Jehovah’s Witnesses Mobilize Global Response to Threat of Ban in Russia

a reply to: Cinrad

BTW The Chrome, are your elders aware you are falling with disfellowshipped people on ATS? Tut tut, what would they say if they found out?

What do you mean falling?

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Cinrad

BTW The Chrome, are your elders aware you are falling with disfellowshipped people on ATS? Tut tut, what would they say if they found out?

What do you mean falling?

Meant talking. On my tablet. Did you know the inventor of predictive text pissed away in his sleep a few months ago?

a reply to: Cinrad

The church sets the rules as to who you can or cannot talk with?

Former members of the church are off limits?

Whats the standard tithing expected of JW members, 15 percent of their income?

originally posted by: TheAlleghenyGentleman
a reply to: RobertConrad

These things are not for you to know. You ask the wrong questions to begin with.

See, that's why I hate religions. That is such a bullsh*t answer.

Have fun passing out your flyers in heaven when I'm rocking out with the punk rockers in hell.

I hope you enjoy what you wish for when it comes around, take a look at this guys experience.

Originally aired on 5/04/2016
Guest Matthew discusses the random attack that left him in a 27-day coma. He opens up about his near-death experience and what he describes as hell.

www.doctoroz.com...

a reply to: D8Tee
Yes

Definitley yes, even if they are your own chikdren or sibling. You could be disfellowshipped and shunned too if you are caught. That also includes on the net and reading their material. How else do you think they stop them waking up?

No standard When I was there. They pay for their door knocking activities out of their own pockets.

originally posted by: Phage
Religious freedom is important.

But so is my privacy. Why do Witnesses think it's ok to come through my gate, into my yard, when they don't know me?

How hard can it be to let someone who is fully convinced they are at your door because they care about you talk to you a second or two? They are drs and lawyers and even judges, they all go out and try to spread the word of god even though it is a hard thing to do. Do you think they love people treating them as you must do?

Those who hate and want nothing to do with the message have that choice, but the day may come when they wish that door to be opened to them and it will not.

Luke 13:25
Verse Concepts
"Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock on the door, saying, 'Lord, open up to us!' then He will answer and say to you, 'I do not know where you are from.'

They are not ashamed of god not Jesus and so they come to try and do what they can.
Mark 8:38

If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."

a reply to: SeaWorthy

I don't mind them coming door to door, most seem to be good people.

It's just that dumb denying kids blood transfusions that I don't like, but hey it's not my kid that might die for want of a blood transfusion.

originally posted by: TheChrome
Yes, they can. Bloodless surgery is safer, and is line with God's laws. Get educated:

Jehovah's Witnesses Recover Best From Surgery

Here is the original study, which is the one I have read and analyzed (newspapers articles are usually not reliable):
Outcome of Patients Who Refuse Transfusion After Cardiac Surgery

I can immediately see a big problem with this study: the level of sickness between the JW group and the other group. The JW group included all types of patients, sicker and less sick. The other group only included those who needed a blood transfusion, and only the very sick and at risk of dying need blood transfusion.

I am not surprised the JW group fared better as there is no fair comparison between the two groups!

But the original study did explain their study had limitations which cannot give a definite outcome:

STUDY LIMITATIONS Like all observational studies, our analyses have limitations. We chose to use propensity matching and to identify a control group that received transfusions to minimize selection and referral biases. Nonetheless, propensity methods can account only for those variables that were available and properly recorded. We did not record data on many Witness care-specific practice variables that may have changed over time. Thus, our analyses do not allow us to identify which practices may have contributed to the outcomes. Finally, Witnesses who came to our center and who were accepted by our surgeons likely represent a select group who might have been expected by their physicians to have better outcomes.

So no, the article you posted does not show JW recover better from surgery. More studies in a more controlled environment and better sample are needed before anybody can come to that conclusion.

a reply to: PapagiorgioCZ

ah joy - at last - someone who actually accepts that the " 2 witness rule " exists

now i has previously avoided this tangent of the thread as ATS member " terrydon79 " is handling the rabid cultist admirably

but as you are putting forth coherent arguments [ i disagree with them ] - but hey thats the point of a forum

here is my take :

instead of hiding behind the dogma of the 2 witness rule - the JWs [ if they wanted ] COULD move forward into the 21st century and abolish the rule [ it would take an ammendment and vote by thier governing bodies - but it could be done ]

the sad thing is that teerydon79 is absolutly correct in what he has said in this thread - i do conceed he has got a bit rabit - and bordering on baiting - but hey he is still right

and JW leadership ARE hiding behind the 2 witness rule to avoid having to address issues

and herein lies the difference between a backwards cult - and a civilised element of society

the " civilisied element " - will and DOES change its rules to adapt and proceed

the backwards cult hides behind its dogma - and refuses to change

the people who wrote the 2 witness rule - were almost certainly well intentioned men who didnt forsee that thier " strategy " for preventing spurious allegations would one day be used to sheild peadophiles

now the modern JW are aware that this is an tragic consequence - thier refusal to change - marks them as backwards cultists

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: SeaWorthy

I don't mind them coming door to door, most seem to be good people.

It's just that dumb denying kids blood transfusions that I don't like, but hey it's not my kid that might die for want of a blood transfusion.

“Any one also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. For the life of every creature is its blood: its blood is its life. Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.

I believe the persons are left to individual choice and not ordered not to have transfusions among JW's because it is not eating the blood they can't be sure if it applies. The whole point is if you actually believe in something you can either say you do and be hypocritical by not doing the things or you can obey what you believe to be a divine order.

We actually know very little about the realities of our life and this world maybe we should not judge those who choose to obey something they believe has a higher authority. We all die, if indeed death sets us free and is not a negative thing then they are not worried about anything but their own loss of a loved one because only they suffer.

Why do some people die and others live under the same circumstance? Maybe we go when our time comes regardless of what we do or don't do.
Death holds less fear for believers in a creator.

Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord--for we walk by faith, not by sight--we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:6-8).

bible.org...

originally posted by: RobertConrad

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: RobertConrad

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: RobertConrad

Don't worry, I won't let them put you in an oven.

We are not worried.

It is for your good we are doing this. You think we fear what is about to happen on the world stage?

Are you one of the 144,000?

Yes.

I thought you was a JW until you said this, saying you will be one of the few ruling class seems a bit to presumptuous for any JW. who would be humble.

The apostle John wrote: “I heard the number of those who were sealed, a hundred and forty-four thousand.” (Revelation 7:4) In the Bible, the phrase “those who were sealed” refers to a group of individuals who are chosen from among mankind to rule with Christ in heaven over the coming Paradise earth. (2 Corinthians 1:21, 22; Revelation 5:9, 10; 20:6) Their number, 144,000, is understood literally for several reasons. One is found in the immediate context of Revelation 7:4.

wol.jw.org...

a reply to: TinfoilTP

hey even have their own special Bible, not unlike Mormons. They will knock on your door to annoy you and then if you get coerced to join them they will tell you out of the billions of humanity only a tiny number, 144000, are to be rewarded. This makes you but a servant to these unnamed special individuals or a delusional fool who thinks they are one of this select small number. In the Bible Jesus foretold that many false prophets will appear claiming Jesus is here or Jesus is there, this is just one of them to lead people astray.

144,000 plus the great multitude of others.

Hence, the context of Revelation 7:4 and related statements found elsewhere in the Bible bear out that the number 144,000 is to be taken literally. It refers to those who will rule in heaven with Christ over a paradise earth, which will be filled with a large and undetermined number of happy people who worship Jehovah God.—Psalm 37:29.

wol.jw.org...

You will know the true from false by their fruits, the things they do, do they teach the word of god, do they keep child molesters among them, do they harbor persons who do not act according to scripture or have no belief and so on all clearly outlined in the new testament first 4 books.

You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Matthew 7:15-20
As far as their wanting to do their own translation of the ancient texts (having their own bible) that seems not a bad thing, I have read theirs and the catholic and the KJ and a modern english, I saw no differences in the JW bible accept for using the name Jehovah in place of the word God. They believe they should replace the name where it was originally and removed because people were afraid to pronounce it.

However, it is no longer used in most mainstream English translations, with Lord or LORD usually used instead, generally indicating that the corresponding Hebrew is YHWH or Yehowah

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: RobertConrad

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: RobertConrad

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: RobertConrad

Don't worry, I won't let them put you in an oven.

We are not worried.

It is for your good we are doing this. You think we fear what is about to happen on the world stage?

Are you one of the 144,000?

Yes.

I thought you was a JW until you said this, saying you will be one of the few ruling class seems a bit to presumptuous for any JW. who would be humble.

The apostle John wrote: “I heard the number of those who were sealed, a hundred and forty-four thousand.” (Revelation 7:4) In the Bible, the phrase “those who were sealed” refers to a group of individuals who are chosen from among mankind to rule with Christ in heaven over the coming Paradise earth. (2 Corinthians 1:21, 22; Revelation 5:9, 10; 20:6) Their number, 144,000, is understood literally for several reasons. One is found in the immediate context of Revelation 7:4.

wol.jw.org...

A couple of questions for you. Is it your place to judge others.

Many people here have already.

According to your reasoning none of the governing body are anointed either, because it would be presumptuous on their part to acknowledge their hope as well. That would also include everyone in the Bible, and including several Bible writers who held out that hope. Paul talked about it. Peter talked about it. John talked about it.

Are they haughty by claiming to be anointed?

In fact every single person that partakes of the emblems on earth, who have the hope of heavenly life, who have been called and chosen, according to your logic, are not humble, and are presumptuous. They are sharing with everyone the hope they have. All observers. And of course there are even observers today that may reason like you, how dare they?

I understand why you may think that way. There are even Jehovah's Witnesses who have the attitude you do.

Perhaps this is just another tactic to try and get the subject of the OP off topic. Which, if you read through this thread, has been done a number of time, by a number of people.

I respect your right to believe the way you want to. Just as I do everyone else's. And if answering a question offended you, then I apologize for that. But I cannot apologize for something I have no control over. I realize you cannot understand this. But presumptuous was the last thing I was by answering the question honestly, and in good faith, to someone that was obviously not worthy answering back.

It is true that when people asked Jesus if he was the Messiah, many times he refrained from answering. But it is also true there were times he acknowledged who he was. In fact he even told the Samaritan woman at the well who he was, without even being asked. He certainly was not acting presumptuously.

In any event you don't know who I am. I don't know who you are. We most likely will never communicate with each other again.

If my acknowledgement of who I am offended you again i apologize. If it stumbles you in any way, that is too bad. Many people also were stumbled by Jesus for no reason.

I hope one day you take the time to study with Jehovah's Witnesses though. As I do everyone here, and come to serve the true God Jehovah.

As Paul once told Agrippa, after Agrippa said his reasoning was so sound he was almost converted to Christianity:

(Acts 26:28, 29) . . .But A·gripʹpa said to Paul: “In a short time you would persuade me to become a Christian.” 29 At this Paul said: “I wish to God that whether in a short time or in a long time, not only you but also all those who hear me today would become men such as I am, with the exception of these prison bonds.”

a reply to: RobertConrad

A couple of questions for you. Is it your place to judge others.

I have not judge you I judge the behaviors and actions how else do we know fruits good or bad?
pre·sump·tu·ous
adjective
(of a person or their behavior) failing to observe the limits of what is permitted or appropriate.

I can't see how anyone could make themselves know as one of anything it is not up to humans.
Just think about it Matthew 20
Jesus made the statement “many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first” (Matthew 19:30)

would be presumptuous on their part to acknowledge their hope as well

Now you see this you have said a different thing, hope total different.

As far as being offended I have no idea how you got such an idea.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Exactly. It is not our choice. It is God's. And we should all respect his wisdom. Even if we ourselves do not understand it.

For he says:

(Romans 9:15, 16) . . .For he says to Moses: “I will show mercy to whomever I will show mercy, and I will show compassion to whomever I will show compassion.” 16 So, then, it depends, not on a person’s desire or on his effort, but on God, who has mercy.

It would certainly be presumptuous after God makes such a decision as his goodwill wishes, to question it. Or can you the thing made, reply to the maker, why did you make me, or even him the way they are?

(Romans 9:19-26) . . .You will therefore say to me: “Why does he still find fault? For who has withstood his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to be answering back to God? Does the thing molded say to its molder: “Why did you make me this way?” 21 What? Does not the potter have authority over the clay to make from the same lump one vessel for an honorable use, another for a dishonorable use? 22 What, then, if God had the will to demonstrate his wrath and to make his power known, and he tolerated with much patience vessels of wrath made fit for destruction? 23 And if this was done to make known the riches of his glory on vessels of mercy, which he prepared beforehand for glory, 24 namely, us, whom he called not only from among Jews but also from among nations, what of it? 25 It is as he says also in Ho·seʹa: “Those not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not loved, ‘beloved’; 26 and in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”

a reply to: RobertConrad

Are you supposed to be on here talking with disenfranchised JW's?

Skydaddy gonna be mad.

Might lose your status as one of the 144,000.

I have started a thread discussing JW doctrine and practice in the Religion, Faith and Theology thread. Ask me anything.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: TheChrome

which " 2 witnesses " ???? you are the only cult appologist in this thread

making stuff up again ??? - doesnt your cult have a rule about that ???

Let me put this 2 witness garbage to rest, since it seems to be the popular argument here. The bible mentions "2 witnesses" to prevent a false accuser. Could it not be said that if a person was convicted based on a single person's false testimony that it is equally unjust? "2 Witnesses" in our day and age could be better classified as "2 verified sources." Thus, if a person is accused of stealing, the accuser is the first witness, and the video camera is the 2nd. If a person is raped, the accuser is the victim, and the the DNA evidence is the 2nd witness. For anyone who has any common sense, this is not rocket science. Get it through your thick sculls that it is justice to require any accusation to be confirmed by a second source.

originally posted by: TheChrome
Let me put this 2 witness garbage to rest, since it seems to be the popular argument here. The bible mentions "2 witnesses" to prevent a false accuser.

This only applies to congregational matters, it doesn't have to apply to mandatory reporting to the secular police and allowing them to do their job of either proving or disproving a charge.

originally posted by: Cinrad
I have started a thread discussing JW doctrine and practice in the Religion, Faith and Theology thread. Ask me anything.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

A Moderator has just trashed my thread, I don't know why.