New here

by Delta20 145 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Delta20

  Pole,

  They have relaxed their standings because there has been new scientific breakthorughs, like the posibility of creating hemoglobine, or substitute blood. Its same in Judaism, jews arent allowed to turn the lights on on sabbath, but because new technology can set a timer to switch the light on and off automatically, the ejws can now use that.

  Also, you said I: "don't understand the JW policy on blood. Neither do many witnesses. But you already consider dying for it and perhaps even having your children die for it in some cases"

  I said I don't know 100% sure what God means by this law in the bible, but since its written all over the place and seems very important, I take it so seriously that I even consider the latter. Again, this is a case of life and death, and not only that but also eternal life and eternal death, and I do not take that lightly. In my opinion, nor do the JW.
• 

  Pole

  Delta,

  As I said, you seem to have heavy emotional investments in those views.

  I agree with the article that its the WTS that decides on this, and there is ofcourse nowhere in the bible that says "If you are in need of blood, the substitute hemoglobine is allowed." But their reasoning is based on their interpretation of the bible. Now, let me make clear that I have absolutely no idea of God would say that its right or wrong to take blood for transfusions, in the bible theres room for interpreting both of those ideas, and the "easy" version is that what most people believe at the moment.

  But their reasoning is based on their interpretation of the bible.

  Whose interpretation of the Bible?

  Now, let me make clear that I have absolutely no idea of God would say that its right or wrong to take blood for transfusions, in the bible theres room for interpreting both of those ideas, and the "easy" version is that what most people believe at the moment.

  This is totally fallacious. So if you have no idea what the current interpretation is, you go for the one that kills your children, just because it's not "the easy one"? Do you really think God made up stupid metaphysical rules like you can accept hemoglobin (97% of red cells), but you can't accept whole blood and he wants you to follow them even if you have to dsacrifice your child? Don't call it a test of faith - as you have admitted it's not scriptural.

  But again, since this is a very important decision to make (what happens if it wasnt correct to take blood, see above) it might be better to be safe then sorry, and thats what JW chose for.

  You are now picturing God as a petty, legalistic maipulator. Again Jws don't chose anything. Many don't even know who makes those choices for them.

  Pole
• 

  poppers

  "Well, I am convinced that God exists, and that the bible is the Word of God, and that we should follow the way of the apostles, and I think a religion that does that helps, encourages you to do so. It is always much harder to do things by yourself then if you do it with a group. Why do the former if you can have the latter?"
  
  Being 'convinced' of anything is a mental position. When dreaming we are convinced that the others in our dream are real and separate from us; upon awakening we see that that was untrue.
  
  Following someone else's lead is to follow someone else who is also asleep and dreaming, but doesn't know it. A whole group that is sleeping doesn't mean they have the answers, only a shared delusion. Wake up to who and what you are and there will be no need to follow anyone.
• 

  Pole

  They have relaxed their standings because there has been new scientific breakthorughs, like the posibility of creating hemoglobine, or substitute blood. Its same in Judaism, jews arent allowed to turn the lights on on sabbath, but because new technology can set a timer to switch the light on and off automatically, the ejws can now use that.

  
  
  Good point. It's just like Sabbath :). WHat does that have to do with God and eternal life though? Remember who criticised Jesus for his approach to Sabbath?
  
  I've heard some orthodox Jews also have automatic flushing devices in their loos, so they don't have to work on Sabbath. Its fun. But nobody dies for it . Plus, I'm not sure if that means those Jews who have the device will be aproved for eternal life as oppsed to those who don't have it.
  
  Editted to add: Just to remind you that you shouldn't say Jehovah's Witnesses choose to believe in this or that. This is a flat lie used by the witnesses. :)
  
  Peace!
  
  Pole
• 

  NewLight2

  "First of all, if its true what it says about having to stop studying and only being able to read and talk about WT articles or WT-pro articles when you are baptized, is thats true then that is a very bad
  doctrine and I would surely fight it." -- Jaron
  
  Firstly, Jaron, "fight[ing] it" will most surely get you DF'ed! Once BAPTIZED you must BLINDLY ACCEPT everything that the WT says as TOTAL TRUTH. Absolutley NO questioning is allowed.
  
  You keep saying that it is not your experience. That is true because:
  
  1. You are not considered a "bible study" yet.
  2. You are not baptized yet.
  3. They do not consider your questions a 'threat' yet because you are not even attending the KH. They WANT you to ask questions now, it is their way of getting you 'hooked'.
  4. If you asked an elder at this point in your journey, that elder would LIE to you and even show you some printed stuff to back up that he was telling that you can ask questions. But in PRACTICE after you are baptized the rules DO change. You can be, and will be, DF'd for asking the WRONG questions.
  
  It is plain to see that you are a very head-strong young man who DOES try to think for himself. This is a very good trait, BTW. I doubt that any here will be able to talk you out of attending the KH when you move out.
  
  Alright, go to the KH, begin a study, but please, please, continue to read posts here and read other sites too at the same time you are a 'bible study'. Continue to ask your questions to your study conductor. But Please Do Not be in a hurry to get baptized! Jesus was 30 years old, so you have lots of time to follow HIS example.
  
  NewLight2
• 

  RebelliousSpirit

  First of all, if its true what it says about having to stop studying and only being able to read and talk about WT articles or WT-pro articles when you are baptized, is thats true then that is a very bad doctrine and I would surely fight it. So if that is true, I must say that you are totally right that that is a big flaw. It means that the organization, on a very high level, doesnt listen to its own religion (which says that knowledge is a good thing). But heres the thing, and I wrote this before.... In my experience this is not the case, and I cannot test the claim that it is the case for I have not been baptized yet. And Of course I could take your word for it, but theres always 2 sides to a story. What do you think a JW would say, lets say an Elder, when I asked him if that were true? =)

  I'll tell you exactly what a JW would say. I am currently studying with the Presiding Overseer's wife. Last night in our bookstudy, the PO asked the following question regarding one of Questions for Meditation in Chapter 24, "So how would we deal with someone who has doubts or questions?" The scripture referenced was Jude 22-23: "Also, continue showing mercy to some that have doubts; save [them] by snatching [them] out of the fire. But continue showing mercy to others, doing so with fear, while you hate even the inner garment that has been stained by the flesh".

  His wife, my study conductor, answered this way: "While it's our obligation to show mercy to someone having doubts because we want to save them from "the fire", we should do so with fear that they might pollute our thinking if we're not careful. Thus we want to keep a safe distance from that person and limit our contact with them, because it could mean our life".

  Her answer made me laugh out loud because I am her study - thus, she just admitted to having to "keep a safe distance" from me because I am questioning and have yet to accept everything I've learned from the JWs.

  The PO then said something to the effect of, "Right. And we want to keep in mind that there might be those ones in the congregation who are demonstrating doubts or a questioning spirit - we want to show love to them by trying to "snatch them from the fire" because by questioning their life is in danger. However, it is important that we maintain a safe distance from these ones so as not to be stumbled, it is often necessary then to remove such ones who continue in such a spirit of doubt".

  So there you have it - that is how an Elder and his wife would answer your question. In short, carefully try to answer someone who has doubts or questions because Jehovah obligated us to try to save their life, but consider that person a danger to yourself and the congregation. And if they continue on questioning, remove said danger so as not to pollute anyone else's thinking.

  As a study, I wasn't particularly thrilled with those answers.
• 

  Will Power

  rs

  that is so

  selfish selfish selfish

  what business do any of these people have to think they are in a position to teach anyone about the bible! When they themselves are so suseptible sp? to being stumbled by someone's doubt?

  I'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question.

  wp
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Rebellious,

  Wow, that book study must have made you very uncomfortable. It was almost like they were telling you your time with them will all ways be guarded and that they consider your questions a threat to their spirtualiy. Even though they didn't come right out and tell you the message was clearly put out there very plainly.
• 

  jeanniebeanz

  Once a person gets baptized, to continue to question will be viewed as subversive. Speak to anyone else of your questions, and you will be warned to keep silent. Continue to ask questions after that, or speak of them to others and you *will* be disfellowshipped.

  I guarantee it.

  Jean
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Delta,

  Actually for me believe in the bible as God's word has become more of an axioma, a sort of 'basetruth' that you can rely on. You have to have something like that, otherwise you come into an endless regression (toy say something is the foundation, but you need proof for that, but that means that that proof is more basic, so the actual foundation, but then you'll need proof of that proof etcetera).

  Well you may feel the Bible is God's word to be a basic truth you can rely on,,but to the contrary it has been proven to be very unreliable and full of contridictions.

  I don;t have proof that my foundation is 100% correct, but I do have arguments that support it.

  Ok lets look at the supportting arguements:

  It helps that the bible seems to be historically correct, learns you wise lessons, contains fullfilled prophecies,

  It does contain some historical information but time and again it is shown to be inacurate,,take the contridictions in the four gospels about the event in the life Jesus,,they give different time frame that contridict each other. you can learn both wise lessons and also some very bad lessons.

  say things about the world that the writer couldnt have known, plus the bottomline of the bible, love god above all and your neighbour as yourself, is a very wise lesson and if you hold to that you will live a good life.

  There are no such things in the Bible. The bible writer never displayed knowledge that was beyond ken. Are you making this stuff up???

  If you ask me the question, is the bible true? Then I will answer yes. If you ask me are you 100% sure of that, then I will answer no. That's mostly because im not 100% sure about anything (besides cogito ergo sum and some intrinsic contradictions).

  It not even close to 100% true. Did you ever wonder why all these great miracles mentioned in the bible don't occur anymore?? Doesn't that make you suspicious? How come God don't due these threatrical type miracles today?? Is because perhaps these miracles never happened in the first place?? It should make one stop and thinK?

  But besides all the above, I agree with what Pascal ones said. Suppose you believe in the bible and turns out the bible is true, then you go to paradise. Suppose you believe in the bible and it turns out that its not true, then at least you lived a good life. Suppose you dont believe in the bible and it turns out to be true, then you do not go to paradise. Suppose you dont believe in the bible and it turns out not to be true, then it all depends on how you filled in your life, you could have had a good or a bad life. But either way, believing seems more profitable in this case. Maybe a better analogy: Suppose you work at the airport as security personel, and you get a phonecall that theres a bomb on the airport, wouldn;t you take it seriously? Yes you would. Why? Because IF ITS TRUE, the damage it does by NOT believing this caller is going to be tremendous. Of course you know that there are things like prankcalls, but the fact that those exist isnt enough reason to judge this particular call as a prankcall. Again, the damage if its real is too great. This is, for me, a very good reason to take the bible as a starting point.

  Well seems like Pascal was trying to rationalize beleif in the bible. The whole rational is blind sided. Beleiving in a lie is not more profitable either way.

  So according to your above reasoning then,, if you got a crank call that said a bomb went off at the airport and your flight has been cancelled. What would you do? Just beleive it because it is probably true?? That's what you are doing with bible.

  Even if there was no proof, its not deductively correct to say that because theres no proof, its false. So what you are saying doesnt make sense logically ;)

  But what if there is lots of proof that the bible is in no way the word of God,,are you just to ignore it?? While I think it good not to disbeleive everything somethings should not be believed if they make grandeous claims with no supporting reasonable proof,,such as the bible which is claimed to be the word of the creator of eveything. I think resonableness would require some proof.

  And I am not trying to judge you, what I did was telling you guys what your replies look like and that I'm looking for other forms of replies to 'falsify' the JW, and if that doesnt happen, then they might be the truth after all. But Im not concluding that yet ;) Im no way near there.

  Well it seems to me that you are very pro-witness in your argumentation,,but I might be missreading you. You may just be playing devils advocate.