Posts by beginnersmind

33

Brant Jones Letters to and From the Watchtower- 2005-06

by uninformed in

thanks to scully, i have figured out where to put these letters so all that would like to access them and read them can do so.--just click on the link below.. don't expect a lot from the letters, as i am a brick mason and not the brightest bulb on the (new) christmas tree.. in my correspondence with the wt, i exerted all my effort to keep the discussion on just the un, even though i did have misgivings on other matters.

i thought if i was able to keep the discussion on just the un that it would prove to be more difficult for them to disfellowship me, as it was their conduct that i was opposing, conduct that violated their own teachings.. it worked to some extent, as they had to trump up charges on us that we started our own religion because we had the memorial celebration in 2006 with our family rather than at the kingdumb hall.

it was a real pleasure to be disfellowshipped for their sin.

beginnersmind

Thanks for posting these letters, very interesting. I totally understand your 'tone' with them. I think it was your right after all the time and energy you put into the religion.

36

I walked out of the "Oral Sex" instruction meeting today, anti witness!

by MinisterAmos in

any of you ex-dubs who are wondering why you left should read the study lesson today on oral sex.

let's also consider that the borg considers it essential that the brothers bring their young childer to all the meetings and make sure that they pay attention to the material.

the material this week included a very detailed description of oral sex!

beginnersmind

Having read this article can you tell me in which paragraph the "very detailed description of oral sex" can be found?
As I can't find it.

If by a detailed description you mean a how to guide your right there isnt one. I think the words 'oral sex' are mentioned only a few times in the article but you have to bear in mind every meeting will be different in what exactly will be said about it by the instructor and the rank and files comments. Some instructors might have wanted to go through those paragraphs in double quick time while others of a dubious nature would have liked to have spent more time on them fleshing them out as it were.

3

WT stance on blood transfusion is not biblical - proof from NWT

by Philippus79 in

they are idiots, not understanding that the purpose of blood is to sustain/save life.

god did not always punish the "abuse" (intake) of blood.

not when it was done in a life-threatening situation: .

beginnersmind

Yes this was to atone for their sin. But this proves it was not a "major" sin, they were not booted out or stoned for it.

Yes but if were making a direct comparison today that would mean the jw would be repentent (atoning for their 'sin') after taking blood and wouldnt necessarily be booted out. In those verses it doesnt say if any refused to atone for their sin so in this instance we wont now what would have happened to any that did.

For me personally yes it was a sin to eat blood back then but I believe thats not binding now, simple as that.

18

Re: Blood- Society sent letter saying: DO NOT SHARE THIS INFO. WITH OTHERS

by Lady Liberty in

dear friends,.

our dear friend, skyking started another thread which on the 3rd page he shared something so shocking, that i felt it deserved its own thread!!!

hope that's ok with you skyking!!

beginnersmind

They have made sure that 'technically' that is fact. Jehovah's Witnesses will not expel you for that. Or so they say. BUT if you do so, you are considered to have expelled yourself, as in disassociated yourself. So, as they twist it, you have voluntarily left due to choosing to ignore the doctrine. Same with those who join the military.

Exactly Jeff, I posted the quote below regarding this in another thread. Reading the documents it seems you can have a blood transfusion in Bulgaria without 'sanctions' but elsewhere you will get 'sanctions'. The reality is you will be 'sanctioning' yourself if you willingly have a blood transfusion!

In reality there was no 'deal' with Bulgaria though was there? They were just plain dishonest just to get their religion recognized. Instead of being disfellowshipped anyone taking blood willingly would be classed as having disassociated themselves ie the same result! Theocratic warfare at its best or should I say worst!

3

WT stance on blood transfusion is not biblical - proof from NWT

by Philippus79 in

they are idiots, not understanding that the purpose of blood is to sustain/save life.

god did not always punish the "abuse" (intake) of blood.

not when it was done in a life-threatening situation: .

beginnersmind

Interesting reading. Firstly I have to say I think the no blood transfusion ban should be lifted however I dont know wether I agree with your final interpretation of this account ie no penalty.

So obviously there are circumstances wherein abusing blood carries no penalty. We deduce from this account that such circumstances are when the abuse of blood is for the purpose of saving or protecting life.

If there was nothing wrong or no penalty how do you explain these verses?:

34 After that Saul said: Scatter among the people, and you must say to them, 'Bring near to me, each one of you, his bull and, each one, his sheep, and you must do the slaughtering in this place and the eating, and you must not sin against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.' Accordingly all the people brought near each one his bull that was in his hand that night and did the slaughtering there.
35 And Saul proceeded to build an altar to Jehovah. With it he started altar building to Jehovah.

Are not those verses explaining what happened because the people were "eating along with the blood"? Were they making atonement for their sin? I dont know, I'm just saying it could mean that and if it did that would hardly prove they could take blood without penalty as it was still a sin.

Let me reiterate I do not support banning blood transfusion im just saying I'm not sure this proves what your trying to say it does.

46

I was told: The bible condemn Blood transfusions Period!!!

by skyking in

this is what i was told by a c.o.

eight years ago.

that was before we went over bible information that i had compiled.

beginnersmind

Double post sorry.

46

I was told: The bible condemn Blood transfusions Period!!!

by skyking in

this is what i was told by a c.o.

eight years ago.

that was before we went over bible information that i had compiled.

beginnersmind

"Jehovah Witness makes secret deal with Bulgaria," "JW's can have blood transfusions with out any sanction in the country of Bulgaria"

In reality there was no 'deal' with Bulgaria though was there? They were just plain dishonest just to get their religion recognized. Instead of being disfellowshipped anyone taking blood willingly would be classed as having disassociated themselves ie the same result! Theocratic warfare at its best or should I say worst!

46

I was told: The bible condemn Blood transfusions Period!!!

by skyking in

this is what i was told by a c.o.

eight years ago.

that was before we went over bible information that i had compiled.

beginnersmind

Interesting account to say the least. Wish I could help my family still in to understand how wrong this blood ban is.

4

True to thee 'til death: why Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood

by Bryan in

i haven't seen this posted..... http://www.journal-online.co.uk/articles/show/2719.

true to thee 'til death: why jehovah's witnesses refuse bloodfrom a sociological perspective, blood is a powerful symbol of allegiance for the witnesses simply because it is unimportant to other faith communitiesprint article.

post to facebook.

how many similar stories of gods crucified and risen from the dead, etc., born of a virgin mom, blah, blah, blah..
Predate those of Jesus? Any Xtians want to answer that one?

Im not sure if this is what you mean, Mithra and all that, but take a look here:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/136105/2426726/post.ashx#2426726