It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jehovah's Witnesses believe UN will ban Religion

page: 39
18
<< 36  37  38   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Volkgeister

If this is a belief in accordance to JV?
Then I believe it is wrong again. As I
believe they are in some other regards
as well. I think the Bible is pretty clear
about where religion will be soon. And
more in step with globalism we see
today. I do believe the UN will enforce
a one world everything. Economy,
Govt. Currency etc. And a one world
religion. I think that's how the whole
world will be led to worship the beast.
How could that ever happen with many
or no religion? This is a key point in
prophecy that can't bend.




posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Volkgeister

Jehovah's Witnesses believe UN will ban Religion - Well they wrong as this bloke describes in his 1969 talk "Everything is in Place and No one can stop us now"


'This is a transcript of the recollections of Dr. Lawrence Dunegan regarding a lecture he attended on March 20, 1969 at a meeting of the Pittsburgh Paediatric Society. The lecturer at that gathering of paediatricians (identified in tape three recorded in 1991) was a Dr. Richard Day (who died in 1989). At the time.

Dr. Day was Professor of Paediatrics at Mount Sinai Medical School in New York. Previously he had served as Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

There are over 100 things listed in the notes of Dr. Lawrence Dunegan, but on the subject of religion Dr Day said this:

He said, “Religion is not necessarily bad. A lot of people seem to need religion, with its mysteries and rituals – so they will have religion. But the major religions of today have to be changed because they are not compatible with the changes to come. The old religions will have to go especially Christianity. Once the Roman Catholic Church is brought down, the rest of Christianity will follow easily. Then a new religion can be accepted for use all over the world.

In order to do this, the Bible will be changed. It will be rewritten to fit the new religion. Gradually, key words will be replaced with new words having various shades of meaning. Everything in Scripture need not be rewritten, just key words will be replaced by other words.

Then followed one of the most surprising statements of the whole presentation: He said, “Some of you probably think the Churches won’t stand for this,” and he went on to say, “the churches will help us!” but there was no elaboration on this.

My comment - Why and how would the high flyers in the Catholic church want to bring Christianity down?

The answer lies in the question why do the Bishops never throw pedophile priests out of the church?

Why do they just move them on to another unsuspecting and trusting community?

Might it be because they want to use these people to destroy the reputation of the RC church and so help bring it down?

Might it be because by leaving pedos in place they can wreck havoc on the belivers and turn them away from the church?

You decide.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Oh look some Joho propoganda, not peer reviewed articles. You claim to be educated in science, yet you resort to flipping YouTube.



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden
None of the people who are in the videos are Jehovah's Witnesses. If it's propaganda at all, it's not theirs. Anyway, the first video is from the Australian National Blood Authority:

The National Blood Authority’s (NBA) core business is to deliver a blood supply system that is responsive to patient needs, built on evidence based clinical practice and ensures Australia’s blood supply is safe, secure, adequate and affordable now and in the future.

NBA is a statutory authority that represents the interests of the Australian and state and territory governments, and sits within the Australian Government’s Health portfolio.

Source: National Blood Authority

The 2nd video is a news report and the 4th video is an interview with a highly experienced surgeon. I'll take his word over yours on the subject, since your focus seems to be on accusative or discrediting one-liners anyway. Youtube does not have the power to invalidate the actual discoveries in the sciences or the historical facts regarding the unhealthy effects of blood transfusions or the medically superior healthier alternatives and who has been at the forefront of developing those alternatives (4th video).

Youtube videos can be very useful in demonstrating a point that is based on the evidence:

Atheists aren't the only ones that fit in the description and behavioural routine described above.

Your 'subtle' demand for "peer reviewed articles" rather than the teachings of experts in the field as found in youtube videos discussing or presenting the relevant science (the facts of the matter) reminds me of the conversation someone named Max Kolbe had with someone called "KingCrocoduck" when the latter was demanding for "the studies" just to do some painting on (discrediting of) the former. Standard debate- and 'distract from the facts'-mode, responded to by May Kolbe at 1:52 with the keypoints just before 3:01 and just before 3:13:

edit on 17-4-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Again no peer reviewed documents. You don't understand how this works.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden
By referring to the videos I shared as propaganda (claiming that it's propaganda) you are insinuating the information in it is false or intentionally misleading. It reminds me of the behaviour of those who make claims about an "imaginary God" and don't realize (or don't care) that by using the word "imaginary" they are making a claim that this particular God does not exist. A claim that may require something to back it up without ignoring and talking past the actual relevant facts (at least for someone who hasn't made up their minds yet). There's nothing propagandistic in the videos I shared. One-liner false accusations or smug dogmatic assertions with no evidence or even reason given to back it up. Hmmm, sounds familiar again:

edit on 17-4-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Neighour I don't think your deity is imaginary, just not supreme. SO don't make a false equivalency of arguments. I'm not an atheist, you KNOW I am not one. Yet here you go, and you try to imply it.

The Joho aversion to blood transfusions, is dangerous, and non scientific. It is because they interpret a the bible one way, while the rest of Christianity does not
NOT based on any evidence. Based on Gnosis.



posted on Apr, 17 2018 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden
Stop twisting my points and commentary please. Since you know that I know that you're not an atheist, stop trying to paint a picture on me as if I was implying that in order to discredit my commentary and distract from the facts in them.

Just another distraction from the actual medical data that contradicts what you just said about an aversion against blood transfusions somehow being "dangerous" and "non scientific" (the opposite of the reality of the matter, as proven by the evidence I shared and you ignored or keep talking past). In the words of the experienced surgeon whose research into the matter and experiences in the field you don't even want to hear ('you do not put up with' as per 2Tim 4:3,4), let alone acknowledge, regarding the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood transfusions:

"But as it turns out to be they were correct. Blood is a very dangerous substance and to stay away from it is... is a good advice for everybody." (8:39)

And earlier in the interview in response to a question about the heavy use of blood transfusions and blood products by surgeons (the interview is quite old):

"Well, that is rather unfortunate because this is what has been portrayed in movies and televisions and so forth and so on, because the first thing somebody screams is for 'blood' as the first line of defence, not recognizing, and we haven't recognized in medicine for a long period of time, that blood is probably the most dangerous substance we use in medicine today, probably kills more than any other drug that we use and it should not be used as the first line of defence but rather the last." (1:45)

edit on 18-4-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2018 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I am not twisting your points neighbour. If you do not like how I respond, you know what to do


As for blood being a dangerous substance? Its not a single substance. Its a mixture. It can contain pathogens. But so can the the substitutes Johos insist on using. We can not (yet) make a synthetic alternative to blood which satisfies the needs of the user. I do not object to consenting adults refusing a transfusion. I do object to parents endangering their children however. Same goes for Vegans. Thus the JoHo aversion to blood, as well as being anti-sceintific, is bad parenting.

Since you like posting Youtube....




top topics



 
18
<< 36  37  38   >>

log in

join