Posts by Island Man

49

Let's talk about Blood again....

by stuckinarut2 in

i know we have all talked about this topic before, but for some new ones on the forum, or to refresh ourselves, i wanted to start this thread.. the society likes to go on about the sacredness of blood, and how it should not be transfused etc.. they liken it to a symbol of life itself.

something that should be respected and therefore not transfused.. but, what is more important: real life, or a symbol of life?.

an illustration came to mind.. if we give a bunch of flowers to a loved one as a symbol of our love for them, are those flowers more important than the love itself?

Island Man

My argument against the blood ban is simple

1. BLOOD WAS CREATED TO FLOW IN THE VEINS. In fact, this is the very reason why blood is considered sacred and equated with life - because of its life-sustaining function as a medium for feeding and oxygenating all body tissue.

2. GOD IMPLICITLY APPROVES OF PEOPLE USING THEIR OWN NATIVE BLOOD IN THEIR VEINS. If he didn't he would require all his worshippers to slit their throats and bleed themselves to death in order to abstain from blood. But he doesn't require them to do this, even though he requires them to abstain from eating blood.

3. GOD DOES NOT APPROVE OF PEOPLE EATING THEIR OWN BLOOD. The scripture condemns eating "any sort of blood". This establishes that the source of the blood is irrelevant. It matters not whether the blood is your own or coming from a donor.

4. LOGICALLY, THEN, THE ISSUE HAS TO BE ABOUT THE USE TO WHICH THE BLOOD IS BEING PUT. Flowing in the veins is ok. Eating it as food is bad. Therefore blood transfusions are legit because they involve putting blood in the veins to do what it was created to do.

Ask a JW what's the difference between using your own native blood in your veins and getting it from a donor in a transfusion. They'll resort to the source argument. You then point out that source is irrelevant because scripture condemns eating any sort of blood and JWs aren't even permitted to transfuse their own blood back to themselves. Then maybe they'll give the reasoning that once it leaves the body it cannot be put back in. You simply respond by asking them why the organization allows the use of heart-lung machine and dialysis which involves the blood leaving the body and reentering. They'll say that it's different because the blood never stops flowing so the equipment functions as a continuation of the circulatory system. Then you ask them well will it be ok if you got transfused with a system that keeps the blood flowing from one person to another without stopping. Then they'll say that they're not here to argue and they'll leave. lol.

49

Let's talk about Blood again....

by stuckinarut2 in

i know we have all talked about this topic before, but for some new ones on the forum, or to refresh ourselves, i wanted to start this thread.. the society likes to go on about the sacredness of blood, and how it should not be transfused etc.. they liken it to a symbol of life itself.

something that should be respected and therefore not transfused.. but, what is more important: real life, or a symbol of life?.

an illustration came to mind.. if we give a bunch of flowers to a loved one as a symbol of our love for them, are those flowers more important than the love itself?

Island Man

Good illustration. Another illustration I've seen is that of a country on the brink of defeat and destruction by the enemy, and the only hope of saving the country rests in the hands of one lone soldier who has only one option - use the national flag to create a molotov cocktail to destroy the enemy's weapon before it activates. Should the soldier value the sanctity of his country's national flag above the country itself? Should he let his country suffer destruction because its national flag is too sacred to be destroyed in process of defeating the enemy?

36

What is the watchtower going to do when

by pepperheart in

what is the watchtower going to do when the money runs out ??

?.

Island Man

They are running out of money. That's why they're scrambling with all the cost cutting measures recently. But I don't think they will ever really run out of money - not literally. What will happen is that they'll be forced to keep cutting costs until their expenses drop below their income.

This might mean that the organization as we know it today, will eventually cease to exist. It might wind up being just a skeleton of what it is today. Maybe just an office with a writing dept and an IT department and a few volunteers. All literature will be online. JWs worldwide will be encouraged to get touch devices to download and view Watchtower material. Elders will be made responsible to make printouts for publishers who cannot get access to a touch device. They may even institue mandatory tithing.

46

Do You Think Jehovah's Witnesses Are Typically Ignorant People?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i think most witnesses are simple minded.many are ignorant.

there are a lot of basically "good people "in the religion but i believe many are kind of dumb, including many elders.

do you agree with my thoughts??

Island Man

It's hard to say to what extent that is true. The organization definitely encourages JWs to practice willful ignorance by labeling scientific information pertaining to evolution as being "satanic propaganda". So there is definitely the tendency for JWs to be ignorant concerning most of the facts about evolution. Then the "spiritual routine" that JWs are encouraged to keep up, greatly limits their free time to pursue self-education through personal research into non-religious matters outside Watchtower literature. Higher education is discouraged. So there's indeed a confluence of factors encouraging JWs to be ignorant.

But we must keep in mind that a significant percentage of JWs are not born-ins but adult converts. Before becoming JWs, many of these adult converts may have already been exposed to the information that born-in JWs have never seen. So I would say that the institutionalized ignorance plaguing JWs would be more pronounced among born-ins.

I would say that there is definitely a higher incidence of ignorance among JWs than among non-JWs. But I don't know how typical it is.

29

Relaxed rules toward oral sex?

by Socrateswannabe in

these people won't state anything definitively, but here's an excerpt from the study article entitled "making christian marriage a success", in the august, 2016 watchtower.

it does make me wonder.. although the bible does not provide specific rules about the kinds and limits of love play that might be associated with natural, sexual intimacy, it mentions displays of affection.

(song of solomon 1:2; 2:6) christian marriage partners should treat each other with tenderness.

Island Man

Although the Bible does not provide specific rules about the kinds and limits of love play that might be associated with natural, sexual intimacy, it mentions displays of affection. (Song of Solomon 1:2; 2:6) Christian marriage partners should treat each other with tenderness. (bold mine)

Actually, I think this might be a thinly veiled reference to, and condemnation of, sadomasochism - practices involving the inflicting of pain and humiliation for the purpose of sexual gratification. Maybe this is a growing problem among dubs and that's why they're writing about the need to "treat each other with tenderness".

61

Set the record straight!

by Colinconfused in

i would like to state publicly, on this forum, i no longer hold the views i had a year ago.. with much thought, research, study and logical examination i have come to a better understanding of my beliefs and where i stand on all these issues.. i'm very happy to announce i have returned to healthful teaching of the holy scriptures and i firmly believe that the governing body of jehovah's witnesses is the faithful slave.. sorry if i have contibuted to any kind of stumbling and know that if i can turn things around then there's hope for all who come to there sence.. phill4:6,7.

Island Man

I don't believe the OP is genuine. And I don't believe we should judge him. Do you judge the teller that hands over the money to the robber at gunpoint? Do you judge the man that pays the ransom money to secure the release of his loved ones from kidnappers? That's all I'm going to say about it.

21

Making Every Thought Captive To Christ(Washing the Brain Of Good Reasoning)

by Brokeback Watchtower in

not a very good idea to say the least.

when i read paul's words the more i see how delusional the guy was.

he was a genuine religious fanatic who contradicts jesus words on the sermon on the mount.. 2 corinthians 10:5 5we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of god, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to christ.. delusional and in need of some serious psychological help.

Island Man

I was surprised to learn how much of this one guy's writings made it into the NT.

Keep in mind too that a large portion of NT books ascribed to Paul are actually forgeries made in his name by others. There is widespread consensus on this among scholars who have examined the texts. Forgeries of religious text were widespread back then. Quite a sizable chunk of the NT consists of forgeries. 2 Peter is a notable one as is Jude. There are striking similarities between these two books that point to one plagiarising the other.

31

Humourous reasons to go back

by usualusername1 in

jw
friends

in my stand up comedy routine tonight i want to list humourous reasons why i shd go back to jws.. how about nobody throws parties like jws.. how about jws being at the cutting edge of fashion.. how about it being easier for men to get a date.. any ideas?.

paul.

Island Man

If you take up psychology and wish to see psychological phenomena like cognitive dissonance, doubling down, rationalizing wrongs, group-think, etc then JWs are a gold mine of case studies for psychology majors.

Maybe you can say something like: "Anyone here studying psychology? Show by raise of hand. Go to the nearest kingdom hall! Your psychology professor will love you!"

"Anybody here studying literature and having trouble understanding George Orwell's 1984? Go to the nearest kingdom hall! Your literature professor will start asking you for answers!"

Peter Boghossian once said at one of his talks words to the effect that he found Jehovah's Witnesses to a particularly hard nut to crack VIA the street epistemology method. You can find the clip on youtube then you can work it into your routine like this:

"Peter Boghossian once said that Jehovah's Witnesses are particularly invulnerable to being reached with the socratic method of street epistemology. Folks, these are special people! What makes them so special? How is that they everyone else can be reached but they can't? What powerful methods of indoctrination are they being subjected to? [Then you play a short video clip of Steven Lett saying something ridiculous with his face contorting all over the place]"

29

Watchtower Annulled My Baptism

by RICHT in

contrary to popular belief you can have your baptism annulled as i did by my local elders after my judicial hearing.. the watchtower of 1964 page 126 first paragraph clearly states that anyone that was committing a gross sin before, during and after their baptism is void.

in order to get right with the lord you would need to be re-baptised.

err no thanks, i'm not a believer!!!!.

Island Man

What if you never made a prayer of dedication to Jehovah? I bet they would have to annul your baptism for that. Here's what might work:

Go to the elders in tears saying you believe you've made a grave mistake. Tell them you fear you did not make a scriptural dedication in prayer to God. You were doing some personal study recently and came across some information in Watchtower literature about the steps involved in becoming a Christian and you read a description of what dedication means and it suddenly hit that that is not what you did. You thought you were dedicated because you didn't fully understand what it meant to be dedicated and so you thought you were dedicated based on your prayer relationship with Jehovah - you didn't realize that one had to make a special specific prayer promising to serve God unreservedly.

Act like you're devastated by the fact that all this time you weren't really fully right with Jehovah and ask the brothers to allow you the opportunity to be truly baptized the proper way after you make an actual dedication like you were supposed to.

Then you let others in the congregation know of your mistake. You start the rumor that all this time you were never really a dedicated JW like you thought you were and you'll be correcting that at the next assembly/convention. Get everyone accustomed to viewing you as a non-JW. Then when the day for your real baptism comes along, get cold feet. Have second thoughts about getting baptized and chicken out.

29

What would happen to a JW who respectfully refused to fill out a no blood DPA?

by Island Man in

i know you'll be involuntarily disassociated if you unrepentantly accepted a blood transfusion; and i know you'll be disfellowshipped for apostasy if you openly disagreed with watchtower teaching.

what if you have done none of the above but simply respectfully refused to fill out the dpa without giving any reason for your refusal - so they can't accuse you of openly disagreeing with the no-blood doctrine and df you for apostasy.

they don't know why you're refusing and you're not giving them the reason - and you're being very respectful.. what can they do?.

Island Man

As a secondary issue, I'm wondering about the legality of the document being emblazoned with a No Blood graphic on the front while providing a check box on the inside to accept all blood fractions. Doesn't the No Blood graphic on the front of the document indicate that the publisher of it - Watchtower - is somewhat influencing the signee to choose a particular option?

More importantly, doesn't the fact that the publisher of the document is a religious authority that threatens shunning to any member that accepts blood, not also indicate that the signees are faced with a form of duress and are not really making the indicated choices completely free of duress?

What would happen if an awake JW were to be secretly recording a signing session where the box that says: "I accept all is ticked" and the witness to his signing is an elder and he notices it and starts trying to tell the JW to change it and starts threatening judicial action if he doesn't? What if it goes to a judicial committee and all of this is recorded and shared with the justice or legal system? What impact would that have on the way the legal system views the validity of the JW DPA card as being a document that is truly signed without any form of duress?