There are some that "think" they are making a well informed decision. If they acknowledge of their error according to scriptural teachings and repent then of course they will remain. So, in effect the answer is yes to that specific question. Well. If we are talking about a hypothetical situation here and I did this. I would expect to be counseled and questioned about my decision to do this. If I remained repentant then of course I would expect to be disfellowshipped as a last resort. Our elders do not hand out "disfellowshippings" here and there like you are making out. It's a last resort and only if the person does not repent of their wrongdoing. Now, in regards to this as a last result for one of us accepting a blood transfusion, it is in the same category as fornication, idolatry and apostasy. It's taken very seriously. Repentance is a must. However, what is most important is their relationship with God. That is up to the individual to work on and each individual knows this. I think it's interesting how you are trying to catch me out on the rules and principles of our organization and you don't know much about them. I know your objective though tbarr60. There's nothing to catch! Why would the Old Testament's rules not apply? So you wanna take out the rule "Thou shall not kill"? Read my response to tbarr60
I haven't lost anything. In fact i think this could possibly be the biggest owning you have ever recieved, And we all know you have recieved some big ones. You are all over the place in thread, you have lost it. According to you education = a reason to discredit an opinion. This is actually the kind of thinking that i expect from the religious.
It is only one rule in New Testament and this is Love. It is not possible to kill a man if you love. I think it is not possible for a man who loves to break any of ten commandments. It is Love which make impossible that a man would kill someone. So it is not necessary to have aditional rule about that. This doesn't mean that that rule was bad. But there are many other rules in Old Testament, who do not apply anymore for anyone who follows the New Testament. Acts (10,9-15) tells how a food was offered to Peter from the sky, but Peter refused to eat it from exactly this reason: rules forbid me to do this. But God replied: "Do not call anything impure what God has made clean". Something what goes beyond the rules happened in New Testament. Jesus announced that he will be killled and he will be raised from the dead. And this happened. So Jesus knows what works, so it is Jesus who should be listen and the Holly Spirit who was also announced from Jesus. It is new viewpoint which overcomes Old Testament. There are many wise things said in Old Testament and they are recommended reading for a Christian till today. But some things changed. 'Tooth for a tooth and eye for an eye' from Old Testament does not apply any more for someone who accepted the Gospel. It is the belief you accept, it is the'doctrine' you accept. Central part of the Bible is the Gospel and it's main announcment is Love. All other parts of Bible should be interpreted from the viewpoint of Gospel.
You chose to believe the new book or whatever you call it, some people chose the old one, i chose neither but still both parties try to convert me, amusing really You might be right, ill burn in hell, you might be wrong, and we'll just die. Either way i always fancied living somewhere hot, even if i don't get out of Sweden, ill know where i will end up, according to you. hrhr.. proteindude, i don't even read what you post anymore because: Atheists are communists! Have fun //Bribie
It's interesting you say these things but wasn't it Jesus who quoted many scriptures from the Old Testament? What else was he saying here at Matthew 4:4 "Man must live, not on bread alone, but on every utterance coming forth through Jehovah’s mouth." Jehovah being God's name, Jesus was saying we should be living on "every" utterance from God's mouth. I agree love is the new covenant and Jesus was the perfect example of that. However, the Old Testament is much more than just the Mosaic Laws. For example, does the Old Testament actually allow for the taking of personal vengeance whereas the New Testament condemns this? Not at all! Both recommend love of one’s enemies, pointing out that vengeance is reserved for God. In fact, when the Old Testament speaks of ‘eye for eye and tooth for tooth,’ it is not discussing personal retaliation but, rather, fair compensation as imposed by a duly authorized court of law. I will never dismiss the Old Testament as obsolete. Without it, the New Testament would make no sense. The Bible is a complete works with both sections holding equal weight.
Ace is probably gonna start clapping right now and say: "I told you so" but I have to ask you: what version of the Bible are you reading? Because according to KJV the name Jehovah does not appear even once in the New Testament
Excuse my foolishness st0x. For a moment there I thought you could actually reason for once. Perhaps your definition of reasoning is: "Never, under any circumstance admit the other person is right." My fault for thinking someone could actually reason with st0x. What's the name of that movie? Oh yeah: Mission Impossible.
In your version you will not find it in the New Testament because it has been omitted manually from it and from most places in the Old Testament. However, try getting an older version back in the early 1900's. Prepare yourself for a shock! You will find "Jehovah" plastered all over it. Which begs the question, are we making "hallow" God's name as per Matthew 6:9? I observe and study the New World Testament.
it's because you are not right and never have been. I don't know if you want me to "dumb down" or something but I'm not here to make it easy for you and to compensate for your inability to construct a logical argument. I'm still laughing about you "research + education = dishonest conclusion" nonsense.
I am no longer annoyed by your pathetic attempts to twist what I say and not admit when you are talking crap. I am sure you have your "admirers" and perhaps one of them is sending you another reply right now about how you owned me and so on. Maybe that's how it works for you. You form your club and then you give merit badges to each other.
First of all if u wanna tie in the old testament to the new testament than u cant change the bible wording according to your own beliefs . First of all u jesus never hide himself. Who are the people on the committee that translate the bible?????????
See my post above. Now you be honest and say it: do you exchange merit badges with each other? Of course as a Jew there is no way you would admit that Jesus Christ is the most influential man in history. Even though when you were born they named the year of your birth 1970 or whatever which means 1970 ad or year of the Lord. Or 1970 years since Jesus was born. No one else had the power to split the time. And even communists used the calendar based on Jesus birth but facts don't matter to those in your club. I should not be surprised:it's not the first time.
The Old and New Testament may get into a conflict, if you put Old Testament above the New One. When Mariah of magdala was about to be killed for her fornication, Jews asked the Jesus: Moses orders us that fornicators have to be killed. What do you say? And he replied: Who of you is without sin let's first throw the stone in her. And they all gone away and Mariah was saved. If you want to fully follow the Old Testament (only), you need to kill the woman. If you follow 'complete Bible' you may come into the position where it seems that you're breaking the law of Old Bible. For Jesus, in this case, old law did not apply, because it was Love who overrride the old law. You can't fully follow both Old and New Testament at the same time. With all respect to Old Testament which I personaly admire and use. But not all of it. You can't 'hate your enemies' (old rule) and 'love your enemies' (new rule) at the same time. So, BribeMe (I won't), what brought you here then? Maybe someone will bribe you to chose one . If you fall in the middle of conversation without being forced to, you hardly can say anyone tries to convince you. You are literally asking for it.
here is what you said; "You had to google to find who is the most influential person in history? And I am the dishonest one?" That clearly implies that doing research before coming to a conclusion is dishonest. it's there for everyone to see (and laugh at).
The most influential thing in history, which helped toward health, were antibiotics. So, now what - antibiotics are best for health? Don't think so. Good things are not allways widely accepted.
The question was who was the most influential person in history not the most influential thing. I think who is the most influential PERSON in history is easy to answer. You don't need to google for that. Not unless you're trying to give an answer that pleases you. Now, where do I find a list that shows me to be right again? This second point boron is not addressed to you by the way.
Being influential is not the same as beeing good. The most influential guy in the class is the one who beats all. The most influential missionary is the one who converted most...etc...
Understood.. Thank you for the explanation, that helps... BTW, I guess you can stock pile your own plasma... Perhaps that is something people should do.. Of course that assumes your stock pile is located where you are taken should the need arise... Col, I'm curious, can a Jehova accept blood from a blood relative as an alternative.. Thanks again!
Mia, The Watchtower's policy on blood has changed over the years and currently you cannot even take your own blood but there are some parts of the blood a loyal followers of the Watchtower can take. Here is a bit of the history of the doctrine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood Their founder and leadership for the first 65 years understood that it was an issue of eating blood and they called donating blood "heroic and the Lord's work" and were in line with Christianity, Judaism, and society as a whole. That changed in based on the thoughts of a new Watchtower president in 1942. One interesting thing to note in the article above is that they are more concerned about obedience to reigning Watchtower leadership than the actual blood as a person disfellowshipped for taking a banned blood fraction is not automatically reinstated when the policy changes and the fraction is allowed.