so that person shall be judged, because whips were then used on him) isn't exactly hugging and kissing, either.

Cornelius, a believing Centurion, was not commanded to release his position. He remained a soldier
John the Baptist did not command the soldiers not to fight but rather be satisfied with their salary
Sergius Paulus, a proconsul, became a believer and wasn't told not to be involved in politics.
King David was in politics as a King
Jesus is the King of Kings.

Yup.

LOL... you see "churches"... I see one church with many parts.

Yes, the whole "the eye and the hand" thing Jesus mentioned

Some see, some hear, some do, some poop ....

(Pooping is a necessary part of human biology, so technically it's not an insult.)

All governments have requirements and the right to terminate citizenship and deport any who treat the laws and government with disrespect. Should God do any less?

Our countries are arbitrary and ultimately temporary human constructs. How does one stop being God's creation?

Please provide a link to these statistics.

She has mentioned before she cannot understand scientific journals (I linked her some that didn't require payment) and it wouldn't matter anyway since her denomination requires a distrust of "scholars", aka: the people who bothered to look up the data.

Shadrack, Meshak and Abednego were among those faithful ones whom the Babylonian King was tricked into sentencing to a fiery death. He was pleased to see that Israel's God was stronger than the gods of Babylon when he delivered them. They were all Jewish.

Babylonian sources?

No, of course not, it is common to all religions, though you'd think god would demonstrate his presence in the one true religion by providing all for them, fish and loaves style.

LOL, yup. For some reason, manna can come from heaven but I guess there was a sale or something because it hasn't happened since.