• 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!

Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
Hi @Dogknox20

Regarding the willingness to justify use of ex and anti sites as source data regarding what other religions believe
Clear said : "Dogknox20. You own repeated use anti and ex sites against other religions despite their believers telling you that this is a BAD thing to do and your information is tainted and no good. IF the sites of “ex” and “anti’s” are ok for you to use against other religions, then I do not see why you should object to the ex-catholics and anti-catholics revealing to the world your actual beliefs despite your denials. " (post #1175)
Dogknox20 replied : "The difference is.... Catholics can defend their beliefs by the scriptures...The JW or Mormon or who ever can not!
To be protestant, JW, LDS or other cannot accept the scriptures; The Mormon, Protestant, JW has to reject the scriptures as a lie from God' mouth!" (#1178)


Your answer is irrational.
Of course J.W. and Mormon and Lutherans and Baptists and protestants accept the scriptures and use them to justify their beliefs.
They simply interpret them differently than your religious schism does.
Also, how does this answer justify your own willing sin of using ex- and anti-sites against other religions while objecting to it's use to describe your own religious beliefs?



Regarding the claim that your religious schism is the same as the original church of Jesus

If you remember, both you and I agree that the early Roman Christian movement evolved into an organization that did evil such as robbery, slavery, oppression and other evil things in their question for riches and power and influence.
We both agreed that the authentic Church of Jesus Christ did not do these things.
Your church is not the same as the authentic Church of Jesus.

If you remember, both you and I agree that the Roman Christian movement has no evidence that the Apostle Peter ever gave his apostolic power to the roman Christian schism and thus they do not have authentic ecclesiatical authority from God.
The original church of Jesus and it's apostles DID have apostolic level authority.
Your church is not the same as the authentic Church of Jesus.

If you remember, both you and I agreed that the roman Christian movements office of Bishop was not the same as the earliest authentic bishop in the early and authentic Church of Jesus.
The Original church of Jesus HAD authentic bishops.
Your church is not the same as the authentic Church of Jesus.

Do we need to review the historical data whereby your and I came to this agreement in this thread?

Also, if you remember, the ex-catholics and anti-catholics have already ADMITTED that your belief is not merely to honor Mary, but to worship her, and to worship idols and to worship dead saints.
The original church of Jesus did not worship Mary, did not worship idols such as statues, and icons and did not worship dead saints.
Your church is not the same as the authentic church of Jesus.
Clear
φιακφυεισιω
.
Hello.. Once again..
The ex and anti sites are a good source of questions that need to be answered! I am willing to use their sites because they ask the questions! These questions need answers!
Clear Answer the questions! Use the scriptures to answer them!

Your words.... both you and I agree that the early Roman Christian movement evolved into an organization that did evil such as robbery, slavery, oppression and other evil things in their question for riches and power and influence.
My reply: Christians through out the ages have sinned and done evil.. All men are sinners!
The JW's killed children by refusing blood transfusion! AS if God wants children killed for him, in his name! It's evil to the core! All are sinners!

FACT: The Holy Catholic Church is filled to the rafters with sinner.. Catholics are sinners they NEED Jesus!

Clear The One Church Jesus established 2000 years ago remains HOLY!
One Holy and Catholic! Roots back to the apostles 2000 years ago it's the only Apostolic Church!
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

Jesus loves his Bride... His Church built on rock! He died for the Holy Catholic Church!

Clear Jesus is ALWAYS WITH his holy Church to the very end of Time!
Matthew 28:20 Teach them to do everything I have commanded you. “And remember that I am always with you until the end of time.”
Question: "Is Jesus ALWAYS WITH the ONLY Church he established 2000 years ago????

Clear I pointed it out in the post above... .(#1178) To reject the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church you MUST reject the scriptures!

Clear I pointed it out in the post above.. .(#1178) To reject the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church you MUST reject God!
Luke 10:16
“Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.

In asked a question in 1178 here it is again.. QUESTION: Do you reject the ONLY Church Jesus established?! whoever rejects you rejects me
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST ONE OF TWO


1) Regarding the willingness to justify use of ex and anti sites as source data regarding what other religions believe but reluctance to apply this practice to one's own religion.


Clear said : "Dogknox20. You own repeated use anti and ex sites against other religions despite their believers telling you that this is a BAD thing to do and your information is tainted and no good. IF the sites of “ex” and “anti’s” are ok for you to use against other religions, then I do not see why you should object to the ex-catholics and anti-catholics revealing to the world your actual beliefs despite your denials. " (post #1175)
Dogknox20 replied : "The difference is.... Catholics can defend their beliefs by the scriptures...The JW or Mormon or who ever can not!
To be protestant, JW, LDS or other cannot accept the scriptures; The Mormon, Protestant, JW has to reject the scriptures as a lie from God' mouth!" (#1178)


Your answer is irrational.
Of course J.W. and Mormon and Lutherans and Baptists and protestants accept the scriptures and use them to justify their beliefs.
They simply interpret them differently than your religious schism does.
Also, how does this answer justify your own willing sin of using ex- and anti-sites against other religions while objecting to it's use to describe your own religious beliefs?



2) Regarding the claim that your religious schism is the same as the original church of Jesus

If you remember, both you and I agree that the early Roman Christian movement evolved into an organization that did evil such as robbery, slavery, oppression and other evil things in their question for riches and power and influence.
We both agreed that the authentic Church of Jesus Christ did not do these things.
Your church is not the same as the authentic Church of Jesus.

If you remember, both you and I agree that the Roman Christian movement has no evidence that the Apostle Peter ever gave his apostolic power to the roman Christian schism and thus they do not have authentic ecclesiatical authority from God.
The original church of Jesus and it's apostles DID have apostolic level authority.
Your church is not the same as the authentic Church of Jesus.

If you remember, both you and I agreed that the roman Christian movements office of Bishop was not the same as the earliest authentic bishop in the early and authentic Church of Jesus.
The Original church of Jesus HAD authentic bishops.
Your church is not the same as the authentic Church of Jesus.

Do we need to review the historical data whereby your and I came to this agreement in this thread?

Also, if you remember, the ex-catholics and anti-catholics have already ADMITTED that your belief is not merely to honor Mary, but to worship her, and to worship idols and to worship dead saints.
The original church of Jesus did not worship Mary, did not worship idols such as statues, and icons and did not worship dead saints.
Your church is not the same as the authentic church of Jesus.



3) USING EX- AND ANTI SITES AS A SOURCE FOR DATA ABOUT RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF OTHERS BUT NOT YOU OWN RELIGION
Dogknox20 now claims : "The ex and anti sites are a good source of questions that need to be answered! I am willing to use their sites because they ask the questions! These questions need answers!"


However, this is NOT what YOU did, was it?
YOU used "ex" and "anti" sites to "answer questions" and describe beliefs in a way that you thought would serve YOUR claims that they were non-Christian.
WHY is it o.k. to use ex and anti websites to describe the beliefs of other religions, but not o.k. to use ex-catholic descriptions of YOUR religion?



4) THE DESCRIPTION OF DOGKNOX20'S BELIEF IN THE WORSHIP OF MARY

Let me give you an example regarding your belief in worshipping Mary from an ex-catholic NUN.


A prior Nun of your church revealed your belief in the worship of Mary, saying “As a faithful Catholic, and later as a nun, I practiced Mary worship for many years without realizing it.”

This prior catholic nun explained that “There were statues of Mary and the saints. They looked solid, real, as if they represented people of power. Jesus only appeared as a helpless baby in Mary’s arms, as a dead man nailed to a cross, and as little wafers of bread hidden inside a fancy box. Visually and emotionally the message was very clear – if you want real power, if you want someone who can do something for you, then go to Mary and the Saints.”

The nun described the ingrained worship of Mary as a “Co-redemptrix” and how that doctrine plays out in the lives of both regular Catholics and in their leadership. The concept of being a redeemer of mankind along with Jesus is not particularly part of the earliest Christian traditions however deep this practice runs in the later Roman Catholic Church.

The nun gave multiple other examples of Mary worship in practice.
For examples :

Pope Benedict XV said of Mary that “[O]ne can justly say that with Christ, she herself redeemed mankind.”

Pope Pius IX said, “Our salvation is based upon the holy Virgin… so that if there is any hope and spiritual healing for us we receive it solely and uniquely from her.”

The concept of Mary as “co-redeemer / co-redemtrix” is strong among the lay members. The prior nun describes the lay movement that signed petitions to send to the Pope, seeking to have him officially declare that Mary is Co‑Redemptrix. At that time, over six million signatures have been sent to him, representing 138 countries and all seven continents.

The prior nun revealed that this doctrine is supported by over 40 cardinals and 600 bishops worldwide.

The ex-catholic nun describes that "when Pope John Paul II was shot, while the ambulance was rushing him to the hospital, the Pope was not praying to God or calling on the name of Jesus. He kept saying, over and over, “Mary, my mother!” Polish pilgrims placed a picture of Our Lady of Czestochowa on the throne where the Pope normally sat. People gathered around the picture. Vatican loudspeakers broadcasted the prayers of the rosary. When the Pope recovered, he gave Mary all the glory for saving his life, and he made a pilgrimage to Fatima to publicly thank her

Even the idols / statues / and pictures of Mary are worshipped, not merely in prayers and attitude, but in the sacrifice of wealth that goes into the idols / statures and icons of this “Queen of heaven”.

The nun revealed that “Vast sums of money are spent on some special statues of Mary. For example, the statue of Our Lady of the Pillar in Saragossa, Spain has a crown made of 25 pounds of gold and diamonds, with so many diamonds that you can hardly see the gold. In addition, it has six other crowns of gold, diamonds and emeralds. It has 365 mantles which are embroidered with gold and covered with roses of diamonds and other precious stones. It has 365 necklaces made of pearls and diamonds, and six chains of gold set with diamonds.

This is not merely honor such as saying “yes maam” to you mother. These practices go WAY beyond simple “honor”.

The nun described the preparations to construct a huge statue of Our Lady of the Rosary in Puerto Rico. Inside the base of the 305 foot statue (the statue of liberty is only 151 feet high…) there will be chapels, conference rooms, apartments, a food court, and radio and TV stations. There will also be observation decks.

The ex-catholic described a popular prayer in Mary’s honor is the Hail Holy Queen, which is known in Latin as the Salve Regina. It is traditionally included as part of praying the rosary. In connection to this appellation of “Holy Queen” she describes the marianist movement which “glorifies Mary” and why such catholics worship Mary.

In his famous book, “The Glories of Mary” de Liguori says that Mary was given rulership over one half of the kingdom of God; Mary rules over the kingdom of mercy and Jesus rules over the kingdom of justice.

De Liguori said that people should pray to Mary as a mediator and look to her as an object of trust for answered prayer. The book even says that there is no salvation outside of Mary.

The ex nun says “…instead of silencing de Liguori as a heretic, the Catholic Church canonized him as a saint and declared him to be a “doctor of the Church” (a person whose teachings carry weight and authority).

The nun described how the Catechisms of the Catholic church supported and justified the worship of Mary.

For example, not only is Jesus the only person who lived a sinless life, the Catechism says that “Mary, “the All-Holy,” lived a perfectly sinless life. (Catechism 411, 493)

There were multiple other Catholic Catechisms described by the ex-nun that supported and justified the worship of Mary. For examples

Because Mary is the mother of Jesus, and Jesus is God, therefore Mary is the Mother of God. (Catechism 963, 971, 2677).

Catechism #963 & 975 tells us that official Catholic doctrine is that Mary is the Mother of the church and At the end of her life, Mary was taken up (“assumed”) body and soul into Heaven. (Catechism 966, 974)

This Assumption of a sinless Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith in 1950.

Catechisms # 968-970, 2677 the ex nun explains, teaches that Mary is the Co-Mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions. (Catechism 968-970, 2677).
The Nun explained that once she accepted Christianity, she realized that Jesus needed no help as a mediator and only he was the true mediator.

The nun explained her prior belief in the Catechism 966 where “God has exalted Mary in heavenly glory as Queen of Heaven and earth. (Catechism 966) She is to be praised with special devotion. (Catechism 971, 2675)”

POST TWO OF TWO FOLLOWS
 
Last edited:

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
POST TWO OF TWO


This person who had been a Catholic and even served as a Catholic nun for years before accepting her Christianity is only ONE of MANY ex-Catholics, including ex-catholic Priests who reveal to the world your belief in the worship of Mary and many other heresies.

Do you want me to give you more examples from ex and anti sites or are you willing to admit that your use of ex and anti sites is not the most correct source for information and it was wrong for you to use ex and anti- sites in insisting what other religions believe?



5) THE ROMAN SCHISM IS NOT THE ORIGINAL CHURCH OF JESUS

I agree with you that Jesus will never abandon the original and authentic gathering (εκκλεσια).
However, your Christian movement is NOT that gathering he was describing.
You and I both agree that the roman schism sought to do evil, it changed and created administrative offices that did not exist and did not have authority, that there is not historical data demonstrating the apostle Peter was ever a standing bishop of Rome and no period appropriate data demonstrating Peter ever gave an obscure roman Bishop his apostolic power, and we both agree that your schism was very different than the Church of Jesus in many important ways.

You claim the original church was "holy", I agree.
Your church is NOT the original Church of Jesus
Your church was NOT so "holy" in it's attempt to gain riches and to engage in slavery and oppression of it's adherants and non-adherants, in it's treatment of Jews, and it's attempt to enslave children in it's service.




6) Regarding your comment that J.W.s kill their children by their commitment not to take blood
:
Are you REALLY going to try to compare the Jehovah Witness attempt to follow their belief against receiving blood for their families to "murder" while the Roman schism actually DID torture and murder THOUSANDS of individuals during the inquisition, created a pipeline of slavery by it's official Church canons, created a method of administrative thievery of property as it sought to convert the lives of it's adherents into money and power?

Do you want me to review your church canons which represent these evil intentions and ask a JW explain their intentions and allow readers to decide which is more justifiable and which is an attempt to do good and avoid evil.... Your canons regarding slavery and thievery and oppression versus their religious commitment to try to do what they think is right in the eyes of God?

I am not J.W., and I disagree with their specific belief on this point, but I honor the J.W. commitment to do what they think is right in the sight of God.
Being true to ones' belief (and not being hypocritical) is, I think, very admirable.
Your Christian schism was not even trying to do right in creating evil church policies in it's cannons.


Clear
φιακφυφυσεω
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
6) Regarding your comment that J.W.s kill their children by their commitment not to take blood
:
Are you REALLY going to try to compare the Jehovah Witness attempt to follow their belief against receiving blood for their families to "murder" while the Roman schism actually DID tortur and murder THOUSANDS of individuals during the inquisition, created a pipeline of slavery by it's official Church canons, created a method of administrative thievery of property as it sought to convert the lives of it's adherents into money and power?

Do you want me to review your church canons which represent these evil intentions and ask a JW explain their intentions and allow readers to decide which is more justifiable and which is an attempt to do good and avoid evil.... Your canons regarding slavery and thievery and oppression versus their religious commitment to try to do what they think is right in the eyes of God?

I am not J.W., and I disagree with their specific belief on this point, but I honor the J.W. commitment to do what they think is right in the sight of God.
Being true to ones' belief (and not being hypocritical) is, I think, very admirable.
Your Christian schism was not even trying to do right in creating evil church policies in it's cannons.
Ignorance and false information is nothing new for Christians. In all my years of being a JW, I have never seen any of my brothers or sisters die from not receiving a blood transfusion. I have heard many in the medical profession threaten them with death if they refused one, but none actually died unless they were going to die, no matter what the doctors tried. People die every day, regardless of whether they have blood transfusions or not. More die after receiving a transfusion than after refusing one.

I invite @Dogknox20 and @Clear to watch the following video posted on the Australian Government's website regarding the dangers associated with blood transfusions. This is nothing to do with Jehovah's Witnesses.

For Media | National Blood Authority

This reinforces the reasons why refusing blood transfusions are more likely to save your life than to lose it.

Whole hospitals are now dedicated to the management of patients' conditions and surgeries without blood and by using non-blood techniques which have proven to increase the speed of recovery and with less complications after surgery.
An infusion of simple saline solution is often all that is needed to keep blood volume levels up whilst new red cells are made in the bone marrow. Our circulatory system is actually compatible with ordinary sea water. Recovery can be very rapid if the body is not fighting off a foreign invader.
Our blood is unique, like our fingerprints so the body's natural response is for the immune system to attack foreign tissue that is introduced into it via the bloodstream.

God's Law saves lives.....why would we think it wouldn't? It was only because of JW's refusing blood that they were forced into investigating other methods that reduced blood loss, and found out that blood was not the safe treatment that they thought it was.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @Deeje


I have seen the video a few years ago and agree with it's base findings.
I practice medicine and have for many years and have noticed the criteria for giving blood is much more conservative than it was in the 1980s.
While the video is dated, I think the data was good at the time I saw the video.

While I don't hold to the belief of withholding blood when I think it is needed, I do agree with the main point of the video that blood was, at the time the video was made, ordered too often.


Just a point regarding sea water and blood.
You mentioned that "Our circulatory system is actually compatible with ordinary sea water." (Deeje in post #1184),
This is incorrect.
While the "water" in our blood has 0.9% (i.e. 9 grams of NaCl per 1000 grams), typical sea water has about 3.5% (35 grams of "salt" per 1000 grams).
While we all grew up with the anecdote that our blood has that relation to the salt in sea water, it is actually not true.
This specific point is not meant to reflect on anything else you said.


Clear
φιακφυνετωω
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Hi @Deeje


I have seen the video a few years ago and agree with it's base findings.
I practice medicine and have for many years and have noticed the criteria for giving blood is much more conservative than it was in the 1980s.
While the video is dated, I think the data was good at the time I saw the video.

While I don't hold to the belief of withholding blood when I think it is needed, I do agree with the main point of the video that blood was, at the time the video was made, ordered too often.


Just a point regarding sea water and blood.
You mentioned that "Our circulatory system is actually compatible with ordinary sea water." (Deeje in post #1184),
This is incorrect.
While the "water" in our blood has 0.9% (i.e. 9 grams of NaCl per 1000 grams), typical sea water has about 3.5% (35 grams of "salt" per 1000 grams).
While we all grew up with the anecdote that our blood has that relation to the salt in sea water, it is actually not true.
This specific point is not meant to reflect on anything else you said.
I recall some years ago reading about infusions of sea water being used in emergency situations during WW2 when blood was not always available, and it saved lives. Not an optimal solution but better than no solution at all apparently.

Saline solution will keep plasma volume levels up so that veins do not collapse and red cells can be replenished quite rapidly, especially with the administration of EPO. Techniques continue to be refined.
The one thing that stood out in the video was the fact that blood transfusions were the highest cause of morbidity and mortality out of all the medical interventions used in Emergency Departments....that cannot be discounted.

I have known so many of my brotherhood personally who have faced this issue and come through it without blood, thanks to the skill and understanding care of the medical professionals who helped them.
 

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
Ignorance and false information is nothing new for Christians. In all my years of being a JW, I have never seen any of my brothers or sisters die from not receiving a blood transfusion. I have heard many in the medical profession threaten them with death if they refused one, but none actually died unless they were going to die, no matter what the doctors tried. People die every day, regardless of whether they have blood transfusions or not. More die after receiving a transfusion than after refusing one.

I invite @Dogknox20 and @Clear to watch the following video posted on the Australian Government's website regarding the dangers associated with blood transfusions. This is nothing to do with Jehovah's Witnesses.

For Media | National Blood Authority

This reinforces the reasons why refusing blood transfusions are more likely to save your life than to lose it.

Whole hospitals are now dedicated to the management of patients' conditions and surgeries without blood and by using non-blood techniques which have proven to increase the speed of recovery and with less complications after surgery.
An infusion of simple saline solution is often all that is needed to keep blood volume levels up whilst new red cells are made in the bone marrow. Our circulatory system is actually compatible with ordinary sea water. Recovery can be very rapid if the body is not fighting off a foreign invader.
Our blood is unique, like our fingerprints so the body's natural response is for the immune system to attack foreign tissue that is introduced into it via the bloodstream.

God's Law saves lives.....why would we think it wouldn't? It was only because of JW's refusing blood that they were forced into investigating other methods that reduced blood loss, and found out that blood was not the safe treatment that they thought it was.
Hello Deeje good to meet you..
First I must point out "Christians rejected Arius because he taught Jesus is NOT God"! Arius was a Christian he was AMONG Christians until he was removed as a False Teacher!
This is scripture prophesy...
2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Arius was removed from AMONG Christians as a Heretic!

All Christians worship Jesus because: "Jesus is God"! Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, JW's, Atheist's etc are NOT Christian!

This is from JW Answers. (below)

Comprehensive answers to FAQ's about the Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses
Approximately 594 Jehovah’s Witnesses die each year as a result of not being allowed blood transfusions, based on a study by Dr. Osamu Muramoto. It is estimated that by 2016, more than 30,000 witnesses have died since 1961 when blood transfusions were first prohibited among Jehovah’s Witnesses.

How many Jehovah’s Witnesses die as a result of refusing a blood transfusion, according to the Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
It was admitted that thousands of Jehovah’s Witness children have died by being refused a blood transfusion. This is according to a statement made by Jehovah’s Witnesses in an article entitled “Youths Who Put God First“, in a 1994 Awake Magazine.

Despite this statement being made in black and white in one of their most popular magazines, the organization conveniently changed their answer in a recent FAQ on their website, saying that the death of many witnesses, including children resulting from the refusal of blood transfusions is a myth. In fact, they go as far as to say that that statement is completely unfounded
.

Does the Bible teach that accepting a blood transfusion is a sin?
The Bible does not teach that accepting a blood transfusion is a sin. In fact, most of the scriptures Jehovah’s Witnesses quote in support of this rule are part of the mosaic law, under which Christians are not obligated.

In addition, all these scriptures are talking about eating blood, or meat that still had blood in it which was considered unclean. This was believed to be to prevent taking part in blood sacrifices to idols or to consume animals that weren’t bled properly, which could make a person sick
.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Well, that’s the problem - there is no twist.

verse 28 sums it up:
  • “When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.” (1 Cor 15:28)
Your post was of no other use than as a pointless opposer to truth seeing that your answer is in the very next set of verses (24-28) that you conveniently for your own purpose didn’t bother to post.

I believe my point is that you are not seeing something that is there. I remember my cousin having a picture and asking what I saw. I saw a fox. The picture also had Jesus in it if you looked at it long enough. That is the way that verse is for you. You can't see God in it.
 

TiggerII

Active Member
Dogknox20 wrote:
How many Jehovah’s Witnesses die as a result of refusing a blood transfusion, according to the Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
It was admitted that thousands of Jehovah’s Witness children have died by being refused a blood transfusion. This is according to a statement made by Jehovah’s Witnesses in an article entitled “Youths Who Put God First“, in a 1994 Awake Magazine.
.......................................

But here's what the intro to the article really said:

"Youths Who Put God First 3-15

"In former times thousands of youths died for putting God first. They are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue."
.......................................
"In former times" refers to Christians from the first century onward. It does not refer specifically to JWs.

The article itself is about only 4 children who refused transfusions (or, they were told, they would die). It tells of their struggles with doctors, lawyers, courts, etc. Two of them died, two didn't. There's no mention of "thousands of Jehovah's Witness children."

Dogknox, your statement is not just misleading, IT IS FALSE!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Dogknox20 wrote:
How many Jehovah’s Witnesses die as a result of refusing a blood transfusion, according to the Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
It was admitted that thousands of Jehovah’s Witness children have died by being refused a blood transfusion. This is according to a statement made by Jehovah’s Witnesses in an article entitled “Youths Who Put God First“, in a 1994 Awake Magazine.
.......................................

But here's what the intro to the article really said:

"Youths Who Put God First 3-15

"In former times thousands of youths died for putting God first. They are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue."
.......................................
"In former times" refers to Christians from the first century onward. It does not refer specifically to JWs.

The article itself is about only 4 children who refused transfusions (or, they were told, they would die). It tells of their struggles with doctors, lawyers, courts, etc. Two of them died, two didn't. There's no mention of "thousands of Jehovah's Witness children."

Dogknox, your statement is not just misleading, IT IS FALSE!
What did Jesus say? “Blind guides is what they are” and ‘if the blind lead the blind both will fall into a pit’. We have to let them fall because they are not interested in the truth, only in promoting their own flawed beliefs.

“Shaking the dust off” is about all we can do.....Jesus will reveal the truth soon enough. (Matthew 7:21-23)
Peace to you my brother.
 

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
Dogknox20 wrote:
How many Jehovah’s Witnesses die as a result of refusing a blood transfusion, according to the Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses?
It was admitted that thousands of Jehovah’s Witness children have died by being refused a blood transfusion. This is according to a statement made by Jehovah’s Witnesses in an article entitled “Youths Who Put God First“, in a 1994 Awake Magazine.
.......................................

But here's what the intro to the article really said:

"Youths Who Put God First 3-15

"In former times thousands of youths died for putting God first. They are still doing it, only today the drama is played out in hospitals and courtrooms, with blood transfusions the issue."
.......................................
"In former times" refers to Christians from the first century onward. It does not refer specifically to JWs.

The article itself is about only 4 children who refused transfusions (or, they were told, they would die). It tells of their struggles with doctors, lawyers, courts, etc. Two of them died, two didn't. There's no mention of "thousands of Jehovah's Witness children."
Dogknox, your statement is not just misleading, IT IS FALSE!
.
.
tigger2 I hope all is well... Even one child dyeing is one to many! The JWs think God wants death over life! killing children in his name is a grave sin!
There is a great big difference between eating blood and receiving a life-giving blood transfusion.
..................... All scripture references are about eating blood. ..............................

tigger2 God’s prohibition of eating blood also includes eating fat! These passages include a prohibition against eating fat and blood.
Leviticus 3:17‘This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood.’”

Leviticus 7:22 The Lord said to Moses, 23 “Say to the Israelites: ‘Do not eat any of the fat of cattle, sheep or goats. 24 The fat of an animal found dead or torn by wild animals may be used for any other purpose, but you must not eat it. 25 Anyone who eats the fat of an animal from which a food offering may be presented to the Lord must be cut off from their people. 26 And wherever you live, you must not eat the blood of any bird or animal. 27 Anyone who eats blood must be cut off from their people.’”

tigger2 NOTE: God’s “perpetual statute” against eating blood must be observed, while his “perpetual statute” (that appears in the very same context) against eating fat can be safely ignored.?
Why are the ordinances about eating fat ignored!?

“Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood” (Gen. 9:4).
 

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
What did Jesus say? “Blind guides is what they are” and ‘if the blind lead the blind both will fall into a pit’. We have to let them fall because they are not interested in the truth, only in promoting their own flawed beliefs.

“Shaking the dust off” is about all we can do.....Jesus will reveal the truth soon enough. (Matthew 7:21-23)
Peace to you my brother.
.
Deeje You are willing to quote scriptures as if they were addressed to you!
Fact one... You can thank the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church for your scriptures! It is She is who put them all together in the first place, until the Catholic Church decided what was inspired and what was not know one knew! Guided by God the Holy Spirit she alone was the AUTHORITY that made the bible! Your bible did not fall out of the sky with a cover and all the verses and pages numbered!
Fact two... Christian worship Jesus because Jesus is God! Arius was a Christian he was AMONG Christians until Christians removed him as a False teacher!
2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

Arius taught "Jesus is NOT God"! This scripture prophesy cannot work in the reverse... Christians were NOT among Arius! You MUST reject the scriptures as lies to be JW!

Fact three... Jesus is always with the One Church he established.. Clearly "the church" cannot be your church because yours was started by a man; Charles Taze Russell, who was born in 1852!
20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
This means you MUST reject the scriptures as a lie!
"Always With" means Jesus is STILL with the Only Church he established today... This means the Watch Tower & JW is a lie they teach differently then the one Church Jesus is ALWAYS With! There can only be one truth 2+2=4
 

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!
Christians "Worship Jesus" because worship is only for God!
Christians have always worshiped Jesus!

Jews have one God....Luke 1 Elizabeth' husband is a high priest; Zechariah the father of "John the Baptist" believes in one God and only one God! Jews worship one God!!
Elizabeth is a Jew she has "One God"! She greeted Mary this way.. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. 42 In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! 43 But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Question who is Elizabeth's "Lord"! EVERY...

Every time the word Lord is written in Luke 1 it means God! "Lord" in Luke 1 refers to God! Elizabeth is saying to Mary.. "Mother of my God"!
Question who is Elizabeth's "Lord"!?
Fourteen (14) times in Luke 1 the word "Lord" is used and every time the word "Lord" means God!
Luke 1:68 “Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel,
Luke 1:46 And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord
Luke 1:32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
etc

 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @Deeje :

1) Regarding “medical wives tales”

Deeje said ; “I recall some years ago reading about infusions of sea water being used in emergency situations during WW2 when blood was not always available, and it saved lives. Not an optimal solution but better than no solution at all apparently.”

While there may have been “stories” circulated about giving Sea Water in the place of Saline, I assure you that any significant amount of salt water, given in the place of saline would have killed those to whom it was given. What you read about it saving lives was a wives’ tale.

2) REPEATING ANECDOTAL STORIES VERSUS "MINING" FOR ANTI-RELIGION SENTIMENT IN ANTI-RELIGION SITES AND REPRESENTING THAT AS THE TRUTH

Having said that,, repeating wives tales about something we know little about is common and not a moral defect. It’s simply repeating something about which it is easy to make a mistake.

This is not the same as mining for anti-religion data and presenting it as the truth.


3) AN EXAMPLE OF MINING FOR ERRONEOUS DATA AND MISREPRESENTATION
dogknox20s presentation of data from the Magazine Awake (may 22, 1994) is an example of looking at an anti-Jehovahs Witness site and presenting that as good information when he should have known better. This is not a morally good thing to do.

Trying to make an excuse for such behaviors is simply trying to justify offering bad data or at best, intellectual laziness.
For example, Dogknox20 says he uses “ex” and “anti” websites because "The ex and anti sites are a good source of questions that need to be answered! I am willing to use their sites because they ask the questions! “.

The problem is that a person of normal moral intelligence should know that such answers are skewed and the answers of poor and skewed quality.
Individuals using such bad data, typical use such answers, not because the answers reflect good data from believing and informed members, but because they do NOT represent good data from believing and informed members.

If they wanted GOOD data, from informed and believing members, they could simply post the questions on the forum to those people, instead of reading the answers from the anti religionists.



LYING FOR GOD WHEN MAKING MORAL COMPARISONS

Dogknox20 said : “The JW's killed children by refusing blood transfusion! AS if God wants children killed for him, in his name! It's evil to the core! (post #1181)

Clear responded : “Are you REALLY going to try to compare the Jehovah Witness attempt to follow their belief against receiving blood for their families to "murder" while the Roman schism actually DID torture and murder THOUSANDS of individuals during the inquisition, created a pipeline of slavery by it's official Church canons, created a method of administrative thievery of property as it sought to convert the lives of it's adherents into money and power?

Dogknox20 doubles down this comparison saying : “It was admitted that thousands of Jehovah’s Witness children have died by being refused a blood transfusion. This is according to a statement made by Jehovah’s Witnesses in an article entitled “Youths Who Put God First“, in a 1994 Awake Magazine.” (post #1187)


However, when one reads the actual article, that is not what the article actually says.

The article title description says that in former times thousands of youths died for putting God first.


It does not tell us if these ancient saints died because they refused to recant their testimonies and were sent to the lions for their testimony or for living in a land such as Germany that sent J.W.s to concentration camps during the holocaust or for some other reason similar to Jews that were killed for their religion.

These Christians of “former times” and ancient saints did not die by “being refused a blood transfusion” yet they died because of their religion.


What the article actually says :
The body of the article itself simply relates the story of six (6) Jehovahs Witness youth that encountered a recommendation that they receive a blood transfusion and their different situations and different outcomes.
None of these six Children died because of refusal to accept blood transfusion itself. But the stories concern the Children and their faith and their commitment to their faith.

Thus, Dogknox20 claim that , according to the 1994 awakeIt was admitted that thousands of Jehovah’s Witness children have died by being refused a blood transfusion.” (Dogknox20, post #1187) is simply a mischaracterization and a false witness of what the article actual says.


I want to make clear that I am not a Jehovahs Witness and I DO believe in blood transfusions in cases of medical necessity.

What I am disagreeing with is the willful misrepresentation of another religion and it’s beliefs and a misrepresentation of the effects of those beliefs.
While some individuals may feel it is justifiable to misrepresent others "IF we are lying for God", this is NOT good. It is NOT justifiable.



I think that if readers compare the extreme (EXTREME) rarity of deaths of a Jehovah witness child that dies because of lack of blood transfusion with poptentially thousands and thousands of individuals who were tortured and killed and brought into slavery and oppression and whose property was taken from them and the Jews whose children were taken from them by virtue of the Roman Catholic inquisitions over the centuries, the Jehovah Witnesses will come off much the better in comparison if Dogknox20 wants to compare moral postures of his religious schism with the the moral postures of the Jehovahs Witnesses.




Clear
φιακσισεσιω
 
Last edited:

TiggerII

Active Member
@Dogknox
since you continue saying "worship" belongs to God alone, I will repeat my study of the OT and NT uses of this word:
.............................
The Greek word proskuneo (or proskyneo) is defined in the 1971 trinitarian United Bible Societies’ A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 154: “[Proskuneo] worship; fall down and worship, kneel, bow low, fall at another’s feet.”

Even the trinitarian W. E. Vine writes in his An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 1247:

“PROSKUNEO ... to make obeisance, do reverence to (from pros, towards, and kuneo, to kiss), is the most frequent word rendered ‘to worship’. It is used for an act of homage or reverence (a) to God ...; (b) to Christ ...; (c) to a man, Matt. 18:26.”

“Obeisance,” of course, shows “respect, submission, or reverence” - Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1961.

Noted Bible scholar J. H. Thayer defines proskuneo:

“prop. to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence ... hence in the N. T. by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication. It is used a. of homage shown to men of superior rank [position] ... Rev. 3:9 .... b. of homage rendered to God and the ascended Christ, to heavenly beings [angels]” - p. 548, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Baker Book House Publ., 1977.

Hasting’s A Dictionary of the Bible tells us:

“Worship, both as [noun] and verb, was formerly used of reverence or honour done to men as well as to God …” - p. 941, vol. 4.

The Hebrew word most often translated “worship” is shachah, and it is usually rendered as proskuneo in the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Unger and White say of this word: “Shachah ... ‘to worship, prostrate oneself, bow down.’” And,

“The act of bowing down in homage done before a superior [in rank] or a ruler. Thus David ‘bowed’ himself [shachah] before Saul (1 Sam. 24:8). Sometimes it is a social or economic superior to whom one bows, as when Ruth ‘bowed’ [shachah] to the ground before Boaz (Ruth 2:10).” - Nelson’s Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament, 1980, Thomas Nelson Publ., p. 482.

Perhaps the most famous Biblical Hebrew scholar of all, Gesenius, tells us in Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, p. 813, (#7812), ‘Shachah’:

“(1) to prostrate oneself before anyone out of honor .... Those who used this mode of salutation fell on their knees and touched the ground with the forehead ..., and this honor was not only shown to superiors, such as kings and princes, 2 Sam. 9:8; but also to equals; Gen. 23:7.”

The act described by proskuneo (or shachah) was of bowing or kneeling, and it generally indicated an act of respect and a display of one’s willingness to submit to or serve another person who occupied a superior position, regardless of his nature (somewhat similar to a salute in the military today). It was done, of course, in its very highest sense to God alone, but it was also done, in a lower sense of the same word, to kings, angels, prophets, etc. That is why proskuneo is translated “prostrated himself before” at Matt. 18:26 NASB, even though the KJV uses “worship” there. Notice how other trinitarian translations render that verse (RSV and NIV for example) where a servant “worships” [proskuneo] his master. And that is why, in the account of the man blind from birth whom Jesus healed, we see that man giving proskuneo to Jesus at John 9:38. The ASV, in a footnote for John 9:38, says,

“The Greek word [proskuneo] denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature, as here [Jesus], or to the Creator.”

At Rev. 3:9 Jesus shows the position of authority he will give to some of his human followers when he says he will make people “worship before thy feet.” - KJV. The word used there is proskuneo! The ASV again adds this footnote: “The Greek word [proskuneo] denotes an act of reverence whether paid to a creature, or the Creator.”

We can see the same thing at Is. 45:14. Here God, speaking to his faithful human followers of the last days, says:

“and they [the rest of surviving mankind] ... shall fall down [shachah - ‘worship’] unto thee, they shall make supplication [palal - ‘pray’: see The Jerusalem Bible and AT] unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee [see IN/WITH study]; and there is none else.” - KJV, ASV. - cf. Is. 49:23.

Even the ancient Greek translation, the Septuagint, says at Is. 45:14 -

“and they ... shall [proskuneo - ‘worship’] thee and make supplication [proseuchomai - ‘pray’] to thee: because God is in thee; and there is no God beside thee, O Lord.” (Notice all the trinitarian-type “evidence” here that could “prove” these men are “equally God”!) - The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, Greek and English, Zondervan Ed., 1970.

So we see that the king of Israel, for example, could receive proskuneo or shachah in his role as a representative of a higher authority (Jehovah), or he could receive it in recognition of his own earthly position of authority that God allowed him to have. For example, at 2 Sam. 14:22 Joab “worships” ‘my Lord’ (King David). The Hebrew word shachah translated in most places in the Bible as “worship” is here translated “did obeisance” in the RSV. In the Greek Septuagint the word used is proskuneo. So, in spite of their both sharing the same fleshly human nature, one gave the other proskuneo or shachah!

We see the same thing at 1 Kings 1:16, 31 when Bathsheba gives shachah to her husband and king, David. Not only does the Septuagint use proskuneo for these verses (3 Kings 1:16, 31 in Sept.), but at verses 21 and 31 she calls David, “The Lord of me” (“My Lord”).

Angels, when acting as representatives of Jehovah and speaking his words, could properly receive proskuneo as representatives for a superior authority.

Gen. 18:2 uses shachah to describe what Abraham did to the angels (p. 37, New Bible Dictionary, second ed., 1982, Tyndale House Publ.) who came to him, and what Lot did to two of those same angels (shachah) is described at Gen. 19:1 (Also see Unger and White, pp. 7 and 482.) Proskuneo is also used in these two scriptures in the Septuagint. Also see Numbers 22:31: Balaam “worshiped” (proskuneo - Sept. and shachah [”fell flat” - KJV] - Hebrew OT) the ANGEL and the angel accepted it! (Unlike Rev. 19:10 and 22:8, 9.)

So, like the word theos ("God"/"a god"), proskuneo and shachah had different levels of meaning. Only God was to receive worship in the highest sense of the word.

Please note that the word studies of this word are by TRINITARIANS (even Thayer's words are a translation of a noted German trinitarian). They are not from "anti" sources!
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Hi @Deeje :

1) Regarding “medical wives tales”

Deeje said ; “I recall some years ago reading about infusions of sea water being used in emergency situations during WW2 when blood was not always available, and it saved lives. Not an optimal solution but better than no solution at all apparently.”

While there may have been “stories” circulated about giving Sea Water in the place of Saline, I assure you that any significant amount of salt water, given in the place of saline would have killed those to whom it was given. What you read about it saving lives was a wives’ tale.

2) REPEATING ANECDOTAL STORIES VERSUS "MINING" FOR ANTI-RELIGION SENTIMENT IN ANTI-RELIGION SITES AND REPRESENTING THAT AS THE TRUTH

Having said that to Deeje. Repeating wives tales about something we know little about is common and not a moral defect.
It’s simply repeating something about which it is easy to make a mistake.

This is not the same as mining for anti-religion data and presenting it as the truth.


3) AN EXAMPLE OF MINING FOR ERRONEOUS DATA AND MISREPRESENTATION
dogknox20s presentation of data from the Magazine Awake (may 22, 1994) is an example of looking at an anti-Jehovahs Witness site and presenting that as good information when he should have known better. This is not a morally good thing to do.

Trying to make an excuse for such behaviors is simply trying to justify offering bad data or at best, intellectual laziness.
For example, Dogknox20 says he uses “ex” and “anti” websites because "The ex and anti sites are a good source of questions that need to be answered! I am willing to use their sites because they ask the questions! “.

The problem is that a person of normal moral intelligence should know that such answers are skewed and the answers of poor and skewed quality.
Individuals using such bad data, typical use such answers, not because the answers reflect good data from believing and informed members, but because they do NOT represent good data from believing and informed members.

If they wanted GOOD data, from informed and believing members, they could simply post the questions on the forum to those people, instead of reading the answers from the anti religionists.



LYING FOR GOD WHEN MAKING MORAL COMPARISONS

Dogknox20 said : “The JW's killed children by refusing blood transfusion! AS if God wants children killed for him, in his name! It's evil to the core! (post #1181)

Clear responded : “Are you REALLY going to try to compare the Jehovah Witness attempt to follow their belief against receiving blood for their families to "murder" while the Roman schism actually DID torture and murder THOUSANDS of individuals during the inquisition, created a pipeline of slavery by it's official Church canons, created a method of administrative thievery of property as it sought to convert the lives of it's adherents into money and power?

Dogknox20 doubles down this comparison saying : “It was admitted that thousands of Jehovah’s Witness children have died by being refused a blood transfusion. This is according to a statement made by Jehovah’s Witnesses in an article entitled “Youths Who Put God First“, in a 1994 Awake Magazine.” (post #1187)


However, when one reads the actual article, that is not what the article actually says.

The article title description says that in former times thousands of youths died for putting God first.


It does not tell us if these ancient saints died because they refused to recant their testimonies and were sent to the lions for their testimony or for living in a land such as Germany that sent J.W.s to concentration camps during the holocaust or for some other reason similar to Jews that were killed for their religion.

These Christians of “former times” and ancient saints did not die by “being refused a blood transfusion” yet they died because of their religion.


What the article actually says :
The body of the article itself simply relates the story of six (6) Jehovahs Witness youth that encountered a recommendation that they receive a blood transfusion and their different situations and different outcomes.
None of these six Children died because of refusal to accept blood transfusion itself. But the stories concern the Children and their faith and their commitment to their faith.

Thus, Dogknox20 claim that , according to the 1994 awakeIt was admitted that thousands of Jehovah’s Witness children have died by being refused a blood transfusion.” (Dogknox20, post #1187) is simply a mischaracterization and a false witness of what the article actual says.


I want to make clear that I am not a Jehovahs Witness and I DO believe in blood transfusions in cases of medical necessity.

What I am disagreeing with is the willful misrepresentation of another religion and it’s beliefs and a misrepresentation of the effects of those beliefs.
While some individuals may feel it is justifiable to misrepresent others "IF we are lying for God", this is NOT good. It is NOT justifiable.



I think that if readers compare the extreme (EXTREME) rarity of deaths of a Jehovah witness child that dies because of lack of blood transfusion with poptentially thousands and thousands of individuals who were tortured and killed and brought into slavery and oppression and whose property was taken from them and the Jews whose children were taken from them by virtue of the Roman Catholic inquisitions over the centuries, the Jehovah Witnesses will come off much the better in comparison if Dogknox20 wants to compare moral postures of his religious schism with the the moral postures of the Jehovahs Witnesses.




Clear
φιακσισεσιω
The problem with your posts are that they expect that religious beliefs depend on ‘Historical Data’.

Yet who is to know if that ‘Historical Data’ is correct, valid, or ‘An Old Wives Tale’.

Your posts seems to suggest that anything that is ‘Historical Data’ is valid… because someone wrote it or it’s is said to have been said… anecdotal.

Since you have no idea about religious belief other than to collect ‘Historical Data’ about certain of them, and then attempt, vainly, to piece these together into some kind of … I don’t know what… belief, it is hardly worth mentioning AGAIN that your ‘research’ will come to nothing!

Religion is a BELIEF system. It does not depend on ‘Historical Data’ of the sort you are compiling.

Ypu have already found out that the king established ‘Catholic ‘Historical Data’ is bunkum… not that it didn’t happen but that if is so skewed by those who came to realise that the trinity DOES NOT WORK as a THEOLOGY that they changed, modified, lied, corrupted, indoctrinated, threatened … in order to try to maintain it as a belief.

But having found that ‘traditional trinity’ is false, you choose to go with what you call the ‘original Trinitarians’ (my take o your title for it). In this, you seem to take on a ‘God is three but not like trinity’… or something like that.

Why doesn’t your research show that ALL TRINITY ideologies are false ideologies.

The vain attempt at maintaining “God is One God” seems to be ‘Lost in Translation” because of the length of time and the force exerted on humanity of Judaism i Cor Christian belief that this means “God is three!“

The ‘God’ of the scriptures pertaining to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon…. Jesus, said that he was the ‘ONLY GOD’ - That he was to be their only God… and only him should they worship. This is reflected in Jesus Christ saying:
  • ‘This means eternal life that they should believe in you. The Only True God…’
How much more direct can this be.

Now, the question asked is: Why doesn’t the scriptures DENY that God is three…

Trick question!!

Since there was never ever a concept of God being three then there absolutely would not be any reason to have to deny something that wasn’t existing.

Jesus never really DENIED being GOD because no
One every really ACCUSED him of being so… No did he ever CLAIM TO BE GOD!

Even the corrupted verses in the scriptures STILL PLACE THE Father as the ALMIGHTY GOD…

Trinity got caught out by this and came up with the concept of a RANKING among the three whom they say are COMPLETELY 100% EQUAL IN EVERY WAY to each other…

Absurd!! You got it.

Not only that but God is ETERNALLY GOD… and IMMUTABLE…

Yet trinity has ONE of the immutable persons downplaying his ALMIGHTY GODNESS to the point of being brutalised by ‘his own creation’…

He CHANGED… several times… eventually gaining an immortal body after DYING… dying to save his own creation…. Yes, absurd again… no one does that!! It would prove nothing to those who contested the rulership of the created… it would prove to Satan that indeed mankind needs HIM to rule them… yes, if God had to come as a created being to save what he created then Satan was right!!! And GOD WAS WRONG!!

And yet we know the truth that it was a righteous sinless, holy man who maintained himself towards HIS GOD and proved Satan wrong, who saved humanity.

And having done so, GOD GLORIFIED HIM and set him above his brethren and into Heaven to be seated in a position to rule over creation after judging the world.

If the saviour was GOD … how absurd a solution that GOD should BE GLORIFIED BY GOD WHOM HE IS TO BECOME RULER OVER WHAT HE ALREADY IS THE OWNER OF!!
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @Soapy


Soapy said ; “For me, the scriptures is quite clear and direct on what the subject is about on the whole. (soapy, in post 1163)



ARE SOAPY’S TWO THEORIES ACTUALLY BASED IN SCRIPTURE?



Clear said : “Your theories are not really based in scripture.

For example, you said : “… it was to HIM (SATAN) that YAHWEH said: ‘Let us create man in our image, in our likeness’… (soapy, in post #1114)
Clear pointed out “Yet you were unable to provide a single scripture that supports this claim even when you were asked to provide scripture. (post #1167)


Another example is Soapys claim that "Satan created the body of Adam… "(soapy, in post #1114)
Clear pointed out “Yet again you were unable to provide a single scripture that supports this claim even when you were asked to provide scripture.
Soapy replied : “And I said that the creation of a body is not a hard thing for an Angel,…” (post #1168)

Clear pointed out that "This theory about angels is not a scripture that tells readers that Satan created the body of Adam. Can you provide a single scripture that supports your claim that Satan created the body of Adam instead of God?
If the scriptures are clear and direct on such subjects, you should be able to provide at least a single scripture that supports your religious theories.
IF no scriptures supports your theories, then your theories are not based on the text of the scriptures, but instead, are based on some other principle. (post #1176)




Soapy replied : “However, I would challenge you to put together a cohesive storyline that reflect the scriptures that Christians believe. I would guarantee that you would quickly find so many holes and disparities that you would start doubting the whole Christianity theme.
Clear replied : “This strange claim that a study of the scriptures one would “find so many holes and disparities” in them that would result in doubt in Christianity is strange and it has not been my experience.
However, your criticism of scripture still is not a scripture that supports your two theories and your claim that your theories are biblical based.
Do you have a single scripture to support these theories?”







Soapy replied : “The problem with your posts are that they expect that religious beliefs depend on ‘Historical Data’.” (post #1196)

This is another irrational conclusion.

Of course religious beliefs do not simply depend upon or even need to depend on historical data.

For examples,

1) You do no seem to have any "historical data" regarding early Christian history, yet you have religious beliefs that you think are “historical”.
This is an example where you have created the above religious beliefs that are independent of "Historical Data.". We simply don't know where you got these two specific beliefs other than they seem logical to you. Your personal logic and opinion is not "historical data".

2) For example, you may have been on a psychoactive drug when you developed these two religious theories.
If so, this is another example of a source of a belief that does not depend on historical data.

3) You may have had a brain lesion producing a hallucination when you developed these two religious theories.

This is also an example of a source of a belief that does not depend on historical data.

4) You may simply have a way of thinking that thinks it is logical for Satan to have Created Adams body.

This is also an example of a source of a belief that does not depend on historical data. If you have enough followers of this logic, you could even create another schism of Christianity. (or not).

5) You may have schizophrenia and have lost touch with reality.
This would also be another example of a source of a belief that does not depend on historical data.


You have beliefs and they are examples of religious beliefs that do not “depend on historical data” and or at least they do not seem to come from the historical data in the biblical narratives since you are unable to provide readers with a single biblical narrative that describes a logical origin for these two specific religious beliefs of yours.



Clear
φιακακειτωω
 
Last edited:

Dogknox20

Well-Known Member
Hi @Deeje :

1) Regarding “medical wives tales”

Deeje said ; “I recall some years ago reading about infusions of sea water being used in emergency situations during WW2 when blood was not always available, and it saved lives. Not an optimal solution but better than no solution at all apparently.”

While there may have been “stories” circulated about giving Sea Water in the place of Saline, I assure you that any significant amount of salt water, given in the place of saline would have killed those to whom it was given. What you read about it saving lives was a wives’ tale.

2) REPEATING ANECDOTAL STORIES VERSUS "MINING" FOR ANTI-RELIGION SENTIMENT IN ANTI-RELIGION SITES AND REPRESENTING THAT AS THE TRUTH

Having said that,, repeating wives tales about something we know little about is common and not a moral defect. It’s simply repeating something about which it is easy to make a mistake.

This is not the same as mining for anti-religion data and presenting it as the truth.


3) AN EXAMPLE OF MINING FOR ERRONEOUS DATA AND MISREPRESENTATION
dogknox20s presentation of data from the Magazine Awake (may 22, 1994) is an example of looking at an anti-Jehovahs Witness site and presenting that as good information when he should have known better. This is not a morally good thing to do.

Trying to make an excuse for such behaviors is simply trying to justify offering bad data or at best, intellectual laziness.
For example, Dogknox20 says he uses “ex” and “anti” websites because "The ex and anti sites are a good source of questions that need to be answered! I am willing to use their sites because they ask the questions! “.

The problem is that a person of normal moral intelligence should know that such answers are skewed and the answers of poor and skewed quality.
Individuals using such bad data, typical use such answers, not because the answers reflect good data from believing and informed members, but because they do NOT represent good data from believing and informed members.

If they wanted GOOD data, from informed and believing members, they could simply post the questions on the forum to those people, instead of reading the answers from the anti religionists.



LYING FOR GOD WHEN MAKING MORAL COMPARISONS

Dogknox20 said : “The JW's killed children by refusing blood transfusion! AS if God wants children killed for him, in his name! It's evil to the core! (post #1181)

Clear responded : “Are you REALLY going to try to compare the Jehovah Witness attempt to follow their belief against receiving blood for their families to "murder" while the Roman schism actually DID torture and murder THOUSANDS of individuals during the inquisition, created a pipeline of slavery by it's official Church canons, created a method of administrative thievery of property as it sought to convert the lives of it's adherents into money and power?

Dogknox20 doubles down this comparison saying : “It was admitted that thousands of Jehovah’s Witness children have died by being refused a blood transfusion. This is according to a statement made by Jehovah’s Witnesses in an article entitled “Youths Who Put God First“, in a 1994 Awake Magazine.” (post #1187)


However, when one reads the actual article, that is not what the article actually says.

The article title description says that in former times thousands of youths died for putting God first.


It does not tell us if these ancient saints died because they refused to recant their testimonies and were sent to the lions for their testimony or for living in a land such as Germany that sent J.W.s to concentration camps during the holocaust or for some other reason similar to Jews that were killed for their religion.

These Christians of “former times” and ancient saints did not die by “being refused a blood transfusion” yet they died because of their religion.


What the article actually says :
The body of the article itself simply relates the story of six (6) Jehovahs Witness youth that encountered a recommendation that they receive a blood transfusion and their different situations and different outcomes.
None of these six Children died because of refusal to accept blood transfusion itself. But the stories concern the Children and their faith and their commitment to their faith.

Thus, Dogknox20 claim that , according to the 1994 awakeIt was admitted that thousands of Jehovah’s Witness children have died by being refused a blood transfusion.” (Dogknox20, post #1187) is simply a mischaracterization and a false witness of what the article actual says.


I want to make clear that I am not a Jehovahs Witness and I DO believe in blood transfusions in cases of medical necessity.

What I am disagreeing with is the willful misrepresentation of another religion and it’s beliefs and a misrepresentation of the effects of those beliefs.
While some individuals may feel it is justifiable to misrepresent others "IF we are lying for God", this is NOT good. It is NOT justifiable.



I think that if readers compare the extreme (EXTREME) rarity of deaths of a Jehovah witness child that dies because of lack of blood transfusion with poptentially thousands and thousands of individuals who were tortured and killed and brought into slavery and oppression and whose property was taken from them and the Jews whose children were taken from them by virtue of the Roman Catholic inquisitions over the centuries, the Jehovah Witnesses will come off much the better in comparison if Dogknox20 wants to compare moral postures of his religious schism with the the moral postures of the Jehovahs Witnesses.
Clear
φιακσισεσιω

Clear I reply: Quakers killed old ladies as witches!
King Henry murdered thousands of Catholics!
The King of France did the same thing!
FACT: The Holy Catholic Church by far is the largest charity in the world!
She started schools and university's, she was the ONLY welfare for the peoples it was not the governments but the Holy Catholic Church that fed the peoples!
The Holy Catholic Church started Hospitals and Orphanages!
She encourages science and education! It was a Catholic Priest that discovered dominant and recessive genes! It was a Catholic Priest that brought "The Big Bang theory" to science!
She alone brought Jesus and salvation to the world.. She TAUGHT and Preached to the peoples about Jesus and truth! There were NO bibles until the printing press seventeen hundred years after Jesus! Even then most people could not read!
It was the Holy Catholic Church none other that was the stabilizing factor in the world!

Clear You have it in your little head that the Catholic Church is the root cause of your troubles and blame her for the situation you find yourself.. Clearly your church is anti-Catholic, being bombarded by anti-Catholic preaching at every service has twisted your thoughts!

Fact: The Catholic Church is the One Holy Apostolic Church established by Jesus! >>>None Others<<<< She alone is the AUTHORITY that decided the truly inspired scriptures from the many false phony manuscripts kicking around.. THEN..
Clear
then she put the inspired works into one book she named "The Bible"!
The Catholic Church came before the bible not the other way around! It's the Bible of the Church!
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Worship the Lord God Almighty; The Father; “Yahweh”, His only name by our wording, is his name and that name is for eternity:

  • ‘Eternal life depends on knowing HIM; the only true God, and in knowing Jesus Christ, whom HE sent!
  • Behold the servant of Yahweh, the beloved CHOSEN BY YAHWEH, in whom the soul of Yahweh delights. He, Yahweh, will pour out His holy spirit onto this servant and he will do do good and bring righteousness to the nations…
  • And as Jesus came up out of the water a breeze as gentle as a dove slighting on a ledge came down on Jesus - and a voice from Heaven said: ‘This is my Son in whom I am well pleased!’
  • People have you not heard what happened in judea when God anointed Jesus with holy spiritual and with power - and he went around doing good; healing the sick and reSighting the blind, because GOD was WITH him!
Yes, Jesus did not receive worship from anyone. He received obeisance - and that is why the Jews did no arrest him nor his followers when they witnessed the obesisance.

When I ask a trinitarian about this lack of arrest even though the Jews were actively seeking ways to have Jesus killed, and such an act of being worshipped certainly would have given them huge cause, there is a strange vacuum of silence… almost as if they hadn’t thought of the reason and couldn’t think of one now!

Yes, if Jesus had received - or was given - worship, the Jews would have taken action. Reality strikes deeply that they took no action because the act WAS NOT WORSHIP but OBEISANCE which is perfectly legal to give to ANYONE OF PRECEDENCE IN AUTHORITY.

Howbeit that King David’s wife, while David was sick in his dotage, ‘Worshipped’ at David’s feet - yet no one claims that David received ‘worship’ from his wife?

Why?

Because common sense and reality dictated that it was not ‘worship’ but ‘obeisance’.

So, why doesn’t common sense and reality not apply to Trinitarians?

The reason is obvious!!!
 

Soapy

Son of his Father: The Heir and Prince
Hi @Soapy


Soapy said ; “For me, the scriptures is quite clear and direct on what the subject is about on the whole. (soapy, in post 1163)



ARE SOAPY’S TWO THEORIES ACTUALLY BASED IN SCRIPTURE?



Clear said : “Your theories are not really based in scripture.

For example, you said : “… it was to HIM (SATAN) that YAHWEH said: ‘Let us create man in our image, in our likeness’… (soapy, in post #1114)
Clear pointed out “Yet you were unable to provide a single scripture that supports this claim even when you were asked to provide scripture. (post #1167)


Another example is Soapys claim that "Satan created the body of Adam… "(soapy, in post #1114)
Clear pointed out “Yet again you were unable to provide a single scripture that supports this claim even when you were asked to provide scripture.
Soapy replied : “And I said that the creation of a body is not a hard thing for an Angel,…” (post #1168)

Clear pointed out that "This theory about angels is not a scripture that tells readers that Satan created the body of Adam. Can you provide a single scripture that supports your claim that Satan created the body of Adam instead of God?
If the scriptures are clear and direct on such subjects, you should be able to provide at least a single scripture that supports your religious theories.
IF no scriptures supports your theories, then your theories are not based on the text of the scriptures, but instead, are based on some other principle. (post #1176)




Soapy replied : “However, I would challenge you to put together a cohesive storyline that reflect the scriptures that Christians believe. I would guarantee that you would quickly find so many holes and disparities that you would start doubting the whole Christianity theme.
Clear replied : “This strange claim that a study of the scriptures one would “find so many holes and disparities” in them that would result in doubt in Christianity is strange and it has not been my experience.
However, your criticism of scripture still is not a scripture that supports your two theories and your claim that your theories are biblical based.
Do you have a single scripture to support these theories?”







Soapy replied : “The problem with your posts are that they expect that religious beliefs depend on ‘Historical Data’.” (post #1196)

This is another irrational conclusion.

Of course religious beliefs do not simply depend upon or even need to depend on historical data.

For examples,

1) You do no seem to have any "historical data" regarding early Christian history, yet you have religious beliefs that you think are “historical”.
This is an example where you have created the above religious beliefs that are independent of "Historical Data.". We simply don't know where you got these two specific beliefs other than they seem logical to you. Your personal logic and opinion is not "historical data".

2) For example, you may have been on a psychoactive drug when you developed these two religious theories.
If so, this is another example of a source of a belief that does not depend on historical data.

3) You may have had a brain lesion producing a hallucination when you developed these two religious theories.

This is also an example of a source of a belief that does not depend on historical data.

4) You may simply have a way of thinking that thinks it is logical for Satan to have Created Adams body.

This is also an example of a source of a belief that does not depend on historical data. If you have enough followers of this logic, you could even create another schism of Christianity. (or not).

5) You may have schizophrenia and have lost touch with reality.
This would also be another example of a source of a belief that does not depend on historical data.


You have beliefs and they are examples of religious beliefs that do not “depend on historical data” and or at least they do not seem to come from the historical data in the biblical narratives since you are unable to provide readers with a single biblical narrative that describes a logical origin for these two specific religious beliefs of yours.



Clear
φιακακειτωω
See, and be clear about it. I told you that you would not be able to respond with a cohesive storyline about what your research has discovered so far.

See, I knew you wouldn’t answer. It’s just the same with Trinitarians ; of which you are one but don’t yet know it —- Satan fighting Satan! And the Truth!

Thomas said, ‘show me proof that Jesus has risen and then I will believe!’…

Jesus said: ‘Thomas, is it just because you have seen and touched me that you believe???? Blessed are those who have not seen (and touched) and will yet believe!’.

Clear, you seem fixated on the claims I made that it was ‘the angel who became known as Satan’ to whom Yahweh said, ‘Let us create man in our image!’

It seems to me that you, like many others (the mass majority, in fact) do not understand what ‘Image of God’ means. And when I show it to you you dismiss it (or at least don’t seem to have taken it into your fact file)

Also, you dismiss the claim I made that angels, let alone the greatest and most powerful and spiritually glorious of all Yahweh’s angels, could possibly make a human body… tuh! You really need to rethink what you believe?

oh, what is that? You never say… you just criticise what others say? And to what end? You don’t even believe in the scriptures?

‘PROOF’ is not what a Christian (or religious) belief is about. Your reliance on ‘Historical Data’ - historical data that cannot be ‘proved’ to be coherent, correct, or valid, is leading you down a dead end in your research.

And that is why you cannot put together the coherent storyline I asked you for.

Going over: You say you found ‘Historical Data’ that God was talking to Jesus when God said, ‘Let us make msn in our image!’

Please, please, please…… can’t you see how absurd that claimed historical data is? Oh, no… no you can’t because it’s ‘Historical data’… I’m so rolling on the floor in sad laughter!!!!!

By the way, did Jesus ever laugh (I didn’t say smile or felt happy… I said “Laugh”?) The answer, without any ‘Historical Data’ to back me up is “NO… No, Jesus never laughed!”

The reason, without ‘Historical data’ (simply because since Jesus never laughed THERE IS NO REPORT OF HIM LAUGHING!!!) is that laughing is to be deriding someone’s else’s (or your own) misfortune.

Think about anything that you have laughed about… think WHY you laughed!

I ‘laughed’ at your ‘nothing’ belief because I can see your misfortune in getting nowhere with your research. I ‘laughed’ because I’m sad that you took the line that you did… and that you cannot yet see that you believe in nothing and will continue to believe in nothing because the confusion created by the ‘Historical Data’ that you are pursuing so blindly will lead you to doubt everything that the Christian belief is about.

You find what I say, ‘Strange’. Well, fine. The truth is often ‘strange’ to those who follow falsities or, despite being supposedly knowledgeable, are misled or ignorant. Jesus was dismayed that a leader of the Israel’s did not understand what ‘being reborn by the Holy Spirit’ meant. Indeed, the man thought that what Jesus said to him was ‘strange’! But yet it was true….!

Oh, I forgot to reply to you about you saying there was no ‘Historical Data’ about what I said concerning Satan claiming to own the rulership over creation and was tempting Jesus to give it to Jesus if Jesus bowed down to Satan.

I’m curious as to how your ‘Historical Data’ search didn’t find my the scriptural ‘proof’. I posted Luke 4:6 to you BUT you claim it wasn’t the EXACT WORDING and so was NOT VALID…. Hmmm… sounds like you are a really bad loser!!!

Here it is again:
  • “I will give you the glory of these kingdoms and authority over them,” the devil said, “because they are mine to give to anyone I please. If you worship me, it will all be yours.” (Luke 4:6-7)
Do you need EXACT WORDING in order to understand the meaning?

John 12:31 has Jesus saying the same:
  • “The time for judging this world has come, when Satan, the ruler of this world, will be cast out.” (John 12:31)
I said that Satan was the stewarding Angel over creation, here entitled, ‘Ruler of this world’. Angels are not destined to be eternal rulers as they rule now in heirachial order over creation with Satan as the ‘fallen’ chief. Satan has failed to make himself THE RULER which is what his pride tempted him to reach for and so he will be (is) ‘Cast out’ of Heaven!:
  • “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.” (Luke 10:18)
  • “Therefore rejoice, you heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you! He is filled with fury, because he knows that his time is short.” (Rev 12:12)
Angels are not to be glorified and certainly not worshipped by man. Not much of their greatness nor power nor high intelligence is written about them else there would be an inclination exactly to worship them. Certain angels are by necessity given prominence for their actions which are sanctioned by Yahweh. Gabriel and Michael are named, but strangely, ‘Satan’ is not named (‘Satan’ / ‘the Devil’, being just derogatory titles!).

So, Clear, so that everyone can see what you are at:
  • Tell me what you believe so far from your research and the ‘Historical Data’ you have come up with!
 
Last edited:
Top