Hello Noble Max,
In the Watchtower 10/15/00 Questions from Readers about its policy on blood and blood fractions, there appears a quotation from "Professor Frank Gorman," which reads: "The pouring out of the blood is best understood as an act of reverence that demonstrates respect for the life of the animal and, thus, respect for God, who created and continues to care for that life." - Maximus
I have a full-blooded Indian friend who hunts a lot. He's quiet about it, says he never kills more than his family can eat. He also says he hunts "the Indian way" - showing respect for the animal's life that the Indian is taking, one way is pouring the blood on the ground in silence. A thank you and tribute to the animal.
It would seem that other ancient persons have the same thinking - respect for the life of the animal, which is symbolized in the blood. Nothing more or less.
And our beloved WTBTS has taught us to let ourselves and our children to die by misleading quotes - and not giving us their source so that we can check it our for ourselves - after all, it is our lives! And then, all the while, telling us that we were the best bible-taught people in the world - the Only bible-taught people.
Randy Watters, in his book "Thus Saith the Governing Body," which is entirely quotes from the WTBTS, gives example after example (all pages scanned from their writings) of misquotes - or the famous "...(phrase)..." employed. Then, he and others have researched (because sources are not given) and found the original quotes - and scanned the whole page so that it can be seen that the original thought from the author has been changed.
At first, it's so disheartening to think that we've wasted so much of our heart and mind. Then the freedom of thought and action begins to take hold, and we learn.
Thanks, Maximus.
Hello Jerry,
For those who do, can you tell me if this article or essay has been refuted elsewhere on the board?Do you view this as credible? Believeable? - Jerry
If you're referring to the article on the misrepresentation of an author to back up the WTBTS doctrine of evolution - yes, I find it not only believeable but just fits the pattern they've established for their Writing Integrity, which seems to be non-existent sometimes.
Evolution probably will be debated "till the cows come home" between fundamentalists and others. But at least let it be done with cards on the table - full quotes from scientists, fundamentalists, name, of book, page number, paragraph. Let the reader see the argument - not half quotes, misquotes, etc.
When we argue/discuss on this forum or others, we have the right to ask - even demand - to know where the source is coming from - and how do we find it. If not - most of the time, it's not viewed as a credible argument. Because so much is not the quote - but what surrounds the quote.
Take care. Long, informative, days can change our lives. I know it did mine - and I don't understand half of what Maximus argues until the third reading. But, lord, it's worth the time.
waiting