Confession me reply to your message RE Richie

by Beep,Beep 84 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Beep,Beep

  AuldSoul,

  The problem is your insistance that 100% of the fractions ARE acceptable. Are they? The following would seem to indicate otherwise. It is taken from the same Watchtower magazine that has the chart you provided.:

  ""***

  w04 6/15 p. 23 par. 16 Be Guided by the Living God ***

  16

  As noted in paragraphs 11 and 12, Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept transfusions of whole blood or of its four primary components—plasma, red cells, white cells, and platelets. What about small fractions extracted from a primary component, such as serums containing antibodies to fight a disease or to counteract snake venom? (See page 30, paragraph 4.) Some have concluded that such minute fractions are, in effect, no longer blood and hence are not covered by the command ‘to abstain from blood.’ (Acts 15:29; 21:25; page 31, paragraph 1) That is their responsibility. The conscience of others moves them to reject everything obtained from blood (animal or human), even a tiny fraction of just one primary component. Still others may accept injections of a plasma protein to fight disease or to counteract snake venom, yet they may reject other small fractions. Moreover, some products derived from one of the four primary components may be so similar to the function of the whole component and carry on such a life-sustaining role in the body that most Christians would find them objectionable.""

  This one paragraph would seem to blow your claim that 100% of fractions are accepteble out of the water.

  Lies/Lying.

  I don't suppose you would care to provide an example of this "lying"? Without knowing what you are refering to, it would be silly for one to attempt to address it.

  UN/NGO:

  The stated purpose was to obtain a library card. Some here have scoffed at such a claim. However at least three local educational institutions have also found it necessary to do the same thing. It seems that there are some areas that do require such a card for access. One such area would seem to be the section dealing with Human Rights.

  Being recognised as an NON GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION is not the same thing as joining the UN. I fail to see why tis is upsetting to you.

  Secret J.C.:

  What did the writers of the N.T. say? Were you to air your problem with your brother in public or in private?

  Matthew 18:15-17, ""15 "Moreover, if your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established. 17 If he does not listen to them, speak to the congregation. If he does not listen even to the congregation, let him be to you just as a man of the nations and as a tax collector.""

  No where does this indicate that EVERYONE needed to know what was going on.

  Mexico "Incident" I have yet to find a second, independant source to back up this claim. Every time I have had this brought up, it has been refered back to Ray Franz. I find it interesting that the only ones who bring up this alleged incident are ex-Witnesses. I never had a non witness bring this up. Curious. Could it be that those non witnesses heard and dismissed this as rubbish?

  Somehow I can't picture the Mexican government allowing such a thing to occur. Why would they allow those who will not serve in the military to carry a card saying they ALREADY had basic training? Somehow I can't picture the Mexican military going along with such a thing. To put it bluntly, what a crock of SHI_.
• 

  mkr32208

  beep beep is an ass clown...
• 

  mrsjones5

  
• 

  Beep,Beep

  Nice mrsjones5. Is that a self portrait?
• 

  unclebruce

  On theft - only a moron with a warped sense of morality would watch his family starve to death when food was available (It's not that well Known but in Australia taking food isn't legally considered theft if your life or the life of someone else is endangered. Thus you can kill a sheep and cook it as long as you leave the remains somewhere where the owner can see it. You can remove crops from a field and it isn't stealing if it's to genuine ly prevent starvation ... aren't we enlightened). I doubt that removing items documenting illegal activity is considered theft either. W histle blowing is generally a wonderfully honourable thing, only decried by those fearing the light of truth.

  If Richie did steal the book (legally unlikely, since he was given the keys) it is a very minor offence compared to what said book revealed about the Watchtoer Bible and Cover their Tract Society. This 'theft' allegation is just a pedants wanking response to an act of heroic bravery.

  Would Beep Beep condem Simon Weisenthals much lauded 'theft' of Nazi documents proving the holocaust? Sinse he hasn't replied, I guess so. The Nazis were extrremely pissed off but who gave a sh*t about that? Only fellow fascists. I raised this point before - it went unanswered yet the dopey wanker raises the issue of theft again here in this self-pleasuring thread. Beep beep thinks he's pulling our chain but in reality he's pulling something nearer and dearer.

  Stephanus and IP_sec said it all really. But at least this thread helped share and strengthen truth about the truth™

  unclebruce

  ________________________________

  Where there is secrecy there is no truth,

  Where there is no truth there is no justice,

  Where there is no justice there is no freedom.
• 

  Abaddon

  uncle bruce

  It's not that well Known but in Australia taking food isn't legally considered theft if your life or the life of someone else is endangered. Thus one can kill a sheep and cook it as long as one leaves the remains somewhere where the owner can see it. One can remove crops from a field and it isn't stealing if it's to genuine ly prevent starvation ... aren't we enlightened

  I didn't know that, very interesting - do you know if it is a result of some of the original colonists being deported from Englandd for merely stealing to sustain themselves or their family? Kind of a historically removed sympathy?
• 

  diamondblue1974

  (It's not that well Known but in Australia taking food isn't legally considered theft if your life or the life of someone else is endangered. Thus one can kill a sheep and cook it as long as one leaves the remains somewhere where the owner can see it. One can remove crops from a field and it isn't stealing if it's to genuine ly prevent starvation ... aren't we enlightened). I doubt that removing items documenting illegal activity is considered theft either. W histle blowing is generally a wonderfully honourable thing, only decried by those fearing the light of truth.

  In the UK we have the defence of 'duress' or 'necessity'; although admittedly these defenses are complex and might not protect someone in the position above. The law is an ass...and probably always will be!

  DB74
• 

  unclebruce

  Well, I am from the enlightened state of South Australia where the law said all houses had to be built on a quarter acre block (this meant that South Australians had no slums and survived the depression much better than places like Sydney). The sheep and potato laws are pretty old and may be related to convict settlement or a product of convict free SA. My father was a bushie and taught us things like that very young. (the famous "jolly swagman" was in trouble as soon as he 'put that jumbuck in his tuckerbag' if he'd left it hanging on the tree he'd have been fine).
• 

  willyloman

  Nominating Mary for 'Best Single Sentence of the Year" as posted on JWD for 2006.'

  So please----don't try pointing down at anyone here from your high and mighty throne, when you need to take a much closer look at the history of the Organization and all the shit they've pulled, instead of banging your fists in self-righteous indignation over a frigging book.
• 

  willyloman

  beep-beep, with regard to your last post on blood fractions:

  Some have concluded that such minute fractions are, in effect, no longer blood and hence are not covered by the command ‘to abstain from blood.’ (Acts 15:29; 21:25; page 31, paragraph 1) That is their responsibility. The conscience of others moves them to reject everything obtained from blood (animal or human), even a tiny fraction of just one primary component. Still others may accept injections of a plasma protein to fight disease or to counteract snake venom, yet they may reject other small fractions. Moreover, some products derived from one of the four primary components may be so similar to the function of the whole component and carry on such a life-sustaining role in the body that most Christians would find them objectionable.""
  

  As a long-time elder with considerable experience in this area having been involved in the medical management of JW cases involving blood alternatives, bloodless surgery and alternatives "approved" or otherwise sanctioned by the WTS, I have worked closely with HLC members and other ranking JWs who are on the front lines and in the trenches making daily decisions that are what have shaped the Society's true position on blood transfusions in the past decade.

  What is written in the Society's literature is for public consumption and designed to keep the rank and file both satisfied and a bit confused so that they aren't going to be bothered when the sand continues to shift under this doctrine - which has changed dramatically in the last 10 or 15 years and which will continue to evolve as medical advancements present themselves.

  Despite what they write, the real policy is being made in the field.

  The article quoted above (by you) has several key weasel words in it, if you look for them, i.e., "some have concluded," "the conscience of others," "still others," "moreover," "most Chrstians (meaning most JWs)" and so on. If you read this with a critical eye, it is clear there is no unanimity among dubs on the use of blood fractions, and that the WT Society is just fine with this, in fact encourages it... despite their oft-published claims that they are the last outpost of true Christianity on the planet and are "united in mind and thought."

  You end your post with:

  This one paragraph would seem to blow your claim that 100% of fractions are accepteble out of the water.

  On paper, you are correct. In actual practice, here's what a highly influential HLC member who runs one of many successful "bloodless surgery" units in a major hospital said in telling me how he explains the use of fractions to dub patients who present with serious complications and need to make a decision on blood:

  "It's like a doctor telling you can't eat applie pie. However, the doctor says you can eat sugar, cinnamon, pie dough, applies, lemon juice, butter. You just can't bake all the ingredients into a pie and eat it."

  With this "brilliant' analogy, he claims that 98% of the dub patients he sees in the hospital are ready and willing to sign whatever documents he gives them, just so long as "Mother approves." Their primary question to him is always, "What does the society say I can take?"

  So, fantasize all you want, point to written policy 'til the cows come home. Out in the field, where the real policies and practices are being written -- in blood - on a daily basis, there is a different reality. And the reality is: Dubs take blood now, but convince themselves they don't.