by HildaBingen 123 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
Jehovah's Witnesses take blood IN EVERY FORM THAT IT EXISTS except for five specific forms. Even four of those five forms are okay if it's cow's blood, if I can understand the WAtchtower's senile ramblings in its publications.
You are even allowed to accept the forbidden five forms of blood ONE TIME if you express repentance.
LYING TROLL
BEFORE YOU TRY AND REMOVE THE STICK FROM MY ARSE, REMOVE THE TELEPHONE POLE FROM YOUR OWN ARSE.
Hi, Dung, you state:
"You are even allowed to accept the forbidden five forms of blood ONE TIME if you express repentance."
That's the shame of it all. That for years and years people have died because of a corporation's rendering of scripture and now all of a sudden its okay to take blood if its in the doses you described. And witnesses keep insisting "truth" does not change.
All witnesses should hope that they are not severely injured more than one time, because as of now they have only one chance to get lifesaving blood without consequences. Yep, just get your transfusion and then fein regret.
IIt's funny the way you expressed it! You're such a card! LOL)
dungbeetle,
Here's how it goes:
1. Abstain from blood
2. Blood transfusions involve blood, so abstain from transfusions.
3. Blood transfusions carry health risks, so JWs are protected by avoiding transfusions.
4. Minor extracts of blood are acceptable, but we still abstain from transfusions.
5. JWs avoid transfusions but can accept all subcomponents of blood. After all, it is proper to use blood in this way because the GB says so.
6. JWs are protected from health risks because they avoid transfusions and, as we all know, Acts 15 prohibits transfusions.
Thus the policy has evolved from a prohibition on blood to a prohibition on transfusions. Slick footwork by WT Legal but not slick enough. Go to http://www.jwbloodreview.org for the full dissection of the murderous and dishonest shell game played by WT Legal.
herbert
Mr F:
I will just respond to clear up some things you said about Hilda. But you are a potty mouth.
:: They might not have claimed that their prophecies originated with themselves, but they certainly claimed that their prophecies originated with God.
: Where did the wt say dat dee prophecies dat dey was prophesying was deirs?
I assume you meant to say: "Where did the wt say dat dee prophecies dat dey was prophesying was not deirs?" Otherwise, your statement is nonsensical. I'll assume that you were trying to make sense.:
you said that the wt said the prophecies in the magazine are "their prophecies.". Now you are backtracking, just as we figured.
:Anyway, you're a glutton for punishment. But you asked for it. I will now give some proofs that Watchtower leaders have claimed that their prophecies originated with God.:
Talk about red herrings. You have not even shown us where the wt ever claimed to have prophecies. Notice the possessive "their" that you used.
:C. T. Russell specifically claimed that he was not inspired, but that God, in some mysterious and unspecified manner, "revealed" things to him. While many Christians could be called, in a certain sense, a "mouthpiece of God", if what they spoke perfectly reflected what was in the Bible, Russell went further and claimed that God gave him understandings that he gave to no one else. In the July 15, 1906 Watch Tower, on page 229, Russell wrote:
God did give Russell understandings that he gave no one else. So what? Russell was not inspired doh. He was guided by spirit.
:So Russell got his "truths" in an unspecified but miraculous way that was just as miraculous as if the very stone cried out.:
Give me a break. Russell got his truth like others get theirs.
:In 1894 one of Russell's readers questioned him about his chronology leading to 1914. In Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, Russell wrote on page 226, under the subtitle "Can It Be Delayed Until 1914?":
"We see no reason for changing the figures -- nor could we change them if we would. They are, we believe, God's dates, not ours.":
That is my point. Russell did not say that they was his prophecies. He said they was gods.
:If Russell were so convinced that his now-discredited dates were so certain that he could call them "God's dates", it is obvious that he thought that God directed him to find all those dates in the scriptures. In other words, God actively led Russell to figure out those dates -- something that he claimed he was unable to do on his own. That is a direct claim of inspiration, no matter what excuses an apologist might make.:
Ruseel was led, guided and betook. but he was not inspired. He was not characterized by a theopneustic spirit of God.
The Rutherford quote is also a red herring. Where did the Wt say the prophecies of the bible were "their prophecies." Stop obfuscating!
:Obviously, God's words to Noah were inspired. And if the 1925 date were even more certain than the coming Flood, then its prediction was just as much a product of divine inspiration as was God's prediction of the Flood. Thus, Rutherford claimed divine inspiration.:
Rutherford did not claim to be inspired. He thought that 1925 was a biblical date. The bible was inspired. That is where Rutherford thought he got his dates from, Mr F.
: What you been smoking? They say no such thing.
Of course they do. The above-mentioned link contains plenty of references to prove my claim. Also at that link, read the article "Do Jehovah's Witnesses Claim That They Are the Only Ones Who Will Be Saved?" and you'll find lots of direct quotes that prove my claim.:
We obey god rather than man. If the governing body tell us to do things not scriptural, we stick by God.
:Furthermore, surely you're familiar with the Society's comparing rebellion against JW leaders with the rebellion of Korah and company against the inspired Moses. If such rebellion amounts in both cases to rebellion against God, then both of these claimed spokesmen, Moses and JW leaders, must be equally inspired. Otherwise the Society's comparison is simply a lie, a tactic to fool the JW rank & file into thinking that when they obey JW leaders they're obeying God.:
You must think that parents are equal to God or Moses too, right? Or that superior authorities are equal to Yahweh and Moses. What a dip.
: You, dear boy, need to go back and get your money back for that koine 101 class you took.
This discussion is in English, dummy, not Greek.:
But Greek has a bearing on the discussion. If you cannot tell the difference between "inspired" like the bible prophets were (theopneustos) and being "led" (hosoi gar pneumati theou agontai) like Christians are--then you are hopeless.
: The governing body do not claim to be inspired.
That's exactly what I said, dummy. They just use different words to say the equivalent thing. In fact I also said that JW leaders claim that:
See what we write above.
:they are guided by god spirit.
You don't object to the fact that they claim divine direction, but to the fact that divine direction is by definition divine inspiration. You want to cover that up, because it wouldn't do to make a direct claim of inspiration.:
I object because one can not be "inspired" without being led by spirit of God. But one can be "led" without being "inspired." You do not understand this simple idea.
: And God directs governing body like he direct all christians.
Cough, cough!!! Sputter! Hhhaaaaaauuuuuuggghhhhh!
Righto. He puts ideas into their heads and then they go off and put them into practice. That's inspiration, dummy!:
Wrong. God don't put ideas in one's head just cause he leads his people. God is not a magician bringing about ideas from nothing.
: The wt has not taught false things. Maybe they have missapprehended the truth at times.
Oh, please! By that reasoning, no other Christian religion that merely "misapprehends the truth" at times teaches falsehoods. But as a JW, you surely teach others that all Christian religions other than your own teaches falsehoods, despite many of those falsehoods being just as much a product of "misapprehension" as the dumbest of Watchtower "misapprehensions". As usual, we find a JW proving to be a gross hypocrite by holding double standards.:
No double standards. Other religions do not progress and they are loath to change. jws keep making progress, realize their misapprehensions and move ahead.
:Furthermore, many people have demonstrated that Watchtower leaders totally reject correction of their "misapprehensions" by someone outside that tight little cadre of sycophants that comprises the top echelon of WTS leaders. People submit thoroughly documented proof that some teaching or policy needs to change, and what happens? They find themselves at the wrong end of a judicial committee.:
You are wrong. I know brother who submit proof for changes and they thank him. You are wrong.
: Calling wt false is like calling Ptolemy's geocentric theory false. It is not false.
My, my, but you're good at deceiving yourself. So the claim that the sun orbits the earth is not false, eh? I suppose you think that the claim that the earth is flat is also not false. And that there are unicorns. And every other falsehood is not false. Talk about an Orwellian mindset!:
Unicorns is another story. They are kinda outside the realm of theory. But Ptolemy's idea was not false. It is just scientifically inadequate. A new model had to take its place. Ptolemy had an epistemological problem. His theory was not false.
: Are you that dense?
I must be. Yikes! To think that falsehoods are false! What am I thinking?:
Falsehoods, by defintion, are false. But missapprehensions are not necessarily false. If I see mirage that is not false. If I think the earth is flat that is not a false belief. It is only an inadequate or missapprehensive one.
Damn, dunny is at it again.
:Do you, then, feel free to follow your own "direction", even if it disagrees with the "direction" the GB purport to have received? After all, isn't God's "direction" valid in both cases?:
God's direction is valid when it is in harmony with God's bible.
:If you had received "direction" from God that the no organ transplant policy was bogus (oh, wait....it couldn't be because the GB received that direction from God)....but, anyway, if you had followed YOUR "direction" from God (since it's just as viable as that received by the GB in your opinion), would you have been surprised when your "direction" caused you to be booted from the congregation?:
No I would not. They persecuted the prophets in Bible. Why not me? But God would correct it in due time and I would be back in truth if I kept my faith.
:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both and both and kinda.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, yes, a firm statement of your convictions. LOLOLOLOL:
Just being honest.
This, I promise, is my LAST FRIKKING post on this thread. If that last post doesn't prove the ludicrousness of the beliefs of a Jehovah's Witness to a rational person, I don't know what does.
Here are some choice moments:
We obey god rather than man. If the governing body tell us to do things not scriptural, we stick by God.
I don't even have to say a THING about that little sentence. You just hung yourself, using plenty of rope, Mr Mystikool. Ha.
Wrong. God don't put ideas in one's head just cause he leads his people. God is not a magician bringing about ideas from nothing.
Agreed. Decisions by the GB are made by voting. Don't you love it when groups of supposedly God-ordained men VOTE on issues that affect whether people LIVE OR DIE???? Wake up, dude. Seriously.
No double standards. Other religions do not progress and they are loath to change. jws keep making progress, realize their misapprehensions and move ahead.
Oh, OK, so all those children (and adults) who died and could have lived had the policies voted upon by the GB changed at a different point in time, what about them? What is the reason for their needless deaths, hmmm??? Jehovah, it seems, only changes his mind after people die. Or doesn't. He's a very whimsical man, God is. Very whimsical indeed. I don't think I like your God. Or your Governing Body, for that matter, since Dubs are taught that there is effectively no difference.
You are wrong. I know brother who submit proof for changes and they thank him. You are wrong.
AHAHA. Now I'm laughing hysterically. Tell me - if you were to put your signature on a document asking for reform on the blood policy in order to prevent people dying, and mailed it the Society, would you be scared? Would you be frightened of excommunication from your cult? Why would you be afraid? Surely you can't be afraid of asking a publishing company to change a life-threatening policy, right? I doubt you'd last very long if the Elders got wind of something like that.
God's direction is valid when it is in harmony with God's bible.
"God is love" - "And God smote them both, Soddom & Gomorrah"
"God is a manly man of war"
"And he took them unto the Ark, two by two"
Just some choice samples from your Holy Book of Fairy Tales.
But God would correct it in due time and I would be back in truth if I kept my faith.
Or you might be dead. That, in fact, is a VERY REAL POSSIBILITY. Do not deny it. You, or your children.
"If men were like their personal ads, they wouldn't need personal ads."
OK, I'm sorry if I offended any sincere person on this board with my last stab at the Bible. Let me clarify - my personal feeling is that a lot of stuff in the Bible is good (e.g. the Sermon on the Mount, I wish more people would follow the teachings of Jesus, life would improve in general), however, there are some very worrying things in the Bible too that need to be looked at by anyone reading it. The examples I cited are just some of the more prominent ones.
I know how sensitive some people on this board can get! So I'm apologizing in advance
"If men were like their personal ads, they wouldn't need personal ads."
Hilda - the trollette,
:But Ptolemy's idea was not false. It is just scientifically inadequate. A new model had to take its place. Ptolemy had an epistemological problem. His theory was not false.
Here you show real ignorance. Ptolemy's theory was false. However, that does not make it dishonest or unhelpful in the sense that even thinking about the structure of the universe was a step in a positive direction.
However, WTS teachings are both false and dishonest in many cases. Why? Because the WTS claims to speak for God it cannot easily dump its failed teachings and prophecies and so it resorts to shoring them up even after they have been disproven. Further, the WTS lies as is easily seen by reading its Creation book.
Now, as for prophets, what prophet does not come in a god's name? Of course Russell claimed that the prophecies were God's prophecies. That is the scenario neatly laid out in Deut. 18. Of course, when those prophecies failed it became clear that they had nothing to do with God. Ergo, the propecies then were to seen to be those of the false prophet Russell. That's why the failed prophecies of the WTS are "theirs" and theirs alone - if not theirs then whose?
Basically, Hilda you are part of a religion that has never managed to get a single thing right. Not only that, its teachings are or have been downright insane. It's really funny watching you use big words to explain why a religion that banned Aluminum pans, considered vaccinations to be from the Devil and had a machine for curing diseases that involved screwing up bits of paper and sticking them in it, actually does speak for God - but in an entirely misapprehensive way.
Herbert
:Here you show real ignorance. Ptolemy's theory was false. However, that does not make it dishonest or unhelpful in the sense that even thinking about the structure of the universe was a step in a positive direction.:
Ptolemy's theory was not false. You have offered no proof to back up your claim. There is no such thing as a false theory. Theories are either adequate or inadequate. They are not truth claims and are exempt from truth conditionality demands.
:However, WTS teachings are both false and dishonest in many cases. Why? Because the WTS claims to speak for God it cannot easily dump its failed teachings and prophecies and so it resorts to shoring them up even after they have been disproven. Further, the WTS lies as is easily seen by reading its Creation book.:
The wt does not lie. at times certain ideas have been inadequate or the truth has been missapprehended. To missapprehend is not to engage in the act of propogating falsehood.
:Now, as for prophets, what prophet does not come in a god's name? Of course Russell claimed that the prophecies were God's prophecies. That is the scenario neatly laid out in Deut. 18. Of course, when those prophecies failed it became clear that they had nothing to do with God. Ergo, the propecies then were to seen to be those of the false prophet Russell. That's why the failed prophecies of the WTS are "theirs" and theirs alone - if not theirs then whose?:
Russell never propheside in the foretelling the future sense. That is the last time I will repeat that. He gave his understanding of God's prophecies. the problem was epistemological and not ontotheological.
:Basically, Hilda you are part of a religion that has never managed to get a single thing right. Not only that, its teachings are or have been downright insane. It's really funny watching you use big words to explain why a religion that banned Aluminum pans, considered vaccinations to be from the Devil and had a machine for curing diseases that involved screwing up bits of paper and sticking them in it, actually does speak for God - but in an entirely misapprehensive way.:
The wt has got the trinity, hellfire, sex issues evolution right. they also know God and his name. So there.
