About a week after that i sent my D/A letter off as from that point on I did no longer want to be known as a JW. The elders dismissed my letter thinking I was doing it purely to get back at my father.
Wow, I never heard of this before.
ezekiel3
JoinedPosts by ezekiel3
-
17
My father(elder) wont let me borrow music!
by Es inhey there everyone,.
well my saga continues.... for those who don't know i am getting married this being my second time round, only difference is im marrying a non believer.
i have been fading from the truth for bout 3 years now.. anyway just a short time ago my father (elder) suggested that they look after my son so my new husband and i could have a honeymoon.
-
-
ezekiel3
-
4
WT Child Abuse Timeline?
by ithinkisee inregarding blood, there is a really cool timeline on ajwrb:.
http://www.ajwrb.org/history/index.shtml#modern.
this timeline runs from 1892 to the present time.
-
-
ezekiel3
The blood doctrine timelime is excellent. Kudos to you if you wish to timeline child abuse as well. I would encourage you to note:
- The references made by the W&A (usually in "Watching the World") regarding other religious abuse scandals, especially the Catholic church.
- Various court cases as they were appealed or denyied, including landmark decisions/precedents reagrding other religions/freedom of religion.
- And focus documenting JW tactics (think Vicky Boer with counter-suit).
It could be quite a project, but it would be a huge to those who are interested in JW child abuse.
-
40
JWs ....Transplants - Canibalism
by JW Ben intransplants ?
cannibalism
many opponents of the wtbts have published information saying that the wts forbade organ transplants, and the reason given was that the wts said it was equal to cannibalism.
-
-
ezekiel3
Here for all to see, the key articles in their entirety. IMO the 1967 QFR definitely paints organ transplants in a negative light and makes a cliche of cannabalism. The 1980 QFR revises this extreme viewpoint (as well as the following quotes from the brochure How Can Blood Save Your Life).
I completely agree with IP that a "mature" JW" would never consider an organ transplant in light of the 1967 article.
Indeed Ben, you ought to be more honest with yourself.
***
w67 11/15 pp. 702-704 Questions from Readers ***Questions
from Readers?
Is there any Scriptural objection to donating one?s body for use in medical research or to accepting organs for transplant from such a source??W. L., U.S.A.A number of issues are involved in this matter, including the propriety of organ transplants and autopsies. Quite often human emotion is the only factor considered when individuals decide these matters. It would be good, though, for Christians to consider the Scriptural principles that apply, and then make decisions in harmony with these principles so as to be pleasing to Jehovah.?Acts 24:16.
First, it would be well to have in mind that organ transplant operations, such as are now being performed in an attempt to repair the body or extend a life-span, were not the custom thousands of years ago, so we cannot expect to find legislation in the Bible on transplanting human organs. Yet, this does not mean that we have no indication of God?s view of such matters.
When Jehovah for the first time allowed humans to eat animal flesh, he explained matters this way to Noah: "A fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that goes moving on the ground, and upon all the fishes of the sea. Into your hand they are now given. Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul?its blood?you must not eat." (Gen. 9:2-4) That allowance was made to Noah, from whom every person now alive descended. Hence, it applies to all of us.
Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one?s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. Jehovah clearly made a distinction between the lives of animals and the lives of humans, mankind being created in God?s image, with his qualities. (Gen. 1:27) This distinction is evident in His next words. God proceeded to show that man?s life is sacred and is not to be taken at will, as may be done with the animals to be used for food. To show disrespect for the sanctity of human life would make one liable to have his own life taken.?Gen. 9:5, 6.
When there is a diseased or defective organ, the usual way health is restored is by taking in nutrients. The body uses the food eaten to repair or heal the organ, gradually replacing the cells. When men of science conclude that this normal process will no longer work and they suggest removing the organ and replacing it directly with an organ from another human, this is simply a shortcut. Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others. WOW BEN DID YOU READ THAT??
It is of interest to note that in its discussion of cannibalism the Encyclop?dia of Religion and Ethics, edited by James Hastings, Volume 3, page 199, has a section designated "Medical cannibalism." It points out that this is associated with the idea of obtaining strength or some medical virtue from the flesh of another human, adding: "The most remarkable example of this practice occurs in China. Among the poor it is not uncommon for a member of the family to cut a piece of flesh from arm or leg, which is cooked and then given to a sick relative. . . . The whole superstition in China is certainly connected with the idea that the eating of the human body strengthens the eater. . . . Among savages the practice is found of giving a sick man some blood to drink drawn from the veins of a relative." Some might argue that therapeutic practices involved in modern organ transplant operations are more scientific than such primitive treatment. Nonetheless, it is evident that men practicing medicine have not been beyond using treatments that amount to cannibalism if such have been thought justified.
Modern science has developed many different types of operations that involve human body parts, some common and usually successful and others experimental and often unsuccessful. It is not our place to decide whether such operations are advisable or warranted from a scientific or medical standpoint. It would be well, though, for Christians faced with a decision in this regard to consider the indication as to God?s viewpoint presented in the Scriptures.?Eph. 5:10.
At present scientific researchers are starting to use artificial or animal parts where formerly human parts were thought necessary, such as in the case of cornea transplants. (See, for instance, Science News for May 21, 1966, page 396, and Time for April 28, 1967, pages 68 and 70.) Whether wider use of such operations will be made, we do not know. Nor can we decide whether a Christian should accept some animal part as a transplant; that is for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) However, we can be sure that in the future the time will come when all human medical operations will be unnecessary. (Rev. 21:4) Christians have strong evidence that the new order is near at hand when Jehovah the Great Physician will, through Jesus, do healing beyond the limitations of medical science of today. That means wait, at least for another 38 years or so.?Mark 8:22-25; John 11:43, 44; Acts 3:6, 7; Matt. 12:15.
What should be done, though, when a Christian is asked to provide an organ for use in another person or to allow the body part of a deceased loved one to be so used? We might ask, If a Christian decided personally that he would not sustain his own life with the flesh of another imperfect human, could he conscientiously allow part of his flesh to be used in that way to sustain someone else?
Even from a medical standpoint there is some question as to the wisdom and ethicalness of some transplants. One physician discussed this publicly in the Annals of Internal Medicine, citing the results of 244 kidney-transplant operations. In the majority of cases the recipient did not live more than a year after the operation. Then, commenting on the dangers for the volunteer who donates one of his kidneys, the doctor asked: "Is it right to subject a healthy person . . . to the possibility . . . of shortening his life by 25 or 30 years in order to extend another?s life by 25 or 30 months or less?" Reporting on this, Newsweek, of March 2, 1964, page 74, added that the doctor "offers no conclusive answer, but he suggests that the question needs to be asked more often."
When it comes to deciding what to do with one?s own body or with the body of a deceased loved one, for which a Christian is responsible, the apostle Paul?s words at Romans 12:1 should not be overlooked: "I entreat you by the compassions of God, brothers, to present your bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason." Baptized Christians have dedicated their lives, bodies included, to do the will of Jehovah their Creator. In view of this, can such a person donate his body or part of it for unrestricted use by doctors or others? Does a human have a God-given right to dedicate his body organs to scientific experimentation? Is it proper for him to allow such to be done with the body of a loved one? These are questions worthy of serious consideration.
Not to be overlooked is the use to which a dead body might be put. Would a Christian who, while living, refused to give his blood to be used as a transfusion for some other person, allow his body to be turned over to a group or to a person and possibly at that time have the blood removed and used for transfusion, as has been done with some cadavers? (See, for example, Awake! of October 22, 1962, page 30.) A person might feel that he could stipulate that his body not be used in that way; but if many persons in authority refuse to abide by a Christian?s wishes about blood when he is alive, what reason is there to believe they will show more respect for his wishes after his death? Would they use his organs in cannibalistic medical experiments? Huh?
Our bodies are the creation of Jehovah God. (Ps. 100:3; 95:6; Job 10:8) Christians might allow apparently necessary surgery to be performed, such as to remove a diseased limb, but they do not needlessly mutilate their bodies created by Jehovah. Would allowing a body to be mutilated after death be showing respect for and appreciation of God?s creation? True, in some instances there may be legal requirements that Christians abide by, such as when the law requires a postmortem examination to determine the cause of death. (Rom. 13:1, 7; Mark 12:17) In such cases the next of kin can usually request that the organs not be removed for transplant or reuse. In this way, even though an autopsy might be required, the Christian can prevent misuse of the body of a loved one. But when such laws do not apply, the Christian can decide in such a way as to avoid unnecessary mutilation and any possible misuse of the body. Thus he will be able to have a clear conscience before God.?1 Pet. 3:16.
It should be evident from this discussion that Christians who have been enlightened by God?s Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him.?Prov. 3:5, 6; Ps. 119:105.
So we can summarize without any positive comments: Organ transplants are cannabalism and mutilation of the body.
Notice the following counters negative points with a positive opinions:
*** w80 3/15 p. 31 Questions from Readers ***
Questions
from Readers?
Should congregation action be taken if a baptized Christian accepts a human organ transplant, such as of a cornea or a kidney?Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah?s Witnesses. Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. They might hold that the transplanted human material is intended to become part of the recipient?s body to keep him alive and functioning. They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth. Such feelings may arise from considering that God did not make specific provision for man to eat the flesh of his fellowman when he made provision for humans to eat the flesh of animals that had been drained of their life-sustaining blood. They may give consideration also to the way people in Bible times viewed sustaining themselves by taking in human flesh. For example, see the account at 2 Kings 6:24-30; Deuteronomy 28:53-57; Lamentations 2:20 and 4:10. At John 6:48-66, Jesus spoke figuratively of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. On hearing this discussion and not perceiving the spiritual significance of his words, some of his Jewish disciples were shocked and turned from following him. These accounts illustrate how some humans felt about eating human flesh.
Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. They may reason that in some cases the human material is not expected to become a permanent part of the recipient?s body. Body cells are said to be replaced about every seven years, and this would be true of any human body parts that would be transplanted. It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the "donor" is not killed to supply food. In some cases persons nearing death actually have willed body parts to be used for transplants. Of course, if a transplant should require taking in another person?s blood, undeniably that would be contrary to God?s command.?Acts 15:19, 20.
Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation. It is well known that the use of human materials for human consumption varies all the way from minor items, such as hormones and corneas, to major organs, such as kidneys and hearts. While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.
The 1980 QRF illustrates how the WTS defines a trully personal choice. The 1967 QFR is a classic, "you decide exactly what we tell you."
***
hb p. 16 Quality Alternatives to Transfusion ***The conscience of some Witnesses permits them to accept organ transplants if done without blood. A report of 13 kidney transplants concluded: "The overall results suggest that renal transplantation can be safely and efficaciously applied to most Jehovah?s Witnesses." (Transplantation, June 1988) Likewise, refusal of blood has not stood in the way even of successful heart transplants.
*** hb p. 28 Jehovah?s Witnesses?The Surgical/Ethical Challenge ***
The Witnesses do not feel that the Bible comments directly on organ transplants; hence, decisions regarding cornea, kidney, or other tissue transplants must be made by the individual Witness.
-
28
Jackson'd Case, Potential Door To Open Pedophilia Stories
by Golf inthe mj case is predicted to last 6 months.
this time frame can have a very crucial impact on the jw org.
and their mishandling the pedophile problem.
-
-
ezekiel3
I would be very disappointed if Bowen did not ride this wave.
When the media gets to fevor pitch, they will be hunting down any expert they can find. For JW child abuse Silentlambs is it.
There is a direct correlation between Silentlambs information and MJ:
1) Bowen can explain life as a JW
2) Bowen can explain JW coverup policy
3) Bowen can reveal other victims/victimizers for a complete picture.
-
17
A possible way to get JWs info w/out incriminating oneself?
by ithinkisee ini have an idea on how to get information in a way that won't get you identified ... i wanted to put it to this forum for scrutiny before i actually put it into practice.
i am on several people's jw spam list.
.meaning they constantly send me the same things that go around in other circles, like the "send this to five friends" or they send the scriptures for the week's book study, or they send a "jws in the news" article or something like that.
-
-
ezekiel3
Why not forward JW news updates (easy to get through Google) using your email forward system.
You could focus on child abuse, scandals (UN etc.) or even posts on this board.
The email idea could be very good.
-
18
Does anyone make any money out of the Watchtower org..?
by Qcmbr ini presume most of the peple ar eunpaid clergy but does anyone actually get paid or live a life of luxury paid for by the org?
on other words is anyone standing to make a profit by continuing this work..?
-
-
ezekiel3
Tiger: Sure thats plenty of revenue, but what about all the expenses??
Flights roundtrip from New York for visiting guest speakers. (oh right, paid by the congregation)
Living expenses for CO/DOs (huh, paid by the congregation)
Construction cost of kingdom halls and assembly halls (right, paid by the circuits and congregations with interest)
Legal fees (as charged by volunteer lawyers?)
Property taxes (sorry, no need as non-profit)
hmmm....
-
15
The offer that the WTS has made to you
by Bluegrass Tom inhere is something to consider in wts speak:
it takes about five minutes of time, a page from an encyclopedia and some electrical impulses passing between the ears to recognize that jerusalem was not destroyed in 607 b.c.e.
with a little more thought (and some arithmetic), it can be realized that this means that the 70 years of desolation never happened.
-
-
ezekiel3
why doesn't the Watchtower merely add 20 years to 1914 and say the year 1934 is the correct date?
Because 1914 is a pivotal year in history as the beginning of the Great War.
Nothing much happened in 1934.
Also this would remove the "pale horse" of the apocalypse concept. The Influenza epidemic after WW1 killed more than the war.
They can't let go of 1914 because it is an "easy sell" to recruits who don't check the illegitimacy of 607.
This is still a very active doctrine. The WT Jan 15, 2004 features a illustration in on page 18 showing the four horsemen and Satan the dragon gettin' the boot. The caption; "Do you know what happened when Christ began his conquest?" If 1914, the answer is a really big war and plague. 1934 or (insert date here) ____ can't complete with that.
-
13
Recording Time For Preaching
by homme perdu incan time be counted if one is not distributing literature?
-
-
ezekiel3
Good becuase its near the end of February and I only have 84 hours of time on JWD this month so far...
Yes you can count time without make placements. In fact you can count time without talking to anyone. Ask any JW who does rural territory:
Drive to territory = 20 minutes.
No one home, sit in car for five minutes while looking for address = 10 minutes.
Drive to next house = 15 minutes, etc.
Even in urban territory it is uncommon to spend more then 5 minutes actually witnessing in conversation for a whole morning of door-to-door.
-
2
The Chaos of CULTS- -Chapter on JWs. RUSSELL INFO.
by Jez inby jan karel van baalen-1956.
interesting stuff in here about jw's.
if you can get your hands on this book, the chapter about jw's is interesting as it contains many many old quotes from russell and rutherford himself.
-
-
ezekiel3
May I patiently explain that Jesus cleansed the congregation from all vile influences in 1919.
-
18
Does anyone make any money out of the Watchtower org..?
by Qcmbr ini presume most of the peple ar eunpaid clergy but does anyone actually get paid or live a life of luxury paid for by the org?
on other words is anyone standing to make a profit by continuing this work..?
-
-
ezekiel3
I agree with Mary: you won't see extravagance in the FDS and other top level members.
WTS is 100% tax dodge. So perception is everything. The last flamboyant president was Rutherford in the good ol' days.
Since then what you have is from Circuit Overseer, District Overseer (in the field) and especially at management level at headquarters, a completely funded life including all the perks (free cars, health care, equipment, flights, etc.) all paid for directly or indirectly by the R&F.
Circuit Overseers used to have to carpet-bag from congregation to congregation, staying in JW homes. Then the local circuits started funding RVs and caravans. Now (in the US/Europe) most circuits have a dedicated apartment (at a KH or Assembly Hall) for the CO/DO (at no charge of course). There is a free car (in the US its usually a large Buick, fleet purchased by headquarters). The quality of life of CO/DO's has greatly improved in the last 20 years.
To some that is luxurious life. Play the game and you're on the dole for life. Not bad.