i've been out for so many years and don't know the current "light" on this subject.
i tried searching the forum but didn't find recent links on this topic.
anyone out there know what the current "understanding" from the fine "slave" is ?
when I first went in.
Jeff, I do not understand: "when you first went in what/where? JWs?
Secondly, I suspect that it was/is very interesting to have a Dad who is an internist/oncologist. Correct? What does he think then and now about JWs and their stand on medical issues?
Thank you for your reply,
Sam
real friends dont push you into being something you are not?
real friends accept you for who you are without hesitation.
it is impossible to be a real friend with conditional love.. so when you broke free from the watchtowers conditional love..did your dissapointment of bing rejected and ignord by friends and family damage the love and friendship you once had for individuals?.
Great timing, Blondie!
Regards,
Sam
there is an ancient artist?s saying that states, "if you do not know your materials, all you do is express your inability to express yourself.
" an artist must know his materials and the ideal of a true artist is to know those materials so well that using them is as natural as breathing.
in the two companion articles, "rightly value your gift of life" and "be guided by the living god," the june 15th, 2004 issue of the watchtower proves beyond any doubt that its writers have attained that ideal with their chosen medium.
Is the significance of blood so elevated that human life becomes insignificant in comparison?
Yes! That is the official position of Jehovah?s Witnesses, concisely stated.
"?the treatments that the WT suggested for massive blood loss (the hormones to stimulate blood production, etc. etc.) were not anything that the doctors at this very large big city cutting edge university hospital were familiar with?"
I doubt that these doctors were not familiar with the treatments that WT recommends. The WTS, after all, is not supposed to be in the medical business, and they hardly are innovative scientists.
Rather, it is likely that they were quite well aware that the WTS recommended treatments were inadequate to the point of being ridicules in the given circumstances. WT has no answer for rapid trauma related bleeding, but they lead their followers to believe that their methods work in all situations; that the medical use of blood is never necessary.
if my recollection is correct, some here have stated that the wts no longer uses the ?do not eat blood?
argument.
i too thought that they had learned better, but not so.
Exactly, Tom.
Thank you,
Sam
if my recollection is correct, some here have stated that the wts no longer uses the ?do not eat blood?
argument.
i too thought that they had learned better, but not so.
Hi Woody, and welcome to the board.
Below are two links to discussions on the blood issue:
if my recollection is correct, some here have stated that the wts no longer uses the ?do not eat blood?
argument.
i too thought that they had learned better, but not so.
Bull,
Good to see that you have an open mind. Do have another read. I think you will see how ridiculous the "do not eat" argument is with respect to the WTS blood ban.
Thank you pistoff and peaceful for you excellent comments.
Regards,
Sam
if my recollection is correct, some here have stated that the wts no longer uses the ?do not eat blood?
argument.
i too thought that they had learned better, but not so.
Had a devil of a time getting this post to accept all of the text and formats. Sorry.
if my recollection is correct, some here have stated that the wts no longer uses the ?do not eat blood?
argument.
i too thought that they had learned better, but not so.
If my recollection is correct, some here have stated that the WTS no longer uses the ?do not eat blood? argument. I too thought that they had learned better, but not so. Here is an excerpt from their current statement:
CHRISTIANS are forbidden by God's law to ingest blood by any means. (Acts 15:28, 29) Obedience to that law has sometimes led to misunderstandings that have resulted in Christians being denied available and effective alternative medical management of their health problems.
This statement attempts to stretch the meaning of "ingest" beyond the scripture?s original "eat," and beyond the Standard English usage by adding to the meaning with the words "by any means."
Note the actual meaning of "ingest:"
in·gest (ĭn-jĕst')
tr.v., -gest·ed, -gest·ing, -gests.
1. To take into the body by the mouth for digestion or absorption. See synonyms at eat .
2. To take in and absorb as food: "Marine ciliates ? can be observed ? ingesting other single-celled creatures and harvesting their chloroplasts" (Carol Kaesuk Yoon).
Even in this 21 century, the WTS cannot separate in its thinking the physiological act of eating from the very different procedure called "Transplantation" or "Transfusion."
Their "thinking" does not begin to raise the level of scholarship.
Here is the link to their current web site statement May 31, 2004:
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/1995/3/22/article_01.htm
jeff schwehm, an ex-jw who sometimes posts here, was on ewtn, the catholic network, last night.
he posted an announcement on this forum several days ago.
i thought he came across as a very nice man, sincere and full of conviction.
Good job, Jeff. I appreciated your knowledgeable answers to questions about the JW religion.
I may have to take a look at the Catholic religion. I know that their schools turn out some sharp folks.
