Reasons why the Jehovah’s Witness religion is false (Despite my love for them as human beings)

[Keiw]

To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.”
14 And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen.” And the elders fell down and worshiped.

Verse 14 starts a new thought.

 

[Keiw]

such a hard heart, Keiw. woweee c'mon now. HE IS NOT A CREATURE!!! I'm surprised your bible didnt stick OTHER in there!

“Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.”
13 And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying,

“To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.”
14 And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen.” And the elders fell down and worshiped.

You assuming--(Fact= One who has a God= Jesus, does NOT get worship.

 

[PS95]

You assuming--(Fact= One who has a God= Jesus, does NOT get worship.

Are you for REAL? hahaha
Heb 1:10
look just pray about it.
i dont enjoy arguing abt this especially with Jws- same verses over and over no matter what i show you. its like OCD or something? Goes nowhere.

 

[Berean]

All who serve God put him-FIRST, over self, over family. Ones own family members had to participate in the stoning in the OT.
There is a case shown in the OT where God told Israels armies not to take a single thing of spoils from that war, Yet one soldier took silver or gold and buried it under his tent. Because the wife and children did not turn him in, God commanded him and all of his family be put to death.
Its hard enough now shunning ones own family members. It crushes those hearts to have to do that. But Jesus was clear--Even family members can become an enemy( spiritually) Matt 10:36) And the NT teaches Do not even eat a meal with one who was called brother( baptized) if they become unrepentant.1Cor 5:9-13

You didn't answer my question.

If God hadn't changed stoning to disfellowshipping, would the Society promote stoning in the congregation today?

 

[Berean]

such a hard heart, Keiw. woweee c'mon now. HE IS NOT A CREATURE!!! I'm surprised your bible didnt stick OTHER in there!

“Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.”
13 And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying,

“To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.”
14 And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen.” And the elders fell down and worshiped.

The NWT renders it this way:

13. And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, saying: “To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.” 14 The four living creatures were saying: “Amen!” and the elders fell down and worshipped.

 

[PS95]

The NWT renders it this way:

11 And I saw, and I heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, 12 and they were saying with a loud voice: “The Lamb who was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.”

- it sounds so dull.
But I'm confused as to why you gave v 11 & 12. I was quoting 13 &14 too

3 And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying,

“To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.”
14 And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen.” And the elders fell down and worshiped.

 

[Berean]

- it sounds so dull.
But I'm confused as to why you gave v 11 & 12. I was quoting 13 &14 too

3 And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying,

“To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.”
14 And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen.” And the elders fell down and worshiped.

My bad ... all fixed

 

[Keiw]

Are you for REAL? hahaha
Heb 1:10
look just pray about it.
i dont enjoy arguing abt this especially with Jws- same verses over and over no matter what i show you. its like OCD or something? Goes nowhere.

Yes as Gods master worker( Prov 8:30)= the one who was beside God during the creation. Col 1:16--By( as Gods master worker) through and for is 100% another did the creating. Bible facts= Gen 1:27--HE created--not we,,Prov 8:27-28= HE created--not we,, Isaiah 40:26= HE created--not we. = bible truth.

 

[Keiw]

You didn't answer my question.

If God hadn't changed stoning to disfellowshipping, would the Society promote stoning in the congregation today?

They would have to.

 

[ElieG12]

You assuming--(Fact= One who has a God= Jesus, does NOT get worship.

You're continuing to feed the trolls, brother.

 

[Keiw]

You're continuing to feed the trolls, brother.

Lives are on the line, i hate giving up. Plus others read posts that do not reply.

 

[ElieG12]

Lives are on the line, i hate giving up. Plus others read posts that do not reply.

That is a trap, brother. They are making you loose your time.
But it is your choice, my brother. I am not trying to force you do anything.

 

[Berean]

They would have to.

And you would stone your spouse, son, or daughter because they no longer serve your God?

Tell me how would that work with the law? You guys have been sued left and right for disfellowshipping and shunning members. How do you think the government would feel about stoning people to death? Murder is against the law. Even sharia law is against the law in the USA.

 

[Keiw]

And you would stone your spouse, son, or daughter because they no longer serve your God?

Tell me how would that work with the law? You guys have been sued left and right for disfellowshipping and shunning members. How do you think the government would feel about stoning people to death? Murder is against the law. Even sharia law is against the law in the USA.

Gods will is FIRST always--Your if carries a value of 0. In the OT Gods law was stoning to death of the unrepentant. The Israelite leaders had some apostles stoned to death in the NT as well. Will you say no to God? Then you will lose.

 

[PS95]

Gods will is FIRST always--Your if carries a value of 0. In the OT Gods law was stoning to death of the unrepentant. The Israelite leaders had some apostles stoned to death in the NT as well. Will you say no to God? Then you will lose.

This is a really good example of why it so important to know Him.
If you think that God wanted you to throw men out and shun them because they had a beard, then you don't know God.
Then your crazy god changed his mind and said beards are a go!? Heck with the men we tossed!

KEIW- THAT'S NOT GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! beards WERE NEVER WRONG. NOT TO GOD!

Just to the watchtower men. Pharisees cleaning the outside of the cup!

Good grief this mind control is utterly flippin insane!

 

[Marymog]

I am showing you the error of your religion proving it false. All trinity religions are false. Catholicism created God into a trinity at their councils, its undeniable recorded history.

Huh????????? We are talking about your bizarre theory (what your false teachers have taught you) that Jesus hair is depticted as to long in CATHOLIC art and you leaving out the FACT that Protestants portray him the same way because you just want to make it look like it's a CATHOLIC thing because of your anti-Catholic bias. That's what you Protestants do all the time.

NOW you wanna talk about the lie your false teachers have told you that there is no Trinity? How about if we stick to the hair thing since for some bizarre reason we are not allowed to discuss the 3 entities CLEARLY listed individually in Scripture; Father, Son and Holy Spirit (the Helper).

According to your research, how long was ancient Jews hair allowed to be? PLEASE stick to the subject so we don't get in trouble by the word police on this forum.

Curious Mary

 

[hies]

Gods will is FIRST always--Your if carries a value of 0. In the OT Gods law was stoning to death of the unrepentant. The Israelite leaders had some apostles stoned to death in the NT as well. Will you say no to God? Then you will lose.

Are the prohibitions on blood transfusions God's will, or the Watchtower's?

The numbers the Watchtower uses to show complications that arise from blood transfusions is seriously outdated. Their latest source is from the 1980s. The medicine has improved significantly since then. But I would definitely argue that getting a few complications, like fevers or chills (which is now closer to 1 in 100) is a lot better than death. In an independent study that included 125 JWs who all refused transfusion, and they had reached the point where a doctor would normally insist on a transfusion, over 60% of them died. So, 3 in 5 died unnecessarily. Compared to 1 in 100 who get complications like a fever or chills, and 1 in 362,000 that potentially died as a result of the transfusion. It's pretty evident that getting a transfusion is astronomically better than not getting one. But the Watchtower spreads misinformation to make it seem like the opposite is true.

From the article “Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood – Tens of Thousands Dead in Hidden Tragedy”, using government sources, we can see that at least 46,544 JWs have died between 1961-2016 as a direct result of the Watchtower's blood policy. You can search the title on Google, but here is an excerpt from the article:

Staggering as these numbers are, it is a conservative estimate of the loss of life. As noted above, Dr. Muramoto rounded down the actual increase in mortality from 1.4% to 1%. If we use the 1.4% mortality rate (the actual conclusion reached by Kitchens) this results in casualties that are 40% higher: 1708 deaths caused by Watchtower’s blood policy in 2016, and a total of 46,544 deaths between 1961-2016.

Marvin Shilmer notes that the New Zealand study draws from the records of four hospitals in the more densely populated Northern and midland regions which contain 57% of the country’s population. New Zealand has more than eighty hospitals in less densely populated regions that account for approximately 43% of the county’s population, and they are similarly equipped. If the mortality rate is appropriately prorated for 57% of the nation’s population, it results in an increase of the annual mortality factor to .00026, and the extrapolation indicates 2,114 deaths caused by Watchtower’s blood policy in 2016, and 57,626 deaths between 1961-2016.

That's 2-3 PER DAY dying as a result of this blood policy.

However, the prohibitions against blood transfusions are:

• Scripturally Inaccurate - Most Christian religions recognise that there is no scriptural prohibition on Christians transfusing blood.
• Inconsistent - The Watchtower states God's standard is that blood must not be stored, yet allows Jehovah's Witnesses to use blood fractions derived from stored blood.
• A Double Standard - Jehovah's Witnesses use significant quantities of medical products derived from blood, but are forbidden from donating blood.

What’s more, the Jews take the law far more seriously than JWs, and they have no problem with blood transfusions. Many of them actually donate blood. These are the same people who won't even eat cheeseburgers to not even risk breaking Exodus 23:19; do not cook a calf in its mother's milk. This is because they know that blood transfusions for the purpose of saving a life are totally different to eating or drinking blood in an animal you've just killed.

But how is the Watchtower blood policy unbiblical?

• The Rabbinic principle of Pikuach Nefesh (appealed to by Jesus at Matthew 12:11) dictates that the Law be superseded if it would result in loss of life
• The Bible refers to eating blood from animals killed for food, not blood transfusions that do not result in the death of the donor.
• Paul showed that the prohibitions at Acts 15 were only binding when it would result in stumbling (See 1 Corinthians 8)

Watchtower claims the command to refrain from blood originated with Noah.

"God imposed this one restriction. They were not to consume blood. (Genesis 9:3,4)" - Watchtower 2008 Oct 1 p.31

Genesis 9:4 does not discuss eating blood, rather Noah was told:

"Only flesh with its soul - its blood - YOU must not eat."

This command is about respect for animal life during the ritual of slaughter. This does not state that blood could not be eaten. In its strict Hebrew wording, it means that an animal should not have flesh torn off it for food, whilst the animal is still alive. In general, it is understood to mean that out of respect for the life of an animal, it was to be bled when being killed for food; a command against eating things strangled.

The Watchtower uses this as a key scripture to show that blood transfusions must not be used, attempting to apply it to the consumption of human blood. Neither point is made in this Scripture.

However, the Watchtower originally recognised that Genesis 9:4 did not apply to eating blood, as shown in the following article that attempted to prove that vaccinations were wrong.

"All reasonable minds must conclude that it was not the eating of the blood that God objected to, but it was bringing the blood of the beast in contact with the blood of man." Golden Age 1931 Feb 4 p.294 - WATCHTOWER SOURCE (do CTRL+F and search for "all reasonable minds")

Showing that the Law to Noah was related to the act of killing an animal, rather than the blood itself, Deuteronomy 14:21 allowed Israelites to sell un-bled animals found dead as food for "alien residents" and "foreigners." This is because the alien resident was bound by Noahide Law, but not Mosaic Law.

In order to use blood fractions, you need to use significantly more stored blood to begin with (9-10x the amount). The Watchtower is against donating and storing blood too, so this is a double standard. So, why are blood fractions allowed if it depends upon significantly more donated blood, and donating and storing blood isn't allowed? If blood must be poured on the ground, where are the blood fractions they use derived from? If abstaining from blood does not allow taking a "major" fraction, why does it allow a fraction of a fraction? If blood fractions were always acceptable to Jehovah, who is responsible for the Witnesses that needlessly died refusing them, due to Watchtower policy forbidding them prior to the year 2000?

And why did they change their minds on vaccinations? Because they couldn't afford the legal costs! From Watchtower, December 15th, 1952, page 764, they said:

The matter of vaccination is one for the individual that has to face it to decide for himself. Each individual has to take the consequences for whatever position and action he takes toward a case of compulsory vaccination, doing so according to his own conscience and his appreciation of what is for good health and the interests of advancing God’s work. And our Society cannot afford to be drawn into the affair legally or take the responsibility for the way the case turns out.

But remember, this was after they'd said vaccinations were a devilish practice... From Golden Age, 1921, October 12th, page 17:

Vaccination never prevented anything and never will, and is the most barbarous practice of an otherwise civilized nation.... We are in the last days; and the devil is slowly losing his hold, making a strenuous effort meanwhile to do all the damage he can, and to his credit can such evils be placed.... Use your rights as American citizens to forever abolish the devilish practice of vaccination

They kept this belief for 10-20 years, saying it goes against the everlasting covenant that God had made with Noah after the flood, and only changed their minds because they couldn't afford the legal costs. They changed their minds on this "devilish practice" because of money!

So, you're supposed to refuse blood transfusions to the point of death, but they're allowed to change their beliefs on things based on legal costs!

Here's a lot more information on this. At least read the first article:

1. Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower's changing stance on blood transfusions
2. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood – Tens of Thousands Dead in Hidden Tragedy
3. Blood Transfusions: Facts, Fictions and Fractions - Refuting The Watchtower

 

[Keiw]

This is a really good example of why it so important to know Him.
If you think that God wanted you to throw men out and shun them because they had a beard, then you don't know God.
Then your crazy god changed his mind and said beards are a go!? Heck with the men we tossed!

KEIW- THAT'S NOT GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! beards WERE NEVER WRONG. NOT TO GOD!

Just to the watchtower men. Pharisees cleaning the outside of the cup!

Good grief this mind control is utterly flippin insane!

They could have remained standing. A beard is no big deal. JW,s were allowed to smoke until 1970 or so--given 6 months to stop or be disfellowshipped. Here is why=Prior to the murderers called cigarette corporations who then added poisons that kill to the tobacco so it became much more addicting by rushing the nicotine to ones brain quicker, it was ok to smoke, but God warned his prior to them doing that as a protection.
Christmas was celebrated for many years as well Worship was given to Jesus for years as well. But at the proper time= when God wills truth known it becomes known via holy spirit through his governing body. Then correction is made. Same with beards. It does root the fakes out. God knows exactly what he is doing and why.

 

[Keiw]

Huh????????? We are talking about your bizarre theory (what your false teachers have taught you) that Jesus hair is depticted as to long in CATHOLIC art and you leaving out the FACT that Protestants portray him the same way because you just want to make it look like it's a CATHOLIC thing because of your anti-Catholic bias. That's what you Protestants do all the time.

NOW you wanna talk about the lie your false teachers have told you that there is no Trinity? How about if we stick to the hair thing since for some bizarre reason we are not allowed to discuss the 3 entities CLEARLY listed individually in Scripture; Father, Son and Holy Spirit (the Helper).

According to your research, how long was ancient Jews hair allowed to be? PLEASE stick to the subject so we don't get in trouble by the word police on this forum.

Curious Mary

Not long like in the fake pictures of Jesus being shown bringing dishonor to his Fathers name by those in darkness.

 

[Keiw]

Are the prohibitions on blood transfusions God's will, or the Watchtower's?

The numbers the Watchtower uses to show complications that arise from blood transfusions is seriously outdated. Their latest source is from the 1980s. The medicine has improved significantly since then. But I would definitely argue that getting a few complications, like fevers or chills (which is now closer to 1 in 100) is a lot better than death. In an independent study that included 125 JWs who all refused transfusion, and they had reached the point where a doctor would normally insist on a transfusion, over 60% of them died. So, 3 in 5 died unnecessarily. Compared to 1 in 100 who get complications like a fever or chills, and 1 in 362,000 that potentially died as a result of the transfusion. It's pretty evident that getting a transfusion is astronomically better than not getting one. But the Watchtower spreads misinformation to make it seem like the opposite is true.

From the article “Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood – Tens of Thousands Dead in Hidden Tragedy”, using government sources, we can see that at least 46,544 JWs have died between 1961-2016 as a direct result of the Watchtower's blood policy. You can search the title on Google, but here is an excerpt from the article:



That's 2-3 PER DAY dying as a result of this blood policy.

However, the prohibitions against blood transfusions are:

• Scripturally Inaccurate - Most Christian religions recognise that there is no scriptural prohibition on Christians transfusing blood.
• Inconsistent - The Watchtower states God's standard is that blood must not be stored, yet allows Jehovah's Witnesses to use blood fractions derived from stored blood.
• A Double Standard - Jehovah's Witnesses use significant quantities of medical products derived from blood, but are forbidden from donating blood.

What’s more, the Jews take the law far more seriously than JWs, and they have no problem with blood transfusions. Many of them actually donate blood. These are the same people who won't even eat cheeseburgers to not even risk breaking Exodus 23:19; do not cook a calf in its mother's milk. This is because they know that blood transfusions for the purpose of saving a life are totally different to eating or drinking blood in an animal you've just killed.

But how is the Watchtower blood policy unbiblical?

• The Rabbinic principle of Pikuach Nefesh (appealed to by Jesus at Matthew 12:11) dictates that the Law be superseded if it would result in loss of life
• The Bible refers to eating blood from animals killed for food, not blood transfusions that do not result in the death of the donor.
• Paul showed that the prohibitions at Acts 15 were only binding when it would result in stumbling (See 1 Corinthians 8)

Watchtower claims the command to refrain from blood originated with Noah.

"God imposed this one restriction. They were not to consume blood. (Genesis 9:3,4)" - Watchtower 2008 Oct 1 p.31

Genesis 9:4 does not discuss eating blood, rather Noah was told:

"Only flesh with its soul - its blood - YOU must not eat."

This command is about respect for animal life during the ritual of slaughter. This does not state that blood could not be eaten. In its strict Hebrew wording, it means that an animal should not have flesh torn off it for food, whilst the animal is still alive. In general, it is understood to mean that out of respect for the life of an animal, it was to be bled when being killed for food; a command against eating things strangled.

The Watchtower uses this as a key scripture to show that blood transfusions must not be used, attempting to apply it to the consumption of human blood. Neither point is made in this Scripture.

However, the Watchtower originally recognised that Genesis 9:4 did not apply to eating blood, as shown in the following article that attempted to prove that vaccinations were wrong.

"All reasonable minds must conclude that it was not the eating of the blood that God objected to, but it was bringing the blood of the beast in contact with the blood of man." Golden Age 1931 Feb 4 p.294 - WATCHTOWER SOURCE (do CTRL+F and search for "all reasonable minds")

Showing that the Law to Noah was related to the act of killing an animal, rather than the blood itself, Deuteronomy 14:21 allowed Israelites to sell un-bled animals found dead as food for "alien residents" and "foreigners." This is because the alien resident was bound by Noahide Law, but not Mosaic Law.

In order to use blood fractions, you need to use significantly more stored blood to begin with (9-10x the amount). The Watchtower is against donating and storing blood too, so this is a double standard. So, why are blood fractions allowed if it depends upon significantly more donated blood, and donating and storing blood isn't allowed? If blood must be poured on the ground, where are the blood fractions they use derived from? If abstaining from blood does not allow taking a "major" fraction, why does it allow a fraction of a fraction? If blood fractions were always acceptable to Jehovah, who is responsible for the Witnesses that needlessly died refusing them, due to Watchtower policy forbidding them prior to the year 2000?

And why did they change their minds on vaccinations? Because they couldn't afford the legal costs! From Watchtower, December 15th, 1952, page 764, they said:

But remember, this was after they'd said vaccinations were a devilish practice... From Golden Age, 1921, October 12th, page 17:

They kept this belief for 10-20 years, saying it goes against the everlasting covenant that God had made with Noah after the flood, and only changed their minds because they couldn't afford the legal costs. They changed their minds on this "devilish practice" because of money!

So, you're supposed to refuse blood transfusions to the point of death, but they're allowed to change their beliefs on things based on legal costs!

Here's a lot more information on this. At least read the first article:

1. Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watchtower's changing stance on blood transfusions
2. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Blood – Tens of Thousands Dead in Hidden Tragedy
3. Blood Transfusions: Facts, Fictions and Fractions - Refuting The Watchtower

Not a mortal alive can prove--Abstain from blood doesn't include transfusions. They only evidence in the bible is that God rejects one putting blood into their bodies by the eating of it. So one must ask Why would God want one putting blood into their bodies by transfusing it?