A Jehovas Witness Woman Dies - refused blood...

QUOTE=Cheap SEO Services
Wrong. You think I don't use other sources? That's a very weak argument..

I see that you use them, I did not say that you don't. It is you who twisted words.


About your next question:

QUOTE=boron:
When someone shows you were wrong - you admit - and this is finally one thing why anyone still speaks with you here.

QUOTE=Cheap SEO Services:
I have no idea what your point is here. You wanna rephrase that?

It's about this:

QUOTE=Cheap SEO Services:
Our organization is growing exponentially





The fact that you are preparing to correct yourself, is probably the reason why we - posters - didn't start to ignore you for your constant twisting of logic.[/QUOTE]

Please go ahead and ignore me. I have no problem with that at all. Actually, I wish you would. The unwarranted and uncalled for attacks would cease. See if you can invite tbarr60 and stOx to your ignorance party too!

This is the interesting point you are not getting at all. The Watchtower Society uses a main source for guidance. It's called the Bible. It adheres to The Bible 100%. If you guys can't get your act together and learn what the Bible really teaches then of course you ain't going to agree with The Watchtower Society. I will follow the Watchtower Society's guidance because Jesus has "appointed all his belongings" to them. That's a pretty hefty responsibility and I can see they do a marvelous job handing out "spiritual food at the proper time".

Here's an even more interesting point. I follow along in the Bible what the Watchtower Society guides us to do. Hmmm. That's odd. An organization speaking the same message right around the globe in over 250 lands in all tribes and tongues?? Seems impossible does it not? No. With God's backing "all things are possible". But, only of you are doing God's will. Which, the Watchtower is doing that perfectly, as instructed by God's Son, Jesus.

As far as your other question about going against things like rock music in church and wine in communion and female pastors. Rock music in a Kingdom Hall in my opinion, would not be showing respect to God as a place of worship. Not using wine in our annual observance would not be obeying the commands of Jesus. Female pastors is not a Bible teaching. The apostle Paul spoke about this quite clearly.

Of course, any way the Watchtower Society guides us is always using the Bible as scriptural advice. We are not blindly following their advice. We study and meditate on all teaching and guidance. In other words, everything that is brought to our attention is always backed up by scripture and we are urged to check it out ourselves so we are well informed, and we are well informed.

That's not to say all follow the guidance offered. Some like to make their own decisions. However, Jeremiah 10:23 speaks volumes about this.

 

I had an interesting experience with a webmaster forum poster once.

 

Col, Paul also said the following things:

This, while he spoke very highly of female prophets from the early church - many of them he named as his companions in a common fight for survival. Since to prophesy is to "utter in prophecy," in other words, to speak; and since this speaking is done for the benefit of the Church community, how can it be consistent that Paul tells women they should just keep their mouth shut, while also praising them as prophets?

Further, why stop at speaking? Paul also said women shouldn't braid their hair, and other things that really rocked his world. I don't think one can take bits and pieces of the Bible literally - you either say women should just keep their mouths shut and live in eternal penance for succumbing to the serpent's wiles, and, on pain of condemnation - don't braid your hair! - or you question Paul and what he wrote. Doesn't this all sound just a bit off-kilter, as if it is someone who just might have had a problem with women?

 

Really? Does it lend credibility to your view that women pastors suck, based on a single instance? We're all ears!

 

Paul,
Kids today use the term suck without knowing it's obscene origin. You should do better than that.

Christ had a high view of women, they were not like property or dogs as culture back then viewed them. God has a very good role for them in the church and those that seek him find their calling.

 

You may recall that Paul's letters were written for the congregations he wrote to. Firstly, he was alerting to the congregations that women should not be teaching the congregations. That's not to say they can't teach other's about the Bible or about God, Jesus etc. If you see in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 you will see the responsible ones in the congregations are to be men. These one's are to teach the congregations. In other words, they need to qualify in order to do so.

This is not to say the women do not have any responsibilities. They do, in fulfillment of Matthew24:14 and Matthew 28:19-20. Along with that it is written in Psalms 68:11 "The women telling the good news are a large army". Notice the difference? Telling versus teaching.

The "braiding of the hair" at 1 Timothy 2:9-10 and 1 Peter 3:3-4 is about priorities. Yes, women are allowed to braid their hair. However, the point being made is about not making it a priority in one's life and not having a showy display to attract undue attention.

Paul's words have a lot of depth and meaning. Not forgetting his education and background, he was very good at expressing himself using words. However, we need to read the whole section and not just a few sentences to get the objective/point.

 

Actually, obscenity was the farthest thing from my mind, Tbarr. If this is where your mind goes, look to it first to ask why this is what comes to your mind.

And I'd still ask, what if a woman finds that her calling is to minister to a people?

 

Col, I ask in sincerity - it seems to me, you either take the Bible literally, or you do not. If you take it literally, there is a problem with consistency (a woman should remain quiet, while she is also a respected prophet of the community), and with other things Paul said. He didn't say "women should dress modestly," and leave it at that. He said they shouldn't braid their hair, wear gold or jewelry, or expensive clothing. If you don't take it literally, you interpret - and then we run into a problem with whose interpretation has merit, and whose doesn't; as you see from the many folks who condemn you to hell for your beliefs here, and your beliefs regarding them.

My personal view is that although Paul's view simply won out, it isn't necessarily the right one, from a Christian perspective. I'm not a Christian, but when I was, it seemed to me that his vision, from a man who was not one of the original disciples, is rife with legalism and a roman view of "order"; and he simply missed the message that came from a walk with the mortal man, Jesus. I also think he was just deeply conflicted over a tension between the existing rabbinical code, and his genuine admiration for the stalwart women upon whom the early church rested in many ways.

 

Well you are entitled to your views and I respect that. However, I see it very differently and I hope you would respect that too? This forum or even this thread is no where near big enough to reason on scriptures effectively. This is why face to face is a far better and quicker way to get to the point. I don't come here with the 100% objective to preach to people. Although I have made one or two threads in the P&R section asking a question. However, I do respond when some attack our organization or ask a question about God, The Bible or Jesus.

If you check all my prior posts I have no intention of bringing anyone or any religion down, but I do bring up points and try my best to reason with people and hope to do this in a peaceable fashion.

The main verse in question reads "Likewise I desire the women to adorn themselves in well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, not with styles of hair braiding and gold or pearls or very expensive garb, but in the way that befits women professing to reverence God, namely, through good works."

The key point here is "professing to reverence God, namely, through good works." Paul is saying the priority should be on spiritual matters and not material matters, in effect. We do not want to be pious in our looks or "show off" in a vain way. We should be dressing modestly so we reflect our love of God.

There are many other verses in The Bible to highlight this point in regards to women and standards. But again, it is far better to correspond face to face.

 

Of course, I respect your right to your views - as I would hope is evident, as well, from my history here, and of course I do see that you are an honorable poster, Col. My intent on raising the question was also sincere, and I think the question is valid - we either take it literally, or we interpret. And at least as far as I can tell, if taken literally, there is an inherent problem of consistency with the Pauline vision, and if we interpret to obtain the thrust of a given passage, or even entire ethos, then we are left with vying with one another over what is 'right" or "wrong." Nothing wrong with that - hence, respectfully, we'd agree to disagree here, since I think women should be considered wonderful teachers, across many different ways of teaching. To remove them from the role guts half the available wisdom, in my opinion.

 

I am sure many women would agree with you. However, this is all about humility and subjection. As mentioned their are other scriptures that highlight points about this. Consider this from Ephesians 5:21-27:

"Be in subjection to one another in fear of Christ. Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord, because a husband is head of his wife as the Christ also is head of the congregation, he being a savior of [this] body. In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, so let wives also be to their husbands in everything. Husbands, continue loving YOUR wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and delivered up himself for it, that he might sanctify it, cleansing it with the bath of water by means of the word, that he might present the congregation to himself in its splendor, not having a spot or a wrinkle or any of such things, but that it should be holy and without blemish."

This verse could be misconstrued as husbands should dominate their wives. However, did Jesus dominate congregations? No. He treated congregations with mildness and love, even though he was the head of the congregations.
Don't get me wrong here. Women in our organization deserve and get plenty of respect and love. They are not missing out on anything at all and they subject themselves willingly and humbly to what the Bible says on these matters.

The main objective is to arrive at what God wants and not what we want. For he knows us better than we do ourselves. After all, he created us. If we do his will, then we are happy. You won't find too many unhappy Witnesses out of the 7 million around today.

 

Col, if we are to dive into this, then I would say again - you cannot at one and the same time be a beacon of the church community and prophet, literally, one who speaks to the congregation of the revealed will of God, and remain quiet. This is a literalist problem. If we interpret, we are left with vying interpretations, which is where it seems we are.

At any rate, peace. I'm off to doing what I love best, hanging with my little lad.

 

I'm in a bit of a hurry but here's what I think:

1) there is no contradiction whatsoever. Women can prophesy just not teach in church. Prophesy is a gift not something you teach (my understanding). So YES women can prophecy. I don't think women can be ministers/pastors. Nowhere in the Old Testament did you see a single female pastor. Jesus did not have a single female disciple (female followers just not disciples) and if there was one who went against certain teachings that was Jesus.

2) Look at the roots of rock music. I personally don't mind old hymns with a touch of modern music. YET, I still think Amazing Grace and How Great Thou Art are some of the greatest songs ever. However, this is a very modern song that I really love http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=97759aa27a0c99bff671 It's a send up of Baby got Butt. Now it's baby got Bible

3) I think if the Bible says wine it means wine

 

As to 1, my question wasn't regarding an apparent contradiction between prophecy and preaching. It was between prophesying and staying silent, and both are declared by Paul. I don't see how you can be a silent prophet.

I need to be straight, as well, and say it flatly: I do find Paul's views on women enslaving - it constrains them to the role of meek ninnies, whose only value is so stay at home and make babies. While I admire Christ's teaching, and his example, I am an atheist, and reject Paul's view of womanhood. One only needs look at the great warrior societies of the Celtic lands - Boadicia, anyone? - to see that there is strength, and nurturance, in both man and woman. Whenever one is consigned to a narrow role, imposed from the outside, and made to be less than they are, I think there lies weakness. But with respect to the thread topic and its posters, I'll take it up elsewhere.

 

Weak ninnies? Did you know that the majority of us Witnesses are female? Did you also know that every Witness that is able physically preaches door to door? I would hardly define them as "weak ninnies". There is a large difference between prophecying, preaching and staying silent.

Here's my take on it:

Prophesying died out when the apostle John died. Fulfilling prophecy is different because it is events taking place for what has been prophesied in the past. However, as far as I am aware there are no prophets around today and has not been since the end of the first century.

Preaching is inviting people to learn what the Bible teaches. Hence, why we doorknock just as Jesus, his apostles and disciples did.

Staying silent has nothing to do with either of the above. It (as mentioned before) is all to do with the teaching aspect in the congregations and only refers to women in the congregation.

Does this make things clearer?

 

Col, regarding prophets today, any Pentecostal church would differ with you. They consider that they have speakers of tongues, and prophets, today. At least this was my experience during my time with the Assembly of God.

If what you are saying is that women also preach door to door, then I don't know how this can be squared with:

Since to preach is to teach, and to do so to a man - as I presume your female members would be doing, going door to door, at least some of the time, would be in conflict with the above, would it not?

Paul concludes with: women screwed the whole ball of wax up; it is through her that the world is not Eden, and her way to be saved is through having babies. I cannot see how this fairly straightforward passage can be interpreted any other way. This, despite the strength of women in the church long preceding Paul.

Hence, with respect, I think his vision makes of women weak ninnies, yes. Again, I don't think it's possible to choose parts to say we are accepting literally, at face value, and parts we interpret according to our, another's, or modern sensibilities. I would say, it's all or nothing, isn't it?

 

OK I get it now: the organisation, or the Watchtower is who I should trust in. This Watchtower has changed their own doctrines many times over the years and yet you claim the organisation is infallible (at least that's the idea I get when reading your posts). How do you know the Watchtower won't change its doctrines again just like it did in the past

So if the Watchtower is who you believe in and who guides you, shouldn't you be calling yourself watchtowerites? Isn't this more appropriate?

Come on now, you talk about independent thinking and YET not a single tinywiny thing you disagree with? Seems more like a cult to me than anything.

 

Do you honestly think this "speaking in tongues" comes from God? Read the verses about the pouring out of holy spirit at Pentecost 33CE. You will find that the purpose for the "speaking in tongues" was for them to converse so the people from different lands could understand them. People who "speak in tongues" since then and today can not be understood by anyone. Why do you think that is?

Fine mate. Whatever you think. I have given my opinion based on what I learn from the Bible. I am not going to waste time arguing over the same issues. I have repeatedly stated this is best to do face to face. We will agree to disagree about Paul's view on women.

You are persistent aren't you? I never said the Watchtower is infallible and I never said the Watchtower was perfect. Those are your words. Not forgetting we are all imperfect and we all make mistakes don't we? What about Bible examples of ones in God's favour who made mistakes?

Moses did not give God credit where it was due when he used the rod to get water to stream out of the rock. David sinned grossly including adultery and murder. Yet, God forgives them because they both realised their mistakes and repented.

Going by your theory no one from the Watchtower Society should be forgiven.
Get the point? I hope so.

 

Aren't the watchtowerites persistent also? Where you get off with the silly insinuations that I believe no one from the Watchtower Society should be forgiven

But here's your chance to show your I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T thinking that you claim you are capable of: what is one little insignificant thing from the Watchtower Society that you don't fully agree with? One thing that perhaps the Watchtower got wrong? I know this is a tough one but it was you who claimed the ability of I-N-D-E-P-E-N-D-E-N-T thinking. I must say I am really looking forward to it. You may just prove to me that you are not part of a cult where you can be a member and still have different opinions albeit small things.

 

To your first paragraph, no, I don't believe it comes from God. But then, I'm an atheist. My point was that there are Christians practicing today who profess a belief in modern-day prophets.

To your second, I'm sorry that you feel this way. I'm surprised by your post here, since if you didn't want to engage in a discussion, why'd you reply, after I indicated we'd have to agree to disagree? I took this to mean you wished to engage in a discussion. You did say once that you felt things were best face to face, not repeatedly, but then you continued to post thoughts and replies - hence my surprise, and hence my saying:

I then posted something in reply to Proteindude. You replied to that post. At the end of the day, I remain confused - if it truly wasn't the case that you wanted a discussion, feeling online discussions weren't useful, I understand, but I don't enjoy wasting time either.