@djeggnog wrote:
Let me tell you something: Neither Jehovah's Witnesses nor the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses are masters over anyone faith, but we are all fellow workers that are exhorting faithfulness with respect to all of God's commands that we may all experience the joy of everlasting life that our brothers and sisters might "have the glorious freedom of the children of God." (Romans 8:21) You want to blame the WTS for someone dying due to their not accepting a blood transfusion, as the Bible clearly teaches, which blood transfusion btw may or may not have saved their lives (so that one accepting a blood transfusion and dying as a result could also mean eternal death for one's lack of faith!), but, really, it is not by means of the faith of any of Jehovah's Witnesses, who might exhort any one of us to keep faith with Jehovah that is able to make any of us stand, but it is only by our own faith that we are standing. (2 Corinthians 1:24)
@thenoblelodge wrote:
Then somebody needs to tell them to stop cutting people off from their families. If you are not a master over someone elses faith you do not have the power to do this.
I'm sorry, but although you clearly do not believe this to be so, since God's Messianic Kingdom was born in the heavens, Jesus had been ruling over his followers -- ruling over his subjects here in the earthly realm of his kingdom -- and this has been since 1914. It has been true since 1914, just as Jesus stated at Matthew 10:34, 35, that Jesus has brought a sword upon the earth, which sword has been the cause of "division" within the family circle, for it is over the kingdom issue that Jehovah's Witnesses preach that division has come to exist between "a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a young wife against her mother-in-law." (Matthew 10:34, 35)
While Jesus did come to unite families in the worship of his heavenly father, the only true God, Jehovah, he didn't come to unite people in the worship of "the god of this system of things," the one "who is misleading the entire inhabited earth" and who is responsible for the spiritual blindness that exists among mankind. (2 Corinthians 4:4; Revelation 12:9)
As a proximate result of "the sword" that the kingdom message contains, many of those who have been disfellowshipped from God's organization have become enemies of God, "a man's enemies" being "persons of his own household," because those family members themselves, including those who were formerly Jehovah's Witnesses, have themselves made "those related to [them] in the faith" their enemies over the kingdom issue. (Matthew 10:36; Galatians 6:10)
If a Christian should actually have greater affection for their disfellowshipped family members, who came to decide that they would no longer walk in the truth, than they do for Jesus, if they should actually have "greater affection for father or mother" than they do for Jesus," as Jesus himself says three times at Matthew 10:37, 38, then that person "is not worthy of me; and he that has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not accept his torture stake and follow after me is not worthy of me."
Anyone that is called either a "brother" or a "sister," who "is a fornicator or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner," becomes a friend of the world, a friend of Satan's, and constitutes himself an enemy of God" (1 Corinthians 5:11; James 4:4), and this is someone that is not worthy of being called a Christian. No one is cutting anyone off from their family, but the individual that had made a dedication to God to do His will by becoming a follower of His son, only to engage in conduct unbecoming to a Christian, conduct that is left unchecked could adversely affect the spirit in the congregation, including shameful conduct, foolish talking and obscene jesting, which are things that do not befit holy people (Ephesians 5:3-5).
Those Christians being disfellowshipped to whom you are here referring know quite well from what the apostle Paul stated at 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 that Christians, whether they be blood relatives or not, cannot "[mix] in company" with such wicked persons as if they had not committed a disfellowshipping offense against the Lord causing their removal from the congregation of God over the kingdom issue, the "sword" that does divide those that no longer wish to 'accept their torture stake and follow after Jesus' from those that do accept their torture stake and do wish to follow after Jesus.
Those being disfellowshipped from God's organization are cutting themselves off from their own families due to their unchristian conduct. For you to be here intimating otherwise, as if in disfellowshipping errant ones, the local elders among Jehovah's Witnesses are engaging in actions that are wholly unscriptural flies in the face of the offenses that led to the removal of such ones from God's congregation, since "remove the wicked man from among yourselves" at 1 Corinthians 5:13 is the scriptural injunction to which Jehovah's Witnesses adhere. To comport oneself as befits holy people is, in fact, what a Christian signs onto when he or she becomes one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I believe you know this.
If they are not masters over someones faith then why, when someone is DF'd, are they told they can no longer pray to God because He will no longer listen to them.
What does someone telling someone else that they can no longer pray to God have to do with anyone seeking to be the masters over someone else's faith? I don't follow this at all. If someone is disfellowshipped, it doesn't matter what someone else might say as to whether the disfellowshipped individual's prayers are being heard by God. For a fact, Jehovah does listen to the prayers of anyone that earnestly seeks His face and desires to do His will, so if the disfellowshipped person should be earnestly seeking God and has a change of heart so that he or she desires to do God's will, I'm absolutely certain that God hears this individual's prayers. However, as long as the one praying is pursuing a course of wickedness, then as with any wicked person, we know, since prayers -- the "sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of lips" -- are a form of worship, that Jehovah does not hear that individual's prayers, for the prayers of the wicked are something detestable to Jehovah. (Proverbs 28:9; Hebrews 13:15) All such worship -- all such prayers that are not based on truth -- goes to Satan, and only Satan hears those prayers.
For, as Jehovah says at Isaiah 1:11- 18, "of what benefit to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?" "I have had enough of whole burnt offerings... I have taken no delight [in them].... Stop bringing in any more valueless grain offerings. Incense--it is something detestable to me.... [W]hen you spread out your palms, I hide my eyes from you. Even though you make many prayers, I am not listening.... Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the badness of your dealings from in front of my eyes; cease to do bad. Learn to do good; search for justice; set right the oppressor; render judgment for the fatherless boy; plead the cause of the widow.... [L]et us set matters straight between us. "Though the sins of you people should prove to be as scarlet, they will be made white just like snow." IOW, what I am saying here is that it is true that God does not listen to the prayers of the wicked, for such prayers are detestable to Jehovah.
I mean, if a brother is having adulterous sexual relations with a sister virtually every weekend over an eight-month period at an out-of-the-way hotel until their illicit relationship is discovered (the adulterous bisexual husband on the down-low unknowingly contracts syphillis from a second illicit relationship that he is having with another man, so that the 16-year-old sister with whom he was having an illicit relationship needs to get a hysterectomy since she didn't know she had trusted that the brother was "faithfully" having sex with only she and his wife, should I conclude that Jehovah is actually listening to the prayers of such a man, now divorced, if he is continually having sex with other men? I hear all of these things are happening in our midst, but every "legal case" is different, and so if I do not see repentance in this man, what on earth do you think Jehovah sees? As 1 Samuel 16:7 points out, "mere man sees what appears to the eyes; but as for Jehovah, he sees what the heart is."
If they are not masters over someones faith then why do they think they have the power to do such things.
Here's what I know: Jesus told Peter the following at Matthew 16:19: "Whatever you may bind on earth will be the thing bound in the heavens, and whatever you may loose on earth will be the thing loosed in the heavens." This is the scriptural authority for the decisions that are made in God's congregation. Now you can balk and you can cry, you can scream and you can holler, but what things are being done in such judicial matters are being done according to the way of righteousness "in God's household, which is the congregation of the living God, a pillar and support of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)
@jookbeard:
eggnog? you are one of the Rank and File
Ok.
@djeggnog wrote:
It is true that at one time God's viewpoint with respect to organ transplants was understood differently than it is understood today, and it is also true that there were those desirous of pleasing Jehovah that rejected an organ transplant that may or may not have saved their lives or may or may not have extended their lives, and while some of Jehovah's Witnesses that faced this trial survived, many others died due to their desire to maintain their integrity to Jehovah, come what may, having faith in Jehovah that should their rejection of the organ transplant result in their death that they would eventually come to hear Jesus' voice during His Millennial reign and be resurrected to life.
@cantleave wrote:
Bullshit!! How can anyone understand God's viewpoint, let alone control people's behaviour regarding that viewpoint when there is absolutely nothing stated in the bible regarding it. Surely this is the same as the [Pharisees] were doing in the 1st century? Making up burdensome rules to control the populace.
You might think what I say here it to be "Bullshit," and that's fine, but back in 1967, it is true that in a "Questions from Readers" article, w67 11/15, pp. 702-704, a few wrongheaded ideas did find their way into the Watchtower regarding organ transplants, one of them being the following:
"Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others." (Id. at 702.)
Also:
"Not to be overlooked is the use to which a dead body might be put. Would a Christian who, while living, refused to give his blood to be used as a transfusion for some other person, allow his body to be turned over to a group or to a person and possibly at that time have the blood removed and used for transfusion, as has been done with some cadavers? (See, for example, Awake! of October 22, 1962, page 30.) A person might feel that he could stipulate that his body not be used in that way; but if many persons in authority refuse to abide by a Christian’s wishes about blood when he is alive, what reason is there to believe they will show more respect for his wishes after his death? Would they use his organs in cannibalistic medical experiments?" (Id. at 703.)
(This reference to the Awake! magazine in this Watchtower article the "Watching the World" section indicated that in one year "more than two tons of such [cadaver] blood" had been transfused in one Russian hospital and that some 30 tons of "blood from dead persons ... taken from the corpse within an hour after death" had been used in Russia.)
Assuming that you have read this 1967 QFR article, what you may have missed is the fact that the decision to accept an organ transplant was the personal decision of the conscientious Christian:
"Christians who have been enlightened by God’s Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him." (Id. at 704.)
Thirteen years later, in a subsequent "Questions from Readers" article, w80 3/15, p. 31, because many had wrongly concluded that their acceptance of an organ transplant as part of a medical procedure to have been a disfellowshipping offense, this more balanced article was published regarding organ transplants, which stated, in pertinent part, as follows:
"Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. They might hold that the transplanted human material is intended to become part of the recipient’s body to keep him alive and functioning. They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth...."
And later, in the same article, we read the following:
"Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. They may reason that in some cases the human material is not expected to become a permanent part of the recipient’s body. Body cells are said to be replaced about every seven years, and this would be true of any human body parts that would be transplanted. It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the 'donor' is not killed to supply food.... [E]ach individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant."
What do you believe Jehovah's Witnesses or the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses or even the Writing Committee should be faulted for this 1967 article making it to press? Should Jehovah's Witnesses in 1980, the year when a more balanced article went to press, rightly be called upon to defend anything at all in the 1967 article? What about Jehovah's Witnesses in 2010? Should they be required to defend what this 43-year-old article stated about organ transplants?
I say "No," because this is not our view about organ transplants today, but you say "Yes," and I can accept this opinion of yours, even though I cannot agree with it, since, like I stated earlier, the decision to accept an organ transplant was the personal decision of the conscientious Christian. "They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions...." for we do not wish to "have a consciousness of committing [any] offense against God and men." (Acts 24:16; 1 Peter 3:16) In other words, @cantleave, not one of Jehovah's Witnesses made up any "burdensome rules" for anyone at all regarding organ transplants in order to control either "the populace" or Jehovah's Witnesses. You are mistaken.
@djeggnog wrote:
Second, an apology is only due when someone commits a sin against someone else. If you've ever read the Bible, then you would know this. Should Jehovah's Witnesses take a wrong understanding from something read in the Bible and teach accordingly, someone else with a correct understanding offers a scriptural correction to the one discovered to have had a wrong understanding about a matter. Who do you believe ought to apologize to whom? The one teaching something inapposite to what the Bible actually teaches? Or the one bringing the matter to the attention of the individual that has been teaching something inapposite to what the Bible actually teaches? Which?
It is only when an individual, after having been corrected, should continue to teach something that is inapposite to what the Bible actually teaches deliberately that he or she becomes guilty of apostasy, for Christians "should all speak in agreement." (1 Corinthians 1:10)
@cantleave wrote:
In this case the WTS is the one teaching something inapposite to what the the bible is teaching. It has to be - or there would be no need to change their teaching. If the person disagreeing with what the WTS is teaching, wrongly, and that person's thought are correct, then surely they are owed an apology. Especially if they were expelled from the organisation and suffered the consequence that go along with that.
No one has ever been disfellowshipped from God's organization for accepting an organ transplant, so who is there that is owed an apology from anyone?
@cantleave wrote:
Eggnog stop justifying the lies and hypocracy of this evil organisation - people like you make me sick!!!
@djeggnog wrote:
What "evil organisation"?
@cantleave wrote:
You exactly what evil organisation I am referring to - the Watchtower Society and all [its] legal [subsidiaries].
When you were once associated with Jehovah's Witnesses, you were a part of Jehovah's organization, and you did not think at the time that you had become a part of any "evil organization," did you? You were not a part of the Watchtower Society, which is merely the publishing arm of Jehovah's Witnesses responsible for both the writing and printing of our many publications, but a fellow worker with Christ "[doing] all things for the sake of the good news, that [you might] become a sharer of it with others," not ashamed of the witness about our Lord, ... but [taking] your part in suffering evil for the good news according to the power of God." (1 Corinthians 9:23; 2 Timothy 1:8)
I, too, am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, not a part of the Watchtower Society, a Christian servant of God, and I'm not a part of any evil organization or "evil organisation." In this, too, you are also mistaken.
@djeggnog
