neat blue dog

Joined

• started 367 topics
• posted 2,360 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by neat blue dog

• 
  35

  An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.

  by Giles Gray in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.

  he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.

  i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  neat blue dog

  Similarly under the Law Code, an Israelite could not simply bring a blood sample from his best bull/goat/sheep to the Temple for splashing on the altar. The animal had to be killed first (after the Israelite laid his hand on the animal's head in symbol of the animal representing him). Only then did the blood represent that life and had atoning value at the altar.
  On the other hand, if an Israelite found an animal already dead (naturally or from a predator), eating its unbled flesh only incurred ceremonial uncleanness (as opposed to the death penalty if he himself had killed it).
  With that understanding, blood transfusions or blood therapy of some sort should, theoretically, incur no blood guilt or wrath by God since no human life was taken. And thus, the blood involved did not symbolize any life. (Like a wedding ring, it only represents a particular marriage when it has been given to someone. A wedding ring in a jewelry store does not represent anyone's marriage.)

  This is GOLD! I'm afraid this thread will be lost in the shuffle, this is groundbreaking stuff!
• 
  40

  Are Jehovah’s Witnesses Wrong Regarding Staying Out of Politics?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  we were told we were part of the world if we got involved in politics.

  if we had employment that had political involvement we were instructed to get another job.

  we were told we might be considered disassociated if we voted and then it became questionable.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  neat blue dog

  JWs don't get involved in politics my ass. They lobby against laws that could be detrimental, they join other religions in lawsuits for similar reasons and they go to court constantly to get laws changed.
• 
  35

  An exchange with a JW about the blood doctrine.

  by Giles Gray in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i recently had an online exchange with an active jw about the blood issue.

  he originally wanted to talk about the potential dangers of transfusions but i pointed out that the risks of transfusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason that jws reject blood, and therefore i didn’t see any value in debating that topic.. not able to let it go, he then insisted that the blood mandate was a common theme throughout the bible, quoting acts 15:29.. it’s been a while since i looked into the subject, and i admit i’m now a little rusty when it comes to recalling where to find biblical quotes, but i remembered that there are passages in both the new and old testaments that, when read in the context of the time they were written, call into question the watchtower’s rendition of acts 15:29.. i offered to do some bible research and get back to the jw, suggesting that rather than letting our discussion become combative, we could have an informative and interesting exchange of ideas.

  i reassured him that i was not looking to undermine his convictions, in fact i was more than happy to be corrected if my thinking was wrong.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  neat blue dog

  Excellent points, you are right I haven't seen the main point mentioned before, namely, that it was a temporary concession, proved by Paul saying that the reason is for that particular scripture being read frequently and wll known, coupled with the allowance to sell unbled meat to Gentiles. Very valuable resource, thanks for your efforts!
• 
  56

  JW Net and Politics

  by snare&racket in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  this site was and remains instrumental in assisting people that want to leave the jw's.. there has been political discussion here for some time now, a good couple of years and it makes me feel a little uneasy.

  i just opened up the site for the first time in some weeks, of the 10 posts being discussed, 4 were by the same poster, about politics, promoting their right wing beliefs.. this has been the trend for some time now, the same name behind a peppering of posts stirring the right v left of politics.. i remain forever grateful to the site and it's founders simon & angharad, i appreciate that simon shares some of these these political beliefs.

  it would be a shame to see the site evolve from a place for jw freedom of thought and escape, to political squabbling, that the world is frankly tired of right now.. just to clarify, politics is my hobby, whilst my friends read the football scores, i'm reading polling data.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  neat blue dog

  I feel the same way about Snopes. I devoured the sites' early articles, which were mostly debunking urban legends, because this helped me develop critical thinking skills as I was waking up. But now it's mostly so-called political fact-checking.
• 
  10

  Magadan

  by molybdenum in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  it seems that g. jackson got confused during his presentation relating to jesus and his going to magadan.

  ( check out lloyd evans "magadangate") but the jw community seems very hesitant and quiet on this apparent "faux pas".

  has anyone had any feedback from jw's that you know on this or are they just sweeping it under the carpet as being nothing of particular note?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  neat blue dog

  Speaking of minor mistakes, Lloyd Evans says the GB is "exposing themselves in full HD", while JW Broadcasting maxes out at 720p.
• 
  28

  Looking Back Were There Any “Apostates” In Your Congregation?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i remember knowing some jws that expressed their own personal viewpoints regarding what a scripture meant that was at odds with society teachings.

  in the 60 and 70’s, that was pretty much tolerated until the great purge in 1979 and 1980. as a matter of fact, it wasn’t unusual for witnesses to get together and discuss personal questions and viewpoints they might have.

  it wasn’t unusual to send letters to the society asking what was considered the right or wrong view.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  neat blue dog

  Amazing that they sought you out when you weren’t associated for years!

  Like impeaching a former president 🤣
• 
  22

  “Do not gaze about!”

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  so many changes in the 2013 nwt seem needless and spoil familiar phrases.

  take isaiah 41:10 in the nwt classic rendering:.

  do not be afraid, for i am with you.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  neat blue dog

  This one is relatively harmless, but what it implies isn't: It sets the precident that if they think a scripture means a certain thing, they'll have no problem taking liberties, and they have many times.
• 
  32

  Watch out, here comes the Governing Body!

  by neat blue dog in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a picture in this week's wt shows the annointed after being raised to heaven, when they start "smashing the nations".

  creepy!!

  i imagine am3 is out front, it seems like something he's eager for.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  neat blue dog

  I m curious about their headbands

  Crowns, for rulling as kings with Jesus
• 
  32

  Watch out, here comes the Governing Body!

  by neat blue dog in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a picture in this week's wt shows the annointed after being raised to heaven, when they start "smashing the nations".

  creepy!!

  i imagine am3 is out front, it seems like something he's eager for.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  neat blue dog

  Zechariah 5:9,10:

  Then I looked up and saw two women coming forward, and they were soaring in the wind. They had wings like the wings of a stork. And they lifted up the container between the earth and heaven. So I asked the angel who was speaking with me: “Where are they taking the eʹphah container?”
• 
  32

  Watch out, here comes the Governing Body!

  by neat blue dog in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a picture in this week's wt shows the annointed after being raised to heaven, when they start "smashing the nations".

  creepy!!

  i imagine am3 is out front, it seems like something he's eager for.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  neat blue dog

  Why is it now that all the angels and 144,000 anointed are white haired men in their 60's ?

  The JW answer would be that all angels in the Bible are depicted as men (PS, they aren't), and that white hair signifies age and wisdom.

  HOWEVER, there's absolutely no reason, Biblical or otherwise, to make them all caucasian.