Man I always thought Rhode Island's motto was "Hope"...
I thought a few good ones for Rhode Island would be
"We're not an Island or a Road!"
"Don't roll over or you'll end up in Massachusetts"
"The Ocean State where you can't swim in the Ocean"
"The only state that elected a convicted felon"
"Don't be scared of our crime, it's all mob related...no REALLY!"
the other day, i was with a car full of kids, and we saw a car group going out in service.
the kids , mostly young teens, were fascinated with the suits, ties, dresses, etc.
i was explaining a little about it, and they kept asking questions like, "wow, can they go swimming?
I think you're actually right here in that when a business man comes to your door in a suit and tie you will seem a bit off-put like he's a slick, snake-oil salesman trying to put one over on you. But if a community advocate comes to your door wearing maybe a polo shirt and khakis you're more apt to listen to what they're trying to tell you because they make you feel comfortable like they're more sincere.
Dressing up for service certainly could be becoming a detriment in many communities.
last night my grandson got a blood transfusion.
it occured to me how stupid the belief is that to "abstain from blood" refers to a transfusion.
how would you reason with someone to show that abstaining from blood would not refer to accepting a blood transfusion?.
I don't wanna open a can of worms here, but, how safe are blood transfusions and, truly, are they the only alternatice available ?
Does anyone know how many lives have been saved due to blood transfusions and how many lives have suffered ( healthy wise) due to them?
I believe that the statistic is 1 in 500,000 blood transfusions have a complication. Now that's just complication, the number gets MUCH greater for a disease to be contracted, the blood to be rejected, etc. These are simply complications which in itself is pretty low, complications could mean that the blood transfusion doesn't effect the blood loss enough.
I'm pretty sure I got that stat from the Red Cross website. There are alternatives to blood transfusions, the problem lies in that they are not always on hand like blood would be. If you're having an operation and they can secure an alternative before your scheduled surgery that's all well and good but in emergency situations it's sometimes not an option.
All this will probably be a moot point in the years to come as synthetic blood has been created in a lab from stem cells, this will not be real blood but will act as it, it will not carry any sort of diseases and will be catered to the person receiving the blood specifically. This blood transfusion doctrine will really just be something to look back on with sadness at all the lost lives.
Reniaa, interpretation is always up to debate with any scripture. The fact hers doesn't agree with yours doesn't mean yours is right. Unless you want to give us some ancient greek knowledge on the translation, but first could you give us your qualifications on it? Where did you study ancient Greek, from what professor who had studied it, what institution? What original manuscripts have you personally read and when? If you're basing it off of translations cited by the Watchtower, that is second hand knowledge and just as apt to be mis-quoted and taken out of context as anything else.
i've had a rash of people commenting on my videos lately that seem to not even understand their own teachings.
it leads me to question if jehovah's witnesses can even explain their own beliefs.
for example if i ask a question about the 1914 doctrine specifically about the biblical backing behind 607 bce being the year for the destruction of jerusalem, 9 times out of 10 i'm going to get some sort of answer that involves the "prophecy" in matthew 24 and how it somehow has been fufilled since 1914.. apart from the fact i honestly don't think i can find a jehovah's witness who will actually understand the question at hand enough to answer the points therein, i'm to the point where i don't know if jehovah's witnesses even understand their own teachings.
cool comment donuthole,
That kind of struck the key with me, basically people no longer become Jehovah's Witnesses because they think they teach the truth about all the bible interpretations and they are the only ones who teach what they do. People are Jehovah's Witnesses because they teach about a paradise Earth, if another religion taught that you could live forever on a paradise Earth there's a good chance if it had rational explanations to do some of the things that Jehovah's Witnesses don't the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses would follow.
i've had a rash of people commenting on my videos lately that seem to not even understand their own teachings.
it leads me to question if jehovah's witnesses can even explain their own beliefs.
for example if i ask a question about the 1914 doctrine specifically about the biblical backing behind 607 bce being the year for the destruction of jerusalem, 9 times out of 10 i'm going to get some sort of answer that involves the "prophecy" in matthew 24 and how it somehow has been fufilled since 1914.. apart from the fact i honestly don't think i can find a jehovah's witness who will actually understand the question at hand enough to answer the points therein, i'm to the point where i don't know if jehovah's witnesses even understand their own teachings.
But do not JWs then enter / fall into the same world of general bewilderment, in which so many other Christians are? If you ask a Lutheran to give you the details of soul or trinity or saved by grace, or if you ask a Pentecostalist about the end of the world and heaven/earth/rapture - how many, no matter what church they belong to, are capable of giving you anything more than the mere basics?
I don't think that's the case though because the beliefs are usually basic. For instance if I ask someone to explain the trinity they can. Now if I start brining a hundred different scriptures into play, then it might get confusing. They can certainly explain the belief, or even the immortal soul. Again, it's not until you start bringing contradicting scriptures into play that they have trouble explaining it.
For this example 1914, basically the JW will say that Jesus returned in 1914. Then you ask why and they can't even go through the elaborate means to how it's calculated. They think that 1914 proves 607 which proves 1914, no actual supporting data.
i've had a rash of people commenting on my videos lately that seem to not even understand their own teachings.
it leads me to question if jehovah's witnesses can even explain their own beliefs.
for example if i ask a question about the 1914 doctrine specifically about the biblical backing behind 607 bce being the year for the destruction of jerusalem, 9 times out of 10 i'm going to get some sort of answer that involves the "prophecy" in matthew 24 and how it somehow has been fufilled since 1914.. apart from the fact i honestly don't think i can find a jehovah's witness who will actually understand the question at hand enough to answer the points therein, i'm to the point where i don't know if jehovah's witnesses even understand their own teachings.
So the general consensus is that the majority know the basics of the teachings but when questioned as to why or in detail can only parrot responses. There is a small percentage who don't even know the basics of their teachings, which is only a slightly higher percentage than those who can actually understand and defend their beliefs.
In a similar vein because I find this the most frustrating, do you feel that JWs can see that their parrotted answers do not answer the questions at hand or do they actually think that a canned parrotted response that generally deals with a subject should suffice in a detailed question situation?
i just recently got a facebook page and started to look up some old jw friends (im a long time fader).
i see there pictures and comments and feel kinda jealous that they all look happy (im in a rough stage in my life).
i never was happy as a jw, and since i faded i am more comfortable in my own skin....the future looks bright for me.
Facebook isn't really a place that people post things to look depressed though. You have to really know a person to know they're depressed, on the outside everyone looks happy. People don't really frown for pictures, nor do they post the ones that they don't like.
i've had a rash of people commenting on my videos lately that seem to not even understand their own teachings.
it leads me to question if jehovah's witnesses can even explain their own beliefs.
for example if i ask a question about the 1914 doctrine specifically about the biblical backing behind 607 bce being the year for the destruction of jerusalem, 9 times out of 10 i'm going to get some sort of answer that involves the "prophecy" in matthew 24 and how it somehow has been fufilled since 1914.. apart from the fact i honestly don't think i can find a jehovah's witness who will actually understand the question at hand enough to answer the points therein, i'm to the point where i don't know if jehovah's witnesses even understand their own teachings.
This post may come from my own frustration, it is just kind of mind-boggling.
If someone was at the door and asked about blood portions, they specifically state that a blood transfusion is not made up of whole blood but only the red blood cells. Then points out that mature red blood cells are made up of hemoglobin and cell membranes, and hemoglobin can continue all of it's functions without a cell membrane. Finishing up asking exactly how one of them is considered a conscience matter and the other is not, when they are essentially the same thing, neither are whole blood they are both portions of blood, stored the same way and even complete the same function.
Then someone responds with "Blood fractions aren't whole blood, so they're conscience matters", I don't see how anyone could even consider that as an acceptable answer to the question at hand. If you were asked at a door a question like the one above, would you conclude an acceptable answer should at least include information about parts of blood, what exactly is considered a blood fraction, what the blood has to be able to do in order to be considered blood?
For the active JWs on here (fading or whatever), if someone asked you about this at a door and was asking because they had knowledge about blood components would you be able to respond? What would you say to your partner in the door-to-door work if they responded with something that didn't really deal with the issue at hand, would you tell them that their response is making JWs look like they don't understand their own beliefs?
i've had a rash of people commenting on my videos lately that seem to not even understand their own teachings.
it leads me to question if jehovah's witnesses can even explain their own beliefs.
for example if i ask a question about the 1914 doctrine specifically about the biblical backing behind 607 bce being the year for the destruction of jerusalem, 9 times out of 10 i'm going to get some sort of answer that involves the "prophecy" in matthew 24 and how it somehow has been fufilled since 1914.. apart from the fact i honestly don't think i can find a jehovah's witness who will actually understand the question at hand enough to answer the points therein, i'm to the point where i don't know if jehovah's witnesses even understand their own teachings.
I've had a rash of people commenting on my videos lately that seem to not even understand their own teachings. It leads me to question if Jehovah's Witnesses can even explain their own beliefs. For example if I ask a question about the 1914 doctrine specifically about the biblical backing behind 607 BCE being the year for the destruction of Jerusalem, 9 times out of 10 I'm going to get some sort of answer that involves the "prophecy" in Matthew 24 and how it somehow has been fufilled since 1914.
Apart from the fact I honestly don't think I can find a Jehovah's Witness who will actually understand the question at hand enough to answer the points therein, I'm to the point where I don't know if Jehovah's Witnesses even understand their own teachings. Is there something wrong with the recent memorization process or something? I knew at age 5 the steps that were involved in the 1914 doctrine, it seems to me most of that is gone.
Is it me, or really do Jehovah's Witnesses no longer know how to explain their own beliefs?
On a side note while I'm mentioning this, isn't there a section in the Reasoning Book on how to come up with a convincing argument? It's getting to the point where I think every JW who comments on my videos are retarded because I will describe a belief then ask a question about it, then in rebuttal a JW will comment on my video by explaining the belief THAT I ALREADY EXPLAINED IN MY VIDEO!!! Would it hurt the congregation to go over the Reasoning Book again, just so I can keep my freakin' sanity not having to explain how their answer is not really an answer. Using a non-JW teaching example to give you a good idea of what the conversations are like lately...
My Question: "Oranges are a fruit that grows from trees primarily in Florida, what makes the peel of the fruit orange in color?"
Answer "The Fruit that grows on trees primarily in Florida is called an orange."
I wish I was the type that deleted comments from my videos for sheer stupidity.
soooo, i decided to do a comic strip about the crazy world of the jw.
i created a blog for that purpose at: http://tejotitas.blogspot.com.
"tejotitas" means "little jws" in spanish.. warning: the blog is in spanish, since that my first language (and because people from other countries need to be aware of this cult), but i may translate it to english in the near future.
Funny. You should do animated stuff on youtube :)
