So, if I'm reading this chart correctly, everything that falls under the plasma heading (on the right in Beli's diagram) is allowable?
Oops, let me clarify that. Everything under the plasma heading excluding plasma is okay?
i was thinking mainly of lee elder, but it seems that that a concise, user-friendly list of the permissible/prohibited blood fractions of current jw policy would be more than a mere convenience... it has life-saving potential!
the mere fact that the watchtower does not see fit to clear the air and print a simple summary of the current blood fraction policy in a ``question from readers'' article or something.. their failure to do so thus far speaks volumes as to how little regard they have for the lives of their drones especially of the children who, in view of the stagnation of the organization, are the society's most promising -- and maybe only -- source of future growth.
brooklyn seems to prefer distributing ``no blood'' cards to the flock and apparently has no interest in clarifying a matter they alone have obfuscated by their confusing and often contradictory rhetoric.
So, if I'm reading this chart correctly, everything that falls under the plasma heading (on the right in Beli's diagram) is allowable?
Oops, let me clarify that. Everything under the plasma heading excluding plasma is okay?
i was thinking mainly of lee elder, but it seems that that a concise, user-friendly list of the permissible/prohibited blood fractions of current jw policy would be more than a mere convenience... it has life-saving potential!
the mere fact that the watchtower does not see fit to clear the air and print a simple summary of the current blood fraction policy in a ``question from readers'' article or something.. their failure to do so thus far speaks volumes as to how little regard they have for the lives of their drones especially of the children who, in view of the stagnation of the organization, are the society's most promising -- and maybe only -- source of future growth.
brooklyn seems to prefer distributing ``no blood'' cards to the flock and apparently has no interest in clarifying a matter they alone have obfuscated by their confusing and often contradictory rhetoric.
I'd like to see the scan. Unfortunately, I'm not too handy with computer advice!
i have come to the conclusion that so many of the society's doctrines are not scriptural (both major and minor ones) that i can no longer cal it "the truth".
i still go to congregation meetings, but i can't see myself going for much longer - a bit of a crisis of conscience.
however, there seems to be one piece of seemingly logical advice from the elders that i cannot come to terms with despite what i have found.. even amongst the elders that have spoken to me there seems to be some who do not accept the entire body of doctrines of the society, yet because they see the fruitage of matthew 7:17, 20 being expressed within the congregation and not elsewhere they stay and advise me to stay too.
I'd be interested to know what they mean when they say no one else is preaching the kingdom of god? What I suspect they mean is that no one else is preaching the good news of the kingdom of god... as defined by the witnesses.
Of course there are plenty of people who preach the kingdom of god, but they do not seem to qualify because the JWs work under the assumption that other people are just doing it wrong! An example: What they fail to understand is that other religions do not believe that only 144,000 will go to heaven- therefore preaching it would seem a bit absurd, right? However, the witnesses maintain that in order to preach the kingdom of god or "good news" it must sound exactly like they way they perceive it.
Another example- the blast other religions for affiliating with the United Nations. What they don't recognize is that other religions do not believe that the United Nations is the scarlet colored beast of the bible. Therefore, other religions were not violating their beliefs by associating with the UN. But the witnesses do believe the UN = Scarlet colored beast. So they WTBTS was in violation of it's beliefs in affiliating.
The problem is that the 'Towerites assume they have the correct understanding of things like the "good news". Working with this conclusion, anyone who interprets it differently would not be preaching the "good news", now would they? So they can get away with saying other religions don't preach the "good news" because they believe they are the only ones who properly understand it.
No other preachers out there? Really? C'mon, that's ridiculous. What they mean to say is that no one other than witnesses preach witness doctrine. And if you aren't preaching witness interpretations, then you aren't preaching accurately. If you aren't preaching accurately then you must be preaching inaccurately, which is about as good as not preaching at all. So, no one else preaches the kingdom of god, see?
when an elder called us to "invite" us to the kh to meet with them to question us regarding accusations of apostasy, while another elder sneakily sat on another line as a "second witness", we, after not being active for several years, having no contact with anyone in the congregation, we felt their phone call was harrassing.
we called our lawyers who drew up a letter that say:.
watchtower bibel & tract society.
What jerks! It's smacks of such absurd control freakishness, it's utterly appalling!
They have said that your attorney can't represent you. But they do not say that your attorney cannot attend. (I suspect they meant to say as much but...) I'd try to bring your attorney along if I were you, even if only as an observer.
This is interesting because you said in another post that you were filemd for dateline? In which case, this seems like a pre-emptive strike to discredit you before any publicity glare.
not only did i have the fortune of being raised a dub, but i also live in the heart of mormonism, good old slc.
my wife went to lds church today and says she is going to start going every week.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrggggghh.
Tdogg,
you can also try www.exmormon.org
here is a crazy site that is trying to shut down the landover baptist web site.
i can't help but wonder if it is a joke.. http://207.67.219.101/objective/index.html.
fyi: landover is located at: www.landoverbaptist.com.
That's a joke. At least, if it isn't, it's incredibly funny. But i'm thinking it is.
Note the banner ad at the bottom. (paraphrased: click on the link below to visit other good christian websites... and nothing is listed).
i heard a sermon by a tv evangelist yesterday (a fellow by the name of hagee).
i normally don't watch this stuff, but it was specifically pointed out to me.. he was talking about marraige, and he made a point that has stuck with me.
he said that if a person is not willing to tollerate any disagreement with their ideas, then that person is likely motivated by insecurity and fear.
I've always hated the phrase "agree to disagree", it's like nails on a chalkboard with me. But I have no problem with the concept itself.
I think the reason I have always hated the phrase is because I had a friend who used it constantly but he was the kind of person who would put regularly out some absurd assertion (moon is made of cheese) and despite a valid argument to the contrary would always dismiss the other persons ideas with that statement. Without fail.
He would tell you he has a grapefruit for a heart and after normal conversation failed you- after endless x-rays, medical exams and proofs got you nowhere with this guy, you could open his chest with a butter knife and pull his ailing heart from his chest to show it to him and his dying words would be still be "let's agree to disagree". It was incredibly infuriating.
But what do you expect from a guy who carried a travel kit with him everywhere he went just in case he got lucky.
got this in an email today from someone - thought it might be of interest.
we've all heard or read scores of these, so if this is not new sorry to make you read it again.. of course the fact it was related at a circuit assembly makes it the stone cold truth :)!.
subject: re: fw: jehovah hears prayers.
I'm touched.
The couple want a kid. Can't have one so the adoption agency says, "hey, take one of these older asian babies 'cause there ain't as much a market for them". So the couple agrees...la la la... happy they are going to have a family.
And then... They meet the witnesses. They convert. Now they have to re-think the kid thing because the group takes up alot of time. They tell the adoption agency, "no thanks, we gonna wait until after apocalypse". The agency says, "but wait, we got one and he's already on the way for you".
STOP.
This is where the loving couple that knows there ain't much of a market for an older asian child has to go home and pray over whether or not take this kid in!
But they've got cult recruiting to do and a kid is a real drain time, so they have to think it over now!
So, when they were worldly- they just wanted a kid to love.
Then they hooked up with a group that actually had them so allegedly christianized that they would turn their backs on a orphan kid who has far reduced chances of getting a home elsewhere since their ain't much of a market for him due to his age! Because it MIGHT reduce time attempting to convert people.
But, because the child they originally wanted has now become a burden- Jah throws 'em a bonus- the kid likes cults!!!
(drying my tears- nice story, really)
in the following scenario, who is at fault:.
a parked vehicle (car a) has just parked.
the driver gets out, and the passenger starts to get out a little after the driver does.
I think the point of impact on car B might have some bearing on this too. An adjuster may be able to assess whether or not the door was open or opened into car B based on where damage to car B is.
Normally I agree that stationary vehicles usually win out, I think I recall something about the opening the car door issue because it's quite a common fender bender. And, many bicyclists can tell you horror stories galore about it.
my family and i have argued about this for awhile now and i would like someone to confirm this.
back in the late nineties at a district convention during the late sunday afternoon (yawn) symposium i swear i heard mention that the society now views the celebration of ones birthday to be a conscience matter and should be done with extreme caution so as not to affend others who may still view it as wrong.
forgive me for not remembering which year it was that this was mentioned.
It says that the Romans observed the birth of Artemis and the day of Apollo. In contrast, "although the ancient Israelis kept records of the ages of their male citizens, there is no evidence that they had any festivities on the anniversary of the birth date."
Yup. The division of public records in my city hall knows when I was born. They don't keep on file how many people partook of the cookie monster cake I had back on my fourth birthday.