Posts by Nobleheart

12

QFR feb 15th 2010 - lets be honest , we haven't got a clue...

by dozy in

the questions from readers feb 15th 2011 raises the (no doubt burning in many jws minds) question about why moses became angry with aarons 2 sons after the death of their brothers.. the wtbts undertakes to answer this question but really doesn't seem unsure of themselves (perhaps the channel of communication was suffering some interference that day.

) notice the numerous ways that the wtbts in a short (half page) article hedges its bets.

it reminded me of a schoolboy cooking up a story when he was caught with his hands in the cookie jar , vacillating & hedging as he tries to think up an acceptable answer.. it appears that , the surviving priests had evidently acted , aaron may have wondered , perhaps he felt , aaron mayespecially have reasoned , aaron may have thought , moses seems to have accepted , evidently, jehovah too was satisfied.. .

Nobleheart

I had a friend from bethel who told me that the Questions from Readers part, doesn't answer questions posed by random ppl or JW for that matter. The GB or someone from Writing thinks of questions "people would ask" and then they provide an answer according to their judgment.

5

Contraceptive question

by Nobleheart in

jw
friends

ok, this matter has troubled me for some time now.

jw aren't allowed to use the morning after pill, since it can cause an early abortion.

principle of sanctity of life comes to mind.. what about the regular pill?

Nobleheart

This is directly from the watchtower website:

Life Is Precious

God considers the life of a child to be precious, even in the very earliest stages of development. King David of Israel wrote under inspiration: “You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother. . . . Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing.” (Psalm 139:13, 16) A new life begins at conception, and the Mosaic Law indicates that a person could be called to account for injuring an unborn child. In fact, Exodus 21:22, 23 specifies that if a pregnant woman or her unborn child suffered a fatal accident as a result of a struggle between two men, the matter had to be brought before the appointed judges. They were to weigh the circumstances and the degree of deliberateness, but the penalty could be “soul for soul,” or life for life.

Those principles are relevant to contraception in that some methods of birth control appear to be abortive. These methods of contraception are not in harmony with the divine principle of respect for life. Most contraceptives, though, are not abortive. What about the use of such methods of birth control?

Nowhere does the Bible command Christians to procreate. God told the first human couple and Noah’s family: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.” But this command was not repeated to Christians. (Genesis 1:28; 9:1) Hence, married couples may decide for themselves whether they will raise a family, how many children they will have, and when they will have them. The Scriptures, likewise, do not condemn birth control. From a Biblical point of view, then, whether a husband and wife choose to use some nonabortive method of contraception is really a personal decision.

This is from a past posting of Blondie. Sorry for copying your quote.


* fy chap. 5 pp. 52-53 par. 5 Train Your Child From Infancy * Responsible couples try to plan the size of their "household" so that they can ‘provide for those who are their own.’ Can they practice birth control in order to do this? That too is a personal decision, and if married couples do decide on this course, the choice of contraceptive is also a personal matter . "Each one will carry his own load." (Galatians 6:5) However, birth control that involves any form of abortion goes contrary to Bible principles. Jehovah God is "the source of life." (Psalm 36:9) Therefore, to snuff out a life after it has been conceived would show gross disrespect for Jehovah and is tantamount to murder.—Exodus 21:22, 23; Psalm 139:16; Jeremiah 1:5. * w89 6/15 p. 29 Questions From Readers * Is it compatible with Bible principles for a Christian married couple to use birth control pills?The Scriptures do not clearly say that Christian couples are obliged to have children or, if they do, how many. Each couple should privately and responsibly determine whether to try to regulate the size of their family. If they agree to practice birth control, their choice of contraceptives is also a personal matter. However, they ought to consider—in accord with their understanding of the Bible and their conscience—whether using a certain method would show respect for the sanctity of life. The Bible indicates that a person’s life begins at conception; the Life-Giver sees the life that has been conceived, "even the embryo" that will thereafter develop in the womb. (Psalm 139:16; Exodus 21:22, 23; Jeremiah 1:5) Hence, no effort should be made to end a conceived life. To do so would be abortion. Birth control pills are widely used around the world. How do they prevent childbirth? There are two major types of pills—the combinationpill and the progestin-onlypill (minipill). Research has clarified their primary mechanisms for preventing births. The combination pill contains the hormones estrogen and progestin. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, "the primary mechanism" of the combination pill is "inhibition of ovulation." It seems that when taken consistently, this type of pill almost always prevents the release of an egg from the ovary. When no egg or ovum is released, conception cannot occur in the Fallopian tubes. While this type of pill may also cause changes in "the endometrium [lining of the womb] ( which reduce the likelihood of implantation)," this is considered a secondary mechanism. In order to reduce side effects, combination pills containing lower doses of estrogen have been developed. Apparently, these low-dose combination pills allow more activity in the ovaries. Dr. Gabriel Bialy, chief of the Contraceptive Development Branch of the National Institutes of Health, says: "The preponderance of scientific evidence indicates that even with the low-estrogen pill, ovulation is blocked, not 100 percent, but most likely around 95 percent. But the mere fact that ovulation occurs is not tantamount to saying that fertilization has occurred." If a woman misses taking the combination pill according to its designed schedule, there is an increased possibility that the secondary mechanism will play a role in preventing births. A study of women who missed two of the low-dose pills found that 36 percent had "escape" ovulations. The journal Contraception reports that in such cases the "effects of pills on the endometrium and cervical mucus may continue to provide . . . contraceptive protection." What of the other type of pill—the progestin-only pill (minipill)? DrugEvaluations (1986) reports: "Inhibition of ovulation is not a prominent feature of contraception with progestin-only minipills. These agents cause formation of a thick cervical mucus that is relatively impenetrable to sperm; they may increase tubal transport time and also cause endometrial involution [which would hinder the development of any fertilized ovum]." Some researchers claim that with the progestin-only pill, "normal ovulation occurs in over 40% of users." So this pill frequently allows ovulation. The thickened mucus at the cervix may block passage of sperm and thus not permit conception; if not, the hostile environment that the pill creates in the womb might prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting and developing into a child. It can be appreciated, then, that when used regularly for birth control, both main types of pills seem to prevent conceptions from occurring in most cases and thus are not abortive. However, since the progestin-only pill (minipill) more frequently permits ovulation, t here is a greater possibility that it sometimes prevents a birth by interfering with the implantation in the womb of a conceived life that has begun. Scientific studies indicate that normally (with a womb unaffected by birth control pills) "sixty per cent of fertilized eggs are . . . lost before the first missed period." That this happens, though, is quite different from choosing to use a method of birth control that is more likely to impede implantation of a fertilized ovum. Hence, there are definite moral aspects to consider if a couple discuss with a physician the matter of using birth control pills. Christians should resolve even private and personal questions so as to maintain a "perfectly clear conscience" before our God and Life-Giver.—Acts 23:1; Galatians 6:5.

*** fy chap. 5 pp. 52-53 par. 5 Train Your Child From Infancy *** Responsible couples try to plan the size of their "household" so that they can ‘provide for those who are their own.’ Can they practice birth control in order to do this? That too is a personal decision, and if married couples do decide on this course, the choice of contraceptive is also a personal matter . "Each one will carry his own load." (Galatians 6:5) However, birth control that involves any form of abortion goes contrary to Bible principles. Jehovah God is "the source of life." (Psalm 36:9) Therefore, to snuff out a life after it has been conceived would show gross disrespect for Jehovah and is tantamount to murder.—Exodus 21:22, 23; Psalm 139:16; Jeremiah 1:5.

*** w89 6/15 p. 29 Questions From Readers ***

Is it compatible with Bible principles for a Christian married couple to use birth control pills?The Scriptures do not clearly say that Christian couples are obliged to have children or, if they do, how many. Each couple should privately and responsibly determine whether to try to regulate the size of their family. If they agree to practice birth control, their choice of contraceptives is also a personal matter. However, they ought to consider—in accord with their understanding of the Bible and their conscience—whether using a certain method would show respect for the sanctity of life.

The Bible indicates that a person’s life begins at conception; the Life-Giver sees the life that has been conceived, "even the embryo" that will thereafter develop in the womb. (Psalm 139:16; Exodus 21:22, 23; Jeremiah 1:5) Hence, no effort should be made to end a conceived life. To do so would be abortion.

Birth control pills are widely used around the world. How do they prevent childbirth? There are two major types of pills—the combinationpill and the progestin-onlypill (minipill). Research has clarified their primary mechanisms for preventing births.

The combination pill contains the hormones estrogen and progestin. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, "the primary mechanism" of the combination pill is "inhibition of ovulation." It seems that when taken consistently, this type of pill almost always prevents the release of an egg from the ovary. When no egg or ovum is released, conception cannot occur in the Fallopian tubes. While this type of pill may also cause changes in "the endometrium [lining of the womb] ( which reduce the likelihood of implantation)," this is considered a secondary mechanism.

In order to reduce side effects, combination pills containing lower doses of estrogen have been developed. Apparently, these low-dose combination pills allow more activity in the ovaries. Dr. Gabriel Bialy, chief of the Contraceptive Development Branch of the National Institutes of Health, says: "The preponderance of scientific evidence indicates that even with the low-estrogen pill, ovulation is blocked, not 100 percent, but most likely around 95 percent. But the mere fact that ovulation occurs is not tantamount to saying that fertilization has occurred."

If a woman misses taking the combination pill according to its designed schedule, there is an increased possibility that the secondary mechanism will play a role in preventing births. A study of women who missed two of the low-dose pills found that 36 percent had "escape" ovulations. The journal Contraception reports that in such cases the "effects of pills on the endometrium and cervical mucus may continue to provide . . . contraceptive protection."

What of the other type of pill—the progestin-only pill (minipill)? DrugEvaluations (1986) reports: "Inhibition of ovulation is not a prominent feature of contraception with progestin-only minipills. These agents cause formation of a thick cervical mucus that is relatively impenetrable to sperm; they may increase tubal transport time and also cause endometrial involution [which would hinder the development of any fertilized ovum]."

Some researchers claim that with the progestin-only pill, "normal ovulation occurs in over 40% of users." So this pill frequently allows ovulation. The thickened mucus at the cervix may block passage of sperm and thus not permit conception; if not, the hostile environment that the pill creates in the womb might prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting and developing into a child.

It can be appreciated, then, that when used regularly for birth control, both main types of pills seem to prevent conceptions from occurring in most cases and thus are not abortive. However, since the progestin-only pill (minipill) more frequently permits ovulation, t here is a greater possibility that it sometimes prevents a birth by interfering with the implantation in the womb of a conceived life that has begun. Scientific studies indicate that normally (with a womb unaffected by birth control pills) "sixty per cent of fertilized eggs are . . . lost before the first missed period." That this happens, though, is quite different from choosing to use a method of birth control that is more likely to impede implantation of a fertilized ovum.

Hence, there are definite moral aspects to consider if a couple discuss with a physician the matter of using birth control pills. Christians should resolve even private and personal questions so as to maintain a "perfectly clear conscience" before our God and Life-Giver.—Acts 23:1; Galatians 6:5.

Even if many fertilized eggs don't implant, there is still a chance some do. Many women have gotten pregnant while on the pill. The pill is used by many female JW I've spoken to (pioneers, Bethelites, etc). So it's definitely one of those instances where JW get to pick and choose which things are allowed and which ones aren't.

5

Contraceptive question

by Nobleheart in

jw
friends

ok, this matter has troubled me for some time now.

jw aren't allowed to use the morning after pill, since it can cause an early abortion.

principle of sanctity of life comes to mind.. what about the regular pill?

Nobleheart

Ok, this matter has troubled me for some time now. JW aren't allowed to use the morning after pill, since it can cause an early abortion. Principle of sanctity of life comes to mind.

What about the regular pill? Doctors say it prevents pregnancy in 3 possible ways: a) affecting the cervix barrier to prevent the union of sperm cell and egg, b) suppression of ovulation, and c) changing the womb lining to prevent implantation - thus resulting in a micro-abortion of a week-old baby. In around 98% of time, the a) and b) effects are able to prevent a possible pregnancy. However there is a 1-2% chance that the use of oral contraceptive leads to an early abortion (mum won't be able to notice at this stage).

Some magazines WT/Awake comment that the morning after pill is not for Christians, however the use of the regular pill is up to the person's conscience. Why the inconsistency?

It would be great to hear your feedback.

33

Why You Loyal Witnesses Should Oppose Disfellowshipping

by metatron in

jw
friends

one night you are driving down a dark road.

another car swerves into your lane and hits you head on.

you wake up days later and discover you are paralyzed.

Nobleheart

Disfellowshipping has to exist as long as there are pedophiles, murderers, etc. But shunning is a totally different story. Can't they just accept someone not being a member (like no privileges and stuff), and treating them like someone from world (say a coworker)? I personally have a hard time meeting a family of 4, greeting the wife and kids and totally ignoring the df husband.

4

Question - Following in Jesus' footsteps

by Nobleheart in

i've been reading many many stories in this site and others for the past few days.

some stories i've encountered were xbethelite memories.

what i read and i concur with what i've seen at bethel here (europe) is that "bethel heavies" or the old guard would have better accommodation, whereas newbies have much more modest rooms.

Nobleheart

Thanks Tammy and Stephen. It's so nice to have people provide you with answers to questions you can't ask at the KH. I shared a similar view too, Jesus wouldn't have cared about having the best place, or best anything for that matter. His love and humility really made him great.

12

The Best of V ( WTComments )

by thetrueone in

taking a quick peek back at some of his videos he put up on youtube, .

he really did a fantastic job in exposing how the watchtower organization operates, .

exposing its deceivingly decisive corruption.. which one in your opinion out of the many he put up was his pointedly best and why ?.

Nobleheart

excellent video, thanks for posting. Really good points he has there.

4

Question - Following in Jesus' footsteps

by Nobleheart in

i've been reading many many stories in this site and others for the past few days.

some stories i've encountered were xbethelite memories.

what i read and i concur with what i've seen at bethel here (europe) is that "bethel heavies" or the old guard would have better accommodation, whereas newbies have much more modest rooms.

Nobleheart

Hi everyone.

I've been reading many many stories in this site and others for the past few days. Some stories I've encountered were xBethelite memories. What I read and I concur with what I've seen at Bethel here (Europe) is that "Bethel heavies" or the old guard would have better accommodation, whereas newbies have much more modest rooms. So I don't see how they are able to justify that with Matthew 8:20 (the Son of Man has no place to put his head). Jesus shared everything with his disciples and friends. There was no distinction. I'd appreciate your comments on this issue.

96

Challenges Facing the Watchtower Org

by eric356 in

ive been thinking about the future of the watchtower organization and the challenges it faces in coming decades.

its difficult to address the issue without allowing personal feelings affect the analysis.

many people seem to think that the society will collapse fairly soon, based mostly on the fact that the person dislikes the leadership or cant understand how others can believe the doctrine.

Nobleheart

@ eric: also another point about mixed signals; just in case the end is not here yet. I hear ever so often now the thought of serving God with no date in view, for as long as this system continues, until the new system. Because as it's put, we've committed ourselves to this service and worship forever. Therefore, in the future the WT can simply say, that the end is ever nearer and we should keep going without thinking of set dates." If I remember correctly there was a resolution passed out in a recent DC that stated something along those lines.

96

Challenges Facing the Watchtower Org

by eric356 in

ive been thinking about the future of the watchtower organization and the challenges it faces in coming decades.

its difficult to address the issue without allowing personal feelings affect the analysis.

many people seem to think that the society will collapse fairly soon, based mostly on the fact that the person dislikes the leadership or cant understand how others can believe the doctrine.

Nobleheart

@ moshe : if numbers will decline in the future, and KH would close or merge, then this would be interpreted as being a sure sign of being really close to Armageddon, since the "sifting or judgment will begin first in Jehovah's house".

@eric: I've heard at our last meeting with the CO that technology is something that will be used greatly in the future. Maybe in service too, I have no idea how that would be achieved. (or reported)

97

Are you suspicious of LURKERS?

by VampireDCLXV in

jw
friends

we all know they're here but we don't really know who they are.. they are people who sign up here and then never comment (or rarely ever do).. doesn't that make any of you regulars here at the very least a tiny bit suspicious?.

why would a person sign up to a forum like this and then never say a damn thing?

it seems to me that there is a primary reason why some folks sign up and then never comment on anything: to spy.

Nobleheart

Hi everyone, I just signed up yesterday and was approved today, so this is my first post. I've been reading posts in this board for the past 3 days, which has definitely been quite interesting. Needless to say, there has been so much info to take in. I hope to read much more interesting things in the future. As I am relatively new in the organization, I don't have access to older magazines and literature (our congr. doesn't have a library with publications older than the 90s, as they are not available in my first language (not English), and the Watchtower CD-ROM doesn't contain older articles either). So I always wanted to know what 'flashes of light' looked like in the past. So i will be on the lurking mode for the most part, as I examine how things have evolved throughout the years.