Jehovah's Witneses

[Nakosis]

For Jehovah's Witnesses opposers, WHY?? Opinions welcome, but I want people to be able to use scriptures to back their argument. I have yet talked to someone who can give me good points.

I've read the Watchtower on a couple of occasions and find they take great liberty with their interpretations.

Doesn't make me dislike them, however makes me discount them. Just don't see them as having any authority with regards to the Bible. Of course I don't see many as having any authority anyway. The JW's seemed kind of blatant about this assumption.

Suppose I don't dislike them any more then any other group making this assumption.

I guess it's the Christmas thing. I don't like Christmas but why spoil it for others?

 

[Pegg]

I apologise for giving your religion a hard time, Pegg. I'm taught that what others do, or don't do shouldn't matter to me, it's what I do, or don't do that matters.

But I know quite a few JWs, and they are lovely people (mostly), but there's certain areas of JW doctrine that just don't sound right to me.

If I start again, just tell me to shut up.

im not going to tell you to shut up

I respect your freedom of speech as much as i respect my own.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

What I find interesting is their "slave class" that serve(d) as their ruling class is or has died off. I'm curious has to how they will reinterpret this fundamental decree.

Oh the crickets! Three times I've put this one up and in three times in three different threads I've got nada.

Whither the Watchtower?

 

[Pegg]

Oh the crickets! Three times I've put this one up and in three times in three different threads I've got nada.

Whither the Watchtower?

wow, what a misinformed article.

The members of our governing body number 8 at present. They range in age from 60-80's
We dont follow the president...most JW's would not even need to know who he is. its the same with most of the governing body too. They are not our leaders in the sense that we follow them like a catholic follows the pope. They are simply overseers of various aspects of the preaching and teaching work. they organize things from the top end....there are many brothers and sisters who work along with them under their direction, and if a governing body member dies, another experienced elder is assigned to fill his office of oversight.

So im pretty sure we'll never be without a governing body.

 

[cottage]

How is "They disturb me at home" not on your list? That's the first thing that comes to mind and something you can surely understand.

Yes, turning up on your doorstep to proselytise must be the number one reason for disliking them. However, in my case that rarely seems to happen these days since I started inviting them in for a discussion.

 

[Kathryn]

there is plenty in there about drinking blood...which is what was done in ancient times. when someone got sick, one treatment in egypt was the drinking of blood for example.

the use of it in modern medicine is really no different, blood is being put into the body and its no different if you inject it or take it in tablet form...its still taking something into your body which God has told us not to take. It was a part of the noahide laws that blood was not to be eaten/taken, it was part of the mosaic law that blood was not to be eaten or used in any form, and it was part of christian law that blood was not to be eaten or used in any form.

so we accept this as a law from God that blood is not to be used in any form or in any way.

But Pegg, how do JWs justify cherry picking from OT law? I mean, if you are going to follow OT law, then why don't you start stoning rebellious teenagers outside the city gates?

This is the problem I have with many legalistic religions. I think we should follow the SPIRIT, not the LETTER of the law. We can never fully follow the LETTER of the Law anyway - Jesus makes that very clear. He also makes it very clear that it is the SPIRIT of the Law we should be focusing on instead.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can you give me a reason to dislike them, or is this something you are making up?

I've seen tremendous hatred by Catholics & Anglicans towards JWs on another forum.
I find'm OK...they all treat me better than I deserve.

 

[Friend of Bill W]

But Pegg, how do JWs justify cherry picking from OT law? I mean, if you are going to follow OT law, then why don't you start stoning rebellious teenagers outside the city gates?

This is the problem I have with many legalistic religions. I think we should follow the SPIRIT, not the LETTER of the law. We can never fully follow the LETTER of the Law anyway - Jesus makes that very clear. He also makes it very clear that it is the SPIRIT of the Law we should be focusing on instead.

JWs have a new covenant when Jesus arrived on the scene, therefore the old Mosaic Laws don't count. Acts 15 is not OT and bans the consuming of blood.

I'm not a JW, but I think that's right; I've discussed this with JWs before.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

For Jehovah's Witnesses opposers, WHY?? Opinions welcome, but I want people to be able to use scriptures to back their argument. I have yet talked to someone who can give me good points.

I believe in the deity of Christ. For obvious reasons (10,000 RF threads with 10,000 posts which resolve nothing) I'll not justify my position.

 

[Photonic]

I'm still not sure why you want someone to back their words up with scripture at the same time as asking for them to make a good point.


That implies that scripture is the only way to make a point in existence.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

wow, what a misinformed article.

Did you see the bibliography at the bottom of the article?

 

[Pegg]

But Pegg, how do JWs justify cherry picking from OT law? I mean, if you are going to follow OT law, then why don't you start stoning rebellious teenagers outside the city gates?

This is the problem I have with many legalistic religions. I think we should follow the SPIRIT, not the LETTER of the law. We can never fully follow the LETTER of the Law anyway - Jesus makes that very clear. He also makes it very clear that it is the SPIRIT of the Law we should be focusing on instead.

there are a handful of mosaic laws that the christian congregation identified as obligatory for christians to hold onto. The Apostles sent a letter to the new gentile believers regarding the law of moses because there was an issue about whether they needed to be circumcised according to the law. they sent a letter which read:

Acts 15; “The apostles and the older men, brothers, to those brothers in Antioch and Syria and Ci‧li′cia who are from the nations: Greetings! 24 Since we have heard that some from among us have caused YOU trouble with speeches, trying to subvert YOUR souls, although we did not give them any instructions, 25 we have come to a unanimous accord ...28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 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!”

the mosaic law on blood was included among the things to observe from the law.

 

[Pegg]

Did you see the bibliography at the bottom of the article?

not all of the bibliography is sourced from the WT publications. There are a few apostates mixed in there.

And its really the tone of the article which is very misleading and shows a negative bias which indicates that its not a factual article but its more the writers opinion.

 

[Pegg]

JWs have a new covenant when Jesus arrived on the scene, therefore the old Mosaic Laws don't count. Acts 15 is not OT and bans the consuming of blood.

I'm not a JW, but I think that's right; I've discussed this with JWs before.

sort of, but not quite. The new covenant was instituted by Christ with his apostles on the night before his death, its recorded in the gospels

luke 22:28 “However, YOU are the ones that have stuck with me in my trials; 29 and I make a covenant with YOU, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, 30 that YOU may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.

hebrews 9:15 So that is why he is a mediator of a new covenant, in order that, because a death has occurred for [their] release by ransom from the transgressions under the former covenant

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

there are a handful of mosaic laws that the christian congregation identified as obligatory for christians to hold onto. The Apostles sent a letter to the new gentile believers regarding the law of moses because there was an issue about whether they needed to be circumcised according to the law. they sent a letter which read:

Acts 15; “The apostles and the older men, brothers, to those brothers in Antioch and Syria and Ci‧li′cia who are from the nations: Greetings! 24 Since we have heard that some from among us have caused YOU trouble with speeches, trying to subvert YOUR souls, although we did not give them any instructions, 25 we have come to a unanimous accord ...28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 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!”

the mosaic law on blood was included among the things to observe from the law.

But transfused blood is no more "consumed" than your own blood is. If you wanted to be consistent, you'd have to drain your veins and arteries dry.

(BTW - please don't actually do this)

 

[Jeremy Mason]

not all of the bibliography is sourced from the WT publications. There are a few apostates mixed in there.

Would you be so kind as to point out the apostates in the bibliography.

And its really the tone of the article which is very misleading and shows a negative bias which indicates that its not a factual article but its more the writers opinion.

While I agree the article points out aspects of the JWs that are not favorable, I've yet to see any evidence that the information is fraudulent.

 

[Pegg]

Would you be so kind as to point out the apostates in the bibliography.

just look at who authored this article.

While I agree the article points out aspects of the JWs that are not favorable, I've yet to see any evidence that the information is fraudulent.

he has twisted the information into something it is not. For example, at the end of the article he speaks about the 'faithful wise servant' ...: The key doctrine Witnesses will be asked to change their minds about (again) is the identity of the faithful and wise servant of Matthew 24:45. In a rare review of back-and-forth doctrinal changes over the years, the 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses comments that "in 1881...it was understood that the 'servant' God used to dispense spiritual food was a class." Later, it continues, the teaching was adopted "that C. T. Russell himself was the 'faithful and wise servant.'" And finally it concludes, "In February 1927 this erroneous thought that Russell himself was the 'faithful and wise servant' was cleared up" (p. 88).

this is quite twisted for the reason that he's jumping backwards and forwards in time as if the idea has changed numerous times. Its also misleading to expect that the early bible students should have known the meaning of every scripture in the bible. Understanding the bible takes time and it took time for those early students as well.

The fact that they were willing to adjust their understanding of the scriptures shows a humble sheeplike attitude which you would expect from true followers of Christ. To be 'led' by Gods spirit means you must be willing to change and follow the leadings of the spirit. So change is a good thing, but this apostate seems to think it is a negative thing to be willing to adapt our understanding.

and it was not the WT society who decided that Russell himself was the 'servant'...it was actually Russells wife who first pushed that idea according to Russell himself who did not state that he was the 'servant' but rather expressed the view that that “servant” was made up of the entire body of faithful spirit-anointed Christians. He saw it as being a collective servant rather then an individual. But some bible students thought it was him....the matter was cleared up by the WT with an official article that the 'faithful and wise servant' was a group/class of christians and not one individual.

We all acknowledge that the 'slave class' is not infallible and that is why changes occur from time to time. The light of truth is progressive and so are the slave class.

 

[Pegg]

But transfused blood is no more "consumed" than your own blood is. If you wanted to be consistent, you'd have to drain your veins and arteries dry.

(BTW - please don't actually do this)

when this was written in the first century, blood was something used as a tonic for drinking, it was used by doctors as a cure-all, it was used in false worship and the blood of the sacrificed animals would be drunk by those participating

so to the early christians they would have understood that this 'abstain from things strangled and from blood' would have meant not to be drinking the blood of another creature for any purpose...that would include for health reasons.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

when this was written in the first century, blood was something used as a tonic for drinking, it was used by doctors as a cure-all, it was used in false worship and the blood of the sacrificed animals would be drunk by those participating

so to the early christians they would have understood that this 'abstain from things strangled and from blood' would have meant not to be drinking the blood of another creature for any purpose...that would include for health reasons.

But transfusion is not "drinking".

The only consumption of transfused blood occurs when it is broken down and reabsorbed by your body, but your body does this with your own blood as well.

 

[cablescavenger]

I don't have anything against any of the people and some of my friends are Jehovah witnesses, but I do not like religion being peddled at my door, I feel that is an unwelcome intrusion. If religion is a personal thing then it shouldn't be peddled to anyone.

P.S. I voted other purely for the door knocking. Other than that no problem with them at all, in fact those I know are lovely people.