steve2: is there some way this can be presented so that it is crystal clear what was actually in the demonstrations and what was added?
i guess some will think it should be obvious - but this is where misunderstandings arise because we end up wrongly attributing something to jw organization that was never said.. circuit assembly theme: maintain love for jehovah!.
note to speaker: warmly encourage young ones to prove their friendship with jehovah by observing his commandments and defending his standards.
The bible does condemn homosexual acts. The cult is predicated on following the bible.
To be fair their official stance is more reasonable than many Evangelical churches. This is the best you can hope for when you organise your beliefs around an Iron Age book.
It looks as if it could be authentic.
It seems strange though that he is linking to a JW forum. I thought they were not approved. Also he links to another website that speculates that he has been removed from the GB. I suppose when you are GB nobody is going to tell you what you can't do.
awake!
1 2017 says on its back page.
the saharan silver ant (cataglyphis bombycina) is one of the most heat-tolerant land animals known.
Why do you think "designers" are necessary? Who designed the "designers"?
...would you choose to ban the jw religion?.
if you wouldn't ban them what, if any, changes would you force upon them?.
No I wouldn't ban them.
I would want to look at whether elders and MSs could be forced to hold enhanced DBS certificates. Even though they can argue they don't specifically work with u18s they do work with elderly and vulnerable adults.
I would also want to remove their charitable status on the basis that their child welfare policies and procedures are not fit for purpose.
i'm hoping to start a series of posts refuting common, fallacious jw reasoning that they repeat to support their teachings or defend their organization.
in this first installment i will be tackling the common fallacious analogy used by them to equate eating blood with receiving a transfusion.
feel free to share your own refutations on each thread.. "if a doctor tells you to abstain from alcohol you wouldn't go injecting it into your veins, would you?".
The JW parent organization has, over the years offered four separate and distinct rationales for determining what does and what does not constitute a, "misuse of blood"
I would be interested in knowing more about those if you have time.
i'm hoping to start a series of posts refuting common, fallacious jw reasoning that they repeat to support their teachings or defend their organization.
in this first installment i will be tackling the common fallacious analogy used by them to equate eating blood with receiving a transfusion.
feel free to share your own refutations on each thread.. "if a doctor tells you to abstain from alcohol you wouldn't go injecting it into your veins, would you?".
Ignorant JW's are
It's the official doctrine.
i'm hoping to start a series of posts refuting common, fallacious jw reasoning that they repeat to support their teachings or defend their organization.
in this first installment i will be tackling the common fallacious analogy used by them to equate eating blood with receiving a transfusion.
feel free to share your own refutations on each thread.. "if a doctor tells you to abstain from alcohol you wouldn't go injecting it into your veins, would you?".
TD - That's true of course. However there is a principle behind their interpretation of the words "abstain from blood".
They are convinced that blood is sacred and can only be used - under the Law - for its sacrificial value.
They see blood as intrinsically sacred and taboo.
i'm hoping to start a series of posts refuting common, fallacious jw reasoning that they repeat to support their teachings or defend their organization.
in this first installment i will be tackling the common fallacious analogy used by them to equate eating blood with receiving a transfusion.
feel free to share your own refutations on each thread.. "if a doctor tells you to abstain from alcohol you wouldn't go injecting it into your veins, would you?".
Here is why I think that doesn't work.
It doesn't really help to distinguish between eating and transfusing.
Acts 15 doesn't say don't eat blood, it says abstain from blood.
To a JW a human liver isn't sacred - blood is.
i'm hoping to start a series of posts refuting common, fallacious jw reasoning that they repeat to support their teachings or defend their organization.
in this first installment i will be tackling the common fallacious analogy used by them to equate eating blood with receiving a transfusion.
feel free to share your own refutations on each thread.. "if a doctor tells you to abstain from alcohol you wouldn't go injecting it into your veins, would you?".
I agree very much with Steve. If we are genuinely interested in making a JW stop and think we must look for arguments that we could not have easily dismissed when we were active.
For example JWs are very aware of Jesus' words about washing hands but they will never agree that this overturns the prohibition on blood. They would assume that the Jerusalem Council were aware of this incident but they still wrote "abstain from blood".
Similarly, trying to distinguish between eating blood and transfusing blood won't work. To a JW abstain means exactly that. They are convinced blood is intrinsically sacred. We have to meet them at that point and work from there.
awake!
1 2017 says on its back page.
the saharan silver ant (cataglyphis bombycina) is one of the most heat-tolerant land animals known.
Good example sir82
Reaching these speeds involves the cheetah's skeleton, muscles, the specific proteins in the muscle fibres, energy systems and circulatory system. It also requires specific camouflage, claws, jaws teeth, digestive enzymes, eyesight and hearing and whole suite of instincts hard-wired into its brain as well as finely-tuned hormonal response.
I wonder what exactly it was like before the naked lady ate the apple.
