Posts by glenster

25

QUESTION TO JW REGARDING THE DOCTRINE OF 144,000

by Celestialfrontier in

i am not a jehovah's witness, and until yesturday i never knew the beliefs of your congregation.

when i did finally read them, i was amazed to discover that most of what the lord has revealed to me as truth, through my prayers and studies, is found in your beliefs.

and out of all the christian denominations that exist, "most" of your beliefs are according to the word of god, unlike the other churches.. .

glenster

It's ironic you bring up the literal 144,000 in a post which otherwise
commends the JWs leaders honesty when the 144,000 idea is at the root of their
dishonesty.

The JWs leaders since before they were called JWs, since the early days of
Russell's Bible Students, have claimed to be the spokesmen and only rule makers
of a literal 144,000 of their followers who like feeling exclusive and don't
seem to mind a slew of bad predictions and would rather not believe they have
dishonest leaders. The exclusiveness is meant to be defined by a dozen or so
rules (it varies) which the leaders claim are shown to have the best cases for
the original intention of the Bible by the best evidence and reasoning. But
that's not true or the rules wouldn't be so exclusive about material so old
tackled by so many from about any angle you can think of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/144000_%28number%29

Keep that focus and your detective work should be easy, except you'll probably
wish you had a clerical staff--the JWs leaders have had over a century to come
up with that crap. A lot of their material is available over the Internet and if
you can't find what you're looking for, ask here and someone might have it for
you.

The research I have on it at the next link can give you a head start.
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/

13

"understand that I am he" Isaiah 43:10

by Chalam in

isaiah 43:10 (new international version) .

10 "you are my witnesses," declares the lord, .

"and my servant whom i have chosen, .

glenster

The "god" Satan doesn't make for polytheism. He's not meant as a god God
created but that people created--a false god. Around the time of Isaiah, the
Canaanite idea of belief in valid gods with a main God, reflected in some earli-
er OT verses, was being changed with an emphasis of one God who created no other
god, and no god was with him in creation. By the first century, Jews showed
their belief in the one God with prayer, worship, and the Shema. You wouldn't
worship/show obeisance to a "god," pray to him (Stephen, Paul when he con-
verted), make him the Lord of the one God one Lord Shema (Paul), lose doubt
and show recognition of him with the Shema (Thomas), etc.

8

Watchtower Blood Transfusion, Denys and Crile

by Marvin Shilmer in

watchtower blood transfusion, denys and crile.

watchtower writes:.

it is of no consequence that the blood is taken into the body through the veins instead of the mouth.

glenster

Sorry for the double-post--I didn't edit in time.

That leaves the JWs leaders ban of the medical use of blood to hinge on their
stance that the "pour and bury" verses of Mosaic law apply not just to the blood
of slaughtered animals but that any blood removed from a person should be dis-
posed of, and that the JWs leaders' stance on that was sustained by "abstain
from...blood."

(The JWs leaders make exception to their own stance on the disposal of human
blood with their own reasoning about the allowance of something slightly similar
to something banned. They allow the medical use of minor blood fractions that
wouldn't be available if the blood they were derived from was disposed of be-
cause the medical use of minor blood fractions is only slightly similar to eat-
ing blood. So the JWs leaders' stance is that not disposing of blood fractions
is okay since only most of the blood needs to be disposed of.)

But it can be shown that the "pour and bury" verses are about the blood of
animals slaughtered for food. That just leaves a ban on eating human blood.

Since that's all the JWs leaders' stance of banning the medical use of blood
hinges on, even a sympathetic view of their stance is so slightly similar to a
strong case for a transfusion ban that it should allow transfusions.

8

Watchtower Blood Transfusion, Denys and Crile

by Marvin Shilmer in

watchtower blood transfusion, denys and crile.

watchtower writes:.

it is of no consequence that the blood is taken into the body through the veins instead of the mouth.

glenster

The JWs leaders' case in banning the medical use of blood can be discounted
by the strength of the case that the four rules of Acts 15 were meant to reas-
sure Jewish law followers that they wouldn't have to avoid socializing with Gen-
tile Christians. But it can also be discounted on their own terms:

The similarity between transfusing and eating something depends on the thing
in question. The similarity is greater with alcohol than with blood, so the JWs
leaders' example of the similarity between drinking and transfusing alcohol as a
reason to see eating and transfusing blood as similar is misleading.

Eating and transfusing blood are analogous in the sense of resemblance in some
particulars between things otherwise unlike, like a horse and a cow or an orange
and an apple. As the research by George W, Crile shows, that similarity is
slight at best.

The JWs leaders' stance isn't that "abstain" at Acts 15:29 is an absolute.
They hold that "things offered to idols" are permissible as food when far enough
away from another's idolatrous use of them ("Insight on the Scriptures," 1988,
Vol.1, "IDOLS, MEATS OFFERED TO," pp.1172, 1173).

The JWs leaders apply that reasoning to "blood"--the medical use of minor
fractions of blood is permitted since the similarity to whole blood is small
enough, and something around half the blood in animal meat can remain when the
meat is used as food. (As opposed to the Jewish view, which interprets the ban
on eating eating animal blood as an absolute, the JWs leaders use a near-gener-
alization for it. Animal slaughter removes about half, not guaranteeably more
than half, of the blood. Neither view sees Mosaic law as giving a method of
preparing the meat further or cooking to determine their interpretation.)

Applying the JWs leaders' reasoning to the comparison of eating and transfus-
ing blood, transfusing blood is so slightly similar to eating blood that trans-
fusing blood can't be banned on the grounds of a rule against eating.

Applying the JWs leaders' reasoning to their stance on Gen.9:1-6, which is
that it's just an eating ban and requires capital punishment for killing, Gen.9:
1-6 can't be seen as sustained at Acts 15 to support a transfusion ban.

That leaves the JWs leaders ban of the medical use of blood to hinge on their
stance that the "pour and bury" verses of Mosaic law apply not just to the blood
of slaughtered animals but that any blood removed from a person should be dis-
posed of, and that the JWs leaders' stance on that was sustained by "abstain
from...blood." But it can be shown that those verses are about animals slaugh-
tered for food.

The JWs leaders make exception to their own stance on the disposal of human
blood with their own reasoning about the allowance of something slightly similar
to something banned. They allow the medical use of minor blood fractions that
wouldn't be available if the blood they were derived from was disposed of be-
cause the medical use of mnor blood fractions is only slightly similar to eating
blood.

Since that's all the JWs leaders' stance of banning the medical use of blood
hinges on, even a sympathetic view of their stance is so slightly similar to a
strong case for a transfusion ban that it should allow transfusions.

4

Russells quote from 1892 - does he really say christians may eat blood?

by bohm in

hey guys!

i got a letter about blood where the guy basically state jw has allways recognized the divine ban on blood.

he says russell wrote a quote in the wt on 15 january 1892 where he supported that view.

glenster

It brings up an interesting question, though. Maybe the JW leaders have
responded to it at some time and I just don't remember. But their stance is
that Gen.9:1-6 was binding on the whole world thereafter, so wouldn't that make
for the sort of loophole W.C.Fields was looking for? In the NT, you'd either be
saved by faith in the meaning of Jesus' crucifixion, etc., or, for those wanting
a discount package, the Noahide rules--just try to not eat any live animals
(Jewish view)/meat from animals that weren't slaughtered in a way that removed
about half of the blood (JWs leaders' view) or kill anyone and a few others.

34

If Shunning Didn't Exist, Would JW's Exist In Their Current Form?

by AllTimeJeff in

in my opinion, this is the crux of the matter where ex jw's are concerned.. so many religions have disagreements with their members.

but you can disagree, research, question, and leave if that is your wish.

you may receive some sanction depending on the religion, but no shunning is required in the major faith's and religions of christendom.

glenster

If the JWs leaders didn't use disfellowshipping for persistent disagreement
with their distinctive/relatively distinctive rules specifically, there would
be more people spreading the word through the flock about the methods the JWs
leaders use to make those rules seem guaranteed by the best evidence and reason-
ing = fewer JWS = less money for JWs leaders = unhappy JWs leaders.

Alternatively, the JWs leaders would appease their customers by dropping the
dubious teaching methods = there would be a more ordinary JWs organization =
less reasons to send your money to the JWs leaders specifically = less money for
JWs leaders = unhappy JWs leaders.

There's money in them thar Satanic birthday cupcakes, Satanic white blood
cells, Satanic higher education degrees, Satanic Civil Service clerk jobs,
Satanic Christian charity programs, Satanic Mother's Days, Satanic celebrations
of the birth of Jesus, Satanic prayers to Jesus, Satanic dismissals of 1914,
Satanic research books to get both sides before rendering judgment, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMXs9yOP8pY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-ByoJ7amKs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw94TwKqH_c

81

Did Jesus ever claim Messiahship?

by AK - Jeff in

in her book, introduction to christianity, mary jo weaver says this:.

"some christians think that jesus was so clearly the messiah that no one could fail to recognize him as such...... christians who see jews as a 'problem' might be surprised to learn that jesus has been a continual puzzle for the jews.

medieval jews tended to picture jesus as an apostate jew, a man who had lost his faith; 19th century jewish scholars had an image of jesus as a great ethical teacher.

glenster

Mark 14:60-62
John 4:25-26
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah#Christianity

55

Words JW's use NOT found in the Bible

by homeschool in

so the word "trinity" is not used in the bible...one of the many jw reasons to not believe in the trinity.

what are some words that jehovah's witnesses use that are also not in the bible?.

glenster

"Macedonian" isn't used by JWs, but it's the 4th cent. word for something like
the basic JWs leaders' view of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonians_%28religious_group%29

"And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved." (Acts 2:21)
"red and white blood cells, platelets, and plasma"
"1914"

3

W.C. Fields

by glenster in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aures3_ubim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mzwq14ud-a.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfiokttzuuo.

glenster

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuRes3_UbIM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MZWq14uD-A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfIoKTTZuUo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzChLmi4vBc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE_2uqCc_K4

- on being visited by someone going door to door:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41SFTn9xHus

29

A Question for Blue Grass

by marmot in

since i noticed you seem to take particular offense at atheism or anything that contradicts a literal interpretation of the bible, could you explain to me your view of noah's flood?.

.

because that's the fable that made me stop believing in the god of the bible..

glenster

It's allegory, but if you have to try for a partly literal version, you could
have domething basic like Adam and Eve as the first two with God's purpose, and
a local flood could be the whole world as a little group of descendants knew it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology

This reminds me of a "GTA San Andreas" message board. One thread is trolling
by a guy who doesn't like it, and then another thread asks him if he really
thinks Bigfoot is in Back o' Beyond.