Posts by Saename

9

The Bloody Boogeyman

by Saename in

have you ever heard a witness argue that blood transfusions are often unhealthy anyway?

it's something that they mention nearly every time to make you think... "oh, after all, it's not like jehovah's witnesses are fanatics because they deny certain medical treatments purely for the sake of the bible.

they do have medical reasons as well!".

Saename

Yeah, I called one Witness out on dishonesty when she brought up this argument. She immediately blocked me, though. It was on another website.

9

The Bloody Boogeyman

by Saename in

have you ever heard a witness argue that blood transfusions are often unhealthy anyway?

it's something that they mention nearly every time to make you think... "oh, after all, it's not like jehovah's witnesses are fanatics because they deny certain medical treatments purely for the sake of the bible.

they do have medical reasons as well!".

Saename

Have you ever heard a Witness argue that blood transfusions are often unhealthy anyway? I have... very often. It's something that they mention nearly every time to make you think... "Oh, after all, it's not like Jehovah's Witnesses are fanatics because they deny certain medical treatments purely for the sake of the Bible. They do have medical reasons as well!"

But here's the thing: this whole argument is a red herring, a bloody boogeyman that's supposed to make you feel that there's something wrong with blood transfusions from the medical point of view. Regardless of whether that's the case, it's an irrelevant argument. Here's why.

Let's assume that a Jehovah's Witness named Mark is experiencing hypovolemic shock caused by blood loss due to blunt trauma. Hypovolemic shock takes place if you lose around 20% of your blood. This is a medical emergency that necessarily leads to death if untreated. When in this condition, it's possible to be treated by using only a volume expander, but here's the thing: the more blood you lose, the less effective it is, and moreover, this argument that blood transfusions are sometimes harmful no longer applies in this scenario because blood transfusions are actually the best way to prevent death from hypovolemic shock. They are by no means harmful in this case.

So... would Mark be allowed to have a blood transfusion then? Or let's go even further; let's assume that his doctors tried normal saline (a volume expander), but the technique failed, and his only alternative is a blood transfusion. Is he allowed to accept it then, even if it's the only way to save his life?

No. And we all know that that's the answer. And why is it? Is it because "blood transfusions are sometimes harmful"? Obviously not. The reason is that the Bible says you cannot drink blood, and that therefore, you shouldn't accept blood transfusions either, even if death is absolutely certain without it.

That's why I never argue about whether blood transfusions are safe or not. Statistically, they're more likely to be safe than not, but it's not like Jehovah's Witnesses care. Even if it is absolutely certain that you'll die without it, they still will not allow you to accept it. That's why it's a red herring. The actual reason—the only important reason—is that this is how they interpret the Bible.

On a further note, have you noticed that this is often something that cults do? Whenever they create a rule that is non-conventional and obviously harmful, such as shunning or refusing blood transfusions, they always make up excuses to make it look as if they were doing these things for other reasons than the Bible. Just so that they don't look like fanatics. I mentioned shunning specifically. Have you ever encountered this argument? Jehovah's Witnesses shun disfellowshipped and disassociated people to ensure the congregation remains clean and is not compromised by sins of former Witnesses. One time, a Witness compared shunning to what people do when their friend steals from them. If someone steals something from you, you're going to shun them (after calling the police.) That's because they did something greatly immoral, "sinful." That's a red herring as well. Every single former Witness I have ever talked to left the religion because they no longer believed it was true, not because they wanted to lead a sinful life. I can conceive of examples where someone may leave the religion to lead a sinful life, but that's not what happens in the vast majority of cases. It's just another boogeyman that's supposed to scare active Witnesses. "Oh, don't associate with him! He's disfellowshipped, so he's leading a sinful life!"

19

Hitachi TV Review

by The Fall Guy in

jw
friends

i have never reviewed a product before, but having purchased a hitachi 50 inch full hd lcd tv at the weekend, i thought i'd share my experience.

hitachi tv's are now made in turkey, and not by the hitachi company.

the uk's sole supplier is the argos company.

Saename

I heard the Hitachi wand does wonders, but it's not for the religious folks if you know what I mean...

9

Update

by Issa in

it has been a couple of months since the last time i updated.

i got a good news to share.

i have been accepted to university!

Saename

What program?

16

Why I constantly write letters to the Watchtower Society

by UnshackleTheChains in

hi all.. for many years now, i have been writing letters to bethel in new york and london.

i have also written to the charity commission, the bbc and more to highlight the harmful teachings and policies of the watchtower society.

i realise that some may view this as futile and understand why they might feel this way,; especially considering the pharisaical stonewall-like attitude displayed by the leadership of watchtower.. some reasons i do so is because i feel that constructive criticism is essential in helping to bring about change.

Saename

I do think that writing letters to the Watchtower itself is futile. Those who are still faithful members will simply ignore your constructive criticism because that's what Jehovah's Witnesses do. They won't accept criticism unless it comes from the Governing Body. They have been conditioned to hold apostates in the highest contempt. Now, the Governing Body itself will ignore it as well because they don't give a shit. I used to accept, at the very least, the possibility that the Governing Body members genuinely believe what they preach. However, I've come to think now that they don't actually believe this stuff.

The lies, the manipulative tactics, the reluctance to change obviously harmful policies (such as forcing child sexual abuse victims to face their abusers): these are the things done by those who want to exploit naive, unsuspecting and innocent people. The Governing Body will not change their policies as a result of constructive criticism because they don't want to change. If they did care about change, they would've removed their policy to force abused kids to face their abusers long time ago of their own accord. It's the type of policy that everyone knows is extremely harmful. However, they changed that only because of the ARC. What that means is that to make change, you have to force them to change. Outside pressure is the only thing that works on them, unfortunately.

5

"Jehovah's Witnesses look in other direction" (Oct 12th 2017)

by Nicholaus Kopernicus in

appaling report pertaing to the $4000 daily penalty against the watchtower.

they're squirming.... .

https://m.sandiegoreader.com/news/2017/oct/12/ticker-jehovahs-witnesses-look-another-direction/?templates=mobile.

Saename

Sooo... does anyone know how much the Watchtower owes by now?

23

Is it better to have a false hope than have no hope?

by sinboi in

just got the news.

a very close classmate of mine met an accident and died last nite.... just 4 months after i da'd from the borg.. if i am still in, i wouldn't be so sad.

he has the hope of resurrection.. but now that i am out, i realise that resurrection in paradise is all bullshit.. so what's next?

Saename

I don't think false hope is inherently bad. It's when you build your whole life around this false hope that it becomes futile and dangerous. Jehovah's Witnesses do just that. They hope for the better future. They hope God will create a paradise earth for them. The reason why it's a problem is that they build their lives around that. Sometimes, they reject a job promotion because they think it would interfere with their spiritual goals. Sometimes, they deny themselves the opportunity of getting a higher education for the same reason. Sometimes, they don't accept blood transfusions, again for the same reason. That is quite obviously a problem.

But let's say that there is a "worldly" person who learns that she is terminally ill and most likely will be dead within a year. Let's say that she also enjoys reading books—like really enjoys. In addition, let's imagine that there will be a new book coming out in one and a half years, and she really wants to read this book. Her hope that she will live long enough to read it is in some sense "false." According to multiple doctors, she won't survive for more than a year. Is it necessarily bad if she hopes to see the book one day—if this is one of the things that keeps her going?

There is of course another thought experiment that applies just as well. Is having no hope worse if that very same person, who happens to be an atheist, lives in a region where she has the legal right to die at any time (because of her terminal illness)? Is it worse if she also believes she won't go to hell or won't be punished in any other way for choosing to die? Is it worse if she also believes that she doesn't have to fear death because she doesn't believe in the afterlife anyway? Some would say that in such a case, choosing to die because having no hope is better. Why suffer a year of some terminal illness if you can die already without experiencing the suffering?

So is false hope bad? Sometimes it is, sometimes it may not be. Sometimes it is for some people, sometimes it may not be for some people.

76

The Trinity Easily Explained in 29 Words

by maccauk in

a man can be a father .

a man can be a son.

a man can be a husband.

Saename

That's how modalists defended modalism... which the proto-orthodox church called a heresy...

5

ARC—What's Next?

by Saename in

so as we know, the wt changed very little with regards to how they respond to child sexual abuse allegations.

they basically ignored the australian royal commission's report on how they could improve their policies.

the watchtower is left alone in australia to do as they please, or will there be some kind of follow-up?

Saename

So as we know, the WT changed very little with regards to how they respond to child sexual abuse allegations. They basically ignored the Australian Royal Commission's report on how they could improve their policies. So what's next? Is that it now? The Watchtower is left alone in Australia to do as they please, or will there be some kind of follow-up? I really don't know how these things work in Australia, so I'd appreciate some information.

28

I'm starting a Counter-Watchtower magazine

by Counter-Watchtower in

im starting a counter-watchtower magazine for everyone to give to their jw friends and family or just to give to those that come to your door.

the first issue is about the history of pyramidology of c.t.

russel and under the start of rutherford along with some other things like pointing out the fact that no one knows the translators of the nwt or writers of the watchtower, "the two very things relied on to teach you".. its writen in such a way to be very repectful but to make the reader think, and hopefully the light come on.

Saename

Counter-Watchtower - The cover will have Russel and Rutherford looking grand with the title "A Journey in Time Through" old watchtower cover.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "old watchtower cover." If you can, would you clarify that for me? I'm concerned because I'm wondering if you're planning to use an old Watchtower cover for your own publication. Is it the case that you are planning to do it? If it is, please remember that you may or may not (I'm not an expert in law, and most certainly I don't know what the law is in your area) be accused of copyright infringement.

But then again, I'm likely misunderstanding your words.

Also, it would be worth thinking about a different title than Counter-Watchtower. If you care about changing the minds of Jehovah's Witnesses, making that your title won't be effective. Most will immediately think that it's an apostate publication, and that it's in their best interest to ignore it.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to seeing it.