by metatron 44 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
More and more "offences" are resulting in the person being recognized as having "Disassociated" himself. Example: Accepting Blood, Going to a Church, and Voting all result in a person being recognized as having "Disassociated" himself.
'
apparently now, i heard, that voting is up to your own conscience
More and more "offences" are resulting in the person being recognized as having "Disassociated" himself. Example: Accepting Blood, Going to a Church, and Voting all result in a person being recognized as having "Disassociated" himself.
'
apparently now, i heard, that voting is up to your own conscience
The long and varied list of "demonised" things reminded me......
I knew a family who had family links in another part of Europe. One member of the family came back from a trip there and threw out all of their ABBA records, because "ABBA are demonised".
True Story!
I always wondered why they were so deadset on
a) sticking verbatim to the talk outlines
Dont want to get sued because of enthusiastic speakers (I wonder if all the talk outlines and publications go through the legal dept first
b) switching to the new books when they were released
They want to bury old doctrines as soon as possible.
cruzanheart writes:
I got a chuckle when I looked through the 1958 Awake! volume and saw that in-vitro fertilization, when another man's sperm is used to fertilize the woman's egg, is ADULTERY, punishable by disfellowshipping. Haven't heard anything about THAT lately.
Actually, this viewpoint was confirmed in a March 93 Awake! article regarding surrogate motherhood. It went so far as to say that a woman's body was her husband's and that she had no right to carry a child for another couple, even if both the ovum and sperm were neither hers or her husband's. They effectively outlawed surrogate pregnancies and many reproductive technological advances with that 2-page article, writing them off as a form of "adultery" (or in the case where fertilization occurs outside the womb - risking abusing "God's law on blood").
What they failed to acknowledge (and this is hilarious as far as I'm concerned) is that Mary - who was bethrothed (good as married according to the prevailing Jewish custom) to Joseph - actually was a surrogate when she became pregnant with Jesus. "Jehovah" used his power to impregnate her, and she gave birth to Jesus. Doesn't that make Jehovah an adulterer when you apply Watchtower logic to those circumstances??
Love, Scully
