Posts by neverendingjourney

10

playing the part

by aoxo in

jw
friends

anyone ever give a demonstration at the assembly's?

like a life experiance or something.

i did a couple of times, something stupid like how i placed mags at school or something like that.

Good topic, aoxo. I think I was about 17 years old when I gave my first experience at an assembly. It was a distortion of what really happened. I said that I had turned down opportunities for scholarships to go to college because I didn't want to be "corrupted" by worldly philosophies. What really happened is that one of my former teachers really insisted that I go to the local community college and talk to a counselor. The advisor I talked to saw my high school test scores and said that learning a trade wasn't for me. He suggested certain organizations that could help me find scholarships to help me pay for college. The people in the audience were left with the impression that I had courageously passed up on a scholarship to go to college in order to pursue the kingdom interests. The reality was that I was never offered such a scholarship. We rehearsed in front of the District Overseer and he loved it. He didn't try to figure out whether we were being completely honest or not. In fact, like you, I noticed that the encouragement was to "fib" a little to make it more interesting.

Not long after that, a Bethel speaker at an assembly went around the brothers to ask for any who might have had extraordinary experiences. Someone led him to this crazy guy that was an MS in our congregation. The guy gave the Bethel speaker a hell of a tall tale regarding his past. During the Bethel speaker's afternoon talk, he brought up that brother specifically by name and shared his experience with the entire crowd at the assembly. Those of us that knew the guy really well knew that he was full of it. This got me thinking that if this particular outlandish experience was at best an exaggeration, perhaps not all of the other experiences I had read and heard about were true. I could go on and on about "exemplary" brothers or "exemplary" families that were chosen to give their experiences that in reality were far from exemplary, but I don't want to highjack your post.

30

Does China Disprove Bible Prophecy?

by metatron in

jw
friends

china is rapidly emerging as second only to the us.

it's growth rates may allow it to pass the us.

yet, interpretations of daniel and revelation say nothing about this, at least.

neverendingjourney

The beauty of Bible prophecy is that it can be interpreted in such a way to "prove" just about anything. I had a co-worker that dabbled in various Christian denominations, and it seemed like he always had a new, interesting way of interpreting the book of Daniel. A lot of fundamentalists believe that their particular interpretation of the Book of Daniel is foolproof (probably about as foolproof as William Miller's and Charles T. Russell's). When it is clear that world events no longer match up with the Society's interpretation of prophecy "new light" will spring forward to correct that doctrinal point. Isn't Jehovah's organization grand?

The sad thing is that most will just continue to live their day to day lives without much of a disturbance. I was in the conversion process when the "new light" on the generation teaching came out. It was right before I got baptized. I was so excited. The light was getting clearer. I called up an elder and chatted with him about it. I was probably one of the first to find out in the congregation because I read every magazine as soon as they came in the mail. A nosy elder's wife came up to me at the hall one day because I was telling everyone about this new light that we had just received. She waited until I was by myself and began to ask me some questions. She wanted me to explain myself. I remember getting really nervous. She didn't seem pleased. I now understand that she thought I was spreading my own "apostate" ideas about Bible interpretation. It turns out that the interpretation she was questioning sounded like an apostate concept when it was coming from me, but it was right there in her Watchtower for her to read.

About four or five years ago I remember sitting through a Watchtower study that covered various "proofs" that Armageddon was not delayed. The list consisted mostly of Watchtower interpretations of Bible prophecy. How does your interpretation of Bible prophecy prove that the end is near? Incidentally, one of those "proofs" was that the anointed had been sealed in 1935 and there would still be anointed here on Earth when the Great Tribulation started. Therefore, Armageddon had to be right around the corner because soon all of the anointed would die off. Post 1935 anointed were just replacements. We couldn't expect Armageddon to come 100 or 200 years from now because all of the anointed would be dead by then. So much for that!

54

Does eating a rare steak = eating blood?

by neverendingjourney in

jw
friends

i always wondered about this when i was still a jw.

i just assumed that it was improper for a jw to eat any meat that wasn't thoroughly cooked, especially steak.

i though everyone could see that the red juice contained blood, which, if eaten, amounted to a violation of the prohibition against eating blood.

neverendingjourney

LHG - Definitely. The blood doctrine is not the only troublesome doctrine that they're married to and are having a hard time getting rid of. The door to door work is a perfect example. I was a regular pioneer for a year and a half and I managed to convert 0 people to the "truth" in that time. If they were really serious about proselytizing, they'd be putting stuff out on TV and using charitable functions to help reel in new members. Of course, the downside is that the more public exposure that they get, the less they can control what's being said about them. Oops.

still_in74 - Welcome. I only began posting two days ago, so I'm a newcomer myself. I was trying to convey the evolution of my views on the blood ban throughout my time in the org. Right after baptism, I was very green on things and equated red juice with blood. Of course, now I realize that what matters isn't how the meat is cooked, but how it's bled. But this realization led to some tough questions. If blood was still in the steak we were eating, why are we such sticklers about introducing blood into our bodies if we need a blood transfusion to save our life? Certainly Jehovah would know that there was still blood in the beef we ate, so do we really think he'd be okay with such a legalistic rule on blood transfusions. If Jehovah insisted on his "people" to abstain completely from blood he would have surely banned eating all type of meat in the first place. These were the kinds of questions that eventually led me to leave the org. Stick around. Read some of the discussions on here, both old and new. They've helped me put some things in perspective. I'm certain you and I are going through some of the same feelings and that we're asking similar questions. I look forward to hearing more from you.

54

Does eating a rare steak = eating blood?

by neverendingjourney in

jw
friends

i always wondered about this when i was still a jw.

i just assumed that it was improper for a jw to eat any meat that wasn't thoroughly cooked, especially steak.

i though everyone could see that the red juice contained blood, which, if eaten, amounted to a violation of the prohibition against eating blood.

neverendingjourney

I take back some of what I said. I've been doing some research and it appears the blood transfusion ban began shortly after Rutherford's death. I don't think this changes the basic point I was trying to make, though, especially about the Society being married to the doctrine and trying to chip away at it (probably in order to avoid potential lawsuits and in order to make itself more appealing to potential converts).

54

Does eating a rare steak = eating blood?

by neverendingjourney in

jw
friends

i always wondered about this when i was still a jw.

i just assumed that it was improper for a jw to eat any meat that wasn't thoroughly cooked, especially steak.

i though everyone could see that the red juice contained blood, which, if eaten, amounted to a violation of the prohibition against eating blood.

neverendingjourney

The Society makes such a big deal about the scripture in Acts that says "abstain from blood" but that very same passage also says "abstain from things strangled", and apparently this is of no concern at all to the Society.

I haven't studied JW history as well as many people here have, but this is my take on why this might be the case. Please feel free to correct me if my facts are wrong.

The Rutherford Era was about picking up the pieces of the movement Russell had started and molding it into something new, something Rutherford could control. Thus a lot of fringe teachings began to emerge (the ban on holidays, Jesus died on a torture stake, not a cross, etc.). Rutherford sought to put his unique stamp on the religious movement. One of the new teachings introduced was the ban on blood transfusions. In the years and decades after Rutherford died, new leaders emerged. They were more concerned with the growth of the religion. They backpedaled and softened their stance on as many fringe beliefs as possible (vaccinations, organ transplants, etc.). They were in a quandary over many of the fringe teachings that had become too deeply associated with the religion; chief among them was the ban on blood transfusions. On one hand, if you do away with it, an obstacle that prevents many people from becoming members disappears. On the other hand, you don't want to cause a stir with the members you already have. JW membership has been lulled to sleep by JW teachings. They don't think for themselves. If you shake them too hard, many might wake up and begin to reassess their faith. Getting rid of the ban on blood transfusions would create a huge stir among the rank and file. It would be similar to the 1975 debacle. The Society doesn't want to risk that, so they've come up with an alternate solution: they're going to chip away at the blood ban little by little. With progressive changes in the teaching, most JWs won't realize anything has changed. Therefore, they're not interested in looking at new ways to toughen their stand on the blood issue. Concerns about blood in meat or strangled animals are dismissed. They'd dump the teaching if they could. However, they're more interested in softening their stance on blood as much as possible without having to get rid of the doctrine altogether. They don't do away with the blood ban because they are married to the doctrine. If they strip it away, one of the major teachings associated with JWs will be gone. Plus, the change would probably upset enough people to create a noticeable decline in membership.

It's something like Roe v. Wade in the United States. Abortion opponents want to get rid of it, but the Supreme Court would get itself into a bind if they overrule it. The pro-life movement would be invigorated (having a palpable effect on the political landscape), and people would further lose faith in the legitimacy of the court. How do you get around that? Simple. You begin to chip away at abortion rights little by little. That's the strategy that most pro-life groups are now adopting as opposed to seeking an outright reversal of the Roe decision. After a while, abortions become so restricted that fewer and fewer women have access to them. In essence, you are able to restrict abortion access without having all of the negative side effects of an outright reversal of such a monumental case. In my opinion, the society is striving as hard as possible to make the blood ban a non-issue. They're slowly allowing their membership to utilize more procedures than ever before. It's gotten to the point that the teaching on "conscience" decisions is so confusing that virtually no one can make sense of it anymore. Most JWs either choose to accept all "conscience" procedures or to reject all of them. I wouldn't count on the Society seeking new ways to broaden the blood ban.

40

OK, so let's test the science advocates out here.............

by NotaNess in

i'll start it off, then someone else give them a different challenge if you can think of any.. please give definitive examples that by evolution, a species has changed into something else.

give two separate findings by scientists, and it can't include any comments like "so we believe", "so we conclude that", or "the evidence shows that there could have been".....the wts has those copyrighted.. try and give un-doctored photographic proof, where possible, etc.

by the way the hominid skulls and the like will not be accepted, transition has never been proven, i don't think, just that they are different, and scientists "believe", they are pre-homo-sapiens.. i'm not saying you won't have examples, we just want you to walk the talk.

neverendingjourney

NotaNess:

I'm new to this board, and I don't have much of a background in science, so I'll stay out of this one. But, I must ask: Why do you demand that people prove evolution? Do you feel your religious beliefs (I'm assuming you're a religious person) threatened by evolutionary science? I'm something of an Agnostic ever since I left the org., but I don't feel threatened at all by religious persons. Everyone is entitled to their own personal beliefs. I don't go around making demands that they prove the existence of God or any such thing.

It seems to me that your intent is to start an argument. I realize that many people on both sides of the creation/evolution debate love to argue and attempt to "win" this kind of an argument. However, I spent 10 years in the org. trying to prove that other people's beliefs were wrong and that mine were right. After a while I began to feel sick to my stomach to think that I had the nerve to claim that I had somehow figured out the deep mysteries of life when the brightest minds in history had failed. I left dogmatism behind when I left the org, and I'm much better off for it.

54

Does eating a rare steak = eating blood?

by neverendingjourney in

jw
friends

i always wondered about this when i was still a jw.

i just assumed that it was improper for a jw to eat any meat that wasn't thoroughly cooked, especially steak.

i though everyone could see that the red juice contained blood, which, if eaten, amounted to a violation of the prohibition against eating blood.

neverendingjourney

Leolaia:

Thanks for the explanation. I wish that I had discovered that on my own or that a JW had explained that to me back when I was still a active. However, am I correct in understanding that the meat we buy off the supermarket shelf contains blood, even in very small amounts? That's how I understand it, but I'm not very informed on this topic. If so, it seems to go against the Society's strict prohibition on blood transfusions. If we're going to go ahead and eat small quantities of blood in our steak, what the hell, we might as well allow larger quantities of blood to be inserted into our bodies to save our lives. The approach on the blood in meat issue seemed to be a more modern, liberal approach to the blood doctrine, while the blood transfusion issue was and is a very legalistic, Pharisaic, fundamentalist approach. I could never reconcile the two positions in my mind.

12

Public Speaking - the right way

by sinis in

i'm taking a public speaking class and i find it very interesting that they advocate different things than the wts did while i was in and enrolled in the school.

for one, and the biggest of them all, is that you never speak for more than 20 minutes top, as the human brain can't really absorb anymore - information overload!!

so why in the hell do they have day long conventions and one or two hour meetings?

neverendingjourney

One of the things I began to notice after I spent some time in college is that JWs are notoriously bad about citing references in their publications and in their public talks. Any scholarly publication or public speaker worth a damn in the academic world is very careful about providing citations to back up what they say. This is virtually non-existent in the JW world. Therefore, JW speakers are free to make outlandish claims and virtually no one doubts their veracity. In fact, I can't remember the exact quote, but I remember one circuit overseer throwing out supposed statistics about the rate of AIDS infection in Africa that were patently stupid. He said something to the effect of y persons contracts AIDS in Africa every x seconds. I remember doing the math and there was no way his figures were correct. Yet, I seemed to be the only one that questioned anything he said. I remember talk after talk stating that earthquakes and other natural disasters had increased since 1914, but no citations to back it up. The list goes on and on. Anyone that has spent some time in the academic world can see the contrast immediately. It's much easier to create your own reality if you don't have to use facts to back up your assertions.

54

Does eating a rare steak = eating blood?

by neverendingjourney in

jw
friends

i always wondered about this when i was still a jw.

i just assumed that it was improper for a jw to eat any meat that wasn't thoroughly cooked, especially steak.

i though everyone could see that the red juice contained blood, which, if eaten, amounted to a violation of the prohibition against eating blood.

neverendingjourney

I always wondered about this when I was still a JW. I just assumed that it was improper for a JW to eat any meat that wasn't thoroughly cooked, especially steak. I though everyone could see that the red juice contained blood, which, if eaten, amounted to a violation of the prohibition against eating blood. Shortly after I was baptized I was shocked when a brother ordered a "bloody" steak for dinner. The middle of the steak was pink and it oozed out red "juices" from the center. Not long afterward I saw an elder preparing his steaks the same way. When I asked him about it, he got defensive and told me that the society had published an article telling us not to speculate about such matters and that they would let us know which foods were inappropriate for a Christian (such as blood sausage) to consume. I began to do some research, and I never found any explicit prohibition against eating rare steaks, so I let the matter slide, but I never found a satisfactory answer.

As I grew older and began to think for myself, I realized that it didn't really matter how well the steak was cooked. If the meat had blood in it and I managed to cook it until it was burned to a crisp, the blood would still be there. It would just be cooked along with the rest of the steak. I began to see that eating a rare piece of steak shouldn't matter because if organ transplants were okay, then eating even an uncooked steak would be okay as well. You see, using the same blood transfusion equals eating blood logic, if you allow an entire liver, for instance, to enter your body via an organ transplant then what would be the difference if you ate an entire raw, uncooked liver.

Of course, this began to raise a whole host of questions. Should we be so legalistic about the blood issue (to the point that the Society goes through procedure after procedure, fraction after fraction, deciding which are conscience issues, which are entirely okay, and which are prohibited outright) if it is impossible to eat meat without eating blood? If God (assuming that there is a God and that he/she directed the writing of the Bible) intended for there to be such an absolute prohibition on humans allowing blood to enter their systems, why didn't he just outright ban eating meat in the first place? If I cut my tongue or bite my cheek while eating and I end up swallowing some of my own blood, haven't I sinned against Jehovah? Should I be disciplined because of it?

I'd like to hear if any of you ever wondered about this when you were still in the org. and what answers, if any, you received. Thanks

11

Owning Cats discouraged by JWs? Was that ever anything taught in the Truth?

by NotaNess in

jw
friends

i came across a sight a while back where an overseer posted a topic on cats having pagan and worship origins, and giving scriptural reason why "true christians" should avoid owning cats.. this was a site from someone not in america.. any experiences on this at all?

i had a witness say this was obviously posted by the "evil slave", and was not a witness, cause that's never been taught by the fds.. what can you tell me?.

neverendingjourney

It's not real. It was written by someone that wanted to make the point that you can turn just about anything into doctrine using JW logic. It's pretty funny, though.