Posts by shadow

103

Question for Defd

by gringojj in

jw
friends

.

defd we were talking earlier and i didnt want to hijack the other post.

we were talking about how i believe it is unfair for god to murder his children even though it is his fault that they dont follow his wishes not because they dont want to but because he did not make his wishes clear.. you said that his wishes are clear, but the devil distorts them.. you promised me you would provide me with some examples.

shadow

Old Soul, Hi! How are you? I'm still lurking here from time to time. Don't want to interrupt your discussion with defd, but as I recall, our previous discussion kind of trailed off without a conclusion. Maybe there is no conclusion. I confess that I'm not really familiar with defd, so don't know what the deal is with this thread, but if you want to resurrect any of our past discussions, let me know. best wishes, shadow

28

Urgent scan request! Imperial Bible Dictionary!

by ithinkisee in

my wife was appalled by the misquote in the reasoning book under cross - where the society quotes the imperial bible dictionary.. more information regarding this misquote is located here:.

http://www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/7831/cross.html.

she is not convinced though - because she does not have an actual scan of the actual page to look at.. (yes, i have already tried contacting the author of that website - to no avail.).

shadow

Yes, agreed that the original meaning is of little importance, which makes this an extremely questionable line of reasoning. However, it does not prove deception with respect to the citation under discussion.

28

Urgent scan request! Imperial Bible Dictionary!

by ithinkisee in

my wife was appalled by the misquote in the reasoning book under cross - where the society quotes the imperial bible dictionary.. more information regarding this misquote is located here:.

http://www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/7831/cross.html.

she is not convinced though - because she does not have an actual scan of the actual page to look at.. (yes, i have already tried contacting the author of that website - to no avail.).

shadow

The position taken by WT where the Imp Dict is cited, is that the original meaning was upright stake or pole. Imp Bible Dict does agree with that. Does it support the overall WT position? No, but it does support the specific point for which it is used.

28

Urgent scan request! Imperial Bible Dictionary!

by ithinkisee in

my wife was appalled by the misquote in the reasoning book under cross - where the society quotes the imperial bible dictionary.. more information regarding this misquote is located here:.

http://www.geocities.com/athens/parthenon/7831/cross.html.

she is not convinced though - because she does not have an actual scan of the actual page to look at.. (yes, i have already tried contacting the author of that website - to no avail.).

shadow

The section referred to in the Reasoning book is shown below:

*** rs p. 89 par. 1 Cross ***

The Greek word rendered “cross” in many modern Bible versions (“torture stake” in NW) is stau·ros´. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros´], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376.

It seems to me that the point being made is that stauros originally meant a stake or upright pole. The Imperial Bible Dictionary does agree with that. IMHO the reasoning here is faulty but I do not see much of a problem with the way the citation is used.

43

Why do active witnesses frequent the site?

by jimakazi in

jw
friends

i'm somewhat currious why active witnesses appear to frequent the site, and if the information on this site causes any to "fade away" or "dis-associate"?.

personally if i have known 18 years ago what i know now i would have been a lot more active in trying to convince all i cared about to leave, instead of fading away [gone with a bang so to speak].

it's funny how when you are in it you can't see it for what it is.

shadow

I don't think there's a one size fits all answer, just like there are a variety of reasons that exJW's come here. I have been here for about 4 years and still a JW. Whenever I post, there is generally a certain amount of venom mixed in with some reasonable people. IMHO the board seemed more interesting when Maximus and some others posted. I guess now it's just a habit. I have talked to a few people through private messages but my masochistic streak isn't wide enough to make me want to post here very much.

41

Blood taking...is it a disfellowshipping offence or up to conscience.

by Gill in

jw
friends

can you tell me whether the taking of blood is a conscience matter or a disfellowshipping matter?.

i ask this because i have just come away from a heated discussion with my parents and they insist that taking blood or blood products has always been a matter of conscience and no one has ever been disfellowshipped for taking blood.

they say that a question was raised at the service meeting over the new blood card/documents whether taking blood fractions was breaking gods law and the presiding overseer j.h said that taking blood has always been a conscience matter and never was anyone disfellowshipped for it.. is this true?

shadow

deleted for poor formatting

22

Are blood fractions safer than primary blood components?

by IT Support in

i'm thinking through my new position on blood transfusions, and would appreciate your 'pearls of wisdom.

i now feel that, while a blood transfusion is still dangerous, i would accept it as a last resort, if all else failed.

i would not die, or allow any of my family to die, for want of a transfusion of plasma, platelets, or red or white cells.

shadow

Blondie,

Related to the question of storage are these comments:

NoBlood.org

13

BLOOD -- WTS Questions and Sound Answers 9

by Marvin Shilmer in

blood -- wts questions and sound answers 9

the decree issued to noah answers the question of what blood god required righteous persons to abstain from.

the blood humans should abstain from is the same blood noah had to abstain from -- the blood of animals killed for food.

shadow

Marvin has devoted much time and effort on this policy. Hopefully publicizing the flaws and contradictions in this policy will have some positive effect at some point.

The account in Acts 15 continued to permit the consumption of blood in unbled meat as stated in Deut 14:21.

(Acts 15:19-20) Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

(Deuteronomy 14:21) "YOU must not eat any body [already] dead. To the alien resident who is inside your gates you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner, because you are a holy people to Jehovah your God.. . .

This can be discerned by the fact that they made a distinction between blood and things strangled. Naturally an animal slaughtered by strangulation would still contain the blood. An animal found dead would also still contain the blood. One act was prohibited while the other was not. Given the fact that many of those present were former Pharisees, this omission was certainly not accidental. This reinforces understanding this as applying to consumption of blood as food and giving due respect to the Creator when slaughtering an animal. If the decree meant to abstain from eating all blood found anywhere, it seems redundant to specify both blood and things strangled and very sloppy to omit things found dead.

Interestingly, the WT goes beyond requirements of both the Law and Acts 15 by stating that it is sinful to eat road-kill.

***

w83 4/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

Consequently, true worshipers today will not eat unbled meat, whether from an animal that some man killed or from a creature that died in another way.

This same article reasons that the relatively easy requirement stipulated (washing self and garments Lev 17:15) for someone eating an animal found dead (which would contain blood) was due to eating it in ignorance. T

(Leviticus 17:15) As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean.

***

w83 4/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***

So, no worshiper of God could eat blood, whether from (or in the flesh of) an animal that had died of itself or from one that was killed by man. Why, then, does Leviticus 17:15 say that eating unbled flesh from such an animal that died of itself or was killed by a beast merely produced uncleanness?

We can find a clue at Leviticus 5:2, which says: "When a soul touches some unclean thing, whether the dead body of an unclean wild beast . . ., although it has been hidden from him, still he is unclean and has become guilty." Yes, God acknowledged that an Israelite might err inadvertently. Hence, Leviticus 17:15 can be understood as providing for such an error. For example, if an Israelite ate meat served him and then learned that it was unbled, he was guilty of sin. But because it was inadvertent he could take steps to become clean. This, however, is noteworthy: If he would not take those steps, "he must then answer for his error."?Leviticus 17:16.

footnote

We find an instructive parallel in another part of the Law involving blood: A man who unwittingly had sexual relations with his wife as she began to menstruate was unclean, but he could take steps to be forgiven. However, the Israelite who deliberately disregarded his wife?s menstrual blood was cut off.?Leviticus 15:19-24; 20:18.

This article does not mention an even more instructive passage found at Lev 11:39,40.

(Leviticus 11:39-40) "?Now in case any beast that is YOURS for food should die, he who touches its dead body will be unclean until the evening. And he who eats any of its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening; and he who carries off its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening.

No doubt this was left out, because few could swallow the argument that this was also eaten in ignorance. A more reasonable view of this scripture is presented at times such as this

*** w84 2/15 p. 29 Leviticus?A Call to Holy Worship of Jehovah ***

Holy Worship Demands Cleanness

Lev 11:40?How can this regulation be harmonized with Deuteronomy 14:21, which says: "You must not eat any body already dead"?

Actually, there is no disharmony between these texts. Deuteronomy 14:21 forbade the eating of an animal that died of itself or was found dead. But Leviticus 11:40 specified what was required if an Israelite violated this prohibition. Similarly, the Law prohibited such acts as stealing, but some people did steal. Penalties that were imposed upon wrongdoers gave force to the Law?s prohibitions.

This leaves the WT in the position of going beyond the Law and even the Pharisees in attempting to shore up the blood policy and to blatantly ignore scriptures that are inconvenient.

9