this statement was answered in a form of a question to a question posed by one of his followers;.
jesus realized that composite slave had to qualify for such an appointment when he came into power of his kingdom promised by jehovah god.
[and they came to life and ruled as kings with the christ+ for 1,000 years].
Only the Scriptures are infallible but understanding the message from God then was like a dim light coming from the darkness,the darkness the bible students came from the false Churches into Jehovah's wonderful bright light of truth.....
I wouldn't exactly call Rutherford's raging Anti-Semitism "bright light," but even were that not the case, your answer is still wide of the point.
It's nonsensical to claim Russell as a spiritual forebearer if you disagree with virtually everything he taught.
this statement was answered in a form of a question to a question posed by one of his followers;.
jesus realized that composite slave had to qualify for such an appointment when he came into power of his kingdom promised by jehovah god.
[and they came to life and ruled as kings with the christ+ for 1,000 years].
I'm struggling to think of anything that Russell taught that Jehovah's Witnesses still accept today.
alex - thank you for your offer to have a conversation about evolution.. i accept the scientific evidence that all life - including humans - evolved from a common ancestor through unguided evolution over millions of years.
this isn't even a controversial position in the scientific community.. the evidence rests on the data from many interconnected fields including paleontology, comparative anatomy, geology and especially genetics.
it is no exaggeration to say that the evidence for your own non-human ancestry is contained in every cell in your body.. it is my experience that jws are generally quite ignorant (not in a pejorative sense) of the scientific case.
From left to right:
1. A. afarensis
2. A. africanus
3. H. habilis
4. H. erectus
5. H. heidelbergensis
6. H. neanderthalensis
7. H. sapiens sapiens
8. H. sapiens
The point (As you can probably guess) was not to claim a dirct evolutionary relationship from one to the next, but to illustrate the fact that when we talk about human evolution, we're not talking about apes.
alex - thank you for your offer to have a conversation about evolution.. i accept the scientific evidence that all life - including humans - evolved from a common ancestor through unguided evolution over millions of years.
this isn't even a controversial position in the scientific community.. the evidence rests on the data from many interconnected fields including paleontology, comparative anatomy, geology and especially genetics.
it is no exaggeration to say that the evidence for your own non-human ancestry is contained in every cell in your body.. it is my experience that jws are generally quite ignorant (not in a pejorative sense) of the scientific case.
I think the game of "Spot the human" is an interesting thought experiment for those on the creation side of the isle.
Most would not consider a creature with the cranial capacity of a chimpanzee to be human, but what happens when we get to half or three quarter the size of modern man?
How would one draw a line? Where would it be drawn?
i admit to not being very well informed about the watchtower's view on blood transfusions.
i have a couple of questions that i hope someone here is able to answer.. i understand that the watchtower now considers it to be okay to receive blood fractions.. my first question is: are all fractions considered to be permissible?
and if not, specifically which fractions are not permissible?.
David who was thirsty exclaimed he longed for water after being pinned down,his warriors heard that and fought to get water to David,but what did he do when they offered it to him?
He refused to drink it. ---Poured it out on the ground.
Why did he do this?
Because his (David's) men could easily have been killed. The water, in this instance, represented their lives, which they risked in obtaining it. David even compares it to drinking their blood.
I'm not sure how this supports the JW position on blood. If anything, it seems to directly contradict it.
David refused to place a higher value on water than human life
Aren't you doing exactly the opposite of what David did when you place a higher value on blood, which (in the context of death) represents life than you place on life itself?
i admit to not being very well informed about the watchtower's view on blood transfusions.
i have a couple of questions that i hope someone here is able to answer.. i understand that the watchtower now considers it to be okay to receive blood fractions.. my first question is: are all fractions considered to be permissible?
and if not, specifically which fractions are not permissible?.
Alex,
Whats the difference to taking a blood transfusion and just drinking blood
The former is a tissue transplant
The latter is an act of cannibalism
That is a substantial distinction, physically, ethically and morally.
...believers are told to abstain from blood
In the context of a dispute over whether Christians should be circumcised and follow the Law, the ruling was to:
"Keep abstaining....from blood"
I'm quoting your own NWT, which in my opinion, is quite accurate here.
The clear connotation is the continuation of an existing prohibition that was already being kept.
And this is not simply my opinion. As I've already pointed out, your own church publications acknowledge that this was in fact, a reference to the eating of blood as forbidden in the Law.
i admit to not being very well informed about the watchtower's view on blood transfusions.
i have a couple of questions that i hope someone here is able to answer.. i understand that the watchtower now considers it to be okay to receive blood fractions.. my first question is: are all fractions considered to be permissible?
and if not, specifically which fractions are not permissible?.
Alex,
Leaving the procured blood continuously attached to the patient through the collection tubing makes the procedure acceptable to most Jehovah's Witness patients.
Yes and this was the point I was driving at. You quoted an article from a time (1981) when this procedure was not acceptable to JW's in any form, as it was considered a storage of blood outside the body. (To be honest it is difficult to see that much blood (~Two units) collected in storage bags and not think it's being stored.)
As I said, JW HLC's recommend both uses of autologous blood today, (hemodilution and cell salvage) and in some cases have actually donated the equipment for the latter.
Rather that quote articles back and forth about a friendly discussion?
Do you believe that transfusion falls under the umbrella of biblical prohibitions against eating blood?
If so, why? I honestly don't see how the argument can be made without establishing an equivalency of some sort.....
i admit to not being very well informed about the watchtower's view on blood transfusions.
i have a couple of questions that i hope someone here is able to answer.. i understand that the watchtower now considers it to be okay to receive blood fractions.. my first question is: are all fractions considered to be permissible?
and if not, specifically which fractions are not permissible?.
Sigh...
I can assure you, Alex, that both procedures involve a temporary storage of blood.
As a simple thought experiment, why don't you describe hemodilution in your own words. You don't have to use medical terms if you don't want to. Simple layman's terms would be more than adequete
i admit to not being very well informed about the watchtower's view on blood transfusions.
i have a couple of questions that i hope someone here is able to answer.. i understand that the watchtower now considers it to be okay to receive blood fractions.. my first question is: are all fractions considered to be permissible?
and if not, specifically which fractions are not permissible?.
Alex,
Show the evidence,you just made a blank statement
What specifically are you having trouble believing?
You quoted word for word out the JW publication How Can Blood Save Your Life? which in turn quoted word for word from a 1981 article appearing in The Journal of the American Medical Association (November 27, 1981, Volume 246, No. 21, pages 2471, 2472.)
That information has been outdated for decades now. The March 1st 1989 issue of your own church publication, The Watchtower discussed both these procedures, (Intraoperative collection and hemodilution) stating that they were "matters of conscience."
--And that was 30+ years ago.
That JW's will accept treatment with CATS cell savers is common knowledge in the medical community today.
That JW's have in some cases actually donated these machines is also common knowledge. Here's an example from the UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1464475.stm
--And that was 18 years ago
Surely you don't think your church is donating expensive medical equipment for a procedure they find "objectionable?"
i admit to not being very well informed about the watchtower's view on blood transfusions.
i have a couple of questions that i hope someone here is able to answer.. i understand that the watchtower now considers it to be okay to receive blood fractions.. my first question is: are all fractions considered to be permissible?
and if not, specifically which fractions are not permissible?.
Techniques for intraoperative collection or hemodilution that involve blood storage are objectionable to them.
No they are not.
Changes were made to these procedures years ago which rendered them acceptable to the majority of JW's (In both cases a small amount of blood is allowed to recirculate, so that the flow is not completely interrupted.)
JW HLC's aggressively recommend cell saving technology today, even going so far as to donate money towards the purchase of equipment in some cases.
Alex if you don't know what material has and has not become out of date, then you should quit trying to speak for all of JW's. It's irresponsible when you don't know what you are talking about.
How about answering the questions that have been presented to you in your own words?
