Religious Fanatic

28 jul 2018 stvdv 020 58 info

74x12 said:

Would you really think someone who had a blood transfusion is the same as an idolater or fornicator?

Click to expand...

nPeace said:

Why would you even ask me that?

Click to expand...

Interesting point

Some say "food turns into blood". Others say "You are/become what you eat". Is it a big stretch "receiving blood of idolater/fornicator you become one"?

Personally I think it is not "a strange thought". It is what you believe. And luckily we still have "Freedom of Religion"

nPeace said:

Let's look at it this way.
Say you were instructed, not to consume any alcohol under any circumstances.
Someone makes you a great cake - the traditional way. Would you be following the instructions, if you ate the cake?
It has in alcohol, so no, you won't.

The instructions were simple. The person did not go into every possible situation as to where or how you would violate that instruction.

Neither could you be honestly accused of "attempting to apply" the instructions to situations current or future.
You simply are following the instructions.

If for example someone came up with a new way or method that involves using alcohol - suppose it was even some kind of therapy, all you have to do is remember the instructions.
Why? Because of the principle - under no circumstances are you to consume alcohol. So whether it goes through you mouth, your veins, your pores... you refuse - you follow the instructions.

It is as simple as that.
The instruction to abstain from blood is no different.
Jehovah's Witnesses are simply following the instruction.

Click to expand...

I see your reasoning though don't agree with it.

You are looking at what was written nearly 2000 years ago in reference to scripture nearly 1500 years before that and trying to apply it to a scenario that was not envisaged at the time. The first successful blood transfusions didn't happen until the 19th century. Acts was probably written late in the first century.

nPeace said:

You seem to be saying that man's decisions are wise.
How many times have we seen the seemingly good efforts of man backfire on him? Then he has to run around trying to fix the problems he created.

Click to expand...

That's not a good argument as we can say the converse is true. How many times has man believed he was following God's wisdom whereas in reality he was following his own vain imagings?

It comes back to how we understand the sacred writings of our religion. The JWs are the only Christian denomination that I'm aware of that interprets the bible in a manner that extends to blood transfusions. I don't agree with it, but respect their right to have their beliefs.

@adrian009 Thought you might find these interesting.....

Hey @Deeje

What do the JWs say about cannabis?

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989223

Your views on cannabis seem somewhat contradictory to your religious views. Is that correct?

nPeace said:

Why would you even ask me that?

Click to expand...

Because you asked me if I took the commandments about abstaining from idolatry or fornication the same as the commandment to abstain from blood. In that context I think I have a valid question.

stvdv said:

That is your opinion, but it is not a fact. I have a different opinion, but I "leave it at that"

May All Be Blessed

Click to expand...

No, I think it is a fact that people can have faith in virtually anything.

Acts 15 is really getting into questions about the Law of Moses. In the Law of Moses there are two types of commandments. Those with ritual significance. Like keeping the Sabbath, not eating unclean foods and yes abstaining from eating blood.
Then there are commandments that are about right and wrong. Morality. Like honoring your father and mother, not murdering people and not committing adultery.

So, there were often cases when it was okay to break a ritually significant law because of necessity in the old Testament. Jesus Himself illustrates this point in Luke 14:5, Matthew 12:4 and other places.

This should make it pretty obvious that Jehovah's Witnesses are taking Acts 15 "abstain from blood" to a Pharisee-like extremity when someone's life or health is on the line.

QuestioningMind said:

People can have faith in virtually anything, even diametrically opposed concepts, so clearly faith is not a reliable path to truth.

Click to expand...

stvdv said:

That is your opinion, but it is not a fact. I have a different opinion, but I "leave it at that"
May All Be Blessed

Click to expand...

QuestioningMind said:

No, I think it is a fact that people can have faith in virtually anything.

Click to expand...

Clearly I was not speaking about that. Because there you write it correctly as your opinion, using "I think", and "People can have faith.......concepts"

Obviously I was talking about the red part. That is just your opinion AND not a fact. At best you can say "For me `faith is not a reliable path to truth`". And you could also add IMHO to it

stvdv said:

Clearly I was not speaking about that. Because there you write it correctly as your opinion, using "I think", and "People can have faith.......concepts"

Obviously I was talking about the red part. That is just your opinion AND not a fact. At best you can say "For me `faith is not a reliable path to truth`". And you could also add IMHO to it

Click to expand...

Please do demonstrate how faith IS a RELIABLE path to truth?

For instance, I have one man who has absolute faith that the Earth is a flat disk. I have another man who has absolute faith that the Earth is a sphere. If faith IS a reliable path to truth then BOTH men would have to be correct. If in fact the Earth CAN'T be BOTH a flat disk AND a sphere, that means that for at least one of the men faith has NOT a reliable path to the truth.

And just because the man who had faith that the Earth is a sphere happens to be right doesn't demonstrate that faith is a RELIABLE path to truth. That would be like saying that because I flipped a coin with heads being the Earth is a flat disk and tails in the Earth is a sphere, the fact that the coin comes up tails demonstrates that flipping a coin is a reliable path to truth. It isn't.

QuestioningMind said:

Please do demonstrate how faith IS a RELIABLE path to truth?

For instance, I have one man who has absolute faith that the Earth is a flat disk. I have another man who has absolute faith that the Earth is a sphere. If faith IS a reliable path to truth then BOTH men would have to be correct. If in fact the Earth CAN'T be BOTH a flat disk AND a sphere, that means that for at least one of the men faith has NOT a reliable path to the truth.

And just because the man who had faith that the Earth is a sphere happens to be right doesn't demonstrate that faith is a RELIABLE path to truth. That would be like saying that because I flipped a coin with heads being the Earth is a flat disk and tails in the Earth is a sphere, the fact that the coin comes up tails demonstrates that flipping a coin is a reliable path to truth. It isn't.

Click to expand...

No, no, you turn it around. You started to say `faith is not a reliable path to truth`. I said "It's not a fact, it's your opinion, I have a different opinion. So I agree to disagree".

1): Now you turn it around and ask me to prove "- your statement". That is funny. You make the claim, so you have to prove, I don't have to prove anything. Of course you can never prove this claim, because you have to know from all the people who ever lived on earth "if their faith was reliable path to truth or not". And we both know that this is impossible to prove.

2): I already saw this coming, that is why I said already "I have a different opinion. So I agree to disagree"

stvdv said:

No, no, you turn it around. You started to say `faith is not a reliable path to truth`. I said "It's not a fact, it's your opinion, I have a different opinion. So I agree to disagree".

1): Now you turn it around and ask me to prove "- your statement". That is funny. You make the claim, so you have to prove, I don't have to prove anything. Of course you can never prove this claim, because you have to know from all the people who ever lived on earth "if their faith was reliable path to truth or not". And we both know that this is impossible to prove.

2): I already saw this coming, that is why I said already "I have a different opinion. So I agree to disagree"

Click to expand...

No, I'm asking you to prove YOUR claim that my statement that faith is not a reliable path to the truth is not a fact and is just my opinion. That means that you SHOULD be able to demonstrate how faith IS a reliable path to truth. If you can't, that suggests that my original assertion is more than simply my opinion.

QuestioningMind said:

No, I'm asking you to prove YOUR claim that my statement that faith is not a reliable path to the truth is not a fact and is just my opinion. That means that you SHOULD be able to demonstrate how faith IS a reliable path to truth. If you can't, that suggests that my original assertion is more than simply my opinion.

Click to expand...

You make a claim, so you prove it. If you can't prove it then it's obvious it's just a meaningless claim. You started to make a false claim, you must prove. Don't twist things.

Just making random claims, that make no sense and expecting others to prove they are wrong is silly.

I have better things to do then solving your self created non sense claims

[by the way I already proved that your claim is wrong, if you took the time to read my previous reply].

QuestioningMind said:

No, I'm asking you to prove YOUR claim that my statement that faith is not a reliable path to the truth is not a fact and is just my opinion. That means that you SHOULD be able to demonstrate how faith IS a reliable path to truth. If you can't, that suggests that my original assertion is more than simply my opinion.

Click to expand...

Clearly you didn't read my response concerning the flat Earth and the spherical Earth. It clearly demonstrates that faith alone is NOT a reliable path to truth. And again, just because someone's faith MIGHT happen to lead to truth, is no more a demonstration that it's 'reliable' than flipping a coin would be a demonstration that flipping a coin is a reliable path to truth. .

QuestioningMind said:

Clearly you didn't read my response concerning the flat Earth and the spherical Earth. It clearly demonstrates that faith alone is NOT a reliable path to truth. And again, just because someone's faith MIGHT happen to lead to truth, is no more a demonstration that it's 'reliable' than flipping a coin would be a demonstration that flipping a coin is a reliable path to truth. .

Click to expand...

Had nothing to do with your initial statement

You made a VERY HUGE claim about TRUTH and FAITH for ALL HUMANS

I replied to "YOUR VERY HUGE CLAIM" ==> this claim IS NOT TRUE

Just admit "Okay you are right, that was not a correct claim to make"

Then you can pose other claims, and I can see if I want to reply

adrian009 said:

Hey @Deeje

What do the JWs say about cannabis?

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989223

Your views on cannabis seem somewhat contradictory to your religious views. Is that correct?

Click to expand...

We have to respect and obey the laws of our rulers, so if cannabis is a legal medicine where we live, the benefits are well documented and many of my brotherhood are no doubt benefiting from it, so we would have no qualms about its medicinal use.

Recreational use would be a different story. Since the Bible warns against drunkenness, but has no prohibition on alcohol, we would see it in much the same way. As a medicine it would be welcomed because of its established health benefits. (Unlike alcohol, which can cause major health problems and is linked to domestic violence and other problems.)

But if the government is misled by big pharmaceutical companies and medicinal cannabis is illegal, we pray for common sense and any kind of conscience in our law makers to make it available because, not to do so is evil when many more harmful substances are freely used every day. The opioid epidemic is taking more lives as legal prescription medicine than cannabis ever could....with more harm and way less benefits.

Some have been forced to move to a place where it is freely available in order to take it legally. Why should that happen?

We are in the early stages of legalisation here in Australia, but the demonisation of this harmless plant continues to make people wary of it. The links to schizophrenia are from abuse, (same with any drug) and always connected to the use of other drugs as well. Having a genetic predisposition to develop this mental illness is also a factor.

There are so many amazing stories of recovery when the medical profession had given up and told these people to go home and die. YouTube has countless numbers of these stories....real people with real results not explainable with any other approach. Kids with intractable epilepsy, having been made zombies by conventional medicine, coming to life, seizure free for the first time! Who would tell parents that their kids can't have it because corporations with a vested interest in its ban persuade governments to keep it away from them? It is an evil world where profit comes before patient care.

This has to stop! If humans won't, then God will. He made this plant for our benefit and it was used in medicine for thousands of years before big pharma decided it was too good to fit their profit machine. It never was bad medicine. The whole world was duped by the "Reefer Madness" propaganda......that doesn't work anymore. The truth is out and no one can put that genie back in the bottle.

stvdv said:

Had nothing to do with your initial statement

You made a VERY HUGE claim about TRUTH and FAITH for ALL HUMANS

I replied to "YOUR VERY HUGE CLAIM" ==> this claim IS NOT TRUE

Just admit "Okay you are right, that was not a correct claim to make"

Then you can pose other claims, and I can see if I want to reply

Click to expand...

I have yet to see how it is NOT a correct claim. If two people can have faith in diametrically opposed concepts then it's OBVIOUS that faith is NOT a reliable path to the truth. It becomes JUST as reliable as tossing a coin. So are you saying that tossing a coin is a reliable path to the truth?

stvdv said:

You make a claim, so you prove it. If you can't prove it then it's obvious it's just a meaningless claim. You started to make a false claim, you must prove. Don't twist things.

Just making random claims, that make no sense and expecting others to prove they are wrong is silly.

I have better things to do then solving your self created non sense claims

[by the way I already proved that your claim is wrong, if you took the time to read my previous reply].

Click to expand...

Except it is NOT a false claim. Two people have complete faith in diametrically opposed ideas. Only ONE of them can be right. Thus faith is NOT a reliable path to the truth. The fact that one of them was RIGHT doesn't indicate that faith is a reliable path to the truth, because if you were to flip a coin to determine the truth of something, the fact that either heads or tails would be right, does NOT demonstrate that flipping a coin is a reliable path to truth.

If that simple idea is too complex for you to grasp, there's nothing more I can do for you.

adrian009 said:

I see your reasoning though don't agree with it.

You are looking at what was written nearly 2000 years ago in reference to scripture nearly 1500 years before that and trying to apply it to a scenario that was not envisaged at the time. The first successful blood transfusions didn't happen until the 19th century. Acts was probably written late in the first century.



That's not a good argument as we can say the converse is true. How many times has man believed he was following God's wisdom whereas in reality he was following his own vain imagings?

It comes back to how we understand the sacred writings of our religion. The JWs are the only Christian denomination that I'm aware of that interprets the bible in a manner that extends to blood transfusions. I don't agree with it, but respect their right to have their beliefs.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understand what I am saying.
I'm going to assume you know the difference between a law and a principle. Hopefully I assume right.

Just in case...
Law - Do not consume alcohol.
Principle - Consuming alcohol will kill you.

Which is greater, law or principle.
Principle right? It is a fundamental truth.

So knowing the principle, you don't need the law. Agreed?

Another one...
Law - Don't commit adultery.
Principle - One who looks lustfully at a woman commits adultery.

Say the principle was given ten million years ago.
Does it change? No. It's a foundation - it never moves.

Ten million years into the future, after the principle is given, (just for argument sake) a new therapy which allow for absorbing alcohol into the body through the pores is introduced into the world. Pornography is introduce into the world.
Do you need a law stating, "Do not watch pornography?"
Do you need a law saying, "Do not use this therapy?

I did highlight the principle concerning blood.
Do you need a law stating, "Do not take blood through your veins?

Here is another one...
If the Bible prohibits eating blood, am I allowed to drink it, since there is no law stating, "Do not drink blood?"

There is a big difference between eating and drinking.

QuestioningMind said:

Yep, round and round we go.

Click to expand...

Yup. You can say that again... and again.

74x12 said:

Because you asked me if I took the commandments about abstaining from idolatry or fornication the same as the commandment to abstain from blood. In that context I think I have a valid question.

Click to expand...

No. I definitely did not ask you that.
How did you get that from this

If "Abstain" to you, means "do not eat", in the case of blood, what does "Abstain from idolatry" and "Abstain from fornication" mean to you?
I really would like to know how you can switch the application without twisting it.

Click to expand...