Posts by Mary

317

Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine

by jgnat in

djeggnog invited me to start a new thread about the blood doctrine, which i am happy to do here.

his objection was my statement,.

"i've seen the blood video, a deceiving mix of scripture, fearmongering and pseudoscience, with plenty of lab coats in view.

Mary

One more comparison I'd like to address: fornication is also mentioned as something that both the Israelites and early Christians had to 'abstain from'. In it's basis meaning, fornication means having sexual relations to someone you're not legally married to. Does that mean that the Israelites and early Christians were not supposed to have sexual relations under any circumstances? Of course not. God commanded Adam and Eve to 'reproduce' and to 'fill the earth' so obviously, having sex under ALL circumstances was not condemned or forbidden, but it was supposed to take place within a marriage. It did not mean that you could not have sexual relations under any circumstances.

The command to 'abstain from blood' is no different. It was eating the blood of a dead animal that was forbidden, but you cannot claim that this means you cannot use blood under any circumstances or in any other way. That would be like saying that committing fornication includes having sex even within a marriage.

317

Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine

by jgnat in

djeggnog invited me to start a new thread about the blood doctrine, which i am happy to do here.

his objection was my statement,.

"i've seen the blood video, a deceiving mix of scripture, fearmongering and pseudoscience, with plenty of lab coats in view.

Mary

eggnog said: Now just whose blood is it? To whom does the blood in an animal and the blood in human beings belong? Is it God's blood or man's? I don't know what you'll say in response to this, but if you believe it to be God's blood, then what right do we have to use blood in a way not approved by God?

And here is your flawed reasoning: You are asserting that blood transfusions are some that is "not approved by God" which several posters have shown that this simply is not true. You and rant and rave all you want and do posts that go on forever but the bottom line is: blood transfusions are not "food" and even the WTS has acknowledged that they are a 'tissue transplant' (I can site the reference when I get home tonight). The law against not eating blood was just that---a law against eating the blood of a dead animal, end of story.

Complying with god's laws regarding idolatry, fornication and blood are the three things that were required of any foreigner who was resident in Israel.

eggnog said: Not true. God's laws applied only to the Israelites, and so did not apply to those dwelling in their midst as alien residents. Any non-Israelite family that settled in the land given to the Israelites, who lived among the Israelites, but who weren't worshippers of Jehovah weren't proselytes, and so they only needed to live by the basic laws of the land.

Well since the WTS has always equated the Israelites of old with 'spiritual Israel' (aka, the 144,000), and the 'Great Crowd' with the 'alien residents', than this is just one more reason why their braindead ban on blood transfusions (even if their doctrine was correct) should not apply to anyone other than those professing to be of the heavenly class.

317

Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine

by jgnat in

djeggnog invited me to start a new thread about the blood doctrine, which i am happy to do here.

his objection was my statement,.

"i've seen the blood video, a deceiving mix of scripture, fearmongering and pseudoscience, with plenty of lab coats in view.

Mary

eggnog said: you disparage the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses as being 'a bunch of senile old men,' or words to this effect, and after calling me "an asshole" in violation of the rules here on JWN I might add

Obviously you don't know my posting history egghead .....I'd say you got off pretty easy given the insane rambling of your last post.......

317

Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine

by jgnat in

djeggnog invited me to start a new thread about the blood doctrine, which i am happy to do here.

his objection was my statement,.

"i've seen the blood video, a deceiving mix of scripture, fearmongering and pseudoscience, with plenty of lab coats in view.

Mary

Sooooo, djegghead, I guess your best (long-winded-assed) answer to my question is: You haven't a clue as to why Jehovah allowed the Israelites to sell unbled meat to foreigners, but can't admit that and still save face, right?

317

Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine

by jgnat in

djeggnog invited me to start a new thread about the blood doctrine, which i am happy to do here.

his objection was my statement,.

"i've seen the blood video, a deceiving mix of scripture, fearmongering and pseudoscience, with plenty of lab coats in view.

Mary

Like I said palmtree; egghead would do what most Witnesses do under such circumstances: He'd try minimizing the change, develop selective amnesia and try putting it all down to "Noo Lite"......

eggnog said: Can you imagine transfusing animal blood into a human being?

jgnat replied: I don't have to imagine it; it is being done. It's called Hemopure, and is one of the approved manufactured blood substitutes by the Society. Animal blood transfusion was also tried in the early history of transfusion.

I'd love to see eggnog's response to that one jgnat. Good one.

317

Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine

by jgnat in

djeggnog invited me to start a new thread about the blood doctrine, which i am happy to do here.

his objection was my statement,.

"i've seen the blood video, a deceiving mix of scripture, fearmongering and pseudoscience, with plenty of lab coats in view.

Mary

eggnog, I noticed you still have not answered my question, so I will repeat it yet again: Why did Jehovah allow the Israelites to sell unbled meat to non-Israelites if the command not to eat meat with blood in it was binding on all mankind as the WTS says?

djeggnog said: If God put animal blood to be sprinkled on His altar to representatively atone for the sins of human beings, where's the logic in God's allowing human blood to be sprinkled on His altar (or, in this case, transfused onto someone else's altar when animal blood and human blood belong to God!) when this animal blood foreshadowed the perfect human sacrifice of the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world?

OMG.....Outlaw, I believe egghead's above comment tops his previous post for sheer stupidity. The blood that was used to 'sprinkle on the altar', was to make atonement for the life that had just been taken. In the case of modern blood transfusions, there is no "human blood to be sprinked on His altar" because no one was slaughtered and there is no life to atone for. It saves lives, it does not take life away. Transfusing human blood from the donor to recipient is completely different than injesting the blood from an animal that has been slaughtered and no one on earth (other than the moronic Governing Body members) would equate one with the other.

If your doctor told you to abstain from eating liver and onions for health reasons, and then you found out 6 months later that you needed a liver transplant, would you be stupid enough to refuse the transplant because 'my doctor told me to abstain from liver'. No reasonable person would equate one with the other but given the moronic logic you've displayed here, I'm guessing that you actually would refuse the transplant.

And just to reiterate the Borg's favourite comparison: 'If your doctor told you to abstain from alcohol would you transfuse it into your veins?' The answer: If it was going to somehow save my life, you bet your ass I'd transfuse it.

I wonder what djeggnog is going to do if and when his fearless leaders in Crooklyn eventually make blood transfusions a 'conscience matter'. He'll probably do what most Dubs do: he'll develop selective amnesia and try to claim that it's always been a conscience matter.

What an idiot.......

9

New Urban Legends?

by Pika_Chu in

has anyone heard this one before?

it's similar to the one where the angels are supposedly protecting this woman out in fs.

a brother/sister knock on someone's door, the guy answers it, his familiy are huddled into a corner, crying.

Mary

Pika, I haven't heard of that particular one, but I know over the years I heard several 'examples' of people who were about to commit suicide and who were stopped by that knock on the door. Interesting how many people are on the verge of committing suicide Saturday mornings between 10:00am and noon hour.

317

Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine

by jgnat in

djeggnog invited me to start a new thread about the blood doctrine, which i am happy to do here.

his objection was my statement,.

"i've seen the blood video, a deceiving mix of scripture, fearmongering and pseudoscience, with plenty of lab coats in view.

Mary

eggnog, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question: Why did Jehovah allow the Isrealites to sell unbled meat to foreigners if the command to not eat meat with blood in it was 'binding on all mankind' as the Organization claims?

djeggnog said: I don't get why @Mary concluded that "a blood transfusion would have saved the life of my brother had he not been so concerned about being shunned by his 'cult' for doing so,"

For someone who claims to be an "expert" on the subject, you either don't get it (or simply pretend to don't get it). As I already explained: he needed blood transfusions to keep all of his counts up and especially for the oxygen levels that the lungs require. I spoke to an Oncologist at another hospital after my b-i-l died and he explained that when you go for a long period of time without enough oxygen circulating, the cells in your lungs will eventually begin to die off and you'll end up having a heart attack. In a nutshell, he was suffocating to death. Why? Because this cult refuses to allow blood transfusions. It's that simple.

38

Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 03-20-11 WT Study (SINGLENESS)

by blondie in

jw
friends

single christians make the most of their singleness?.

of christians, therefore, have come to.

singleness in youth.

Mary

What utter garbage. The entire article was written because there are 10 sisters for every brother and, as Blondie already mentioned, the only way to have any sort of social status (which is huge on any JW's list of priorities) is either to be married or become a pioneer. There's absolutely no encouragement to perhaps better yourself with getting a better education (which can boost your self-esteem), there's no mention whatsoever of creating any sort of 'bucket list' of things you've maybe wanted to do all your life but couldn't. And since you're not supposed to get married to anyone outside the religion, or go get laid one night or even masturbate, there must be a whole lot of divorced or widowed JW's who must be pretty damn depressed with not being able to do anything they could do before. They've got no mate to confide in, no one to have sex with, no one to go to the movies with, etc. etc.

The jest of the entire article is simply: If you're unfortunate enough to be single, your only option in life is to pioneer until you either find another mate (chances: slim to none), or till you die.

317

Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine

by jgnat in

djeggnog invited me to start a new thread about the blood doctrine, which i am happy to do here.

his objection was my statement,.

"i've seen the blood video, a deceiving mix of scripture, fearmongering and pseudoscience, with plenty of lab coats in view.

Mary

egghead said: Neither @TD nor @Mary became experts. I am an expert, and I didn't become such by simply observing the ordeal to which one of my loved ones was forced to experience.

You're an expert at nothing egghead, except in your own very vivid imagination. Care to explain why the Israelites were allowed to sell unbled meat to foreigners with Jehovah's blessing if the command not to eat blood was 'binding on all mankind' as JWs assert? And see if you can do it without reciting the entire Insight Volume, okay? Just tell me in a couple of sentences why this was allowed.