New here

by Delta20 145 Replies latest jw friends

Delta20

frankiespeakin,
Well, problem is I need to find the scriptures again, and that takes time, and I also have a Logic assignment to finish... but if you were an elder for over a decade then you must know the following thibgs used by JW:
Earth is round (Job)
Earth is hung up on nothing (Job)
The correctness of how life came to be in Genesis
'Belief' is something "layed into every human"

Theres also the prophecies of:

Prophecies in Daniel
Coming of the Messiah
Revelations
Theres more like that but these are a few of the top of my head. And these are only the things that werent public knowledge at that time, and would be very hard to guess, im not even mentoining, as I said before, the historical compatibility. But I'm interested in your answers, if you want me to find you the scriptures then it gonna take a while, because I first need to finish some other things. My special interest goes to point 3 "The correctness of how life came to be in Genesis". Gotta love that topic!
Ow, and yes, I love contradictions, meaning I love the way people use contradictions, meaning contraductions are being misused, meaning that people shout contradiction when there's no contradiction at all =) I also love paradoxes ;)
frankiespeakin

Delta,
Earth is round (Job)
Earth is hung up on nothing (Job)
The correctness of how life came to be in Genesis
Well I don't think those Scriptures in Job are saying what you are implying. First of all the earth is not hung on "nothing" it is held in place by gravity which follow the so called "laws'" of physics. So hardly would one call this "nothing" it is "something". And the Genesis account of creation are actually two very different accounts one has man being created after the plants and animals and the other account starting in chapter two show man being created before the plants have started to sprout because God didn't make it rain yet. Also the first account shows each creative period as a day with the sun setting and rising to mark off each period. We now know this to be false for this is too short a time period for these things to have occured because archeaological findings prove otherwise.
Theres also the prophecies of:

Prophecies in Daniel
Coming of the Messiah
Revelations
These are not real prophecies. Most of these so-called "prophecies" were writen after the events happend. Revelation to my knowledge is talking about the destruction of Rome and persecution of christians, way back then durring Roman domination. There are no prophecies in Revelation that you can point to as proof that the book is inspired or that anything predicted after it's writting ever came true.
I was hoping you would have something alittle more in the way of solid evidence.
TD

Delta,
We are talking about Saul here, who at that time already starting to annoy God. But even he realised that eating blood was wrong, very wrong. And this is just one example of the many in the OT where it says that eating any kind of blood is a sin. But so far we have only talked about eating, what about transfusion?
What was the penalty for eating blood under the Law? Was this penalty exacted from Saul's army? Why or why not?
So we are to abstain from blood. Suppose we were talking about a medicine. When it says we should abstain from this medicine, does that mean we shouldnt eat it, but we can inject it into our bloodstream. No! As I said before (and maybe made more clearer now) pumping stuff into your blood is more radical then eating, so when you are not allowed to eat it you are definatly not allowed to pump it into your bloodstream.
Like the JW's have often done in the past, you are invoking a partial predicate apart from the context that completes it. This is not, strictly speaking, grammatical in either language.
The intransitive verb, "abstain" can neither take a direct object nor transfer action from subject to object. An additional verb or verb phrase is required to make the transition and complete the thought.
What this means in practical terms is that there is no such thing as abstinence from a physical object. Instead, we only abstain from finite acts done in connection with objects. For example, while you can abstain from tearing paper, or writing on paper or wasting paper, the phrase "abstain from paper" is meaningless in and of itself. There is no transition of action between subject and object.
I can easily demonstrate this difference using the Apostolic Decree itself. In contrast to the other three objects on the list, "fornication" is the name of an act and therefore has a verb form. Therefore it is easy to state what it means to "abstain from fornication" as a simple finite negative without having to insert additional words:
"Do not fornicate"
Can you do the same with the blood abstention?
"Do not ___________"
Obviously this cannot be done, which is why many translations make an interpolation here by inserting the contextually supported verbs, "eating" or "tasting." (e.g. Moffat, Phillips Modern English, Today's English Version)
Of couse English is not the language of the Bible, but the problem is basically the same. As the infinitive form of the present, middle indicative, apechomai, apechesthai does not transfer action either.
Grammar aside, I think you are still equivocating, this time with a false analogy.
There are, for example certain liver diseases where the patient may not eat meat. This was the case with the football player, Walter Peyton, who lived on bananas for the last few years of his life because his physicians had told him to abstain from eating meat.
Therefore consider a man who has been told to abstain from meat. Would he be acting in obedience to that command if he subsequently accepted a liver transplant?
This question may sound ludicrous, but so is the illustration involving medicine. You have for all intents and purposes asked the exact same question:
It is a comparison that relies on the acceptance of an equality between human tissue and the simple compounds that make up medicines. I reject this out of hand as a false analogy. Human tissue continues to function as human tissue after the transplant. Such is also the case with blood. Therefore it is not analogous to compounds that are simply absorbed by the body regardless of the method of egress
RebelliousSpirit

Anyone else find it odd that Delta responded to all posts after mine, but not mine?
Apparently the subject of my post didn't leave enough room for debate or defense on his part?
Makes ya wonder ...
Pole

Hi Delta,
As for scriptures, see above. As for that hemoglobine is 97% of red bloodcells. Sure. but look again at the diagams. are red bloodcells 97% of blood? No! Hemoglobine != blood, especially not if that hemoglobine is produced in laboratories etcetera. At least thats my opinion, so I dont find it hypocritical at all to accept that. Its like telling someone who is not allowed to eat meat that they are hypocrits for eating soya meat. Sure, soya meat looks like meat, but it isn't the same.
1)
Nice example, but it proves my point again. We are not talking about synthetic substitutes for blood. We are talking about fractions obtained from real blood. Do you think Jehovah's Witnesses can donate blood without violating their stand on blood? Now what exactly has to happen when you want to accept some hemoglobin? Isn't it necessary for another person to donate real blood first?
Or better still have a look at this picture:
If the Bible says it's wrong to support stealing, can you say it only refers to whole amounts of stolen money? Or using the example you gave, it's not wrong to accept any money - just like it's not wrong for vegetarians to eat soya meat. But if real meat is used to make a particular product, is it OK to eat it and consider yourself a vegetarian? In short, don't confuse artificial blood subtitues with blood-based products.
2)
Of course you may choose to believe whatever you think the Bible tells you to do. Remember though, that 99.99% Jehovah's Witnesses have no influence on what they believe as Jehovah's Witnesses. They may only accept what the Faithful and Discreet Slave class think the current revelation, or disassociate themselves as apostates.
Take a closer look at some of the revelations provided by the FDS class concerning aluminum. Valis provided some really nice references above. Then tell me how you can be sure that the current stand on blood JWs are told to believe is any more valid.
I really hope you are beginning to get it by now.
Cheers,
Pole
Sunspot

Delta,
I certainly hope you will take the time to thoroughly read Valis" post (#12305) so you can get a picture of the WTS previous beliefs. You may find them amusing, but you must remember that as with any other WTS printed exhortations---they were ALL taught as TRUTH at one time.
Anything that the WTS prints is accepted by the JWs as a " present truths", and must be obeyed AS truth by the men who claim to be "in the now". The " truths" that Valis posted are of course, at this point, "old truths" and they are quite ridiculous. That doesn't change the fact that the JWs were told to believe these things as "directed", BECAUSE they came from the Faithful and Discreet Ones!
The "old truths" have been replaced over and over again, with "new truths", again---the JWs MUST comply with and believe as "present truths", supposedly keeping up with the Organization. (And these "present truths" are always subject to change AND must still be accepted by the JWs. Even in recent years there have been major changes in the WTS teachings---and all given by the same "men" that had issued the previous edicts and called them "truth".
NOW......for ones to say that these spirit-directed MEN are "imperfect" and not to be held accountable for their utterings, is hard to understand for anyone who takes an objective and intelligent view of these "mistakes" that were once "truth" but no more.
It's easy for the WTS to claim that they alone have Gods approval, and keep changing and revising doctrine, but the REAL key is to have solid proof of just how they arrive at those conclusions. As yet-there is none.
Thanks, Valis, for a great post! Let's hope that it opens SOMEBODY'S eyes that may not have seen these "truths" before.
Annie
Delta20
Ah, I finally found the quote command... stupid balloon. So here we go again!
frankiespeakin,
Well I don't think those Scriptures in Job are saying what you are implying. First of all the earth is not hung on "nothing" it is held in place by gravity which follow the so called "laws'" of physics. So hardly would one call this "nothing" it is "something".
So you are calling gravity something. Can you tell me then, what is it? This is a question that still bangs the heads of scientists today, we can calculate with gravitation, but we have no exact idea what it is. And the earth isnt held in place only by its gravity, its more complicated then that. But look to the earth from a window of a spaceshuttle. What do you see? Do you see a turtle or a great Atlas carrying to earth? No! You see the earth just hanging on nothing. But I hardly believe Job (or the author of Job) had a spaceship. How did he know?
And the Genesis account of creation are actually two very different accounts one has man being created after the plants and animals and the other account starting in chapter two show man being created before the plants have started to sprout because God didn't make it rain yet. Also the first account shows each creative period as a day with the sun setting and rising to mark off each period. We now know this to be false for this is too short a time period for these things to have occured because archeaological findings prove otherwise.
Is this true? When I read the first two chapters of Genesis I see an ongoing account of how the world came into existance. Maybe I dont understand what you mean with the second account, chapter 2 continues from day 6 on. Genesis also explains:
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [ b ] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [ c ] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [ d ] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground-
So there was water on the surface. How about the days mentioned in Genesis. Well, I actually wrote an entire paper on them, wish you could read dutch, so that I wouldnt have to type it over (its 10 pages). Anyway, the sun has only appeared on the 4th day, so its hard to believe that a day in genesis is a day of 24 hours. Read your JW lecture, the hebre word day, jom, is also used as "timespan". In the JW's interpretation the earth can be billions of years old, for those days could have been very long. I don't know what kind of Elder you were, but its very strange to me that you do not know about this when this is, in my opinion, on eof the key believes of the JW's and mentioned in countless articles!
So I must say I dont see any answer in your post.
TD,
What this means in practical terms is that there is no such thing as abstinence from a physical object. Instead, we only abstain from finite acts done in connection with objects. For example, while you can abstain from tearing paper, or writing on paper or wasting paper, the phrase "abstain from paper" is meaningless in and of itself. There is no transition of action between subject and object.
So, I went to dictionary.com to see if you were right.
ab·stain ( P ) Pronunciation Key (
intr.v. ab·stained, ab·stain·ing, ab·stains
To refrain from something by one's own choice: abstain from traditional political rhetoric.
Abstain from traditional political rhetoric, wheres the verb?
I must admit to you that some of the things under this one said abstain was per definition about 'consuming'. But still, what you say doesn't hold. If you can abstain from rhetoric you can also abstain from blood.
The other part of your post has to do with the grammar one, for you are changing the 'taking' with 'eating', so the analogy you are using doesn't hold without the first grammar part.
Human tissue continues to function as human tissue after the transplant. Such is also the case with blood
If you read medical journals, then you will read that the body doesnt just 'continues to function'. It is going to try to fight the intruding 'strange' cells. So its not as easy as you make it sound.
To get back to the blood, and that such a commandment would be ludicrous. Remember our jewish friends? Remember the commandment Thou shall not cook the (young goat)'s meat into the mother goats milk. Our jewish friends made of that: Thou shall not mix milk with meat, and if thou ate meat thou shall wait 6 hours for it to digest before you drink milk, and if thou drinks milk thou shall wait 2 hours before thou shall eat meat. I find the step JW's make from taking blood to no bloodtransfusiin a lot smaller then the step from the commandment about the milk/meat as it is in the bible and as the jews act to it nowadays, and I have countless of examples of that kind of behavior. So its not uncommon.
RebelliousSpirit,
Well, maybe I should apologize, Its just that I need to answer many people with many points, and I dont have time to answer them all. Plus when im finally done writing a post and hit the submit post button, 5 new posts have already ben submitted in the time i was writing mine, and so on. So sorry I miss a couple of posts but the skeptics (= me) are short of men and the believers (= most of you) are in a vast majority (to put it in the words of Michael Behe).
So to your post. Well, her answer makes me laugh out loud as well. So we agree there. Something I find fasdcinating about JW's is that they dare to say "I dont know". Some things they just dont know! Some things I dont know either (lotsa things actually!). So if people ask me questions I dont know the answer to, then thats going to be my answer.... I dont know. And being afraid of polluting, well, if you are so weak minded then the brainwashing sequence wasnt finished properly, aye? :D
Seriously though, As I said before, I am a critic and I ask questions. And if I get baptized and they dont like me asking questions then they have a big problem... because I don't stop asking question until I get an answer (and I dont know counts as answer). And if that will disfellowship me then so be it. The people Ive met seem never to be able to do that, but reading your stories and this last post of yours really made me doubt about that (and of course people can seem like A, but can be B). But because I dont have any proof of this being the case besides your post, I'd rather experience it for myself if you dont mind. But dont worry, I'll be careful and i'll keep asking questions ;) And especially those annoying ones like "If you really are the organization of God on this earth, then why <INSERT ANY OF THE POSTS ON THIS FORUM>?" =)
Delta20

The references of Valis were all 70 years old and older... Havent I admitted already that organizations can be flawed and people make mistakes... if I didnt then here it goes: organizations can be flawed and people make mistakes. But that the golden age (which i figure was the Awake a long time ago?) said "Quite likely there is some connection between the violation of human blood [vaccines] and the spread of demonism..." and this is of course not the case. Same might go for most of the others, same might go for 1975, yadda yadda. Does this proof that the religion of JW's is flawed. Not in my opinion. It only proves that JW's are human, and if that was your point Valis, then I agree, and you didnt have to put all thoser references on to show me that! But if that wasnt your point, please make your point a bit more clear... maybe I am just missing something.
Brummie

organizations can be flawed and people make mistakes

Thats why you dont need em Hebrews 1vs1-2
Brummie
bebu

Jaron, did you bother reading the links I gave you?
If so, could you please tell me how the Watchtower leaders could admit that they do require Witnesses to put UNITY (that is, following their leadership even when their prophecies are false--which they also admitted to promulgating) over the BIBLE (which says DO NOT EVER follow a false prophet).
Could you please tell me how the WTS could secretly associate with the UN for ten years, all the while calling it "the disgusting thing" and warning JWs to "have no part in her". Who, might I ask, now looks like the prostitute riding the beast??
I can't figure these two out. Neither can most of us here.
bebu

New here

Share this