- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by galveston75I've been a Christian 30 years and have read the bible all that time and never once been inclined to believe what you believe. In all that time I've never once met a Christian who believes what you believe and there are none in this forum who believe what you believe, in fact I don't think there is a Christian in the world outside or your religious cult who believes what you believe about blood transfusions.
But since you are no longer a christian you have perhaps lost the words and meanings and common sence issues that God has set out from the the bible for those who want to adhere to it's words and wisdom?
Now that can only be for one of two reasons: either every other christian in the entire world and since the history of blood transfusions, is wrong...or you are.
Originally posted by divegeesterAs I suggested before, one reason for the JW corporation's stance on blood transfusions is that the "interpretation" represents a USP of sorts.
I've been a Christian 30 years and have read the bible all that time and never once been inclined to believe what you believe. In all that time I've never once met a Christian who believes what you believe and there are none in this forum who believe what you believe, in fact I don't think there is a Christian in the world outside or your religious cult ...[text shortened]... hristian in the entire world and since the history of blood transfusions, is wrong...or you are.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut robbie, in 1910 Charles Russell wrote:
its is spiritual food, but its not infallible and has never claimed to be inspired.
"If anyone lays the Scripture Studies [short for a 7-volume WTS publication entitled Studies in the Scriptures, hereafter abbreviated as Studies] aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years—if he lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood the Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the Scripture Studies with their references and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he will be in the light at the end of two years . . . " (WT Reprints, 9-15-1910, 4685).
I think you will find it very difficult to distance yourself from the WT teachings and as has been pointed out several times (and which both you and Galveston are avoiding) the Watch Tower teaches that the primary reason for not taking blood transfusions is not related to a contemporary scientific dialogue on physical health, but a non biblical mystical mumbo-jumbo philosophy which says that the blood contains behavioural traits such as the inclination to commit murder or the craving for cigarettes and other sexual lusts.
Asking you where do you stand in this is a direct challenge to your allegiance to these teachings and if you are a loyal Jehovah's Witness you should not be ashamed to openly vocalise your adherence to these teachings.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
Originally posted by FMFIt is always going be a struggle for a religious cult to manage the balance between presenting an effective differentiation which drives loyalty and the need for corporate alignment, and not appearing to be too far from the mainstream so as to appear too strange to attract new recruits. The Watch Tower society is actually quite effective in this positioning, but it's weakness is it's self appointed POV that it alone is the sole voice of gods truth on earth and therefore cannot be wrong.
As I suggested before, one reason for the JW corporation's stance on blood transfusions is that the "interpretation" represents a USP of sorts.
Members such as robbie will plead that they are not infallible but refrain from indicating exactly which bits are fallible and which are not. It's a false modesty.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120150
I post this in a sort of thread parenthesis as we are talking about Watch Tower fallibility...
Examples of alleged contradictions in WatchTower teaching:
"To worship Christ in any form cannot be wrong ... " (WT, 3-1880, 83). "It is unscriptural for worshippers of the living and true God to render worship to the Son of God, Jesus Christ" (WT, 11-1-1964, 671).
The men of Sodom will be resurrected (WT, 7-1879, 7-8). The men of Sodom will not be resurrected (WT, 6-1-1952, 338). The men of Sodom will be resurrected (WT 8-1-1965, 479). The men of Sodom will not be resurrected (WT 6-1-1988, 31). The men of Sodom will be resurrected (Live Forever, early ed., 179). The men of Sodom will not be resurrected (Live Forever, later ed., 179). The men of Sodom will be resurrected (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2, 985). The men of Sodom will not be resurrected (Revelation: Its Grand Climax at Hand! 273).
"There could be nothing against our consciences in going into the army" (WT, 4-15-1903, 120). Due to conscience, Jehovah’s Witnesses must refuse military service (WT, 2-1-1951, 73).
"We may as well join in with the civilized world in celebrating the grand event [Christmas] . . . " (WT Reprints, 12-1-1904, 3468). "Christmas and its music are not from Jehovah . . . What is their source? . . . Satan the devil" (WT, 12-15-1983, 7).
"Everyone in America should take pleasure in displaying the American flag" (WT Reprints, 5-15-1917, 6068). The flag is "an idolatrous symbol" (Awake!, 9-8-71, 14).
Excerpt from a web page of catholic.com.
Originally posted by FMFHe can't site a single verse that says "Thou Shalt not have a blood transfusion" in the bible yet JW's believe that .......hummm kinda like when the JW's say the word trinity is not in the bible.......therefore it can't be true ....it just shows faulty reasoning and hypocrisy on their part or just a lack of common sense
I've read the stuff you presented about eating animal blood, pagan rites, blood sacrifices, strangling animals etc. But you haven't cited a Bible verse that prohibits blood transfusions.
Manny
PS: all of that being said I respect their right to believe whatever they like on the most basic level and if they want to believe the earth is flat then so be it
Originally posted by galveston75Blood Transfusions do have small inherent risk .....just like many medical procedures so what ? Do we abandon all medical procedures and live in the dark ages ? Or do we use the brains that God gave us ? Another funny thing is it's not like hospitals are handing out blood transfusions like candy it is acknowledged and understood that if one needs blood it's a serious issue and usually life threatening ....however do we just let people die ? Or do the right thing and help save lives and this is what Jesus wants
Geeeez. Really hard huh? Doesn't the bible say to not eat blood as in putting it into your body? So why is it so hard to understand that a blood transfusion is putting blood into your body in an even more direct and dangerous way?
Is it perhaps God knows the dangers of what one could get in putting blood into your body from another human even into yo ...[text shortened]... s that God has set out from the the bible for those who want to adhere to it's words and wisdom?
Manny
Originally posted by menace71I also am comfortable with them believing whatever they just so happen to believe. I simply find it interesting to witness the severe intellectual and interpersonal difficulties they have discussing it with people who are unimpressed by their 'it's-the-word-of-God' claims. Having said that, if someone is known to be letting their child die unnecessarily in order to please a supernatural being that they happen to believe in, I would support the authorities taking those children away from them, at least temporarily.
...I respect their right to believe whatever they like on the most basic level and if they want to believe the earth is flat then so be it
Originally posted by menace71I think allowing a child to die in order to please (or in order not to displease) a God figure is ~ let's call a spade a spade ~ a form of human sacrifice. It is done in the hope of gaining personal salvation.
Your words then as you watch a child die..... that you had the power to save. Which is more evil? To do good (transfusion)? Or do evil let a child die because you refused to do what is right by saving the child's life? Jesus asked the pharisees a very similar question about healing on the Sabbath! Jesus healed on the Sabbath it's the same principle.
Manny
Originally posted by FMFI agree .....for the most part I can't argue that at all....I would not want to serve a supernatural being that forbid medical care or transfusion for a child or adult for that matter
I also am comfortable with them believing whatever they just so happen to believe. I simply find it interesting the difficult they have discussing it with people who are unimpressed by their 'it's-the-word-of-God' claims. Having said that, if someone is known to be letting their child die unnecessarily in order to please a supernatural being they happen to belie ...[text shortened]... in, I would support the authorities taking those children away from them, at least temporarily.
Manny
The whole point of Christianity is to be like Christ and give of ones life and blood if need be .....the opposite of what is being espoused here in this matter. I get the point that blood is the life and therefore is special. Jesus own blood made it possible for sinful man to be made free ....Irony is as afraid of blood as the JW's seem to be the bible is full of blood ...The Priest had to sprinkle blood and animals were slaughtered and the blood was drained pretty bloody affair ....the bible says without the shedding of Blood there is no remission of sins
Manny
Originally posted by divegeesterLOL .....with time many of these "Awakes " can be found in pdf form and people can see the contradiction for themselves and know that one is not just making this up. To think how illogical and irrational this is it's like saying 2+2=4 then saying no 2+2=5 and this is absolutely true ......then a month later stating no actually 2+2=4 and the lame argument is that as time has gone on the JW's have received more light and therefore what was written back then could be incorrect as something written later is more true. This is faulty as truth is truth and does not change with time. 2+2=4 3000 years ago just as much as it does today and other truths
I post this in a sort of thread parenthesis as we are talking about Watch Tower fallibility...
Examples of alleged contradictions in WatchTower teaching:
"To worship Christ in any form cannot be wrong ... " (WT, 3-1880, 83). "It is unscriptural for worshippers of the living and true God to render worship to the Son of God, Jesus Christ" (WT, 11-1-1 ...[text shortened]... flag is "an idolatrous symbol" (Awake!, 9-8-71, 14).
Excerpt from a web page of catholic.com.
Manny
http://books.google.com/books?id=W7gr-NXx5r4C&lpg=PT17&ots=CDSRmCVhJt&dq=(WT%2C%203-1880%2C%2083)&pg=PT17#v=onepage&q=(WT,%203-1880,%2083)&f=false
not sure why this link shows up this way but it is all of the contradictions in chronological order from 1879 to 1989 ... apparently it's a book
Manny
PS: lame actually as that list should be free and it partial as to give a sample