Christian Evangelism - Is it Off Track?

Read the whole passage. "That which is complete" is not the Bible, but being made whole in the presence of the Lord seeing him face to face in the Resurrection. It never states, nor implies that the Bible is that which is perfect, and the word of God in the OT is just as much the word of God in the New Testament. In fact, if the Bible were the perfect thing we were looking for, we would not need to be looking for His return, for reliance on the Spirit of God to overcome weaknesses, etc,...because we would know Him just as He knows us.This is what it says. Unless you are seeing Him face to face, the gifts have not been done away with.Now, you are right about love for one another being the mark of His disciples. That doesn't change the fact of the gifts of the Spirit being present until we see him face to face.This message has been edited by randman, 08-18-2005 06:06 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 08-18-2005 06:09 PM

I think that when you peddle door to door that you should tell people up front that if they join your religion, and they are in a terrible car accident or have a difficult child birth and lose a lot of blood, they will no longer be able to avail themselves of the modern, life-saving technique of getting a blood transfusion.They will also not be permitted to save the lives of their children.If you tell them this up front, it would be in the interest of full disclosure so they can make an informed descision, right?It would be the honest thing to do.

Dear schrafinator; If by "drinking the Kool-Ade" you mean being willing to die for one's beliefs, yes I am, that is what being a Christian is all about. In fact if you have a moral stand but are not willing to die for your principles, of what value is it?, since it is gone as soon as somebody puts a gun to your head. Even soldiers are expected to brave death, those who don't are called traitors. Now if it is expected for people die rather than betray their country, shouldn't we be willing to face death to obey God who can resurrect us whereas your country can't.We don't worship the Bible or any other book, we worship only Jehovah the true god, alone.Your example of someone dying for sure, if they don't get blood and living for sure if they do, doesn't exist in reality. Many Jehovah's Witnesses have been told that they would die without blood, I have talked to some of them and they are still alive, and I know of some who took the blood and died anyway. There are also many alternatives to blood, http://www.watchtower.org/cgi-bin/lib/ProcessForm.pl and for an increasing number of medical conditions they are less risky than taking blood. There still are of course, situations where not taking blood entails more risk than taking it, but it is a matter of patient rights that they have the right to decide what treatments they will, or will not accept. It is morally wrong for a doctor to force a treatment on a patient that he feels is better, but that the patient has refused. So even if it is some silly fear of the patient, the doctor is bound to obey the patient's wishes, otherwise the patient doctor relationship breaks down, if you can not trust your doctor to follow your decisions for your medical treatment. Like you agree with your doctor on an operation to rebuild your damaged leg, but after he puts you out, he talks to your HMO, who tells him to take it off since it is cheaper. So it is not up to me or anyone else to decide whether or not to give blood to someone else, it is up to that person to decide for themselves, and their discussion whatever it is, should be respected.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

Dear Randyman; If you want to be very technical, we are both wrong, (1 Corinthians 13:9-10) "For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially; but when that which is complete arrives, that which is partial will be done away with." Paul is talking about knowledge. He is saying that once we have complete knowledge we no longer need the partial knowledge they then had supported by miracles. In verse 12, "For at present we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face to face. At present I know partially, but then I shall know accurately even as I am accurately known." Paul is talking about limited knowledge being like seeing the hazy outline in a metal mirror, but when complete knowledge arrives, it will make things clear like looking directly at a person. Paul is using this as an illustration about knowledge, there is no reference to seeing God or Christ in person. That perfect knowledge arrived with the completion of the NT, even thought it was not fully understood until the time of the end. Once they had the completed Bible, they would no longer need the healing and such, since they would have the complete proof or evidence of having God's support in God's Word. The word complete or perfect is used in reference to the Bible or rather the knowledge given to us in the Bible, in that it is the complete knowledge that God has intended for us to have at this time, that we do not need other so called inspired books that some religions claim are necessary. All we need to know about God and what he expects of us, is found in the Bible. (2 Timothy 3:16-17) "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." With the completion of the Scriptures, we no longer have need for that which is partial. The purpose of the powerful works was to show that the disciples were speaking the truth and God was with them. (Hebrews 2:3-4) "verified for us by those who heard him, while God joined in bearing witness with signs as well as portents and various powerful works and with distributions of holy spirit." With the completion of the Bible, such powerful works were no longer necessary since matters of what is Truth can be determined by checking the Scriptures which set things straight.There is also the matter that the ability to perform and only given to a person when one of the apostles was present. (Acts 8:18-19) "Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the hands of the apostles the spirit was given, he offered them money, saying: "Give me also this authority, that anyone upon whom I lay my hands may receive holy spirit."" Only the apostles had the gift of giving the gifts of the holy spirit to others, once they all had died, no new ones received the gifts of the holy spirit. This is how the gifts came to an end.The fact that the gifts ended with the death of the last person who had received holy spirit from one of the apostles, is shown by that we do not see the kind of works being done today that we read about in the Bible. I have never hear of a faith healer raising any one from the dead. All the cures in the Bible were complete sudden total cures that were obvious to all onlookers, while the cures being done today seem to be matters of the mind, with no visible physical change being obvious. You don't here of faith healers restoring lost limbs or other visible defects. Are we to believe that the holy spirit has grown weak? If these things are truly from God today, where is the power we read about in the Scriptures? These things seem to be from a lesser source, perhaps people's imagination and the power of positive thinking.So in conclusion, we both agree that Paul states that the gifts would end, but as I have hopefully shown above, there is no indication that he was talking about until seeing God, but rather he was talking about the coming of the complete knowledge of God contained in the completed Scriptures.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

oopsThis message has been edited by wmscott, 08-19-2005 08:02 PM

Dear schrafinator; Our scriptural stand on blood transfusions is very well known. Since it is one of main beliefs, it is covered in detail before a person is considered for baptism. Jesus Christ himself stated that anyone who wanted to be one of his disciples had to first sit down and count the cost, and only those who were will to make the sacrifices of being a follower of Christ, should do so.
(Luke 14:27-33) "Whoever is not carrying his torture stake and coming after me cannot be my disciple. For example, who of YOU that wants to build a tower does not first sit down and calculate the expense, to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, he might lay its foundation but not be able to finish it, and all the onlookers might start to ridicule him, saying, 'This man started to build but was not able to finish.' Or what king, marching to meet another king in war, does not first sit down and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand troops to cope with the one that comes against him with twenty thousand? If, in fact, he cannot do so, then while that one is yet far away he sends out a body of ambassadors and sues for peace. Thus, you may be sure, none of YOU that does not say good-bye to all his belongings can be my disciple."So we have to be willing to give up everything if necessary to be a follower of Jesus. If someone threatens to kill your whole family if you don't give up your faith, we are expected to remain faithful no matter what and trust in God. That is what being a Christian means.Blood transfusions are modern medicine? Have you been living in a cave? Transfusions are old dangerous medicine with risks that more and more people don't want to take any more. As I told you in my other post to you on blood. Your example of someone dying for sure, if they don't get blood and living for sure if they do, doesn't exist in reality. Many Jehovah's Witnesses have been told that they would die without blood, I have talked to some of them and they are still alive, and I know of some who took the blood and died anyway. There are also many alternatives to blood, http://www.watchtower.org/cgi-bin/lib/ProcessForm.pl and for an increasing number of medical conditions they are less risky than taking blood. Read the articles in the link, the medicine of tomorrow will be bloodless. As I have said before, more people have died from taking blood, than have died refusing it. The risks of refusing blood in general are small, and in the case of children who are too young to make their own decisions, if blood was really needed a court would step in and order it any way. The problem is getting the courts to respect the rights of patients to refuse blood, so there is no worry about children not getting it if it really was needed. Personally, since a young child is too young to understand these things, and only persons mature enough to be baptized are Jehovah's Witnesses, I would of course allow a court order transfusion for my child. My children when they are grown up enough to decide for themselves, will decide whether or not they will become one of Jehovah's Witnesses, so while I could not endorse a treatment I know to be wrong, I would allow it if it was ordered by a court for the life of one who has not yet taken the stand I have.Sincerely Yours; Wm Scott Anderson

I have. In fact, there are more of these things going on now than there back then. You need to realize that Paul wasn't in the habit of raising the dead or providing new body parts for people. That sort of thing happened during times of revival.Same exact things happen in intense spiritual revivals around the world today, and have throughout Church history. But just as Paul left a co-worker very sick, near to death, or Jesus Himself could not do any mighty miracles but heal a few sick folk in one time because of their unbelief so today there are places and periods with less of the miraculous, but there are still instances and occurences of the miraculous, more so than biblical eras. Most of the biblical era seems to have had only isolated periods of the miraculous with fairly long times without it.Also, you are wrong to think complete knowledge came with the whole Bible. I don't care who you are on the earth and how many years you have read and studied the Bible, you still see through a glass darkly, and still have imperfect knowledge.You are right to see Paul is talking about complete knowledge, but wrong to think it can come from merely having or even reading, believing and studying the Bible, and not from seeing the Lord God face to face.Sure, the word of God is good for reproof, for doctrine, etc,...to furnish the man of God with what he needs for godliness, but guess what?You can be godly with imperfect knowledge, and partial knowledge has never been done away among us mere mortals on earth.No, the face to face speaks of the Lord Himself, and when the end comes, then we will no longer need the gifts of the Spirit because the fullness of the Godhead will be manifest and we will see Him face to face.

1) I had not realized that refusing blood transfusions was a core tenet of Christianity. Where does Christ mention it in the NT?2) If people understand the ramifications of refusing blood transfusions for themselves, then let them die.I guess that your God thinks it's better to leave orphans behind and follow a particular interpretation of a bible passage than use modern medicine and live to care for one's children.Strange idea of love and family.However, I think that people should not be allowed to refuse such treatment for their minor children.3) Do you think that the people who drank the Kool-Ade were right to die for their faith?

I don't believe it is wrong to use blood transfusions, but Scott has a point. There are things worse than dying. People should have a right to follow their faith, even if wrong, provided it does not involve coercion of others.Parents ultimately are the ones in charge of their children's welfare, and JWs should have the right to raise them as they see fit.

quote:

---

I don't believe it is wrong to use blood transfusions, but Scott has a point. There are things worse than dying.

---

Sure, if you say so.But that is for an adult of sound mind to decide, not a dependent child.

quote:

---

People should have a right to follow their faith, even if wrong, provided it does not involve coercion of others.

---

...and minor children being raised by religious extremists are being coerced.

quote:

---

Parents ultimately are the ones in charge of their children's welfare, and JWs should have the right to raise them as they see fit.

---

Should it be legal for parents to suffocate their children during an exorcism to get a demon out of them?Or starve them to death because God told them to?Both have hapenned in recent years.Why shouldn't the government have the responsibility to protect minor children from the religiously-motivated physical harm visited upon them by their own parents?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-20-2005 05:25 PM

I thought the thread was about mainline protestantism, or even about mainline Christianity. It seems to have devolved into JW bashing.

Well, I've been arguing for years that it's wrong to inject acid onto a baby and kill it just because the Mom says so, but the government calls it a right of privacy.I can hardly see where allowing one to kill your own baby on purpose is not worse than making a judgment call that accidentally results in your child's death.But hey, carry on!

quote:

---

Well, I've been arguing for years that it's wrong to inject acid onto a baby and kill it just because the Mom says so, but the government calls it a right of privacy.

---

A fetus isn't a baby.I am talking about a child that has been born and is currently existing independent of it's mother's body.

quote:

---

I can hardly see where allowing one to kill your own baby on purpose is not worse than making a judgment call that accidentally results in your child's death.

---

You are now being completely inconsistent.If you support the JW's right for witholding lifesaving medical treatment from their children in accordance with their beliefs such that their informed descisions result in the death of the minor child, then you must also support a woman's right to end a pregnancy in accordance to her own beliefs.So, please answer the wuestion I asked:Why shouldn't the government have the responsibility to protect minor children from the religiously-motivated physical harm visited upon them by their own parents?This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-21-2005 02:37 PM

Coulda fooled me. Maybe you mean an embryo is not a baby, which I would disagree with, but regardless, fetus is just Latin for "unborn child" and does in fact mean "baby." I don't see the difference myself. You allow babies to be killed on purpose, and then complain about allowing JW parents the right to make a questionable judgment call that could result in the accidental death of their children.And no, there is no contradiction. One is killing the child on purpose, and the other is a misjudgment at best. A little something called the 1st amendment to the Constitution.

quote:

---

A little something called the 1st amendment to the Constitution.

---

So, do you believe that people have the right to starve their children to death because they believe God wants them to?Do you also believe that people have the right to stone their children to death because they believe that God requires them to?Do you believe that people have the right to suffocate their child to death in an effort to exoercize a demon because they believe that God wants them to?