who and what are they? All i know is a friend of mine answers the door naked to scare them off. (accidentally answered the door naked when his family was there )
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
We have a couple JW here sid. Though it seems like the three I know of aren't active posters anymore.
Seems like your first post could be more respectful, with that in mind.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I know some and they are very sincere and well-meaning. The door-to-door thing is because it is a huge mitzvah in their faith to make sure that they "witness" to others, therefore saving as many souls as possible from eternal damnation. Not too shabby a goal, really.
I refuse to be proselytized to, however, so I politely explain that as an Observant Jew, I believe that G'd has made a covenant with the Jewish People, and that we are trying to keep our end of it, and that we trust that He is keeping His end of it.
I also tell them that any house that they go to that has a Mezuzah on the doorframe has Jews living inside, and if they have the Mezuzah up, it is a fair indication that they are not appropriate subjects for conversion.
So, keep your shirt on! (and your pants, too)
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Actually, Tante, my parents are Catholic, and have a Mezuzah on the doorframe. My mother really identifies strongly with the "sons and daughters of Abraham" thing (more the daughters, I would guess). I still wouldn't view them as likely to convert to another faith, though, so I guess that reasoning holds pretty well.
But yeah, Sid, your opening question (and thread title punctuation) could be a little more respectful.
--Pop
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>if they have the Mezuzah up, it is a fair indication that they are not appropriate subjects for conversion.
This comment made me smile because it shows an utter lack of understanding of the proselyte mentality (as follows):
"Everyone who isn't a member Tribe XYZ is an appropriate subject for conversion."
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I've had a mix of experiences with Jehovah's Witnesses.
Some very bad, negative experience...and some very good, peaceful experiences.
As with many other things it depends on the person more than on the denomination.
As an LDS I'm obviously not going to be too receptive to Pastor Russell's interpretation of scripture, but there's no reason to be rude about explaining why.
Those that actually discussed with me our different beliefs impressed me.
Those that tried to Bible bash or recite anti-Mormon propaganda got the door shut.
I've had both.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Papa,
While it is not a problem for a non-Jew to have a mezuzah, it is also unusual. It is a pretty good indication that "Jews dwell here" (kind of like having a fish on the back of your car indicates "Christians on Board").
And, from the point of view of not only Jews, but also many of the Christian denominations, Jews are NOT appropriate subjects for proselytizing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
From the point of the view of the proselytizer, all people not members of XYZ are appropriate subjects. Can't hurt to ask - if they don't want to listen, they can say no.
Added: In trying to convince the proselytizers that Jews are inappropriate subjects, isn't that trying to convert them to your way of thinking? That's fine - I just thought it was funny.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>(kind of like having a fish on the back of your car indicates "Christians on Board").
So THAT'S what that means. Huh. I thought it odd that there were so many anglers all over the roads. . .
What do the little turtles mean?
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I have a Gefilte Fish on the back of my van, Morrison.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I believe the little turtles indicate Pacific Islander ancestry.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I have a Gefilte Fish on the back of my van, Morrison.
at Tante Shvester. Now if someone would just name their gym Morrison, all would be right with the world. Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: What do the little turtles mean?
If you mean the little 'Jesus Fish' with feet, that's not a turtle, it's a Fish with legs, signifying evolution.
In a nutshell, here is what Jehovah's Wintesses believe:
JW's believe that Jehovah is God, the most high of all the universe, and Jesus is his Son. Many people acknowledge this whether JW or not. Also, they believe that Jehovah will bring an end to this wicked system of things (our current state with sin and death, and Satan the Devil) and return humanity to it's original purpose, which was to live forever in a paradisaic Earth, as perfect humans worshipping the only True God, which again is Jehovah.
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: The door-to-door thing is because it is a huge mitzvah in their faith to make sure that they "witness" to others, therefore saving as many souls as possible from eternal damnation. Not too shabby a goal, really.
Actually it's a command given to people by Jesus to preach the news to the Earth. That's why they do it.
Also, they don't try to save souls from eternal damnation, because Witnesses do not believe in hell the way the rest of the world does. It would be sort of pointless to save someone from something that does not exist (to JW's I mean). What they are trying to save people 'from' is everlasting death, with no hope of a resurrection. That's not a torturous thing, or anything. It's just simple death, again with no chance of resurrection.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"from the point of view of...many of the Christian denominations, Jews are NOT appropriate subjects for proselytizing."
Nope, Jews are totally fair game for conversion. For those particular denominations, Israelites are off limits cuz "Rapture prophecy" says they must be around to be massacred at Armegeddon.
No Israel/Israelis, no Rapture. And no gloating at the Hell on Earth for those who don't believe in the "christian"Apocalypse.
[ July 05, 2005, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Actually it's a command given to people
Um, "mitzvah" means "commandment". Same thing.
quote: Also, they don't try to save souls from eternal damnation... What they are trying to save people 'from' is everlasting death, with no hope of a resurrection.
Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding, and thanks for the clarification.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre:
Jews are totally fair game for conversion. For those particualar sects, Israelites are off limits cuz "Rapture prophecy" says they hafta be around to be massacred at Armegeddon.
No Israel/Israelis, no Rapture, and no gloating at the Hell on Earth for those who don't believe in the "christian"Apocalypse.
Huh. I'm not sure how to answer this. Are you trying to offend me? Because I have tried to be nothing but respectful to everyone on this list.
Esther
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: Um, "mitzvah" means "commandment". Same thing.
Oh, sorry about that. I guess I should have looked at the context of your post.
quote:[/QB] Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding, and thanks for the clarification. [/QB]
Not at all. We're 1 for 1 I guess, lol. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
No, not meaning any offense whatsoever, Tante Shvester. Even Christans are offended by the Rapturists' belief that all nonRapturists will experience Hell on Earth.
Merely pointing out that those sects which consider conversion of Israelis to be off limits do not extend that ban to Jews living in the rest of the world. And that their support of Israel has nothing to do with good will.
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
okay sorry if my opening post was desrespectful, just that I had no idea who or what they were and I mentioned the other thing because it is the only thing I know that is kinda a semi uncommon event sometimes and because it was funny. So I'll say again sorry for being disrepectful for any JW here on the Hatrack.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
aspectre, while I'm far from an expert, I am not unfamiliar with Rapturist beliefs. (Too much late-night viewing of the local Christian TV station, among other sources.) And the distinction you are making between Jews and Israelites is not one I have seen before.
I'm far less offended by the notion that we will be "left behind" than the fact that in the movies, they NEVER dress the "rabbi" correctly. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
We are ALL Am Yisrael (the People of Israel). But not all of us live within the borders of Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel), largely because we were forceably expelled in the Diaspora . But even through centuries and centuries of wandering, the Jews have remained a distinct nation with their own laws, language and customs.
The Pope has said that Jews are not to be made targets of conversion. So have many Protestant denominations. Jews are especially touchy on the subject, because not only have we been subjected to a long history of persecution and forced conversion, which we have not forgotton, but in our more liberal and tolerant society, we see our people assimilating out of the faith and willingly converting, largely through intermarriage.
We weep. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:We weep.
Indeed.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
My father's wife and this woman I know are Jehova's Witness.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Jehovah's Witnesses, I've found, generally appreciate it if you spell the name of their faith correctly.
Just as Mormons groan when they're referred to as Mormans Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
My first exposure to Jehovah's Witnesses was in elementary school. There were two JW kids in my school and all I knew about it at the time was that they never got to do any of the "fun stuff." You know, like Halloween and sex ed. Now that I think about it, I don't really know if their opting out of participation was common with all JW or if it was just their parents' choice.
My apologies if I'm wrong about this, as I only have it on hearsay, but is JW the religion that says that there's a specific number (like 300,000?) of people that will get into heaven? And aren't there already well more members of their religion than that? Guess the rest of us should have converted sooner, and beat the rush.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I have a Gefilte Fish on the back of my van, Morrison.
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic: My apologies if I'm wrong about this, as I only have it on hearsay, but is JW the religion that says that there's a specific number (like 300,000?) of people that will get into heaven? And aren't there already well more members of their religion than that? Guess the rest of us should have converted sooner, and beat the rush.
--Enigmatic
It's 144,000. The rest will live in a Paradisaic Earth without sin and death. There's no rush about it.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
When I was little I had a friend who was a Jehovah's Witness and apparently her dad said she couldn't come over to play with me because I wasn't so my mom doesn't talk to anyone who comes to the door anymore.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Try not to judge a whole group by it's worst representatives.
The Witnesses that I know are good, devout, well-meaning folk, who treat me with respect.
And if some of their beliefs don't make so much sense to me, well, who am I to throw stones? Some of my OWN beliefs don't make so much sense to me. Sometimes your faith has just got to be a matter of faith, not reason.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I've been studying with the Jehovah's Witnesses for about 18 months now. I understand most of where they are coming from, though there are usually significant assumptions on which we disagree.
They just got a new study guide, so apparently we have to start all over. It mostly comes down to a difference over how the Holy Spirit is defined and also a chain of assumptions that rest of all of Revelation being written about future events (at the time it was written).
I have been wondering if it's worthwhile to try and let them know I really don't agree with them (I haven't had too much problem doing this in the past, but they are really stuck on Jesus' reign -not the second coming- having commenced in 1914) or if I should just keep visiting with them until I move out of state. I mean, I kind of consider them friends except that we only ever talk about their interpretation of the Bible. I guess it's at least as valid as my 12 step friendships.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Trisha, you're moving?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>but in our more liberal and tolerant society
Wait-- are you saying that orthodox Jews are more liberal and tolerant than the rest of society, or are you saying that because society is so liberal and tolerant, Jews are leaving orthodoxy for marriage to non-Jews?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
quote:Just as Mormons groan when they're referred to as Mormans
When I read that, I thought "More-man," in which case I'm completely cool with that. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >>but in our more liberal and tolerant society
Wait-- are you saying that orthodox Jews are more liberal and tolerant than the rest of society, or are you saying that because society is so liberal and tolerant, Jews are leaving orthodoxy for marriage to non-Jews?
I hesitate to speak for someone else, but I'm fairly certain she meant the latter. (I do, when I make similar statements.)
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
quote:Originally posted by mothertree: They just got a new study guide, so apparently we have to start all over. It mostly comes down to a difference over how the Holy Spirit is defined and also a chain of assumptions that rest of all of Revelation being written about future events (at the time it was written).
I have been wondering if it's worthwhile to try and let them know I really don't agree with them (I haven't had too much problem doing this in the past, but they are really stuck on Jesus' reign -not the second coming- having commenced in 1914) or if I should just keep visiting with them until I move out of state. I mean, I kind of consider them friends except that we only ever talk about their interpretation of the Bible. I guess it's at least as valid as my 12 step friendships.
mothertree:
If you are unhappy studying with them, or completely disagree with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, you can always let them know that you are no longer interested. They aren't going to treat you like an outcast or anything. They won't be upset. It's your choice, and only yours.
I'm sure they will try to ask why you are no longer interested, mainly out of curiosity, but they aren't going to force you to keep your study going. They aren't like that. Well, at least they aren't supposed to be.
Honestly, it would be rude to just disappear, also I'm sure they would try to get you set up with another Brother or Sister once you move to your new area, so if you don't want to study anymore, it would be best to notify them.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >>but in our more liberal and tolerant society
Wait-- are you saying that orthodox Jews are more liberal and tolerant than the rest of society, or are you saying that because society is so liberal and tolerant, Jews are leaving orthodoxy for marriage to non-Jews?
I hesitate to speak for someone else, but I'm fairly certain she meant the latter. (I do, when I make similar statements.)
Yeah, what rivka said.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Punjabee or Trisha or anyone: I don't know very much about JW beliefs. The belief is that there is no hell? Then what do scriptures about hell mean to a JW?
Granted, Mormons don't believe in the literal burning in hell either, but we believe in a hell caused by our own guilt for our actions. A "natural consequence" rather than something imposed by a higher being. We tend to think, heh, guilt. That doesn't sound so bad! So the literary image of fire and brimstone is used to describe just how bad it really is. (According to my understanding of the LDS belief.)
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
Beverly:
JWs believe there is no 'hell', meaning hellfire. There's no place underground (or in another realm) where fire and brimstone abound, and the Devil torments you for eternity. In Greek, the word 'hades' referred to the common grave. As we all know 'hades' is basically another word for hell. So at this point hades=a grave for a dead body.
Also, in Hebrew texts, the word Sheol was used to refer to the common grave. So in essance, Hades=Sheol. The common grave. JWs believe that 'hell' is a common grave that everyone, both good and bad go to for a time (while dead, obviously) to await the resurrection in the New System of things. From what the bible says, the rightous will be resurrected to life, and the unrightous will be resurrected to judgement (also being alive, obviously).
So, if that made no sense, (i tend to ramble) here's a summation. The Bible does not teach Hellfire. There is no actual account of Jesus talking (or Jehovah writing/authoring/speaking) literally about a place people go to be tortured, other than in illustration. (I.E. Lazarus and the Rich man).
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Huh, is that so?
I guess I may be too used to the Book of Mormon where such terminology *is* frequently used to describe hell.
*searches scriptures*
Posted by Law Maker (Member # 5909) on :
I'm not JW or anything, but I'm pretty sure they equate Hell to death or "the grave". The unrightous just don't get resurrected while the 144,000 are resurrected and live in Heaven and the other rightous inherit the earth.
I think the Mormon belief is similar in that they believe that Hell is the "second death" or a spiritual death which takes place when a soul is seperated from God.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Similar, yet oh so different. In fact, the only way they really seem simliar to me is how different they both are from the classic Catholic or Protestant views.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
How 'bout a final Judgement? What do the JW's believe about that if only the righteous have any sort of afterlife at all?
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
Well that just it, we believe that there is no afterlife. A 'soul' is the human body, so it's not something that can be separated and wander around Heaven, Earth or any other realm. It's just your regular 90% water body.
So, the rightous DON'T have an afterlife, as the unrightous don't either. EVERYONE has a chance for resurrection to earthly life after death (Not including the 144000, as they are immediatly resurrected to heaven) The bible states that 'For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.' (Romans 6:23) That is from the King James version, just FYI.
After those who are resurrected, are resurrected.. they are given 1000 years to grow back to perfection (as Adam and Eve were originally) teaching others and making the earth suitable to live in. Once this has been accomplished, the Bible states that Satan will be released (as he was confined for this 1000 years I mentioned after armageddon) for a little while, to try to influence people again. Those that follow him at that time, will then recieve their final judgement, which is everlasting death, without hope of ever being resurrected.
It's slightly complicated, so I'm sorry if it doesn't make much sense in print. Feel free to call your local Kingdom Hall for more info, or, answer the door on Saturdays. =)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I always have a nice little discussion with the JWs, invite them in for a drink of water or juice if they look hot, and send them off with pass-along cards. We all learn something, and they get a break from slammed doors and rudeness, which can't be fun.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
So, what about the ones that aren't that attractive? Let them cook in the sun? That's so rude!
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Nope, it doesn't sound complicated to me. At least, I don't think so.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I think slamming the door in someone's face is no more rude than waking them up on a Saturday morning.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
So out of curiosity, what happens to those whose bodies are deformed or disabled, when they are resurrected?
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I never fear being rude to them, I just explain to them that according to their faith I am going to be ressurected on probation and have the chance to learn from them that they were right, and that since I have no real desire to be one of the ones in charge in heaven with God and would be happy to live on an Earth made Paradise in an immortal body I just plan to wait until that happens to get into the whole thing!
BC
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit: So out of curiosity, what happens to those whose bodies are deformed or disabled, when they are resurrected?
At that time, those with disabilities and the like will be restored. The lame will walk, the blind will see, etc.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
To add to what PUNJABEE stated regarding the resurrection:
We don't believe that the EXACT SAME bodies will be resurrected. For example, parts of many bodies have, through natural decay become parts of other living organisms, etc until it is conceivable (and statistically a certainty) that we all contain an atom or two of numerous historical personalities. So who "owns" the atom when resurrection occurs? Would it be "first come first serve"? Obviously, that question is sort of ridiculous.
Jesus once used the term "re-creation" (Matthew 19:28) and this seems appopriate in this case. Those bodies will be re-created so that they are the same as the originals, minus defects, etc.
And regarding hell, as PUNJABEE said, we believe it to be the common grave. We believe that the scriptures teach that the dead are unconcious (basically 'sleeping in death') and not suffering. (Genesis 3:19; Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,10; Psalms 146:4; John 11:11-14; Psalm 13:3; Ezekiel 18:4)
There are three terms that are usually translated hell: Sheol (Hebrew), Hades (Greek), Gehenna (Greek transliteration of the Geh Hinnom, "Valley of Hinnom"). These first two terms are also translated as 'pit' or 'grave' at times. There are no places in scripture that use "fiery" imagery in regard to Sheol and Hades (except for one place, but I will get to that in the moment.) The scriptures indicate that many people went to sheol or hades at death, including faithful Jacob, Joseph, and Job (who longed to go there to escape his suffering- something that makes no sense if sheol was a place of torment.) (Genesis 37:35; Job 14:13). Thus, we believe it to the state of death, a sleep of unconciousness or inactivity. It is from this state that people can and will be resurrected.
In contrast, The Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna) was a garbage dump just outside of Jerusalem. It was usually kept burning with sulpher or pitch and was, like any garbage dump, filled with maggots and decaying animal carcasses. Once an item was thrown over the wall in the Gehenna, it was gone, especially once it burned. Unlike most people who had burial places and tombstones, criminals' dead bodies (NOTE: dead, never alive) were thrown in the pit as well, as a fitting punishment- like throwing something away forever.
Revelation used this imagery when it used the term Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:13, 14). Interestingly, there we read that Hades (the Greek equivalent of Sheol, if one compares the use of Sheol in Psalm 16:10 to the quotation that substitutes Hades in Acts 2:31) gives up the dead in it for resurrection and judgement. And then death and Hades are both cast into the Lake of Fire. If the Lake of Fire is a literal place, then how can abstracts like death and hades be cast there (or if hades is hell, how can fiery hell be cast into fiery hell)?
We believe that Gehenna and lake of Fire are symbols for "the second death", eternal destruction or anihilation. Once a person goes into Gehenna, they are gone forever.
We do not believe that God's torturing people for all eternity with no hope of reprieve is compatible with God's (or even Man's) justice. A parent or government who acted that way would be reprehensible.
We believe Judgement Day to coincide with the Millenium under Christ. Since Romans 3:23 states that 'the wages of sin is death, and he who has died has been acquited for his sins,' then those resurrected will need no further punishment for their past sins. But in that world free will will still exist and if a person chooses not to live in harmony with the Theocracy of Christ, then they will be judged negatively. And those who do will be judged positively. This especially would apply to the billions who never had any opportunity to learn, or sufficient time to act, or whatever other reason God might have, and will then have the chance for "the real life". This will then be a judgement day for them as well.
Trish, I am not sure you will have to start over in the new book. I have asked many and so far, no one is sure if this new book replaces the Knowledge book or supplements it. And even then, if you are 1/2 to 3/4 of the way through the knowledge book, they might continue. We'll receive further clarification over the next few months.
And a side note: While Charles Russell was one of the modern founders of Jehovah's Witnesses and, we believe, was used mightily in restoring lost truths, we do not look to his writings or interpretations as the authority. We look to the Bible and when, as has happened over the last 130 years, we have found that our understanding was off, we have been willing to adjust our viewpoint, even as some first century Christians had to do.
Hope that helps.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
lanO, thanks for the excellent explainations! I understand a lot better from what you have said here. I am enjoying reading it.
Your first lists of scriptures do support your belief quite well. The latter, about what the Lake of Fire refers to, is more interpretation than strong support (seems to me.) But there isn't a lot of evidence in the Bible to refute it either. But since I believe in other books of ancient scripture which strongly refute these points, it is kinda moot for me. But I wonder what other Bible-only-believing Christians think of this?
quote:And then death and Hades are both cast into the Lake of Fire. If the Lake of Fire is a literal place, then how can abstracts like death and hades be cast there (or if hades is hell, how can fiery hell be cast into fiery hell)?
Well, this actually fits well with the LDS view, since there are in essence two different *kinds* of hell. One temporary, one eternal. Most of those in the temporary will be redeemed at some point because they will accept the gospel to some extent. (According to LDS belief, of course.)
quote:We do not believe that God's torturing people for all eternity with no hope of reprieve is compatible with God's (or even Man's) justice. A parent or government who acted that way would be reprehensible.
I have heard many atheists and agnostics complain about a God that tortures man for eternity. They wonder, why doesn't he just annihilate them? That is more compassionate. I wonder why no one brings up the JW point of view at that point. It satisfies their concern very nicely! I will bring it up in the future. Synesthesia is one who hates the idea of a punishing God. Syn, what do you think of this?
Of course, LDS scripture and doctrine teaches quite plainly that the soul of man cannot be destroyed--that it is impossible, even for God. Very different viewpoint.
quote:Since Romans 3:23 states that 'the wages of sin is death, and he who has died has been acquited for his sins,'
Huh. That's not what my Romans 3:23 says. Not even close. (King James Version)
quote:But in that world free will will still exist and if a person chooses not to live in harmony with the Theocracy of Christ, then they will be judged negatively. And those who do will be judged positively. This especially would apply to the billions who never had any opportunity to learn, or sufficient time to act, or whatever other reason God might have, and will then have the chance for "the real life". This will then be a judgement day for them as well.
Makes sense. What do you believe will happen to those who are judged negatively? Will they be annihilated as well?
So rather than Charles Russell being a scripture-writing prophet, he was enlightened by God to reveal the true meaning of what was already present in the Bible? Cool. I guess a lot of Protestant churches got their start similarly--someone inspired by God to reveal to people what the Bible really means on certain various topics.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I am such a moron.
Romans 6:23- "For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life by Christ Jesus our Lord."
and
Romans 6:7- " For he who has died has been acquitted from his sin".
As for Russell, yeah, that's pretty much it. There were some (and still are, I recently found out) who believed him to be the "faithful and wise servant" of Matthew 24:45. But we believe that the congregation of Christ's brothers as whole constitute this steward and not any one person. But Russell, Rutherford, Knorr, Franz, etc, we believe were used mightily and we greatly admire and respect these men.
Not that we think they were 'inspired' as prophets. We'd say guided or even 'fired' by spirit to an understanding that it was God's time to restore. Sometimes wrong or overly zealous in their desire to understand future events before it was time to understand. But great men all the same.
edit to add:
and yes, negative judgement means anihilation.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Out of curiosity, why do you think that there were those worthy to speak scripture in the time up to the apostles, but not after they had all died?
Also, what do you believe happens to those not of your church but who believe in Christ's atonement and are striving to live righteously and seek his forgiveness for sins?
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Er, sorry to be a pain. I meant to include something of a third category in my question, and I guess I forgot for some reason. Where do people with from-birth mental disabilities, such as Down Syndrome, fit in?
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
As I understand LDS theology and your worldview, don't you, too, believe that shortly after the apostles (and even during Paul's time) an apostasy occurred and after that time no inspired scripture was recorded? At least no mention is made of it. Thus, you believe that the Restoration occurred beginning with Joseph Smith in the 1820's.
That is our view, in harmony with Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43. There Jesus gives an illustration about how after the Master left the field was oversown with weeds so that the wheat and weeds would have to be separated in the last days. Jesus gives the interpretation himself in verses 36-43.
Our view concerning spiritual gifts, like prophesying, writing inspired scriptures or speaking in tongues was that it was a temporary thing. The Christian congregation had a great assignment- the preaching of the good news in all nations (Matthew 28:19,20). In Acts 2, the outpouring of spirit occured and one result wasspeaking in tongues. The speaking in tongues, we believe, was for a specific purpose: to preach. The many Jewish attendees even commented: "See here, all these who are speaking are Galileans, are they not? And yet how is it we are hearing, each one of us, his own language in which we were born?Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the inhabitants of Mesopotamia, and Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and the district of Asia, and Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya, which is toward Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cre´tans and Arabians, we hear them speaking in our tongues about the magnificent things of God." (Acts 2:7-10)
Many other of the gifts, like prophesying, miraculous faith/knowledge, ability to know inspired expressions, and so forth helped unite and strenghen the scattered groups and congregations, especially since communication, while common, was not particularly fast nor were writing materials cheap.
They also served to strengthen faith and prove to others that God was really with them, just as God gave Moses the power to perform a few signs to show God was with him (Exodus 4:1-5).
But we believe (and this seems to be reflected in every NT account where they are mentioned being passed on) that gifts of the spirit were passed on only in the presence of the Apostles. The Apostles, once brought back to the number 12 with the choosing of Matthias as a replacement for Judas, was a closed body. The 12 Apostles were the foundation of the congregation just as 12 specific sons of Jacob were the foundation of Israel. As they died off, beginning with John's brother James, the number shrank. Thus, in Acts 15, during the debate over circumcision, there are know the remaining Apostles and also the Jerusalem elders that function as a central Governing Body.
Paul even commented on the temporary nature of the gifts of the spirit in 1 Corinthians 12. After discussing some apparent showing off of gifts in the congregation, Paul says, "But keep zealously seeking the greater gifts. And yet I show YOU a surpassing way. If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a sounding piece of brass or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophesying and am acquainted with all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to transplant mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." (1 Corinthians 12:31-13:2)
Then he emphasizes the permanent nature of love in contrast with these gifts in verses 8-12. He speaks of "that which is complete" and when it arrives then the gifts would end. It would give all the necessary knowledge and information about the future. Thus, what was, up to that time, somewhat fuzzy and indistinct, would be clearer. Of course, we believe that which tells us what is necessary to know in this system of things is the Bible. The last inspired book was completed just before the Apostle John died in 98 AD. Thus, at that time those gifts would no longer be passed on.
And the Apostasy that was at work in Paul's day continued into the twilight years of John- Hymenaus, Philetus, Diotrophes and the Sect of Nicolaus, for examples.
FWIW.
As for what will happen to people and are striving to live righteously, frankly it's not up to us. We know God is just and that he is a reader of hearts. We also believe that he is carrying out a great preaching work to help people know him. But there have been and continue to be many people who never had a chance to hear or had some other obstacle or simply didn't believe for various reasons. Ultimately, I simply try to do my best, preach the good news, and wait and see what God will do.
People with mental disabilites, even post-birth (like drug induced problems or an accident or Downs, or anything else) would obviously need a REAL chance. We believe that God would not simply destroy them.
Hope that clarifies things.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
From previous conversations with EL, I think what she meant is whether individuals born with disabilities would be restored 'fully functional' in a Resurrection. Correct me if I'm wrong, EL, but I think her view was that if this is what happened, then it would declare that these individuals were in fact 'broken' and not 'normal', and that would demean their earthly condition.
To her, saying what we have is optimal and what they are is not demeans them as people, and that God would recognise that, so that in their Resurrection, they should be what is 'optimal' to them, even if by our standards it's considered a disability.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Ok, I can see that. But I don't necessarily agree.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:As I understand LDS theology and your worldview, don't you, too, believe that shortly after the apostles (and even during Paul's time) an apostasy occurred and after that time no inspired scripture was recorded? At least no mention is made of it. Thus, you believe that the Restoration occurred beginning with Joseph Smith in the 1820's.
This is true. But we believe that in order for the true church of Christ to be on the earth, there *must* be a mouthpiece for the Lord. And this mouthpiece is authorized to create new scripture. This does not appear to be the belief of the JWs at all.
quote:writing inspired scriptures... was a temporary thing.
And yet it has existed since the beginning of mankind, apparently. Or at least since Moses.
For the record, we believe strongly that those gifts will be manifest in God's true church.
quote:The Apostles, once brought back to the number 12 with the choosing of Matthias as a replacement for Judas, was a closed body.
Whereas we believe this is evidence of a process that was meant to continue, but couldn't, since the apostles were separated and killed.
quote:Paul even commented on the temporary nature of the gifts of the spirit
Interesting interpretation. I see it rather differently. But a lot of that is because of some *extremely* specific scripture in the Book of Mormon.
Taalcon: Yeah, that's how I read what she said too.
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
To IanO:
Hey, where are you from? I'm in Austin Texas, Forest North Congregation.
Taalcon and EL:
Well, considering that something like Down's Syndrome is in fact a birth defect, or abnormality; these kinds of maladies would also be 'fixed' for lack of a better term.
No one is saying they are less human, or less important, by any means. All humans are equally afflicted by the same major issue. Imperfection. Imperfection is what causes things like DS and other occurences, including the passing on of imperfection (and therefore sin) one's children. So even if one is born with all limbs, appendages, and a fully functional body; they are still imperfect.
In essence, we ALL need fixing. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Well, considering that something like Down's Syndrome is in fact a birth defect, or abnormality; these kinds of maladies would also be 'fixed' for lack of a better term.
Be careful, Punjabee, one man's birth defect is another man's proud trait of natural variety.
Just try telling a homosexual that they have a birth defect.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
quote:And yet it has existed since the beginning of mankind, apparently. Or at least since Moses.
Yet again, you believe that this 'constant' also disappeared for at least 1700 years (100-1830). We only stretch that by 200 to 1900 years assuming these last days don't stretch on too far. In God's new world, there will be new "scrolls" (Revelation 20:13) that will give us more information, just as the Israelites received expanded information in Deutoronomy for the promised land. And since the heaven-earth rift that began with man's rejection of God-rule will have been healed (Ephesians 1:9,10), we can speculate that communication will flow much more freely.
I'm in Farmington, NM.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Yup, we believe that every "dispensation" of mankind fell into apostacy--but that this one will not. We believe that Adam wrote scripture as well, but that we don't have it. We also believe that Abraham wrote scripture, but what is found in the Bible is through Moses. The original of that was "lost" too.
We also believe that at some future time, the coming of Christ or maybe later, we will receive a fullness of lost scripture and basically learn the truth about everything.
But we still believe that God's church won't exist in it's fullness in any dispensation without a living revelator.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
BTW, from what I've learned, I think JW beliefs are pretty cool. I've said before that if I weren't a Mormon, I'd be an agnostic. But now I think I might be a JW. Tastes better on my palete (dang, how *do* you spell that word?!) than your average brand of Christianity. Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
That's nice of you to say. I've felt the same about LDS, as it happens.
Though I'm happy to answer anyone's questions, much more information can be found at our website, www.watchtower.org. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Ah, palette. ^_^
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
No, that's wrong. I'm an idiot and spoke too soon. That's for painting. It's Palate, as in Cleft Palate.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
To clarify, I wasn't saying what I believe is EL's view was my own belief(it isn't), I was trying to explain what I believed the intent of the question was.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Huh. You know, considering I got my Bachelor's Degree in Speech-Language Pathology, you'd think I'd know how to spell palate!
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
pretty much clarified my question. It's one I always ask when I encounter a new theology, because it's personal for me, and sometimes it brings to light interesting bits and pieces that get taken for granted.
As to the answer, don't have one really, but I do lean more towards what Tall explained. It's so often assumed that people with disabilities need "fixing", but usually what's implied would remove all the joyful, spontaneous, wonderful things along with the hard, the painful, and the sad. Right now I just trust that God knows what he's doing, and that when my friends receive their glorified bodies, they will be indeed glorified without losing any of what made them who they are.
People with mental disabilities are so often overlooked in theology that I find it can be very illuminating to see how they fit in.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
actually, palate when it comes to taste.
and you know what? If there's a resurrection and there's bodies, I do NOT want to have to take pills to maintain a chemical balance for eternity. I would be very irritated.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I have a question about one of the more controversial stances that the JW's have, and I hope it's okay to ask it. I truly don't mean offense, just curious.
I don't understand the reasoning behind the no blood transfusions. I mean, I certainly know there is a prohibition against "eating of blood" in the Old Testament, but I don't understand how and why the Watchtower equates transfusions with eating. The blood that one receives in transfusion replaces that which is lost, or depleted, it's not processed by the body for it's nutrient value. Now, if it were put through an NG tube directly into the stomach, I could understand the correlation, but it's put directly into the veins.
And don't Orthodox Jews receive transfusions? And they're the ones to whom the law was given. They don't apparently see it that way.
Not only that, but the prohibition was against the eating of animal blood, and doesn't seem to apply to human blood transfusion.
I guess I'm thinking like a Mother here. Would I allow a child of mine to die because of an interpretation of scripture that no other faith shares? If I were certain it were a choice between my child's salvation and their earthly life, then certainly I would, however, I don't see in the Bible where God would damn someone for eternity for one transgression against one dietary law. Why would He not forgive the person that sin (if it were indeed a sin) like He forgives for countless other sins we commit?
And forgive me if this is disrespectful, but the Watchtower has a history of reversing itself on medical issues. It once prohibited vaccines and organ transplants too, did it not? And yet it now allows those. What if it reverses itself on the blood issue too? What would that say to the family members of the thousands of people who died because they didn't receive one?
Again, I'm not trying to be confrontational here, I respect the JW's that are willing to answer questions in this forum about their faith. I have no problem answering controversial questions about my own. I'm really seeking understanding here, because this doesn't make sense at all to me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And don't Orthodox Jews receive transfusions? And they're the ones to whom the law was given. They don't apparently see it that way.
quote:Would I allow a child of mine to die because of an interpretation of scripture that no other faith shares?
To me, it wouldn't matter what other people believe. It's whether or not I believe it is God's will. If it is, then I need to obey it, even if the whole world disagrees with me.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
mr_porteiro_head, if you look at my post, you see that I say if I were certain that my child's salvation depended on it, I would choose that too. I recognize that if you feel strongly enough something is scriptural truth, you act on it - I'm not denying that. I'm just raising questions that I have, and mentioning things that to me, would cause me to pause and think.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
My point it that if you believe that you have The Truth (TM) and that others don't, the fact that they disagree with you doesn't make you stop and reflect. It's not surprising at all.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Ah, but see I believe God means for us to test our faith, we are even told how to test to see if someone is a true prophet or not. I don't believe my faith is mindless, I believe that I'm called to love the Lord with all my heart, and all my soul, and with all my mind.
It's not a problem for me to question parts of my faith, because I know that if it is true, it will be borne out.
In that light, when my husband and I were examining whether or not our church was the right place for us any longer, I did some very long, very introspective study to be certain that the doctrine I accepted and believed was the true doctrine. I did it by comparing it to other doctrines, by reading not only scripture but also commentary written by theologians so that I could understand fully the "other side" so to speak. I prayed and asked for guidance and in the end I was confident my beliefs were correct.
What other faiths say and what other people say has value in helping us to critically examine our own faith, not to say that you believe what any man tells you, I believe true revelation can only come from God through the Holy Spirit, but there's nothing wrong with looking at what others think and holding their views up against yours and looking at them with a critical light. It's not only acceptable, I think it's a good idea. If you have the Truth then you'll know it, not just because you accept it with blind faith, but because you know it intellectually as well as spiritually.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I agree with Belle on this point. Personal interpretation (which the Bible warns against) can be VERY tricky, especially if it gets into very specific areas that one claims to be essential (or detrimental to) one's Eternal Destination. I don't think God would place a limit on one's salvation because they couldn't properly interperet vague elements of 2000+ year old texts.
Which is one (of many) intellectual points which makes me very comfortable with the idea of living prophets Interpretation doesn't play as large a role as revelation does. Faith and prayer for confirmation, certainly, but not semantics and philosophical theory and knowledge of dead cultures.
The layman should be able to make an accurate and correct decision, not only theologians.
[ July 07, 2005, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
That is a valid question, Belle, though I do agree with Porter's statement. And I appreciate the respectful way it was asked.
First of all, you must understand that, like yourself, we want to live. We love life and living. If we didn't, we wouldn't even bother taking ourselves or our children to the hospital. So then our stand on Blood is based on our firm conviction that God requires us to 'abstain from blood.'
As you said, this command does appear in the OT. It first appeared when given as an injunction to Noah and all his decendents (which would include us) in Genesis 9:3,4. This command was later reiterated to the Israelites in the Mosaic law in Leviticus 17:11,12. That text explains a bit more about why this was the case. "The soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: ‘No soul of you must eat blood and no alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst should eat blood.’" The blood was for sacrificial atonement only, as in the case of the Passover lamb's blood or the usage at the Temple, or even the validation of the law covenant (Exodus 24:5-8). "Yes, nearly all things are cleansed with blood according to the Law, and unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place" (Hebrews 9:22).
When it came time for the 1st century Christians to explain which, if any, of the Mosaic laws was to apply to them, this command was one that was reiterated. Of all the some 600 laws, this was one of the three that was decided upon by the Apostles and the Elders of Jerusalem to STILL APPLY to Christians, even when circumsion, the major sign of the covenant with Abraham was not (Acts 15). They wrote, "The holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [killed without draining their blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!"
Notice that the prohibition on blood was up there with fornication and idololatry. So for 1st century Christians it was not "simply a dietary" law that could be casually violated, anymore than idolatry or fornication.
Why was that? We believe that blood represents life, the soul, and was only to be used in sacrifice, both animal and later Jesus' blood. 'Pouring out the blood on the ground', or disposing of it properly (and thus not using it for own purposes), we believe, shows respect for God as the source of life and faith in him. Jesus, as High Priest, had already entered the "Most Holy", heaven itself, and presented his blood as an atonement for mankind (Hebrews 9:11,12; 10:1-4, 8-10). We believe that the spirit guided the Christian Governing Body of that time to this decision, especially in view of both the prohibition given in Noah's time and also an understanding of blood's role from the Mosaic law. And when this decree was sent to the congregations everywhere, it was accepted (Acts 16:4).
Now you will note that the scripture does not say animal blood. It just says blood, though most obviously this would apply to animal blood. After all, with some exceptions, animal blood was usually the only kind of blood there was a possibility of ingesting.
Usually. In Egypt, however, blood was regarded as a remedy for leprosy. In Assyria, blood was also used for treating Esar-Haddon's son. And 3rd Century Apologist Tertullian wrote about the Romans and their thoughts concerning HUMAN blood. "Consider those who with greedy thirst, at a show in the arena, take the fresh blood of wicked criminals . . . and carry it off to heal their epilepsy." And yet Tertullian wrote in contrast to the Roman usage of blood as a treatment for epilepsy, that Christians "do not even have the blood of animals at [their] meals . . . At the trials of Christians you offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that [it] is unlawful for them."
So the usage of blood (even human blood) for medicinal or lifesaving/treating purposes was not unknown, even to first century Christians. Yet the prohibition of the Apostles and Elders still stood, even when people might claim that such a prohibition was cutting them off from what could be better medical care (as crude as that care was, back then).
You ask about the difference between eating and taking in intravenously. Though you have probably heard this before, I can't do better than to answer with an illustration. If your doctor tells you that you must abstain from alcohol, would you be doing so if you simply took it in intravenously? People who are unconcious are even fed intravenously. So for us, the command to abstain means just that- abstain from taking all blood into our bodies.
Our desire is sincere and we are very happy to work with doctors and hospitals to get the best medical care. In the 80's, Hospital Liason Committees were created to facilate our relationship with medical/legal professonals. Bloodless surgical techniques have been created and there are even bloodless Hospitals, including one near you in Birmingham that my mother-in-law went to when she had colon cancer. More and more, medical personnel have expressed appreciation for our willingness to work with them, provide materials and techniques, and for showing them respect for what they do.
Much, much more information including medical documents and interviews with medical professionals on the safety of bloodless medicine can be found at our official site here:
But regarding our adjustments in regard to things like vaccines and organ transplants, well, as I said above, as we study more and more, our understanding is refined. The fact is, however, such refinements are nearly always very small and usually about one detail in the larger picture. Our stand and view on blood has been consistant from the time widespread usage of blood in medicine came into being in the 40's. As technology increased, allowing the use of blood fractions and the like, we had to figure out what was appropriate. But large-scale changes, like that of abandoning our view of blood, are unlikely. About as unlikely as our changing our belief on the Trinity.
And though you didn't ask, if a person gets a transfusion that does not automatically mean they are out. Just as with things like idolatry or fornication, if they repent and turn around, then spiritual help is given, but that's it. However, that does not allow us to be casual about it, anymore than we'd be casual about sex and simply repent afterwards.
Hope that clarifies things.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I wanted to add that I agreed with your points above concerning the need to test our faith. I absolutely do. We call it "making the truth our own" and it is something that should never end.
But at the same time, you don't disagree with Porter, really. Your beliefs on homosexuality are, you believe (and I happen to agree with you) based on the Bible and are true. And the fact that others, even persons who claim to be devout Christians like yourself, interpret things differently doesn't mean you're going to change your mind simply for that reason.
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I don't understand the reasoning behind the no blood transfusions. I mean, I certainly know there is a prohibition against "eating of blood" in the Old Testament, but I don't understand how and why the Watchtower equates transfusions with eating.
The bible tells us to abstain from blood, so it's not just talking about eating. This is found in Acts 15:20
"But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood"
Also Acts 15:29- "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood..."
Notice it doesn't mention eating the blood, but it says to abstain from X, X, X AND blood. That was from the King James version of the bible, FYI. So to abstain from something is to completely remove yourself from it, or from practicing it i.e. abstinance from sex etc.
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
Not only that, but the prohibition was against the eating of animal blood, and doesn't seem to apply to human blood transfusion.
Again, it's not only referencing the eating of blood, but the abstinance. Also, if God decided that animal blood was so important to him, that we were to pour it out on the ground instead of injesting, or taking it in by other means, how much more important would human blood be to him?
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I guess I'm thinking like a Mother here.
Absolutely 100% understandable. It is only human to want the best for your loved ones. But what JWs believe about a resurrection also affects this. Jehovah tells us to abstain from blood, so with this action, there is a possibility of death if someone loses too much blood in an accident/surgery etc. We have the hope of a resurrection to help us. If we stand firm and abstain from blood, and possibly allow a loved one (or ourselves) to die, we have the knowledge that we obeyed a divine commandment from Jehovah God and he will definitely remember that.
As for your question about the Watchtower reversing it's beliefs on Medical practices, I'll have to do some more research on that as I'm not real familiar with their changes to different issues. Possibly IanO might be able to shed some light on this.
edit: It looks like he already has, heh.
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
quote:My first exposure to Jehovah's Witnesses was in elementary school. There were two JW kids in my school and all I knew about it at the time was that they never got to do any of the "fun stuff." You know, like Halloween and sex ed. Now that I think about it, I don't really know if their opting out of participation was common with all JW or if it was just their parents' choice.
Refusal to celebrate Halloween, and all holidays, would be common among all Jehovah's Witnesses. Sex ed, first off, was not fun in the least unless you managed to attend the wrong gender's class, and second, is really the parent's decision.
There, Dan, you got to answer something. *pats self on back*
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Hey Dan, missed you in PHX.
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
Yeah, ditto.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Thanks for the very respectful and informative answer to my question.
Obviously, I still disagree, but mutually respectful dialogue is always a good thing among different faiths. Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I hadn't actually realized until last month that JWs don't eat the blood of animals either, as in, cooked meats. When buying red meat or chicken, how do you determine if enough blood has been removed? Are there certain meats or certain organs or certain meat processing techniques that must be avoided?
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
Most of the time, in this country at least, and I'm sure others where the meat production industry is regulated, we can trust the normal bleeding process of meat producers. That said, there are certain things, like blood sausage, that we'd avoid for sure. And clearly, if you can see a lot of blood or veins (as in chicken along the bone), you can also not eat that part. That's what I do, being the carnivore that I am.
edit to add: as for organs? Nothing really is prohibited as long as it's bled. I don't know that I'd eat heart, though I for other reasons I'd not eat it either. I'm pretty finicky about meat. I don't eat "non-traditional" parts. I've tried and I can't.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I'm not much of an organ-eater myself. I prefer skeletal muscles only. Organs squick me.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I always loved the illustrated books sold by the Jehovah's Witnesses. My favorite was a book of Bible stories, with a really cool picture of Jonah sinking through the water, and a huge shark coming up from behind him, jaws agape. The picture of the witch of En-dor conjuring up old Samuel was pretty cool, too.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
I knew an individual who objected to JW literature because it depicted Christ as being very clean-cut and wellshaven.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
FYI
We don't sell literature anymore. If a person is willing to read the item we leave it with them. Obviously it takes money to produce. So a person can make a donation to our worldwide work. This is how we do things in the congregation as well. Donations are what keep things going.
But yeah, the illustrations are good. The book of Bible stories was the one I had when I was a kid. It came out in 78 when I was 4. It's images are the most primal in my mind when it comes to Bible stories.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I really enjoy organs. Yum!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
We have pictures of Christ that we never showed in Detroit because the people in Detroit depict Jesus as black, and the pictures of him as white were upsetting. No big deal - we just didn't use pictures.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
I doubt they heard of that one, but many of the religious houses we visited had had pictures of Christ and scenes from the Bible on walls where all the players were black. I almost wish I had kept some of them, but it felt sort of squicky to me - like religious relics shouldn't be used as souveniers.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I have a Gefilte Fish on the back of my van, Morrison.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
at Tante Shvester. Now if someone would just name their gym Morrison, all would be right with the world. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
It mostly comes down to a difference over how the Holy Spirit is defined and also a chain of assumptions that rest of all of Revelation being written about future events (at the time it was written). ![[Cool]](cool.gif)