Jump to content
The World News Media

Shiwiii

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,092

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Shiwiii

  1. Shiwiii
    true, and this is what makes the difference............a transfusion does not require ANYONE to die, but the lack of a transfusion may just require the life of a human.
  2. Shiwiii
    YES! It is if you want to be part of their group. In verses 5,6, yes we do see some principles laid out. These have to do with eating meat with blood and the act of killing/murder. Context tells us this as well as supporting scriptures in Leviticus 17. One thing I found very interesting is that in Leviticus 17, where God tells us about blood and the prohibitions on its use, God tells us also a different set of circumstances with different punishments. In Genesis 9 God said that blood is not to be used as food, and this is again stated in Leviticus 17 but notice the part in verse 15 where God tells us what happens if we DO eat part of an animal which has not been drained of its blood: 15 "When any person eats an animal which dies or is torn by beasts, whether he is a native or an alien, he shall wash his clothes and bathe in water, and remain unclean until evening; then he will become clean." So whats the deal? Unclean vs. death? Wouldn't it make sense and fit with scripture if God was meaning to not eat blood...ok, got it, and ALSO not to kill/murder. The scriptures tell us that God will require the blood of a man who has taken another's life/blood. But here in verse 15 of Lev 17, we see that God requires us to remain unclean until morning if we eat blood. That's not quite the same thing now is it? For the organization to require people to die instead of taking a transfusion, they are over stepping and adding to what God has told us through His Word. There is a reason for the separate distinction, it is because one is killing/murdering an other human being (hence the last statement at Gen 9:6) who was made in the image of God and the other is that of a beast/animal. God places higher value over people than beast, and it is also why there is a higher value of the blood of man over the blood of a beast. People generally do not eat human blood, and intravenous is not eating nor is it taking a life for the preservation of another life. Animal blood on the other hand IS consumed regularly by people.
  3. Shiwiii
    Did you wish my comment into the cornfield Anthony? That's a fine thing to do Anthony, real fine. ----It's a good life When you suppress everything that does not agree with you, then you are left with a very narrow view of what reality is like.
  4. Shiwiii
    So what is the moral of the story? "Don't give up" LOL I don't think that morality even comes into play in this scenario. The money belongs to dead people and dead people have no use for it.
  5. Shiwiii
    Regardless of age, isn't this cartoon direct and to the point? Isn't that EXACTLY the way it is?
  6. Shiwiii
    Why yes it is, but the major difference is that the crime of doing drugs is against yourself. Is there fallout that effects others? sure, but ultimately it is the user who is damaged and chose to do that to themselves. Children do not chose to be abused. I would take it as well, but now that you throw in the teeth thing.......uuurrrrrr....uuuhhhh.
  7. Shiwiii
    I don't think the two are even remotely related. One scenario has children abused and a crime against humanity, while the other is like you said.....no crime....well not one that anyone alive could be prosecuted with. Nope, found it. Now there IS a law about finding money and what to do about it that I can dig up if you'd like, but we all know that it is the fool who would actually follow that law. Some laws are only there to benefit the gov't/organization. No way of knowing who those people are. hmmmmmm, how much money are we talking? Let me think..............drug deals don't involve small amounts of cash, so I'd say it would be enough to raise ANY kind of red flag if you kept it for yourself. I think it would be fun to sit there, think about my mates and divide up the bounty by that number. Place each bounty in separate locations and far enough away from each other so no one would be seen by each other. Send a letter in my hand, and speak things in it that assured it was genuine telling them to go get it. If I ever saw them again, it would be a campfire story kind of tale, but you know how money changes things. What they chose to do with it, I'd be fine with......after all their my mates! The remaining, my portion, I'd try and continue my current lifestyle of being a member of normal society. Dead folks do not own anything, it is up to the heirs to figure out what to do with the dead folks stuff. Then that also leaves us with the answer to Question #2.
  8. Shiwiii
    Crash course? please explain this crash course and why it does not apply today, but instead a requirement for a year long study is needed? If he was already a part, then why did he say that he had no understanding of what he was reading? He had no idea who Isaiah was talking about. Surely if he were part of God's people, then he would have known something. Didn't the Jews have an idea that Isaiah was talking about the Messiah? Was this man a Jew? Besides all of this, what was the one thing......not some man made list of requirements or questions......one thing that this man needed from Philip?
  9. Shiwiii
    Just because this is a controversial section and this point made gave me a thought. Did that thief beside Jesus study for a year? Or how about the eunuch that Philip baptized?
  10. Shiwiii
    My question is about who the wt says Gog and Magog is in Ezekiel and what the historical beliefs of the society were and what the thought is today. A brief account of what the wt thought and around what time they thought it: Russia - June 1880 A Demon prince - 1932 Satan's Field Marshall - 1934 A spiritual ruler but not a demon prince - 1953 Satan - 1954 A Coalition of nations - 2015 Why, if God was/is leading this organization, did it take until 2015 for the wt to arrive at the same position that the rest of Christianity has believed for years? Why would God allow the org to be in the dark, so to speak, about this for so long? Why did God reveal this to the rest of Christianity first? Did the wt provide spiritual food at the proper time and what was the food in the 1940's? Was it accurate knowledge?
  11. Shiwiii
    While I agree with you to an extent, I also disagree. The point you made about the abusive relationship and skipping the memorial is true for the most part. I would also not expect that type of reaction to those instances. I think the point being made is not actually WHY one is disfellowshippped, but rather the unnecessary reaction by ALL once one is DF'd, even to the extent of family. I've heard of instances of one getting DF'd for silly reasons, but yet the reaction is the same. The punishment, in my opinion, does not fit the crime. To God, sin is sin and it has only ONE consequence unless you have Jesus' covering. Us as humans are not God and that is also why there are degrees of consequences when breaking the laws of men. To have to live like you have no family because that family is holding to what the gb says instead of the compassion Jesus had, is cruel.
  12. Shiwiii
    I don't believe so. The reason why is, in a limbo state one is sitting and waiting with no idea of direction. I liken limbo and purgatory as the same and I don't subscribe to that idea.
  13. Shiwiii
    The torment is self inflicted, a disappointment in one's own self to the extent of torment. So this is not God administering torment, but the person themselves in their frustration of seeing the impending result of their actions while here on Earth (2 Cor 5:10). This, I'm sure, will lead us into another direction in this conversation, but I'll try to stay on point. Those that await resurrection to righteousness are not found in this same place.....(topic is on hell) lol. Those awaiting the second death will remain "in chains", "in outer darkness" until the day of judgement, and until then they will self impose torment. Think of the most inhuman thing man can do to another man, isolation, it fosters insanity/madness. Destruction, is an interesting word choice I think. Our English language is really difficult at times. The second death in my opinion would be the "destruction" and that too would fit equally in your association above. The problem is that something cannot be destroyed twice, or it was never destroyed in the first place. So the term destruction substituted for hell, while it works, it doesn't convey the actual meaning. So I think that is why there are other descriptions of hell in scripture (Matt 22:13, Matt 25:30) that speak about a continual place until an appointed time. It is only temporary until it is cast in the lake of fire, but leading up to that time it is continuous. Now some will come and say that those verses are not speaking of hell....ok....I believe they are by means of context.
  14. Shiwiii
    How do you even take this guy seriously? eggs? eggs are supposed to make someone not believe in the trinity because he demonstrates he can throw one between his legs?
  15. Shiwiii
    I'm not the one complaining about a name anyway. I'm just saying that NO ONE knows what God's name given to the Jews was spelled or pronounced. So being so adamant on the use of "Jehovah" and inserting it into scripture where it is never found, is ridiculous. you have yet to give any, only side topics and strawman arguments.
  16. Shiwiii
    nope
  17. Shiwiii
    Who's glory in the Gospel of John verses 36-41 speak about? John was attributing the quote from Isaiah to Jesus. 36 While you have the light, exercise faith in the light, so that you may become sons of light.” Jesus said these things and went off and hid from them. 37 Although he had performed so many signs before them, they were not putting faith in him, 38 so that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, who said: “Jehovah, who has put faith in the thing heard from us? And as for the arm of Jehovah, to whom has it been revealed?” 39 The reason why they were not able to believe is that again Isaiah said: 40“He has blinded their eyes and has made their hearts hard, so that they would not see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and turn around and I heal them.”41 Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory, and he spoke about him. Look closely at the cross references in your nwt and who John was speaking about. Also, take a look at the Greek Septuagint where it says at Isaiah 6:1-5 that Isaiah saw God's glory. How is this possible without Isaiah dying and why is John attributing this to Jesus?
  18. Shiwiii
    What name should it be, because "Jehovah" is a created name by the Catholics? Why should it be inserted? Why should it be inserted in places that are not quotes? Really? Are you serious?
  19. Shiwiii
    Raymund Martini, a Catholic monk, created the name Jehovah in the 12th century which is admitted by wt publications. Rev 5:13 "And I heard every creature which is in heaven and on the earth, and under the earth and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, saying, “Blessing and honor and glory and power be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever!” Who gets that glory in Isaiah?
  20. Shiwiii
    This is something I tell me children each and every day: "everyone is different and each has different opinions/looks/manners/etc." Sure, here is a brief description on how I see hell. Jesus spoke of Hell/Gehenna in the following verses, Matt 5:22-30, Matt 10:28, Matt 11:23, Matt 16:18, Matt 18:9, Matt 23:15&3, Mark 9:43&45&47, Luke 10:15, Luke 12:5, Luke 16:23 When Jesus spoke of hell, He spoke about a place most of the time. It was a place of destruction and also an attitude or character flaw. The attitude portion is what He was speaking about in Matt23:15, saying that the Pharisees and hypocrites convert someone into their way of thinking or character and it makes them even more deceived than they themselves because the hypocrites already know the truth but yet stray away and draw others as well. As for a specific place? Well, I’m not really concerned if there is or is not a specific place under the earth or whatever. However, it is a place, a place in time. When Jesus spoke of being cast into hell without an eye or hand, it wasn’t about being tormented day and night forever with two eyes or hands, it was more about the time when hell and death are destroyed ( Rev 20) and Jesus wants NO ONE to have that fate. There are other verses which speak of hell and I think they elaborate a bit further on the explanation of hell. For instance in Rev 20, when death and hell are cast into the lake of fire. Is it tangible? Is it figurative? It is both? In Rev verse 13 speaks of those who are in hell being delivered up for judgement. So are they contained in some place? Peter in his second letter said that hell was a place of darkness with the capacity to hold those there in reserve until judgement. I do believe hell is a place and the torment is not inflicted by God, but by those persons themselves for winding up facing destruction at the second death and having to wait until that judgment.
  21. Shiwiii
    I think we are done here, I gave to you a list that I posted on the first page and quoted myself just moments ago, and you still cannot contribute to a intellectual discussion. Good day
  22. Shiwiii
    I think you've stepped off the deep end. It appears that you are reading into what I write much more than what is actually presented and basing an argument on that. It is called creating a strawman argument. If you would like to continue this discussion, lets do that without the unnecessary strawman. I'm not interested in going to the org website. You provide the proof. I asked what did Jesus say about hell? Plenty of scriptures have been presented, but you have refused to engage in a real discussion. pick one and lets discuss. As a side note, We have discussed issues like this before. Allexperts or Askexperts? I can't remember exactly what it was called. I apologize if that wasn't you, but I distinctly remember the same name and pattern of discussion.
  23. Shiwiii
    Again, you keep repeating something that has NOTHING to do with the insertion of YHWH into the NEW Testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the OT. What part of this has anything to do with what we are talking about? Regardless of what Hebrew, Greek or Latin words or letters are for the name of God, it still is not found in any of the historical Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that we have today. That darn English, I curse you, you language of English people. There, now I made your statement have some sort of purpose.
  24. Shiwiii
    Its unbiblical, that's what not to like about it.
  25. Shiwiii
    Yet again, no supporting evidence to prove your claim Now look, you've got yourself all worked up over a side topic and NO ONE said anything about the letter j. If you reread my post it is a name for a group of papers which the wt tries to use to support YHWH being inserted into the NT.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.