Physics encompasses atomic interactions, but it isn't chemistry.....
snare&racket
JoinedPosts by snare&racket
-
14
'Evolution' definition can include 'origin of life'
by hooberus inthe popular berkeley evolution site (while responding to the misconception that evolution is just "a theory about the origin of life" does state:.
"evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.
), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory.
-
-
-
16
Gangs brawl in a Birmingham Cinema UK
by punkofnice inhttps://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10409135/birmingham-star-city-fight-evacuated-blue-story-gang/.
i don't normally bother with the gutter press, but this was interesting.. what they didn't show was that the faces of the kids, probably due to their age.. i saw the picture before it was pixelled out.
interesting that the kids with the machettes looked like members of the religion of peace.. just sayin'.. interesting to see what low life scum the film was about.. good grief, can't the jobos be right and armageddon(tm) come?.
-
-
snare&racket
All this assumption from the colour of their skin......
-
33
Besides Everlasting Life What Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Offer To Anyone?
by minimus ini have been thinking... why would anyone want to join the religion or actually stay in the organization.
i understand that people don’t want to lose their loving family and dear friends so some stay in.
but what does anyone really ever get because they are jehovah’s witnesses??.
-
-
snare&racket
Not far off Nigerian email scam...
We are royalty, give money to us now to help us get our kingdoms assets and you will be repaid one thousand fold....... ‘soon’
-
33
Besides Everlasting Life What Do Jehovah’s Witnesses Offer To Anyone?
by minimus ini have been thinking... why would anyone want to join the religion or actually stay in the organization.
i understand that people don’t want to lose their loving family and dear friends so some stay in.
but what does anyone really ever get because they are jehovah’s witnesses??.
-
-
snare&racket
‘Besides everlasting life....’ Thats already quite an offer already but.....
Resurrection of you
Resurrection of loved ones
Return to Youth
Good Health
Good Looks
Land and a big beautiful House
Food
Clothing
Security
A Purpose
It’s not complicated, they simply offer the satisfaction of every human need, fear and want.
They hold it behind a curtain of ‘we promise it’s just through there’ .... just give us your unwavering money, time, loyalty and efforts NOW and you can have everything without a catch in the ‘future’...... real ‘soon’.
What’s that? You have questions? ...”OUT!”
It is a textbook con.
-
52
How Much of the WT Teaching Did You Believe?
by Ding insome people on this forum have said that they never really believed any aspect of wt teaching, that they couldn't wait to get free of it all.. others seems to have been really gung ho, believing it all until something happened that got you questioning "the truth.".
i would say my own high water mark was about 50%, which put me squarely on the fence, trying to decide if i should be in or out.. how about you?.
-
-
snare&racket
I remember telling a friend with an unbelieving dad, that non JW people that were good would survive Armageddon as God has said if there was only one righteous person in S&G he wouldn't destroy it. My friend looked horrified .....,
-
-
-
snare&racket
Interpretation ends with opinion..... that is no way for a deity to make a life and death spiritual contract with it's creation.
Don't waste your life debating the interpretation of scrolls written by a wandering ancient tribe of farmers.
Maybe learn to juggle?
-
9
Food for thought-if it wasn't for the Roman Catholic church would Christianity have faded out into oblivion?
by nowwhat? insince it was the church that put together the bible canon and it was was them that spread the teaching throughout the known world.
thoughts?.
-
-
snare&racket
Go get a great book called .... The Lost Christianities
-
9
JW's growth dwarfed by a sect of Islam!
by The Fall Guy inthe new islamic sect started just after russell kicked off his new religion.
they also used volunteers to help build western europe's largest mosque in london for £15m.
(must have had god's blessing).
-
-
snare&racket
I remember asking my parents why Islam is not in any bible prophecy or JW interpretations. That was approx 1993, aged 13 after 'studying' with a Muslim man in our housing estate.
The WT had a book (mankinds search for god) with info on all other religions and it said Islam was the fastest growing religion, I remember wondering why that wouldn't be significant to end times prophecy in the bible.
Well, Islam was invented after the last books of the bible were written and they are not prophetic. Wachtower are not spirit inspired intepreters, so whilst spending 20 years talking about Catholics, the Russians and Anglo-America, they never mentioned the number one controversial, religious, cultural, political movement of these times.... ISLAM. Because it had not occurred yet! What a score that would have been in 2001 had they hinted at it!
They didn't even see sense enough to change their old light to new and name Islam the king of the North. Half read JW's would have said ...yes ... Syria, the caliphate, the middle east is North of Israel ....kinda .....and it all makes perfect sense....(though it doesn't) .....but wow if I was in those HQ wednesday meetings I could have convinced them lol
-
38
No Need To Preach In Every Country Anymore
by pale.emperor inspeaking to a pimo from my hometown yesterday.
he told me that in the watchtower study (10 nov 2019) regarding “the great tribulation” the elder on the platform said that there’s no need for jws to preach in every country in order to fulfil the prophecy, and therefore the org has already fulfilled that prophecy.
and that there’s nothing else left to wait for now but for “the great tribulation” to come.. gasps of delight came from the audience.. has anyone else heard this?
-
-
snare&racket
Maybe they heard of the Evangelicals travelling to those native islands off the coast of India, only to have deadly spears, bows and arrows welcome them.....the Sentinelese?
Time for 'new light'...
From surprising personal experiences, there are Westerners who haven't heard of JW's, never-mind the hundreds maybe thousands of rural tribes globally.
It was easy in the 80's to throw stats about translation figures alongside pictures of awkward, aged, Westerners in foreign lands preaching, with 'and the whole world will know that you are Jehovah' jn a quote next to it.... Now with the internet, not only does a clued up JW know that they are nowhere near known or preaching in all countries or 'lands' .... there are not many JW's in turbans preaching to the vast number of humanity in the middle east and are banned in Russia and China.
Also, a quick google search shows gods name deffo aint even Jehovah....lol.... so so so embarrassing
-
6
Your thoughts?
by Iamallcool inhttps://www.watoday.com.au/world/jehovahs-witnesses-recover-best-from-surgery-despite-refusing-blood-20120703-21fi1.html .
-
-
snare&racket
This is not a new paper and has been discussed widely. It is interesting though.
Your body needs oxygen delivered to every cell every second for tissue to survive, only blood can do that, via haemoglobin, no alternative or synthetic replacement can do that or exists in Medical use or ever has. (Haemopure is made from Cow blood and some JW's have accepted it, it causes strokes, heart attacks and death so is banned from use for anyone other than JW's in some countries....again....it is made from blood, cow blood, it's not a synthetic invention of any kind).
Sometimes if you lose blood through injury or trauma or illness, you can buy time by stopping the bleeding as best as possible and introducing fluid (saline) into the vessels to keep the blood that is remaining flowing and circulating. At the end of the day however, if you lose enough blood that it acutely endangers your life via not being able to transport enough oxygen to your vital organs, only one fluid can potentially reverse the inevitable and keep you alive.........blood. If you add just more fluid it dilutes the haemoglobin and your body cant run off water in its veins and arteries, it needs blood. Water or anything else, cant carry oxygen to your organs and the organs, importantly your heart and brain can only survive several minutes without that oxygen delivery.
Blood comes with risks, it can carry disease, it can cause electrolyte imbalances and it can cause immune reactions amongst other issues, However when someone is dying and probability dictates that they will likely die without blood, it is obviously given and millions of lives are saved this way.
So how can this paper be interpreted? Firstly understand it, If someone needs blood to live and doesn't receive it ....they will die, Patients that live whilst declining transfusion either didn't need it or skated death by dropping their haemoglobin levels to the extreme and the body replaced them just in time, likely time bought by medical intervention. It's not up for debate remember.... if you lose your blood ....you die.... its essential. So these patients did not cross that line of needing blood to live, as they ...lived. It's not a clesr line by the way, everyones tolerance for blood loss is different. Wanting to keep people alive we stay on the side of caution, giving transfusions earlier than later as some people deteriorate far quicker than others.
The research (there are many similar studies and papers)
You will notice the Watchtower, repeatedly quote bloodless surgery papers, but they are all around the same time, all about cardiac surgery specifically and often taken wildly out of context or not explained at all sufficiently, going on to justify saying 'no to blood' as if it is a clinical mistake to accept a transfusion in all cases. The reality is, cardiac surgeons got into the habit of giving blood to their patients pre-operatively, knowing that they were going to cause bleeding in their procedures. This seemed logical and a prophylactic approach to an operation of major vessels with potential heavy bleeding. Why not top up the patient BEFORE the procedure or routinely after it, whether clinically needed or not? Of course, amongst these stats are patients who suffered major haemorrhage and required transfusions related to the procedure, but the research papers are about procedures where unnecessary blood transfusions were given to patients as a precautionary measure without evidence backing this approach.
Research showed that cardiac surgery with blood transfusions, when compared to patients who didn't receive blood was of poorer statistical outcome. Modern medicine, with hindsight says ....well obviously....blood has risks.
But it is important to ask what the data is actually saying. Giving blood when not needed can cause harm that is statistically evident when compared to those that declined it in cardiac surgery procedures.
To give context, blood is not unique or special in having risks....pick any medical intervention...they ALL do. Recent research shows that giving oxygen to someone having a heart attack if they dont need oxygen can cause a worse outcome for the patient. Yet go to a hospital and see hoe many people are kept alive with oxygen. Context is EVERYTHING.
Also, we must think deeper and critically appraise the data...were more refined, better, techniques used and developed for the people declining blood due to the lack of a transfusion option. Were the surgeons being more careful?Were the people who received blood transfusion during the procedure sicker, needing the blood and with expected worse outcomes from being sicker?
For me..... the research tells me that blood has risks previously not appreciated so acutely. It's as dangerous as giving oxygen or fluids or medication inappropriately when used without care. Despite this, when your life depends on a transfusion there is no alternative to blood. Also, there is no evidence in this paper that speaks on anything other than this specific procedure and the results specific to it, it has no say on the outcome of all the other procedures done with pre-operative blood.
I have prescribed blood and saved many lives, the heroes being those that selflessly donate it. Of course there are consequences to using it, within modern medicine the evidence is not surprising. The human body detects and reacts to anything foreign or unexpected. To take blood from human A, treat it, store it, put it in human B... of course there are going to be negative consequences in it's use. There is no medical intervention without consequence, be it oxygen, water, food, pills, joint replacements. I'd argue even the simple act of looking over a patient as a doctor has risks and consequences, raising the blood pressure, or an an examination that disrupts a fragile piece of anatomy or 'simple' X-ray imaging that inadvertently damages a tiny piece of DNA presenting as cancer ten years later.....they all have consequences. Blood transfusions are to be appreciated in this context.
As for the WT stance:
I have one question now, after 25 years a JW and many years in the medical field....
Jesus, when confronted about clearly breaking god's law, punishable by death, in order to eat, asked who wouldn't break the law, to save a lamb down a well on the sabbath? He then went on to say how the word of the law and it's principle should never be misunderstood, making clear the value of life over law.
How on earth can the governing body celebrate the faith of children and adults who have died in order to remain lawful as per the words of the law? Jesus literally advocated breaking the law to save life.........an animals life! The lamb wasn't even dying just risked dying, they could have saved it the very next day, but Jesus asked, who wouldn't break the law of god to save it THAT very day, just IN CASE the lamb died.
Now with all this context....
Your thoughts?.......
Be your own person, answerable for your own decisions and beliefs, founded in your own research and readings.