The Religion You Can't Talk About

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Murgatroid

Was he declared dead for at least 1 full day, 24 hours? How would one even check up on that without simply taking Dr. Eby's word for it? On what evidence is your claim that there was no blood in his body (how long?) based? Why should anyone take you or Dr. Eby, if what you said about blood accurately reflects his claims, seriously? It sounds pretty bogus to me, not something to be taken serious.

We shouldn't really take it seriously not only because its scientifically impossible to survive without blood, but because its a contradiction to what scripture plainly states on the matter.

(Leviticus 17:10-11) "¶ And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. [11] For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

originally posted by: whereislogic
Why should anyone take you or Dr. Eby seriously? It sounds pretty bogus to me...

One word: CREDIBILITY... why should ANYONE who promotes a known cult such as the JW, be taken seriously? It doesn't get any more bogus than that. Nothing personal BTW... Just sayin'...

a reply to: Dcopymope

It's also "scientifically impossible" for a person to be raised from the dead. Yet the Lord Jesus Christ DID along with many others all throughout scripture, which YOU just cited above BTW... Should we not take scripture seriously as well for the same reasons? Even if one DIDN'T believe in scripture, numerous people have come back from these experiences with absolute proof that what they saw was real... As for Dr. Eby, he's as reliable a source as you will find anywhere. He was a very highly regarded obstetrician that founded his own hospital in CA and delivered over 20,000 baby's...

originally posted by: Murgatroid
a reply to: Dcopymope

It's also "scientifically impossible" for a person to be raised from the dead. Yet the Lord Jesus Christ DID along with many others all throughout scripture, which YOU just cited above BTW... Should we not take scripture seriously as well for the same reasons? Even if one DIDN'T believe in scripture, numerous people have come back from these experiences with absolute proof that what they saw was real... As for Dr. Eby, he's as reliable a source as you will find anywhere. He was a very highly regarded obstetrician that founded his own hospital in CA and delivered over 20,000 baby's...

You're not getting the point. You're not going to find a scripture stating someone can be brought back to life without any blood flowing through their veins when both scripture and science agree that you cannot have life without blood.

a reply to: Dcopymope

Playing the "scientifically impossible" card, not feelin' you bruh...

And you're going to need a MUCH bigger box if you intend to keep God locked up in there.

originally posted by: Murgatroid
a reply to: Dcopymope

Playing the "scientifically impossible" card, not feelin' you bruh...

And you're going to need a MUCH bigger box if you intend to keep God locked up in there.

So you are disputing that Gods word plainly states the life of the flesh is in the blood? And are you claiming that sticking to what his word plainly states about how his creation functions is allegedly keeping God locked in a box?

a reply to: Dcopymope

ONE of us is disputing Gods word and it's NOT me... Matthew 10:8, John 19:34, to name just a few.

On top of that MANY MD's have stated that Jesus likely died from excessive blood loss...

The ONLY thing you have convinced me of is that religion ALWAYS lies for the simple fact that the father of all lies is the one hiding behind it. This is WHY religion makes me want to puke, it TWISTS scripture in ways that boggle the mind sometimes.

Francis Chan sums this up far better than I can below:

I told them my struggle is if you started with this (scripture), would you ever come up with your belief system? That is so hard to get from this book, if I just read this book... I can't get that from here, I can't get your mixing the book of mormon... here's my problem, I wouldn't come up with this whole theology if I started with this...

originally posted by: Murgatroid
a reply to: Dcopymope

ONE of us is disputing Gods word and it's NOT me... Matthew 10:8, John 19:34, to name just a few.

On top of that MANY MD's have stated that Jesus likely died from excessive blood loss...

The ONLY thing you have convinced me of is that religion ALWAYS lies for the simple fact that the father of all lies is the one hiding behind it. This is WHY religion makes me want to puke, it TWISTS scripture in ways that boggle the mind sometimes.

Francis Chan sums this up far better than I can below:

I told them my struggle is if you started with this (scripture), would you ever come up with your belief system? That is so hard to get from this book, if I just read this book... I can't get that from here, I can't get your mixing the book of mormon... here's my problem, I wouldn't come up with this whole theology if I started with this...

"Died from excessive blood loss."

Well of course, never said he didn't. How exactly does that prove your point that someone can live without blood? 🙃

originally posted by: Archivalist
I'm not looking for a reference in the Bible.
I'm not looking for a conversation with God.
I'm not looking for information about the afterlife.

Just the idea that the truth CAN be realized, in life, but not shared.
Independent of established religious sects.

I suppose I'm either not articulating my question well, or this isn't the place to ask it.

Regardless of how you feel about the Bible or God, it says that Jesus is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" and it's all done through the work of the Holy Spirit who gives us faith and understanding.

You are correct about the fact that you are not articulating your question very well. Truth about life after death can only be realized through faith, not through any independent ideas or thoughts separate from the Creator. By the way, anything that can be realized in this human life is capable of being shared through communication, but you can not share your own individual experiences/knowledge with others in any other way (if that's what you're asking). That's why faith and belief systems are considered personal. Everyone has their own individual experiences that can only be shared in this life through communication, not understanding.

According to the Hare Krishnas, the proof of reincarnation is here right now.

I've changed bodies from a tiny baby to a man in his mid-forties.
(And I've got the pictures to prove it.)

So I have quite literally reincarnated and changed bodies, and God-willing I will continue to do so and change more, and when this body is no longer useful, then I get a new body to continue this material process.

originally posted by: Dcopymope
"Died from excessive blood loss." Well of course, never said he didn't. How exactly does that prove your point that someone can live without blood? 🙃

Did you ALSO ask for proof from those who taught you that God is unable to raise a person from the dead without any blood? No? I didn't think so... And what difference would it actually make in your life if you DID have "proof"?

If you think I am trying to prove my point you are very mistaken, all I'm saying is that you are contradicting what scripture plainly states which presents a HUGE credibility issue. End of story...

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: Dcopymope
"Died from excessive blood loss." Well of course, never said he didn't. How exactly does that prove your point that someone can live without blood? 🙃

Did you ALSO ask for proof from those who taught you that God is unable to raise a person from the dead without any blood? No? I didn't think so... And what difference would it actually make in your life if you DID have "proof"?

If you think I am trying to prove my point you are very mistaken, all I'm saying is that you are contradicting what scripture plainly states which presents a HUGE credibility issue. End of story...

What scripture did I "contradict" exactly?

originally posted by: Murgatroid
a reply to: Dcopymope

...
The ONLY thing you have convinced me of is that religion ALWAYS lies for the simple fact that the father of all lies is the one hiding behind it. This is WHY religion makes me want to puke, it TWISTS scripture in ways that boggle the mind sometimes. ...

If religion ALWAYS lies, as you put it, then why are you so quick to believe their promotion of the lie that JW's are a cult, originally promoted by prominent religious figures in Christendom?

Perhaps because it tickles you ears?

Jesus Christ was accused of being a drunkard, a glutton, a Sabbath breaker, a false witness, a blasphemer of God, and a messenger of Satan. He was also accused of being subversive.​—Matthew 9:34; 11:19; 12:24; 26:65; John 8:13; 9:16; 19:12.

After Jesus’ death and resurrection, his disciples were likewise the target of serious accusations. One group of first-century Christians were dragged to the city rulers by people crying out: ‘These men have overturned the inhabited earth.’ (Acts 17:6) On another occasion the apostle Paul and his companion Silas were taken to the authorities and charged with greatly disturbing the city of Philippi.​—Acts 16:20.

Paul was later accused of being a “pestilent fellow and stirring up seditions among all the Jews throughout the inhabited earth” and of trying “to profane the temple.” (Acts 24:5, 6) The principal men of the Jews in Rome accurately described the situation of Jesus’ followers when they acknowledged: “For truly as regards this sect it is known to us that everywhere it is spoken against.”​—Acts 28:22. (“known cult” as you put it, sect is a synonym for cult)

Evidently, this new group established by Jesus Christ was considered by some to be a religious group with radical views and practices that clashed with what was accepted in those days as normal social behavior. Undoubtedly, many today would have considered the Christians a destructive cult. The accusers were often prominent and respected members of the community, and this seems to have added weight to the allegations. Many believed the accusations against Jesus and his disciples. Yet, as you probably know, every one of these charges was false! The fact that people said these things did not make them true.

What about today? Would it be accurate to refer to Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religious group with radical views and practices that clash with what is accepted as normal social behavior? Are Jehovah’s Witnesses a cult?

What the Evidence Shows

A government official of the city of St. Petersburg, Russia, explained: “Jehovah’s Witnesses were presented to us as some kind of underground sect sitting in the darkness and slaughtering children and killing themselves.” However, the people of Russia have recently become better acquainted with the true nature of the Witnesses. After working with Jehovah’s Witnesses in connection with an international convention, the same official observed: “Now I see normal, smiling people, even better than many people I know. They are peaceful and calm, and they love one another very much.” He added: “I really do not understand why people tell such lies about them.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not hold ritualistic meetings, nor is their worship cloaked in secrecy. Non-Witness author Julia Mitchell Corbett notes: “When they meet, usually more than once a week, in Kingdom Halls (their meeting sites are not called churches), most of their time is spent in Bible study and discussion.” Their meeting places are clearly marked with a sign. The meetings are open, and the general public is invited to attend. Unannounced guests are more than welcome.

The “Witnesses have earned the reputation of being honest, courteous, and industrious,” adds Corbett in her book Religion in America. Many who are not Witnesses readily acknowledge that there is nothing freakish or bizarre about Jehovah’s Witnesses. Their conduct does not clash with what is accepted as normal social behavior. The New Encyclopædia Britannica accurately states that the Witnesses “insist upon a high moral code in personal conduct.”

The director of news and special projects for a television station in the United States wrote to Jehovah’s Witnesses in response to a biased report about the Witnesses on the TV news show 60 Minutes. He said: “If more people lived the way your faith does, this nation wouldn’t be in the shape it is in. I am one newsman who knows that your organization is founded on love and a strong faith in the Creator. I want you to know that not all News people are as biased.”

A Well-Known Religion

Is it fair to say that Jehovah’s Witnesses are a small fringe religious group? In a sense, Jehovah’s Witnesses are few in number compared to some religions. However, recall what Jesus said: “Narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it.”​—Matthew 7:13, 14.

At any rate, the Witnesses are far from being a small fringe cult. In the spring of 1993, more than 11 million people attended the Witnesses’ Memorial of Christ’s death. But more important than their number are their moral character and exemplary behavior, which have brought them worldwide commendation. Undoubtedly this has been a factor in countries that have given them official recognition as a known, bona fide religion.

Outstanding is a recent ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. It declared that the Witnesses should enjoy freedom of thought, conscience, and religion and that they have the right to speak about their faith and teach it to others. This would hardly be the case if Jehovah’s Witnesses were known to use deceptive and unethical techniques to recruit members or if they used manipulative methods to control the minds of their followers.

Multitudes around the world are well acquainted with Jehovah’s Witnesses. If the millions of non-Witnesses who are studying the Bible with the Witnesses or who have studied with them at one time or another, were asked, Were there any attempts to brainwash you? Did the Witnesses employ mind-control techniques on you? “No” would doubtless be their frank response.

“Absorbed in Humanity”

Cult members often isolate themselves from family, friends, and even society in general. Is that the case with Jehovah’s Witnesses? “I do not belong to Jehovah’s Witnesses,” wrote a newsman in the Czech Republic. Yet he added: “It is obvious that they [Jehovah’s Witnesses] have tremendous moral strength. . . . They recognize governmental authorities but believe that only God’s Kingdom is capable of solving all human problems. But watch it​—they are not fanatics. They are people who are absorbed in humanity.”

And they do not live in communes, isolating themselves from relatives and others. Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize that it is their Scriptural responsibility to love and care for their families. They live and work with people of all races and religions. When disasters strike, they are quick to respond with relief supplies and other humanitarian assistance.

More important, they are engaged in an educational program that has no comparison. How many religions have an organized system to pay personal visits to every individual in their community? Jehovah’s Witnesses do this in more than 200 lands and in more than 200 languages! Clearly, Jehovah’s Witnesses are “absorbed in humanity.”

a reply to: Murgatroid

Strict Adherence to the Bible

Admittedly, the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses are different from those provided by the churches. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jehovah is the almighty God and that Jesus is his Son, not part of a triune deity. Their faith is anchored in the belief that God’s Kingdom alone can bring relief to suffering humanity. They warn people of the imminent destruction of this corrupt system of things. They preach about God’s promise of an earthly paradise for obedient mankind. They do not venerate the cross. They do not celebrate Christmas. They believe that the soul is mortal and that there is no hellfire. They will not eat blood, nor will they accept blood transfusions. They abstain from involvement in politics and participation in warfare. Have you ever asked yourself why the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses are so different?

A Massachusetts newspaper, the Daily Hampshire Gazette, explains that Jehovah’s Witnesses’ “strict interpretation of the Bible forbids many activities others take for granted . . . , all in an effort to follow the example of first-century Christians and the word of the Bible.” The Encyclopedia of Religion agrees that “all that they believe is based on the Bible. They ‘proof text’ (that is, supply a biblical citation to support) almost every statement of faith, taking for granted the authority of the Bible, which entirely supplants tradition.” The book Religion in America states: “The group has never wavered from its focus on Bible study, and its teachings are supported by an elaborate system of references to scripture.”

Who Is Their Leader?

It is precisely because of this close adherence to Bible teachings that the veneration and idolization of human leaders so characteristic of cults today is not to be found among Jehovah’s Witnesses. They reject the concept of a clergy-laity distinction. The Encyclopedia of Religion aptly states about Jehovah’s Witnesses: “A clergy class and distinctive titles are prohibited.”

They follow Jesus Christ as their Leader and as Head of the Christian congregation. It was Jesus who said: “Do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your teacher, whereas all you are brothers. Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for your Leader is one, the Christ.”​—Matthew 23:8-12.

It is clear that Jehovah’s Witnesses are as far from being a cult as Jesus was from being a glutton and a drunkard. Admittedly, not everyone who was influenced by the false reports about Jesus and his disciples fell into the trap of slandering him. Some may simply have been misinformed.

Are Jehovah's Witnesses a Cult? Exploding the MYTHS

a reply to: whereislogic

There's only one problem with religions that have all the answers. They don't allow questions.

a reply to: whereislogic

I'm seeing a lot of virtue signaling here, when people start boasting about their morals I start to question their intent, and likewise the morality behind them.

I think we've just discovered which "Religion You Can't Talk [Positively] About".

Unless you accept you'll be taking some flak for it.

The same counts for which idea/philosophy and myth/false story you 'can't' refute or criticize by using Scripture: 'conscious life after death'. Of course, technically you 'can', but speaking the truth about this matter by using "beneficial teaching" from the Scriptures, has some additional unavoidable effects on those who do not want to 'put up with it' because it doesn't 'tickle their ears' (as per 2 Timothy 4:3,4); and will comment accordingly.

I feel like it's a good time to repeat my quotation of 2 Timothy 4:3,4 (because I referenced it so much in this comment):

3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.* [KJV: “myths”]

2 Timothy 3:16, 17

16 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight,* [Or “correcting.”] for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

“However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. . . . and because of them the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. Also, they will greedily exploit you with counterfeit words.” (2 Peter 2:1-3)

The fact that he's selling a book about it (which gets endorsed almost right at the start of the first video used by Murgatroid), is a dead give-away for me for this conclusion (the blood claim also doesn't help in trusting the story as it is told by Murgatroid now, don't know if Dr. Eby makes the same claim in his book, can't be bothered to check; but if that's the impression Murgatroid got from those videos, it already tells me something fishy is going on).

"something fishy" = exploitation in this context. Murgatroid and anyone else buying into Dr. Eby's story being the ones that are exploited with counterfeit words by Dr. Eby and the ones who are endorsing his book in that video (or broadcast), trying to get attention and gain higher viewerratings by talking positively about the idea/philosophy of conscious life after death, tickling people's ears, telling them what they want to hear and what intrigues, entertains or pleases them (makes them feel good, or feel good about themselves, makes them feel spiritual and as having deeper insight than those who do not believe that conscious life continues after death in some kind of immaterial form, but accept the biblical teaching that at death a person ceases to exist, along with their thoughts, awaiting a resurrection back to life).

originally posted by: whereislogic
I think we've just discovered which "Religion You Can't Talk [Positively] About".
2 Timothy 3:16, 1716 All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight,* [Or “correcting.”] for disciplining in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.

Why would God be in the business of disciplining Itself? After all, It is THE creator of everything and surely is not subject to the demands of one of its creations: mankind?

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Is there anything in my comment that gave you the idea that God is in the business of disciplining himself?

Or are you applying a pantheistic view there, that God is (in) everything and/or everyone? 2 Timothy 3:16,17, which you quoted from my comment, is talking about the Bible as a tool for teaching, reproving, correcting and disciplining humans. I quoted it to elaborate on what the "beneficial teaching" in 2 Timothy 4:3,4 is referring to. It's the beneficial teaching and truth from the Scriptures that 2 Timothy 4:3,4 is talking about (that in relation to the biblical teachings regarding what happens to a person after death that I shared on the previous page and how people tend to respond to such reproof when it comes to their beliefs and pagan-originated* philosophies regarding life after death, usually involving the notion that the soul is immaterial and immortal or that some immaterial or spirit part of man survives the death of the physical body).

*: “The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.”—The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564.

“The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy. Only with Origen [died c. 254 C.E.] in the East and St. Augustine [died 430 C.E.] in the West was the soul established as a spiritual substance and a philosophical concept formed of its nature. . . . His [Augustine’s] doctrine . . . owed much (including some shortcomings) to Neoplatonism.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967), Vol. XIII, pp. 452, 454.

“The concept of immortality is a product of Greek thinking, whereas the hope of a resurrection belongs to Jewish thought. . . . Following Alexander’s conquests Judaism gradually absorbed Greek concepts.”—Dictionnaire Encyclopédique de la Bible (Valence, France; 1935), edited by Alexandre Westphal, Vol. 2, p. 557.

“Immortality of the soul is a Greek notion formed in ancient mystery cults and elaborated by the philosopher Plato.”—Presbyterian Life, May 1, 1970, p. 35.

“The problem of immortality, we have seen, engaged the serious attention of the Babylonian theologians. . . . Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., p. 556.

In contrast to Babylonian > Egyptian > Greek pagan philosophy that death is a passage to another kind of life, the Bible teaches that at death a person ceases to exist, their "thoughts do perish" (Ps 146:4). "The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all." (Eccl 9:5) There is no conscious life after death. If there was, it would nullify the need for a resurrection (back to life).

You can have a near death experience, but according to the Bible, you cannot have an after death experience before one is resurrected. And that's how most near death experiences are often interpreted by those who believe the aforementioned pagan philosophies about an immortal soul and life after death; as an after death experience, like Dr. Eby and those in those videos used by Murgatroid do.

originally posted by: Archivalist
Are there any readings or materials available in regards to a belief system, such that:

When one realizes the REAL truth of experience after death, it is designed in such a way that you are rendered incapable of sharing the information with anyone else, even those that already do/have, no matter what?

I have reason to believe that there must be something established which fits this description.

It is possible to develop a point of view that you can't relate to other people. Sometimes this can be accelerated through meditation or psychedelics.

What you are describing is why we have mythology. Myth is not intended to be taken as literally true, it exists to act almost like a placeholder for knowledge that can't be conveyed in our current languages.