my jw friends that still speak to me, tell me that they love the meetings because of the things they learn.. i wonder what they think they're learning?
it an avenue that always perplexes me because their replies are just so wishy washy or i get a blank stare when i ask.. what's you r experience?.
Err... I learned that it wasn't the truth?
Obviously...
Let's see... what else...
You know what? Most of the things that I learned are irrelevant in my daily life. After all those years of growing up in the truth, I can't even answer this simple question! There is nothing profound that I have learned that has actually helped me in life. It's all to do with pleasing an organization & putting on appearances!
wow, what a disturbing study article this was!
this was by far the most difficult study that i ever had to sit through.
just take a look at what the article has to say about how blood should be viewed according to our conscience:.
that is what the speaker said in his public talk this morning.
The "fastest growing religion" for decades, but with only 8 million+ members???
..your experience with the watchtower corporation:.
i'll start...... bully boy elders.
blondies highlights from the 11-08-2015 wt study (july 15, 2015).
excellent general website: www.jwfacts.com .
paragraph 11-15 recreation.
Have you noticed that 5 or more times the WTS does gives examples of individual jws (first name only)?
Hey, it's better than what they used to do. Remember when they used fake names with an asterisk besides & with a statement below saying: "*This person's name has been changed"?
reading through a lot of the forum posts and wondered what tatt stands for (?).
any more acronyms that are special to this site?
wow, what a disturbing study article this was!
this was by far the most difficult study that i ever had to sit through.
just take a look at what the article has to say about how blood should be viewed according to our conscience:.
Yes, Searcher... they did actually say that
HOWEVER, they backtracked on this a few years later!
The Watchtower of Feb. 15, 1963 (p. 124) told JWs that they could not receive anything derived from blood in medical treatment:
"It is not just blood, but anything that is derived from blood and used to sustain life or strengthen one that comes under this principle."
wow, what a disturbing study article this was!
this was by far the most difficult study that i ever had to sit through.
just take a look at what the article has to say about how blood should be viewed according to our conscience:.
I don't know that they had fractions earlier than 2000, did they?
Yes, they did. Fractions have been available for a long time before then
wow, what a disturbing study article this was!
this was by far the most difficult study that i ever had to sit through.
just take a look at what the article has to say about how blood should be viewed according to our conscience:.
Wow, what a disturbing study article this was! This was by far the most difficult study that I ever had to sit through. Just take a look at what the article has to say about how blood should be viewed according to our conscience:
6 The Bible encourages us to avoid harmful practices and to be moderate in habits, such as in eating and drinking. (Prov. 23:20; 2 Cor. 7:1) As we apply Bible principles, we will be safeguarding our health to a degree, even if advancing age and infirmity may still affect us. In some lands, both conventional medicine and a range of alternative therapies are available. Branch offices regularly receive letters from brothers and sisters who are considering one form of treatment or another. Many ask, “Can a servant of Jehovah accept such treatment?”The article clearly states that blood fractions are a personal decision. HOWEVER, what was the stand on this issue PRIOR to the year 2000? We all know that taking in blood fractions was only allowed to be a conscience issue since the June 15, 2000 issue of the WT was published! It was never an option prior to that!!!
7 Neither a branch office nor the local congregation elders are authorized to make health-care decisions for a Witness, even if he asks what to do. (Gal. 6:5) They can, of course, call attention to what Jehovah has said that may have a bearing on the decision. For example, a Christian needs to remember the Biblical command “to keep abstaining from. . . blood.” (Acts 15:29) That would clearly rule out medical treatments that involve taking in whole blood or any of its four major components. This knowledge could even influence a Christian’s conscience when he makes a personal decision regarding minor fractions derived from one of those four components. But what other Bible advice can guide us when we are contemplating medical treatment?
9 A Christian who is reasonable does not impose his views on others.
Questions: Didn't the organization IMPOSE its views on others on the issue of blood fractions prior to the year 2000? Isn't the organization continuing to IMPOSE its views on others even today regarding blood transfusions???
10 If we cannot understand the conscientious decision of a fellow believer on some personal matter, we should not quickly judge him or feel that we ought to pressure him to change his mind. Perhaps his conscience is still “weak” and in need of more training or is too sensitive on certain issues. (1 Cor. 8:11, 12) On the other hand, it may be that we need to examine our own conscience, which may need further training in line with divine principles. On matters like health care, each of us should be willing to make a personal decision and accept the responsibility that comes with it.
So on matters like health care, we should not be quick to judge others. It could be our own conscience that needs fine tuning. Therefore, it should be a personal decision. Agreed!
Questions: If each of us should make a personal decision on health care, shouldn't this apply to blood transfusions as well? Why are there unwanted consequences (judicial committees, disfellowshipping, shunning, etc.) forced upon us by the organization if we follow our conscience when it comes to health care & medical decisions? When it comes to Christians whose consciences permit them to take blood transfusions, is their personal decision respected OR judged? Is it not the stand at this very moment that unloving action is taken upon JW's whose consciences permit them to take blood transfusions as it is said that they have voluntarily disassociated themselves by means of their actions???
yeah, i was mean.
could it be that i was not encouraged to have non-jw's as friends, so i viewed them as insignificant?
could it be that i found it difficult to live up to "christian standards" and took it out on others?
Yeah, I was mean. Could it be that I was not encouraged to have non-JW's as friends, so I viewed them as insignificant? Could it be that I found it difficult to live up to "Christian standards" and took it out on others? Could it be that I was forced to spend more time on worthless "spiritual pursuits" & had limited "friends" in the cong that I didn't socialize much with those on the "outside" & as a result had no real friends? Was I mean because I was brought up & guided in the wrong way? Hmmm.....
Children who grew up in religious families are less altruistic than those who are up atheist, researchers have found.
They discovered children from religious families were less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families.
Those
from households identifying as Christian and Muslim were significantly
less likely than children from non-religious households to share.
'Our findings contradict the common-sense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind toward others,' said Professor Jean Decety of the university of Chicago, who led the study, which was published in Current Biology.
'In our study, kids from atheist and non-religious families were, in fact, more generous.'
The team of developmental psychologists examined the perceptions and behaviour of children in six countries.
The study assessed the children's tendency to share—a measure of their altruism—and their inclination to judge and punish others for bad behaviour.
Children from religious families were less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families.
A religious upbringing also was associated with more punitive tendencies in response to anti-social behavior.
For the altruism task, children participated in a version of the 'Dictator Game,' in which they were given 10 stickers and provided an opportunity to share them with another unseen child.
Altruism was measured by the average number of stickers shared.
For the moral sensitivity task, children watched short animations in which one character pushes or bumps another, either accidentally or purposefully.
After seeing each situation, children were asked about how mean the behaviour was and the amount of punishment the character deserved.
The results were at odds with the perceptions of religious parents, who were more likely than non-religious parents to report that their children had a high degree of empathy and sensitivity to the plight of others.
The study included 1,170 children between ages 5 and 12, from six countries—Canada, China, Jordan, South Africa, Turkey and the United States.
Parents completed questionnaires about their religious beliefs and practices and perceptions of their children's empathy and sensitivity to justice.
From the questionnaires, three large groupings were established: Christian, Muslim and not religious.
Children from other religious households did not reach a large enough sample size to be included in additional analyses.
Consistent with previous studies, in general the children were more likely to share as they got older.
But children from households identifying as Christian and Muslim were significantly less likely than children from non-religious households to share their stickers.
The negative relation between religiosity and altruism grew stronger with age; children with a longer experience of religion in the household were the least likely to share.
Children from religious households favoured stronger punishments for anti-social behaviour and judged such behaviour more harshly than non-religious children.
These results support previous studies of adults, which have found religiousness is linked with punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offences.
'Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children's altruism.
'They challenge the view that religiosity facilitates prosocial behaviour, and call into question whether religion is vital for moral development—suggesting the secularization of moral discourse does not reduce human kindness. In fact, it does just the opposite,' Decety said.
