Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses - Revision history

Muser at 21:17, 13 July 2008

2008-07-13T21:17:04Z

P.B. Pilhet: /* Neutrality */

2008-05-13T00:27:38Z

‎Neutrality

Graham grove at 07:33, 11 May 2008

2008-05-11T07:33:14Z

P.B. Pilhet: added bit on neutrality; requesting discussion, please

2008-05-11T07:15:01Z

added bit on neutrality; requesting discussion, please

Muser: New page: This was moved out of the main article; it can be reworded and put back it at a later date: *''Example Argument Against Blood Transfusions:'' In a list of things that Christians were forb...

2008-05-08T14:51:16Z

New page: This was moved out of the main article; it can be reworded and put back it at a later date: *''Example Argument Against Blood Transfusions:'' In a list of things that Christians were forb...

New page

This was moved out of the main article; it can be reworded and put back it at a later date:

*''Example Argument Against Blood Transfusions:'' In a list of things that Christians were forbidden to do, since there was confusion because the Law had been abolished, the disciples said that Christians were supposed to abstain from blood. (Acts 15:28, 29) To illustrate: If a doctor told a man that he was to drink no more alcohol, would it be okay for the man to insert the alcohol into his veins? Hardly. Since God told man to abstain from blood, inserting it into your veins would not be abstaining from blood.

*''Example Counter-Argument for Blood Transfusions:'' The Law only prohibits ''drinking'' blood, ''not'' blood transfusions, because (a) blood transfusions were not in existence in Biblical times (and therefore the Bible cannot say anything against them), and (b) drinking blood can be very unhealthy (hence why it was prohibited by God). However, blood transfusions are ''not'' unhealthy, and in fact have saved millions of lives. The argument from the "alcohol analogy" (above) is a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy false analogy], because whether drinking alcohol or directly injecting it into one's body will have the same physical effect (both are unhealthy), whereas receiving a blood transfusion will have a different effect from drinking blood (the former is healthy, the latter is not).

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:17, 13 July 2008
Line 12:		Line 12:

	::I've re-worded the history section a bit - it should definitely be expanded some more. -- [[User:P.B. Pilhet\|P.B. Pilhet]] / [[User talk:P.B. Pilhet\|Talk]] 17:27, 12 May 2008 (PDT)		::I've re-worded the history section a bit - it should definitely be expanded some more. -- [[User:P.B. Pilhet\|P.B. Pilhet]] / [[User talk:P.B. Pilhet\|Talk]] 17:27, 12 May 2008 (PDT)
		+
		+	:::I've reverted it back to an older version. Words like "sincere" aren't appropriate in an article like this. Also, the NPOV doesn't need to be displayed here because this position on Jehovah's Witnesses is generally accepted by all Christian denominations; remember that Jehovah's Witnesses don't consider other denominations Christian and vice-versa. See the [[Wikichristian.org:Page Layout]] for the appropriate policy. --[[User:Muser\|Muser]] 14:17, 13 July 2008 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:27, 13 May 2008
Line 10:		Line 10:

	: Agreed. Like Justin has said, Jehovah's Witnesses aren't considered part of Christianity by other denominations, and they don't agree that other denominations are Christian. One of the main reasons is that they don't believe that Jesus is God (which for example is stated clearly in the Nicene Creed) and so they don't fit WikiChristian's criteria for a Christian denomination - see [[Wikichristian.org:Page Layout]] for details. --[[User:Graham grove\|Graham grove]] 00:33, 11 May 2008 (PDT)		: Agreed. Like Justin has said, Jehovah's Witnesses aren't considered part of Christianity by other denominations, and they don't agree that other denominations are Christian. One of the main reasons is that they don't believe that Jesus is God (which for example is stated clearly in the Nicene Creed) and so they don't fit WikiChristian's criteria for a Christian denomination - see [[Wikichristian.org:Page Layout]] for details. --[[User:Graham grove\|Graham grove]] 00:33, 11 May 2008 (PDT)
		+
		+	::I've re-worded the history section a bit - it should definitely be expanded some more. -- [[User:P.B. Pilhet\|P.B. Pilhet]] / [[User talk:P.B. Pilhet\|Talk]] 17:27, 12 May 2008 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:33, 11 May 2008
Line 8:		Line 8:

	I'm all for including information and arguments from the viewpoint of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but perhaps it should be done in another article (maybe titled something like, [[Jehovah's Witnesses (Jehovah's Witnesses Church viewpoint)]])? This article should be kept neutral, since most denominations do not except the Witnesss as a true Christian denomination. -- [[User:P.B. Pilhet\|P.B. Pilhet]] / [[User talk:P.B. Pilhet\|Talk]] 00:15, 11 May 2008 (PDT)		I'm all for including information and arguments from the viewpoint of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but perhaps it should be done in another article (maybe titled something like, [[Jehovah's Witnesses (Jehovah's Witnesses Church viewpoint)]])? This article should be kept neutral, since most denominations do not except the Witnesss as a true Christian denomination. -- [[User:P.B. Pilhet\|P.B. Pilhet]] / [[User talk:P.B. Pilhet\|Talk]] 00:15, 11 May 2008 (PDT)
		+
		+	: Agreed. Like Justin has said, Jehovah's Witnesses aren't considered part of Christianity by other denominations, and they don't agree that other denominations are Christian. One of the main reasons is that they don't believe that Jesus is God (which for example is stated clearly in the Nicene Creed) and so they don't fit WikiChristian's criteria for a Christian denomination - see [[Wikichristian.org:Page Layout]] for details. --[[User:Graham grove\|Graham grove]] 00:33, 11 May 2008 (PDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:15, 11 May 2008
Line 4:		Line 4:

	*''Example Counter-Argument for Blood Transfusions:'' The Law only prohibits ''drinking'' blood, ''not'' blood transfusions, because (a) blood transfusions were not in existence in Biblical times (and therefore the Bible cannot say anything against them), and (b) drinking blood can be very unhealthy (hence why it was prohibited by God). However, blood transfusions are ''not'' unhealthy, and in fact have saved millions of lives. The argument from the "alcohol analogy" (above) is a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy false analogy], because whether drinking alcohol or directly injecting it into one's body will have the same physical effect (both are unhealthy), whereas receiving a blood transfusion will have a different effect from drinking blood (the former is healthy, the latter is not).		*''Example Counter-Argument for Blood Transfusions:'' The Law only prohibits ''drinking'' blood, ''not'' blood transfusions, because (a) blood transfusions were not in existence in Biblical times (and therefore the Bible cannot say anything against them), and (b) drinking blood can be very unhealthy (hence why it was prohibited by God). However, blood transfusions are ''not'' unhealthy, and in fact have saved millions of lives. The argument from the "alcohol analogy" (above) is a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy false analogy], because whether drinking alcohol or directly injecting it into one's body will have the same physical effect (both are unhealthy), whereas receiving a blood transfusion will have a different effect from drinking blood (the former is healthy, the latter is not).
		+
		+	== Neutrality ==
		+
		+	I'm all for including information and arguments from the viewpoint of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but perhaps it should be done in another article (maybe titled something like, [[Jehovah's Witnesses (Jehovah's Witnesses Church viewpoint)]])? This article should be kept neutral, since most denominations do not except the Witnesss as a true Christian denomination. -- [[User:P.B. Pilhet\|P.B. Pilhet]] / [[User talk:P.B. Pilhet\|Talk]] 00:15, 11 May 2008 (PDT)