Originally posted by galveston75Is there any part of my viewpoint that you don't agree with? That you maybe find illogical?
Ok. That's your viewpoint.
Actually, to come back to the confrontation in Jerusalem between Paul and the Elders, the issue under discussion was whether the gentile believers should be made to obey the law of Moses. Clearly, it was a victory for Paul when they said no, they do not have to be curcumcised and keep the law. Then, almost to save face, they said: but let's make sure they keep these three things (no fornication, no things strangled and no blood).
Paul accepted graciously. However, he could just as easily have said: no, wait a minute, fornication maybe, but there really is no need for the other two, which are essentially dietary requirements.
But he did not, and that is what is recorded in Acts. But it NEVER was part of Christ's teaching.
Originally posted by CalJust"Under the Christian arrangement".
Is there any part of my viewpoint that you don't agree with? That you maybe find illogical?
Actually, to come back to the confrontation in Jerusalem between Paul and the Elders, the issue under discussion was whether the gentile believers should be made to obey the law of Moses. Clearly, it was a victory for Paul when they said no, they do not have to be ...[text shortened]... ut he did not, and that is what is recorded in Acts. But it NEVER was part of Christ's teaching.
The governing body of the first-century Christian congregation, under the direction of the holy spirit, ruled on the matter of blood. Their decree states: “For 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 and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (Ac 15:22, 28, 29) The prohibition included flesh with the blood in it.
This decree rests, ultimately, on God’s command not to eat blood, as given to Noah and his sons and, therefore, to all mankind. In this regard, the following is found in The Chronology of Antient Kingdoms Amended, by Sir Isaac Newton (Dublin, 1728, p. 184): “This law [of abstaining from blood] was ancienter than the days of Moses, being given to Noah and his sons, long before the days of Abraham: and therefore when the Apostles and Elders in the Council at Jerusalem declared that the Gentiles were not obliged to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they excepted this law of abstaining from blood, and things strangled, as being an earlier law of God, imposed not on the sons of Abraham only, but on all nations, while they lived together in Shinar under the dominion of Noah: and of the same kind is the law of abstaining from meats offered to Idols or false Gods, and from fornication.”
Observed since apostolic times. The Jerusalem council sent its decision to the Christian congregations to be observed. (Ac 16:4) About seven years after the Jerusalem council issued the decree, Christians continued to comply with the “decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication.” (Ac 21:25) And more than a hundred years later, in 177 C.E., in Lyons (now in France), when religious enemies falsely accused Christians of eating children, a woman named Biblis said: “How would such men eat children, when they are not allowed to eat the blood even of irrational animals?”—The Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius, V, I, 26.
Early Christians abstained from eating any sort of blood. In this regard Tertullian (c. 155-a. 220 C.E.) pointed out in his work Apology (IX, 13, 14): “Let your error blush before the Christians, for we do not include even animals’ blood in our natural diet. We abstain on that account from things strangled or that die of themselves, that we may not in any way be polluted by blood, even if it is buried in the meat. Finally, when you are testing Christians, you offer them sausages full of blood; you are thoroughly well aware, of course, that among them it is forbidden; but you want to make them transgress.” Minucius Felix, a Roman lawyer who lived until about 250 C.E., made the same point, writing: “For us it is not permissible either to see or to hear of human slaughter; we have such a shrinking from human blood that at our meals we avoid the blood of animals used for food.”—Octavius, XXX, 6.
"Some 2,400 years after the Noachian decree and about 1,500 years after the Law covenant was made, Jehovah inspired the governing body of the early Christian congregation to write: “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, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality.”—Acts 15:28, 29.
9 Clearly, the early governing body discerned that blood is sacred and that misusing it is as morally wrong as participating in idolatry or committing sexual immorality. True Christians today accept that stand. Moreover, because they think in terms of Bible principles, they are able to please Jehovah when making decisions about the use of blood."
Originally posted by galveston75http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102008066?q=early+congregation&p=sen
"Some 2,400 years after the Noachian decree and about 1,500 years after the Law covenant was made, Jehovah inspired the governing body of the early Christian congregation to write: “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, from blood, f ...[text shortened]... Bible principles, they are able to please Jehovah when making decisions about the use of blood."
Please reference your source when you copy paste.
How would you know it was an elective procedure unless in fact you read my posts. Unless you are saying that because this world is only temporary and all suffering will end, that all surgeries are elective.
Furthermore, if you had read the posts you would have discovered that prior to my vasectomy (you are correct an elective procedure) I was not yet aware of any masses or tumors, those were discovered in my first (elective procedure).
Consequently informing the elders that you are having a procedure is not necessary nor is it required. Generally it can be a good practice as they can help organize prayer sessions and perhaps even help with meals and the like, but it is certainly not grounds for disciplinary actions.
Indeed you are quite correct. Officially I was disfellowshipped for being unrepentant. I took the blood in one of my many surgeries after my first initial one. I knew what I was doing and I never agreed with the blood rule as I have explained many times in this post again you would know that if you had taken the time to read my posts.
I have admitted that not all principals sat 100% with me and perhaps I should have waited to get baptized.
The only thing that you have done is call me a liar, call me dishonest, question my integrity and have attempted to spoil my good name. I have given you no cause to do this. I have not been slanderous toward you or your organization. I have given my account of what has happened. I have told you where I am today, and still you refuse to talk to me in private message boards you resign games with me rather than be associated with a known disfellowshipped witness, and you publically bash my integrity...
I have said why I was disfellowshipped. I have said they have had every right to disfellowship me based on their own rules and regulations. I have said that I did not fully buy into every single rule and tenant...does this make me a cafeteria Witness picking and choosing which aspects to follow and which ones to cast aside...perhaps. My Jehovah God has given me a mind and many numerous gifts in which to learn and seek out His truths and His face...and for the most part I believe despite numerous setbacks (I am not perfect) that I have followed Him.
Beau
galveston75, robbie carrobie, roigam,
Can we at least, in a spirit of communal good wishes here, as we enter 2015, agree on this: it is a good thing that beauroberts is still alive to tell the tale, is still alive to be his wife's companion in life and to be a loving father to his three children?
Textual analysis and interpretation aside, can you wish him well and celebrate the fact that he survived his surgeries?
Based on our common humanity, and with the differences in our beliefs set aside for a moment, galveston75, robbie carrobie, roigam, can you simply rejoice that our message board friend beauroberts is still alive and that his kids still have their dad?
Strange that beuroberts has not provided a single Biblical reference with which to discuss the theme he personally introduced, Is Disfellowship(ing) Physically and Spiritually Necessary and instead we are treated to a series of personal grievances and self justification.
The Bible states that 'discipline for the present is grievous' but that it yields 'righteous fruit' and I hope that beuroberts does not let his personal issues come between him and ultimately finding peace.
No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. - Romans 12:11 NIV
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHave you now read all his posts?
Strange that beuroberts has not provided a single Biblical reference with which to discuss the theme he personally introduced, Is Disfellowship(ing) Physically and Spiritually Necessary and instead we are treated to a series of personal grievances and self justification.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat small, misanthropic little man you are.
Strange that beuroberts has not provided a single Biblical reference with which to discuss the theme he personally introduced, Is Disfellowship(ing) Physically and Spiritually Necessary and instead we are treated to a series of personal grievances and self justification.
The Bible states that 'discipline for the present is grievous' but that it ...[text shortened]... a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. - Romans 12:11 NIV
Originally posted by FMFI don't often agree with FMF, but here he is spot on.
galveston75, robbie carrobie, roigam,
Can we at least, in a spirit of communal good wishes here, as we enter 2015, agree on this: it is a good thing that beauroberts is still alive to tell the tale, is still alive to be his wife's companion in life and to be a loving father to his three children?
Textual analysis and interpretation aside, can you wish him ...[text shortened]... that our message board friend beauroberts is still alive and that his kids still have their dad?
Jesus clearly taught that the basic principles of his message - love, compassion, forgiveness - trumps doctrine and textual interpretation every time.
Anybody that rejects these principles (which are the true touchstone of Christianity) in favour of some controversial doctrine, places themselves on the side of the Scribes and Pharisees.
Originally posted by CalJustWe won't hear it caljust. These guys are way to far up their own exhaust pipes to condesend to a bit of human compassion or common forum etiquette, unless it is on their terms - I.e beauroberts gives in!
I don't often agree with FMF, but here he is spot on.
Jesus clearly taught that the basic principles of his message - love, compassion, forgiveness - trumps doctrine and textual interpretation every time.
Anybody that rejects these principles (which are the true touchstone of Christianity) in favour of some controversial doctrine, places themselves on the side of the Scribes and Pharisees.
Originally posted by FMFI wish him well as I wish all humans. But we all will answer to God in the long run, correct? Many have done a wide range of things thru history to preserve their lifes so they can live another day. It is a trait we all have as none of us want to die. Life is precious and a gift from God. Would you agree? Notice I said a "gift" from God.
galveston75, robbie carrobie, roigam,
Can we at least, in a spirit of communal good wishes here, as we enter 2015, agree on this: it is a good thing that beauroberts is still alive to tell the tale, is still alive to be his wife's companion in life and to be a loving father to his three children?
Textual analysis and interpretation aside, can you wish him ...[text shortened]... that our message board friend beauroberts is still alive and that his kids still have their dad?
Would you agree that we all have life from our creator and as a result he would have the right to give us rules and regulations on how treat it, care for it, etc?
Woud you agree that he does watch us and take note on how we not only treat this gift within our own bodies but how we treat that gift he has given to others?
If you agree that he has the right to tell us how to treat our life and the body he created for us at conception, then does he have the right to tell us things we can and cannot do with it?
He tells us in the most simplistic way in his Bible, to us,and that is to abstain from blood. No exceptions ever given. It was a law that not only protects us from a health stand point but from a spiritual one also.
So if anyone decides to go beyond that law and preserves their life to live another day, that is their decision. But they must always beware that God knows this and one will have to answer to him for that.
That is a serious decision for one to make........
Originally posted by galveston75What is it you are claiming will happen to beauroberts? What is it you are claiming God will do?
I wish him well as I wish all humans. But we all will answer to God in the long run, correct? [...] But they must always beware that God knows this and one will have to answer to him for that. That is a serious decision for one to make........
Originally posted by galveston75This is the essence of our discussion here, and the fundamental crux of our disagreement - and why I (and so many others) say you are wrong.
If you agree that he has the right to tell us how to treat our life and the body he created for us at conception, then does he have the right to tell us things we can and cannot do with it?
He tells us in the most simplistic way in his Bible, to us,and that is to abstain from blood. No exceptions ever given.
Of course, your logic is completely sound when you say that when we have a clear word from God then all true Christians will try to obey it.
Here we, again, have no such thing. It is purely a matter of your peculiar interpretation vs that of everybody else. Nobody says: Don't obey God! as you imply.
What we ARE saying is: This isn't what he is saying!
To test the correct application(and interpretation) of any law, Jesus gave us the example. Look at what the end result of the observance of that law is : is it peace and love, or strife and pride. THAT was his main gripe with the original Fundamentalists and Literalists. As Paul reminds us as well: The letter kills, but the spirit gives life.
The end result of the application of this particular JW law has been displayed in public again, and it has discredited the many other valid and valuable doctrines of your organisation.
Originally posted by galveston75But robbie carrobie has said in this forum that the receiving of blood is "matter of personal conscience". How can you disagree with him?
I He tells us in the most simplistic way in his Bible, to us,and that is to abstain from blood. No exceptions ever given.