Doorstep proselytizing.

[KMeek]

There are two different issues here. The first is the complaint about trepassers that fall into a categorization of "this group"--presumably a well intentioned collection of Christians committing the unpardonable sin of evangelizing. The second issue is trespassing--an issue that "no trespassing" signs would seemingly address to "this group" and ALL other groups! Nobody would reasonably dispute the right of a landowner to bar trespassers, especially (apparently) trespassers falling into the category of "this group" (meaning evangelizing Christians). Neither issue really has anything to do with the other yet look how quickly some of you were to condemn the trespass because of the group committing the trespass.

 

[Koa Man]

The Bible says Jesus sent his disciples from house to house and from village to village. Many people back then did not like it, in fact many did not even like Jesus... . the religious leaders back then got the Roman governor to kill him.



But back to Qtrhrs problem... . I know for a fact that if you do not want them to call at your house, call the local number for the Jehovah's Witnesses in your area and ask to be put on their list of homes not to call on. This should also work with Mormons and any other groups you don't want visiting you. It will probably even work with your local TDR chapter too.

 

[me4osu]

Kmeek



Although I am a fellow Catholic, I have a different opinion than you. I think you remember the words of St. Francis, "Preach the Gospel at all times; IF NECESSARY, use words. ". If these people really lived by the word of God, they would be tolerant of someone's religious beliefs, even if they differ from their own. THAT is what Christ teaches. You know, the whole "love your neighbor" issue.



Just like joel posted, I think that if you politely state to them that you are not interested in what they have to say, they should politely LEAVE YOUR PROPERTY. That would show their tolerance of your difference in beliefs, Christian or other.



I recognize their freedom, however I have a problem with one Jehovahs Witness doctorine in particular. When I was growing up in Enid, OK, a JW child was having an acute appendicitis (sp). Because of their twisted interpretation of the Bible, this 9 year old boy's "parents" would not let him receive the medical attention he desperately needed. He died after three weeks of needless and IMMENSE suffering. That is child abuse; not the teaching of God.

 

[Koa Man]

me4osu,

I think the story you are talking about probably involved a doctor or hospital who refused to operate without blood transfusions. JWs do go to doctors, I have a neighbor and a couple of customers who are JWs. They do not accept blood transfusions. When asked about that he said to read Acts 15:28, 29 and Leviticus chapter 17 for starters. Given all the cases of recently discovered diseases transmitted from blood transfusions, that is probably a good idea.

 

[me4osu]

If the alternative is certain death, I think a blood transfusion would be worth the safety risk (what would one have to loose?). Whether it was a conflict with their interpretation of scripture, or not, is the reason they have their own religion and have to browbeat people into joining it.



ACTS (KJV)

15:28

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;



15:29

That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.



To me, verse 29 does not say to stay away from all blood, just that which has been "offered to an idol". Their all encompassing generalization of one sentence should not allow them to leave a person to die.



To my limited knowledge, Leviticus is an Old Testament set of instructions for the Israelites before they set off for the promised land. I believe it was superceded by the Gospels after Jesus died on the cross.

 

[Koa Man]

Originally posted by me4osu





ACTS (KJV)

15:28

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;



15:29

That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.



To me, verse 29 does not say to stay away from all blood, just that which has been "offered to an idol". Their all encompassing generalization of one sentence should not allow them to leave a person to die.

I guess each person believes a certain interpetation of the Scriptures. That is why there are more than 1500 religions. One to suit almost anyone's belief. If you don't find one you like, hey just start your own. One of the guys I went to elementary school with did just that. He joined the Hari Krishnas, did not believe everything they taught, and started his own off shoot of the H-K religion. He actually has hundreds of followers now. Anyway, if verse 29 meant just blood sacrificed to an idol, would not the verse have said "from meats and blood offered to idols," instead of making it a separate subject? Discussion of politics and religion can last for hours and lead to some heated arguements. No wonder many say talk to me about anything except... ... . I should probably follow that advice and not post anymore on this subject.

 

[me4osu]

Do they eat red meat??? That has blood in it.



BEEF, its whats for dinner.