No fair, Derrick! I saw your name on the thread and thought you were going to post your thoughts so far on this ping-pong discussion. Oh well...
Welcome back to the day shift!
No fair, Derrick! I saw your name on the thread and thought you were going to post your thoughts so far on this ping-pong discussion. Oh well...
Welcome back to the day shift!
almost athiest my online buddy, as I said before you and sweet scholar are out of my league. I will just sit back and learn.
Good Gawd! This guy, SS, cold write a novel entitled 'Circular Reasoning - Watchtower Style'
Should we reject everything that ever had 'pagan' connections? How about eating? Since that was practiced by pagans before Christians came along. Or eating fruit? Since A and E obviously set an evil example there.
BTW, SS, and no offense intended, short and to the point comments, and better paragraph breaks would make your essays easier to read and follow. I believe you are honestly beholden to the watchtower organization, but your reasoning is hard to follow in a very Freddy sort of way.
Your assertion that the Watchtower has only devoted a few pages to a subject is not relevant, since even a single paragraph sets forth Watchtower Law until it changes in print. Your acceptance of oral sex as example could take a bad turn if next week the society regresses to the views held previously. It would even be retroactive to a date before the published date, should your spouse get a guilt trip - just ask Raymond Franz, who was ousted for eating a meal with one who was Da'd - the meal was pre-change of doctrinal position by date. Didn't matter.
to the one who used the lame worn out non-sensical comparisons of "well pagans urinated and ate food too, should that be prohibited or discouraged too". please read the other posts by me (and even by AlmostAtheist himself). to see that your weak and desperate attempt to absolve yourself from vain worldly customs are just that: DESPERATE. sorry to say. and sorry to sound so blunt. but where do you see pagan Druid witchcraft demonic candle blowing and "wish-making" with simply "eating" or "urinating" and where in the Bible do you see ONLY pagans doing that???? ONLY pagans are mentioned doing the vain birthday celebration thing. but servants of God are recorded as "eating". DO YOU SEE HOW SILLY YOUR ANALOGY AND ARGUMENTS ARE?? but BD celebrations are DIFFERENT. in ancient Greece, there was so much superstition and "magic" involved in the very very very same rituals and customs involved with birthday celebrations that we see to this day.
the point is that just because you celebrate birthdays (and I'm pretty sure you do) does not ipso facto make it right. people love to justify themselves. there were even studies showing that to some people "rationalization" is even more important to them than sex !!!! hence your lame "well pagans ate food and urinated too, so should we not do that either??" duhh. read or re-read the previous postings, please. because those weak arguments were already THOROUGLY addressed. the Bible does not put other things in quite the same unfavorable light and suspicious character as it does (in both "Testaments") as worldly self-adulating self-glorifying tainted birthday celebrations. why is that so hard to see that? don't commit intellectual dishonesty, because you like to blow out candles and like the whole TRADITION and emotionalism of these things. the WatchTower did not make up any of this. the pagan background is SO documented, regarding the customs, trappings, baggage, and background. it's like not funny. the point is you have no real desire to be totally wholly completely Biblical, Pure, Holy, separated and sanctified in your life. that's what it really boils down to. you want to be a "Christian" in your own way, picking and choosing the things you'll keep and do, and things you won't. regardless of what the Biblical and Historical data say on the matter.
"Watchtower Law" based on Scripture, History, Archeology, hard cold stubborn facts. whether we like it or not. and you think I don't understand the emotional appeal with the pagan holidays and BD celebrations and all that worldly vain junk? yes, there's an appeal to our fallen nature, with all that. but it's not called a "narrow road" for no reason. Roman Catholics in general do not travel any "narrow road" but generally just do what they want, when they want, how they want. regardless of the Bible or history. and Protestants fair no better. worshipping God "in their own way". nevermind the pagan corrupt crap all over the place. and the vanity and nonsense saturating their lives. take care. again, just try to re-read the stuff about "pagans did other things like eye paint or urinate or eat". cuz there's no true comparison, ultimately. in terms of the Biblical data, and in terms of historical analysis, the evidence is fairly clear and compelling that all the junk involved in formal elaborate birthday celebrations are NOT to be recommended or encouraged to the TRUE Christian witness and Bible-follower, holy and pure and untainted. and silly lame weak comparisons and arguments won't change that fact. bye.
how do you know they both have "pagan origin" in the same exact sense anyway? what do you even mean then by "pagan origin"?? I don't mean that pagan people came up with it. that's not what I mean by "point 6". I mean PAGAN TRAPPINGS AND DEMONISM AND WITCHCRAFT. that's NOT "point 4". don't mix the two. you admitted that simply applying eye paint (whether "excessive" or not) is not calling forth or warding away demons, or praying to guardian gods, or mystical magic. so no, that's NOT "point 4". let's clear that up already. I knew what I was talking about. so again, the BD celebration thing has stuff that your eyepaint issue simply does NOT have. regardless of how you interpret or mis-apply the term and concept of "pagan origin". cuz I already at this point clearly spelled out what I mean by paganism and witchcraft and voodoo and magic and mysticism involved. and you just aint got that with eye paint.
so the comparison breaks down after a while. which is why I said earlier that while I agree the comparison and point is better than the lame silly stuff I see like "pagans urinated and ate fruit too", your eye paint thing is still overall a weak comparison. no blatant pagan demonic stuff was ever involved in that. Jezebel got a hair doo also. so what. again, "point 4" is NOT what's in discussion. it IS a 6th point, that eye paint just does not have. not in that exact and real sense. and I believe that you kind of know that. so please. the horse is dead. let's stop beating it already. you'll do what you EMOTIONALLY WANT to do, regardless of the Biblical data and historicity and background of the matter. also, there's nothing wrong with you re-reading the Reasoning Book's article on BD celebrations. the quotes and references show that the demonic customs involved pre-ceded King Herod. and "Jewish culture" was inter-changeable with the "Jewish religion." and called for "holiness" and separation from the "way of the nations" and their 'vanity and hot air customs.' (Jeremiah 10) case closed.
there's no "pagan demonism" involved with eye paint. for some kooky reason, you're just not grasping that fact. your "5 points" don't mean anything. to be quite frank. if you can confuse your "pont 4" with what I meant and clearly said and brought out about the "magic" "mysticism" and "witchcraft" that is UNMISTAKABLY involved with birthday celebrations, (whether people are aware that "making a wish" is historically "praying to a demon" for luck or not) whereas what precise clear demonic thing was ever tied in with "eye paint" in that sense?
you seem to think that because people don't necessarily consciously look at and think about the Druids and the Witches and Demon Gods that that somehow makes it ok or not so bad or that it totally absolves them or negates the matter. the problem is that if you really really read the Bible CAREFULLY, you would know already that that is just not the case. people don't have to totally KNOWINGLY be completely aware of it, or even do it with that in mind, for it to be "table of the demons mixed with the table of the Lord" no nos. when God says in both "Testaments" to "touch NOT the unclean thing" and "be ye separate" how can you then smugly say "well who's to say that BD celebrations are 'unclean'" when you personaly are NOT ignorant of all the pagan dominic Grecian Druid voodoositic junk involved? THAT'S UNCLEAN CRAP. eye paint is NOT "evil stuff", just because Jezebel applied it on herself. cuz it goes similarly to "well if Jezebel ate fruit" and if something bad happened to someone right after, obviously that does not make "eating fruit" necessarily of "pagan origin" or "evil stuff." but you KNOW that birthday celebrations WITH ALL THE HISTORY AND JUNK INVOLVED WITH THEM is something truly "pagan" and "unclean" and "evil" and "vain". let's not be cute about "well define 'vain'" now. if it quacks like a duck. plus again, UNDUE ATTENTION AND GLORIFYING OF THE CREATURE. you yourself said that to atheists or total non-believers, this origin and demonic stuff won't mean anything really to them. but this is in the context of those CLAIMING TO FOLLOW A HOLY MESSIAH AND CLAIMING TO FOLLOW AND BELIEVE IN A HOLY BIBLE, AND A HOLY GOD. also, what's that silliness with that girl with the vibrator? does your dialogue with her build your credibility? but then again, your screen name "Almost Atheist" gives an indication that you don't really believe the Bible much anyway. so naturally doing the pagan holiday and birthday traditional nonsense thing is something you'd be more inclined to do. so it's like whatever. I said enough on this.
and NO, to the other dude, it's not "circular reasoning". cuz I never said "Birthday celebrations are wrong or questionable simply because the WatchTower says so." when did you read that from me?????????????? no. I cited Bible, encyclopedias, history, documented evidence, and common sense. so what's so "circular" in that reasoning? only a truly BIASED type who has such an ax to grind agains JWs and would be so dismissive of any valid points if it's not to his pagan and comfortable liking would say what you said. there was no real "circularity" in what I said in my postings. and "comparing eating fruit" to Druid Witches and DEAMON GODS and superstitious magic and vanity, and simply saying that the WT is always wrong on these types of issues is very "circular" and biased on YOUR part. think about it. again.
for you to say "evil stuff" and 5 point this and that, 5 drops of poison the other, shows that you have built this thing in your mind that there's "5" indications of "evil stuff" involved with eye paint. when that's not really the case. there's no "poison" per se with "eye paint" simply because Jezebel applied it. just like I admit that simply becaues Herod celebrated birthdays does not IPSO FACTO make BD celebrations "evil." there's more to it than that, and you know it. it's ALL THE POINTS (THOSE NOT IN YOUR LIST INCLUDED) PUT TOGETHER. the crucial real "poison" thing being that vanity is more elaborate in BD celebrations than simply eye paint, and of course the ACTUAL BLATANT CORRUPT PAGAN WITCHERY AND NONSENSE AND BAGGAGE THAT IS ALL OVER BIRTHDAY CELEBRATIONS, FROM START TO FINISH. NOT to be so closely compared to makeup. or "hair dressing". there's way more "vanity" involved with formal BD celebrations, and there is TRUE PAGANISM AND DEMONISM with that too. but no real concrete provable documented witchcraft or demonism is to be seen, per se, with eye paint. that's just a fact. not an opinion. hence why your comparison breaks apart after a while. bye.
SS, I was reading some of your previous posts', the following caught my eye:
SS: although JWs are not Calvinists (thank God) there is some truth to what Calvin said about "total depravity" of the will and nature of man.
What do you feel is the "some truth" of what Calvin asserts, re: total depravity?
BTW if you ask one of the jw r/f who Calvin is, or what does Arminian mean, the average Jw will not know what your talking about. So I find it interesting you would have thoughts regarding John Calvin and so forth.
It's all bunk! First the pharaoh's birthday wasn't even his birthday! The pharaoh's all had the same birthday! Once you became pharaoh your birthday was the vernal equinox or some such bull! (history channel rocks) Also why did the pharoah killing the baker on his "birthday" have to be a bad thing? The dude was in jail right? Maybe he did something that the mosaic law said was a killing offense! The jews were constantly whacking people for such serious crimes as banging your wife while she's on her period! I seem to recall that the vernal equinox or whenever it was, was also a big celebration and probably a lot of early death row inmates got it on that day, so what!
Also if you want to call yourself a christian you need to go to your bible and toss out everything that's not in red ink. If jebus didn't say it you don't need it! Who cares what moses said or Jephthah or samuel or Matthew or john or Paul it's only what the big man said right? So jebus never mentioned birthdays (or smoking weed either defd!) so anyone who says different (even if they wrote it down) is just a man saying things! End of argument bye bye!
You're probably getting tired of this discussion. You feel like you're stating the same things over and over and I'm just not paying attention. I assure you, I'm paying attention. I'm reading every word of your posts. I'm responding to every point you make. We are currently at a point where there are open questions. Until we close those, I think it would be good to carry on. Please, hang in there with this. To help us get to the conclusion, please be sure to answer the points made below in RED.
As a reminder, here are the 5 correlations I see between birthdays and makeup:
You seem to have concentrated on proving that makeup doesn't qualify under point 4. Do you agree with the other points? If not, why not? (List your sources, please)
what do you even mean then by "pagan origin"??
This is a very good question, we really haven't defined it. So let's do so. I'll adopt the spirit of your definition and say that "pagan origin" means that the practice so labelled was used in a religious/spiritistic manner by those not worshipping the God of the Bible. Do you agree with that definition?
how do you know they both have "pagan origin" in the same exact sense anyway?
Because I've researched it. That's why I asked if you had looked into it. Here's a web site to get you started on your research: http://www.nisbett.com/symbols/makeupbody_paint.htm
Here's a quote from that site:
The use of makeup is also said to stem from witchcraft where the painting of one’s face was believed to ward off evil.
I've read similar information from various sources. I'm sure you'll find more.
Based on your research (after you've done it), would you agree that, by the above definition, makeup has "pagan origins"? If not, please state your sources.
I mean PAGAN TRAPPINGS AND DEMONISM AND WITCHCRAFT. that's NOT "point 4". don't mix the two.
But that's exactly what I mean by point 4. "driving cars" would not qualify under point 4 since it doesn't have "pagan origins". Maybe if we searched, we'd find that the only mention in the Bible of a "silver comb" was in connection with a bad person. But unless we could also show that silver combs originated in false worship, it wouldn't qualify under point 4.
you admitted that simply applying eye paint (whether "excessive" or not) is not calling forth or warding away demons, or praying to guardian gods, or mystical magic. so no, that's NOT "point 4".
But I also pointed out that those celebrating their birthdays are not "calling forth any demons", either. If a 5-year-old can unwittingly worship a demon by blowing out a candle, why isn't a 35-year-old unwittingly participating in magic by applying eye paint? So without further proof from you as to why they aren't functionally the same, I have to maintain that they are both examples of point 4.
cuz I already at this point clearly spelled out what I mean by paganism and witchcraft and voodoo and magic and mysticism involved. and you just aint got that with eye paint.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Do the research, site your sources, and they you can say, "you ain't got that with eye paint." The source I listed above says I do.
you seem to think that because people don't necessarily consciously look at and think about the Druids and the Witches and Demon Gods that that somehow makes it ok or not so bad or that it totally absolves them or negates the matter.
No, that's not what I think. What I think is that if God really does care about whether or not practices were originally tied in with some form of magic or false worship, then he does. Period. He wouldn't be so choosy as to say he was bothered by one such practice (birthdays) and not at all bothered by some other practice (makeup). There are tons of similar practices -- wedding veils, wedding rings, the calendar -- but they lack something that eye makeup has. Eye makeup, fortuitously enough, is only mentioned twice in the Bible, and only in connection with bad people. So while there are scads of Watchtower-approved things that have pagan origins (as defined above), I pick on makeup because it has the same scriptural presence as birthdays.
let's not be cute about "well define 'vain'" now. if it quacks like a duck. plus again, UNDUE ATTENTION AND GLORIFYING OF THE CREATURE.
OK, you don't want to define it? Then I will, using Merriam Webster's dictionary: "having no real value". Do you agree with that definition? If not, please supply one of your own. You used the term, I'll happily accept whatever definition you want it to have.
By the above definition, birthdays could be considered vain by some. And so could sitting on a park bench. And so could watching a rerun of "Seinfeld" for the umpteenth time. Just because something has "no real value" doesn't make it forbidden. Are you truly telling me that your god doesn't want you to do ANYTHING unless it has some immediate value?
I think most people that celebrate birthdays would disagree with this "valuelessness" accusation. The value is in bringing joy to the person, giving a sense of occasion, an excuse for a party, bringing families together.. I'm sure we could think of many valuable things birthdays bring to the table.
your screen name "Almost Atheist" gives an indication that you don't really believe the Bible much anyway.
Ya think? Just because I don't believe it doesn't mean I don't know what it says. These sorts of discussions are beneficial to those that DO follow the Bible, since it helps them decide what is actually God's will and what is just mankind's musings.
for you to say "evil stuff" and 5 point this and that, 5 drops of poison the other, shows that you have built this thing in your mind that there's "5" indications of "evil stuff" involved with eye paint.
You're exactly right, I have built that in my mind, based on the research cited in the document at the beginning of this discussion.
when that's not really the case. there's no "poison" per se with "eye paint" simply because Jezebel applied it.
The poison comes from eye paint's pagan origins, not from its mention in the Bible.
it's ALL THE POINTS (THOSE NOT IN YOUR LIST INCLUDED) PUT TOGETHER. the crucial real "poison" thing being that vanity is more elaborate in BD celebrations than simply eye paint, and of course the ACTUAL BLATANT CORRUPT PAGAN WITCHERY AND NONSENSE AND BAGGAGE THAT IS ALL OVER BIRTHDAY CELEBRATIONS, FROM START TO FINISH.
It sounds like you feel as if you've added 2 additional strikes against birthdays. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that in addition to the 5 points I listed that apply to both birthdays and makeup, you would add:
6) Birthdays are too elaborate
7) Birthdays involve blatant, corrupt, pagan witchery
Do I understand you correctly on those?
Where in the Bible do you get the idea that god condemns "elaborate" things? If I had a huge, elaborate party for my wedding anniversary, would it be a sin? Individuals might comment that the money could be better spent, but that's not a sin. The Bible doesn't mandate efficiency, does it?
Your point 7 is by the definition I gave earlier, the same as point 4. The reason they are the same is that birthdays have their origins in magic and demon worship, and so does makeup. If you disagree with that, please cite your sources.
no real concrete provable documented witchcraft or demonism is to be seen, per se, with eye paint. that's just a fact. not an opinion.
Again, please state your sources for this "fact". My sources (already listed) disagree.
Wow...this is really impressive typing here. Never before have I seen such pithy responses. I'm going to make a really strange leap here. This is being argued ad nauseum. But by using the patented Dub-rationale, you can argue anything either for or against, using obscure scriptures and a veritable cornucopia of fallacies (it should help to learn to spell here) of argumentation. Come along with me!
Are cats for true Christians?
Is it appropriate for a Christian to own a cat, in light of their past pagan religious affiliation and the medical information that is now coming to light?
It would be misleading to answer this question with either a simple 'Yes' or a 'No.' The Scriptural answer of necessity must be a 'qualified' one, and it is easy to see why. Many conscientious ones among Jehovah's people today have wondered if Christians should own cats in view of their somewhat sordid symbolic history and the many health risks associated therewith. While we would not wish to state an opinion on what must remain a matter of personal preference, what is acceptable to one person may, although unintentionally, stumble another. This can become a life-or-death issue since to move the steps of a brother away from the path of Christ's ransom sacrifice is tantamount to 'putting a millstone around the neck and being thrown into the sea.' -Matt. 18:6. Clearly, in a matter where our eternal salvation is involved, the mature Christian will not pursue a purely selfish course based on his own personal choices, but will adopt a congregational viewpoint as scripturally prescribed.
First, let us consider what most scholars agree is the etymology (word derivation) for the English term 'cat'. When analyzed with the Latin 'felis cattus domesticus', the original Koine Greek is 'cur.io huma bes-tia', means 'a contemporary housecat with all of its beastly identifying characteristics and behavior.' A faithful servant of Jehovah would quickly notice that the nature of a cat is so marked as being 'beastly'. The Bible makes clear reference to this condition when describing parts of Satan's organizations, both past and present. For instance, consider the fearsome 'beasts' as described in the book of Daniel or the 'scarlet colored wild beast' in Rev. 17:3. The demons entered the swine when rebuked by Jesus showing the potential harm and malevolent spirit control to which a Christian may be potentially exposed. Lest we forget the story of Nebuchadnezzar and the condition of God's enemy when being humbled by Jehovah, the student of God's Holy word would ask - is it by accident that the Bible in the book of Daniel describes his experience as a 'beast' of the field? Hardly so!
Clearly, the Bible - by using this kind of terminology - shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the basic nature of cats, while created perfect by God, has become evil or 'beastlike' since the fall of Adam six thousand years ago, and more probably, since the Great Flood of Noah's time (c2350 B.C.E.). This is a development of the condition borne by the 'Original Serpent', the 'Great Dragon' Lucifer himself. (Gen. 3:1) Indeed, modern studies of classification of cats, while not necessarily being reliable as they may be based on the discredited 'theory' of evolution, strongly associate felines with serpents (despite some external differences in physiology and morphology, which confuse those who do not study these matters deeply).
There are numerous reasons why a loyal dedicated servant of God should use his Bible-trained conscience to arrive at a proper understanding of why cats are not advisable as pets or companions for Christians. Consider, then, the following facts:
It was a common practice in ancient Egypt to worship or idolize cats as 'gods'. Indeed, after death many cats were mummified, venerated and sacrifices were made to them. As Christians we observe not only the Mosaic Law, but also the 'necessary things,' identified by the Apostles at Jerusalem, to include the following edict: '(1) Abstain from sacrifices to idols'. We are to 'guard ourselves from idols' and 'worship no other gods'. Such feline influence could lead to idolatry and thereby 'grieve Jehovah's Spirit' with tragic consequences. May we never take for granted Jehovah's wise and generous counsel brought to you by your spiritual brothers in the pages of this magazine!
The Bible does not say that cats were not present at Herod's birthday party when John the Baptist was beheaded. History shows that cats were most likely present at this tragic party that Jehovah did not approve of. Clearly then, as loyal Christians, why would we even want to associate with animals that are without a doubt of such bad influence, remembering how true are the Bible's words: 'Bad associations spoil useful habits'! -1 Cor. 15:33. Some have exposed themselves to possible spiritual contamination in this way. To invite cats in our house is to toy with disaster. Can one deny that the chance exists that the same grave consequences could visit your home that fell upon John? Clearly, God disapproved of this 'birthday' party. Should we not then disapprove (without showing any malicious intent, only Godly hatred) of cats the way the scriptures recommend?
Throughout history, particularly in the middle ages and reaching its climax in the Salem Witch trials of the seventeenth century, cats were recognized by the forces of Christendom as familiars and carriers if not direct incarnates of demons. While, in common with most beliefs of the empire of false religion, no evidence has ever been found to support this, the symbolism of cats still remain within the public psyche, and involvement with them reflects poorly on God's footstools and footstep followers. Many pagan faiths still conclude that black cats bring ill-luck and possess demonic forces, while we have shown that it is, instead, all cats that share these perceived characteristics. Since cats were associated with the devil, could we as faithful and dedicated servants of God therefore contaminate ourselves by exposure to a 'living symbol' of satanic incarnation? How would this reflect on God's name and that of his visible, earthly organization? Would we want to be linked with a symbol of Satan, the 'god of this beastly system of things'?
The careful student of the Bible will acknowledge that nowhere within it is any species ('kind') of cat referred to in favorable terms. In fact, was it not lions of the first century who the Devil used to devour faithful Christians? Jehovah Himself 'stopped up the mouths of the lions' (Dan. 6:22) in Daniel's day. True, the small housecats of today are not quite lions, but being of the same accursed animal family used by God's enemies on numerous occasions throughout history, would it be wise or prudent to own one? In addition, by owing any type of cat (feline), would we not give an appearance of condoning their evil deeds throughout recorded Bible and secular history? The Bible makes clear that God's people are 'no part of this world' (John 15:19) and that we are 'not to share in the sins of others', consume lecithin within nutritive cereal or 'candy' bars, or do other things directly banned in Holy Scripture.
The demeanor of a cat is seen by many honest-hearted observers as reflecting some supernatural, unnatural proclivity towards malice or evil. And, it is a well-known fact that cats are impossible to tame, teach or raise in the truth. The cat has a rebellious, independent spirit. While the animal itself may be unaware of this tragic condition, it serves only its true master - Satan, the Devil.
The scriptures clearly indicate that neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, faithful Job, the Apostles, Jesus nor any other human bearing God's favor himself owned a cat. Should we simply assume that this is a mere coincidence? Surely not! This was most likely because they didn't want to be like the pagan contemporaries of their respective days who showed no regard for how God feels about owning a cat. In harmony with the pattern set by the faithful prophets and worthies of old, it would therefore not be fitting for the true Christian today to own a cat.
But, the most modern scientific evidence also supports the Biblical view. Contrary to popular beliefs among worldly people, cats are unhygienic animals. Recently the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced that 'Cats .. can shed Salmonella in their feces, which can spread the bacterial infection to humans'. Salmonella (salmonella typhimurium) creates a condition of 'week-long diarrhea, abdominal cramps and in some instances, hospitalization.' Would we be showing the proper respect to our life, Creator and to our 'neighbor' by exposing ourselves and others to this potentially deadly disease? Would this be seen by your brothers, and by those showing an interest in God's word, as giving a good witness?
Additionally, cats practice many unclean habits not befitting a Christian household: coughing up fur balls, licking inappropriate body areas on their own bodies (inappropriate handling) and even, in some cases, on the bodies of their human owners (wrongful motive?), urination on the floor, vocal and blatant promiscuity (unknown to any other species, all others being endowed with Godly chastity and decorum) and widespread sexual misconduct without the benefit or sanctity of holy matrimony, even orgiastic practices, substance abuse of catnip (an intoxicating herb) which produces conditions akin to drunkenness, stealing food from the table, producing ungodly sounds, excessive playfulness and the employment of devices not known to have been used by Jesus, the conducting of its unholy business under the cover of the darkness of night, and so on. What sort of example does this give our young ones endeavoring to faithfully serve Jehovah? The Bible clearly shows that 'neither fornicators .. nor thieves .. nor drunkards .. nor revilers .. will inherit the Kingdom.' (1 Cor. 6:9-11)
It must not be forgotten that the feline is a killer. It eats mice and their kind, which is forbidden to Christians and their pets (Lev. 11:29, Isa. 66:17). But, far more serious, is the matter of the wanton consumption of the undrained corpses of the victims of this nocturnal creature; eating bodies filled with God's sacred blood is not a matter to be trifled with (Gen. 9:3,4; Lev. 3:17; Deut. 12:16,23,24; Acts 15:20,28,29). In an earlier article in The Watchtower, we have shown that it would be improper for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to his pet, for animal feed known to contain blood to be served to a pet or a farm animal under one's jurisdiction, or to employ any fertilizer that is known to have blood in it (w64 2/15 127-8). By allowing one's cat to roam uncontrolled, the Christian becomes a willing party to, even a conspirator within, this serious breach of God's law of life.
In addition, the Apostle Paul admonishes us to 'quit mixing in company .. not even eating with such an unclean [one].' -1 Cor. 5:9-11; Mark 2:13-17. Although Paul was speaking primarily about Christians who fell into sin, there is no reason to conclude that this inspired Biblical principle cannot be applied to association with cats. Uncleanness in any form is condemned by Jehovah and the fact that the Apostle Paul made no distinction when it came to associating with housecats proves beyond a doubt to the right-thinking worshiper of Jehovah that loyal Christians must avoid all association with all sources of uncleanness. This would logically include animals that either harbor these tendencies or indulge in such practices.
Of course, while demonstrating one's obedience to God's lovingly-issued commandments, one must do so without any spirit of meanness or ill-will towards these Satanic creatures, though they represent God's enemies. Instead, mature Christians 'feel a loathing' toward those, including cats, who have voluntarily or otherwise made themselves God's enemies, and they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance. -Job 13:16; Romans 12:19; 2 John 9,10.
Are we not grateful for this insight on God's viewpoint regarding such matters? True worshipers follow closely God's mandates on cleanness to their eternal benefit! Sister N.K. from Virginia, U.S.A. tells us that since getting rid of her cat, she has not had to be preoccupied with cleaning the litter box or wasting valuable time better spent pursuing kingdom interests with the burden of purchasing cat food. This has allowed her to become a full-time pioneer; she finds that it is now easier to meet her allotted hours in field service. Godwin, a brother from Sierra Leone, puts it this way: 'I'm so grateful that God's organization is kept clean! It has freed me from the burden of owning a cat and all the spiritual pitfalls and financial commitments that go with it. I hope all the brothers will realize how the Devil subtly uses cats to corrupt and distract us from the disciple-making work.' (Matt. 24:14). What fine examples of faithfulness!
The question of how to dispose of one's unwanted cat is a serious matter. Would it be proper to hand over such a creature of Satan to a person of the world? We see no immediate problem with this, as such a person is already immersed in the wicked ways of this system of things, and so a beastly companion would be a fitting one indeed. They could accompany eachother on the road to destruction, through ignoring God's generous gift of life proffered via His spirit-begotten earthly organization. It is on this same sound principle that a Christian doctor would have no reason to deny blood transfusions to a worldly patient. If, on the other hand, one took the view stated on page 128 of the abovementioned Watchtower, and consider that the pet or any other animal is under the ultimate jurisdiction of a Christian, who therefore bears responsibilities (Eccl. 12:13,14; Jas. 4:17, 1 Pet. 3:21) that are essentially parental in nature. The cat is a dependant. In harmony with this, surely it is the parent's obligation before God to ensure the feline pet is treated as one would an unruly child who repeatedly refused to obey its parents, or of one who committed apostasy. Unfortunately in the case of human offspring, one is limited by the laws of the higher authorities of the land as to what scripturally-ordained punishment may be meted out, as compliance with both sets of laws is necessary in such areas. This may not always be the case in terms of felines, where the fact that we are not living in theocratic countries may not prove such an impediment to what God requires of us, as manmade law may not afford such unmerited protection to cats as it does to humans. God's soldiers would be mindful to apply, where the case merited it and local custom did not prohibit it, the principle of Deut. 21:18-21 which states that: 'In case a man happens to have a [dependant] who is stubborn and rebellious, he not listening to the voice of his [guardian], and they have corrected him but he will not listen to them, his [guardian] must also take hold of him and bring him out to the older men of his city and to the gate of his place, and they must say to the older men of his city, 'This [dependant] of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he is not listening to our voice, being a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his city must pelt him with stones, and he must die.' The mature follower of Jehovah will do well to be reminded of God's advice in page 503 of The Watchtower of November 15, 1952 where it was held that 'In the case where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship? .. We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. 'Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, .. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.' -Deut. 13:6-11, AS.' Of course, we can take no legal responsibility for anything which results from your voluntary application of your interpretation of such Biblical principles as you may believe that we have brought to your attention.
As loyal followers of Jehovah's thinking on this matter, we can rejoice in the fact that in the new system, the incoming theocracy and World Order, the 'lion will lie down with the lamb' -Isa. 11:6-7. Yes, when Satan is finally abyssed, the 'beastly' nature of felines will be forever abolished, and they will be fit companions for humans on Paradise Earth! But until that rapidly-approaching time, God will reward all of our efforts to maintain integrity by loyally submitting to the leading of his spirit expressed through the loving guidance of the 'faithful and discreet slave'. -Matt. 24:45-47