I just don't get how you can hate or not like the Amish.

Like dude. They don't even do anything to you. Jehovies are always in my face about their crappy beliefs with their 10 speeds and ties.

Gold, Amish people choose to live this way. And they don't bug anyone else or try to convert them. So why do you care?

They chose a simpler lifestyle than what most of us want. They make sure that their young people experience mainstream life before they decide to pursue the Plain lifestyle, so it's not even like they push it on younger generations. Why should you care about other people's lifestyle choices?

Well, it isn't fair to say that they don't push their beliefs onto younger generations. They definately do, I just think it isn't harsh as you might find with.. 50's dad and her daughter that married a black dude.

Meh, the point I was trying to make was that in making their kids live in mainstream life for about a year, they're at least letting them experience the lifestyle they're giving up

I must take issue with some of this. Much of the JW doctrine does not interpret scripture correctly, and some of it blatantly contradicts scripture.

1. For example, your organization teaches that Jesus == a creation of God, and is also the archangel michael. (taken from the wikipedia JW article, which you referenced) The Bible very clearly teaches that Jesus is God and existed in the beginning with God the Father. (John 1:1-2) Also, nowhere does the Bible state that Christ and Michael are one and the same.


2. Quoted from Wikipedia's JW article: "The soul is the person itself, not an immortal immaterial entity that dwells inside the body.[85] Thus, souls of deceased persons are considered dead, and death itself is a state of non-existence with no consciousness.[86] "

The Bible speaks many times about the souls of true believers that have been made new and imperishable. (Colossians 3:10, II Corinthians 5:17 , Romans 6:4) To address point 86, Jesus himself revealed that there is life after death (Luke 16:19-31)


I could go on and on.

...

This reminded me of this great quote from H2G2:



How can you even think of judging these people because of their use (or non-use) of technology?

...are you sure you're not thinking of the Mennonites?

Biblical literalism is unbelievably retarded. The Bible also says that bats are a type of bird and locusts have four legs, the value of pi = 3, two different lineages for Joseph and so on. It's clearly not inerrant and if you can see with your own eyes the good that a blood transfusion can do for the people who need that treatment, then why refuse it. Those who refuse rarely get the "Good health to YOU!".

Bible interpretation is SUBJECTIVE you stupid douchebag. How the hell are you going to read it and know EXACTLY how I interpret it?

**** you. Catholicism and our hierarchy of priests is: A. Oldest practiced Christian religion and B. You know, was INTERPRETTED FROM THE BIBLE just like you like to claim you're doing. Have I said you're stupid for reading it differently than me? No. Quit saying I am. And the out of context bull**** is the oldest arguement used and holds no water because, again, HOW YOU HEAR THAT CONVERSATION IS SUBJECTIVE.

I can't believe you are so blind to even give any other religion credit for ANYTHING.

This thread is made of butthurt and obstinance. 4/10.

So, em, if they don't believe in an afterlife... Then what's the point? I was kind of under the impression that the promise of an afterlife's the core basic of all modern monotheistic (Christianity, Islam, and all variations of) religions.

someone make this go away...

A. God didn't write the bible.
B. God didn't tell the men who did how to write the bible.
C. Someone who is crazy/part of a cult will never admit it and will think he's perfectly normal. Even when everyone around him shows him otherwise.

GoldG blindly believes in a religion right up there with scientology, yet because he belongs to the religion, he can't see how crazy and screwed up it really is. Arguing with him isn't going to get anywhere, because you could print out an entire factbook of why the watchtower is wrong, and he'd deny it all.

He won't ever admit he's wrong because in doing so he admits he's crazy. It's just a fact of life, crazy people will never admit they're crazy.

They do, it's just eternal life in paradise on earth, while a select few (144000) go to heaven.

There's that phrase I heard somewhere:
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place"

Seriously, why is this thread not locked yet?

I don't know about Mennonites, but I know I've heard of the Amish doing this as well.

Looks like it varies between communities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumspringa

Oh, goody, anther case of Gold picking people to bash in a pathetic attempt to gain respect and popularity.

What is an ice burg? ice burger?

I will retort using the New International Version bible. I am not using my own or any other that fits my beliefs, for all bibles do. I know that one believes that my bible is accurate, therefore I will use another one.

EDIT:
I recommend using the King James Version to look up these scriptures. The NIV is pretty crappy and can confuse some ideas. Why did I have to pick that translation?

I am also taking my sweet time to write this up, not just copying and pasting.
Please do read it.

Wrong.

Colossians 1:15 states:
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

John 1:1-2 states:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

This here would mean that yes, Jesus was in the beginning with God, but then we read:

John 1: 3 states:
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Which explains that Jesus was used in creating all things, therefore, we can easily conclude that the "beginning" began after Jesus was created, or, as I believe, it began with Jesus being created. This would make all 3 scriptures work with out any contradiction.

[CENTER]Michael the Archangel:[/CENTER]

Who is Michael the Archangel? (You asked for it, this is going to be a long one)

Well, we are first introduced to the one named Michael in Daniel:

Daniel 10:13 states:
But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia.

Daniel 10:20-21
So he said, "Do you know why I have come to you? Soon I will return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I go, the prince of Greece will come; 21 but first I will tell you what is written in the Book of Truth. No one supports me against them except Michael, your prince.

What has been stated here?

There was a spirit “prince of the royal realm of Persia,” opposing the activities of God’s angel. After Persia there would be a “prince of Greece,” promoting the interests of that world power. Among these spirit creatures, Michael was one of “the foremost princes.” Which nation did he guide and protect? Clearly, it was Daniel’s people, the Jews.

The name “Michael” means “Who Is Like God?” thus indicating that this foremost prince upholds Jehovah’s (God) sovereignty. Since Michael is also a champion of God’s people, we have reason to identify him with the unnamed angel that God sent ahead of the Israelites hundreds of years before:

Exodus: 23:20-21
"See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared.Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him; he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him."

It is logical to conclude that this was the angel that delivered so many important communications to God’s people:

Acts:7:30
After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush in the desert near Mount Sinai.

Acts 7:35
This is the same Moses whom they had rejected with the words, 'Who made you ruler and judge?' He was sent to be their ruler and deliverer by God himself, through the angel who appeared to him in the bush.


Judges 2:1-3
1 The angel of the LORD went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land that I swore to give to your forefathers. I said, 'I will never break my covenant with you, 2 and you shall not make a covenant with the people of this land, but you shall break down their altars.' Yet you have disobeyed me. Why have you done this? 3 Now therefore I tell you that I will not drive them out before you; they will be thorns in your sides and their gods will be a snare to you."

Is there anything here to make us believe that Michael and Jesus Christ are the same person?Jesus is called “the Word.”:

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

He is God’s spokesman. This special angelic messenger, too, was clearly God’s chief spokesman to the Israelites.

Michael receives greater authority:

Daniel 12:1
The End Times

"At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered."


Here, at the end times Michael is the great prince who protects your people (God's people). "arises".

Daniel had just described in Chapter 11 of the book of Daniel (DUH) the march of world powers from his own time on into the future. He had accurately described the fall of Persia and the rise of Greece. Then came the partitioning of the Greek empire. Two of the resulting political entities—the king of the north and the king of the south—would vie for ascendancy and control over God’s people. At the climax of that rivalry, Michael would “arise”, "stand up" or "appear" (Some translations use stand up in all the underlined words, other use arise, some use appear, but only a few use the same term or word in the same spot. Reading the following scriptures in the King James Version may make it easier to understand). What does this mean?

Well, in other parts of this same prophecy, the term “stand up” means that the person assumes authority to rule as a king.

Daniel 11:3-4
Then a mighty king will appear, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases.After he has appeared, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others.

Daniel 11:7
One from her family line will arise to take her place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress; he will fight against them and be victorious.


Tooken from King James because the NIV seems to have lost the entire idea of this scripture:

Daniel 11:20
Then shall stand up in his estate a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom: but within few days he shall be destroyed, neither in anger, nor in battle.

Daniel 11:21
And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

Hence, when Michael "stands up"/"arises" he too rules as king.

Before Daniel died, the last Jewish king, Zedekiah, had been deposed. There would be no Jewish king for centuries to come. Daniel’s prophecy showed that one day in the future God’s people would once again have a king—Michael.

Ezekiel, Daniel’s contemporary, foretold the coming of one “who has the legal right” to rule again as king of God’s people:

Ezekiel 25:25-27
25'O profane and wicked prince of Israel, whose day has come, whose time of punishment has reached its climax, 26 this is what the Sovereign LORD says: Take off the turban, remove the crown. It will not be as it was: The lowly will be exalted and the exalted will be brought low. 27 A ruin! A ruin! I will make it a ruin! It will not be restored until he comes to whom it rightfully belongs; to him I will give it

This one is not to be identified with the Levite Maccabees who exercised some authority during a brief period of independence. Not being descendants of King David, they had no “legal right” to be kings. Rather, it was Jesus Christ who was anointed by God to rule as king in a heavenly kingdom.

Luke 1:31-33

"31You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."


Luke 22:29
And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me,so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Psalms: 110:1
1 The LORD says to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet."


He was the only one thus anointed. It is therefore only logical to say that Jesus and Michael are the same person

In Daniel Chapter 7 , there is another prophecy about the march of world powers that has parallels with. At the climax of that prophecy, however, we read that “someone like a son of man” was “given rulership and dignity and kingdom.” The one “like a son of man” is widely recognized as Jesus. Hence, in the climax of one prophecy, Jesus becomes a king. In the other prophecy in Daniel, Michael becomes a king. Since both prophecies deal with the same time and the same event, surely it is reasonable to conclude that they are also dealing with the same person.

We next read of Michael in the Christian Greek Scriptures. The book of Jude tells us:

Jude 9:
But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"


This incident helps to show the closeness of Michael to God’s ancient people. Therefore, it supports the argument that he was the angel that went ahead of the Israelites to protect them.

We learn from Jude that Michael had the post of archangel. In fact, he was the archangel, since no other archangel is mentioned in the Bible, nor does the Bible use “archangel” in the plural. “Archangel” means “Chief of the angels.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament) Among God’s spirit servants, only two names are associated with authority over angels: Michael and Jesus Christ: Matthew 16:27; 25:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7
This, too, argues that Jesus and Michael are the same.

Interestingly, the name of Jesus is linked with the word “archangel” in one of Paul’s letters. The apostle writes:

1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

The context places this event during “the presence of the Lord,” when Jesus has started to rule as king.—1 Thessalonians 4:15; Matthew 24:3; Revelation 11:15-18.

It is Jehovah’s will and arrangement for Jesus to resurrect the dead. (John 6:38-40) It is God’s trumpet that sounds the call for the dead to come back to life, just as God instructed that trumpets be used for an assembly of his people in ancient times. (Numbers 10:1-10) Jesus issues “a commanding call” to the dead to come forth, just as he did on occasion while on earth. (John 11:43) But now he calls, not with a man’s voice as he did then, but with all the power of “an archangel’s voice” (en pho·ne′ arkh·ag·ge′lou). However, only an archangel can call with an archangel’s voice! And no one but Jesus has been given the authority to resurrect the dead. Hence, this rousing prophecy gives additional strong reason for identifying Jesus with the archangel, Michael.

The final appearance of the name Michael in the Bible is in the book of Revelation. There we read:

Revelations 12:7, 8
7And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back.8But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven.

This is the beginning of the “short period of time” before Satan’s wicked system is completely destroyed. After the end of Babylon the Great at the hands of the nations, the nations themselves are destroyed by Jesus and his angelic armies. (Revelation 12:12; 17:16, 17; 19:11-16) Finally, Satan is abyssed for a thousand years, after which he suffers complete annihilation in “the lake of fire.” (Revelation 20:1, 2, 10) This—the long-promised final ‘crushing of Satan’s head’—is also accomplished by Jesus, along with his resurrected spiritual brothers.—Genesis 3:15; Galatians 3:16; Romans 16:20.

Since Jesus is the one prophesied to crush Satan’s head, and since he accomplishes all these other judgment acts, it is only logical to conclude that he would lead heaven’s armies in the casting of Satan out of heaven. Hence, the conquering Michael referred to in Revelation 12 must be Jesus, who was told by Jehovah to “go subduing in the midst of [his] enemies.”—Psalm 110:1, 2; Acts 2:34, 35.

The appearance of the name Michael, instead of Jesus, in Revelation chapter 12 draws our attention to the prophecy considered earlier in Daniel chapter 12. In Daniel we read of Michael’s standing up. (Daniel 12:1) In Revelation chapter 12, Michael acts like a conquering monarch throwing Satan down to the earth. The result: “Woe for the earth and for the sea.”—Revelation 12:12.

Some object to identifying Jesus with the angel of Jehovah mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures. For Trinitarians, of course, such an identification poses a problem since it shows conclusively that he is not equal to Jehovah God. But even some who do not accept the Trinity doctrine feel that Jesus’ identity with an angel somehow detracts from his dignity.

Remember, though, that the basic meaning of “angel” (Hebrew, mal·’akh′; Greek, ag′ge·los) is “messenger.” As the “Word” (Greek, lo′gos), Jesus is God’s messenger par excellence. Remember, too, that as the archangel, as well as “the firstborn of all creation,” Jesus had the highest rank among the angels even before he came to earth.—Colossians 1:15.

True, the apostle Paul wrote to the Hebrews:

Hebrews 1:4
4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.


Philippians 2:9, 10
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

However, this describes his situation after his having been here on earth. He was still the archangel and “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Revelation 3:14) But he became better than the angels. The ‘more excellent name’ or position is something he did not possess before coming to earth. (These scriptures contradict the Trinitarian concept that the Son is and always has been equal in every way to the Father.

Hence, the fact that Michael is the archangel, chief of the angels, the fact that he stands up to rule as King, and the fact that he takes the lead in casting Satan out of heaven at the time of the birth of God’s Kingdom all lead us to just one conclusion: ‘Michael the great prince’ is none other than Jesus Christ himself.—Daniel 12:1.

It took me 3 Hours to write this entire section. Please consider it carefully.




I will refute this later, I am too tired, and don't have time to make a reasonable answer.

A city of ice. Duh. :downs:

Now, no, I haven't read through all his post. I don't have the time to or the drive to. But I do have to say this.

YAY, ANOTHER SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION!

How can you not recognize that other people might read this differently?

Edit- Oh, and I especially like you saying that Wikipedia is a nice, unbiased source.

So wait...this was a thread about the Amish and their "extremist" society, and now we're quoting the Bible. I really don't understand the points which are trying to be proven through Bible verses...this could be because I don't particularly care but just felt like commenting.

Colossians 1:15 states:
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

This here states that Jesus was born! CREATED!
This is not my interpretation, any idiot can read this and conclude in less than a minute that Jesus created and also before anything else.

Unless you are suggesting that we should accept parts of the bible that are convenient to us and others that are not.

If you persist calling this reasoning an interpretation, its not stupid, its just pure logic.

So you accept that, if you disobey your parents, you should be stoned to death? If, on the night of your wedding, your wife is not a virgin, you will stone her to death?

If you are taking the Bible literally you are missing the entire point.

.

Those laws, were from a PERFECT LAW, for PERFECT PEOPLE.
Obviously, nobody, except Jesus, was able to obey the law entirely.

Thats why God's people frequently offered sacrifices to gain forgiveness or to lessen their sins.

Jesus however, follow the law up until his death, which was a ransom sacrifice that has payed the wage of sin. One perfect blood/life for another.

Jesus however realized that as constantly imperfect growing humans, in very troublesome and tribulations times that were yet to come, there needed to be a temporary lessening of the law. Thats why we are now able to eat things that used to be forbidden, and we are now under the law of LOVE and FORGIVENESS.

And if you and I were living at the time these laws were enforced, we'd have no choice but to live by them, or die by them.

I could explain this with scriptures and what not, but this here was explained to me by another member of this forum, who's name I cannot recall.

EDIT: Of course the bible is not always literal. In many situations it speaks figuratively, and makes references to events described within other sections of the bible.

The bible is a big giant code, that with rational and logical thinking, can be decoded, even if the message is not always appealing to you.

I just had to quote this. The bible is full of contradictions and absurdities.

Uh, if they're perfect people they would be virgins on their wedding night. What the heck does this PERFECT LAW PERFECT PEOPLE stuff mean?

Sounds like you're rejecting those passages that say to do that as "not needed anymore" or "not applicable" because you don't want to stone people.

okay, so what you're saying is homosexuality is okay, cause those laws dont count anymore.

cool. never thought you'd be so open minded.

Not contradictions or absudities. Just figurative, or complex ideas, sometimes mistranslations or miss interpreted.

And Ford, no homosexuality is not ok. Jesus still condemned it, and said what kind of men and woman (men that lie down with men as a man lie downs with a woman, and woman that lie down with woman as a woman lies down with a man) WOULD NOT inherit the Kingdom of god. You should know exactly where it says that in the bible, no quotation needed.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

All this bible talk Gold. You're making me positively moist!

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/hom_bibc.htm

chalk it up to mistranslation.

yeah, but in most translations it makes it clear from the context that they are in fact talking about eating, or consuming blood, and meat that has been sacrificed to idols and from things that have been strangled. the only thing that doesn't pertain to consumption, or eating is sexual immorality, or fornication. if you look through all the books of the law in the old testament there are tons of references to "do not eat blood" "do not eat meat with blood in it" and so on. it does not say "do not get a blood transfusion even though i may save your life"



obviously blood isnt always bad.



... say what now?



dude stop Amish hating! they are some of the most peaceful, hard working people in the world. if they were all scared of people leaving their religion they would be in an isolated camp in some jungle making their followers drink poisoned coolaid

I'm too lazy to read this thread, so I'll just ask has it boiled down to Gold, a JW, saying the Amish lead a lifestyle with no biblical basis?

Well using "pure logic"[sup]TM[/sup] that verse also suggests that Jesus was invisible. Your religion is crazy awesome! ... but mostly crazy.

Maybe you should check those out before posting... the first one states that
2 Samuel 23:6 reads:
The ... chief among the captains ... he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

I checked 2 Samuel 23:6 in various translations and found no such thing. Not even in my own bible.

The second one is completely stupid. Abraham was justified by the works of his faith. He offered up his son, which is a work that he carried out due to his faith.

I wonder what the other ones are like....

Recusant, I'm taking a screencap of that post. That was hilarious.