I too think you're better off focusing on smaller things. Probably egotistical of me, but try some questions from my series. www.youtube.com/timkilgore you'll be able to ask a bunch of questions without ever having to get into a doctrinal discussion with JWs at all.
Tuesday
JoinedPosts by Tuesday
-
8
The Trinity Video...will JW's watch it?
by homeschool ini had my extremist jw sister and her husband over the other day because i'd asked some questions regarding the new light and 'the generation'.
i've never heard her husband speak so much and i wish you could've seen how condescending they were.
"oh homeschool.....hmmmm....let me see how i can explain this so you can understand" (i was thinking 'oh boy, you have no idea').... .
-
-
-
347
Must see video on Youtube where a JW is clearly defeated on the trinity subject...
by Tuesday inpersonally i hate bible ping-pong.
i don't think it ever gets anywhere, i don't think it solves anything and i don't think the participants ever make any head room.
however i will say in this case, i have been proven wrong.
-
-
Tuesday
I'm begining to doubt now that these are real Jehovah's witnesses they are feeding him his lines he has allsorts of publications at hand for this supposedly on the spot trinitarian discusion and OLD Jw publications too. reniaa (NICE TRY IN TRYING TO BAIL THEM OUT HOW CAN YOU SAY SUCH A THING WHEN YOU WEREN'T EVEN THERE? THINK ABOUT IT? THERE REAL BELIEVE ME I KNOW!)
Again that was just an older translation of the bible from the JWs. He had three different bibles there, it looked like the NWT, Interlinear and the large one just seemed like his personal copy with notes in it. This was a planned sit down, I don't think it's unreasonable he would've prepared a few bibles to make his points before the study.
If they are real they have to learn some more of the deeper topics among our faith, I admit once into his flow bibliejim used a few tricks keep them wrong-footed but his speculations are easily refuted biblically.
I wouldn't say deeper, you mean he needs to know how to play bible ping-pong better. Reniaa, let me introduce you to the majority of JWs nowadays, it is not the fire and brimstone, know the bible like that back of your hand witness from the 70's or 80's. The elders in my former congregation wouldn't have done a better job.
-
11
Only in Texas
by PEC inwatch the video and tell me what you think.. officer tasers woman 72 during traffic stop.
philip.
.
-
-
Tuesday
I've seen this, it's on all of the news sites.
Apparently someone being pissed off about getting a speeding ticket gives the police the right to arrest you. Then if you get pissed off about that, they can tase you.
Have you noticed the unprovoked attacks by police on people who are disobedient even in a mild manner is getting rapidly out of control?
-
8
Could a gay-lesbian candidate be elected President?
by The Berean inthere was a time when blacks and women could not even vote.
so what's next?.
-
-
Tuesday
Right now I don't think it's possible. However in smaller elections they've done rather well. Polls show they still stand a better chance of being elected than an atheist.
-
113
Topics for discussion with JWs - part 3: Homosexual animals...
by Albert Einstein ingod hates homosexuality very very much ... right?.
being wicked homosexual ... you are to be destroyed in armageddon ... right?.
people were created by god as heterosexual, but some are today homosexual as a result of imperfection - punishment for disobedience of adam a eve..... but why there is so much homosexuality among god created animals?
-
-
Tuesday
She moves in, turns around and walks right back out again.
Any evidence of this ever happening?
There is no evidence that Bethsheba was aware of the plot to kill Uriah.
She was aware of the plot to get him home to sleep with her, therefore I would venture to say she would be aware of the other plot as well.
I have no doubt that David was capable of a lie. The question is whether or not they could come up with a believable lie. If David had been seen as smearing an innocent man to steal his wife, it would have been a major scandle.
Do you think the people would question a King capable of the atrocities David had committed, or who was considered a national hero like David was?
Even if they had lied, she got the divorce, married David, and out pops baby 8 months later, David would have a scandle even bigger than he was trying to avoid in the first place. It would be obvious to everyone what had happened.
You're telling me Israelites were ignorant of premature babies?
David thought this was the plan that he would be most likely to get away with.
Killing someone vs. lying, which is easier to get away with... I'm still going to go with lying as being far easier to pull off than murder.
Regardless this is another straw man, I don't know why we even ended up down this path. We're clearly far away from the original posts intention and we're not even debating anything worth-while. Post your next post dealing with some minute detail about David and Bath-sheba and end this ridiculousness.
-
19
More than 144,000 by end of 1st Century? Reference sought.
by Open mind inthe search function here isn't what it used to be.. can anyone direct me to a reference that shows christianity grew to more than 144,000 converts by 98 ce?.
intuitively it seems like a no-brainer, but something better than gut instinct would be helpful.. om.
.
-
-
Tuesday
Barrett, D.B. (ed) (1982) World Christian Encyclopedia; a comparative study of
churches and religions in the modern world, AD 1900-2000. Oxford
University Press, Nairobi. An extremely useful source of statistics on the
strengths, distributions and historical growth of the major world religions.
Estimates here that in the 1st century the number of Christians was one million. Since we're lead to believe that all the first century Christians were anointed, this would mean that the 144,000 would've been filled LONG ago.
-
8
Feedback for my next Freeminds article on how to use my Tough Questions Series....
by Tuesday inthese are only portions of blood, even when combined they do not make up full blood.
these are only portions of blood, even when combined they do not make up full blood.
if when blood is separated its no longer considered blood, then why dont you accept blood transfusions in general?
-
-
Tuesday
OK Folks, I updated the phrase about whole blood not being transfused since 1982, to something even easier to say and easier to research. The thing from 1982 is on the Red Cross' website but rather difficult to find. Here is the final draft unless someone can think of something I'm missing.
It’s time for another installment on how to use Tough Questions to start a conversation with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Now we get to go into a sore subject; I’m going to suggest a different approach if you’re talking to people at your door. First off let’s start with the text of my Tough Question regarding blood:
This is probably a sore subject, but I figure it's one that most people seem to attach to Jehovah's Witnesses so it needs to be asked. Recently on the back of blood cards there is an addendum to the "No Blood" rule of the Jehovah's Witnesses, there is a list of blood portions that will be accepted by Jehovah's Witnesses to be transplanted. Witnesses can just check off which portions they will receive, they could check off all the portions. To give a quick background on the make-up of blood, 79.2% of blood is Water, Hemoglobin makes up another 14.8%, Albumin is 2.6%, Globulin is 1.6%, Other Fractions 1.3% (sodium, etc.), Other Proteins account for 0.3%, and Clotting Factors 0.2% which are essentially platelets. Water will be handled with the IV, along with other proteins and other fractions. Hemoglobin is one of the items that can be checked, Albumin can be checked, Globulin can be checked, clotting factors usually doctors will just add iron to your IV if you're having an issue with clotting. So in essence if someone has every item checked on the back of their blood card, if the doctors go through with their wishes and make this mash of blood components and add the rest into the IV you're essentially getting a reconstituted blood transfusion. Not only that, but there are no difference in the storage of the components of blood compared to the storage of full blood. So Tough Question number 2; If all the separate portions of blood are acceptable to receive in one transfusion, why would receiving a complete blood transfusion be considered unacceptable?
Whoa, let’s back up, that’s a lot of information there wouldn’t you say? It’s also a lot to remember. So just remember these two numbers, Water = 80%, Hemoglobin = 15%. Then you should be good to go. There’s one other chief factor you’re going to have to remember and I’ll get into that a bit later.
Alright so let’s get into it, how to start a conversation with Jehovah’s Witnesses on this subject. At the door it’s as simple as 1, 2, 3….
1.) Aren’t you those folks that don’t take blood?
2.) Do you carry anything on you alerting EMT’s of this, if so can I see it?
3.) Hey what’s all this stuff on the back?
If you’re discussing with a relative you could start the conversation regarding this as “I was filling out a living will the other day and was thinking about what your stance would be in a medical emergency, are you still planning on not receiving blood?” Then move on to steps 2 and 3 in the previous example.
Once you get to see the back of their card, check to see what components are checked off. The best example would be if all the boxes are checked, but some probably will not. This is where you can follow up with the two figured I told you to Water being 80% of blood and Hemoglobin being 15%. Here’s a few examples of how:
- “I notice you have all these components of blood on the back of the card checked off, do you realize that when you combine these components along with water from an IV it makes up the exact components as a blood transfusion, if these are acceptable to be transfused all at once, why not just get a regular blood transfusion?”
- “Hmmm, I see these components on the back of the card checked off. I know that Water is about 80% of blood, and hemoglobin listed here is around 15%, so if you’re getting an IV and just this component you have 95% of blood being transfused. I’m sure if we researched what’s in blood we’d see these other components make up that last 5%, why not just get a regular blood transfusion? Especially given that the time it would take to get these components together vs. getting a regular blood transfusion might be the time it takes for you to die?”
The chief factor that I mentioned earlier is something you’re going to need to know when their response comes; know this phrase, love this phrase because this phrase will negate basically every argument they will come up with:
Blood transfusions are not transfusions of whole blood, it is transfusions of only the necessary components of blood. Blood is separated upon immediately upon donation and has been since the mid-1930’s. Even if you needed whole blood the portions would be transfused separately.
The reason this phrase is important is for the few responses Jehovah’s Witnesses will have to your previous questions; namely:
- “These are only portions of blood, even when combined they do not make up full blood. Since not all the parts of full blood would be transfused even if I accepted all of these portions together it will still be a conscience matter.”
- “These are fractions of blood, when blood is separated it is no longer considered blood. Therefore as these are fractions, they would be a conscience matter.”
You can see the steps here, you need to know about the card and the portions listed in order to get to your question about fractions vs. the transfusion. You need to know at least the two percentages in order to corner them into their two responses, and you need to know what a blood transfusion is in order to refute their responses. If they deny what you tell them a transfusion is, tell them to look it up themselves or offer to look it up on the computer right in front of them. Just look up blood transfusion process, it’s even in wikipedia. These two responses are the most common responses that I’ve encountered, you may get a variation of these two responses but really there is no other reasonable explanation. If you’re stumped as to how to respond to their two responses let me give a couple of suggestions:
“These are only portions of blood, even when combined they do not make up full blood. Since not all the parts of full blood would be transfused even if I accepted all of these portions together it will still be a conscience matter.”
- “Not all the parts of blood are transfused anyway, at least not since 1935. Only the necessary portion is transfused, so since this does not make up full blood wouldn’t that be a conscience matter as well?”
- “No they don’t make up full blood, but a blood transfusion isn’t full blood anyway. It hasn’t been since 1935. These components do make up every single part of what is transfused in a blood transfusion though. So are you saying you can only accept a portion of a portion? I mean what is the exact point where blood is no longer considered blood and is a conscience matter?”
“These are fractions of blood, when blood is separated it is no longer considered blood. Therefore as these are fractions, they would be a conscience matter.”
- “If when blood is separated it’s no longer considered blood, then why don’t you accept blood transfusions in general? Blood transfusions have been comprised of separate portions since the 1930's. How small of a fraction does blood have to be in order to not be considered blood anymore?”
- “The card is saying that you don’t accept blood transfusions, but you’re saying that when blood is separated it’s no longer considered blood, then I’m confused since blood transfusions aren’t whole blood either. They’ve been of separate portions since the mid 1930's, could you explain why that portion of blood is not acceptable but every portion that makes up that larger portion is acceptable?”
For a good illustration you could talk about pasta sauce (hopefully something everyone has dealt with at some point and has an idea of what the ingredients are). Basically say “What if the country banned Prego (or whatever brand you want) Pasta sauce? But they allowed consumption of Tomato paste, water, oregano, cilantro, and basil all together. You couldn’t have them pre-mixed, but you could have all the ingredients to make the sauce separately; then mixed together at the point of consumption. Would that seem a little strange to you?”
There is no exact reasoning as to how small blood has to be in order to not be considered blood anymore. You could ask them if it seems it’s just an arbitrary fraction, the last thing you can bring up is that people die over this. People are currently and will in the future die meddling over whether 17%, 20%, or 15% of blood is too much a part of blood to be considered blood and therefore not in harmony with scriptures to be transfused. The best place to finish off with is this scripture; Matthew 23: 23-24:
Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because YOU give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but YOU have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. These things it was binding to do, yet not to disregard the other things. Blind guides, who strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel!
-
19
Is there a part of you eating away from the inside wishing you could show the world who you are and what you found out?
by StoneWall inand does it seem like it is getting harder to keep in with each and every day?.
.
-
-
Tuesday
I was until I made my youtube series. I would highly suggest creating one for your own therapy, you can even remain anonymous! :)
-
8
Feedback for my next Freeminds article on how to use my Tough Questions Series....
by Tuesday inthese are only portions of blood, even when combined they do not make up full blood.
these are only portions of blood, even when combined they do not make up full blood.
if when blood is separated its no longer considered blood, then why dont you accept blood transfusions in general?
-
-
Tuesday
I was thinking of doing that, I'm not sure how that would look for someone to just know that off the top of their head. It is however basic knowledge and they would just have to tell the person to look up process for blood donation to see that once the blood is collected it is then separated into it's components. So there's no way anyone would be getting whole blood, in fact in my research I've found this has been done since the mid-30's. Whole blood however has not been transfused since 1982 (per Red Cross website) I believe that's in developing countries as well.
I'm going to add this in to my response here. If they say that's not true, to simply tell them. "It is absolutely true and if you look up blood donation process anywhere you'll be able to find that I am correct." It's far more damning if they find it themselves.
-
87
Did you like 80's music?
by John Doe ini was unaware that don johnson was a singer.
i came across this, and couldn't help laughing.
there was certainly a lot of emotion in this genre, but this is intense enough to border on comedy.
-
-
Tuesday
I forgot all about the Clash, which is odd since they're the only band that matters.
The New Wave stuff is good if I'm in a specific mood.