Posts by Fisherman

87

Think for Yourself: Reform Judaism Uses JW Blood Issue For Shavuot

by David_Jay in

as the jewish holy day of shavuot (pentecost) begins this weekend, the reform judaism site publishes an interesting article entitled "judaism teaches: question authority, think for yourself.".

the article employs a jewish doctor's recollection of a jw patient who refused blood and died as an example of how both religious traditions greatly differ on how they see and apply god's law.. shavuot is the day jews recall god's giving the law to israel.

the article is significant in that it demonstrates how jews see the giving of the law as a call to questioning authority, including divine revelation itself whereas the death of the jw patient is contrasted as a slavish interpretation that misses the point behind jewish scripture.. for more see the article at:.

Fisherman

The Torah tells us that after the Children of Israel were freed from the slavery of Egypt, they arrived at Mount Sinai, where Moses received the Torah from God.1. Imagine Moses’ astonishment when he descended the mountain with the holy tablets and found the Israelites dancing in reverence and awe around the Golden Calf. 2 Moses does not call on God to smite the undeserving idol-worshipers. 3 Instead, he smashes the tablets on the ground.

What does this act signify? It suggests to me that Moses understands that revealed law itself would become an idol, an excuse to relinquish what is most precious in us – our moral autonomy.

What we have here is not a story of revelation, but a story of the dangers of revelation. Moses understood that the weakness we have for dogmatic thinking and the longing for safe truths – the same flaws that had led the Israelites to the Golden Calf – would always hinder the flourishing of a moral society. What was needed was not to exchange the slavery of the body for the slavery of the mind, but instead to create a tradition alive with questions and debate and glorious differences of opinion.

Following his audacious act, Moses ascends the mountain again and, after what must have been an awkward conversation, God tells Moses to write his own tablets. Notably, whereas the first tablets were “inscribed by the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18), God instructs Moses to carve out the second tablets himself: “Write for yourself (ktav-lecha) these commandments, for in accordance with these commandments I make a covenant with you and with Israel” (Exodus 34:27). These human-wrought tablets become the law that forms the heart of the Hebrew Bible.

After Moses dies, we read in the final lines of the Bible: In the valley of Moab, “No one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses performed in the sight of all Israel” (Deuteronomy 34:10-12). Which awesome deeds? The text does not say. However, the medieval commentator Rashi, quoting earlier sources, states, “This refers to the fact that Moses’ heart inspired him to break the tablets…and the Holy Blessed One concurred.”

What a bunch of Bolony. The good doctor went to med school but seems to me that he never learned to distinguish Rashi from the text of the Torah.

1. Imagine Moses’ astonishment when he descended the mountain with the holy tablets and found the Israelites dancing in reverence and awe around the Golden Calf.

Moses should not have been astonished because God told him BEFORE descending -Ex 32:7-10

2 Moses does not call on God to smite the undeserving idol-worshipers.

How could he when he knew about it beforehand and already had gotten God to reconsider., Ex 32:11-15

3 Instead, he smashes the tablets on the ground.

What does this act signify? It suggests to me that Moses understands that revealed law itself would become an idol, an excuse to relinquish what is most precious in us – our moral autonomy.

That ain't what Moses said. Deut 9:16,17 Also Exodus 32:19

God tells Moses to write his own tablets. Notably, whereas the first tablets were “inscribed by the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18), God instructs Moses to carve out the second tablets himself:

The good doctor is confused.. God also wrote the second set of tablets with his finger. Deut 10:1-5 and compare Exodus 34:27 with Ex 24:3,4, Deut 31:9, Deut 31:11

I was going to comment on Rashi but as I went to my book case and climbed to the top to bring down my Rashi Torah from the very top shelf, 2 of my Bibles fell to the floor with a bunch of other stuff and after putting everything back on the shelves, I got to tired to read and get into the mind frame of understanding Rashi's logic. Anyway, Rashi guesses a lot.

62

How do you deal with depression?

by BlackWolf in

jw
friends

i'm currently going through a bout of depression and my eating disorder has gotten worse.

ever since my parents actually told me that they are going to kick me out when i turn 18 i've felt kind of hopeless about my life.

my parents won't take me to the doctor because the psychiatrists won't have my "best interests" aka jw crap in mind, because really that's the root of all my problems.. i'm wondering if any of you guys have any advice with dealing with depression?

Fisherman

AS far as I know, in most US jurisdictions, a minor is in the custody of his parents except that under certain circumstances they become a ward of the state,

Regarding the topic of mental depression however, it is wise to understand that any visit to a psychiatrist will result in a psychiatric record for the patient and any statement made to a psychiatrist is like talking to a friendly cop; he writes down everything that the person says and it becomes part of his permanent record subject to disclosure by a Court Order and such psychiatric record will be used against the person if he ever has a problem that warrants it. Also, if the person is ever arrested for any reason, the police may ask or the booking department that processes the arrest will ask the person about his psychiatric history and guess what? If the person answers truthfully they have cause not to release the person.

Now let's say that someone with a psychiatric record avoids getting into trouble with the law ( and since he has a mental history, he'd better!!) any application that he fills out will ask if he has a mental history-and guess what? If one lies, one is subject to penalization and if one admits to having a mental history they have a reason to deny the application. In the US, mental depression is classified as mental illness and guess what, from the perspective of the law, that makes the person a loony.

But sometimes an adult person just feels very depressed and feels that he needs medical help or feels that he needs someone to talk to, in such a case a medical doctor is best qualified to help such adult person. Mental Depression is a very broad topic and there are various ways that doctors treat patients with such an illness, usually with medication with psychotherapy but sometimes only with medication and sometimes only with psychotherapy. They try to get to the root, either organic depression or exogenous depression, but whatever the case, depression results in a loop reaction: chemical imbalances causes negative thinking which in turn causes chemical imbalances with in turn cause negative thinking... Medication helps for a while but in time the medication is no longer effective because the body builds up a tolerance to it. People that suffer from depression should never ever ever drink alcohol or any cns depressants such as sedatives ( unless your doctor recommends it) People can tell you what helps them but it may not be what will help everyone. A qualified professional must get to the root of the problem, isolating it before they can recommend the best treatment to specially help the affected person. Getting help for depression best comes from a medical doctor and not from self treatment or from conclusions from information posted on the net, The first step is to talk to someone that loves you and that wants to help you. You can beat depression at least to the point where you can deal with it if not defeat it.

18

Terrorist attack in Turkey leaves 28 dead

by ILoveTTATT2 in

jw
friends

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36658187.

Fisherman

I also read on the internet that the US knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened so they had a reason to bomb Japan

I was not alluding to the atomic bomb.

And of course, the reason to bomb Japan killing more civilians than military was to stop Japan from making any more war and to stop Japan from killing and torturing any more Americans.

I was referring to the atom bomb.

18

Terrorist attack in Turkey leaves 28 dead

by ILoveTTATT2 in

jw
friends

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36658187.

Fisherman

What is the reason behind terrorism? Religion? Land? Retaliation? Vengeance?

I read on the internet that the US was responsible for the Maine in order to have reason to war with Spain.I also read on the internet that the US knew about Pearl Harbor before it happened so they had a reason to bomb Japan. And of course, the reason to bomb Japan killing more civilians than military was to stop Japan from making any more war and to stop Japan from killing and torturing any more Americans. Anyway, these horrific acts had a reason behind them.

87

Think for Yourself: Reform Judaism Uses JW Blood Issue For Shavuot

by David_Jay in

as the jewish holy day of shavuot (pentecost) begins this weekend, the reform judaism site publishes an interesting article entitled "judaism teaches: question authority, think for yourself.".

the article employs a jewish doctor's recollection of a jw patient who refused blood and died as an example of how both religious traditions greatly differ on how they see and apply god's law.. shavuot is the day jews recall god's giving the law to israel.

the article is significant in that it demonstrates how jews see the giving of the law as a call to questioning authority, including divine revelation itself whereas the death of the jw patient is contrasted as a slavish interpretation that misses the point behind jewish scripture.. for more see the article at:.

Fisherman

With deep respect, my statement was a paraphrase of the argument presented in the June 15th, 2004 issue of The Watchtower. In the article, Rightly Value Your Gift Of Life, the progression of thought which I described is explicitly laid out.

OK, lets backup a little bit.

My intent on this thread has simply been to illustrate the impropriety of lifting one law out of an entire body of law and interpreting it outside of the framework in which it was given.

Since the context of this thread is WT interpretation of BIble laws on blood, you have not shown that Bible laws on blood as wt sees it should not be taken out of the framework in which it is was given.

Apologies, Fisherman. I did not realize that was necessary. Jehovah's Witnesses (via church literature) interpret the Torah's requirements on blood in the context of sacrifice; interpret sacrifice in the context of atonement; interpret atonement under the context of Messianic prophecy; interpret Messianic prophecy in the context of Jesus' sacrifice; interpret Jesus sacrifice in the context of the Ransom. Based on that concatenation it is inferred that any use of blood not specifically set forth elsewhere in the Torah should be understood as forbidden and an act of disrespect towards the Ransom.
Is the cultural and contextual backdrop of the Torah's requirements on blood only relevant when it is incorporated into an argument in support of the JW position or are the rest of us allowed to incorporate it into our reasoning as well? Is the flimsiness of this concatenation sacrosanct or am I allowed to point it out?

Jehovah's Witnesses (via church literature) interpret the Torah's requirements on blood in the context of sacrifice;

So does the Torah. and the NT

interpret sacrifice in the context of atonement

So does the Torah. and the NT

interpret sacrifice in the context of atonement

So does the Torah. and the NT

interpret atonement under the context of Messianic prophecy

So does the NT

interpret Messianic prophecy in the context of Jesus' sacrifice

So does the NT

interpret Jesus sacrifice in the context of the Ransom

So does the NT

Based on that concatenation it is inferred that any use of blood not specifically set forth elsewhere in the Torah should be understood as forbidden and an act of disrespect towards the Ransom.

The above statement does not truly represent wt teachings because wt position on blood transfusion is based upon the application of BIble laws on blood and not based upon what they believe is the significance of the laws on blood. So, it is not actually based on what you describe as a concatenation that WT teaches that BT violate God's Law. The related "concatenation" which evidently was meant to allude to the wt literature you latter posted attempts to explain why the law makes sense but the reason for wt position is because they figure that God's law as they see it should be applied to BT, and is not a conclusion based upon a concatenation.

I'm confused. If I'm understanding correctly, you don't seem to believe that a conflict between two or more of God's requirements can be created by unique circumstances. (?)

I am sure that you agree that in ancient Israel language was never a problem because all they had to do at that time was to simply to ask God. The reason they got into trouble was because either they did not ask God or their motive was bad and not because they did not understand with their mind.

Suppose that a fetus was harming its mother; according to modern Jewish law, a fetus (an unborn developing human creature) becomes an intruder when it threatens the life of its mother and an abortion to save the mother is allowed. WT teaches that taking the human life is not allowed by God. In our modern time, how does one actually know what God requires if or when God is silent. Wt has claimed in their literature that Jehovah God communicates with the wt. Un-like the holy rollers, JW also claim to experience clear convincing evidence in their lives. BT are not like the miraculous healings that the NT records that Jesus performed on on the Sabbath- but have backfired and I can personally attest to cases that resulted in devastating infection of the liver. Medically speaking, when the other option is certain death, some people would choose to risk infection and whatever else because under such extreme circumstances the benefits (probable survival) outweigh the risks (possible or certain death.) But the mental attitude of a Christian is not based upon survival but based upon the clear convincing evidence of their relationship with God. Would a JW if faced with death commit idolatry, go to war or break any of God's laws? Out of weakness , yes, and maybe cave in faced with torture but not out of fear. JW survival is not based upon breaking God's Law.

Many of the laws in the Torah incur the penalty of death if deliberately violated (concocting anointing oil for personal use for example.) That is a hefty fine to pay; mixing a couple of ingredients to manufacture an object is more valuable to God than life. Also, in the Bible, it was not ok to break God's law, and a person was required to be executed for deliberately breaking God's law, Obedience to God's law was more important to God than life.

In principle and in theology JW is the best because JW survival depends on Jehovah. The big question for JW is: does God require you personally to say no to a BT even in an emergency?, and how do you know for sure?

87

Think for Yourself: Reform Judaism Uses JW Blood Issue For Shavuot

by David_Jay in

as the jewish holy day of shavuot (pentecost) begins this weekend, the reform judaism site publishes an interesting article entitled "judaism teaches: question authority, think for yourself.".

the article employs a jewish doctor's recollection of a jw patient who refused blood and died as an example of how both religious traditions greatly differ on how they see and apply god's law.. shavuot is the day jews recall god's giving the law to israel.

the article is significant in that it demonstrates how jews see the giving of the law as a call to questioning authority, including divine revelation itself whereas the death of the jw patient is contrasted as a slavish interpretation that misses the point behind jewish scripture.. for more see the article at:.

Fisherman

This thread is not about whether JW belief is the case but that the extent of of obedience to God's law has its limits: survival, and the wt does not view it like that.

87

Think for Yourself: Reform Judaism Uses JW Blood Issue For Shavuot

by David_Jay in

as the jewish holy day of shavuot (pentecost) begins this weekend, the reform judaism site publishes an interesting article entitled "judaism teaches: question authority, think for yourself.".

the article employs a jewish doctor's recollection of a jw patient who refused blood and died as an example of how both religious traditions greatly differ on how they see and apply god's law.. shavuot is the day jews recall god's giving the law to israel.

the article is significant in that it demonstrates how jews see the giving of the law as a call to questioning authority, including divine revelation itself whereas the death of the jw patient is contrasted as a slavish interpretation that misses the point behind jewish scripture.. for more see the article at:.

Fisherman

Apologies, Fisherman. I did not realize that was necessary. Jehovah's Witnesses (via church literature) interpret the Torah's requirements on blood in the context of sacrifice; interpret sacrifice in the context of atonement; interpret atonement under the context of Messianic prophecy; interpret Messianic prophecy in the context of Jesus' sacrifice; interpret Jesus sacrifice in the context of the Ransom. Based on that concatenation it is inferred that any use of blood not specifically set forth elsewhere in the Torah should be understood as forbidden and an act of disrespect towards the Ransom.

TD, your post above only represents your view about WT teachings. Your view about WT teachings, however,does not truly represent WT teachings and neither does your view posted above establish that what you feel about WT teachings is actually the case. Take for example your statement about WT interpretation of sacrifice. Here is what the Insight Book says about sacrifice not in the context of atonement:

*** it-2 p. 525 Offerings ***
From early times men have presented offerings to God. In the first recorded instance, Adam’s oldest son Cain presented some fruits of the ground, and Adam’s younger son Abel, the firstlings of his flock. Evidently the attitudes and motives of the two brothers were different, for God approved Abel’s offering but looked with disfavor on Cain’s.
*** it-2 p. 525 Offerings ***
In Patriarchal Society. The family head Noah, on coming out of the ark, offered a thanksgiving sacrifice to Jehovah that was “restful” (soothing, tranquilizing), after which Jehovah made the “rainbow” covenant with Noah and his offspring

*** it-2 p. 526 Offerings ***
Communion offerings (or peace offerings). Communion offerings acceptable to Jehovah denoted peace with him. The worshiper and his household partook (in the courtyard of the tabernacle; according to tradition, booths were set up around the inside of the curtain surrounding the courtyard; in the temple, dining rooms were provided). The officiating priest received a portion

The fact that it is impossible to state a law applicable to every conceivable situation is indeed a limitation of language.

Secular law yes- man is the judge. Divine law no because God is the judge, and Jehovah was integrated into the Torah, and God communicated with Israel: The patriarchs, the judges, the kings, the neviim, the priests (but not the Rabbis.) What Jesus pointed out was that the jewish clergy of his day was wicked, the heart, the motive, the intention, and not that the academics of the law was the case.. His reasoning on the the Sabbath was mostly if not all in his own defense from those who were looking for wicked reasons to convict him. The wt points out that pure worship became contaminated with heathen philosophy. With Israel it was not a problem with the limit of language: Is there no God in Israel-sort of speak!

acknowledge that and if I've been less than forthright about it, I apologize. I stated early on in this thread that one's starting assumptions about the purpose of any given law will affect their interpretation.

I understand your reasoning.

If an equivalency between consumption and transfusion cannot be established,....

A talking horse is needed to unlimit language. Academically speaking, life must be preserved to the extent that people should also have the right decide for themselves.

The preservation of the lives of the Jews from the coffin depends upon Caesar up to this day and not upon salvation from Jehovah. JW theology is different, WT position is not to break God's Laws (given any established law) and trust God for survival-live or die.

95

slimboyfat joins the Mormons!

by slimboyfat in

i know that some people on the board have experience of being mormons, so i would be interested in your feedback.

at church this afternoon it was an uncanny experience.

in the past i've read a lot about mormons, so i thought i was prepared in general for what it would be like.

Fisherman

SBF

"If a man smiles all of the time, he is probably selling something that does not work". -George Carlin

Do Mormons smile a lot?

87

Think for Yourself: Reform Judaism Uses JW Blood Issue For Shavuot

by David_Jay in

as the jewish holy day of shavuot (pentecost) begins this weekend, the reform judaism site publishes an interesting article entitled "judaism teaches: question authority, think for yourself.".

the article employs a jewish doctor's recollection of a jw patient who refused blood and died as an example of how both religious traditions greatly differ on how they see and apply god's law.. shavuot is the day jews recall god's giving the law to israel.

the article is significant in that it demonstrates how jews see the giving of the law as a call to questioning authority, including divine revelation itself whereas the death of the jw patient is contrasted as a slavish interpretation that misses the point behind jewish scripture.. for more see the article at:.

Fisherman

My intent on this thread has simply been to illustrate the impropriety of lifting one law out of an entire body of law and interpreting it outside of the framework in which it was given.

It appears to me that in-spite of you stating your intentions as stated above, your posts on this thread do not illustrate that the The OT laws on blood (substance of this thread), or on idolatry, etc. are integrated with the other framework of laws that were given to Israel at Sinai (or any other framework of laws that you might be referring to) and therefore should only and can only be interpreted within the ambit of the related framework. It seems to me that you have not shown that on this thread. Besides that, Christian school of thought disagrees with you and you evidently know and understand xtian theology better (in my opinion) than most "xtians"

Because of the limitations of language, it is not at all unusual for circumstances to create conflicts between two or more individual requirements within any given body of law. This is true in both secular law and Jewish law and I brought up Jesus' reasoning on the Sabbath only to illustrate how those conflicts are ethically resolved.

Language has its limits in secular law but language did not limit the understanding of God's Word to Israel and the limits of language was not the case in Jesus' reasoning on the Sabbath except that for 400 years (since Nehemiah) there was silence, no Word from Jehovah, no Biblical record of any communication between Jehovah and the Jews which had always been the case since Jehovah spoke to Moses and throughout the Nation's history...... ( Malachi 2:7 . . .For the lips of a priest should safeguard knowledge, and people should seek the law from his mouth, because he is the messenger of Jehovah of armies. ) And so for 400 years subjugated Israel, having no monarchy and no prophets was not abandoned, they had the Kohanim and Jehovah's Holy Spirit to guide them. And that is why according to Christianity Jehovah's angel broke the silence after 400 years when he spoke to Zechariah-the priest; (not some Pharisee) The Pharisees had usurped the authority of the priests. TD I do not want to go out on a tangent but I would like to point out that every mechanical device even Jewish law (not actually the law but the Jews) needs adjustment from time to time, and after 400 years it should be expected that Israel needed as usual- adjustment FROM GOD: thus came Jesus the talking horse.

God has told you in plain and simple, black and white, clear and unambiguous, easy to understand terms that you cannot cause the death of an innocent human being. This includes acts of omission as well as commission.

Intentionally or not, your posts on this thread allude to Rabbinical application of Leviticus 18:5 and Numbers 15:32.

WT does not see it like that in your statement quoted above when it apples to BT.

Please don't reflexively reply, "God's Law on Blood."

I did not do that. I put quotation marks in front of the wt teaching to show that that is what the wt interprets (that is where the limit of language that you have pointed out applies and requires or warrants a talking horse) about blood transfusions but not that such teaching ( BT= violating God's Law) has been established as such in our discussion, that is another subject matter although I agree your pointing this out is relevant in our discussion, however, your posts on this thread assume that it is God's Law and focus on application, and my response to you also is in the context of application assume that it is God's Law. If blood transfusions do not violate God's law then any discussion about the application of a nonexistent law is moot.

IT is late. I am tired.

87

Think for Yourself: Reform Judaism Uses JW Blood Issue For Shavuot

by David_Jay in

as the jewish holy day of shavuot (pentecost) begins this weekend, the reform judaism site publishes an interesting article entitled "judaism teaches: question authority, think for yourself.".

the article employs a jewish doctor's recollection of a jw patient who refused blood and died as an example of how both religious traditions greatly differ on how they see and apply god's law.. shavuot is the day jews recall god's giving the law to israel.

the article is significant in that it demonstrates how jews see the giving of the law as a call to questioning authority, including divine revelation itself whereas the death of the jw patient is contrasted as a slavish interpretation that misses the point behind jewish scripture.. for more see the article at:.

Fisherman

Such was not my conclusion at all. My illustration to Myelaine was only intended to show how basic assumptions affect legal interpretation. Which is more valuable; life or property? If life is more valuable than property, then laws whose purpose is to protect property must, of necessity be limited by that assumption. TD

Are you saying then that since blood is sacred because blood represent s life, then life is axiomatically more valuable than the blood representing it? If that is what your are saying then you are incorrect because blood is sacred to God not because it is merely an object (property sort of speak) representing life but because to God blood specifically represents the life of the creature from where the blood came from.There is no license stated in the OT or the NT that automatically grants the right to violate "God's law on blood" except for your application of Jesus' interpretation of what is lawful on the Sabbath, and it appears that, hence, you feel that it is ok (or ou) to consume blood in an attempt to be healed or to be cured.

But there is also an axiomatic difference(big) between blood- a mere object except to God- and human life or the life of a child that could possibly be saved ("prolonged") with an attempt using blood. "Each person must decide for themselves whether to obey God's Law on Blood." JW stand firm "mechanically" on their position on blood ( on idolatry too.) JW believe that consuming blood is a sin and that there is nothing stated or implied in the Bible that grants the license to eat or consume blood.