• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jehovas Witnesses correct about God

Starlight

Spiritual but not religious, new age and omnist
I believe Jehovas Witnesses is correct about God. God is only one. God is not three in one.

The trinity create confusion

But Jehovas Witnesses is wrong about blood transfusion. Jehovas Witnesses believe blood transfusion is a sin. But in reality blood transfusion is NOT a sin

Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
My thoughts? Well, I was very kind to the ladies who called around a few days ago, given I would have thought I would be blackballed after my last loose encounter. But a short (and very polite) insistence as to my being a non-believer for so long and that it would a waste of their time as much as it would be of mine soon saw them leave. Should we non-believers go about doing this? :oops:
 

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
Any thoughts?
This is the third thread you have created on this basic subject. The other two garnered a fair number of responses, about 220 together. The subjects themselves have been brought up time and time again.

What are you trying to accomplish this time around?
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I believe Jehovah's Witnesses is correct about God. God is only one. God is not three in one. The trinity create confusion But Jehovas Witnesses is wrong about blood transfusion. Jehovah's Witnesses believe blood transfusion is a sin. But in reality blood transfusion is NOT a sin. Any thoughts?

Your thoughts seem arbitrary. You don't give any counterargument to the beliefs you reject, nor support for the beliefs you prefer. This makes these ideas of no value to others including those who might agree with you if you could give a compelling argument.

Of course, that is impossible in such matters. They're metaphysical inquiries into the nature and mind of God with nothing to guide one but ambiguous scripture of uncertain origin. They are unfalsifiable, meaning that they cannot be shown to be incorrect, but also, that they cannot be demonstrated to be correct. They may well be referring to something that doesn't exist. Such statements have the epistemological status of being "not even wrong."

The empiricist isn't generally interested in what others believe (except when evaluating how they think, when they are interested in how others process information and reach conclusions), but in what they can demonstrate to be correct.

But a short (and very polite) insistence as to my being a non-believer for so long and that it would a waste of their time as much as it would be of mine soon saw them leave.

My last encounter with the Testigos de Jehova as they're known here in Mexico, went pretty quickly as well, even though I did nothing deliberately to chase them off. Their opening words were about how bad the world is, and why that means we need to be JWs quickly. They seemed to assume that I would agree. I told them that I didn't see life that way. They were stymied by that. They didn't argue. It made me think that they weren't used to or prepared for that answer. So, they said goodbye. It was their idea to move on then, not mine. I'd have been happy to share my contradictory view, but I don't think they were interested.

I just Googled this: "Q: What's the point of being a Jehovah's Witness? A: They see their mission as primarily evangelical (disseminating "the good news"), to warn as many people as possible in the remaining time before Armageddon. All members of the denomination are expected to take an active part in preaching. Witnesses refer to all their beliefs collectively as "the Truth".

Yep, that's them.
 
Last edited:

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
My thoughts as a polytheist are something along the lines of "gee, multiple gods really isn't all that confusing" and "oh dear, I wonder if polytheism is so confusing to them it snaps their brains." And sins? Meh. When you've got lots of gods, everything you do is a transgression against at least one of them.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I believe Jehovas Witnesses is correct about God. God is only one. God is not three in one.

The trinity create confusion

But Jehovas Witnesses is wrong about blood transfusion. Jehovas Witnesses believe blood transfusion is a sin. But in reality blood transfusion is NOT a sin

Any thoughts?
From a Catholic point of view on the Trinitarian concept, it does not posit three gods but does posit one God with Jesus and the Holy Spirit being of the essence of God.

es·sence
[ˈesəns]
NOUN

  1. the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character:
    "conflict is the essence of drama"

    • PHILOSOPHY
      a property or group of properties of something without which it would not exist or be what it is.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
I believe Jehovas Witnesses is correct about God. God is only one. God is not three in one.

The trinity create confusion

But Jehovas Witnesses is wrong about blood transfusion. Jehovas Witnesses believe blood transfusion is a sin. But in reality blood transfusion is NOT a sin

Any thoughts?
I would agree with those things. JW seems to assign blood as being holy in general, however, there are as far as I know, no verses in the bible where blood is not related to some sort of ritual or in relation to animals (food).

Also, my personal impression from reading the bible, is that there is no Trinity.
 
Top