Religion: pros & cons (Religion)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, October 18, 2014, 21:26 (3687 days ago) @ dhw

The clear black and white concerns some sort of loss of soul (needs to be clarified, since you don't believe in hell) if we disobey God.-Soul = Life, Living Being-
>DHW: But that does not mean your interpretation of God's will is correct. Do you really believe the Chief Rabbi, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope are disobeying God's laws, blinding themselves and their followers, taunting God and risking whatever loss of soul means, to save their own skin? -I did list ignorance among the possible reasons. But, to give you a different perspective, look at the Olsteen's.:->"I just want to encourage everyone of us to realize when we obey God we're not doing it for God. I mean, that's one way to look at it. Were doing it ourselves. Because God takes pleasure when we're happy. That's the thing that gives him the greatest joy this morning. I want you to know this morning just do good for your own self. Do good cuz God wants you to be happy.. When you come to church when you worship him you're not doing it for God really. You're doing it for yourself because that's what makes God happy." ~ Victoria Olsteen-->DHW: Is it not possible that they too have read the same texts as you and found a different meaning that is just as valid as yours? Are you not in danger of “losing” your own soul in trying to save it by your willingness, at least in theory, to sacrifice the lives of others? -No, because I am not trying to sacrifice anyone else's life. I am not causing their death, nor am I telling them to risk their life needlessly or to take it for granted. I would expect any human to preserve their own life at almost any cost, except that of breaking God's law. It is a difference of values. The grand creator can give back anything lost in service to him, and in fact promises to do so. Mankind can not give you back anything. So, who do I trust more? Who do I encourage people to trust more? God, or man?--> 
> http://www.jehovah.net.au/incorrect-doctrine/blood-transfusions-
Yeah, I've read this type of stuff before. To counters some of his points, the Witnesses never claimed to have had it right all along. They have in the past, and continue to do so, make corrections when they find that they were in error on some scriptural teaching(How many other religions admit when they were wrong?). They also used to celebrate Christmas, condone smoking, believed in the trinity, hell-fire, and a number of other things that they have long since abandoned as unscriptural. They do not hide their mistakes, nor are they ashamed of them. They humbly take their corrections and move on. Also, some of the points in your article are factually wrong on what the witnesses allow. Even the link I sent you said that ultimately, the partial components are a matter of personal conscience.Also note that your source is trying to use an article from 1989 to counter a stance given in 2000.-As for the biblical portion, lets test the validity of your source:->Source: Consuming blood was not forbidden until the Mosaic Law. Noah was not forbidden from consuming blood..
Genesis 9:4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.(ESV) -Does that seem like a legit argument to you?-Ultimately, this is what your man had on his mind: "when lives was at stake God allowed his laws to be broken if it would result in the preservation of life." This is a direct contradiction of scriptural principles that I have already sent to you in previous posts.-God does not break his own laws. He may be allowed to do things that we aren't, such as judge a man and condemn him to death, but that is his right as God. Neither does God give us special dispensation to break his laws whenever we deem it necessary. That is the same kind of reasoning that allowed for the Crusades, the Inquisition, and other church atrocities. --
> TONY: You may question my morals because of that, but consider this. If I do not believe in hell, and I do believe in a resurrection, and I believe that Jehovah will keep his promises, then why should I be afraid of death.
> 
> I do not question your morals, and I admire and appreciate the strength of your faith, your erudition, and your willingness to discuss these matters with sceptics like myself. But I am appalled by your apparent readiness to sacrifice the lives even of children on the strength of your interpretation of ancient texts which so many scholarly believers have interpreted differently. If I were a believer myself, I would assume that God would want us to enjoy, enrich and save life. Of course death must come, but just as he forbids murder, I would expect him to forbid the deliberate shortening of life when the means to prolong it are available.-We do not deliberately shorten life. We do not murder. We even avoid unsafe acts which may lead to early death or injury of ourselves and others. We do everything we can to ensure a long life and happiness because we too believe that God wants us to enjoy, enrich, save, and preserve life. However, there is a line beyond which we simply do not cross. Would you kill to save a life? Would you steal to save a life? Would it matter to you if the amount stolen was $5 or $1,000,000,000. This in essence is your argument: This law is not as important as a life, so we can break it if there is a life involved.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.