Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    There are people who consider Jehova's Witnesses a branch of
    Christianity. I am not one of them. I do not see this as a
    Christian issue.

    		Alfred

   I am a Christian who takes the Word of God seriously.  Nowhere is it stated,
 or even implied, that a child or anyone should not be given a blood 
 transfusion.





 Jim

       Honour a physician with the honour due unto him for the uses
       which ye may have of him: for the Lord hath created him.  For
       of the most High cometh healing, and he shall receive honour
       of the king.  The skill of the physician shall lift up his
       head; and in the sight of great men he shall be in admiration.
       The Lord hath created medicines out of the earth; and he that
       is wise will not abhor them.  And he hath given men skill,
       that he might be honoured in his marvellous works.  With such
       doth he heal men, and taketh away their pains.
       
       			From the 38th chapter of Ecclesiasticus, KJV

    
    
    In my opinion, parents who allow their child to die when medical means
    to save that child exist have committed murder.
    
       GJD

    Why do the Witnesses have a ban on blood transfusions?

    Something tells me that it was implemented before this
    AIDS business.

    Tom

    	To .1  Alfred:
    
    	>I don't see this as a Christian issue.
    
    	Wow!  That has to be the Pontious Pilate hand-washing act of
    	the year.  Whether you like it or not, JW's *are* Christians.
    
    	To .4  Jim:  There is, in fact, a remark in one of the newspaper
    	reports that the state attorney is looking into the matter.
    
    	General: As far as I am informed, the JW's rely heavily on the
    	texts in scriptures to justify their beliefs.  Can anyone tell
    	me exactly which text(s) are used to *justify* refusing to give
    	a baby the chance of life? 
    
    	Greetings, Derek.

>    	Wow!  That has to be the Pontious Pilate hand-washing act of
>    	the year.  Whether you like it or not, JW's *are* Christians.

Since they do not believe that Jesus is God, I'm not so sure they even
consider themselves to be Christians.

/john    

    
>    	Wow!  That has to be the Pontious Pilate hand-washing act of
>    	the year.  Whether you like it or not, JW's *are* Christians.
    
    It's not a matter of like or not. You might just as well say Jews
    *are* Christians as JWs *are* Christians.
    
    			Alfred

RE:             <<< Note 724.5 by THOLIN::TBAKER "DOS with Honor!" >>>
                                  -< basis? >-

   . Why do the Witnesses have a ban on blood transfusions?

    

     There are a few passages in the Old Testament (I don't have one
     with me and I can't remember the chapter/Verse) that refer to 
     the "consumption..ie eating" of blood" which JWs claim also disallows
     blood transfusions..there are a few others, but I don't have them handy.



.Something tells me that it was implemented before this
.    AIDS business.

 

 Well before this AIDS business.




 Jim

RE:<<< Note 724.6 by VNABRW::BUTTON "Today is the first day of the rest of my life!" >>>
                       -< Of course JW's are Christian. >-

       
   . 	Wow!  That has to be the Pontious Pilate hand-washing act of
   . 	the year.  Whether you like it or not, JW's *are* Christians.
    

        According to who's definition?


        
.    	General: As far as I am informed, the JW's rely heavily on the
.    	texts in scriptures to justify their beliefs.  Can anyone tell
.    	me exactly which text(s) are used to *justify* refusing to give
.    	a baby the chance of life? 
    
 
  I assume you mean this in reference to blood transfusions and not other
  means of giving a baby the chance of life?


  I will attempt to find the verses JWs claim outlaw blood transfusions
 and post them later.




Jim

    Within C-P, there are contributors who are Jehovah's Witnesses.
    
    Perhaps one or more of them will help us understand their teaching
    on blood transfusions.  Phil?  Robin?  Mark?  You out there?
    
    I know if I were a Jehovah's Witness I would not be very inclined to
    share my knowledge here after the things which have already been said
    about my faith.
    
    Richard
    

    	I looked up Jehovas Witnesses in 2 reference book I have. Both
    	describe them as "a Christian Sect".  They apparently do not 
    	accept the doctrine of the Trinity but do believe that Christ
    	was the son of God. They also believe in the absolute truth of
    	the bible.  The German reference says that they use their own
    	bible translation which is strongly criticised by other Christian
    	groups.
    
    	I also found one biblical reference which may be relevant to the
    	JW rejection of blood transfusions: "Thou shalt not eat the blood
    	of any flesh for the soul of all flesh is its blood."  Lev. 17:13
    	(from short-term memory, since I forgot to bring the Bible with me
    	this morning).  I read this to mean the blood of sacrificial
    	flesh from the context, but I can see that other interpretations
    	are possible.
    
    	Today, the newspapers report that the state attorney is also
    	investigating the actions of the doctors.  It is claimed that they
    	should have got an injunction allowing them to give blood to the
    	baby. It might even have been possible to have the child put under
    	the state's guardianship; thus removing the burden of choice from
    	the "unlucky" parents.  Even without an injunction, so the
    	newpapers, the doctors should have given the blood and risked a
    	damages suit: no court in the world would have found them guilty.
    
    	Greetings, Derek.
                  
    	Greetings, Derek.

    ANSWER TO REPLY .O
    
    Hello Derek,
    
    Blood-transfusion is a hot item all over the world ,
    where we are allowed to preach the good news of 
    Jehovah's Kingdom.
    
    Answer to your first question:
    ===============================
    
    If you were a bible believing and bible reading person
    like (die Bibelforscher) the bible examiners, nowaday
    called Jehovah's witnesses,you definitly found the
    following scripture verses were no-one on this entire
    planet earth are allowed to consume blood in no manner.
    
    Not by eating it nor drinking it or by any means like
    in this century, via blood-transfusion.
    
    The scripture verses you can find in any bible are:
    ====================================================
    
    1>  Genesis 9:4      ; i.e: Genesis chapter 9 verse 4
        Leviticus 3:17
        Leviticus 7:26
        Leviticus 7:27
        Leviticus 17:12
        Leviticus 17:13
        Leviticus 17:14
        Leviticus 19:26
        Deuteronomy 12:16
        Deuteronomy 12:23
        Deuteronomy 15:23
        Act of the Apostels 15:29
    
    Those verses will tell you that the true living God
    Jehovah tells us that blood is sacred and may not be 
    consumed in any way.
    
    
    
    Answer to your second question:
    ===============================
    
    1> Artificial blood is the name of a variety of chemical
       salt or sugar made of proteins.
    2> They replace real blood-plasma and are used for quite
       a long time on Jehovah's witnesses with succes.
    3> A century ago  Dr. Ron Lapin , did surgery in United States
       with artificial blood on Jehovah's witnesses with succes.
    
    There is really a lot to convince you that what Jehovah's
    witnesses do ,is strict in line with the bible.
    If you are really interested in blood-tranfusion question,
    why not take your telephone book and look for Jehovah's
    witnesses and ring them.Or ask them when they knock at
    your door.
    
    They are delighted to answer all your questions
    Really, about blood there are only 2 institutions that can
    help you.
    The one is :      The medical institution.
    The second is:    The Jehovah's witnesses.
    
    We have all kind of written material that you can
    read at your own pace and made easy for all people to
    understand.
    The indepth answers to your questions are to long 
    to discus in here.
    
    E.g: In genesis 9:4 , Jehovah told Noach when he and
    his family (in total 8 of them: i.e: Shem, Chaim and
    Japhet and their wives and Noach's wife)stepped out of
    the ark,Jehovah said: Everything you are allowed to eat,
    all animal you may consume, but what blood concerns,
    you may not eat it.
    Nor you, your household of any of your descendants.
    Before they step into the Ark in those days,
    IT HAS NEVER RAIN HERE ON EARTH BEFORE!!!!!!
    
    
    P.S: Like Richard told you in REPLY. 11 there are more 
         Jehovah's witnesses in here who can help you if 
         because of some reason that you can't contact local
         Jehovah's witnesses in your neighborhood .
         
    
    I hope , I feed you with enough information to further searching.
    
    
                                        Alex Odor.
    
    
                                    

    ADDENDUM to REPLY.13
    
    When someone is seriously interested in some subject,
    or he/she wants to know the thruth,the bible gives
    the right answer.
    
    The bible recommend us to go to the source.
    There is the only place you will find the thruth.
    
    So, the thruth what Jehovah's witnesses believe and worship
    you can only find out when start asking them.
    
    THEY ARE THE SOURCE IN THESE DAYS WHAT CONCERNS BIBLICAL THRUTH!!
    
                     greetings Alex Odor
    

    
    
    So, do JW's eat meat?  (Serious question!)
    
       GJD

 How can one confuse the eating (which includes ingestion, digestion and
 expulsion of waste) with the transfusion of blood, which is not processed
 in a similar fashion?




 Jim

Transfusion actually is similar to eating, especially when you consider
intravenous feeding and the fact that the used blood cells will eventually
be cleaned out of the blood and excreted.

However, what the JWs miss here is that the biblical prohibition of the
consumption of blood has two purposes:

	1. It is a prohibition to prevent the development or adoption
	   of rituals where the blood of a sacrificial victim would be
	   consumed and that victim's lifeblood, poured out on the altar,
	   then incorporated into the participants in the sacrifice.  To
	   be more explicit, it prevents rituals where the participants
	   become like the victim, whether the victim is animal or man.

	2. It is a prohibition in preparation for the new Christian rite,
	   where the blood of the perfect sacrificial victim, poured out on
	   the altar of Calvary, is spiritually, really, and substantially
	   received by the members of the Body of Christ, whereby we partake
	   of his divine life and receive the grace to be more Christlike.

The JWs also miss the fact that the blood used for transfusions does not come
from sacrificial victims, but from donors who continue to live after donating.

/john

    reply to .15
    
    (serious answer)   Yes, they do eat meat.
    
    They do eat meat, just like Noach did after all the water was
    gone, and he and his household step out of the ark.
    At that moment there was no vegetation or fruit to eat.
    That's why Jehovah command them to eat flesh but not with
    the blood.
    
    And I think what you are up to.
    I will answer the question before you start asking.
    There is of course some bloodrest in meat and that's out
    of the question.
    I know you will not be satisfied with my answer, I did discus
    this topic also when knocking on doors and with collegues.
    Our goal as JW's is to preach good news and not start heavy
    discussions. Hope that this will satisfied your burning questions.
    
    Alex Odor.

    Boy, am I gonna catch some heat here...

    I don't agree with the JW.  I do, however, honor their ban
    on blood transfusions, even if it means the death of a child.

    Now, if (and I'm just guessing here) the JW believe that spirit
    is carried or embodied in blood and it is believed that one
    spirit may "pollute" another *THEN IT IS BETTER TO DIE UNPOLLUTED
    THAN TO LIVE THAT WAY*  It is no more bizzare than people refusing
    to eat other (dead) people *even if they are starving*.

    There are worse things than dying.

    Tom

 RE .18

 What is the answer?



 Is not one of of the messages of Jesus mercy?  How can one claim to 
 be carrying the message of Christ and allow a child (or any human being)
 to die for lack of a blood transfusion which is readily available and
 non-threatening to either participant? (assuming proper procedures are
 followed of course).

    Dankesh�n Alex!
    
    I appreciate your attempt to answer my questions.  I will look up
    your references this evening and give my opinion as soon as I can.
    However, since I do not accept the Bible as being the literal truth,
    you should not be surprised if my conclusions are at odds with yours
    or those of the JW's.
    
    Can you please answer the other question which arose in this string:
    Do the Zeugen Jehovas (JW) consider themselves to be Christians?
    As I noted earlier, my references define JW as a Christian Sect.
    
    Greetings, Derek.
    

JW claim to be Christians.

Orthodox Christians claim that Jehovah's Witnesses are
not Christians as they deny many fundamental doctrines
(such as Jesus is God).  I am not aware of any organized
group of Christians that accepts these fundamental doctrines
(which includes a number of more liberal denominations)
which accept Jehovah's Witnesses claims to be Christian
which do not also believe that everybody will be saved
(in essence that we are all in some sense "Christian" as
we will all be saved).

Collis

	JW's do not consider anyone but themselves to be true christians.

	Nevertheless, it's true that Christianity in the broadest sense
includes all the various sects including JW's. 


	But the final question is not what you're called, but what you are.

ace

Hi Alex,

If JW's interpret the Levitical law correctly, understanding it to mean that
not only can we not drink blood, but we cannot receive blood intravenously,
then I might suggest, the Jews today -- who obey the Levitical laws -- should
believe as the JW's do on this count, or at least we should have a record that
they did at one time.  The Jews, however, have never believed that blood
transfusions are wrong, even though they do reject drinking blood.  Not even
the most conservative and orthodox of Jews ever thought that the proscription
against blood meant that a life could not be saved by a transfusion.

We see that in the New Testament Jesus castigated the Pharisees for putting
their own traditions of men, or even God's law, above the importance of human 
life.  Jesus himself disobeyed the Sabbath, not because the Sabbath no longer
applied, but because he and his disciples were hungry and needed to eat. He
healed on the Sabbath, which again was a concern for the life of the man
over the letter of the law.  In the Old Testament, David and his companions
ate of the shewbread in the Temple which it was not permitted for anyone other
than the priest to eat -- but they needed the bread to live, and so God did
not punish them.

Is it Jehovah's will to permit people to die for the sake of his law? Does
God not desire mercy and justice before sacrifice?

Another example.  Suppose someone told you to abstain from alcohol. Naturally
you would understand that you were not to drink it.  You would probably also
understand that you were not to inject it intravenously, either.  Not only
that, you would understand that you were not to have any alcohol in your body
whatsoever -- for to abstain from alcohol demands that you not possess any in
your body.  So to truly abstain from blood, by the logic of the Jehovah's
Witnesses, would demand that we remove all the blood from our bodies --
otherwise, we are not abstaining from blood, right?

Here we see this kind of logic is silly.  Certainly we must have blood in our
bodies, and when we lose that blood, for the sake of saving our lives, we
need to replace it -- not as part of a pagan religious ritual, as drinking
blood was commonly a part of among the pagans the Israelites lived among, but
as a medical necessity to save a life.

I contend that it is quite permissible even to disobey some of Jehovah's
laws (assuming one interprets the laws correctly) in order to save a life.  To
stand and watch someone die because one wants to stick to the letter of the
law is not at all the kind of justice Jehovah wants.

--
/===========================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer   For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment, Littleton MA   pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| NEW EMAIL ADDRESS:                they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
|   [email protected] (was [email protected])                       |
\==============================- 2 Th 2:15 -================================/

[posted by Notes-News gateway]

    RE: Note 724.18 by JGO::ODOR

    (Haven't read all the subsequent notes, hope I'm not repeating!)
    
|    They do eat meat, just like Noach did after all the water was
|    gone, and he and his household step out of the ark.
|    At that moment there was no vegetation or fruit to eat.
|    That's why Jehovah command them to eat flesh but not with
|    the blood.
    
    I couple of nits, and not just to argue! 8) The dove returned with an
    olive leaf to Noah, to signify the fact that the waters were receding
    and that dry ground was appearing.  I'm not sure of the exact chronology,
    but it was weeks/months after that that they left the ark.  This was
    probably sufficient time for some vegetation to establish itself.

    The herbivores had to have something to eat, so they either had
    vegetation available or lived off of reserves in the ark, as Noah and
    his family could of done until the vegetation established itself. 
    Conservative estimates place the ark's capacity at 533 railroad
    box-cars, so there may have been lots of room for food reserves!

    Being originally designed as vegetarians (I believe), I'm not entirely
    sure why God lifted the prohibition on meat.  Diets heavy in animal
    meat/fat do seem to have detrimental effects on (human) health, but I'm
    glad it's spiritually "okay" for me to have my Dad's spare ribs once in
    a while!

    Later!

    John
    
    (I'm "into" creation science and Noah's ark, so perhaps this was my
    sicko motivation for a somewhat unrelated note!)
                                                    

    	To Alex:
    
    	I read all of the passages you quoted last evening, including the
    	rest of the relevant chapter.  Most of the passages were just 
    	repititions of the one theme penned by another author at another
    	time.
    
    	It was clear to me that the injunction was limited to *eating*
    	blood, i.e. the oral ingestion.  It was also clear that it was
    	intended that one should not drink the blood (the recurring theme
    	was to pour the blood onto the ground like water: a pagan ritual
    	of giving/returning life to the soil which survives today in many
    	parts of the world. I saw, in Cyprus, how the Turkish inhabitants
    	dipped their finger into their wine and flicked a few drops onto
    	the ground).  It must have been clear to the authors - and to God -
    	that, even after draining a carcass, blood remains in the tissues
    	and fibres of the meat. It was OK to consume this meat: a fact
    	acknowledged by JW's today since they are also allowed to eat meat.
    
    	If I may venture my own "theory" on the intent of the passages, I
    	would say that the underlying point is the awe (respect, love) one
    	should hold for life (recurring theme was that the blood is the
    	carrier of life in the body). If this is a valid interpretation, it
    	seems to me to be perverse to withold blood from one needing it
    	and, thus, extinguishing that same life-force.  As I say, that's
    	how it seems to me.
    
    	Greetings, Derek.

                     -< Was glauben Jehovas Zeugen? >-
    
    Reply to .21
    
    Gutentag Derek,
    
    Nice, the way you react on my writings yesterday.
    
       You said:
    
     >>However, since I do not accept the Bible as being the literal truth,
     >>you should not be surprised if my conclusions are at odds with yours
     >>or those of the JW's.
    
    
    I can assure you that it is even difficult to take the bible
    as the true word of God. And of course there will be odds 
    between yours and the way JW's think.
    Even the Ethiopian eunuch who was a proselite (learned in
    the Jewish laws) didn't understand very well what he was reading.
    Fillipus an apostle of Christ had to show him the way.
    See Act 8:27  (Apostelgeschichte 8:27)
    As a JW we are almost day and night studying, meditated and
    sharing our belief (within the family and with others) to
    keep it alive. It is a way of living.
    
    >>Do Zeugen Jehovas (JW) consider themselves to be Christians?
    >>As I noted earlier, my references define JW as a Christian Sect.
    
    
    First: My dictionary at home says the same, if I look for the
           word Jehovah's Witnesses.
    
    It says:   Jehovah's Getuigen;  Modern adventistical anti-church
                                    Christian Sect.
    
    This way to describe a JW is not unusaul. There is a history 
    attached to it and there is a lot of misjudgement to the addrress
    of JW's.
    
    Let us first define and consider what a christian is.
    =====================================================
    
    Definition:
    
    After Christ's dead ,his followers continued to spread out
    the good news of Jehovah,s Kingdom.
    In the beginning all of them were Jews from birth.
    When they reach Antioch (nowadays Syria),there were the first time
    they called them (Christ-followers) Christians.   See Act 11:26
    (Apostelgeschichte 11:26)
    
     P.S: And do not forget that the Jews in those days were the first
          who called the followers of Christ a Sect 
    
     So a christian is definitly a person who wants live the way
     Christ teached at the time he was on earth.
     And the teachings of Christ is right there in the bible.
     Starting from Matthew up till John.
     Because like you noted earlier,:We do accept the bible as being
     the literal thruth: we are real Christians.
    
     Our live as Jehovah's Wittness is all in line with Christ's
     teachings. We are doing our utmost best to live like the first
     disciples of Christ.
    
    Alex.
     
     
    

    Reply .24
    
    
    hello Eric.
    
    I have to be short, time is running out.
    It is not that way you are thinking, about just let someone die 
    just without help. We do care a lot for live.
    We expect in the very near future a restored paridise here on earth.
    And dead people will get a resurrection on this earth.
    And people who are still living in these days, have the chance 
    to live forever on this earth in joy forever.
    
    nice day,  Alex
    
    The reason is because JW's believe in russerection right here
    on earth .
    
    

In article <724.27-930915-041700@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, [email protected] writes:

> I can assure you that it is even difficult to take the bible as the
> true word of God. And of course there will be odds between yours and
> the way JW's think.  Even the Ethiopian eunuch who was a proselite
> (learned in the Jewish laws) didn't understand very well what he was
> reading.  Fillipus an apostle of Christ had to show him the way.

..

> So a christian is definitly a person who wants live the way Christ
> teached at the time he was on earth.  And the teachings of Christ is
> right there in the bible.  Starting from Matthew up till John.
>     
> Our live as Jehovah's Wittness is all in line with Christ's
> teachings. We are doing our utmost best to live like the first
> disciples of Christ.
>     
>     Alex.

Alex, I think it is wonderful that you and other Jehovah's Witnesses believe
in the truth of the Sacred Scriptures, and have a zeal for living the way
the early Christians lived.  But I'm curious as to how a church which has
been only around for less than two centuries can claim to know for sure what
the early Christians believed, especially when so many other Christians also
believe that they believe and teach as the early Christians taught but
disagree with the Jehovah's Witnesses.  So many sects who look to the Bible
alone as their source of doctrine and strive to live the way the early
Christians did disagree with one another on exactly what the Scriptures _do_
say the early Christians taught.
    
As you mentioned, the Ethiopian eunuch needed someone to explain Scripture
to him for him to understand it.  This would tend to imply the need to have
someone around -- for example, the church -- to properly explain Scripture
to seekers, continuously from the time of Christ.  It also shows that it is
insufficient to rely on Scripture alone for understanding Scripture; and 2
Thess 2:15 also says, "Hold fast to the traditions which you received,
whether by word of mouth or by letter."  We also see in Jude 3 that we must
"earnestly contend for the faith handed on once for all to the saints."

What makes the Jehovah's Witnesses so sure that they possess the fullness of
truth which no one else possesses, yet they were founded less than two
centuries ago, long after the time of Christ?  And why do their teachings
differ so radically from the teachings we see recorded by the early
Christians, like, for example, the deity of Christ, which, far from being an
invention of the Council of Nicaea in 325, is a doctrine taught in Christian
writings from as early as 110 A.D.?

--
/===========================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer   For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment, Littleton MA   pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| NEW EMAIL ADDRESS:                they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
|   [email protected] (was [email protected])                       |
\==============================- 2 Th 2:15 -================================/

[posted by Notes-News gateway]

    reply: note 724.25 by csc32::J_WETHERN
    
    
    Hi,
    
    
    It was a nice reply you wrote there about;
    
    1> eating vegetation before the flood and be a carnivore thereafter.
    
    2> the dimensions of the ark so Hughe 533+ Box-cars
    
    About the dimension of the ark ; it is indeed a fact it was 
    very large to contain all the animals, food and to preserve
    Noach and his household.
    The dimensions how large the ark had to be, Jehovah gave Noach
    all the measurements.Sometime ago we did compare it in one 
    of our 2weekly magazine with a lot of cargo-train to contain
    all the animals. Anyone who likes to do arithmetic, can try 
    because the dimensions are right there in the bible.
    
    
    But about why Jehovah permitted Noach and his household to eat
    meat, I can't give you an answer because of lack of knowledge.
    The ark could indeed contain a lot of food to preserve them
    till the earth was filled again with vegetation .
    
    
    Alex.   
    
     

There really isn't enough information provided in the article to make anything
but a few general comments:

Although Jehovah's Witnesses take a firm stand on the issue of the (mis)use
of blood, they do seek quality *non-blood* medical management for themselves
and their children when necessary.

There is no indication that the parents were not seeking the best possible 
care for their child; indeed, the fact that they spent some days trying to
get acceptable treatment shows that they were not trying to withhold proper
care from their child.

There is no indication that the doctors in this case considered any alter-
native treatment, other than transfusion, nor is there any indication that 
they could guarantee that a blood transfusion *would* save the child's life.

It's not clear what the "responsibility" statement was all about, or what 
bearing it has on this case.

There is no indication that the "artificial" blood was *not* a blood based
product.

The article does not state what the original medical problem was, or why the
doctors felt that a blood transfusion was the only acceptable treatment.


Steve (one of Jehovah's Witnesses)

    reply to: .26
    
    Derek,
    
    Remember, I supplied you with chapters and verses from Scriptures
    where you can find that we aren't allowed to consume blood.
    You're right when you noted that: "Most of the passages were just
            repititions of the one theme penned by another author at
            another time."
    Also yours and others who commented in this notes conference that
    meat is never for 100% free of blood is a right conclusion.
    
    But it is always risky to make hypothesis or postulate or like
    you said "venture" a theory just from some Scripture verses.
    The bible itself warns us not to do that.
    No scripture verses were and are to be interpreted by man.
    The true and living God himself will reveal everything with
    time to man.To have a deep understanding of the bible you have
    to search in it , like people searches in a goldrush.
    Those words are written in the book Proverbs just after Psalms.
    Then you will find the knowledge of God.Then you will know how
    to fear him. Real fear is totally obedience to the true and living
    God.
    
     
    
    The repetitions you read were also to conduct the old nation Isreal
    in the perfect way.If you have time and effort read the whole 
    chapter. This,  just to gain some more understanding to not criticise
    the bible in a negative way.
    
    
    Greetings  Alex.
    
    
            

    	Thanks Alex for your reply.
    
    	>But it is always risky to make hypothesis or postulate or like 
    	>you said "venture" a theory just from the scripture verses.
    	>The bible itself warns us not to do that.
    	>No scripture verses were and are to be interpreted by man.
    
    	Even if we were to agree on everything else, we could never
    	possibly agree on this point.  And I would ask you to explain
    	how, without interpretive reading, you can come to the conclu-
    	sion that blood transfusions are against the will of God. Since
    	they are not specifically mentioned in the scriptures, thier
    	inclusion in your thinking can *only* be interpretive.
    
        It would be a very austere world indeed if the written word, or
    	Word, were not free to be interpreted by the reader.
    
    	>The repetitions you read were also to conduct the old nation
    	>Israel in the perfect way. If you have time and effort read the
    	>whole chapter. This, just to gain some understanding to not 
    	>criticise the Bibel in a negative way.
    
    	I specifically said in my reply that I had read not only the verses
    	that you quoted but the whole of the relevant chapter.  I have
    	also re-read all my entries in this string and can find nowhere
    	that I have criticised the Bible in a negative way.  Your comments
    	are probably the result of interpreting my words and venturing an
    	hypothesis.  But, of course, my words are not scripture. ;-)
    
    	to .32 Steve:
    
    	A wonderful series of negative arguments: "There is no indication...
    	.. that .. were not"; "It is not clear that..." "The article does
    	not state that..." "There really isn't enough information..."
    
    	To be positive: The doctors clearly stated that, without a blood
    	transfusion, the child would die. It did. They were right. As you
    	- probably - very well know, no doctor in the world would say: "If
    	you give a transfusion, the child will live."
    
    	>There is no indication that the parents were not seeking the
    	>best possible care for their child.
    
    	Consider the possibility that, had they done so, there might have
    	been an indication.
    
    	Alternative treatments were, indeed, considered and, in fact
    	applied (including a well tried treatment from the USA). They
    	failed! Great effort on the part of the doctors was spent in
    	trying to persuade the parents that the only treatment which
    	offered hope was the blood transfusion.  It is nowhere noted,
    	but it seems unlikely that, knowing the parents position on the
    	use of blood, they would have offered a blood-based alternative
    	if any other kind of artificial blood exists.
    
    	One thing the doctors could - should(?) have done was to get
    	an injunction against the parents and gone ahead desopit them.
    	You will probably say that they were right not to do so. They
    	are now in danger of - at least - a heavy fine if not the
    	withdrawal of their doctor patents.
    
    	I don't know whether to pity the parents or the doctors. I *do*
    	pity the child.
    
    	Greetings, Derek.   

re:  .33  Derek
    
    	>A wonderful series of negative arguments: "There is no indication...
    	>.. that .. were not"; "It is not clear that..." "The article does
    	>not state that..." "There really isn't enough information..."

Wonderful?  No, but from my of reading what you wrote, a lot of things were
not mentioned that needed pointing out.
    
    	>To be positive: The doctors clearly stated that, without a blood
    	>transfusion, the child would die. It did. They were right.


Yes, unfortunatly, in *this case* they were.  But in many, many other cases
the doctors have been wrong concerning the life saving value of a blood trans-
fusion.

 
        >                                                           As you
    	>- probably - very well know, no doctor in the world would say: "If
    	>you give a transfusion, the child will live."

Obviously, there is good reason for that.

    
    	>>There is no indication that the parents were not seeking the
    	>>best possible care for their child.
    
    	>Consider the possibility that, had they done so, there might have
    	>been an indication.

Consider the fact that what you relate in your next statement, there were
quite a few things not indicated in the article.  Maybe the person who wrote
the original article was a little biased?

    
    	>Alternative treatments were, indeed, considered and, in fact
    	>applied (including a well tried treatment from the USA). They
    	>failed!

As have countless cases of blood transfusions.


        >        Great effort on the part of the doctors was spent in
    	>trying to persuade the parents that the only treatment which
    	>offered hope was the blood transfusion.  It is nowhere noted,
    	>but it seems unlikely that, knowing the parents position on the
    	>use of blood, they would have offered a blood-based alternative
    	>if any other kind of artificial blood exists.

I can't see any reason why a *non-blood* treatment would be refused, but I cer-
tainly can't speak for the parents' own concience on the matter.  Maybe the doc-
tors convinced them that the only hope was a blood transfusion, which was some-
thing they couldn't approve.

    
    	>One thing the doctors could - should(?) have done was to get
    	>an injunction against the parents and gone ahead desopit them.
    	>You will probably say that they were right not to do so. They
    	>are now in danger of - at least - a heavy fine if not the
    	>withdrawal of their doctor patents.
    
That also could have backfired if the child had a transfusion and then died.
I don't really think that there is really a danger of the heavy fine or the
withdrawl of licenses.  After all, the parents have the primary responsibility
for seeing to the proper care and upbringing of their children.  The doctors
gave their opinions on medical treatment and their *only* solution was not
acceptable to the parents.  


    	>I don't know whether to pity the parents or the doctors. I *do*
    	>pity the child.
    
The loss of the child is absolutely tragic, and I know the doctors feel that
loss.  But I don't know of anybody who would be feeling worse right now than
the parents. 	


Steve
                                 

    Eric,
    
    First, thanks you for expressing your feelings or sympathisation
    the way try to live according the the thruth of the Sacred
    Scriptures. Hereby I will invite you to visit one of our congre-
    gations in your neighborhood, just to see that what we preach 
    we also try to practice it.The congregations are called: "Kingdom Hall
    of Jehovah's Witnesses" Just try and when you are there, ask in
    more detail what I will try to answer you to Reply.29.
    
    B.T.W: Our goal concerned preaching is:
    At last give all people who wants to know more about the bible, a
    free and (in our sparetime) deep insight BIBLE-STUDY.
    
    
    Answers on Your Questions:
    ==========================
    
    Many Christian religions make on certain level use of the Sacred 
    Scripture.But do they teach and practise really what's in the
    bible? 
    Think about the next items:
    1> Most, nearly all bible translations in the past (after the
    dead of the last discipels in time of the early christians)
    up till now, the translators removed the name of God on 1000's
    of places where it should be in there.
    2> The teaching of trinity, yes the whole Goddefinition, hell
    Christmas and so on, were developped from pagan religions after
    that the Sacred bible was already there (the canon was already
    written and sealed).
    3>their believe in immortality of human soul as a gateway for
    live after dead. Remember, all pagan religions has their roots
    in the old Babylon,"The ancient Empire of Science and Religion".
    All those teachings are not biblical.
    4>The theme of Christ's teaching was "Gods Kingdom (2Peter 3:13 and
    daniel 2:44 ). And he sent his apostles and later all his disciples
    (they were 70 in total at that time)  2 by 2 to preach the kingdom
    of his father.And talk to people, the same way J.W's does in these
    last days of this old world.
    But the churches after the first century up till now didn't follow
    this, and the religious leaders didn't and still do not talk about
    this kingdom , and do not bother about preaching the good news of
    God's coming kingdom.  See for your refrence Matthew 24:14
    5> Christ says that his disciples were easy to be recognized on
    the base of their selfsacrificed love for each other.
    Question: Is that the case ,up till these days, with all Christian
    religions when wars break out between nations who called themself
    Christians?
    Answer: look for instance ; first world war --Christians fought against
    Christians.
    Second world war,the same thing happened, Alied forces (Catholics,
    Protestants) came to Europe to fight against German (Catholics,
    and Protestants). Millions of deads and in the name of religion.
    6> The bible says Christ's discipels are not part of this old world.
    and tell us :Who is a friend of this world ,make himself to an
    enemy of God. And see: All churches and their religious leaders
    are close involved with politics. See for your Reference: James 4:4
    Question: Is it possible with such a message to love and practise
    biblical thruth?
    
    
    
    Do J.W's believe that their religion is the only and right one?
    ===============================================================
    
    Scripture speak frequently about close and related Christian teaching
    as " The Thruth " And real Christianity is called "The way of Thruth".
    See for better understanding and your reference Scripture verses:
                 1Tim 3:15 ; 2John 1 ; 2Peter 2:2 ;
    
    Because J.W's based all their believe, Organisational procedures on
    the bible and see the bible as God's word ,this gives them the
    fulness that they realy possess the thruth and no one else.
    
    
    For J.W's , the church as a guidance in these days to explain 
    Scripture to seekers of the thruth is: The Servant.
    See for you reference : Matthew 24:45
    
    Eric , I hope this will satified your curiosity.
    
    
    Have a nice weekend  ,  Alex
                          

    reply to: .33
    
    Derek, I new you weren't negative before in respect to Scripture
    but, beause of your background (non-Christian) it can happen and 
    happens a lot that people start to criticise the bible due to
    human theories.
    
    From: not eating blood  To: intraveneously taking blood is
    not interpretation but: common sense or better:" logic thinking".
    
    This was in some way interpretive but, what I meant with 
    "interpretive" was:
    
    That due to interpretation of Scripture the next did Cristalyze
    
    1> One God in three persons.
    2> Hell is a place where bad people will be punished forever
       in a burning fire.
       And all good people goes to heaven.
    3> There were 3 kings around the baby in Betlehem when Christ was
       born in a stable.
    4> Satan the Devil is a goatlike man with horns
       and so on.
    
    Those are interpretation and not biblical.
    
    
     
    About the incident itself:
    ==========================
    
    First, where did you get this information from?
    
     >One thing the doctor could - should(?) have done was to get
     >an injunction against the parents and gone ahead desopit them.
     >You will probably say that they were right not to do so. They
     >are now in danger of - at least - a heavy fine if not the 
     >withdrawal of their doctor patents.
    
    
     Let me show you how Jw's in conjunction with the medical
     authority works.:
    
    1> before some-one of J.W's undergo a treatment without blood
       in this case: parents and doctors have to fill in official
       forms to guarantee the doctors free from prosecution
       or withdrawal.
       I can assure you this is heavy stuff.
    
    2> As J.W's cary a special badge (called bloodcard) and
       this is officialy, juridically authorative by hospitals.
       
    3> There is a special committee of learned J.W's who have
       close contact with the medical world everywhere.
       The same is true for other disciplines where there can
       cause any trouble concerned our believe.
    
    Like Steven already said in reply.34 , The parents are the one 
    who suffered most right now but;
    
    Suffering will be backed up by the intense believe of the parents 
    that , one day  (in the very near future) they will see the baby
    again right here on earth. 
    
    Difficult to understand ,just like you noted in your first note about
    the spokesman who was one of the Jehovah's witnesses.
    
    Well Derek,     Have a nice weekend           Alex

    	Hi Alex:
    
    	Your replies are very full and I appreciate that. I also believe
    	that you are sincere when you explained that taking blood intra-
    	veneously is "logical" rather than interpretive. We must agree
    	to differ on this point.
    
    	The examples you quoted were partly interpretative, and partly
    	simply poor logic: (the "3 kings" tradition, for example, arose from
    	the (il)logical assumption that each visitor bore one gift only and
    	that it was the only example of that specific gift).
    
    	>First, where did you get this information from?
    
    	From the media. I did not speak with the parents, the doctors in-
    	volved nor with anyone directly related to the case.
    
    	However, your "official form to guarantee the doctors free from
    	prosecution or withdrawal" does not exist in that form in Austria.
    	Austrian physicians are subject to Austrian law (which makes a
    	good attempt to conform with the Hippocratic Oath sworn by all
    	medical graduates).  There is no form which indemnifies a doctor
    	or his staff from *witholding* treatment: only one which
    	specifically *permits* certain forms of treatment.  You will agree
    	that, between these two is a world of difference. 
    	
        I asked a doctor friend of mine a few evenings ago what he would
    	do. He said, without hesitation, that he would give blood.  He
    	told a story of a colleague who was operating a JW, the victim of
    	a car accident. At some time during the operation, the surgeon
    	- who had tried to work without extra blood - decided that it was
    	necessary and ordered it to be given.  A nurse reminded him of
    	the JW status of the patient but he went ahead. The man lived.
    	My friend does not know if the patient sued, but certainly the
    	doctor did not lose his job.  This danger is, in the present case,
    	very real.
    
    	As a matter of interest:  You have mentioned a couple of times
    	that the world will end very soon.  I've heard a lot of this kind
    	of talk lately, not only from JW's. It does not surprise me that
    	much because we are coming to the end of the 20th century and
    	that kind of fatalistic drum-thumping is to be expected amongst
    	the superstitious of this world.  But I always understood that
    	JW was a religion, not a superstition (in fact, you've confirmed
    	this in your replies in this string).  What's the difference
    	between your "end" and their "end"?  When will it come?
    
    	Greetings, Derek.
    
    	

In article <724.35-930917-032612@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, [email protected] writes:

>     First, thanks you for expressing your feelings or sympathisation
>     the way try to live according the the thruth of the Sacred
>     Scriptures. Hereby I will invite you to visit one of our congre-
>     gations in your neighborhood, just to see that what we preach 
>     we also try to practice it.The congregations are called: "Kingdom Hall
>     of Jehovah's Witnesses" Just try and when you are there, ask in
>     more detail what I will try to answer you to Reply.29.

I appreciate your invitation.  Unfortunately I'll have to decline; I imagine
that you do not attend the worship services of other non-JW churches for
similar reasons.

>     1> Most, nearly all bible translations in the past (after the
>     dead of the last discipels in time of the early christians)
>     up till now, the translators removed the name of God on 1000's
>     of places where it should be in there.

Actually, they didn't _remove_ it so much as they rendered it in a special
way out of respect for the name of the all-holy God, which we are not to use
in vain according to Scriptures.

The Jehovah's Witnesses also make some translational errors in their Bible,
and also omit a number of books that the early church accepted.

>     2> The teaching of trinity, yes the whole Goddefinition, hell
>     Christmas and so on, were developped from pagan religions after
>     that the Sacred bible was already there (the canon was already
>     written and sealed).

The canon of the New Testament was not sealed until early in the 5th century,
when the Pope of Rome issued an authoritative decision as to its contents.
Christians were in dispute over its contents, more or less until that time.
Books such as Revelation, James, and Hebrews were disputed; while other books
now rejected, such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, were sometimes
accepted as Scripture.

Your faith says that there is no proof that the early Christians believed that
Jesus was God before the Council of Nicea in the 4th century.  Unfortunately
this is not the truth.  I quote from St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, martyred
by the Romans in 110 A.D. (who knew St. John the Evangelist, the author of
the Book of John, who wrote that troublesome John 1:1 passage :-)): 

    St. Ignatius of Antioch, to the Ephesians, 110 A.D. 
    
    Intro: "The source of your unity and election is genuine suffering
    which you undergo by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ, our
    God."
    
    1:1 "You are imitators of God; and it was God's blood that stirred you
    up once more to do the sort of thing you do naturally and have now done
    to perfection."
    
    7:2: "There is only one physician--of flesh yet spiritual, born yet
    unbegotten, God incarnate, genuine life in the midst of death, sprung
    from Mary as well as God, first subject to suffering then beyond
    it--Jesus Christ our Lord."
    
    18:2: "For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary, in God's
    plan being sprung both from the seed of David and from the Holy
    Spirit."
    
    19:4: "Ignorance was done away with, and the ancient kingdom [of evil]
    was utterly destroyed, for God was revealing himself as a man, to bring
    newness of eternal life."
    
    To the Trallians:
    
    7:1: "Be on your guard, then, against such people. This you will do by
    not being puffed up and by keeping very close to [our] God, Jesus
    Christ, and the bishop and the apostle's precepts."
    
    To the Romans:
    
    Intro: "You have been granted light both by the will of Him who willed
    all that is, and by virtue of your bleieving in Jesus Christ, our God,
    and loving him. . . . To you, then sincerest greetings in Jesus Christ,
    our God, for you cleave to his every commandment--observing not only
    their letter but their spirit--being permanently filled with God's
    grace and purged of every stain alien to it."  (Note, this is also
    evidence for the apostolic preeminence of the See of Rome in matters of
    doctrine.)
    
    6:3: "Let me imitate the Passion of my God."  (Keep in mind that he is
    writing this on his way to martyrdom.) 
    
And other early writers:

    Athanagoras' Plea, chapter 10, circa 177 A.D.:
    
       "Let no one think it stupid for me to say that God has a Son.  For
    we do not think of God the Father or of the Son in the way of the
    poets, who weave their myths by showing that gods are no better than
    men.  But the Son of God is his Word in idea and in actuality; for by
    him and through him all things were made, the Father and the Sonbeing
    one.  And since the son is in the Father and the Father in the Son by
    the unity and power of the Spirit, the Son of God is the mind and Word
    of the Father.
    
       "But if, owing to your sharp intelligence, it occurs to you to
    inquire further what is meant by the Son, I shall briefly explain.  He
    is the first offspring of the Father.  I do not mean that he was
    created, for, since God is eternal mind, he had his Word within himself
    from the beginning, being eternally wise. . . .
    
       "Indeed we say that the Holy Spirit himself, who inspires those who
    utter prophecies, is an effluence from God, flowing from him and
    returning like a ray of the sun.  Who, then, would not be astonished to
    hear those called atheists who admit God the Father, God the Son, and
    the Holy Spirit, and who teach their unity in power and their
    distinction in rank?"

(Note the reference to the Trinity.)

    St. Irenaeus of Lyons, 3rd century, Against Heresies:
    
    I,10:1 "Now the Church . . . receive from the apostles and their
    disciples its faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one
    Christ Jesus, the son of God, who was made flesh for our salvation, and
    in the Holy Spirit, who through the prophets proclaimed the
    dispensations of God--... and his coming from the heavens in the glory
    of the Father to restore all things, and to raise up all flesh, that
    is, the whole human race, so that every knee may bow, of things in
    heaven and on earth and under the earth, to Christ Jesus our Lord and
    God and Savior and King ..."
    
Regarding Hell, the early Christians even believed that Hell was a place of
conscious torment:

The So-Called Second Letter of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (ca. A.D.
150), 17,7:

But when they see how those who have sinned and who have denied Jesus by their
words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in unquenchable
fire, the just, who have done good, and who have endured tortures and have
hated the luxuries of life, will give glory to their God, saying, "There shall
be hope for him that has served God with all his heart."

St. Justin Martyr, First Apology (ca. A.D. 148-155), 52:

"...Then He will clothe the worthy in immortality; but the wicked, clothed in
eternal sensibility, He will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil
demons."

St. Thophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus (ca. 185-191 A.D.), 1,14:

"For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit
to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries
and fornications and homosexualities and avarice and in lawless idolatries,
there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and angush: and in the end,
such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire."

Minucius Felix, Octavius (ca. 218-235), 35:3:

"Nor is there either measure or end to these torments.  That clever fire burns
the limbs and restores them, wears them away and yet sustains them.  Just as
fiery thunderbolts strike bodies but do not consume them; just as the fires of
Mount Etna and Mount Vesuvius and of burning lands everywhere blaze without
being wasted; so also that fiery punishment is fed not by consuming those who
burn, but is nourished by the unending eating away of their bodies.  That they
who do not know God are deservedly tortured for their impiety and injustice,
none but a godless man can doubt; for the crime of not knowing the Author of
all and Lord of all is not less than that of offending Him."

Tertullian, Apology, A.D. 197, 48,13:

But the godless and those who have not turned wholly to God will be punished in
fire equally unending; and they shall have from the very nature of this fire,
divine as it were, a supply of incorruptibility. 
  [14] Even the philosophers knew the difference between ordinary and secret
fire.  There is a great difference between that which serves man's needs and
that which is seen in the judgment of God, whether it casts thunderbolts from
heaven or belches from the earth through mountain peaks; for it does not
consume what it burns, but while it destroys it also repairs.  [15] Mountains
remain though they burn always; and one who is struck by lightning is preserved
so that he can no longer be consumed by fire.  This shall be a proof of the
eternal fire, and this an example of the endless judgment which feeds itself:
mountains burn and continue to exist.  What, then, of the wicked and of the
enemies of God?

Tertullian, The Soul, A.D. 208-212, 7,1.

In hell the soul of a certain man is put to grief, is punished in flames, and
suffers excruciating thirst; and it implores a drop of moisture from the finger
of a happier soul.  Do you suppose that the end of the blessed poor man and of
the miserable rich man is imaginary?  And why is the name Eleazar [Lazarus]
there if this is not an actual occurrence?  But even if it is to be regarded as
imaginary, it is still a testimony to the truth.  For if the soul had not
bodily substance, the image of a soul could not embrace the image of bodily
substance; nor would the Scriptures lie about the limbs of a body, if such did
not exist.

St. Hippolytus of Rome, Against the Greeks, ante A.D. 225, 3:

Standing before [Christ's] judgment, all of them, men, angels, and demons,
crying out in one voice, shall say: "Just is your judgment!" And the justice of
that cry will be apparent in the recompense made to each.  To those who have
done well everlasting enjoyment shall be given; while to the lovers of evil
shall be given eternal punishment.  The unquenchable and unending fire awaits
these latter, and a certain fiery worm which does not die and which does not
waste the body, but continually bursts forth from the body with unceasing pain.
No sleep will give them rest; no night will soothe them; no death will deliver
them from punishment; no appeal of interceding friends will profit them.  For
neither are the righteous any longer seen by them, nor are they themselves
worthy of remembrance."

St. Cyprian, To Demetrian, A.D. 252, 24

An ever-burning Gehenna and the punishment of being devoured by living flames
will consume the condemned; nor will there be any way in which the torments can
ever have respite or be at an end.  Souls along with their bodies will be
preserved for suffering in infinite agonies. . . . The grief at punishment will
then be without the fruit of repentance; weeping will be useless, and prayer
ineffectual.  Too late will they believe in eternal punishment, who would not
believe in eternal life.
--------

So while I respect the JW's devotion to Scripture, I must say that I believe
they interpret it wrongly and not according to the interpretation held by the
Christians of the first three centuries. Indeed the primary error of the 
Jehovah's Witnessess -- Arianism -- was conceived by a priest name Arius in 
the 4th century and caused one of the biggest disputes within Christianity.
This is the error that precipitated the Council of Nicea, who condemned
Arianism (the belief that Christ was not God but a created being).

While you view these doctrines as contrary to Scripture, there are many people
who believe that they are fully justified from Scripture alone.

>     3>their believe in immortality of human soul as a gateway for
>     live after dead. Remember, all pagan religions has their roots
>     in the old Babylon,"The ancient Empire of Science and Religion".
>     All those teachings are not biblical.

I am a Catholic, and we believe in the literal Resurrection of the dead and
the creation of a new heaven and a new earth.  We believe that we are conscious
before the Resurrection, because you see in Revelation many saints in heaven
before the Resurrection carrying the prayers of the faithful here on earth
(represented by incense) in bowls to God.  This is also why we use incense in
our worship and ask the saints in heaven for their intercession.

>     4>The theme of Christ's teaching was "Gods Kingdom (2Peter 3:13 and
>     daniel 2:44 ). And he sent his apostles and later all his disciples
>     (they were 70 in total at that time)  2 by 2 to preach the kingdom
>     of his father.And talk to people, the same way J.W's does in these
>     last days of this old world.

>     But the churches after the first century up till now didn't follow
>     this, and the religious leaders didn't and still do not talk about
>     this kingdom , and do not bother about preaching the good news of
>     God's coming kingdom.  See for your refrence Matthew 24:14

I think you need to study the church of the first three or four centuries
(and beyond) before you make this judgment that the Christian church didn't
preach the good news of the God's coming kingdom.  There is much evidence that
they did in fact preach this during that whole time, although I'm not sure
they preached it in the same way you believe it to be so.

>     5> Christ says that his disciples were easy to be recognized on
>     the base of their selfsacrificed love for each other.
>     Question: Is that the case ,up till these days, with all Christian
>     religions when wars break out between nations who called themself
>     Christians?

Christians are still sinners, and not everyone who claims to be a Christian
actually lives as one, but I think if you look at many of those whom the
Catholic Church in particular holds up as a model, you will see that they did
in fact have a self sacrificing love.  Consider St. Francis of Assisi.
But when you have a large number of Christians, their faults tend to be more
evident.  Just as the Jews did not always act like Jews, though they remained
God's chosen people, Christians have not always acted like Christians.

>     Because J.W's based all their believe, Organisational procedures on
>     the bible and see the bible as God's word ,this gives them the
>     fulness that they realy possess the thruth and no one else.

I know a lot of Christian sects that base all their belief, organization
procedures, and doctrine on the Bible, yet they disagree with one another
(and with JW's) as to the interpretation of the Bible.  How do you know that
your interpretation of the Bible is correct? This is not a matter of Scripture
not being inerrant, it's a matter of human error in interpretation.

>     Have a nice weekend  ,  Alex

You, too, Alex!

--
/===========================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer   For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment, Littleton MA   pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| NEW EMAIL ADDRESS:                they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
|   [email protected] (was [email protected])                       |
\==============================- 2 Th 2:15 -================================/

[posted by Notes-News gateway]

    RE => .37
                -< Just a snap-shot of "END OF TIMES" >-
    
    Hi Derek,
    
    >Your replies are very full and I appreciate that.
    
     Thanks a lot.
               
                     Explanation:
                     ============
    1> About the difference between "our end" of times  and "their end" of
       times .
    2> Answer to the question "when will it come?"
    
    
    First:            "Their End":
    ======
    
    A) Doomsday now moved to the turn of century is wellknown by Aquiaruis
       people.
       They ground 20th century on astrological dates 
       The end will come when, all planets are in conjunction with respect
       to earth; very large forces will act on planet earth such that it
       will be destroyed.
    B) Not really superstition but, has to do with Zoro-astrism; grounded
       on or based on an old Persian religion, with the worshipping of the
       god  =Ahura Mazda=; worshipping is still alive in these days.
    
    
    Second:
    ======
    A) then there is the Prophet named Nostradamus.
       A Jewish Frenchman;{Michele de Notredame} who lived in the first
       half of the 16th century. He took part of the biblebook Malachi
       (just before Matthew) along with astrological calculations, to
       predict a lot of outcomes and of course the totally destruction 
       of the world.
    B) Another Prophet still alive is the Korean Christ named Moon.
       Last year, I think it was around October 1993, he forcasted end
       of the world. He and his followers were all ready to mount to
       heaven.
    
       !All of them what I have read and or heared predicted totally
        destruction of the world, so destruction of the human race.
    
    Third:          "Our End"    (J.W's Bible Prophesy)
    =====
    1) Daniel Chapter 2   Prophetic book.  
       The King had a dream but, couldn't remember when he waked up.
       Daniel was the only one in the entire kingdom who could.
       Through Godly intervention, Daniel told the Nebuchadrezar
       about still 4 kingdoms to come. The King's kingdom was the 3rd one
    
    Daniel 2:44 => that's the time we are in now; "In the days of those
    Kings......."
    
    
    2) How can we be sure we arrived in the last days Daniel were telling?
    
       Read the next Chapters/verses for better understanding:
       =======================================================
    
    a) Matthew Chapter 24:1-42
       Mark    Chapter 13:1-37
       Luke    Chapter 21:1-38
       2TimothyChapter 3:1-7
    
    3)Now that we have examine the signs of the times, that we've arrived
      in the last days, let's take a look what will happen after
      tribulation.
      
      Read the next Chapters/Verses for better understanding.
      =======================================================
      
    a) Isaiah     45:11-12
       Isaiah     45:17-25
       2Peter     3:13
       Revalation 21:1-6 
    
      Derek, if you do read all chapters/verses you will come to the
      conclusion that:
    
    1>We do not believe in totally destruction of the world but, live in
      perfectly condition for all human races here on earth forever.
      BTW: That was a promise from Jehovah to Abraham.
    2>No one knows when (day and or hour) the end will come.
    
    3>Keep in mind that 1914 was the beginning of a generation, that shall
      see all these things.
      Really, we are living in a unique time, we are living in a time that
      people  do not have to die.Those are the words from a God who cannot
      lie.
    
    Derek, If you are still interested, and particulary 1914; then you need 
    bible-study right now from your local Jehovah Witnesses .  ;-)
    
    It was nice communicating with you via this conference.
    
    Thanks, Alex    
                                                                

    
    Hello Eric,
    
    I received your reply and I'm going to make a printout now to
    read it at home. It's quiet late now.
    
    Thanks Alex.
    
    
                                         

RE:                        <<< Note 724.39 by JGO::ODOR >>>
       
    
   .    B) Another Prophet still alive is the Korean Christ named Moon.
   .    Last year, I think it was around October 1993, he forcasted end
   .   of the world. He and his followers were all ready to mount to
   .    heaven.
    
    

        Moon predicted Oct of 1992, I believe, and as far as I know
        he and his followers are still with us.  Assuming he predicted
        Oct 1992, and he was wrong, that would have a lot to say about
        his credibility as a "prophet" I would think.





 .    2>No one knows when (day and or hour) the end will come.
    
  
      But hasn't the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society made several
      predictions of when the end would come?







    Jim

RE:     <<< Note 724.41 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>
    
    
    Hi, 
    
    
    You're right about the date, it was indeed October 1992.
    It can't be October 1993.Today is 20-Sep-1993.
    
    Thanks for the correction.
    
    Alex
               

    <<< Note 724.41 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>
    
    re: .41
    
    Yes, they did .
    
    They did 2 predictions as far as I know.
    
    First predictions was in the second half of 19th century.
    Watch Tower Society predicted then that 1914 was the end
    of the gentiles, and beginning of God's Kingdom with Christ
    as King. And  at the same time Satan thrown to earth.
    Rev chapter 12.
    
    Second prediction was in our century (1935) that what I already
    mentioned; The generation from 1914 will see all prophesy happened
    before the end comes.
    
    Alex.
                                                         

    See Topic 732 "Jehovah's Witnesses"
    
    Richard
    

I was re-reading Leviticus last night when I came across chapter 17
verses 10-16.

It stated pretty clearly that the ancients thought that the stuff of life
was in the blood of living things.  We now know that this concept falls
short of the whole picture.

Some cultures believe that drinking the blood of an animal will give
you the attributes of that animal; the swiftness of a deer, etc..  (Did
you ever see "Red Dawn"?)

With this in mind, it is not a great leap to suggest that not only
favorable attributes, but less than desirable qualities also become
integral to the one who takes in another's blood, thus compromising one's
own integrity.  I don't know if any of this is close to what the ancients
had in mind.  I'm just toying with ideas.

Peace,
Richard