27 Jun 20
@fmf saidWe never deviate from the truths in the Bible. It is the so called other Christian religions that have.
Your OP talks about posters' "foolishness" and posters being "very spiritually inept" and having "tiny little thoughts". You obviously don't mean to apply these labels to yourself. Do you mean to apply them to ALL Christians here [and elsewhere] who are not members of the JW organization and who reject the ways in which its scriptural interpretations deviate from the vast majority of Christian denominations?
The bible clearly says to never worship an idol. We didn't put that scripture there, Jehovah did. But how many so called Christian religions have idols in their church?
27 Jun 20
@galveston75 saidDo you recognize the non-JW Christians here as your fellow Christians?
We never deviate from the truths in the Bible. It is the so called other Christian religions that have.
The bible clearly says to never worship an idol. We didn't put that scripture there, Jehovah did. But how many so called Christian religions have idols in their church?
@galveston75 saidI will try again: Did your organization commission a customized version of the Bible during the C20th which uses the word "Jehovah" in a different way from other Bibles?
We put the name of our God Jehovah back where it should have never been removed.
27 Jun 20
@galveston75 saidSo, in your view, it is not "sinful" to be a Catholic or an Anglican etc.?
Maybe not sinful but probably a bad mistake.Time will tell, right?
I don't see how "time will tell".
27 Jun 20
@galveston75 saidWho in this community has offered Christian witness in which they condone or promote worshipping idols?
The bible clearly says to never worship an idol.
@galveston75 saidHere was the question: For the purposes of your assertion, does your definition of "truth or accuracy of knowledge" coincide exactly and only with the policies and doctrines of the JW organization?
No other religion I know of does. Who uses God's name? No one. That alone is beyond any other religion.
For you, it seems to boil down "Who uses God's name?"
That doesn't seem very substantial seeing as you have been given a doctored version of the Bible by your organization. So, you talk about the word for God that's in that doctored Bible. So what?
You mention it over and over and over and over again. Is mentioning it [to people who do not use the JW version of the Bible] a part of you walking the Christian walk?
27 Jun 20
@fmf saidIf one is not doing as Jesus told us all to do, then no. Jesus told his followers to do the preaching and teaching word world wide he did as example. If one does not do this as Jesus said, one is not a Christian which means to be "Christ like". One cannot do a token service which is very much what most so called Christian do. Sadly that is never encouraged by their leaders.
Do you recognize the non-JW Christians here as your fellow Christians?
27 Jun 20
@fmf saidWe all sin, period. I didn't say that being of another religion is sinful did I or that being a JW is not sinful as you are implying? Don't tell me what my view is..... The view that we all should have is what the truths are in the bible and do as it tells us.
So, in your view, it is not "sinful" to be a Catholic or an Anglican etc.?
I don't see how "time will tell".
27 Jun 20
@fmf said"That doesn't seem very substantial seeing as you have been given a doctored version of the Bible by your organization. So, you talk about the word for God that's in that doctored Bible. So what?"
Here was the question: For the purposes of your assertion, does your definition of "truth or accuracy of knowledge" coincide exactly and only with the policies and doctrines of the JW organization?
For you, it seems to boil down "Who uses God's name?"
That doesn't seem very substantial seeing as you have been given a doctored version of the Bible by your organization. So, y ...[text shortened]... it [to people who do not use the JW version of the Bible] a part of you walking the Christian walk?
So what? That is exactly the answer I'd expect you to give to the T.
Yes my friend you clearly don't get it!
27 Jun 20
@galveston75
Okay, let's begin. As a Jehovah's Witness, you elevate such biblical texts as Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, and Acts 15:28-15:29 to justify why receiving blood is 'not' permitted (due to it representing life and being sacred to God). But why then do you ignore such texts as Mark 17:18:
"And these signs will accompany those who believe: In My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not harm them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will be made well.”
If the 'same book' that tells you not to receive blood is telling you to drink poison and pick up snakes, to prove your faith, why aren't you doing so?
@galveston75 saidSo, "Yes"? Yes, you use a customized version of the Bible not endorsed by the vast majority of Bible scholars? Your answer was "yes"?
I believe I answered that question...