Marvin Shilmer

Joined

• started 433 topics
• posted 4,004 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Marvin Shilmer

• 
  19

  Blood Components Hypocrsy

  by pandorasbox1914 in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  we all know the watchtower's stance on blood:.

  blood components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets-no.

  fractions-your bible trained conscience.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Regarding "plasma"

  As a rendering from whole blood this product is wholly unknown in the natural world. What I mean is that in the natural world there is no instance where this product would be found. Rendering "plasma" from blood is a wholly man made affair. It takes a carefully choreographed chemical and mechanical manipulation of whole blood to get this product. There is nothing in nature that does this.

  When it comes to Watchtower's policy on "plasma" there is another thing that really shows how utterly ridiculous it is. There are two products you can render from "plasma" and those two products are known as cryosupernatant and cryoprecipitate. The supernatant is about 99% of the original "plasma" and the precipitate is the remaining 1% of the original "plasma". Watchtower leaves it to JWs to accept as much of either or both of these two products as they want, and JWs lap this stuff up too!. (See: Over 96% Accept 99%!

  That means a JW can literally accept 100% of "plasma" so long as it is rendered into cryosupernatant and cryoprecipitate prior to transfusion.
  

  There is nothing rational about Watchtower's blood doctrine. Nothing.
• 
  19

  Blood Components Hypocrsy

  by pandorasbox1914 in

  1. watchtower
  2. medical

  we all know the watchtower's stance on blood:.

  blood components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets-no.

  fractions-your bible trained conscience.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  I still can't understand how JWs can accept blood components when JWs don't donate blood. I've never heard a JW even attempt to answer the hypocrisy, selfishness and cynicism involved in that. Not just a bad explanation, I've never seen any sort of explanation whatever. Has anyone ever seen this defended?

  Watchtower policy regarding donation of blood is that a JW can donate blood for purposes of transfusion medicine so long as what is donated is dissected into "acceptable" parts before those parts are transfused, and anything remaining from the original donation is disposed of. (See: JWs can donate blood...)

  Unfortunately Watchtower does not advertise this particular aspect of its doctrinal position. That's understandable given it only adds to the doctrine's already legendary (not to mention hopeless) ridiculousness.
• 
  45

  What Are Your "Senior Moments" Like?

  by compound complex in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  dear friends:.

  i imagine by now we old timers have adjusted to the fact that we are getting older and, one day, will make our exit.

  are your "senior moments" ever a cause for worry to you?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  I can't remember.
• 
  106

  Walking a thin line - Resigning Elder

  by Sanchy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  warning of a long boring post ahead.

  i feel like i need to vent my story out, as i feel quite helpless at the moment.. i'm 31 year old, married, father of toddler with another one on the way, due later this month.

  i've been serving as elder for about 4 years now in a south florida congregation.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  I know exactly how you feel. My best wishes are for you and your family. The best piece of advice I could probably offer is to take things slow.
• 
  126

  FEB 2016 broadcast

  by Grey Goose in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it might be the craziest one yet..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Recently we've had a member share experiences at Bethel who pointed out how position means so much inside Watchtower world. This video thing shows that in living color. When the two men walk onto the set carrying bread loaves the guy with the mic MAKES A POINT of sharing these men who may look like waiters are not actually Bethel waiters (as if anyone CARED!!!) but are, actually, hold on for it... secretaries for GB helpers. Oh my! Thanks the lord!!! I was hoping those two men were not Bethel waiters! I can now breath a sigh of relief for those two! Thanks God they are NOT Bethel WAITERS!

  Now why on earth was pointing out that necessary at all? Because at Bethel position is everything.
• 
  126

  FEB 2016 broadcast

  by Grey Goose in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  it might be the craziest one yet..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  How on earth is anyone supposed to unsee or unhear that boondoggle? I think I've been crippled for life!
• 
  19

  My wife made a very wordly comment the other night

  by Clambake in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  my wife who is currently on maternity leave made a comment about luck she was to leave in canada because we get 52 weeks maternity at basically 40,000 per year.

  she is not originally from canada coming from a country with basically no maternity leave.

  i told her to make sure she doesn't say anything like that at kh.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Say what? You offered a piece of detailed advice to your wife and got silence in return? That is the oddest thing I've ever heard!
• 
  77

  Did you KNOW Ray and Cynthia or the legal copyright holder? Only a few maybe had limited contact.

  by blondie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have known all of them over the last 15 years, talked at length with them, and knew what their wishes were, the copyright holder and spouse spent even more time with them socially and helping them set up their arrangements for when ray and cynthia passed.

  i don't believe that anyone else on this board or others was a confidant.

  there is no need to prove it to anyone but the copyright office which is satisfied with this.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Marvin, it is common for people to use the end result (I.e., saving lives and/or helping them see TTATT) to justify how that result is achieved ( I.e., illegal copying and distributing practices).
  Which ever way you spin it, you ARE using the end to justify the means. Some people will agree with your justifications, others won't, and still others will be ambivalent.
  I personally am ambivalent. I see the need for people to have access to perhaps the single most powerful work of nonfiction on jw organization (what a unique vantage point Ray Franz had!) Yet, at the same time, I am so aware of Ray's own expressed concerns about the need to maintain authorial control over how his books were published and distributed.

  Steve2,

  My comments you respond to have nothing whatsoever to do with Ray's COC publication and you know that perfectly well. My comments you respond to are about my willingness to disregard copyright of an organization who, as we speak, is responsible for premature deaths of innocent children and unsuspecting adults. Apparently you take issue with this or you'd not ply the pejorative "ends justifies the means" as you have in my case. It is not the END (hopefully a lessening of deaths due to Watchtower doctrine) that justifies (compels!) my action it is the the CAUSE (deaths due to Watchtower doctrine) that justifies (compels) my action. There is no similar CAUSE in relation to Ray's COC work.

  My position is not based on legality. My position is based on morality. Nonetheless, assuming statutory and common law is based on community best interests there is both moral and legal (common law) justification for breaching copyright based on an entity acting contrary to a community's best interest by way of the very material at issue under copyright. But, again, in this case I neither act nor count on the legality. I'm compelled morally. Perhaps our moral compasses are different. Mine says if the choice is save a life by breaching a copyright that is leading to those deaths or let someone die and honor that copyright then I'm going to breach a copyright every time it can save a life. Every single time, and no matter who the copyright holder is.

  In the future if you opt to address my position on this point please do so in proper context!

  Do you need more?
• 
  77

  Did you KNOW Ray and Cynthia or the legal copyright holder? Only a few maybe had limited contact.

  by blondie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have known all of them over the last 15 years, talked at length with them, and knew what their wishes were, the copyright holder and spouse spent even more time with them socially and helping them set up their arrangements for when ray and cynthia passed.

  i don't believe that anyone else on this board or others was a confidant.

  there is no need to prove it to anyone but the copyright office which is satisfied with this.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  As a last resort, I'd do the same. No matter who owns the copyright.

  Of course you would cappytan. Any person with a strong moral sense to prevent needless death of innocent children and unsuspecting adults would do the same.
• 
  77

  Did you KNOW Ray and Cynthia or the legal copyright holder? Only a few maybe had limited contact.

  by blondie in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i have known all of them over the last 15 years, talked at length with them, and knew what their wishes were, the copyright holder and spouse spent even more time with them socially and helping them set up their arrangements for when ray and cynthia passed.

  i don't believe that anyone else on this board or others was a confidant.

  there is no need to prove it to anyone but the copyright office which is satisfied with this.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  The end justifies the means.

  No, steve2.

  Saving lives justifies breaching copyright of an organization who uses those very copyrights to conceal its misdeeds, which includes responsibility for premature death of countless children.

  Need me to say more? Should I have even needed to say this much!!!?

  Really?