29 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75the point was made that Cathoics are not "doing the work of the lord" or what Jesus asked or whatever. If they are not as you say, then why are they seeing such explosive growth in South America and Africa? Do the church doors open and then people file in like drones? I think not.
So size means they're right in their worship and in following Jesus's command to preach? Nothing in the past history of man has ever confirmed that.
The only ones that preach anything are the priest from the pulpits. And they do not go door to door as Jesus and all his follwers did much less the members. All that's required of them is to show up, pray ...[text shortened]... ins and get them saved. So who there even needs Jesus? Their priest and the Pope does it all.
29 Sep 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou say you understand that every situation is different but then you fall back and repeat that you think we completely shun them. So which thought of yours is correct? Do you understand or not?
I fully understand that every situation is different and i'm not naive enough to think every 'issue' is black and white. But you do agree with the complete shunning of family members if the need arises. Personally i find that very distasteful.
[b]To an outside observer i agree without knowing the principles it may look harsh and unloving.
I thi ...[text shortened]... their own forum to get them through it.
http://exjehovahswitnessforum.yuku.com/directory[/b]
The point Robbie is trying to make is it all depends on the circumstances and the attitude of the one disfellowshipped.
First that person is allowed to attend any and all meetings they want. Their allowed to sing if they want.
If they live at home with a Witness family they are allowed to have any basic conversations that are needed.
If you work with one, you obviously have to have that conversation with them.
ETC, ETC, ETC.
Again it all depends on the situation.
My daughter in law happens to be disfellowshipped right now and will be for probably a year.
Yes it is hard on the family because as the bible says to not even have a meal with her. But at this point she is very repentant and has made every possible effort to correct her problem. So because of those apparent actions it is possible to have short and to the point conversations with her. But nothing spiritual. Right now spiritual matters are between her and God.
But she very much understands why she has been disfellowshipped and understands it is a Bible based command that has got to be done not only to "keep the congregation clean" as was commanded by Jesus himself, but to help her see the seriousness of the offence and the consiquencess of the action that led to her being disfellowshipped. And the result we all want is for her to grow spiritually and not fall back into the situation that caused her problems.
And for your understanding, disfellowshipping of someone is the last thing the Elders want to do. Believe me, it is a last resort if all help and efforts fail.
And finally when she is reinstated all the Brothers and Sisters will be ecstatic with love and will help her progress back to a very happy and spiritually strong person.
29 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by duecerProbably because there are not many other choises? I don't know but it's a fact that most humans want to have a relationship with their creator. And when you have a supposed huge religious organization that tells you all you have to do is come and sit and well take care of the rest...why not go for it? Confess your sins to us, pay your dues and your in.
the point was made that Cathoics are not "doing the work of the lord" or what Jesus asked or whatever. If they are not as you say, then why are they seeing such explosive growth in South America and Africa? Do the church doors open and then people file in like drones? I think not.
I'm not saying that no one there is not honest in looking for a religion or looking for God and not good people. But when this simple and easy way to worship is offered....their in.
This is part of the problem...
2 Corinthians 11:14 (New International Version)
14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
1 John 5:19 (Amplified Bible)
19 We know [positively] that we are of God, and the whole world [around us] is under the power of the evil one.
29 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75yes thats it, they open the doors and people show up because there arn't any choices.....Jeebus🙄
Probably because there are not many other choises? I don't know but it's a fact that most humans want to have a relationship with their creator. And when you have a supposed huge religious organization that tells you all you have to do is come and sit and well take care of the rest...why not go for it? Confess your sins to us, pay your dues and your in. ...[text shortened]... vely] that we are of God, and the whole world [around us] is under the power of the evil one.
edit: your scripture references prove nothing, they could as easily be used to describe the JW's
29 Sep 10
Originally posted by duecerBut the Witnesses are no part of the world that Satan is the ruler of. BIG BIG differance.
yes thats it, they open the doors and people show up because there arn't any choices.....Jeebus🙄
edit: your scripture references prove nothing, they could as easily be used to describe the JW's
29 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobActually i think its righteous, indeed, to do the opposite is to condone their wrong course of action, which they, in full knowledge, having shunned the help of both family and friends and congregation elders now must live with the consequences of those actions, personally i find that just!
I fully understand that every situation is different and i'm not naive enough to think every 'issue' is black and white. But you do agree with the complete shunning of family members if the need arises. Personally i find that very distasteful.
[b]To an outside observer i agree without knowing the principles it may look harsh and unloving.
I thi their own forum to get them through it.
http://exjehovahswitnessforum.yuku.com/directory[/b]
29 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieActually at one time some of the offences would have a death penilty attatched to it. So the arrangment now is more patient with us but still as serious.
Actually i think its righteous, indeed, to do the opposite is to condone their wrong course of action, which they, in full knowledge, having shunned the help of both family and friends and congregation elders now must live with the consequences of those actions, personally i find that just!
29 Sep 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have no issue with ejecting members of an organisation because they broke the rules, but shunning them to the point where you don't speak to them anymore, including family members, is taking it a little too far. If you think that's righteous then you are a very odd man indeed, and the quicker your organisation is 'wiped from the pages of history' the better.
Actually i think its righteous, indeed, to do the opposite is to condone their wrong course of action, which they, in full knowledge, having shunned the help of both family and friends and congregation elders now must live with the consequences of those actions, personally i find that just!
29 Sep 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobOh come on. Your to smart for that thought. I know you don't believe in the Bible but you have to see the wisdom and the result one would hope for to follow the advice in the Bible.
I have no issue with ejecting members of an organisation because they broke the rules, but shunning them to the point where you don't speak to them anymore, including family members, is taking it a little too far. If you think that's righteous then you are a very odd man indeed, and the quicker your organisation is 'wiped from the pages of history' the better.
2 John 1:10-11 (New International Version)
10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 11 Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.
This points out how ones who are practicing wrong doings are to be treated. The term "anyone" is used.
29 Sep 10
4 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knoband of course dear Noobster you are aware of all the principles involved are you not? please elaborate, i wait with interest and secondly the Nazis already tried to wipe us off the face of the earth, but as you can see, we are alive and well, indeed rather ironically, we were able to hold a convention in Nuremberg, in the very stadium where they issued the decree.
I have no issue with ejecting members of an organisation because they broke the rules, but shunning them to the point where you don't speak to them anymore, including family members, is taking it a little too far. If you think that's righteous then you are a very odd man indeed, and the quicker your organisation is 'wiped from the pages of history' the better.
29 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'll get to you tomorrow Rob.
and of course dear Noobster you are aware of all the principles involved are you not? please elaborate, i wait with interest and secondly the Nazis already tried to wipe us off the face of the earth, but as you can see, we are alive and well, indeed rather ironically, we were able to hold a convention in Nuremberg, in the very stadium where they issued the decree.
29 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI fail to see the accuracy of your charge that I'm a Judas robbie carrobie...I've always been consistent in that I never take your side :]
Agers Agers, after all we have been through you turn Judas on me, how can that be? first of all my dear sir, there is a clear admonishment that abstaining is healthy, here is the verse again,
(Acts 15:28-29) . . .For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining ...[text shortened]... e of them, therefore your objections are unwarranted and without foundation, good health to you!
Anyway, you failed to challenge my main point that you don't abstain from your own blood. If from "abstain from blood" it is reasonable to infer (on the grounds that it is a global statement) one should avoid transfusions then one should also infer they must avoid their own blood...unless of course there are exceptions, and if this is the case then you need to do a better job of showing that transfusions aren't an exception. I've previously mentioned that your handling of statistics is poor; and that arguing as you do with such a biased sample of figures as you did about 10 pages ago, one can prove everything is a great evil
Also I anticipated your point about "good health" and preempted it with my statement that people who die due to critical blood loss fail to be healthy. Perhaps you missed that.