Well, it would seem that science has to be 100% accurate to be excepted.

On the other hand, the Bible has no real way of verifying that it is 100% accurate except for the BELIEF that God plan is to have a totally accurate book about the universe. In other words there is no way that God could have another plan of action. Just that one?


I think my problem is that I have a large imagination. When I see all the possibilities of change, free well, design and such I can't see God doing it from one angle or another. Just like any parent would. I do not tell my 3 year old to drive my car and pick up GrandMa (a 3 hour tour... yeas a 3 hour tour) on the freeway. I give her stuff she understands at the current date.


I would agree that technically science can be prooven. I think that is what makes it acceptable even considering its past. Nevertheless, it still holds a inability to completely prove accurate by any human being and interceded. being technically provable might give it more credence than faith based facts but not much.

Religion failure in the 20th and 21st Century is that it has not changed to faith instead of facts. It still tries to hold the ability to prove existence and show it when an analysis of the reality we live in is available and provable. Religion no longer has the ability to be the truth or the "only way" when the proper analytical tools are given. Religions should be about faith, beliefs and possibilities. Science will never be able to prove that wrong.

Then how about a man out of a lump of clay? (As it says in the Bible)

It says "dust from the ground." Thats what we are. When we die, thats what we turn into. Slowly, but surely.

Cars kill a great many more people than transfusions, so why pick and choose modern health threats? It is because the *science* aspect of the Jehovah's Witness material on transfusions is just a means of validating a biblical *belief* about transfusion. One that gives them a lot of bad press. As I said, this is what I really don't like, calling something fact when it is just belief. A dangerous belief in this case.

You chose the practice of blood transfusions and I was commenting on some reasons why we don't accept them. There are alternatives to using blood as well which we do accept, but the main reason why we don't accept blood is because of what the Bible says. It may not mean much to you, but it is our religion and we take it very seriously. (Acts 15:29; Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 3:17, 7:26; 17:10; Deuteronomy 12:16)
We get a lot of bad press about our beliefs as well as some of our 'beliefs,' or rumors. We're not going to change because people might not like us.

Someday, there may well be a discovery that allows us to never use transfusions. I am open to the possibility. In the meantime, if you choose to pass on a transfusion to your own mishap, it is your right. When this 'science' sways people, or their children, to die without transfusions, though, there is no accountability on the part of the Watchtower organization. I find the act of authoritatively promoting that kind of risk with no accountability quite distressing, especially shrouded under the guise of 'science'.

Some of the alternatives are recombinant (synthetic) growth factors that can increase blood cell levels by stimulating the body’s production of these cells, bloodless surgery, saline solution, Ringer’s lactate, replace lost blood with colloids such as dextran, Haemaccel and hydroxyethyl starch - plasma volume expanders.

I tried to make my intolerant beliefs about your organization as tolerant as I could in post #878, but since you don't seem to mind talking about it, we can. After numerous conversations you begin to see the programming, right down to how you are taught to debate ( http://members.aol.com/beyondjw/dwjw.htm ). To be honest the organizational component of the Jehovah's Witnesses is cultish and frightening to me.

A good site for an alternative view would be http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/

As we have seen with the recent Catholic scandals, religion can't be an excuse for crime. Blood is only one aspect, but a problematic one. According to a 2000 press release:

"If a baptized member of the faith willfully and without regret accepts blood transfusions, he indicates by his own actions that he no longer wishes to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses."

So if you truly require a transfusion, your only choice as a Jehovah's Witness is to die. In order for people to make responsible decisions, though, they need to be told the truth. I feel that the Watchtower organization realizes that biblical interpretation isn't enough to persuade people to risk their lives, so they offer mountains of inflated dangers. examples:

http://www.watchtower.org/cgi-bin/lib/ProcessForm.pl?FormType=wtsw&inptQuery=transfusion&optVerbosity=1&objBegin=1&objEnd=10

I don't think children can make such a decision. If they are given the choice at all, they don't have the experience to see through the inflated scare tactics used. A ten year old won't know instinctively that many, many people he passes on the street will receive some sort of blood transfusion in their life, and that many would die without them. That isn't something they will be told by Watchtower publications, either. That is willfully influencing someone to make a decision that will kill them.

I don't think you should be told that you can't practice your religion any way you see fit, but I think anyone in authority should be held personally, criminally accountable for deaths that occur at their *URGING*. In the case of children it is murder, outright, unquestionable murder.



[Message Edited]

I always giggle when I see JWs riding around on their bicycles in suits & ties

Sorry, that's just goofy looking

Understood. I don't think of myself like other religions, but to you guys and gals, i'm sure we all look the same. Blabbering about nothing. The reason why I quote the Bible versus it to prove that what I say before the verse, is from the Bible.

but you have to see that some do not believe in the bible, and think it is just a book. you have to prove the bible IS the word of God to these people at WC first before the verses will take effect.

I of course belive in the good book. Rock on fellow believer!

"Rock on fellow believer" *gag*

The fact is most people don't even know the small details of doctrine in their own Church, and even less know how it was/is decided. I have mentioned aspects of people's own denomination to them and had them sternly disagree, only to be surprised to find that is what they supposedly believe. There are hundreds of steps from the original text, to the KJV, to your own church's interpretation. If biblical truth were so infallibly apparent there wouldn't be so many denominations, would there?

Who decides how much of the 'infallible' word of God you ignore? Do you eat pork? Do you sacrifice animals? Christ's sacrifice freed you from some of them, but which ones? There are tons of edicts in the old and new testament. Who decides which ones to ignore? r3fr: Has Judaism rejected blood transfusions, since these laws are kind of their domain, and *without* Christ as an excuse not to keep them?

You might think the Bible is infallible, but are the people who interpret the book into denominational doctrine infallible? Who interprets all these obscure details for you? Who is the guy that says, "Sure, we can eat bacon and labor on the Sabbath, but your hemophiliac child has to die without a transfusion or he'll burn in hell." ? What are his, no doubt exemplary, qualifications? Does he have any checks and balances? Is there an oversight committee? Are they infallible?

You should know, since your life and the lives of your family depend on it.


[Message Edited]

when did hell first show it's head in the bible, for that matter when did Satan?

Al and Baker, you know this, let someone else answer, just curious

okay I will! I will! hehe
well not answer but guess???
If I remember correctly the Bible says not to "eat blood" never said anything about transfusions... hehe
Doreen was trying to address the "Blood thing" not the other stuff.
[Message Edited]

Oddly enough most religious people's idea of satan and hell are copied from Milton, and not the bible. I have heard the most elaborate stories that were supposedly quoted from the bible, and they were almost verbatim from 'Paradise Lost' ( http://www.uoregon.edu/~rbear/lost/lost.html )

The material in the bible is spread out and open to interpretation. If I had to pick my favorite perspecive on Satan, it would have to be from Job ( http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=DIV2&byte=2079899 ), but then I have a pretty romantic view of the whole thing.

A good search method for the KJV: http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/kjv/

Sorry I jumped in, was fetching the links and missed the second post.


[Message Edited]

Ummm OK I guess this would be a great example of interpretations of the same worded Bible.

Jehovah's Witnesses is considered by the Baptist faith as a cult. So too, do Catholic and a few other denominations under Christianity; all apparently read the same Bible I read.

In fact some more "popular" religions call each other false in one way or another and say that they are twisting the Lords words.


Strangely enough, all this comes from the same Bible.


I believe in the Bible, but I don't pretend that it is a easy read like some do. No matter how "direct" some verses are you can find others that counter them in most cases. I think we all experienced that at one time or another.


It is no wonder that there are FOUR stories about Jesus in the Bible. One from each point of view (and there will be different points of views for those who read it)

===============================

Science is a little better I will admit, because it is technically verifiable with multiple sources but try and check those sources on your own and you will not get through one subject in your life time. To top that off I am sure you will find errors.


I think that what makes science more pliable than the Bible; Science does not try to say it is the end to be all in answers (even thought some people make it so, it is not) but it has more basis in varifiable details than the Bible. I believe in the Bible and I know that is true.

I believe this topic should be more about how creation and evolution work together or how it could work appart. We should reealize that what ever we say on the subject is an opinion of researched and translated documents from others. There should be room for some agreement on the fact that there is just an unknown we can not solve.


[Message Edited]

...

But can discuss of course.

Sorry to interrupt again, but I have a serious question this time. Do you think it's possible that MAN created the Bible as a simple form of government? I also think it's also possible that the bible is metaphorical, and people mistake it for being literal...they actually believe in Adam & Eve, Moses, Soddom & Gomora, Kane & Able...and any other stories from the Bible. I think you got to see the world through the eyes of man when the bible was written to understand it's meaning.

Now granted, there is some "proof" of some of the bible stories...but the bible was also written over many many years by many people...so yea...SOME of it did happen...but I think it originated as a way to keep people in check.

dust from the ground

"Thou art dust and unto dust thou shalt return..."

Weather its dust or clay is irrelevant...What matters is that you get my point...

Do you think it's possible that MAN created the Bible as a simple form of government?

I think of it more of a collection of stories rather than a 'rule book.'

I see the bible as a lot of people's biased, historical accounts of the Truth. I look at it like a policeman interviewing numerous witnesses to a crime. No one account is gonna be definitive, but all are gonna be aspects of the truth. Kind of like the old metaphor of the blind men describing the elephant.

Taken as a whole, and with a little self-respect, you can find a great deal of worth in it. If you expect it to be an instruction manual for life, then you'll either stay very confused or sign yourself over to someone who will 'interpret' it all for you.

I tried to make my intolerant beliefs about your organization as tolerant as I could in post #878, but since you don't seem to mind talking about it, we can. After numerous conversations you begin to see the programming, right down to how you are taught to debate ( Link ). To be honest the organizational component of the Jehovah's Witnesses is cultish and frightening to me.

Programming? No. We think the same, yes. We agree the same thing in the Bible. We're united in our thinking and our worship. All across the globe its this way. Neither of those sites represent Jehovahs Witnesses. Our official site is www.watchtower.org .

As we have seen with the recent Catholic scandals, religion can't be an excuse for crime. Blood is only one aspect, but a problematic one. According to a 2000 press release: "If a baptized member of the faith willfully and without regret accepts blood transfusions, he indicates by his own actions that he no longer wishes to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses."

Not accepting blood isn't a crime. Its our choice and we choose not to accept it.

So if you truly require a transfusion, your only choice as a Jehovah's Witness is to die. In order for people to make responsible decisions, though, they need to be told the truth. I feel that the Watchtower organization realizes that biblical interpretation isn't enough to persuade people to risk their lives, so they offer mountains of inflated dangers.

Or we can take some of the many safer alternatives which we've helped to make popular.

I don't think you should be told that you can't practice your religion any way you see fit, but I think anyone in authority should be held personally, criminally accountable for deaths that occur at their *URGING*. In the case of children it is murder, outright, unquestionable murder.

I see you feel strongly about this issue. No, its not murder. You can make yourself think that, but its simply not true. We call it godly devotion... you call it stupid.

I always giggle when I see JWs riding around on their bicycles in suits & ties Sorry, that's just goofy looking

, thats the Mormans, not us. . We drive cars, and wear different colored suits/ties, not just black. They also believe different things, but we do have something in common, which is we're both going door to door doing what Jesus commanded.

but you have to see that some do not believe in the bible, and think it is just a book. you have to prove the bible IS the word of God to these people at WC first before the verses will take effect. I of course belive in the good book. Rock on fellow believer!

Its not as easy as it looks. Though I do find people here receptive and don't ignore me.

The fact is most people don't even know the small details of doctrine in their own Church, and even less know how it was/is decided. I have mentioned aspects of people's own denomination to them and had them sternly disagree, only to be surprised to find that is what they supposedly believe. There are hundreds of steps from the original text, to the KJV, to your own church's interpretation. If biblical truth were so infallibly apparent there wouldn't be so many denominations, would there?

Very very true. The majority of people today don't even have a clue as to what they're being taught or where it came from.

Thats a good question. The reason, can be found in the Bible. It says that "the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." (1 John 5:19) The wicked one is Satan, of course. Satan misleads and is very good at it too.

Who decides how much of the 'infallible' word of God you ignore? Do you eat pork? Do you sacrifice animals? Christ's sacrifice freed you from some of them, but which ones? There are tons of edicts in the old and new testament. Who decides which ones to ignore? r3fr: Has Judaism rejected blood transfusions, since these laws are kind of their domain, and *without* Christ as an excuse not to keep them?

Well, I can eat pork, but I don't really like it. The reason why in the Bible we're told not to eat pork from our understanding, pork, if not cooked well, can carry trichinosis. Today, it is safe to eat because we know of this danger and have a way to get rid of it. No, we don't sacrifice animals because of the perfect human sacrifice, Jesus. When Jesus died, he made a new covenent with God and all old covenents were done away with. This is why we no longer observe the sabbath, or sacrifice animals. Rom. 10:4: “Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness.” (Sabbath keeping was a part of that Law. God used Christ to bring that Law to its end. Our having a righteous standing with God depends on faith in Christ, not on keeping a weekly sabbath.) (Also Galatians 4:9-11; Ephesians 2:13-16)

r3fr: Has Judaism rejected blood transfusions, since these laws are kind of their domain, and *without* Christ as an excuse not to keep them?

Um, I don't think they had transfusions back then. Judah today, we believe, is no longer holy or sacred. No longer Gods chosen nation, which was also done away with with Jesus sacrifice. So if they want a transfusion, they can do so if they want.

You might think the Bible is infallible, but are the people who interpret the book into denominational doctrine infallible? Who interprets all these obscure details for you? Who is the guy that says, "Sure, we can eat bacon and labor on the Sabbath, but your hemophiliac child has to die without a transfusion or he'll burn in hell." ? What are his, no doubt exemplary, qualifications? Does he have any checks and balances? Is there an oversight committee? Are they infallible?

No, humans make mistakes, but with a group of humans, there is a far less chance. Also, we don't believe in hell as a place of eternal pain and torment, but as the grave. Hell was a place on the outside of Jerusalem where the bodies of theifs, murders, and other people not fit to have a proper burial. The fires to burn the peeple were kept buring with sulpher and what the fire didn't get, the maggots did. The children can make their own decisions, depending on their age.
We have a body of elders that handle the problems, give guidence, answer questions. Yes, we make mistakes. We're as human as you.

when did hell first show it's head in the bible, for that matter when did Satan?

Hell, as in the supposed place of 'eternal pain and torment' was never a teaching of the Bible. Early Christians didn't teach it and true Christians today don't teach it. The teaching of 'hell' can be traced back to ancient Babylon and ancient Egypt, but the original teaching came from Satan. (“the father of the lie.”—John 8:44.)

Satan wasn't always called Satan. Though we don't know his original name, Satan got his name because of his taking a course of opposition and resistance to God. Before Satan was bad, he was a perfect angel, but he wanted what was rightly Gods, and became the chief Adversary of God. Satan first appears in the Scriptures in the book of Genesis at Genesis 3:1-7.

okay I will! I will! hehe well not answer but guess??? If I remember correctly the Bible says not to "eat blood" never said anything about transfusions... hehe

Whether we eat it or get it directly into our veins, its the same. Goes to the same place. But you are right, it does say "eat blood."

Oddly enough most religious people's idea of satan and hell are copied from Milton, and not the bible. I have heard the most elaborate stories that were supposedly quoted from the bible, and they were almost verbatim from 'Paradise Lost'

I have also heard someone say that the teaching of a fiery hell sounds like Platonic or Plato or something like that.

The material in the bible is spread out and open to interpretation. If I had to pick my favorite perspecive on Satan, it would have to be from Job ( Link ), but then I have a pretty romantic view of the whole thing.

I see no romanticism about that account. Though I am not you and you not I. You may find a man with disease, losing his family and his posessions romantic, but I see it as evil. Not good. Bad. Wrong.

Jehovah's Witnesses is considered by the Baptist faith as a cult. So too, do Catholic and a few other denominations under Christianity; all apparently read the same Bible I read. In fact some more "popular" religions call each other false in one way or another and say that they are twisting the Lords words. Strangely enough, all this comes from the same Bible.

No, not all of todays religions teach from the Bible. As our friend Baker said; "Oddly enough most religious people's idea of satan and hell are copied from Milton."
False religion is soon to be done away with.

I believe in the Bible, but I don't pretend that it is a easy read like some do. No matter how "direct" some verses are you can find others that counter them in most cases. I think we all experienced that at one time or another.

I don't find it easy to read at times too. When this happens, I look up similar scriptures to find the meaning. Praying too, helps, and asking someone who is older than me, that is if they've been in the truth for a longer time too, will help. They'll give me some scriptures to look at, and tell me to use my reasoning and common sense, which I sometimes lack.

It is no wonder that there are FOUR stories about Jesus in the Bible. One from each point of view (and there will be different points of views for those who read it)

The accounts are in agreement with each other. Each writer could have included far more information than he did. One of them, the apostle John, even said: “To be sure, Jesus performed many other signs also before the disciples, which are not written down in this scroll.” (John 20:30) So the Gospel accounts are very condensed, with certain details found in one being left out in another. Rather than contradict one another, the accounts complement one another, aiding us to get a more complete picture. At the same time the variations provide proof that the Bible is dependable. How so? In that they demonstrate that there was no collusion among the writers, no plotting together to put forth a false story.

Sorry to interrupt again, but I have a serious question this time. Do you think it's possible that MAN created the Bible as a simple form of government? I also think it's also possible that the bible is metaphorical, and people mistake it for being literal...they actually believe in Adam & Eve, Moses, Soddom & Gomora, Kane & Able...and any other stories from the Bible. I think you got to see the world through the eyes of man when the bible was written to understand it's meaning.

Myself, no, I know it wasn't man who created the Bible as a simlpe form of government. If you do some diggin, you'll find evidence of many cities mentioned in the Bible.

sign yourself over to someone who will 'interpret' it all for you.

Its sad to see this, but it is happening in many religions today. People go to their church or whatever and are told by whoever, preacher, pastor, what they themselfs think about the Bible and the people accept it as true even when the 'teacher' doesn't even use his Bible. JWs are encouraged to use their Bibles, to put the teachings to the test. To do personal study, to do family study, to read the Bible daily and apply it in our lifes. We have the chance to have worship every day of the year (door to door work, but before we do that, we have a meeting.) Other than the door to door work, we can attend 5 meetings a week. For me, its 1 on Tuesday (1 hour), 2 on Thursday (1hr 30min) and 2 on Sunday (1hr 30min). And at any of those meetings, we use the Bible numerous times. Why not, since I can't prove that God exists from my posting on this board, why not attend a meeting at your local Kingdom Hall. You can get the times of a meeting by calling it, or for some by looking by the front door. See what kind of people we are, see how often we use the Bible. See how many people look up the Scriptures given by the speaker. See how many people greet you and ask your name. See our attitudes. Do it just once just to see, even if you don't agree with what we believe.

whatever...JWs/Mormons.. Ya'all are goofy..

I'm curious, r3fr....what really goes thru your mind when people slam their doors in your face? It's got to be rough after awhile. Don't you just wanna smack them & call them naughty names?




[Message Edited]

whatever...JWs/Mormons.. Ya'all are goofy..

Amen to that. In my Church both are seen as a cult. And I think they are a cult.

By that my own opinion.

ewwwww Kona...Stop agreeing with me