by missk_ensington 22 Replies latest jw friends
Hi Missk and welcome. I just have one piece of advice for you - RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!
My thoughts exactly.
The fact that you are searching for more information right now about the doctrine is a good indicator that the religion is not for you. Once you are baptized, you can never question the authority.
Do not involve your child through this destructive cult. It will could ruin your relationship in the future.
Thank you, this is of great help! I have no intention of following a religion that makes me stop smoking, give up what few friends I have and condemn gays. If being gay is wrong, why did God give the ability to be gay? I've had my male gay friend crying and wishing he could fancy women, would do anything to see things different and feel differently. It isn't a lifestyle choice!
What would happen if I was living with a man now and became interested in JW? You could live with someoen unmarried as common-laws for years then become JW then what afre you meant to do? One person moves out?
When you are chaperoned, who acts as the chaperone? A man? A woman? Why would anyone give up their evening to sit chaperoning people?!?
This is all so confusing!!
When you are chaperoned, who acts as the chaperone? A man? A woman? Why would anyone give up their evening to sit chaperoning people?!?
I'm glad we are helping you decide what you want to do.
The chaperone is usually not a person you call up and say, "Can you chaperone us tonite?". Its more of a dating in groups of people.
If the couple wanted to hang out, they would need at least one other person to be around them.
I have no intention of following a religion that makes me stop smoking, give up what few friends I have and condemn gays.
Glad to hear it.
If you were living with a guy and studying with jws, you would eventually be dropped as a study once you past the point of "understanding it's wrong" while consciously choosing not to follow the Borg's rules. If you continued to attend meetings, you would not have any privileges (answering at the meetings & all that nonsense). You would be marked as "bad association" and therefore not eligible to socialize with.
Chaperones can be anyone old enough to keep a close eye on what you are doing, to ensure there is no physical contact. I had to chaperone others when I was a teen--it was horrible. They couldn't keep their hands off each other--how embarassing to be a bystander--and it was my duty to report them to the elders for misconduct and "judicial action". It's really awful.
Check out my web site for some more scandals: www.jwinfo.8m.com Especially check out the activism, blood, contradictions, and misquotes pages.
I think I've already made my mind up, the JW who comes to my house who morally condemns Catholicism for using symbols of burning hell and babies floating in limbo to instil fear, but that is what they are doing. It seems easy to follow this out of fear of what will happen if you don't!
Surely God would want to save ANY person who was good, and tried to help people and was kind and honest? Not because they have gone to meetings 3 times a week and resisted getting their leg over for 2 years whilst dating! I've had 2 long term partners my sons father 15-18 and my ex I recently split up with from 18-20. Had I been brought up in 'The Truth' I probably would have married Oli's Dad, it wouldn't have worked, Id also have been complelled to marry Steve which also wouldn't have worked. So if I was a JW I'd have been married and divorced twice and I'm not quite 21 for a few weeks! (Thats if divorce is allowed!?)
You don't know someone until you live with them, surely this is a reversion to ancient times whch I don't want to do. I couldn't be a JW through and through, I've finally got my life where I want it, I earn good money Project Managing properties and I often get work done cheaply by paying tradesman "Cash in hand" surely this has to be a pretty cardinal offence in terms of JW?!!!
Hi missk, and welcome to the forum.
I will echo the advice of the other posters by saying stop the study now. If you become a jw, though it sounds as if you've made up your mind not to, they will expect to control every aspect of your life. I doubt you want that.
Hi
missk_ensington
Welcome
Didn't waste much time getting on here then.
Welcome to the board. Your questions show that you know inside it is not the Truth, and you are very wise to realise that not getting baptised will save you a lot of trouble. My cousin and I have the same views about the WTS, she did not get baptised so associates freely with my family, I did get baptised and subsequently d/f so now can have nothing to do with them.
In regards to blood, Genesis does not say anything about not having blood, rather it simply says Genesis 9:4:“Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat.” In other words, an animal could not be eatten if not bled. The Mosaic law forbade blood but was done away with, and so the rule at Acts was only given to prevent stumbling, as shown at 1 Corinthians 8:4-13, and also by Jesus who said Matthew 15:11 “Not what enters into [his] mouth defiles a man; but it is what proceeds out of [his] mouth that defiles a man.”
There are many things that prove the WTS to not be directed by Jehovah. Certainly the numerous wrong prophecies and interpretations they have made show they do not have Gods guidance in understanding the Bible. It is wise to keep away before you get sucked into believing a system designed to control you by fear and guilt.
They already told you to run for your life.
If you want to give presents on Dec. 26th, and they say you can't...
If you want to go on unchaperoned dates with a non-JW, and they say you can't...
If you want to have gay friends, and they say you can't...
WHY LISTEN TO THEM. The rest, read on...
You said blood was biblical that is not true the bible actually supports eating blood. Set back, get your bible out and you will see. Please read the information below after you read it ask your self what GOD thinks about all the people that have died because of the JW's lie on blood.
Man at Gen. 9:4 was told to respect blood, he must not eat the flesh with its blood. Notice flesh with its blood it does not say you can not eat blood. Besides he could use the blood for fertilizing the ground, as paint, or even animal feed. To show this point clearly we need only to look too the scriptures. At Duet. 14:21 it states "You must not eat any body [already] dead. To the alien resident you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner." There in Israel’s mist was the man of the nations, this foreigner represented the rest of mankind that Jehovah gave the command to at Gen: 9:4. Noah was instructed not to eat the blood of an animal that was to be eaten. This showed it’s not the blood itself, nor was it the act of eating the blood that God was addressing. He was instilling into man what was important, not the blood nor the eating of blood but Jehovah’s High regard for life. This is the key, God regards life higher than he does blood. This point can be proven clearly from the bible at Lev. 17:15 read "As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or a alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until evening; and he must be clean." Here God says even the NATIVE could eat an animal that he personally did not kill and he knew that this animal had not been bled, and not be in violation of god’s law on blood. {A native, is a person that was clearly under the Mosaic Law and bound by it} How can this be? A Native, an Israelite eating un-bled meat? If eating blood was in violation of god’s law on blood which we all know it was, how could we explain this verse? If Jehovah did not make an exception to the rule how can this be explained? If we truly know Jehovah, and understand his high regards for life it is very easy to understand. Look at Duet. 14:21 it is clear here that Jehovah told Israel not eat a body already dead. Then why would he change it at Lev. 17:15? Here it states a native{person under the Mosaic Law} could eat an animal not bled and not be put to death. Why? His only sin is one of touching a dead animal and then he became unclean. He did not violate God’s law on blood here or Jehovah would have put the sinner to death. His only sin here was one of touching a dead animal. {The Law’s requirement for touching a dead animal is he became unclean by the act of touching a dead body}. Since he touched a dead body he was unclean until evening and he had to wash in water. Look at Leviticus 11:39-40 read "Now in case any beast that is YOURS for food should die, he who touches its dead body will be unclean until the evening. And he who eats any of its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening; and he who carries off its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening". Also look at Lev. 17:15 Jehovah gave Israel away out of death. If there was a famine in the land or drought… and one happened upon a dead animal, the eating of that animal could literally have meant saving the life of that person and his family. If though he personally killed the animal and he did not drain the blood on the ground Jehovah would have killed this man for violating the law on blood why There are two different worlds here. , The one under the Law of Israel and the rest of the world that’s not under it. Because, he did the killing. The act of killing was not charged to him if he found the body. This is clearly stated in the Insight On the Scriptures Vol 1 pages 345, paragraph 6"At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowances was made for selling to an alien resident or a foreigner an animal that had died of itself or that had been torn by a beast. Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of animals that a person slaughtered for food. {Compare Le 17:14-16} The Israelites, as well as alien residents who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant, were obligated to live up to the lofty requirements of that Law. People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Gen 9:3,4 but those ? under the Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to that requirement than were foreigners and alien residents who had not became worshipers of Jehovah." Notice those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard regards blood. I would like to ask a question here. Could an alien resident break other Laws, stealing, dealing treacherously with his fellow man and get away with it? No, because he was under the legal Laws of Israel, not the Mosaic Law given to the Israelites.
The Bible clearly recognizes the fact that before Christ’s death, two different laws on blood were in effect. One for the world of mankind. [The laws given to Noah at Gen 9:4] The other for his people Israel. Do we have two different laws today? No. Since the Law given to Noah still applies, and the Mosaic Law, the more ridged Mosaic Law is not binding on us. There were two different laws regarding blood. We aer no longer under the law given to the nation of Israel only that given to Noah and the foreigner could eat blood as long as he did not do the killing. Even the Israelite if eating the animal meant his life. Acts 15: 17-20. It clearly say’s "abstain from blood". Lets take a closer look. First we have to recognize the fact that this statement was given in harmony with the older men of Jerusalem on their decision over circumcision. This was a volatile time in the first century church. If you look closely, you will notice the bible does not state that the Mosaic Law on blood was still binding. But the law of Noah was to be kept. "Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God," Jehovah was not giving the nations a new command at Acts 15: The new converts came under the same law that had been in place for thousands of years they were to abstain from things polluted by idols, fornication from things strangled and blood. All of these laws were in effect before Jehovah gave Israel the Mosaic Law. Is this not the very reason we concluded that circumcision is not binding on us? Remember the Golden calf; remember Joseph and the wife of Potiphar remember the law on blood given to Noah? God did not ask anything more than these necessary things to keep doing.
So let us pretend for a moment that the Law on blood is still exactly the same today as it was for the Israelites. Would it mean that Christians today should die in order to keep the law on abstaining from blood? Jehovah at Lev 17:15,16 made an exception and this exception was allowed during difficult times when their very lives were at stake. Heb 6:18 say’s "It is impossible for God to lie" Isaiah 55:8 say’s "For the thoughts of you people are not my thoughts". By dieing, are we not saying, "Jehovah, you had no reason to given your Israel a way out of death over your law on blood." There is no way we can ignore what Jehovah has penned in his Bible, it is clear HE gave Israel the right to choose life.
