Hi “lambsbottom.” I must say that I respect your courage and personal integrity in wanting to submit a formal DA letter. It isn’t for everybody, but if you don’t mind being automatically shunned (at least in theory by most), along with all that entails, then I would say do it. And for all those well-meaning folks here who suggest not doing it at all costs, don’t forget that if it weren’t for those brave XJWs such as Raymond Franz, M. James Penton, Carl Olof Jonsson, William Schnell, etc. “coming out” and publically showing their decision to leave through publishing their own books, then the benefits to their readership in being able to examine the evidence of such candid and poignant exposés would never have been. All those people who were subsequently helped to examine the real facts about the WTS (TTATT) would have been kept in the dark and continuing to wear themselves out on that damn hampster wheel. And that would have been a shame – wouldn’t it?
Posts by SAHS
-
13My "Leaving" Letter
by lambsbottom inthrough what i have learned from reading bro.
russell's writings about the ransom for all, coupled with the blood issue, i feel the need to let my friends know that i am making a stand for truth.
i could have lost my wife to the blood issue during pregnancy.
-
-
-
42
Why doe New light tick me off???? Next 2 weeks WT Studies
by zophar inif you have been a jw for 20+ years you may remember that the wt went into great detail on different illustrations that jesus used and the "type/anti-type" ridiculous explanations.
remember the revelation book and how those obscure jw conventions of the past pictured big things in heaven and the opening of seals?
anyway, the wt lessons for the next two weeks do two big things for me.
-
-
SAHS
“smiddy”: “The majority of Jehovah Witnesses seem to have average to low education standards and of course their are others with higher education in their ranks. However, could this statement have a bearing on the fact?”
That’s a good question. I’ve just read a couple of books by Steven Hassan, who had held a significant position in the Unification Church, also know as the “Moonies,” and apparently such cults recruit people with average or greater intelligence. Notice a couple of his comments from his latest book, Combatting Cult Mind Control:
“The popular view of cults is that they prey on the disaffected and the vulnerable—losers, loners, outcasts, and people who simply don’t fit in. But the truth is very different. In fact, most cult recruits are normal people with ordinary backgrounds—and many are highly intelligent.” (p. 39)
“Many cults deliberately seek out people who are intelligent, talented, and successful. As a result, its members are often powerfully persuasive and seductive to newcomers.” (p.87)
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
SAHS
“EdenOne”: “The case of Jonathan and his men is interesting because it demonstrated a gray area - just how much time should one wait after slaughtering an animal before one could assume it had bled enough to be considered kosher? Some, like Saul, thought not enough time had passed. Others had a more liberal approach, interpreting the Law in a way that letting some blood to be poured into the ground was enough to respect the spirit of the Law. Eventually this interpretation prevailed, and Jonathan and his men not only weren't executed, no mention is made that they became "unclean".”
That brings up quite an interesting point: Just how much blood needed to be poured out, and just how soon after slaughtering did it have to be poured out? Here’s a little analogy: Some years ago I observed an old brother supposedly of the anointed remnant (since deceased) partaking of the emblems at the Memorial. I clearly remember him partaking of the wine, as he was standing on the platform at the time, as I think he was asked to give the prayer over that particular part of the observance. Anyway, the point is that, like all the other anointed partakers, he just took a good sip or two, and that was sufficiently enough to accomplish the act of publicly taking that emblem. Now, he didn’t compulsively suck every last little drop from the glass and then drink another glass or two (he wasn’t Franklin Rutherford!), and he didn’t have to, as just a sip or two was sufficient – that is, sufficient to “respect the spirit of” the act being performed.
Now, how does this relate to the necessary requirements under the ancient Mosaic Law regarding the sanctity of blood? Simple. In pouring out just a little token amount of blood – at least when that option would have been available as with an animal having been freshly slaughtered and able to have been bled before the heart stopped pumping and the blood started to coagulate – and, similarly, in the case of an anointed taking just a sip of the Memorial wine, in both those examples, what would be required as a “sufficient” requirement to effect observing and respecting “the spirit of,” or the “essence” of, the law or principle of the occasions would be a simple token gesture.
It just makes reasonable sense – not every little drop nor absolutely immediately would be required, but, simply, just to pour out whatever small quantity of blood that would be considered a token gesture of respect for “the spirit of the Law,” at least in the case of an animal killed recently enough to be physically able to be bled at the time. After all, you would think that a supposedly all-wise God would show some level of reasonableness – in line with the essence of Philippians 4:5, which admonishes: “Let your reasonableness become known to all men.”
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
SAHS
“Finkelstein”: “The JWS intermingling with the old Hebraic law of abstaining from blood, goes onto the ridiculous on many levels.”
“cofty”: “The onus is 100% on JWs and JW sympathisers to show beyond all doubt that allowing a child to die rather than permit a blood transfusion is clearly demanded in scripture.. . . At the very least any honest person would have to admit there may be more to the question of blood than they had previously thought. Resorting to ridiculous excuses like saying the verse was talking about "inadvertently" eating a dead animal, and approving of risking a child's life on that basis, is shameful.”
Both those observations are most succinct and absolutely right on the money! Definitely, and emphatically, two thumbs up for each! Captain Obvious of those Hotels-dot-com commercials couldn’t have put it any clearer.
-
201
These guys crash a Kingdom Hall on Memorial, video included
by Crazyguy inhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7mars2mtaui.
to funny nice job....
-
-
SAHS
“steve2”: “When the Witnesses door knock, they usually leave as soon as the householder says "Not interested" and tells them to leave.”
That may be true, usually, of at least more of the younger Witnesses who have grown up in a generation of society that tends to at least value basic tact and respect for the householders’ right to keep their own beliefs. However, from being a born-in JW for almost half a century, I know that quite often some JWs (especially the bold old-school oldtimers) will basically put their foot in the door and keep badgering the unprepared and uninterested householder until they’ve really made a nuissance of themselves, and some JWs will stubbornly just keep on calling back again and again until the householder is unfortunately forced to be rude and has to really spell it out loudly to the JW, “D-o n-o-t e-v-e-r c-a-l-l a-g-a-i-n!”
Now, I certainly agree with you that the antics of that guy in the video are over the top and completely uncalled for. But, as I mentioned, there is that other side of the coin on some of the JWs’ part as far as their rather aggressive and obstinate marketing methods.
What wouldn’t have been so bad is if the guy in the video were to just stand up, say one simple, brief sentence, perhaps something like, “Good evening, folks – this is for the generation of 1914 who will never pass away until the end of this system of things,” take a sip of the wine, and then shut up and respectfully, quietly leave. That wouldn’t have been too bad a way of going about it: just make a quick statement like that in a respectful and controlled manner and then immediately leave, quietly, without making an awkward and counterproductive nuissance of himself.
If he had simply done that, then it probably wouldn’t have been much more awkward and offensive than being badgered or called on relentlessly by one of the stalwart overzealous JWs.
-
6
WATCHTOWER NINCOMPOOP BLOOD fetish
by Terry inthe inhumane hunters in pagan tribes who felled an animal in the wild with an arrow and immediately began.
hacking off body parts for roasting, gave zero attention to the pain or suffering inflicted upon the poor creaturedying in front of them.
animal rights activists were unknown in ancient times!
-
-
SAHS
“Fisherman”: “. . . orthodox judaism continues to believe that God created the universe "aged" when he created it in 6 x 24 hour days.”
I’m glad you mentioned that. It is yet another classic example of how religious ideas are contrived and embellished by men. The quirky and whacky dogma, eschatology, and policy of the WTS is really not any improvement to any of the various inventions of first-century Judaism, or, for that matter, any other such man-made concoction, ancient or otherwise. All of it amounts to mere mythology and socio-political ideology wrapped up in what we call “religion.”
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
SAHS
“EdenOne”: “There is an obvious contradiction between Leviticus 17:15 and Exodus 22:31, don't you agree? After all, what kind of God would command something in such imperative terms (Exodus) and then later, and without recanting from the previous command, concedes that such command may be violated with just a minor defilement of the flesh (Leviticus).”
That’s quite an interesting point. The only thing I can think of is perhaps the verse at Exodus 22:31, which may pertain more to the conditions of traveling through a hot desert and which comes before Leviticus in the Old Testament Pentateuch, focuses more on the aspect of physical cleanliness and health, insofar as an animal found already killed by another beast could potentially have been dead long enough to become ridden with toxic bacteria and become rancid (i.e., serious food poisoning). This could be along the similar line of the command not to eat a communal meal left over by “the third day”: “5 “‘Now if you offer a communion sacrifice to Jehovah,+ you should sacrifice it in such a way that you gain approval for yourselves.+ 6 It should be eaten on the day of your sacrifice and on the next day, but what is left over until the third day should be burned in the fire.+ 7 If, though, any of it is eaten on the third day, it is an offensive thing that will not be accepted with approval. 8 The one eating it will answer for his error because he has profaned a holy thing of Jehovah, and that person* must be cut off*from his people.” – Leviticus 19:5-8.
On the other hand, the verse at Leviticus 17:15 possibly was more oriented towards the legalistic, ceremonial angle, as regards the idea of “uncleanness,” than any considerations of eating meat that had possibly gone rotten.
-
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
SAHS
Even if, say, hypothetically, we were somehow today still legally bound under the ancient Mosaic Law . . . (not that I’m a fan or even a believer of it – I’ve thoroughly moved on from the JW “religion,” or any other religion for that matter, at least in my mind and figurative heart, being as I am a born-in and currently still a stuck-in – but I’m just playing the imagination, thought experiment game for this particular moment) . . . if we had to live under that Mosaic Law today, with all the technicalities and nuances encompassing whatever equivalency there would be in relation to current contemporary applications (i.e., blood transfusion procedures in emergency medical intervention), then in the unfortunate event of either a close family member of mine or of myself being in a serious accident or sudden acute illness scenario and requiring an emergency lifesaving blood transfusion, . . . well, . . . I would much prefer either that close family member or myself (as the case may be) to be considered what could rightly amount to being ceremonially “unclean until the evening” (or at worst, perhaps deemed relatively light “brazen conduct”) rather than having my whole family berieved for the rest of their whole lives due to an untimely and completely unnecessary death because of the ridiculous and illogical interpretation of scriptural theology contrived by a man-made, arrogant, disingenuous, and self-serving cult operating under the premise of a “religion,” and supposedly the one-and-only true one at that! -
556
The Watchtower are Right About Blood...
by cofty in... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
-
-
SAHS
“FayeDunaway”: “Blood is sacred because it represents life. Life is so sacred we should do anything to save it. Including using blood to save life. This is actually the most respectful way we could treat blood, to use it to save life. It's what blood is for, to preserve life. If you take a life, you are blood guilty. If you let someone die because they need blood, you are blood guilty. . . . It is disrespectful to let someone die and not use the lifesaving gift of blood.”
Now, that is the most plain, simple yet powerful logic I have read yet in this thread. It’s what we are all thinking, and it’s the simple, logical truth with which any person having any sense at all would readily agree. To anybody outside of the JWs (including even the strictest Orthodox Jews, for God’s sake!), anything beyond that would have to appear as just nonsensical, whacky gibberish. Although, when you think about it, what else would you expect from an arrogant and self-serving cult?
-
6
WATCHTOWER NINCOMPOOP BLOOD fetish
by Terry inthe inhumane hunters in pagan tribes who felled an animal in the wild with an arrow and immediately began.
hacking off body parts for roasting, gave zero attention to the pain or suffering inflicted upon the poor creaturedying in front of them.
animal rights activists were unknown in ancient times!
-
-
SAHS
Excellent reasoning, as usual, Terry! JWs just fail to see the simple logic in all of this because they’re stuck on the belief that their golden calf organization is always right now matter what. The shocking, perplexing, and just plain sad part about it all is that they think that all those dead young children and babies (essentially murdered methodically and systematically by the wilful and culpable dictates of a pseudo-Christian cult) are just, well, quite fine and dandy – that is, versus ignoring a specific legal precept from an ancient Jewish Law, supposedly applicable to the JWs today and which is interpreted incorrectly by an obviously man-made sect in New York. But, I guess, the slaughter of the poor little sheep will continue as long as our free secular society continues to allow it.