Nipate
Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: RVtitem on November 01, 2014, 10:33:37 PM
-
I have attended a few of their services and they operate quite differently from the mainstream kenyan church. Who was that nipate theologist?
-
They are not a cult. They are among the churches that sprung from the restorationist movement in USA in the 1800s, along with SDAs, Mormons and others.
As to whether they are Christian, that is tricky. They certainly consider themselves Christian, in fact they consider themselves the elect, the only true Christians.
However, from a Historical and more objective point of view, they would not fall under what may be called the mainstream in Christianity. In fact, of all those groups that came up at around that time, I think SDAs are the only ones who hold to what are essentially mainstream Christian dogmas, such as the triune nature of God, the dual nature of Christ etc.
Jehovah's witnesses are not Trinitarian Christians, they do not believe that Jesus is God. This is the essential distinction.
Mormons have the weirdest and wildest beliefs of all those groups that started in the US in the 19th century and I feel it is not at all unfair to state plainly they are not Christians. That's not meant as an insult. They don't believe in one God but three distinct gods which is something very different from what all other Christians believe. These three completely separate gods were not always divine but were more like us (humans) at one point and were exalted to godhood as a reward for their goodness, so these gods are essentially creatures; and righteous humans shall also be exalted to godhood and receive their own world and creation to reign over....so humans will become divine. To say its bizzare from the point of view of Judeo-Christian assumptions is not an exaggeration. I consider them a completely separate religion with historical roots in Christianity.
-
They are both.
-
JW is purely a cult.
They use their own special translation of the Bible which mistranslates the original texts.
They have falsely predicted the end of the world over five times now.
They also deny that Jesus rose bodily from the dead.
-
1.Cults basically derive their teachings from a specific point which could be an institution or man which is deemed INFALLIBLE (fallibility s for sissies and neanderthals)
For Witnesses, it is the WatchTower Society in the US, for Mormons it is Joseph Smith, Mary Eddy Baker does it for Christian Scientists....
2. Cults will appropriate specific portions of scriptures to themselves exclusively. Having scriptures talking about you and you alone is bound to buy you more power.
Owuor the jarluo prophet claims that Malachi 4 prophecy of Elijah coming is talking about him! That's why they call him The Mighty Prophet of God. Note 'THE'
Malachi 4:5-6 5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes.
6 And he shall turn and reconcile the hearts of the [estranged] fathers to the [ungodly] children, and the hearts of the [rebellious] children to [the piety of] their fathers [a reconciliation produced by repentance of the ungodly], lest I come and smite the land with a curse and a ban of utter destruction.
Witnesses claim that the WatchTower Society is the ONLY faithful servant and the food is the BS that they keep on churning out namely Awake,Watchtower and all other patraphernelia.
Luke 12:42-43 Amplified Bible (AMP)
42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful steward, the wise man whom his master will set over those in his household service to supply them their allowance of food at the appointed time?
43 Blessed (happy and [a]to be envied) is that servant whom his master finds so doing when he arrives.
Of course they are at pains to explain how or who was serving food before Watchtower was born at the turn of the century :)
3. Like Bittertruth stated, cults occasionally dab in the prophetic with devastating results.
SDAs or Ellen G White once infamously predicted 1844 to be end of the Age. When it failed, the stupid prick could not bring herself to apologizing, she REVISED her prophecy. 1844 was now the year Christ started atonement or when He entered the Holy of Holies in heaven from the outer court!
Jehovah's witnesses had 1984. They could not bring themselves to admitting error. They revised their teachings accordingly. Many new Witnesses dont even know about these. See they can't study ANYTHING not approved by Watchtower so they will NEVER see outside what WatcTower wants them to see and WatchTower can't shoot itself in the feet by letting them in on their inconsistencies
I once had a trove of their literature spanning years but it was destroyed when my dig 'flooded'
-
Kadame I salute you for a very well reasoned response, not to mention your wholesome understanding of JW and SDA, the church I belong to. For a complete answer to RV Item, we need to come to a common understanding of what a cult is. Historically, the label has been used to refer to "a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false, and directed by a charismatic, authoritarian leader".
The key words in the definition is "regarded by others". Which means if others are misguided then there is really no basis for making the claim. In simple English, the word cult is extremely prejudiced and subjective. In theological practice, it is derogatory. It is as subjective as the word mainstream.
The use of labels like cult may look innocent today, but in history, beliefs systems contrary to the Universal Church were called heretical and led to the Inquisition in various countries. The numbers of those who died or were made to convert are mind-boggling. Calling someone a heretic was not dissimilar to shouting Mwizi! in the middle of Gikomba - a sure death sentence, many times instant. At best, one would be excommunicated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
If one were to use the rest of the definition (misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false) then all churches qualify in some way. Charismatic Pentecostals are misguided in many ways (prosperity gospel and over-emphasis on 'miracles' being two factors), so they qualify as a cult. All churches that worship on Sunday can be regarded as cultic.
http://www.romeschallenge.com/
Even Kadame's Catholic church may be regarded by others as a cult. The Catholic church may evens out with JWs given that they have some unorthodox beliefs (worship of Mary, adoration of saints, infant baptism, purgatory...) are led by a charismatic, authoritarian leader. They even have their own version of the Ten Commandments and the Apocrypha (books not found in other Bibles).
Eventually, one needs not be scared by labels like cult or mainstream. Follow what the bible tells you and if that fits with your church, let it be. If your church does not follow the Bible, you are in a cult even if the church is mainstream.
I have seen Vooke's attack on SDA and Ellen G. White. Completely unwarranted and unsubstantiated. It seems he was foaming in the mouth as he typed those words.
3. Like Bittertruth stated, cults occasionally dab in the prophetic with devastating results.
SDAs or Ellen G White once infamously predicted 1844 to be end of the Age. When it failed, the stupid prick could not bring herself to apologizing, she REVISED her prophecy. 1844 was now the year Christ started atonement or when He entered the Holy of Holies in heaven from the outer court!
A simple search on Wikipedia could have saved Vooke the embarrassment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Disappointment
-
it's vooke NOT Vooke
Kadame I salute you for a very well reasoned response, not to mention your wholesome understanding of JW and SDA, the church I belong to. For a complete answer to RV Item, we need to come to a common understanding of what a cult is. Historically, the label has been used to refer to "a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false, and directed by a charismatic, authoritarian leader".
The key words in the definition is "regarded by others". Which means if others are misguided then there is really no basis for making the claim. In simple English, the word cult is extremely prejudiced and subjective. In theological practice, it is derogatory. It is as subjective as the word mainstream.
The use of labels like cult may look innocent today, but in history, beliefs systems contrary to the Universal Church were called heretical and led to the Inquisition in various countries. The numbers of those who died or were made to convert are mind-boggling. Calling someone a heretic was not dissimilar to shouting Mwizi! in the middle of Gikomba - a sure death sentence, many times instant. At best, one would be excommunicated.
If one were to use the rest of the definition (misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false) then all churches qualify in some way. Charismatic Pentecostals are misguided in many ways (prosperity gospel and over-emphasis on 'miracles' being two factors), so they qualify as a cult.
Even Kadame's Catholic church may be regarded by others as a cult. The Catholic church may evens out with JWs given that they have some unorthodox beliefs (worship of Mary, adoration of saints, infant baptism, purgatory...) are led by a charismatic, authoritarian leader. They even have their own version of the Ten Commandments and the Apocrypha (books not found in other Bibles).
Eventually, one needs not be scared by labels like cult or mainstream. Follow what the bible tells you and if that fits with your church, let it be. If your church does not follow the Bible, you are in a cult even if the church is mainstream.
I have seen Vooke's attack on SDA and Ellen G. White. Completely unwarranted and unsubstantiated. It seems he was foaming in the mouth as he typed those words.
-
The SDA church was formally established in 1863 and you wanted them to apologize for a prophecy of 1844. Between Voke and SDA show should apologize now?
-
What did Ellen G White say about 1844? You want me to air her dirty BS here?
For the last time it is vooke not Voke!
The SDA church was formally established in 1863 and you wanted them to apologize for a prophecy of 1844. Between Voke and SDA show should apologize now?
-
You tell us. Substantiate or withdraw. Before we go there, we have right before us a record today calling Ellen G. White a "stupid prick who could not bring herself to apologizing." Can we tackle that before we go back in time?
-
Her stupidity necessarily entails history since she is not here. So you are tying my hands
You tell us. Substantiate or withdraw. Before we go there, we have right before us a record today calling Ellen G. White a "stupid prick". Can we tackle that before we go back in time?
-
Do you lack access to history or her life? What led you to label Ellen G. White a "stupid prick"? You must have some proof otherwise you wouldn't have repeated the insult. The SDA church has 18m followers worldwide. Knowing they regard Ellen G. White highly you could be helping many congregations.
-
A dead stupid prick must have manifested her stupidity during her life. If you aks for proof on one hand and then tell me not to go in time, you are hopelessly confused. Where else can I get proof apart from examining her works which is historical?
Do you lack access to history or her life? What led you to label Ellen G. White a "stupid prick"? You must have some proof otherwise you wouldn't have repeated the insult.
You tell us. Substantiate or withdraw. Before we go there, we have right before us a record today calling Ellen G. White a "stupid prick". Can we tackle that before we go back in time?
-
OK. I set you free to go back in time, to the future and to the present.
-
The SDA church was formally established in 1863 and you wanted them to apologize for a prophecy of 1844. Between Voke and SDA show should apologize now?
DailyBread,
Page 15 of the SDA Church Manual states that "In 1844, at the end of the prophetic period of 2300 days, He entered the second and last phase of His atoning ministry."
There is absolutely nothing in the Word of God teaching such nonsense.
You can search the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and you won’t find anything about a "second phase" of Jesus atonement ministry.
Even more bizarre is the ridiculous claim that the second phase began in 1844. Why hasn’t anyone, from any other religion, interpreted the Bible in such a way? It is only SDAs who make such bizarre claims, because their founders were made the laughing stock of an entire nation when Jesus failed to return in 1844.
SDA did not exist prior to Miller’s failed prophecy. If, as SDAs claim, the Bible teaches that the Lord would return in 1844, then why did only Miller and his followers believe this? The very manner in which the SDA religion came into existence is irrefutable proof that they are a manmade false religion.
-
Thank you very much. You are far too kind.
Let's start with EPIC failed prophecies.
Do you know of this book, Testimonies for the Churches Volume One?
I have attached a link down here and I want you to rush to page 131-132;
I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: "Some food for worms,[*SISTER CLARISSA M. BONFOEY, WHO FELL ASLEEP IN Jesus ONLY THREE DAYS AFTER THIS VISION WAS GIVEN, WAS PRESENT IN USUAL HEALTH, AND WAS DEEPLY IMPRESSED THAT SHE WAS ONE WHO WOULD GO INTO THE GRAVE, AND STATED HER CONVICTIONS TO OTHERS.] some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus."
http://www.gilead.net/egw/books/testimonies/Testimonies_for_the_Church_Volume_One/25_Conformity_to_the_World.htm
So this woman is saying that there were members in that conference (held in 1856) who would remain ALIVE till Jesus comes back. All are dead. That's a failed prophecy.
If it is, tell me why you still regard her as a prophet . We go through this before I share more otherwise it is an exercise in futility if you have made up your mind not to be confused with facts
OK. I set you free to go back in time, to the future and to the present.
-
BT, it's not clear what you dispute. Is it the existence of a 2,300 day prophecy or the second phase of Jesus' atoning ministry?
William Miller was not SDA when he made the 1844 prophecy (so Voke asking SDA to apologize does not arise). In any case the prophecy was wrong on the event, not the timing. Even then it was the result of many things happening outside the Adventist faith. The U.S. Northeast in the early 19th Century was a hotbed of revival. The so-called Second Great Awakening ignited movements such as the Shakers, early Mormons, the forerunners of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Millerites and a host of eccentric offshoots. In fact, upstate New York was dubbed the “burned-over district,” referring to the fact that evangelists had exhausted the region’s supply of unconverted people.
http://www.adventist.org/information/history/article/go/0/seventh-day-adventist-church-emerged-from-religious-fervor-of-19th-century-1/
William Miller erred on the side of time. However, on balance of points, it's understandable that believers sided with him (despite the erroneous timing in his prophecy). At that time many Christians did not believe in a literal return of Christ. In fact, some, like today did not even want Christ to return.
-
I'm quite impressed Vook. To explain that, I'll go back in time. Did Jonah prophesy that Nineveh would be no more in 40 days? It didn't happen and that does not make him stupid. Jesus made a similar prophecy about the end time regarding those who were hearing Him. That doesn't make Him stupid either.
Jonah 3.
1 Then the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time: 2 “Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you.” 3 Jonah obeyed the word of the Lord and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very large city; it took three days to go through it. 4 Jonah began by going a day’s journey into the city, proclaiming, “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown.” 5 The Ninevites believed God. A fast was proclaimed, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth.
Matthew 24: 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
Luke 21:32 “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
Thank you very much. You are far too kind.
Let's start with EPIC failed prophecies.
Do you know of this book, Testimonies for the Churches Volume One?
I have attached a link down here and I want you to rush to page 131-132;
I was shown the company present at the Conference. Said the angel: "Some food for worms,[*SISTER CLARISSA M. BONFOEY, WHO FELL ASLEEP IN Jesus ONLY THREE DAYS AFTER THIS VISION WAS GIVEN, WAS PRESENT IN USUAL HEALTH, AND WAS DEEPLY IMPRESSED THAT SHE WAS ONE WHO WOULD GO INTO THE GRAVE, AND STATED HER CONVICTIONS TO OTHERS.] some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus."
http://www.gilead.net/egw/books/testimonies/Testimonies_for_the_Church_Volume_One/25_Conformity_to_the_World.htm
So this woman is saying that there were members in that conference (held in 1856) who would remain ALIVE till Jesus comes back. All are dead. That's a failed prophecy.
If it is, tell me why you still regard her as a prophet . We go through this before I share more otherwise it is an exercise in futility if you have made up your mind not to be confused with facts
OK. I set you free to go back in time, to the future and to the present.
-
This is where we sort heresies from facts.
1. Jonah's prophecy was conditional, he was preaching repentance. What was the point in God sending him all the way if not repentance?
2. Jesus spoke of destruction of the temple, and not everyone had died by 70 AD
3. Ellen White's vision/prophecy carried NO condition whatsoever, if it did, please show us what condition that was
Again my name is vooke not Vook. Please don't take it in vain
I'm quite impressed Vook. To explain that, I'll go back in time. Did Jonah prophesy that Nineveh would be no more in 40 days? It didn't happen and that does not make him stupid. Jesus made a similar prophecy about the end time regarding those who were hearing Him. That doesn't make Him stupid either.
Jonah 3.
1 Then the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time: 2 “Go to the great city of Nineveh and proclaim to it the message I give you.” 3 Jonah obeyed the word of the Lord and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very large city; it took three days to go through it. 4 Jonah began by going a day’s journey into the city, proclaiming, “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown.” 5 The Ninevites believed God. A fast was proclaimed, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth.
Matthew 24: 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
Luke 21:32 “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
-
Jesus talks about Jerusalem alright, but also about the end of the world. I see no dichotomy. If Jonah could give conditional prophecies, why not Ellen G. White? I submit to you that all prophecies about the end of time are conditional.
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/1856visn.html
Ellen G. White gave many prophecies in health, education, religion..... One of the most dramatic prophecies was in health. At a time many doctors prescribed smoking as a cure for coughs, she warned of its cancerous effects. Date? 1864. No medical training, no proper formal schooling.
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-prophecy-Ellen_White-true-predictions-Bible
Tobacco is a poison of the most deceitful and malignant kind, having an exciting, then a paralysing influence upon the nerves of the body. It is all the more dangerous because its effects upon the system are so slow, and at first scarcely perceivable. Multitudes have fallen victims to its poisonous influence (Counsels on Health, 84).
Another dramatic prophecy she made is being fulfilled in our time. She did not even live to see it. The coming together of protestants and Catholics. It's far more dramatic than KKK and Nation of Islam merging.
Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, (Great Controversy, p451)
-
Nobody disputes existence of conditional prophecies. But every creature above marine invertabrates can tell conditional prophecies from unconditional prophecies. Conditional prophecies carry CONDITIONS within them.
Once again I adjure thee to demonstrate the CONDITION on this prophecy. If you can't and I know you can't, then permit logic to reign for once; it was unconditional.
She is speaking in the name of God, this is not eschatology or study of Bible prophecy where we permit error, she is FOAMING IN THE MOUTH in the name of Jesus. If the prophecy fails, either she was receiving prophecies from demons (they are good at lying and bad at getting it right) or she was lying.
Don't mention cancer because she taught it is transmitted by eating infected meat.
"People are continually eating flesh that is filled with tuberculous and cancerous germs. Tuberculosis, cancer, and other fatal diseases are thus communicated." (The Ministry of Healing, p.313).
I request you stick to this fantastic fail before shooting all over to obfuscate the truth. This prophecy failed BIG because the prick was a false prophet no different from Lakwena.
Luke 11:32 King James Version (KJV)
32 The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
See Jonah PREACHED and they REPENTED? He was sent there to preach and part of his preaching was an ultimatum; repent or perish
Prophecy is not probability games where you get 4 out of 10 right, you miss one and Moses prescribed stoning. She only needs to have failed ONCE to prove her false
Deuteronomy 18:22-22 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
22 When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
Jesus talks about Jerusalem alright, but also about the end of the world. I see no dichotomy. If Jonah could give conditional prophecies, why not Ellen G. White? I submit to you that all prophecies about the end of time are conditional.
Ellen G. White gave many prophecies in health, education, religion..... One of the most dramatic prophecies was in health. At a time many doctors prescribed smoking as a cure for coughs, she warned of its cancerous effects. Date? 1864. No medical training, no proper formal schooling.
http://amazingdiscoveries.org/S-prophecy-Ellen_White-true-predictions-Bible
Tobacco is a poison of the most deceitful and malignant kind, having an exciting, then a paralysing influence upon the nerves of the body. It is all the more dangerous because its effects upon the system are so slow, and at first scarcely perceivable. Multitudes have fallen victims to its poisonous influence (Counsels on Health, 84).
-
Vooke you are foaming in the mouth again. Jonah's prophecy was about the end-time for Nineveh (if they did not repent). Ellen G. White's prophecies were also conditional.
"It was not the will of God that the coming of Christ should be thus delayed. God did not design that His people, Israel, should wander forty years in the wilderness. He promised to lead them directly to the land of Canaan, and establish them there a holy, healthy, people. But those to whom it was first preached, went not in 'because of unbelief.' Their hearts were filled with murmuring, rebellion, and hatred, and He could not fulfill His covenant with them.
"For forty years did unbelief, murmuring, and rebellion shut out ancient Israel from the land of Canaan. The same sins have delayed the entrance of modern Israel into the heavenly Canaan. In neither case were the promises of God at fault. It is the unbelief, the worldliness, unconsecration, and strife among the Lord's professed people that have kept us in this world of sin and sorrow so many years."--MS. 4, 1883. (Quoted in Evangelism, pp. 695, 696.)
Are you saying Ellen G. White was a "stupid prick" because she prophesied like Jonah did, or because she also linked cancer with tobacco smoking and infected meat (both facts of which which modern science confirms)?
-
WHAT WAS THE CONDITION ON HER PROPHECY?
If you can't show me the condition, why wait until it has failed and flap your deluded gums that it was conditional? Conditional on what?
If it comes to pass, she was a true prophet,if it fails, it was conditional. How do you test her conditional prophecies? How different are they from saying that if you flip a coin it will land on head, but if it doesn't it will land on tails? :)
"People are continually eating flesh that is filled with tuberculous and cancerous germs. Tuberculosis, cancer, and other fatal diseases are thus communicated." (The Ministry of Healing, p.313).
When was the last time you caught TB and cancer from eating meat? is this statement FACTUAL or retarded?
Vooke you are foaming in the mouth again. Jonah's prophecy was about the end-time for Nineveh (if they did not repent). Ellen G. White's prophecies were also conditional.
"It was not the will of God that the coming of Christ should be thus delayed. God did not design that His people, Israel, should wander forty years in the wilderness. He promised to lead them directly to the land of Canaan, and establish them there a holy, healthy, people. But those to whom it was first preached, went not in 'because of unbelief.' Their hearts were filled with murmuring, rebellion, and hatred, and He could not fulfill His covenant with them.
"For forty years did unbelief, murmuring, and rebellion shut out ancient Israel from the land of Canaan. The same sins have delayed the entrance of modern Israel into the heavenly Canaan. In neither case were the promises of God at fault. It is the unbelief, the worldliness, unconsecration, and strife among the Lord's professed people that have kept us in this world of sin and sorrow so many years."--MS. 4, 1883. (Quoted in Evangelism, pp. 695, 696.)
Are you saying Ellen G. White was a "stupid prick" because she prophesied like Jonah did, or because she also linked cancer with infected meat (which modern science confirms)?
-
Ellen G. White was clear that the same conditions for repentance that God gave ancient Israel will apply to end-time Israel. Here is a slew of quotations reaffirming her conditional prophecies.
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/delay.html
Do you need help with TB and cancer from infected meat?
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/07July/Pages/Concerns-raised-about-bovine-TB-infected-meat.aspx
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/shortcuts/2014/apr/08/what-are-risks-eating-infected-meat
Bovine tuberculosis is an infectious disease in cattle caused by Mycobacterium bovis, which is closely related to the bacterium that is the most common cause of TB in people. Like human TB, it mainly affects the airways and lungs. The bovine TB bacteria can infect humans and cause TB, with symptoms that can include fever, night sweats, persistent cough, diarrhoea, weight loss and abdominal pain. However, this is thought mainly to occur through people consuming unpasteurised milk or dairy products, or, more rarely, being close enough to infected cattle to inhale infected aerosol droplets. The Food Standards Agency has confirmed that there are no known cases of people contracting TB from eating infected meat.
-
This BS apologists doing damage control.
You don't give CONDITIONS looooooooong after the prophecy because you are not helping nobody.
Imagine Jonah preaching destruction in 40 days and then 40 years later 'explaining' that his prophecy was conditional on repentance. That's pea-brained theology. COndition are attached to prophecies, not appended to them years after
Ellen G. White was clear that the same conditions for repentance that God gave ancient Israel will apply to end-time Israel. Here is a slew of quotations reaffirming her conditional prophecies.
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/delay.html
-
Do you know she actively discouraged medical solutions?
This is another of her quotes from To Those who are Receiving the Seal of the Living God, January 31, 1849
If any among us are sick, let us not dishonor God by applying to earthly physicians, but apply to the God of Israel. If we follow his directions (James 5:14, 15) the sick will be healed. God’s promise cannot fail. Have faith in God, and trust wholly in him, that when Christ who is our life shall appear we may appear with him in glory
http://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Periodical&bookCode=Broadside2&lang=en&year=1849&month=January&day=31
-
Vooke, when did Jonah give the conditions for his prophecies concerning Nineveh?
-
CANCER, is it ever transmitted by eating infected meat?
Ellen G. White was clear that the same conditions for repentance that God gave ancient Israel will apply to end-time Israel. Here is a slew of quotations reaffirming her conditional prophecies.
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/delay.html
Do you need help with TB and cancer from infected meat?
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/07July/Pages/Concerns-raised-about-bovine-TB-infected-meat.aspx
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/shortcuts/2014/apr/08/what-are-risks-eating-infected-meat
Bovine tuberculosis is an infectious disease in cattle caused by Mycobacterium bovis, which is closely related to the bacterium that is the most common cause of TB in people. Like human TB, it mainly affects the airways and lungs. The bovine TB bacteria can infect humans and cause TB, with symptoms that can include fever, night sweats, persistent cough, diarrhoea, weight loss and abdominal pain. However, this is thought mainly to occur through people consuming unpasteurised milk or dairy products, or, more rarely, being close enough to infected cattle to inhale infected aerosol droplets. The Food Standards Agency has confirmed that there are no known cases of people contracting TB from eating infected meat.
-
Yes I know. So?
Do you know she actively discouraged medical solutions?
This is another of her quotes from To Those who are Receiving the Seal of the Living God, January 31, 1849
If any among us are sick, let us not dishonor God by applying to earthly physicians, but apply to the God of Israel. If we follow his directions (James 5:14, 15) the sick will be healed. God’s promise cannot fail. Have faith in God, and trust wholly in him, that when Christ who is our life shall appear we may appear with him in glory
http://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Periodical&bookCode=Broadside2&lang=en&year=1849&month=January&day=31
-
it's vooke NOT Vooke
I just shared with you Luke 11:32. Jonah PREACHED people repented. so he was sent to Nineveh to preach. Why was he sent to preach? For fun? If his preaching over destruction of Nineveh was unconditional, then his assignment was unnecessary.
God gave you a brain so when you are studying scriptures you can UNDERSTAND and not just admire and marvel at stories
Vooke, when did Jonah give the conditions for his prophecies concerning Nineveh?
-
Do you employ medical science in your life?
Yes I know. So?
-
http://www.pcrm.org/health/cancer-resources/diet-cancer/facts/meat-consumption-and-cancer-risk
Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat.4 In contrast, Harvard studies showed that daily meat eaters have approximately three times the colon cancer risk, compared to those who rarely eat meat....In 2007, the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) published their second review of the major studies on food, nutrition, and cancer prevention. For cancers of the oesophagus, lung, pancreas, stomach, collorectum, endometrium, and prostate, it was determined that red meat (beef, pork, or lamb) and processed meat consumption possibly increased cancer risk.
http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/1752/reduce-risks/diet-exercise/nutrition-advice/meat-fish/meat-and-cancer-3/
The relationship between meat consumption and the risk of cancer, especially bowel cancer, has been controversial. The consumption of red meat and processed meat is convincingly associated with a modest increased risk of bowel cancer. There is limited suggestive evidence that red meat may be associated with an increased risk of oesophageal, lung, pancreatic and endometrial cancer, and processed meat with oesophageal, lung, stomach and prostate cancer. There does not appear to be a strong association between red meat or processed meat and the risk of other cancers.
Google is your friend.
CANCER, is it ever transmitted by eating infected meat?
Ellen G. White was clear that the same conditions for repentance that God gave ancient Israel will apply to end-time Israel. Here is a slew of quotations reaffirming her conditional prophecies.
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/delay.html
Do you need help with TB and cancer from infected meat?
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/07July/Pages/Concerns-raised-about-bovine-TB-infected-meat.aspx
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/shortcuts/2014/apr/08/what-are-risks-eating-infected-meat
Bovine tuberculosis is an infectious disease in cattle caused by Mycobacterium bovis, which is closely related to the bacterium that is the most common cause of TB in people. Like human TB, it mainly affects the airways and lungs. The bovine TB bacteria can infect humans and cause TB, with symptoms that can include fever, night sweats, persistent cough, diarrhoea, weight loss and abdominal pain. However, this is thought mainly to occur through people consuming unpasteurised milk or dairy products, or, more rarely, being close enough to infected cattle to inhale infected aerosol droplets. The Food Standards Agency has confirmed that there are no known cases of people contracting TB from eating infected meat.
-
Why do you ask? One of the medical conditions she condemned was the prescription of tobacco smoking (shortly after lunch, they said) as a cure for coughs by medical doctors of her time. Is it a leap of faith from baseless attacking Ellen G. White to what I employ?
Do you employ medical science in your life?
Yes I know. So?
-
The dumb and idiotic prick said EATING INFECTED MEAT CAUSES CANCER NOT EATING MEAT. And there was no Bovine TB back then so you can bet she had the EXISTING TB which was NEVER caused by eating infected meat
"]People are continually eating flesh that is filled with tuberculous and cancerous germs. Tuberculosis, cancer, and other fatal diseases are thus communicated. (The Ministry of Healing, p.313).
http://www.pcrm.org/health/cancer-resources/diet-cancer/facts/meat-consumption-and-cancer-risk
Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat.4 In contrast, Harvard studies showed that daily meat eaters have approximately three times the colon cancer risk, compared to those who rarely eat meat....In 2007, the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) published their second review of the major studies on food, nutrition, and cancer prevention. For cancers of the oesophagus, lung, pancreas, stomach, collorectum, endometrium, and prostate, it was determined that red meat (beef, pork, or lamb) and processed meat consumption possibly increased cancer risk.
http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/1752/reduce-risks/diet-exercise/nutrition-advice/meat-fish/meat-and-cancer-3/
The relationship between meat consumption and the risk of cancer, especially bowel cancer, has been controversial. The consumption of red meat and processed meat is convincingly associated with a modest increased risk of bowel cancer. There is limited suggestive evidence that red meat may be associated with an increased risk of oesophageal, lung, pancreatic and endometrial cancer, and processed meat with oesophageal, lung, stomach and prostate cancer. There does not appear to be a strong association between red meat or processed meat and the risk of other cancers.
Google is your friend.
CANCER, is it ever transmitted by eating infected meat?
Ellen G. White was clear that the same conditions for repentance that God gave ancient Israel will apply to end-time Israel. Here is a slew of quotations reaffirming her conditional prophecies.
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/delay.html
Do you need help with TB and cancer from infected meat?
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/07July/Pages/Concerns-raised-about-bovine-TB-infected-meat.aspx
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/shortcuts/2014/apr/08/what-are-risks-eating-infected-meat
Bovine tuberculosis is an infectious disease in cattle caused by Mycobacterium bovis, which is closely related to the bacterium that is the most common cause of TB in people. Like human TB, it mainly affects the airways and lungs. The bovine TB bacteria can infect humans and cause TB, with symptoms that can include fever, night sweats, persistent cough, diarrhoea, weight loss and abdominal pain. However, this is thought mainly to occur through people consuming unpasteurised milk or dairy products, or, more rarely, being close enough to infected cattle to inhale infected aerosol droplets. The Food Standards Agency has confirmed that there are no known cases of people contracting TB from eating infected meat.
-
Because she frowned at it and she would have fits in her grave if you disregarded her words
Why do you ask? One of the medical conditions she condemned was the prescription of tobacco smoking (shortly after lunch, they said) as a cure for coughs by medical doctors of her time. Is it a leap of faith from baseless attacking Ellen G. White to what I employ?
-
So how do you suppose an uneducated woman of her time would know that infected meat was causing TB and cancer (both of which medical science is now confirming)? You are splitting hairs rather than simply accepting you were mistaken to call Ellen G. White the names you did. You need to apologize instead.
You could as well argue that the protestantism she knew then was not the one we know today so her prophecy that Protestants would clasp hands with Catholicism was also false.
The dumb and idiotic prick said EATING INFECTED MEAT CAUSES CANCER NOT EATING MEAT. And there was no Bovine TB back then so you can bet she had the EXISTING TB which was NEVER caused by eating infected meat
"]People are continually eating flesh that is filled with tuberculous and cancerous germs. Tuberculosis, cancer, and other fatal diseases are thus communicated. (The Ministry of Healing, p.313).
http://www.pcrm.org/health/cancer-resources/diet-cancer/facts/meat-consumption-and-cancer-risk
Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat.4 In contrast, Harvard studies showed that daily meat eaters have approximately three times the colon cancer risk, compared to those who rarely eat meat....In 2007, the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) published their second review of the major studies on food, nutrition, and cancer prevention. For cancers of the oesophagus, lung, pancreas, stomach, collorectum, endometrium, and prostate, it was determined that red meat (beef, pork, or lamb) and processed meat consumption possibly increased cancer risk.
http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/1752/reduce-risks/diet-exercise/nutrition-advice/meat-fish/meat-and-cancer-3/
The relationship between meat consumption and the risk of cancer, especially bowel cancer, has been controversial. The consumption of red meat and processed meat is convincingly associated with a modest increased risk of bowel cancer. There is limited suggestive evidence that red meat may be associated with an increased risk of oesophageal, lung, pancreatic and endometrial cancer, and processed meat with oesophageal, lung, stomach and prostate cancer. There does not appear to be a strong association between red meat or processed meat and the risk of other cancers.
Google is your friend.
CANCER, is it ever transmitted by eating infected meat?
Ellen G. White was clear that the same conditions for repentance that God gave ancient Israel will apply to end-time Israel. Here is a slew of quotations reaffirming her conditional prophecies.
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/delay.html
Do you need help with TB and cancer from infected meat?
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/07July/Pages/Concerns-raised-about-bovine-TB-infected-meat.aspx
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/shortcuts/2014/apr/08/what-are-risks-eating-infected-meat
Bovine tuberculosis is an infectious disease in cattle caused by Mycobacterium bovis, which is closely related to the bacterium that is the most common cause of TB in people. Like human TB, it mainly affects the airways and lungs. The bovine TB bacteria can infect humans and cause TB, with symptoms that can include fever, night sweats, persistent cough, diarrhoea, weight loss and abdominal pain. However, this is thought mainly to occur through people consuming unpasteurised milk or dairy products, or, more rarely, being close enough to infected cattle to inhale infected aerosol droplets. The Food Standards Agency has confirmed that there are no known cases of people contracting TB from eating infected meat.
-
Oh, I see. And what do you suppose would be her reaction if she read the names you called her today?
Because she frowned at it and she would have fits in her grave if you disregarded her words
-
So how do you suppose an uneducated woman of her time would know that infected meat was causing TB and cancer (both of which medical science is now confirming)? You are splitting hairs rather than simply accepting you were mistaken to call Ellen G. White the names you did. You need to apologize instead.
The dumb and idiotic prick said EATING INFECTED MEAT CAUSES CANCER NOT EATING MEAT. And there was no Bovine TB back then so you can bet she had the EXISTING TB which was NEVER caused by eating infected meat
"]People are continually eating flesh that is filled with tuberculous and cancerous germs. Tuberculosis, cancer, and other fatal diseases are thus communicated. (The Ministry of Healing, p.313).
http://www.pcrm.org/health/cancer-resources/diet-cancer/facts/meat-consumption-and-cancer-risk
Overall, these studies showed significant reductions in cancer risk among those who avoided meat.4 In contrast, Harvard studies showed that daily meat eaters have approximately three times the colon cancer risk, compared to those who rarely eat meat....In 2007, the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) published their second review of the major studies on food, nutrition, and cancer prevention. For cancers of the oesophagus, lung, pancreas, stomach, collorectum, endometrium, and prostate, it was determined that red meat (beef, pork, or lamb) and processed meat consumption possibly increased cancer risk.
http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/1752/reduce-risks/diet-exercise/nutrition-advice/meat-fish/meat-and-cancer-3/
The relationship between meat consumption and the risk of cancer, especially bowel cancer, has been controversial. The consumption of red meat and processed meat is convincingly associated with a modest increased risk of bowel cancer. There is limited suggestive evidence that red meat may be associated with an increased risk of oesophageal, lung, pancreatic and endometrial cancer, and processed meat with oesophageal, lung, stomach and prostate cancer. There does not appear to be a strong association between red meat or processed meat and the risk of other cancers.
Google is your friend.
CANCER, is it ever transmitted by eating infected meat?
Ellen G. White was clear that the same conditions for repentance that God gave ancient Israel will apply to end-time Israel. Here is a slew of quotations reaffirming her conditional prophecies.
http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/delay.html
Do you need help with TB and cancer from infected meat?
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/07July/Pages/Concerns-raised-about-bovine-TB-infected-meat.aspx
http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/shortcuts/2014/apr/08/what-are-risks-eating-infected-meat
Bovine tuberculosis is an infectious disease in cattle caused by Mycobacterium bovis, which is closely related to the bacterium that is the most common cause of TB in people. Like human TB, it mainly affects the airways and lungs. The bovine TB bacteria can infect humans and cause TB, with symptoms that can include fever, night sweats, persistent cough, diarrhoea, weight loss and abdominal pain. However, this is thought mainly to occur through people consuming unpasteurised milk or dairy products, or, more rarely, being close enough to infected cattle to inhale infected aerosol droplets. The Food Standards Agency has confirmed that there are no known cases of people contracting TB from eating infected meat.
Lets not get ahead of ourselves. Medical science has never confirmed that TB and cancers are spread from eating contaminated meat. Negro'es please,
-
Lets not get ahead of ourselves. Medical science has never confirmed that TB and cancers are spread from eating contaminated meat. Negro'es please,
Mya88 what do you make of the quoted studies and statements in red? Voke cited the quote from Ellen G. White's Ministry of Healing as proof that she is "a stupid prick." I humbly submit that she was way, way ahead of her time. That she wrote what she did about meat, TB, cancer, tobacco etc without medical training let alone proper formal schooling tells a lot about her inspiration.
Again, we may not like the pioneers of certain churches, but that does not justify calling them "stupid pricks" without proof or substantiation. Voke should apologize.
-
This is the problem with indoctrination. You are showed clear examples of failed prophecies and you flash 3 more that came to pass. You are shown idiotic advice and you flash to other seemingly appropriate advice. And now you are flashing the 'un-educated' card
She was not a journalist but a prophet, that's why we DEMAND more from her over and above the BS she was spewing to idiots around her.
She extensively plagiarized. Btw, she has absolutely nothing on Joseph Smith of Mormons when it comes to creativity. Creativity does not turn a charlatan into a man of God am sorry to remind you. You need to ask yourself HOW MUCH of what she purported to share as advice was FREELY available during her time. There is absolutely NOTHING novel in her advice, the 'good advice' that is ignoring the retRded counsel she felt she had to share
So how do you suppose an uneducated woman of her time would know that infected meat was causing TB and cancer (both of which medical science is now confirming)? You are splitting hairs rather than simply accepting you were mistaken to call Ellen G. White the names you did. You need to apologize instead.
You could as well argue that the protestantism she knew then was not the one we know today so her prophecy that Protestants would clasp hands with Catholicism was also
-
Voke you need to apologize. I leave it to your conscience.
This is the problem with indoctrination. You are showed clear examples of failed prophecies and you flash 3 more that came to pass. You are shown idiotic advice and you flash to other seemingly appropriate advice. And now you are flashing the 'un-educated' card
She was not a journalist but a prophet, that's why we DEMAND more from her over and above the BS she was spewing to idiots around her.
She extensively plagiarized. Btw, she has absolutely nothing on Joseph Smith of Mormons when it comes to creativity. Creativity does not turn a charlatan into a man of God am sorry to remind you. You need to ask yourself HOW MUCH of what she purported to share as advice was FREELY available during her time. There is absolutely NOTHING novel in her advice, the 'good advice' that is ignoring the retRded counsel she felt she had to share
So how do you suppose an uneducated woman of her time would know that infected meat was causing TB and cancer (both of which medical science is now confirming)? You are splitting hairs rather than simply accepting you were mistaken to call Ellen G. White the names you did. You need to apologize instead.
You could as well argue that the protestantism she knew then was not the one we know today so her prophecy that Protestants would clasp hands with Catholicism was also
-
It's vooke not Voke. Please!
I will apologize but you need to show me what am apologizing about.
I never cooked those mindless juvenile false prophecies nor the dumb excuses such as conditional, I simply used my brains to point to obvious idiocy of mistaking fools for God's prophets
My heart bleeds for the extensive indoctrination you are exhibiting and which you will(if you haven't) transfer to your kids. They read to them Great Controversy every Saturday in Sabbath schools. You are misleading innocent ones
Voke you need to apologize. I leave it to your conscience.
-
Lets not get ahead of ourselves. Medical science has never confirmed that TB and cancers are spread from eating contaminated meat. Negro'es please,
Mya88 what do you make of the quoted studies and statements in red? Voke cited the quote from Ellen G. White's Ministry of Healing as proof that she is "a stupid prick." I humbly submit that she was way, way ahead of her time. That she wrote what she did about meat, TB, cancer, tobacco etc without medical training let alone proper formal schooling tells a lot about her inspiration.
Again, we may not like the pioneers of certain churches, but that does not justify calling them "stupid pricks" without proof or substantiation. Voke should apologize.
DB, The last bit of your statement sums it up "there are no cases of people contracting TB or even cancer from infcted meat"....the rest is mere speculation. vooke has no moral authority to call anybody names. That is the biggest problem I have with these hollier than thou christians who arrogate themselves the duty of jury and judge at the same time to other beliefs system that do not fit into thiers. It is enough to disagree and proceed by telling us why you disgaree, but to then go ahead and call someone a "stupid prick" is idiotic, childish and doesnt add anything to the conversation. That is why atheism is thriving....just look at the way so called christians are intolerable. You should give him the same satisfaction by mispelling his moniker.
-
Thank you Mya88. Your response is appreciated.
-
Waaah! Two minutes ago this thread had no responses, eish! 43! :D
Well, one church's orthodoxy is another church's heresy, but personally, when I think cult, people like David Koresh, Charles Manson, Jim Jones float to mind. That's why i'm reluctant to call JW's a cult despite their Arian theology. Though I should put a disclaimer and say that I have no personal experience with them. I personally have never been to a JW's church, though a few have knocked on our door, sometimes it led to interesting conversations. The closest person to me who has been a member is one of my best friends' mom, back when I was in primo. She went for a month and quit and went back to her old church, which was one of the regular Protestant churches. So I really don't know anything about them beyond their Arian beliefs about Jesus and God and their opposition to blood transfusions. I do know SDAs very well, though. I've been to SDA church in my early teens, when my mom made me go. SDAs also been frequenting our home every other Saturday after church since forever because a good chunk of my family is SDA, so I have a lot of experience with them, about as much as I do with Evangelicals with whom I schooled and "got saved" at least more than once, lol! I miss challenge weekend. I have never thought of SDAs as a cult. @vooke, I think a lot of us say "cult" when we mean "wrong." The wronger we think they are, the more cultish they seem to us. I say all this with the disclaimer that I honestly don't know much about JW's in particular.
-
I tended to give JW a wide birth mostly because of hearsay from others and the fact that some really nag. I worked with one and I discovered they don't celebrate any holidays, birthdays, christmas et cetera and wondered.......I also know another whose family refused life sustaining measures ie blood transfusion that could have saved his life but instead they watched him die........ so one day I picked up one of their chronicles and started reading and there it was in black and white........ it says Jesus was born on October or something like that....Lets just say I stopped reading at that point. So I do find their teachings somewhat strange.
-
I tended to give JW a wide birth mostly because of hearsay from others and the fact that some really nag. I worked with one and I discovered they don't celebrate any holidays, birthdays, christmas et cetera and wondered.......I also know another whose family refused life sustaining measures ie blood transfusion that could have saved his life but instead they watched him die........ so one day I picked up one of their chronicles and started reading and there it was in black and white........ it says Jesus was born on October or something like that....Lets just say I stopped reading at that point. So I do find their teachings somewhat strange.
After attending one service and afterwards watched JW for dummies videos. I concur that they have got some strange traditions. It was strange that all male attendants wore suits and none of the ladies was in trousers/miniskirts. I felt like an alien amidst them.
But on the other hand, I think they print out indoctrination books more any other group of people.
-
I tended to give JW a wide birth mostly because of hearsay from others and the fact that some really nag. I worked with one and I discovered they don't celebrate any holidays, birthdays, christmas et cetera and wondered.......I also know another whose family refused life sustaining measures ie blood transfusion that could have saved his life but instead they watched him die........ so one day I picked up one of their chronicles and started reading and there it was in black and white........ it says Jesus was born on October or something like that....Lets just say I stopped reading at that point. So I do find their teachings somewhat strange.
Interesting. I just got my copies of watchtower, God's Kingdom and what it means to you. What is true success? from an old couple that likes to stop by and chat by the door yesterday. They seem like a nice couple. They say they pray for me.
-
I tended to give JW a wide birth mostly because of hearsay from others and the fact that some really nag. I worked with one and I discovered they don't celebrate any holidays, birthdays, christmas et cetera and wondered.......I also know another whose family refused life sustaining measures ie blood transfusion that could have saved his life but instead they watched him die........ so one day I picked up one of their chronicles and started reading and there it was in black and white........ it says Jesus was born on October or something like that....Lets just say I stopped reading at that point. So I do find their teachings somewhat strange.
Mya, so do JWs celebrate "Christmas" in October or as you say, not at all? Never heard that one before, October. Interesting, though. My understanding was that Jesus' actual date of Birth remains unknown. The early Christians disagreed all over the place over the date, eventually they went with Hippolytus' calculation of 9 months from March 25th.
@RVtitem, that thing about suits. :D The JWs who come by our door once in a while, they always dressed in clean suits, no matter which day it is.
-
SDAs call Catholicism the Beast and if you have a modicum knowledge of Revelation, there is no bigger insult than calling anybody the Beast.
They are embarrassed of disclosing this BTW.
Ellen G White was stupid. She thought meat infected with 'cancer germs' transmit cancer. She made countless other outrageous claims including demons possessing you for drinking coffee or something. She was a serial wacko. SDAs prop her up as their prophet and authority on MOST of their doctrines. While I have tried my best to point out to outright errors and uneducated statements she made (Pat Robertson claimed towels in kenia give Aids), DB reacted as if on cue by showing others which were factual. That's indoctrination, defending your Prophet at all costs.
Every reference I have used on her has SOLID facts behind it
DB, The last bit of your statement sums it up "there are no cases of people contracting TB or even cancer from infcted meat"....the rest is mere speculation. vooke has no moral authority to call anybody names. That is the biggest problem I have with these hollier than thou christians who arrogate themselves the duty of jury and judge at the same time to other beliefs system that do not fit into thiers. It is enough to disagree and proceed by telling us why you disgaree, but to then go ahead and call someone a "stupid prick" is idiotic, childish and doesnt add anything to the conversation. That is why atheism is thriving....just look at the way so called christians are intolerable. You should give him the same satisfaction by mispelling his moniker.
-
Ellen G White was stupid. She thought meat infected with 'cancer germs' transmit cancer. She made countless other outrageous claims including demons possessing you for drinking coffee or something. She was a serial wacko. SDAs prop her up as their prophet and authority on MOST of their doctrines.
Is this why SDAs are vegetarian (not all)? Some SDAs don't take coffee, tea, Coke, chocolate or any stimulant, and meat too. They use Soya in milk instead. But some take stimulants, so I don't know if it is a rule.
-
They don't celebrate Easter,lent, birthdays,Christmas or any Christian feast. They claim Jesus ONLY commanded us to 'do this in my rembrance' communion that is
They also insist that Jesus was crucified on a STAKE not cross
They are meticulous record keepers of their Winessing. they clock manhours spent out there. Theirs basically is WORK hard to earn your salvation
They like Adventists believe in soul sleep
They are anhilationist..the dead will burn and dissipate in hell not forever.
Jesus is not God but a god and He is archangel Mike
Heaven is reserved for 144,000 who are the ONLY Spirit filled in the entire earth. They teach that this number was filled in 1914 bla de bla
Holy Spirit is not a Person but an 'it' wind,breath....
Blood transfusion is EQUIVALENT to eating blood which was forbidden in Acts 15 jerusalem Council. But this teaching has been revised gradually. Plasma transfusion is cook, red blood cells transfusion is a no no
Mya, so do JWs celebrate "Christmas" in October or as you say, not at all? Never heard that one before, October. Interesting, though. My understanding was that Jesus' actual date of Birth remains unknown. The early Christians disagreed all over the place over the date, eventually they went with Hippolytus' calculation of 9 months from March 25th.
@RVtitem, that thing about suits. :D The JWs who come by our door once in a while, they always dressed in clean suits, no matter which day it is.
-
Cults are extremely controlling
White churned out some harsh dietary regimes.
I have already shared on how she detested medical science. I hope Daily Bread can deliver at home and NEVER inject her kids with vaccine
Now, belief in Ellen White as a true prophet is one of their fundamental beliefs..This is not negotiable, that's why the otherwise calm and collected DB is having fits because I touched her goD
You may want to start with White Lie expose here
http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/egw17.htm
Is this why SDAs are vegetarian (not all)? Some SDAs don't take coffee, tea, Coke, chocolate or any stimulant, and meat too. They use Soya in milk instead. But some take stimulants, so I don't know if it is a rule.
-
vooke, it's possible it may have started as a cult. After a certain point in time, especially after the leader has gone, and after a certain "mass" or size is reached, I really don't think it's possible for it to continue as such anymore, at least as far as I understand "cult". That type of absolute control exercised by the likes of Manson, Jones, Koresh etc over a few hundred or a few thousand people is not easy to exercise over a large congregation spread out everywhere, especially once the leader is dead, the one who attracted that loyalty in the first place. Many groups disappear with the death of the leader, while others adapt and somehow reorganize.
In fact many religions started out as something of a cult centered on a sacred figure that grew mainstream over time with increased numbers and diversification of membership, whether that increase was achieved through the attractiveness of the message or even by force. Not necessarily that they all exercised that type of control exercised by the likes of Jones or other ancient religious leaders, many were just a group of people who believed that somebody taught truth. Jesus seemed not to have bothered at least during his life, to build a community around him or even to write anything. He was very simple, though startling in his claims, Buddha was a little bit the same way too. But to the Jews, Christianity was what they would've called a cult (of Jesus of Nazareth) if they had our vocabulary. They used much worse descriptors instead, according to the language of the time. :D Islam may be considered the cult of Muhammad, and Buddhism the cult of Buddha. Hinduism is a conglomeration of the cults of various Hindu sages over the ages, whose wisdom/teaching was recorded in the Vedas, mixed with the natural paganism that existed all over the ancient world (the lower form, or the Hinduism of the masses, that is).
But in general, true Cults like Mungiki are IMHO simply not sustainable in the long run, Historically, and over large congregations. They are like criminal gangs in the way they operate, was seeing this story of a gang of bikers in the USA, a murderous group that lived by the absolute word of one guy whose name escapes me at the moment. They didn't have any theistic beliefs, but to me they looked like a cult nonetheless, complete with a prophet. Even the Mormon church cannot IMO be called a cult today, though I do not think they are Christian but a fresh new religion with roots in Christianity, because they are essentially polytheists (belief in many separate gods) and these gods have material/physical bodies like the ancient Greek gods, Zeus, Venus and the rest. Mormons, for example, believe God had sex with Mary to birth Jesus. Back to the cults: These days many cults show up among Koreans and also in Mormon-country (Utah, USA) for some strange reason. The ones in Korea tend to establish worship of the prophet/founder as God in human flesh, while the ones in Utah seem to have a thing for all children and girls in the group being offered in marriage to the prophet, from very young ages, so he has pick of hundreds or tens of them depending on the size of the group.
-
Good points.
Recall Paul wondering why some claimed to follow Paul, Apollos or Cephas?
I believe unique skills such as oratorical,charisma, intelligence, education,knowledge of scriptures, prophecy, healing and such ATTRACTS people around you. It is not intentional but t happens any way. So here we have primitive Christians gravitating towards these powerful men and Paul noticed it. He was rebuking them for this. This is the first step towards cults
The next step is pride sets in and these individuals certainly feel greater and better than everyone else.
The third step is they start exploiting the immense trust. They increasingly start controlling their followers. The usual tactics such as fear,blackmail,isolation and so forth are used. At this stage, there is usually an urgency to increase whatever drew men to them. here is where miracles and prophecies are faked, scriptures are twisted. It is like a drug
After this point, some followers would readily kill for their prophet. The prophet is ALWAYS right. They actually invent stuff to explain away his/her failures. Very defensive. They have acquired a we-vs-them mentality, you are either with them or lost.
From all this, the quickest test of a cult for me is their AUTHORITY. It is ALWAYS some personality or institution. I know at some point all we had were the apostles witness testimonies. But now we have the scriptures. This is closer to Catholicism and I hope you don't take offence. The idea of a Central Authority on doctrine is impractical, the church is too big for this. And it has proven vulnerable to politics, sin and other human weaknesses. Authority is shared through immense literature that is seldom questioned..sermons,books,magazines.....
The next test is EXCLUSIVITY. Am no universalist who believes EVERYONE will be saved somewhat and all sincerity leads to God. Some people, MANY will perish. What I mean by this test is groups that are quick to elevate themselves onto a pedestal and look down on everyone else as wrong are most likely cults. We have Branhams in evangelical circles, followers of William Branham. They are basically headless just reliving the man's sermons and books (sound familiar?). I have heard that Christ Embassy members are discouraged from reading books not penned by Oyakhilome!
The second last test is CONTROL. How much control does a group exert over its member? In extremes, it goes down to how often married members have sex, whom to marry, what to eat, what to wear.....there is a general fear of admitting control because they would look weak. But they dare not break these rules
The last test is DOCTRINE. There will be some specific beliefs peculiar to a group; they don't shake hands, never drink coffee, transfusion....these idionsyncrasies provide some form of IDENTITY and are used to distinguish the group and enforce the them vs us mentality. Note the doctrines are derived from their authority
Of course nobody will admit to belonging to a cult. A pastor joked that the best definition of a heretik is somebody who believes what you don't. if you belong to a group, it is up to you to dig hard and test the veracity of their teachings from scriptures. A thorough examination of the group's history is in order. Inconsistencies in a group's teachings over the years is a red flag
vooke, it's possible it may have started as a cult. After a certain point in time, especially after the leader has gone, and after a certain "mass" or size is reached, I really don't think it's possible for it to continue as such anymore, at least as far as I understand "cult". That type of absolute control exercised by the likes of Manson, Jones, Koresh etc over a few hundred or a few thousand people is not easy to exercise over a large congregation spread out everywhere, especially once the leader is dead, the one who attracted that loyalty in the first place. Many groups disappear with the death of the leader, while others adapt and somehow reorganize.
In fact many religions started out as something of a cult centered on a sacred figure that grew mainstream over time with increased numbers and diversification of membership, whether that increase was achieved through the attractiveness of the message or even by force. Not necessarily that they all exercised that type of control exercised by the likes of Jones or other ancient religious leaders, many were just a group of people who believed that somebody taught truth. Jesus seemed not to have bothered at least during his life, to build a community around him or even to write anything. He was very simple, though startling in his claims, Buddha was a little bit the same way too. But to the Jews, Christianity was what they would've called a cult (of Jesus of Nazareth) if they had our vocabulary. They used much worse descriptors instead, according to the language of the time. :D Islam may be considered the cult of Muhammad, and Buddhism the cult of Buddha. Hinduism is a conglomeration of the cults of various Hindu sages over the ages, whose wisdom/teaching was recorded in the Vedas, mixed with the natural paganism that existed all over the ancient world (the lower form, or the Hinduism of the masses, that is).
But in general, true Cults like Mungiki are IMHO simply not sustainable in the long run, Historically, and over large congregations. They are like criminal gangs in the way they operate, was seeing this story of a gang of bikers in the USA, a murderous group that lived by the absolute word of one guy whose name escapes me at the moment. They didn't have any theistic beliefs, but to me they looked like a cult nonetheless, complete with a prophet. Even the Mormon church cannot IMO be called a cult today, though I do not think they are Christian but a fresh new religion with roots in Christianity, because they are essentially polytheists (belief in many separate gods) and these gods have material/physical bodies like the ancient Greek gods, Zeus, Venus and the rest. Mormons, for example, believe God had sex with Mary to birth Jesus. Back to the cults: These days many cults show up among Koreans and also in Mormon-country (Utah, USA) for some strange reason. The ones in Korea tend to establish worship of the prophet/founder as God in human flesh, while the ones in Utah seem to have a thing for all children and girls in the group being offered in marriage to the prophet, from very young ages, so he has pick of hundreds or tens of them depending on the size of the group.
-
vooke, I agree with most of what you say, but of course disagree on that "authority" test, not on it in principle but what you understand it to mean--the kind of authority involved in cults. This is why I questioned whether people just use "cult" to refer to what they consider to be heresy. In essence, a cult is anything not protestant--This is what this test would imply. But that is not what a cult is. If we defined a cult according to how far they deviated from our own orthodoxy, basically all protestant groups, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, would be "cults" from the point of view of Catholics or vice versa for any other group. Cults from how the word is used in common parlance refers to a group in which a charismatic figure exercises extreme psychological manipulation (brainwashing) over members so that its members are completely isolated from the rest of regular society and are not able to question this leader at all. The "authority" is something immediate/direct, they cannot test it under an independent body of truth, that is, nobody knows the truth except the leader, no one can access it except through that leader. That is something radically different from the protestant/catholic disagreements on the relationship of truth, tradition, scripture and church. The authority exercised by a cult leader can only be comparable to that of religious founders themselves, the source of truth (for the group). Which is why for Christians, that would be Jesus, for Muslims, it would be Mohammed. This is the authority the member cannot question. Question it against what? They are the fountain of truth.
Ultimately ALL religions besides paganism--which starts "naturally", or derived from a culture--all religions with any beginning point in History necessarily derive their authority from an individual who knew/discovered (or WAS) "the truth", which is why they are not questioned, you either believe them or you don't. The Pope is constantly getting in trouble in the church if he even whispers something catholics think deviates from the faith, that is not what a cult-leader looks like. :D A cult-leader IS the faith. You cannot accuse him of being wrong---accuse him based on what, when he himself is the definition of what is true? That's why CS Lewis said Jesus was either Lord, Liar or Lunatic. And the same applies for other founders, because the claim of authority rests on them personally, it does not go beyond them. The new cults replicate the same for their followers. The reason they can exercise that extreme control is because nothing they say can be questioned.
-
At some point SDAs placed Ellen G. White's writings to be at par with scripture but they don't any more. And even if they did, they would simply be wrong, not a cult. I believe she is wrong and they are wrong in some of their beliefs, but that is no cult. There is no brainwashing/controlling going on there beyond what goes on in religions in general. Virulently anti-Catholic and stubborn followers of their interpretations, yes, but not a cult. If you went to TV station and accused them of being a cult people would think you are referring to a group like the doomsday cult, that lives in their own strange world. If they found out you only mean a group that you consider heretical, they would consider your claim quite misleading because "cult" is being used to define "heresy" rather than what anybody else regardless of religion would recognize as a cult.
If you look at what experts who specialize in rescuing people from cults think, the control and isolation would be key, which is effected through extreme secrecy too. There are Catholic groups I respect that I consider cultish (but will not mention here out of respect for them because of all the good they have done for me :D), but the Church? Naaah. Anything you want to know about catholic beliefs can be known at the click of a button, you don't need to be an insider. You don't need anything special to join, nor is it difficult to leave if you don't want to be catholic, the church is a public kiosk, anybody can walk in and out at anytime. In truth, protestant churches exercise much more control over their members than catholics with the church--One of the reasons catholics are generally so lax/lukewarm in faith. There is nothing like "lukewarm" in a cult. :D You are in or you are out.
Cults are like an abusive relationship where the victim is not just one person but a whole group, the leader is exactly like how a narcissistic or psychopathic boyfriend behaves except his net is cast wider (groups, not one person), (which is why I'm convinced Esther Arunga was the victim of a cult) beyond this they are indistinguishable from what is called "religion". Religions make a claim to some form of exclusivity or truth, otherwise, they would not exist. Hinduism is the only religion I know about that claims to be true while accepting others as true as well, :D. In ecumenism, it is said they make inter-religious dialogue quite difficult because of this, opposite from Muslims who make inter-religious dialogue difficult for the opposite reason. Neither of those are cults. I consider Al-Qaeeda a cult, Isis, even Wahabis, but Islam itself? Not a cult. Shiah Islam recognizes the authorities of the Ayatollah's, Sunnis reject them, they follow the 4 imams only, Jews continue their old Sanhedrin through the rabbinical school whose traditions are recorded in the Talmud and the Mishnah (earlier). None of these are cults. But there ARE Jewish cults that would feel quite at home with the likes of Al-Qeeda were it not for the "Islam" label, IMHO. :D
-
Authority means doctrinal source or basis and conduct. The problem with all the points I shared is you will find them in just about ANY group you can think of. So it's all a matter of degree. Strong dependence on an individual/institution for doctrine is a red flag for me.
And no, it is not a Catholic vs the rest, like I told you, there are some evangelical cults. Owuor I rank him here. Never thought about him any more than another evangelist until I heard from his ardent follower that he is Malachi 4 Elijah,won't die but will be ruptured when Christ returns, and I noticed a tendency among his followers to separate themselves from other Christians
vooke, I agree with most of what you say, but of course disagree on that "authority" test, not on it in principle but what you understand it to mean--the kind of authority involved in cults. This is why I questioned whether people just use "cult" to refer to what they consider to be heresy. In essence, a cult is anything not protestant--This is what this test would imply. But that is not what a cult is. If we defined a cult according to how far they deviated from our own orthodoxy, basically all protestant groups, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, would be "cults" from the point of view of Catholics or vice versa for any other group. Cults from how the word is used in common parlance refers to a group in which a charismatic figure exercises extreme psychological manipulation (brainwashing) over members so that its members are completely isolated from the rest of regular society and are not able to question this leader at all. The "authority" is something immediate/direct, they cannot test it under an independent body of truth, that is, nobody knows the truth except the leader, no one can access it except through that leader. That is something radically different from the protestant/catholic disagreements on the relationship of truth, tradition, scripture and church. The authority exercised by a cult leader can only be comparable to that of religious founders themselves, the source of truth (for the group). Which is why for Christians, that would be Jesus, for Muslims, it would be Mohammed. This is the authority the member cannot question. Question it against what? They are the fountain of truth.
Ultimately ALL religions besides paganism--which starts "naturally", or derived from a culture--all religions with any beginning point in History necessarily derive their authority from an individual who knew/discovered (or WAS) "the truth", which is why they are not questioned, you either believe them or you don't. The Pope is constantly getting in trouble in the church if he even whispers something catholics think deviates from the faith, that is not what a cult-leader looks like. :D A cult-leader IS the faith. You cannot accuse him of being wrong---accuse him based on what, when he himself is the definition of what is true? That's why CS Lewis said Jesus was either Lord, Liar or Lunatic. And the same applies for other founders, because the claim of authority rests on them personally, it does not go beyond them. The new cults replicate the same for their followers. The reason they can exercise that extreme control is because nothing they say can be questioned.
-
Ok, thanks for the info. I agree cult and religion are on a spectrum. Cult is one extreme end. I love Jesus because to me, when I read the Gospels, it's clear I am not reading the life of one of the many charlatans there were and will be in Human History, who made groups and religions that clearly exist for the benefit of that founder. Jesus was no control freak. He was a teacher of Truth and love. He is no mad man (lunatic) nor liar. There's sublime truth and love flowing from his hair to his finger tips. You will not find anything equivalent in other claimants of ultimate authority, that is my opinion. If his was a cult then I'm proudly and happily a member of the cult of Jesus of Nazareth. :D He warned of other false Christ, and I believe he referred to cult leaders or people claiming to be bringing a new revelation after him. If someone says they are a Prophet, then they cannot claim some brand new revelation to justify some new movement, that would be like starting a new religion based on a different authority, like Jesus did with Judaism. Since Christians believe Jesus was the full and complete revelation of God, we do not accept new prophets and revelations apart from things that are not revelation, like there are people who have a gift of prophecy but that means to tell what will happen like lets say next year or something. If the "prophecy" refers to some new revelation like sijui Prophet Elijah, or like Rastafarians claim that is a new incarnation of Jesus, then even if I don't call them all a cult, I certainly consider them a break from the old religion as opposed to just another sect, kinda like a religion within a religion like happened with Jesus and Judaism.