Posts by Bobcat

59

The latest on blood

by PrincessCynic in

so the local elders where i live recently had a big meeting with the hlc elders and i got a brief summary of what was said.

thought i'd share.. it seems the jws aren't capable of making a decision based on their personal conscience.

they are confused by the whole fraction thing and end up refusing the lot 'just in case' or accepting some and refusing others making them look like idiots.

Bobcat

TD asked:

None of my business, but back when you used to feel this way, how did you live? Did you get your childhood immunizations? Did you ever have a tetanus shot after an injury?

I don't mind. Childhood was non-WT, so it was a non-issue. Same for when I was in the service. Afterwards and prior to 2000(?) I avoided all blood products per "company" (read WT) policy . That is, I say I avoided, but I was actually pretty healthy. So it would probably be more honest to say the issue never arose for me. Likewise for the family. (Even with the wife during childbirth. The scariest parts of childbirth came when they became teenagers. :)

It has been since 2000 (I think) when "company" policy changed and this required actually having to think these things thru.

It's interesting how I don't remember any discussions amongst JWs over what position to take. It was simply a non-issue, maybe comparable to Burger King adding a few extra items on their menu. I think from the platform the leaning was towards a favorable position in connection with fractions. Some of the reasonings seem so non-sensical now. (e.g. comparing fractions to the coconut on a macaroon cookie, or that these fractions can be found elsewhere in nature, so that makes then OK.)

I think the thing that got me started thinking the most was when an older sister had to go to the hospital for (something - I don't quite remember) and her blood count got real low. She wouldn't take any EPO. (I think that is what they were offering her) She objected to it because of the way it was/is manufactured. One of the HLC brothers called me all exasperated because the sister would not budge from her 'conscientious' choice not to take the stuff. The HLC brother was telling me on the phone how there was nothing more he could do for the sister until she becomes more reasonable. And I was sitting there listening and thinking, 'I thought this was a conscience matter and we are supposed to support the friends with whatever decision they have made in their hearts.' From the sound of the HLC brother, you would have thought that TAKING fractions was the new policy. (And judging by the OPs discussion, it may be.)

Another factor that got me thinking more was that, as an elder, the friends would want me to sign their blood card/DPA. This posed a conscience problem that might take some explaining. For example, if I wanted whole blood, none of the friends would support that as my choice. Therefore, if I viewed fractions as the same as whole blood, how could I sign their cards, in effect telling them that I would support their choice to take them? To me, the whole 'conscience' matter concerning fractions raised problems with my conscience.

But to make a long story a little shorter, this got me thinking about what Bible principles might apply - that is, IF whole blood was actually forbidden. Thus, the above verses is what I came up with. And if blood were actually "clearly" forbidden like the "company" says, then I truly believe that the principles contained in the above verses would necessarily rule out fractions also. (One of the best illustrations I ever heard was to ask how far a car thief would have to disassemble a car before it became a conscience matter.)

In time I ran into more expansive thinking on the subject (including threads you have commented on here, maybe especially your comments, but some others too). Also, the word games that the "company" plays with this subject started becoming more apparent. All that changed the entire picture for me.

(Incidentally, the more I think about this, the more I remember having to worry about the makeup of hotdogs and plywood and dogfood - all that mental energy wasted on - what? - Nothing! Nothing that a new WT policy couldn't just wipe away later.)

There was something about Acts 15:29 I was going to bring up one day that I was hoping you and "Terry" might comment on. But I'll save that for another time and thread.

I hope this (rather long-winded) explanation answers your question.

Take Care

32

Were 'alien residents' Second Class Israelites?

by The Searcher in

the accepted teaching amongst most (i'm addressing fellow witnesses here) is that 'alien residents' were merely "beneficiaries" of the law covenant, but were not equal with natural israelites.

the insight book has this to say; "the law covenant between jehovah and the nation of natural israel was made in the third month after their leaving egypt, in 1513 b.c.e.

(ex 19:1) it was a national covenant.

Bobcat

The Searcher:

Thanks for clarifying with your post.

Old generation Dude:

Thanks for your input. I appreciate your perspective.

Take Care

59

The latest on blood

by PrincessCynic in

so the local elders where i live recently had a big meeting with the hlc elders and i got a brief summary of what was said.

thought i'd share.. it seems the jws aren't capable of making a decision based on their personal conscience.

they are confused by the whole fraction thing and end up refusing the lot 'just in case' or accepting some and refusing others making them look like idiots.

Bobcat

This fraction business used to bother me. It doesn't now because I see thru the whole blood nonsense. But if you accept the premise that blood for medicine is prohibited, then, how could a conscientious Christian accept fractions of blood?

I used to try to reason with the cited verses below that the idea of fractions being OK was completely against the spirit of the way Jesus taught. In the verses below, Jesus argues that if you want to avoid the major sin, you have to avoid all the little parts or "fractons" that go into making the major sin. Thus, "looking ... so as to have a passion" is the first step towards adultery. Being "wrathful," if continued, leads to worse. And if the Temple is "holy," then everything in the temple is also. (My logic being that if blood is "holy" or set apart only for sacred use, then, all the parts that make it up would be also.)

It just seems like they are repudiating the spirit of Jesus teaching in order to keep this mirage going.

Matthew 5:21, 22:

YOU heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You must not murder; but whoever commits a murder will be accountable to the court of justice.' 22 However, I say to YOU that everyone who continues wrathful with his brother will be accountable to the court of justice; but whoever addresses his brother with an unspeakable word of contempt will be accountable to the Supreme Court; whereas whoever says, ‘You despicable fool!' will be liable to the fiery Ge·hen′na.

Matthew 5:27, 28:

"YOU heard that it was said, ‘You must not commit adultery.' 28 But I say to YOU that everyone that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart

Matthew 23:16-20

Woe to YOU, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is under obligation.' 17 Fools and blind ones! Which, in fact, is greater, the gold or the temple that has sanctified the gold? 18 Also, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is under obligation.' 19 Blind ones! Which, in fact, is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifies the gift? 20 Therefore he that swears by the altar is swearing by it and by all the things on it;

I also find it incredible that they would tell people what is a conscience matter and what isn't.

12

WT Study for 6-17-12

by Bobcat in

i did not see a thread on the 6-17-12 wt study article, so i thought i'd put this here.. .

this is just a thought on unquoted references that sheds a little "light" on why they are not sourced.. in paragraph 4 of the lesson it says: 'as one reference work states, it is "the sum total of the interior man.

"' it is referring to what the bible means when it speaks of the figurative heart.

Bobcat

Thank you all for your comments. It appears I was relying on faulty memory. In the interest of fairness to the Society here is a list of WT references about the figurative heart that go back some distance: (And while you read, I'll be microwaving my crow.)

*** w84 9/1 p. 7 The "Heart" in God's Word, the Bible ***
From all the foregoing it is plain that the Hebrew and Greek words for "heart" are used by Bible writers to refer to a number of emotional and moral qualities that go to make up the inner person.

*** w65 6/1 p. 325 Check Your Heart ***
This figurative heart is the seat of affection, and hence is the source of motivation. It is that faculty of the person that accounts for the basic reasons why we speak and think and act as we do. So whether our actions are good or bad, pleasing to God or displeasing to him, depends upon the condition of this figurative heart.-Prov. 4:23

*** w57 2/1 p. 81 par. 4 May God Write on Your Heart? ***
What is symbolized by the heart? The Hebrew word translated "heart" is often used figuratively to denote the seat of affection and motives, of conscience and moral conduct.

*** w56 3/1 p. 142 par. 12 Avoid Sicknesses of Mind and Heart ***
A related item to consider here is that which the Bible calls the heart. Heart in this most common Biblical sense is the seat of love and affection, hence of motive, and the center of direction and drive.

*** w55 1/15 p. 44 Is Your Best Good Enough? ***
The heart refers figuratively to feelings or affections, and is called the seat of motive, the source that motivates us to act one way or another.

*** w47 p.124 ***
In distinction from the mind, the "heart" symbolically
stands for the seat of affections as well as of motive.

*** w32 p.43 ***
Heart, as here used, does not mean the organ
which propels the blood through the arteries; but
the word is used symbolically, and denotes that faculty
of the man which induces action. It is the seat
of motive. It is the seat of affection and love.

*** w31 p.5 ***
The "heart" is that part of the creature
wherein resides the motive or inducing cause for
action; hence it is said to be the seat of love and affection.

Also, thanks BluesBrother for the reference you gave. I knew I had seen that somewhere in the past. Now I know I'm getting old. My memories are beginning to merge. I should have checked the Insight before posting. But to tell you the truth, I've grown so distrustful of WT pubs that I often don't even bother with them all that much like I used to.

Also, it appears the Dhorme reference is 1923, not 1963.

Take Care

12

WT Study for 6-17-12

by Bobcat in

i did not see a thread on the 6-17-12 wt study article, so i thought i'd put this here.. .

this is just a thought on unquoted references that sheds a little "light" on why they are not sourced.. in paragraph 4 of the lesson it says: 'as one reference work states, it is "the sum total of the interior man.

"' it is referring to what the bible means when it speaks of the figurative heart.

Bobcat

I did not see a thread on the 6-17-12 Wt Study article, so I thought I'd put this here.

This is just a thought on unquoted references that sheds a little "light" on why they are not sourced.

In paragraph 4 of the lesson it says: 'As one reference work states, it is "the sum total of the interior man."' It is referring to what the Bible means when it speaks of the figurative heart. One of the things that was interesting about this is that this is the definition that was given at the DC. So it was interesting to see this in the WT so soon. This new or expanded WT understanding of the figurative heart makes a lot of sense. So that was nice to see.

If you do not know about the older understanding the WT had, it is something like this: At one time - and not all that long ago - the WT taught that the "heart" always referred to the actual organ. And since the Bible mentions thoughts and other mind-like activities with the heart, it was thought that the heart had brain cells in it. I think this idea lasted till sometime into the 70s or early 80s.

After this, the Society taught that mention of the figurative heart referred to the motives. Now, the definition is greatly expanded to mean "the entire inner man," as the quote above indicates. And when comparing the many verses that refer to the heart, this makes a lot of sense.

But now for that pesky quote ...

I did a search on google books looking for it. It led to this page. As best as I can tell, the quote comes from a book called "The Metaphorical Use of the Names of Parts of the Body in Hebrew and in Akkadian" by E Dhorme, Paris 1963 pp.113, 114, 128 (That title is a mouthful.)

Anyways, on that same page was another quote for the figurative heart. Here it is copied from the page:

It is said to stand for "the central part in general, the inside, and so for the interior man as manifesting himself in all his various activities, in his desires, affections, emotions, passions, purposes, his thoughts, perceptions, imaginations, his wisdom, knowledge, skill, his beliefs and his reasonings, his memory and his consciousness."-Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1882, p. 67.

Basically these two quotes are the same thing that the WT is saying as "new light" about the figurative heart. But look at the dates of these references: 1963 and 1882! The Society could have known this stuff way back.

So much for "food at the proper time."

21

Have faded and now crossed another JW line. What should I expect ?

by av8orntexas in

my story,which i dodn't think i ever really told on here is i faded arounf 07-09. i went from an english congregation to a spanish one.. .

that was met by pretty strong opposition from my mother,who for a while tried to force me ( a grown man mind you ) to read the watchtower lesson with her when she would visit,the daily text over the phone when she called, or other asinine things that is expected of the rank and file.

especially men.. the few friends who do know i have fallen away.

Bobcat

I first soloed in a Piper Colt at 17. My dad used to fly Beech 18s for Allegheny Airlines in the early 50s delivering mail. Later he would teach (was a CFI) in exchange for use of others airplanes. Early 70s he bought the Colt. But he hired someone else to formally give me lessons. After high school I went straight to the service and flew Hueys and 58s (jet rangers). Used my GI bill to get my Commercial Instrument ticket.

Have a commercial/instrument ticket for Rotary Wing and Airplane single engine land. Its been many years since I've flown now. Mostly busy as a JW all those years. But I never lost the love of anything with wings. Even in high school, when everyone else was in love with cars, I could couldn't care less about them. My heart was in the sky.

21

Have faded and now crossed another JW line. What should I expect ?

by av8orntexas in

my story,which i dodn't think i ever really told on here is i faded arounf 07-09. i went from an english congregation to a spanish one.. .

that was met by pretty strong opposition from my mother,who for a while tried to force me ( a grown man mind you ) to read the watchtower lesson with her when she would visit,the daily text over the phone when she called, or other asinine things that is expected of the rank and file.

especially men.. the few friends who do know i have fallen away.

Bobcat

Mine too. (Passion, that is.) It took me to the military. They used to run this add in "Flying" magazine: "High School Grads Take to The Sky" I took them up on it. Also flew in privately.

32

Were 'alien residents' Second Class Israelites?

by The Searcher in

the accepted teaching amongst most (i'm addressing fellow witnesses here) is that 'alien residents' were merely "beneficiaries" of the law covenant, but were not equal with natural israelites.

the insight book has this to say; "the law covenant between jehovah and the nation of natural israel was made in the third month after their leaving egypt, in 1513 b.c.e.

(ex 19:1) it was a national covenant.

Bobcat

Incidentally, a better date for leaving Egypt and the initiation of the Mosaic Law would be 1446 BC.

The Society dates the split in the kingdom at 997 BC. A more accurate dating would be 930 BC or 67 years later. For the most part, all dates prior to this, if you subtract 67 years you will be more accurate. From 930 the 67 years difference with the Society's dating reduces down (but not evenly) to 587 BC for Jerusalem's sacking, which the Society dates at 607 BC. (a 20 year difference.)

(Thus, Adam's "birth" would calculate to 3959 BC. The flood to 2302/3 BC. 1975 AD becomes 2042 as the 6000th year of man's existence. All this is Biblical dating, by the way.)

21

Have faded and now crossed another JW line. What should I expect ?

by av8orntexas in

my story,which i dodn't think i ever really told on here is i faded arounf 07-09. i went from an english congregation to a spanish one.. .

that was met by pretty strong opposition from my mother,who for a while tried to force me ( a grown man mind you ) to read the watchtower lesson with her when she would visit,the daily text over the phone when she called, or other asinine things that is expected of the rank and file.

especially men.. the few friends who do know i have fallen away.

Bobcat

Av8orntexas:

I was curious about your name. Any involvement in aviation?

Take Care

32

Were 'alien residents' Second Class Israelites?

by The Searcher in

the accepted teaching amongst most (i'm addressing fellow witnesses here) is that 'alien residents' were merely "beneficiaries" of the law covenant, but were not equal with natural israelites.

the insight book has this to say; "the law covenant between jehovah and the nation of natural israel was made in the third month after their leaving egypt, in 1513 b.c.e.

(ex 19:1) it was a national covenant.

Bobcat

The Searcher:

I think I understand what you are getting at. But I don't believe parts of your argument would stand up to an objective analysis. I have parts of Exodus 19:1-7 and 24:1-8 copied below. I think if you look at the context, "all the people" refers to the Israelites.

I included Jeremiah 31:31-32 because it comments on the Mosaic covenant, referring to, "the house of Israel and with the house of Judah ... the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers in the day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt ..."

Exodus 19:1-7: (selected parts)

In the third month after the sons of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, ... 2 ... and Israel went camping there in front of the mountain.

3 And Moses went up to the [true] God, and Jehovah began to call to him out of the mountain, saying: "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and to tell the sons of Israel, 4 ... 5 And now if YOU will strictly obey my voice and will indeed keep my covenant, then YOU will certainly become my special property out of all [other] peoples, because the whole earth belongs to me. 6 And YOU yourselves will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you are to say to the sons of Israel." ...

7 So Moses came and called the older men of the people and set before them all these words that Jehovah had commanded him.

Exodus 24:1-8: (selected parts)

24 And to Moses he said: "Go up to Jehovah, you and Aaron, Na′dab and A·bi′hu and seventy of the older men of Israel,...

3 Then Moses came and related to the people all the words of Jehovah and all the judicial decisions, and all the people answered with one voice and said: "All the words that Jehovah has spoken we are willing to do." 4 Accordingly Moses wrote down all the words of Jehovah. Then he got up early in the morning and built at the foot of the mountain an altar and twelve pillars corresponding with the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 After that he sent young men of the sons of Israel and they offered up burnt offerings and sacrificed bulls as sacrifices, as communion sacrifices to Jehovah. 6 Then Moses took half the blood and put it in bowls, and half the blood he sprinkled upon the altar. 7 Finally he took the book of the covenant and read it in the ears of the people. Then they said: "All that Jehovah has spoken we are willing to do and be obedient." 8 So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people and said: "Here is the blood of the covenant that Jehovah has concluded with YOU as respects all these words."

Jeremiah 31:31-32:

31 "Look! There are days coming," is the utterance of Jehovah, "and I will conclude with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant; 32 not one like the covenant that I concluded with their forefathers in the day of my taking hold of their hand to bring them forth out of the land of Egypt, ‘which covenant of mine they themselves broke, although I myself had husbandly ownership of them,' is the utterance of Jehovah."

The confusion and bigotry is with the Society. First, they mis-identify the "other sheep" of John 10:16. These were/are Gentiles who become Jesus' followers. In the parable in John chapter 10, Jesus says about the sheep that they "follow him" (vs.4), are "saved" (vs.9), and "might have life ... in abundance" (vs.11). Whether such ones rule with Christ or not is irrelevent.

The Society likes to characterize the "Great Crowd" as "alien residents." And indeed, Revelation describes them as "out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues." But those who rule as kings with Christ are also described as "out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation" in Revelation 5:9, 10. So if the one group is "alien," then, so is the other.

But that the "great crowd" is counted as part of the twelve tribes mentioned in Revelation 7:4-8 can be seen by what they are doing. "They are rendering him sacred service day and night in his temple." (Rev 7:15) Here, "temple" is the Greek Naos which is distinguished in Revelation 11:1, 2 from "the courtyard that is outside the temple." The Society likes to say that the great crowd is in the 'courtyard of the gentiles.' That conflicts with how Revelation presents the "temple." The great crowd being in the temple would be an abomination if they were considered "alien residents." (Compare Lam 1:10) The "great crowd" is included among "those worshiping in" the temple. (Rev 7:15) They are not among "the nations" who are in "the courtyard that is outside the temple."

The 144,000 are taken "out of" the twelve tribes, just like the great crowd of Rev 7 and the kings of Rev 5 are "out of" the various nations. The 144,000 represent a smaller group taken from a larger group (the twelve tribes), which means the twelve tribes have more in them than just the 144,000.

I think what you are trying to say (and correct me if I am wrong), is that 'alien residents' also are in the New Covenant. What I'm saying is that all Christians are part of the "Israel of God," (from Gal 6:16) and thus, in the New Conenant. And all of them are "alien residents" in connection with the world.