I think that this is really cool because the doubts regarding the bible are actually getting wide-spread due to the internet and youtube. It's pretty amazing stuff, I'm hoping that soon the doubts in the Watchtower slowly get more and more well-known.
Tuesday
JoinedPosts by Tuesday
-
11
One of my doubts I mentioned to my wife was posed as a question by a householder
by ihadnoidea inone of my doubts i mentioned to my wife was actually posed as a question by a householder to her a few days ago.
i have every once in a while mentioned some doubts i have had on the bible.
i usually get the same response, "wait on jehovah".
-
-
-
33
Tit for Tat with jwfacts Youtube yahoo
by sooner7nc inhere's how it started.
i'm in bold italics.. .
jw truth"why don't you refuse "blood fractions" which are derived from whole blood?
-
-
Tuesday
You're wording this e-mail a bit wrong. They see nothing wrong with fractions derived from whole blood because once blood is separated it is no longer considered blood in their eyes. That's the whole point of his response with the whole "4 main components" thing. You need to harp on that if you really want to reach him. The biggest flaw in this whole logical approach is that it's based in the ignorance of what makes up these "4 main components" and the percentage of each. If I were you in your follow up I would write something to the effect of:
JW Facts:
I realize the logic behind the four main components rule, however I had a couple questions about that. Which scientific textbook or otherwise was this four main components identified in and how old is that textbook? All the scientific textbooks that I've read, all the doctor's textbooks I've read minus the extremely simplified scientific textbooks for elementary students don't classify blood as four main components. I'd also like to ask you since hemoglobin is an accepted blood fraction to receive; in a mature red blood cell the ONLY component is hemoglobin. When the cell membrane is removed from a red blood cell the hemoglobin still remains active (read here alive) and continues it's job of bringing oxygen from the lungs into the blood stream. Also any bacteria, etc. that is connected to the cell membrane remains with the hemoglobin since it is anchored in hemoglobin to begin with. Would you mind explaining to me how exactly a red blood cell is a "main" component of blood and hemoglobin is not a "main" component of blood? Could you explain the difference and how exactly you KNOW that God considers hemoglobin acceptable and a red blood cell is not acceptable?
I'd also like you to bear in mind while explaining that last part one of the biggest things that Jesus blasted the Pharasees for was adding unto the law. The example Jesus gave was creating all sorts of levels of work that was and was not acceptable to do on the sabbath, or needing to wash up to the elbow and not just the hands as the law specified. Could you tell me, do you think the Pharasees if they lived in this time would have a long list of acceptable fractions of blood vs. non acceptable fractions of blood when it comes to the law of abstaining from blood?
Thank You
Of course you can re-phrase this, but your current line of thought is not going to get through to this person. You have to get them to use their logic that they apply to other things and reach a dichotomy of either applying this same logic to their beliefs or realizing that they are being hypocritical. If you just want to make him look like a thick-headed, obstinant, typical JW good job, keep doing what you're doing. Unfortunately he's going to think you're being the same thick-headed, obstinant, typical apostate.
-
34
To my fellow atheists:
by NomadSoul injust curious to know the steps that brought you to become an atheist.
just wanted to shared mine in a nutshell:.
1. learned that evolution had credibility.
-
-
Tuesday
I don't know if it's really steps per-say but here goes
1.) Raised as a JW since birth
2.) Started learning about Evolution in school in 5th Grade after finishing the Evolution book the previous year
3.) Evolution sounded very reasonable and had evidence but I thought it was all misleading evidence until...
4.) Questioned myself why I was a Jehovah's Witness and Why I served God
5.) Thought that I might not have the whole truth regarding many things and started learning WHY people believed certain things instead of WHAT they believed (and subsequently how to circular reason them into having doubts)
6.) Learned all the evidence involving evolution, once I learned about abiogenesis a HUGE pillar of my belief that evolution wasn't true came crumbling down. Once I found observed evidence of speciation the other pillar came crumbling (learning that not only had macro-evolution occurred but it had been seen was devistating)
7.) From then I became agnostic for a while, when I was searching for the true religion I started asking for proof of various beliefs. Once I applied that same process to religion itself I realized it was all BS.
See folks a perfect 7 step process according to Revelation I must be divinely inspired :)
-
35
WARNING: Try Not to Throw Up In Your Mouth
by headisspinning inokay, so we finally decided that we are moving.
this is the plan we are contemplating:.
attend new congregation for one month (go to all the meeting with wt studied in brilliant colours etc.).
-
-
Tuesday
Have you ever thought of having a family study that maybe you study different viewpoints? For example, maybe you tell them that you'd like to start a family study to overcome different objections that they might encounter in the ministry and the go over different subjects giving them a completely different viewpoint?
Read the book "Falling In Truth" by Steve McRoberts and you might see some of the stuff I'm getting at, or there's alot of different places you can find some information. Whoever's got a counter mark this down as plug number 700+ but you can check out my youtube channel for "Tough Questions For Jehovah's Witnesses" www.youtube.com/timkilgore to get some more ideas of things to ask.
Off the top of my head I would probably ask them to research what happened to the babies that were killed in the flood and whether they'll be resurrected or not. Another cool thing to ask would be looking for the proof of the 144,000 being literal, then asking all the follow-up questions like why the other number in the same scripture and the description of the 144,000 isn't literal.
By all means return to the meetings, it's a different feeling going to the meetings when you basically know it's not true anymore. Read up on logical fallacies too, it'll help you get through the meetings finding all of them that are used during the talks.
-
33
"JWs are dead right on the blood doctrine"
by sabastious injust got this message on my youtube:.
jehovah's witnesses are dead right.
your understanding is false and not up to date .
-
-
Tuesday
Just a simple question for him, can he point out the scripture that says it's OK to receive a transfusion of hemoglobin vs. a transfusion of a mature red blood cell. Then if they could explain why one is accepted and one isn't, and why are cell membranes that important?
-
50
What proof is there that Jesus chose the Bible Students in 1919?
by VM44 inwhat proof is there that jesus inspected all the religions or the earth in 1919 and then chose the bible students?.
just because the watchtower says in its literature that they were chosen is not proof!.
-
-
Tuesday
I actually did a video on this, there was an article in 1991 which explains three things that the Watchtower was that no other religion was in 1919.
-
317
Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine
by jgnat indjeggnog invited me to start a new thread about the blood doctrine, which i am happy to do here.
his objection was my statement,.
"i've seen the blood video, a deceiving mix of scripture, fearmongering and pseudoscience, with plenty of lab coats in view.
-
-
Tuesday
I have followed this thread with some interest as, like djeggnog, I am one of Jehovah's witnesses. However, in previous discussions on abstention from blood I have had on this forum, I reached the conclusion that the scriptures on this subject are open to interpretation. They may be interpreted as applying to blood transfusions but, quite clearly, they are also interpreted otherwise. And I think that Jehovah's Witnesses recognise this as they treat it differently to fornication or idolatry.
If someone was involved in fornication or idolatry and they were unrepentant they would be disfellowshipped. If someone has a blood transfusion they are viewed as having disassociated themselves from Jehovah's Witnesses by their actions. Why the difference? While I appreciate the more sceptical on this forum will mutter about Bulgaria, I would suggest that the difference is that this interpretation is a matter of doctrine, it is "present truth", and it is possible that this understanding will change in the future. I am not saying it will, only that it is possible. As that is the case the acceptance of a blood transfusion is wrong because it is an interpretation currently believed by Jehovah's Witnesses, not because it is an absolute prohibition like fornication or idolatry. For this reason I think djeggnog is incorrect to maintain that all of Jehovah's witnesses would interpret these scriptures as including blood transfusion if they were free to do so.
I would say you have a reasonable interpretation for sure. The question lies though as you might have seen we're literally talking a cell membrane. A cell membrane lies between you voluntarily disassociating yourself and receiving no consequence whatsoever. That seems a bit odd to me, very pharasitical. I would hold more respect for the JW that says "The scriptures say to abstain from blood so I do not receive any form of blood" than for the JW that will add all sorts of addendums to the law (wash up to that elbow).
-
19
Watchtower Bethel Application from 2004
by Marvin Shilmer inwatchtower bethel application from 2004. questions asked tell their own story.
today i posted onto my blog the watchtower bethel application from 2004, available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2011/03/watchtower-bethel-application-from-2004.html .
marvin shilmer.
-
-
Tuesday
LOL, I'm with you, Tuesday
OK so I'll do it if you promise to do it with me. I actually used to listen to the whole Norweigan Black Metal scene when I was younger. Now it's more punk music, I think for that question I would ask if certain bands were considered acceptable like Diecide, Cannibal Corpse, Bad Religion, Megadeth, Ja-Rule, and Xzibit.
-
19
Watchtower Bethel Application from 2004
by Marvin Shilmer inwatchtower bethel application from 2004. questions asked tell their own story.
today i posted onto my blog the watchtower bethel application from 2004, available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2011/03/watchtower-bethel-application-from-2004.html .
marvin shilmer.
-
-
Tuesday
So am I the only one who wants to fill this out in absolute honesty and send it in?
-
39
LIES, DAMN LIES, AND APOSTATES
by PublishingCult intoday, there's a lot of awesome xjw's with youtube channels and websites, and discussion boards, dedicated to helping others successfully get free from the cult of the publishing corporation.
these folks have done wonderful work and make up a vast apostate army to take on the wts and their lies, and, they do so with integrity, and respect for truth.
if you are going to point your finger and call the wtbts liars, if you are going to put yourself on the line and take up the mantle of exposing those lies, and offer criticism, you should do so from the moral high ground of integrity and truthfulness.. .
-
-
Tuesday
I am who I am Outlaw. There's no need to hide anything I think, also what's the point of telling half-truths when you're an atheist? The whole truth is just so much more fun to give LOL.