https://culteducation.com/group/1289-general-information/8227-disclaimer-regarding-steve-hassan.html.
DD: Saying that "free help" has no value is ludicrous
Yes, you are right. It is a ludicrous statement. "Free" help can certainly help sometimes.
But...to expect that "free" help is better that "charged" help just because of a moral judgement - a judgement on the helper's motivation - is also a ludicrous position.
That would be like questioning your mechanic's motives just because he wants some money in return for a service you can't perform yourself
https://culteducation.com/group/1289-general-information/8227-disclaimer-regarding-steve-hassan.html.
DD: There's no reason he can't help people for free.
I think that paying for food and shelter would be a good reason.
Everybody seems to think that "help" is supposed to be free or it is suspect.
Personally, I would think that if something is free, it is valueless.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Looter, nobody here believes that you are an 18 something guy. Or 19 something. Or 20 something.
You display the typical behavior of somebody whose view of the world is based on feelings rather than reality. Your belief in god is a feeling - an emotion. And when someone questions your belief, you respond emotionally, not rationally.
And when that fails, you resort to the Big Threat: God is gonna get you.
You are powerless. You do not have personal power - you have to rely on an imaginary friend to fight the battles of the mind for you. God is simply a mental construct that steps in to make up for what you perceive to be your personal failings.
God is only as powerful as you are. God is an exact replica of who you are - an impotent being with no power whatsoever
https://culteducation.com/group/1289-general-information/8227-disclaimer-regarding-steve-hassan.html.
Drwho: He mentioned once that a Cult education website had been bought out by Scientology , which in turn kept the original name, maybe this is the website ?
It is the Cult Awareness Network that was bought by Scientology
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
looter: Of course you would say I know nothing about it because you don't even believe in God and like, Viviane, you believe my faith to be juvenile.
You know nothing about my beliefs or lack of beliefs. Nothing. You think you know. But you don't.
And that is what faith is. Thinking you know what it is that you don't know.
Pretending you have knowledge when you have none.
All faith is juvenile. It is the nature of faith.
And you, sir(?), exhibit juvenile behavior.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
looter: You don't have to be old to hold true beliefs, you know.
I know. We agree on the point that anybody can hold any belief. Belief is like that - it applies to anything that we know nothing about. Where we don't agree is on the insertion of the word 'true' before 'belief'.
Now, can you tell me what is the difference between believing in Santa Claus and believing in a god in the sky? Do you believe in Santa Claus?
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
Looter: I am not a brat! I am almost 20 and I've had a great life in my day and I'm probably more of a man than you'll ever be! So shush, you disrespectful gumbo.
Lol!
hahaha!
I love this thread.
My morning entertainment.
Tell me, Looter, let me guess....you were teaching in the synagogue when you were twelve, too, weren't you?
i have far too many to name, but ill start with obscene music, gambling and cussing like a sailor.
all the while preaching to "worldly people" about their impending death at armageddon.
thoughts?.
The biggest hypocrisy?
The WT's acceptance of Hemopure - a manufactured blood product made from cow's blood. Animal blood.
For decades, they have stood on a bad interpretation of an old biblical edict against the eating of animal blood - not human blood - as justification for refusing life saving blood transfusions. And then...when it became valuable to the WTS...for whatever reason...they said it is okay to have a blood transfusion made from the same blood that the Bible forbid - animal blood.
That is hypocritical. Ban human blood transfusions based on a biblical scripture about animal blood but then allow blood transfusions using animal blood.
patient blood management arose out of bloodless medicine and alternatives to blood transfusions.
pbm has been accepted as the standard of care in australia and has been implemented into the health care systems of other countries such as canada.
a prominent promoter of pbm has been aryeh shander from englewood hospital in new jersey.
Has the textbook really played a role 1979 was it not publsihed 2007?
The textbook is the place that 1979 was mentioned. Seeber/Shander give the history of blood management. I am filling in some blanks and examining the inconsistencies with the actual history. The Seeber/Shander account is myth building history, not entirely factual.
patient blood management arose out of bloodless medicine and alternatives to blood transfusions.
pbm has been accepted as the standard of care in australia and has been implemented into the health care systems of other countries such as canada.
a prominent promoter of pbm has been aryeh shander from englewood hospital in new jersey.
WofY: Was the textbook given in 1979 or 2007?
The Seeber/Shander textbook "Basics of Blood Management", was first published in 2007. Second edition 2013.
Yes, the HLC became official in 1979. After years of preparation and shuffling around to get organized.
The WTS operates the Hospital Information Services which is the parent organization of the HLC network worldwide and a clearing house for all things related to blood.
Chapter 20 in the Seeber/Shander textbook has more details about the current structure of the medical arm of the WTS.
The material that the HLC used in 1979 would have been built on those first three volumes that Penton spoke about - the first being published in 1973. That volume of blood alternatives grew into a ten volume set by 2001:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B4oXVPm4nrmfY2dkTjh3ZGpfczQ
What the HLC uses now for a reference manual, I don't know. The Seeber/Shander textbook is not directed towards the HLC. It is for use in the education of blood management professionals - who may or may not be JWs.
