Latest Watchtower page 30... They have some nerve to put this!

by TimothyT 100 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Mary

  The point Celestial, is that there is no biblical rule being broken with regards to accepting a blood transfusion.
• 

  djeggnog

  @WTWizard:

  Here is the simplest a Christian religion can be: Jesus died for your sins, and that is a perfect, complete sacrifice to which nothing ever need be added. Thus, any sacrifice made in the name of God would desecrate that sacrifice--you must not sacrifice anything in the name of God. No other rule is needed.

  Here you talk about what you believe would make for "the simplest ... Christian religion" ever, where a man that you are calling "Jesus" for some reason -- maybe because you believe Christianity has a Jesus," too, I don't know -- dies as "a perfect, complete sacrifice." Then you talk about a sacrifice "made in the name of God" desecrating or rendering unholy or ordinary the sacrifice made by this "Jesus" person. I'm not clear on something though, so, please help me out here: In what way would anyone making a sacrifice in God's name affect the sacrifice made by this "Jesus" person if, as your say, the sacrifice of this "Jesus" person is "a perfect, complete sacrifice?"

  One other question: You describe this desecration of the sacrifice of this "Jesus" person as "a rule," but I don't understand the rule. Can you explain the rule to me?

  Islam is almost as simple: Its core is to do good works in the name of Allah. "Good works" is defined as any works that benefit yourself and/or society. And refraining from doing bad works--bad works are those which harm self and/or society. This is as close to the real truth as you get--eliminate "in the name of Allah", and it would be perfect. Notice the lack of rules and burdens.

  So, if I understand you correctly here, just the elimination of the words "in the name of Allah" would in your opinion make Islam a "perfect" religion, is that right? You say that a Muslim's doing "good works" and not "bad works" is "as close the real truth" as one could get, but my question to you is this: What do you believe to be "the real truth"?

  You decide, is eating pork something that is harmful to self or society? What about homosexuality between consenting adult partners? Does that genuinely harm society? Or does it merely offend a few people who are religiously programmed to see such as vile? And since when is it necessary for women to wear face veils to do good works? They can do good works as well as, or better, without those stupid face veils.

  Are you asking me here is the dietary restriction on eating pork imposed on all Muslims is harmful or causes genuine harm to society? If so, no, I don't think their not eating pork work harm to society. What I'm not clear on here is how a Muslim that should offend the sensibilities of another Muslim, who has religious scruples against eating pork can be said to have caused genuine harm to society by his knowledge that another Muslim eating pork, but I can understand how a Muslim having religious scruples would take steps to keep their children away from Muslims that cause offense by eating pork when they desire to teach their children to not eat pork.

  I can also understand how a Muslim with religious scruples against anyone that engages in the practice of homosexuality would not only be offended, but would take steps to keep their children away from Muslims that advocate such deviant sexual behavior knowing how easily children can be influenced by those that deviate from the normative standards in which they wish to raise their children. I don't see what eating pork or women wearing veils over their faces or not wearing veils over their faces has to do with "good works," but are you suggesting to me that anyone that engages in homosexual practices is engaging in "good works"?

  Rule Number One: If you wish to make a religion appeal to the maximum number of people and have it stick around, keep the rules to a bare minimum. Eliminating redundant sacrifices for Christians and excessive rules for Muslims would make their religions less oppressive, plus it would appeal to more people.

  Is there is "Rule Number Two"?

  Tell me this: Why would be the point of making a religion that is especially appealing to the masses if the religion itself isn't approved by someone higher than we human beings? Yes, a religion could be devised that might have "appeal to more people," but to what end? Let's just say that a vast number of people should embrace this hypothetical religion that has such great appeal: How will this religion save them from death? At John 3:18, KJV, Jesus stated that those not putting faith in his ransom sacrifice have been "condemned already," so what would be the value of such a religion if following its precepts leads to death?

  @just Ron:

  So my take is by standing up to them an getting [labeled] an apostate should be an honor because that means you are like christ.

  Huh?

  @Tuesday:

  Your post is the exact approach I use when broaching the blood doctrine, I talk about the pharisees first then hit the blood doctrine. Works like a charm every time.

  Would you work this charm on me? I just want to see for myself if it works.

  @Mary:

  Egghead, the sheer magnitude of your stupidity, ignorance and outright lies is matched only by the grotesque blind worship you dole out to a [book publishing] company that has caused untold damage to millions of lives over the years.

  How so, @Mary?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Most people do not know what Jehovah's Witnesses believe as to the sacredness of blood, so how could they possibly know what our view is on blood transfusions? People tend to "know" Jehovah's Witnesses as being the religious group that doesn't celebrates holidays or birthdays. Some of those that have attended school with the children of Jehovah's Witnesses know them as the ones they knew in school that would stand, but would never recite the Pledge of Allegiance and never put their hands above their hearts as everyone else sang "The Star Spangled Banner" in the classroom. I really don't know how to answer your question, except to say that Jehovah's Witnesses are not known as the religion that doesn't accept blood transfusions.

  @Mary wrote:

  It's hard to imagine where you dream this crap up, but I doubt you actually believe what you wrote above. Even as a child I knew that 'worldly' people knew us for 3 things: Refusing to stand for the national anthem, knocking on people's doors Saturday mornings with their never-ending "the sky is falling" nonsense, and the one I heard most often: "You let your children die rather than take a blood transfusion."

  You say that you heard these things said about our refusal to stand for the National Anthem from the folks at whose doors you knocked on "Saturday mornings"? Jehovah's Witnesses do not refuse to stand for the National Anthem, for that would be disrespectful for any US citizen to do, and if you were told as a child when you were attending school by either your parents or by someone else that you should not stand for the National Anthem, you were given some bad advice and taking such a position no doubt unnecessarily annoyed and aggravated people that thought what you were doing to be disrespectful to them and to the country.

  You also claim to have heard most often when you were a child that Jehovah's Witnesses 'let their children die rather than take a blood transfusion'? I don't believe you. You may have heard as a child what the position of Jehovah's Witnesses was with respect to blood transfusions, but I don't believe as a child you could have understood it very well or that as a child you could have explained our position to anyone. I don't suppose you had any children when you were a child, so how can you expect me to believe that you heard anyone say on any of those "Saturday mornings" when you were knocking on doors that "You let your children die rather than take a blood transfusion"? You can tell your story to someone else, but I don't believe you.

  I was all too familiar with this as this doctrine was a big issue with my sister when she was young, it nearly cost my father his life twice and it was instrumental in my brother in law losing his life.

  Right, but my statement (quoted above) was that "[m]ost people do not know what Jehovah's Witnesses believe as to the sacredness of blood." wasn't referring to someone like you, who, as a child (or as a so-called "born in") might have attended the meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses, but never had a Bible study with anyone (as is advocated nowadays!) so as to know that we even had a position on accepting blood transfusions in connection with medical treatment. I don't want to sound callous here, but I don't really care that you think the position that Jehovah's Witnesses take with regard to blood transfusions was instrumental in the death of your brother-in-law.

  Blood is generally given by physicians to patients that have lost blood due to an accident or who have lost blood volume in connection with some medical procedure that they had undergone, so I'm not really telling you here that you cannot blame the position that Jehovah's Witnesses take on blood transfusions for your brother-in-law's death, but what I am telling you here that something having not a thing to do with his refusal to accept a blood transfusion had to have happened before such a refusal and whatever that something was is what led to his death, since there is absolutely no way you can tell me that you are 100% certain that one or more blood transfusions would have saved your brother-in-law's life.

  While blood transfusions can save a life, they are not guaranteed to save anyone's life, for many soldiers have received blood transfusions on the battlefield, many accident victims have received several units of blood over a two-hour period in an enhanced triage procedure have died from the injuries; the blood transfusions couldn't save them. You are certainly entitled to blame Jehovah's Witnesses for your brother-in-law's death, but you don't get to tell me that his decision to not accept a blood transfusion wasn't guided by his own conscience.

  This bizarre doctrine---that has absolutely no basis in scripture---has killed god knows how many Witnesses over the last 50 years and is probably the thing for which Jehovah's Witnesses are known first and foremost, and not in a good way.

  That our treating blood as sacred, keeping ourselves clean from bloodguilt and from offending God by abstaining from blood 'has no basis in Scripture' would just be your opinion, wouldn't it, @Mary? Jehovah's Witnesses may be known by some to be opposed to accept blood transfusions when they are suggested by physicians in administering medical treatment to them, but, like I said, "[m]ost people do not know what Jehovah's Witnesses believe as to the sacredness of blood," and nothing you say here is going to change this fact.

  It's viewed with such horror that in Canada at least, when a Witness baby needs a blood transfusion, the court steps in if the parents refuse to try and save their child, and will do all they can to save that baby's life. And thanks to the media, whether the radio, newspaper or the internet, most people are more than aware of Jehovah's Witnesses and the issue of blood.

  There is no "baby" that has ever needed a blood transfusion. Just because a doctor wants to administer medical treatment to someone that includes blood transfusions doesn't meant that such blood transfused into a baby's body is guaranteed to save its life, and no doctor will give such a guarantee to the parents of any child. The media in its ignorance on the topic can say whatever it will and so can people like you on internet websites like this one as to the view of Jehovah's Witnesses when it comes to blood transfusions, and while you can say that Jehovah's Witnesses are forced to reject blood transfusions, you are not ignorant of the truth, for you know that the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses would conscientiously refuse to accept blood transfusions because they know from the Bible that blood is sacred and they know from the Bible that its use has only been condoned by God for sacrificial purposes and they know from the Bible that God commands them to abstain from blood.

  And please don't start your bullshit again about how the bible says you can't eat blood. You have been ground to death on the subject, most memorable on this thread started by jgnat on the subject, but, like most die-hards who belong to a cult, you simply stuck your head in the sand, refusing to admit you didn't have a leg to stand on.

  Is that so? Did @jgnat grind me to death on the subject of eating blood?

  I became an active participant in the Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine thread started by @jgnat back on 11 March 2011, and when I joined her thread at page four a week after it began on 18 March 2011, I didn't stick my head into the sand, but explained to her a few things about blood transfusions that I thought she needed to know since @jgnat is not one of Jehovah's Witnesses while her husband is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and it was apparent that she didn't agree with her husband's conscientious decision to reject the use of blood transfusions in connection with his medical treatment. I pointed out to @jgnat that "[t]he risks associated with the use of blood in connection with the transfusion of blood and blood products far outweigh the benefits that one hopes to obtain." Because @jgnat isn't one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I wasn't really discussing the Bible with her as much as I was discussing the "viability of bloodless surgery as an alternative to accepting blood transfusions." This is my memory of the topic, @Mary. I also remember something else about this topic.

  @jgnat indicated that the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society gives "the impression that bloodless alternatives are safe" and anyone that follows its advice in good conscience are "[putting] their lives at risk every day." She had indicated to me how at that time her husband didn't fully "understand the consequences" of his not accepting blood transfusions in connection with his medical treatment and how it was her hope that "the decision [would] be taken out of his hands," which is exactly what her view is as to the children of Jehovah's Witnesses, believing the courts in Canada should make the medical choices for minors and not their parents.

  I didn't believe this to be true, but I did join her thread thinking that we would be discussion such "bloodless alternatives," and I went on to make mention to her of the four blood components called "fractions" that are "being used by doctors to treat patients for many illnesses." Anyway, that thread turned out to be a campaign in which @jgnat sought to rail against the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses with regard to blood transfusions, especially where the children of Jehovah's Witnesses face death over the refusal of their parents to submit to the wisdom of "the medical community" to intercede in their behalf in order to save their lives using blood that they -- not the medical community, but Jehovah's Witnesses -- believe to be sacred, rather that being a discussion about blood fractions, so I eventually withdrew from it.

  I'm pretty sure that many Jehovah's Witnesses would have availed themselves of medical treatment that involved the use of blood factions had they been available before they died of whatever the illness was to which they succumbed, but unfortunately many of the blood fractions that I mention above have only come online in the years since their decease, so it is possible that many of us today will not succumb to the same illnesses to which our loved succumbed were we willing to accept the treatment that the latest medical technology has produced that was not available to those that have died.

  @Leeca wrote:

  There was an article stating NOT to have transplants, it was likened to cannibalism. New Light on that subject since.

  @djeggog wrote:

  That was ignorance, and Jehovah's Witnesses have been known to print some ignorant stuff.... This change wasn't new light, but an error that needed to be corrected.

  @Mary wrote:

  Tomato, tomatoe......what's the difference?

  If you cannot see the difference, then it is not likely that you will understand anything I might say to you here. You're so close-minded and opinionated that you won't hear anything I might say.

  The Slobbering Body members demand unquestioning obedience to whatever nonsense they spew from the 6th Floor no matter how high the price (and many have paid the ultimate price for their warped interpretation of the bible).

  Like who exactly? Who among Jehovah's Witnesses has paid "the ultimate price" for their refusal to accept blood transfusions as a part of the medical treatment? This isn't about any "Slobbering Body members," is it"? Look, @Mary: Prove to me, if you think you can, that any of the people that died -- whether they were children or adults -- would not have died had they accepted blood transfusions.

  Even if you had in your possession the actual medical records for any of the patients that have died or the news reports of these patients that have died, the only statement you could present here is how the doctors thought that had they been permitted to administer blood to these patients, that this might have prevented them from paying "the ultimate price, and "might" isn't good enough. To satisfy my inquiry, you need to be able to produce a statement from any physician to the effect that a blood transfusion would have saved their patient's life.

  No doctor can guarantee that anyone to whom he or she gives a blood transfusion will not die, or that a blood transfusion will not lead to complications due to a compromised immune system. Many hospitals today administer blood that is more than two weeks old, and the fact that they continue to do this to their patients has introduced a significant risk of complications, including post-operative infections, respiratory problems, kidney failure or death. I'm sure you don't want to hear this, but the transfusion of whole blood into patients predisposes them for infections that their compromised immune system can no longer defend against. Did you know this?

  An infant contracted hepatitus at birth as the result of a blood transfusion. Why did the doctors give this infant blood? Because of an incompatibility with his mother's blood type, he was critically anemic at birth? No. This infant was given a blood transfusion because this is what the doctors have always done and for no other reason.

  In reviewing some 6,000 heart surgical patient records, a 2008 study found that patients receiving blood that was more than two weeks' old not only had a significantly higher risk of complications, but an adversely impacted immune system found in critically ill patients led to things like colorectal cancer recurrence and organ failure, because a blood transfusion lowers the host's immune response and its ability to fight off infections, so that it predisposes a sick patient for the inset of infections that their immune system could have fought off were it not for the transfused blood. Now if you're a mentally-crazed person or just ignorant, then it's more likely than not that you wouldn't want to hear and aren't hearing any of this, but maybe you aren't either and are reasonable enough to listen to me.

  Rather than apologize and let people decide matters with their own [consciences], they---like you---refuse to acknowledge what a bunch of hypocritical misfits they really are and just keep repeating "We're God's Channel here on earth....We're God's Channel here on earth......blah, blah, blah......"

  Apologize for what? Who are "a bunch of hypocritical misfits"? If you are here referring to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses as such, other than making people mindful of what viable alternatives to blood transfusion are available, they must allow people to decide matters that relate to the use of blood and blood products in connection with their medical treatment based on their own consciences, since no one that sits on the governing body is responsible or even legally able to make such decisions for anyone else's family not their own. One other thing, @Mary: You're way off-topic with this. This thread isn't about blood transfusions.

  @Leeca wrote:

  A talk that was given finally "stumbled" me, never went back after that meeting. He said that none of us are good enough, not doing enough, really why are we here at the meeting if we are not devoting every inch of ours lives to the ORGANISATION. No mention of devotion to Jehovah. Yes in that moment I did think, what the hell am I doing here? And that was before the talk had even finished. It was like I had my eyes open for the first time. That was the last meeting I ever attended. Wonder how many others have left over a talk that "stumbles" them?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Well, I'm sorry to hear that you were stumbled over someone telling you that you weren't good enough and/or wasn't doing enough. I don't know how you knew that the brother delivering this talk was talking do you, but ... if I sound rather calloused about this whole affair, but is there anything else besides "new light" and your people being "stumbled" by men that you would like to bring to my attention? I do admit that I'm not as sensitive as you are about what I view as little human foibles.

  @Mary wrote:

  Is that what you call it--not being "sensitive" to "little human foibles" when we are forced to watch family members die because this cult claims that by taking one, you're [forfeiting] your eternal salvation?

  No; you have taken what I said to @Leeca out of context, for my reference to "little human foibles" was to the talk that @Leeca told me that she had heard at the Kingdom Hall that had been a cause for stumbling to her, she indicated that she had been "stumbled" over being told that she wasn't "good enough" and/or wasn't "doing enough," and my understanding is that as a result, this was the very last meeting that she and her family had attended. We weren't discussing the position that Jehovah's Witnesses take regarding blood transfusions at all.

  Is this what you call it when someone that you viewed as a close friend, rapes your son or daughter, denies it, and is allowed to continue on in their congregation as though nothing has happened?

  No; you have taken what I said to @Leeca out of context, for my reference to "little human foibles" was to the talk she heard at the Kingdom Hall during which her belief is that she was being told how she wasn't "good enough" and/or wasn't "doing enough," which stumbled her, and turned out to be the very last meeting that she and her family had attended. We weren't discussing the position that Jehovah's Witnesses take regarding blood transfusions at all. You don't provide enough information for me here:

  If someone should report that they have been raped by anyone, whether the alleged rapist should be associated with Jehovah's Witnesses as a baptized Witnesses, as an unbaptized associate or isn't associated with Jehovah's Witnesses at all, it seems to me that an investigation of the rape would be handled by law enforcement authorities and not by any of the elders in the local congregation. And as to such a rape disrupting the activities in the congregation, I'm not sure what you are suggesting here: Are you suggesting that the meetings conducted at that Kingdom Hall should be cancelled during the period when an investigation of the rape is taking place or what?

  If law enforcement should permit the alleged rapist to attend meetings at the congregation after he or she has made bail pending the completion of its investigation and trial, are you suggesting that additional sanctions should be placed on the alleged rapist by the elders, even though the alleged rapist is presumed to be innocent until evidence should materialize that establishes his or her guilt or he or she has been convicted of the offense in a court of law? Are you suggesting that the elders should be using the Urim and the Thummin to determine the guilt or innocence of an alleged rapist in their midst with a "yes" or a "no," or just what are you suggesting here?

  Is that what you call it when a grandparent is no longer allowed to speak to their grandchild simply because the grandchild doesn't believe the nonsense that this religion tells them is "the truth"?

  No; you have taken what I said to @Leeca out of context, for my reference to "little human foibles" was to the talk she heard at the Kingdom Hall over her having taken away from it that she wasn't "good enough" and/or wasn't "doing enough," which stumbled her, and turned out to be the very last meeting that she and her family had attended. We weren't discussing the position that Jehovah's Witnesses take regarding blood transfusions at all. If a grandparent doesn't want to speak to their grandchild, that is the grandparent's choice, but there is no prohibition on any family member speaking to their relatives, whether they be active Jehovah's Witnesses, disfellowshipped relatives or unbaptized relatives.

  Please don't give me that crap that the Society doesn't forbid this, because you, me and everyone on this board knows only too well, that that is exactly what they teach.

  Doesn't forbid what? I don't follow you.

  Eggnog, you are without a doubt, one of the sorriest, most pathetic excuses for either a 'christian', a debator, or even a human being that I've had the misfortune of coming across.

  Ok.

  Your [willful] ignorance, your attempted sleight-of-hand when it comes to the [embarrassing] and non-scriptural doctrines, and your misplaced loyalty to a cult that wouldn't hesitate to kick your ass to the curb if they knew you were on this site, is a great demonstration to what mind-control can do to a person.

  You must be a bit slow on the uptake, @Mary. Do you really think my presence on JWN is unknown to others? Has it never occurred to you that I am here on JWN because I have an agenda? If we were here discussing who should have their ass kicked, what about someone that thinks she can willy-nilly twist another's words into something that they did not say? How would you feel were someone to attempt to twist your words, @Mary?

  The word "cult" might describe all Christian denominations, each of them being exclusive religious systems that are distinctly different from other denominations, having their own religious beliefs and practices. Personally, I'm fine with being referred to as being a member of a cult, which word is interchangeable with "denomination," but I'm not ok when this word is being used as a pejorative. God's organization isn't a cult, but there does exist a cult-mentality in some congregations, and it exists primarily because of an inordinate fear that some in a certain congregations have of the elders.

  You're not fooling anyone on this site, with the sole exception of yourself.

  It may surprise you to learn this, but I really don't come to JWN to fool anyone.

  @tornapart:

  Djeggnog.. what I don't understand is if you are an active JW and trying to explain to us what the WTS means in this article about associating with apostates.. that even children shouldn't be associated with if they've left home.. what on earth are you doing here?

  Go back and re-read what I wrote in response to the questions raised by the OP as to Jehovah's organization has "lots and lots and lots of rules," as @TimothyT claims, and as to whether he was "missing something." I was hoping to get him to give me one or two examples of the burdensome rules that have been imposed on some by Jehovah's organization that he found to have been "either stupid or petty or both." You'll find that I wasn't explaining to anyone what the article, "Watch Out for the Leaven of the Pharisees" meant, but merely making the point that it was written as counsel to the elders. I don't know how you came to the conclusion after reading what it was I wrote that I was explaining this article.

  I don't know what brought you here to JWN either. Some may come here in order to vent about the governing body (although soon there will only be elders to disparage as the great tribulation approaches), and some may come here hoping to find others to commiserate with them in some way, but I don't have a secret agenda on here. To answer your question, I'm here to speak to the many lurkers that read the threads here on JWN, who may be on the proverbial fence and having doubts about their faith. What did you hope to do with this information? Why is there a need on your part to know "what on earth" an active Witness is doing here on JWN? Has it never occurred to you that the reason the reinstated brother or the sister isn't baptized again is because he or she had lost his or her good standing in the congregation?

  Are you aware that expelled persons continue to be Jehovah's Witnesses unless they should formally disassociate themselves from God's organization? This means that while you might think you are viewed as being an apostate by God's organization, you may be viewed as a fleshly Christian that got himself or herself disfellowshipped since the elders don't have time to spend trying to figure out who is and who isn't an apostate that rejects God's word and who is a fleshly Christian that has an issue with one or more of the elders or with someone in the congregation and refuses to let it go. Did you know that elders talk to disfellowshipped persons all of the time?

  Perhaps you came across my response to @Nobleheart in this thread, where I was asked about "parents shunning their own son/daughter," but my comments had nothing to do with the "Watch Out for the Leaven of the Pharisees" article. @Nobleheart seemed to believe shunning to be among the "arbitrary or inflexible rules" imposed on Jehovah's Witnesses, but I disagreed with what he had opined. I pointed out that "[t]here is no rule in place that requires a parent to shun his or her own son or daughter, but Jehovah's Witnesses are admonished to avoid the kind of spiritual fellowship that they may have had in the past with their children, although, as parents, the giving of counsel might become necessary."

  You are either 1) Not a true JW at heart or 2)Being disobedient to the FDS that you hold so dear

  As to your #1, I don't know what "a true JW at heart" is, but I am actively one of Jehovah's Witnesses. As to your #2, you are vague here in that it is not possible for me to guess what it is you think it is I am doing that would constitute disobedience. Maybe it will suffice for me to say (and maybe it won't) that when you exchange posts with me, you are exchanging posts with God's organization even if you should think that my exchanging posts with you on JWN constitutes disobedience.

  To be blunt, you would do well to make the working out of your own salvation your focus, and not be making your concern things that aren't any of your business. Why, you have enough difficulty understanding what things you have read in this thread, so perhaps it would be better were you to deal with those things over which you might have some control, rather than worrying yourself about things over which you have no control at all.

  You are associating with 100's of apostates!!

  Am I? Who are these apostates with whom I have associated myself? What are their names? I assume that you have reasons for believing that I socialize with apostates, but in what ways do I socialize with them? What have you heard? What kinds of things do I do with these apostates? For example: How often do I talk with these apostates on the telephone and what is the approximate length of my average phone conversations with them? Do we exchange email? Have you perhaps heard that we meet at coffee shops to chat and sip coffee or tea, or that we meet at restaurants to share a meal? Do we perhaps go to movie theaters together or see plays or concerts, or arrange social gatherings at our respective homes or get together at picnics?

  Of course, I'm just humoring you here; I don't expect an answer to these rhetorical questions. The aforementioned article states that "[w]e are not [benefitted] by trying to refute the arguments of apostates or those who are critical of Jehovah’s organization," and I agree that there is nothing to be gained from anyone coming on here in an attempt to refute anything that either apostates or those critical of God's organization might say here on JWN. on here.

  I've actually spent lots of time socializing with fornicators, including homosexuals and bisexual adulterers on the "down-low" and with criminals, including convicted pedophiles. Not to shock you, but some of our brothers and sisters "were" fornicators, even criminals, but they have since been "washed clean" and are now wearing "white robes." (1 Corinthians 6:10; Revelation 7:9, 14) I don't know if you consider yourself to be an apostate or not, but I wonder if you would consider yourself to be worse than these folks or better than these folks?

  @baltar447:

  There's no rule on shunning your family?

  No, there isn't.

  What drugs are you taking and can I have some?

  I don't take drugs of any kind, but if I did, yes, I wouldn't have a problem sharing them with you. Tell me this: Why do you use drugs at all? Do you use prescription drugs? If so, which ones to you use? If you use drugs recreationally, do you know why?

  @Fernando:

  Would you like to explain to us, from your heart, exactly what is "legalism" and its exact opposite?

  Not really, but I'm willing to provide here a few examples of what is and what isn't legalistic anyway. @tornapart seems to me to have the same Pharisaic spirit that is found in many of our elders that take the legalistic approach, and their vote to disfellowship at the drop of a hat is 100% assured, even for minor offenses or errors in judgment, since these are unable to recognize true repentance in those to whom they could have given a private or public reproof, especially when they don't like the person. They are considered to be "hard core" when it comes to judging matters because mercy just isn't something that they do. If you don't understand these examples, please feel free to come back here and ask me a more specific question since this question of yours is rather broad.

  Legalistic

  "You must not commit adultery" (Seventh Commandment)

  "You must not murder"(Sixth Commandment)

  "You must not steal" (Eighth Commandment)

  "You must not covet" (Tenth Commandment)

  Non-Legalistic

  'Speak truth with your neighbor' (Ephesians 4:25)

  'Put away wrath, anger, abusive speech and obscene talk' (Colossians 3:8)

  "Abstain from fornication" (1 Thessalonians 4:3)

  'Love your neighbor as yourself (Romans 10:9)

  @TimothyT:

  Im trying to make a point that this organisation is most [oppressive]. Almost EVERY thing i did as a JW was frowned upon. I wanted a beard, NO. I spiked by hair, NO. I cut my hair off, NO. I went to college, NO. I went to uni, NO. I wore trainers for the meeting, NO. I wore a creased shirt, NO. I didnt do my top button up, NO. I didnt wear a matching suit, NO. I did after school activities, NO. I had non JW friends, NO, I wish my friend a happy birthday, NO. I eat a piece of bday cake, NO. I take part in a toast, NO. I have the internet in my room, NO.... I could go on... and on... and on... and on...

  Perhaps you were one of those that kept to yourself the things that were bothering you, so that you didn't bother to take your concerns to an elder outside of your congregation or didn't bother to write a letter to the branch to ask for assistance with these complaints you had against the things you were being told by the elders in your local congregation from the circuit overseer to do, and eventually these "rules" had become so burdensome that you began to paint God's organization in its entirety with the same broad brush, declaring it to be "most oppressive." I don't know where you live, but maybe things would have been different for you had you moved elsewhere, like to the state of California, USA.

  This is not something about which I boast since there are some among Jehovah's Witnesses whose consciences are weak when compared to mine, but I've eaten a lot of birthday cakes, and I've often gone back and gotten a second slice to take home with me when no one was paying any real attention to what I was doing, and no matter what its name, a birthday cake is just food, and it tastes pretty much like any other cakes I've eaten. Why should you let your freedom be judged by the consciences of the elders or anyone else?

  If someone has a problem with eating cakes said to be "birthday cakes," why would you say to such a person, "Hey, I'm going to take a slice of this birthday cake home with me. Would you like me to cut a slice that you can take home with you?" If you have Romans 14:1, 2, 20, 21, and 1 Corinthians 10:29-32, in your copy of the Bible, so do the elders. However, in the matter of clothing, if what you have been wearing to the Kingdom Hall doesn't measure up to the preferences of a certain elder, there's nothing to prevent you from being malleable, and letting him know that you would not be opposed to buying a better suit and a better shirt were he willing to write you a check for, say, $300.

  Most of us that use computers at home today have access to the internet, which permits us to do send and receive email, do online banking, track our children's whereabouts, download the movies we rent and watch on our tvs, backup our data, and, of course, download electronic copies of the Watchtower from jw.org to our iPads, so maybe you have been a bit too timid about saying "Yes" due to an unhealthy fear of the elders. I've even led a toast in honor of Jehovah that went something like this (and we'll just say that this is Tony's 21st birthday):

  "Tony is 21 today, and it's really not easy to give advice to someone that has reached this plateau in their life the things for which he should look out, but I'm going to do so anyway. I suppose most of you are going to take this celebration to the bar, and as some of you know, I'm not into all of that, so I won't be joining you this evening, but please designate a driver so that none of you end up flunking the breathometer and getting yourself arrested tonight for a DUI.

  "I'm not your priest, Tony, nor your pastor, but I'm telling you, the Catholics, the Baptists, the Adventists and even you Darwinites, that Darwin the prophet was right about one thing: We are definitely more intelligent than the animals, and while all of the Christians here would say that our intelligence came from God, if we have yet to transform our way of thinking as to how we approach celebrations, what is there to distinguish us from the animals and how can we set the right example for Tony who becomes a member of the 21-Club today?

  "If you know it to be the case that your conscience doesn't always work as well as it should, volunteer to be Tony's designated driver so he is not faced with having to associate his 21st birthday with his being arrested for a DUI and having to make bail to get out of jail. You don't want him to have to carpool or take the bus to work because he is making monthly car payments on a car he cannot drive because his license is suspended, while incurring about $15,000 or so in penalties and costs, including attorneys' fees.

  "'I was out celebrating my birthday!' won't help you get your driver's license and help you to get your life back to the way it was before you joined the 21-Club.

  "I want to make a toast to my God, Jehovah, for it is through me that he forewarns and arms Tony and the rest of you with the good sense that the good Lord gives us to make the right decisions tonight, even if it isn't our birthday. If you're going to celebrate, do so responsibly.

  "If any of you need a ride home, you have my number. Call me and I want $30 each cash, no checks. My wife loves Red Lobster and Red Lobster doesn't take checks. Raise a glass and let the church say 'Hallelujah!'"

  In the end, when i read the scriptures where Jesus correctly shown the pharisees up because of their holding to such silly traditions, it reminds me exactly how the organisation do the very same thing.

  Please don't get mad at me for saying this, but I've heard this said many times before, and I want to clarify something here about something that Jesus said to those religious leaders of his day that were teaching the people to observe their "silly traditions," rather than adherence to God's word. It's true that Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their being such sticklers for folks following the rules as they understood them based on how they interpreted the Law of Moses; they liked to enforce the law on tithing, for example, so observance of this law and whatever other things were binding upon the Jews to observe weren't "silly traditions," but they had become experts in legalism, in chastising and threatening to expel folks from the synagogue, and going after fellow Jews for small infractions of the Law, things for which they could have extended mercy, but they were "hard core" when judging others.

  Like I stated in my message to @tornapart above, some of our elders today seem unacquainted with mercy, a very important principle embodied that the Law of Moses, and consequently they just don't do mercy. Let me say this again: These traditions were rooted in the Law, but it was the added rules that the these religious leaders imposed on the Jews that were both unnecessary and burdensome. Such legalism imposed by some elders on those in their respective congregations serve to crush the spirit of the congregation as a whole causing a cult-mentality to emerge with no one in it brave enough to leave or say "Enough!"

  @tornapart seems to me to have the same Pharisaic spirit that is found in many of our elders, who take the legalistic approach, and their vote to disfellowship at the drop of a hat is 100% assured, even for minor offenses or errors in judgment, since these are unable to recognize true repentance in those to whom they could have given a private or public reproof, especially when they don't like the person. They are considered to be "hard core" when it comes to judging matters because mercy just isn't something that they do.

  They are not so much rules and laws, just what they call 'principles'. Jesus two main laws make ALL these things invalid. The bible is so clear on that.

  Well if "[a]lmost EVERY thing i did as a JW was frowned upon," we are probably talking about rules and laws based on the personal preferences of one or more of the elders and not Bible principles at all. Jesus did teach how loving God with one's whole heart, soul, mind an strength, and loving one's neighbor as oneself are the greatest commandments, but these commandments didn't make a rule that was promulgated by the elders and imposed on folks not making a left turn when leaving the Kingdom Hall parking lot "invalid," and didn't make a rule promulgated by the elders and imposed on the children congregating in the back of the Kingdom Hall during meetings just to chat "invalid." Such rules are part of the "tradition" that exists in many congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses, and such rules make sense for congregations that needs such to help cars enter traffic from the parking lot and to help young ones in attendance to benefit from the meetings.

  However, forming a judicial committee just to talk to someone about the left turn that someone had observed be made when leaving the Kingdom Hall last week contrary to the elder-inspired rule, or sequestering the parents to discuss the congregating that someone had observed during the meeting the other day contrary to the elder-inspired rule may also be the part of the "tradition" that exists in some congregations, which is legalism. Such the making of unnecessary and burdensome rules without compassion are the kind of things that serve to make God's word invalid for mercy triumphs over judgment. I don't know if you know what this means, @Timothy, but I'm going to assume for the sake of the lurkers that you do.

  I will elaborate only to say that when Jesus' disciples had been accused of violating the sabbath law by plucking (harvesting) and rubbing the grains with their hands (threshing) as had been lawful for them to do according to the Law of Moses (Leviticus 19:9, 10), but we read at Matthew 12:1-4 how Jesus indicated how unbalanced the Pharisees' legalistic viewpoint about the sabbath misrepresented God's word, that the sabbath wasn't given to keep people from working, but to ensure that God's people would have the time to advance true worship as they rested from their secular pursuits. Jesus' disciples had been advancing true worship, and had only plucked heads of grain on the sabbath because they had become hungry.

  Jesus reminded them how the high priest (Ahimelech) had understood that while the week-old showbread was holy, his giving the showbread to David and his men to eat was a merciful thing for him to do, despite the fact that God had commanded that only the priests should eat the showbread, because "fresh bread" had just been placed on the table in place of the week-old showbread that had just "been removed." (1 Samuel 21:6) What this means is that David and his men, who were ceremonially clean and hungry, had not only eaten that which was unlawful for anyone but the priests to eat, but despite God's law regarding the showbread, the Bible is clear as to how Ahimelech extended mercy to these men on the sabbath while adhering to God's law regarding the new showbread, proving that elders should be compassionate and merciful when shepherding the flock of God and not misusing their role in the congregation by promulgating burdensome rules that could lead some to not only stumble, but stumble badly.

  When I read the bible, i cannot help but notice how far removed from it this organisation has become. If anyone sat down and read it cover to cover, without any Watchtower or Awake, any Christian magazine, any journal articles to do indepth research, they would read pure and unadulterated truth. When that is compared with Watchtower philosophy, they are very different. It surprises me how JWs cannot see this.

  Earlier I quoted from 1 Samuel 21:1-6, the passage to which Jesus referred at Matthew 12:1-4, and at verse five, mention is made in the KJV Bible of "the vessels of the young men" being "holy," and that the men were "sanctified this day in the vessel." This same verse is rendered in the NWT Bible as referring to "the organisms of the young men" continuing to be "holy," and that today each of the men were "holy in his organism." Lastly, this same verse is rendered in the ASV Bible to "the vessels of the young men" being "holy," and that today "shall their vessels be holy." Hardly anyone reading this verse would be able to understand what it means without help from someone.

  I am able to explain it without the use of any Bible study aid published by the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, because I have studied the Bible a very long time and I have come to know not only what things the Bible teaches but I understand, for the most part, the meaning of these things. But you seem to be saying that you, like me, have a clear understanding of what the Bible teaches. How then would you explain @TimothyT, "without any Watchtower or Awake," without "any Christian magazine," without "any journal articles," (1) to what 1 Samuel 21:5 refers as to these "vessels" or "organisms," and (2) in what way exactly would you say these men had become "sanctified" or "holy"? If you cannot answer this two-part question, this would not surprise me, but your inability to answer this question is proof that were you to read the Bible "from cover to cover," you would have difficulty understanding everything you read in it.

  I am also familiar with what you refer to here as "Watchtower philosophy," but, to set the record straight, the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, which represents the board of directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania incorporated in 1884, is associated with other societies in the world, such as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., and the International Bible Students Association of England and the International Bible Students Association of Canada.

  The governing body is associated with the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania for administrative, legal and publishing purposes only, whereas it has established some 90 branches where branch committees of three or more provide direction to the congregations to which they are assigned. Contrary to what people like to say about the governing body, there are a minimum of 277 men having responsibility for Jehovah's organization, seven of whom -- the ones that many believe to be running God's organization on their own -- are officers that sit on the board of directors.

  @Billy the Ex-Bethelite:

  They're more pharisaic than the pharisees ever were. I don't think the pharisees ever came up with something as bad as the JW blood doctrine that would result in the deaths of innocent children and deceived adults.

  The blood doctrine taught by Jehovah's Witnesses hasn't been responsible for the deaths of anyone, whether those dying were innocent children or adults. You are free to believe that our doctrinal beliefs were responsible for folks dying, but the truth of the matter is that people want to believe that had those who have died not rejected blood transfusions, they would not have died, but transfusing one unit of blood after the other into a patient is no different than injecting the patient with epinephrine (EPI) and some anesthetic agent (like lidocaine or bupivacaine), except the difference is that by transfusing blood one offers the patient risk.

  You may want to believe that blood transfusions are life-saving, but they are not life-saving, for no doctor can guarantee anyone to whom he or she gives a blood transfusion will not die, or that a blood transfusion will not lead to complications due to a compromised immune system. Transfused blood introduces a significant risk of complications, including post-operative infections, respiratory problems, kidney failure or death, and so a patient that accepts blood transfusions may still die from his or her condition.

  Often the pharisees doctored the written law to make it easier for the people.

  Where in the Bible is there mention of the Pharisees doing what you suggest here?

  Many of the pharisees "rules" actually made the archaic law tolerable for the Jews.

  How so, @Billy the Ex-Bethelite? I'd like to see an example -- just one would be sufficient -- of a rule imposed by the Pharisees that made the Mosaic Law more "tolerable" for the Jews as you just suggested here.

  Jesus often condemned the Pharisees because he believed the Mosaic Law should be interpreted even more liberally, lifting nearly all of the sabbath restrictions.

  Like what exactly? You say Jesus lifted nearly all of the sabbath restrictions, believing the Mosaic Law should be interpreted "more liberally" than the Pharisees had interpreted the Law, but please provide an example of Jesus having lifted any of the sabbath restrictions. I don't believe you can name a single one since Jesus kept the Law; he didn't abrogate it as you are saying here.

  On the other hand, WT adds rules that makes the law of Christ far more burdensome. Not only is their blood policy unscriptural, turning an old dietary restriction that was never punished with death into a JW medical law that has resulted in the untimely deaths of thousands of people and children.

  What rules have Jehovah's Witnesses added that in your opinion has made the law of the Christ "more burdensome"? If you are referring to God's command to "abstain ... from blood," are you suggesting that you don't consider this command to be a part of the law of the Christ? If not, why not?

  Their disfellowshipping procedure is a prime example of WTs building thousands of legalistic and hypocritical laws on top of an unscriptural foundation. Perhaps it's their ultimate accomplishment in out-phariseeing the Pharisees.

  Are you comparing disfellowshipping as practiced by Jehovah's Witnesses with expulsions froom the synagogue of the Jews by the Pharisees? (See John 9:22)

  @Disillusioned Lost-Lamb:

  Rules don't have to be written to be implied or enforced. Growing up I'm sure every one of us knew certain things were not ok, even though they were never a direct rule from our parents. The same is true with J-Dubs, but much more arbitrary. Each congregation has it's own silly unwritten code of no-no's to "fill in the gap", what is acceptable in one hall is against the rules in another; a fact almost no JW will deny. If you’ve ever moved from one congregation to another you’ve experienced it first hand.

  This is true and the point I was making earlier (to @TimothyT).

  @Mary wrote:

  This is no different than a Witness who chooses to die rather than accept a blood transfusion, because they've been taught by the Governing Body, that if they do accept a transfusion, Jehovah will murder them at Armageddon.

  I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses and I have never taught such a thing. This is a lie and I believe you know it.

  @Azazel:

  to the JW/apologists djeggnogg and celestial dont take over someone elses thread ,start your own and we wont have to read it.

  I didn't take over the OP's thread. I merely posted responses to it, including this one, and if you should believe otherwise, then there is nothing I could say to you that will convince you of this. If you don't want to read any of my posts, just look to the left for my avatar and handle and then skip these posts.

  @Leeca wrote:

  So no rule requiring parents to shun their children. If so why am I being shunned by my parents?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  I don't know. You will have to ask your parents. There is no rule.

  @keyser soze wrote:

  And yet, JWs believe there is a rule, which is why the majority of them do it.

  There is no official rule that requires one's own parents to shun their children.

  And where do they get this idea from?

  Where did who get the idea that it's ok for a parent to shun their own children?

  Do they simply pull it out of their asses, every single one of them that engages in shunning, or is it something that's planted in their heads by what they hear from the platform, and read in WT publications?

  It this is important to you, I suppose you could do a bit of research on the issue.

  My father, a grown man, was once pulled aside by an elder for nodding hello at a disfellowshipped person. Not speaking, simply nodding.

  And...?

  You can con those less enlightened ones who may be lurking, but most of us on this forum know better. We've witnessed and experienced first-hand what you claim there is no "rule" about.

  What you've experienced is a cult-mentality by certain elders that have their own interpretations of what Jehovah's Witnesses ought to believe.

  @Mary:

  "...After hearing a talk at a circuit assembly, a brother and his fleshly sister realized that they needed to make adjustments in the way they treated their mother, who lived elsewhere and who had been disfellowshipped for six years. Immediately after the assembly, the man called his mother, and after assuring her of their love, he explained that they could no longer talk to her unless there were important family matters requiring contact." -----Kingdom Ministry Aug 2002 p.3

  So upon your reading this piece, you conclude that you should do to your mother what this man did to his mother because this is what he did? On what basis would you do something like this to your own mother?

  "...the Bible says "to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator... They also realise that the word "anyone" in this verse includes family members not living under their roof....... But what will those dear parents do? Will they obey Jehovah's clear direction? Or will they rationalize that they can have regular association with the disfellowshipped son and call it, "necessary family business"? In making their decision, they must not fail to consider how Jehovah feels about what they are doing......How would Jehovah feel, though, if the parents of an unrepentant wrongdoer kept putting Him to the test by having unnecessary association with their disfellowshipped son or daughter?"-----Watchtower 2011 Jul 15 pp.31,32

  The decision to shun a relative is up to the individual to decide. Only they would know whether there is a reason for association with the individual. You seem to be reading more into this piece than it actually states: You seem to be suggesting that what you have quoted here doesn't refer to "regular association with the disfellowshipped son," although that is how I read this piece. Someone in the congregation that knows that you have a disfellowshipped relative and should see you associating with the relative might conclude all sorts of things about your association, but the decision on who you will and will not associate, who you will or will not shun, especially where a disfellowshipped relative is concerned, is up to your own conscience since often we must work with disfellowshipped persons that are not related to us at all. (Galatians 6:4; 1 Corinthians 10:29)

  "...What if we have a relative or a close friend who is disfellowshipped? Now our loyalty is on the line, not to that person, but to God. Jehovah is watching us to see whether we will abide by his command not to have contact with anyone who is disfellowshipped.-Read 1 Corinthians 5:11-13.

  This is true, but no casual observer would know whether your loyalty to Jehovah "is on the line," would they? Unless you should have told someone that you don't feel you can shun a particular disfellowshipped relative or shun a particular disfellowshipped close friend, such a conclusion would just be speculation on their part, would it not? Let's say the person is a fornicator, a greedy person, an idolater, a reviler, a drunkard, an extortioner: What if your "contact with anyone that is disfellowshipped" is not of a social nature, but of a business nature? For example, what if the person is your landlord and you are renting an apartment or a house from the person? When your sewer backs up or the central air goes out, how long will you continue to read more into this piece quoted above that it really doesn't say?

  Consider just one example of the good that can come when a family loyally upholds Jehovah's decree not to associate with disfellowshipped relatives. A young man had been disfellowshipped for over ten years, during which time his father, mother, and four brothers "quit mixing in company" with him. At times, he tried to involve himself in their activities, but to their credit, each member of the family was steadfast in not having any contact with him. After he was reinstated, he said that he always missed the association with his family, especially at night when he was alone."----Watchtower April 15, 2012 page 12

  And you think the point of this piece you quoted here to be what now? That because the father, mother and four siblings of a young man that had been disfellowshipped shunned him for more than ten year years, they learned after his reinstatement that he had always missed associating with them? I don't know of any "decree" from Jehovah -- not one -- that commands Christians not to associate with disfellowshipped relatives, so what is your point? Do you typically read things out of context, @Mary?

  From paragraph 16 of the article, Betrayal--An Ominous Sign of the Times":

  "There are members of the congregation who committed serious sins and who were reproved "with severity, that they may be healthy in the faith." (Titus 1:13) For some, their conduct has required that they be disfellowshipped.... What if we have a relative or a close friend who is disfellowshipped?

  You do now that Titus 1:13 is not talking about disfellowshipping, right? This article doesn't tell us what the reasons were for this person's family didn't associate with the disfellowshipped relative. For all we know, this young man did something quite repugnant, such as raping a child, and for many of us, it would be rather difficult to have any dealings with anyone, including a relative, that was guilty of something as heinous as pedophilia. I do know that once such a person is reinstated, a convicted pedophile will never be eligible to be used in the congregation for any reason, and he can never be a pioneer. I don't have all of the facts, but what I do know is that paragraph 16 begins by stating that "members of the congregation "were reproved with severity.'" I'm not comfortable reading more into this paragraph than is actually written. You're also off-topic again, since I joined this thread to discuss the article "Watch Out for the Leaven of the Pharisees" [w12 5/15 30], not disfellowshipping or shunning for that matter.

  I think this kind of thing has to eat you up inside since you don't seem to have been able to move on with your life. What possible difference does it make in your life what Jehovah's Witnesses believe if you have no interest in being one of Jehovah's Witnesses any longer, @Mary? What is it that is driving what seems to me to be a very real anger in you? If you have a beef with Jehovah's organization, you can certainly write a letter to the branch if you wish, but I don't care to hear your complaints about a religion from which you were either left or were expelled, and I have no beef with you.

  Do you bitch and moan the way you have done in this thread over the way in which your last employer may have treated you before you either left or were fired? If you do, I assume that you are not insane, so what's the point of your doing this? Please lighten up.

  Care to revise your bullshit comment there egghead?

  You have a gripe with someone, but it isn't with me. I didn't make any "bullshit comment," and what I read in your posts is contempt for God's organization even though I don't know you personally and I haven't done anything to you at all. Why do you feel you cannot just talk to me like you would someone that you didn't know? What I believe is my business just as what you believe if your business. I am prepared to share with you and others what things I believe, but if you do not wish to reciprocate, that's fine; I won't hold this against you.

  But I would ask that you take it down a notch since I'm not here to argue with you, to debate anything with you, to fuss and fight with you. Again, I don't even know you to be engaging in such behavior with you. If you cannot control the things you might say to me in response, I will withdraw from exchanging posts with you since I don't understand your anger toward me when I've done nothing to you.

  @Mary:

  The point Celestial, is that there is no biblical rule being broken with regards to accepting a blood transfusion.

  I agree that "there is no biblical rule being broken with regards to accepting a blood transfusion." There is, however, a scriptural injunction at Acts 15:20 that Christians should "abstain ... from blood" just as we are also commanded by God to "abstain ... from fornication." Jehovah's Witnesses interpret this command to mean that we cannot drink blood, we cannot eat meat that isn't "kosher," meaning without our making sure that the blood has been drained from it, and that we cannot accept a blood transfusion. Awhile back, I pointed out how based on the scriptural injunction at Leviticus 18:20, Jehovah's Witnesses interpret this command to mean that God prohibits in vitro fertilization (IVF) where the sperm used to fertilize the ovum doesn't belong to the woman's husband.

  These are my religious beliefs just as trinitarian Christians, for example, believe Jesus to be God, the second Person of God. I accept that trinitarians believe what they do, but I do not agree with their beliefs. Now you clearly know what I believe these two commands to mean, but I accept that you do not agree with my beliefs, ok? I don't want to fight with you and I'm not changing my beliefs to suit you, even as I suspect that aren't going to change your beliefs to suit me.

  @djeggnog
• 

  TimothyT

  Djeggnog...

  With all due respect you just talk far too much. I cannot keep up with what you are saying. I have read and reread what you have stated in your post but I don’t see where you are coming from. I work better with shorter and more succinct to the point paragraphs.

  As I gather from your post, I totally agree that I do not know a lot about the bible. I can’t name the 66 books... I can’t name the 12 disciples... I can’t reel off scriptures and tell you exactly where they come from... I do not understand a lot about the Old Testament... and there are MANY things I don’t understand. However, I understand that Jesus is the Lord and that salvation is through him and him alone (John 14:6). When you read the scriptures, it is made very clear to us that simple faith and belief in Jesus is what will save us. (John 3:16) His teachings are simple and good for us. These I know and am well versed in.

  I can’t give you an essay on the technicalities of Christianity and how the JW group adopt these, but I can say that when I read the gospels plainly, I can see huge discrepancies between Jesus teachings and this organisations. Jesus load is simple; the organisation’s isn’t. Jesus taught x; they teach y. Jesus shown mercy; the organisation doesn’t. Jesus focused on the more important things; the organisation focuses on petty little things. Even as a JW it is undeniable that what the bible says is different to what the JWs teach. The differences are so blatantly staring all of us in the face.

  Timmy x
• 

  keyser soze

  My father, a grown man, was once pulled aside by an elder for nodding hello at a disfellowshipped person. Not speaking, simply nodding.

  And...?

  My point was simply that JWs don't formulate the idea of shunning disfellowshipped ones on their own, but rather are influenced by other factors. They do it out fear and guilt. Fear of repercussions if they are caught associating with them, and the constant bombardment of guilt, that they are doing something wrong in doing so.

  Why should they experience fear or guilt if there is no "rule"?

  What you've experienced is a cult-mentality by certain elders that have their own interpretations of what Jehovah's Witnesses ought to believe.

  You are splitting hairs here. You seem to be of the opinion that something only qualifies as a rule if it's written explicitly in WT publications in the form of "dos" and "donts". You are mistaken. Something is a rule if an elder decides it is. Whether they are acting on the Society's behalf, or wholly on their own, they have a certain amount of power and authority over other JWs. This power/authority has been given to them, unreservedly, by the WT. And there are consequences for defying them.
• 

  ziddina

  Geeez, look at all the post space that Eggnog's posts take up...

  Forget banning Rick Fearon; I suspect that if DJEggnog was banned, there'd be enough 'memory' for 200-page threads that are FAR more fun to read than his inane ramblings...
• 

  djeggnog

  @TimothyT:

  With all due respect you just talk far too much. I cannot keep up with what you are saying. I have read and reread what you have stated in your post but I don’t see where you are coming from. I work better with shorter and more succinct to the point paragraphs.

  Ok. But I would recommend that you read a paragraph, meditate on what it says, and if you feel you don't understand what was stated in it, that you post a message to this effect, and you and I or someone else on JWN will discuss the meaning of the hard-to-comprehend paragraph with you.

  As I gather from your post, I totally agree that I do not know a lot about the bible. I can’t name the 66 books... I can’t name the 12 [apostles]... I can’t reel off scriptures and tell you exactly where they come from... I do not understand a lot about the Old Testament... and there are MANY things I don’t understand.

  Based on what you say here, and your referring to Jesus' "12 apostles" as the "12 disciples," I clearly do know more about the Bible than you do, and if you don't understand a lot about the Old Testament -- and btw, we rather cavalierly refer to the Hebrew text of the Bible as the "Old Testament," but I get your drift -- then you cannot possibly begin to comprehend to good news of the kingdom of God, for it is based on the promise at Genesis 22:18 that was given to the patriarch Abraham that Jehovah God all of the nations of the earth would be blessed by means of Abraham's seed, and that blessing has come to be through the Lord Jesus Christ. It is in this portion of the Bible -- the Hebrew text with some Aramaic thrown in -- that Jehovah God reveals himself to us, for in contrast with the things we read in the Greek text -- in that other portion that some cavalierly refer to as the "New Testament" -- God is explained to us, and not only by Jesus, but by some of his apostles in the things they wrote and by the things they did.

  However, I understand that Jesus is the Lord and that salvation is through him and him alone (John 14:6). When you read the scriptures, it is made very clear to us that simple faith and belief in Jesus is what will save us. (John 3:16) His teachings are simple and good for us. These I know and am well versed in.

  You say you are "well versed" in these two scriptures, are you? Jesus described himself at John 14:6 as being "the way." What did Jesus mean by this? I will stop there to see how "well versed" you are in explaining what Jesus meant before I go on to ask you how it is you understand Jesus' describing himself as being "the truth" and "the life." Not many Jehovah's Witnesses understand what John 14:6 means, hardly anyone in Christendom understands what John 14:6 says since they believe Jesus is God, but maybe you are one of the few that do understand this verse, and I look forward to reading your response to this question: What did Jesus mean when he said at John 14:6 that he is "the way"?

  Jesus states at John 3:16 that he was given by God to the world because "God loved the world." What did Jesus mean by this? Surely being "well versed," you can explain what it was Jesus meant by "the world," and why it is that Jesus couldn't have meant that God loved everyone, for in this same verse Jesus goes on to provide in this verse a distinguishing factor when he said that God did this so that "everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life." Obviously by "the world," Jesus could not have been saying that God loves anyone that will "be destroyed," for Jesus goes on to say at John 3:18 that "he that exercises faith is not to be judged," but "he that does not exercise faith has been judged already," so I would like to read your response to the question: What did Jesus mean when he said at John 3:16 by "the world"?

  I am not trying to trick you, but simple faith and belief in Jesus will not save anyone. Let me say that again: You may be of the belief that simple faith and belief in Jesus will save you, but such will not save anyone. John 3:18 states that one must exercise faith "in the name of the only-begotten Son of God." Now you know that Jesus' personal name is "Jesus," but here's my third question, @TimothyT: Do you know what Jesus' "name" is? When we read at Acts 4:12 that there is "not another name under heaven ... by which we must get saved," what does "name" mean? What does it represent?

  I could be wrong, but based on what you said here, I'm pretty sure you don't know the answers to the first two questions, which means you cannot have a basis for believing that you will be saved. Have you patterned your life after Jesus' life or have you taken a parallel course that you think will lead you to life? I am not asking you this question, but I'm just wondering here how you will answer the three questions that I did ask you here, @TimothyT.

  I can’t give you an essay on the technicalities of Christianity and how the JW group adopt these, but I can say that when I read the gospels plainly, I can see huge discrepancies between Jesus teachings and this organisations. Jesus load is simple; the organisation’s isn’t. Jesus taught x; they teach y. Jesus shown mercy; the organisation doesn’t. Jesus focused on the more important things; the organisation focuses on petty little things. Even as a JW it is undeniable that what the bible says is different to what the JWs teach. The differences are so blatantly staring all of us in the face.

  If you do not wish to write an essay, that's fine, but I would appreciate an example or two of these "huge discrepancies" of which you speak here between Jesus' teachings and the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. You say here that it is undeniable that what the Bible says is different than what Jehovah's Witnesses teach, but if you've not read the Bible, how can you say that what we teaching is different than what the Bible says? You indicate here that you have "read the gospels," and have found huge discrepancies" between the things that Jesus taught and the things that Jehovah's Witnesses teach, but I'd like just one example, or two if you have a second one. You're mistaken and that you will not be able to provide a single example to me, let alone two examples, to support your contention, but I will look forward to reading your next response, if any.

  @keyser soze wrote:

  And yet, JWs believe there is a rule, which is why the majority of them do it.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  There is no official rule that requires one's own parents to shun their children.

  @keyser soze wrote:

  And where do they get this idea from?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  Where did who get the idea that it's ok for a parent to shun their own children?

  @keyser soze wrote:

  Do they simply pull it out of their asses, every single one of them that engages in shunning, or is it something that's planted in their heads by what they hear from the platform, and read in WT publications?

  @djeggnog wrote:

  It this is important to you, I suppose you could do a bit of research on the issue.

  @keyser soze wrote:

  My father, a grown man, was once pulled aside by an elder for nodding hello at a disfellowshipped person. Not speaking, simply nodding.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  And...?

  @keyser soze wrote:

  You can con those less enlightened ones who may be lurking, but most of us on this forum know better. We've witnessed and experienced first-hand what you claim there is no "rule" about.

  @djeggnog wrote:

  What you've experienced is a cult-mentality by certain elders that have their own interpretations of what Jehovah's Witnesses ought to believe.

  @keyser soze wrote:

  My point was simply that JWs don't formulate the idea of shunning disfellowshipped ones on their own, but rather are influenced by other factors. They do it out fear and guilt. Fear of repercussions if they are caught associating with them, and the constant bombardment of guilt, that they are doing something wrong in doing so.

  I agree. There are many in God's organization that have an inordinate fear of the elders, an unhealthy fear of men, rather than a healthy fear of God. But if certain elders have a cult-mentality, if certain elders have their own interpretations of what Jehovah's Witnesses ought to believe, why am I hearing you say that I have such a cult-mentality, that all of the elders in God's organization have such an attitude toward the flock, "promoting fear and guilt." If you know that Jehovah's Witnesses have the truth, why not let yourself be wronged and keep on serving Jehovah? Say what you want, but what you are saying isn't true for all of the elders, and Jehovah's Witnesses do not all of them fear repercussions for the decisions they make when dealing with disfellowshipped relatives or other disfellowshipped persons.

  Why should they experience fear or guilt if there is no "rule"?

  Because in certain congregations, there may, in fact, exist such a rule, and fear of man keeps many from speaking up, keeps many from taking such matters to elders outside their local congregation, such as to the elders in another circuit, keeps them from writing a letter about these matters to the branch.

  You are splitting hairs here. You seem to be of the opinion that something only qualifies as a rule if it's written explicitly in WT publications in the form of "dos" and "donts". You are mistaken. Something is a rule if an elder decides it is.

  Am I "splitting hairs here"? A rule doesn't need to explicitly spelled out in our publications in order for it to exist by word of mouth. An unwritten rule might be promulgated by the elders in one of the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses to the effect that those arriving at the Kingdom Hall early should not opt to sit in the seats toward the rear, but should fill in the seats toward the front of the Hall. Now is some should opt not to sit toward the front of the Hall in those seats, but in those seats in the back of the Hall where they feel more comfortable sitting, is there going to be a judicial committee formed for this? Is it likely that someone will be reprimanded for this? No. What is more likely to occur is that such a rule will be abandoned as one that certain members of the congregations disfavor and that will be the end of the matter.

  But some elders may want to take it up with the person to see if they might persuade the person and have their way, so that if they can prevail on the "troublemaker" to sit toward the front of the congregation, the rest of the congregation will get the message that you must sit in the front of the congregation, and not in the back, if you should arrive early to the meetings that evening. The question is, should you cooperate with the "rule" and move to the front of the Hall and sit there, or should you stand your ground and continue sitting in the rear of the Hall in those seats? The answer to this might be a hard one for some, might be a hard one for you, @keyser soze, but that is the question that must be answered, and your answer to it will determine whether the "rule" lives or the "rule" dies for you. Now what will you do?

  I think you should hold your ground and write a letter about the matter to the branch, but what do I know? This is not a disfellowshipping offense, but you may cower in fear of the elders and decide to move to the front of the Hall, let it go, not wishing to have your hand recognized when you wish to make a comment in the meetings, but if you are fearing petty repercussions like this coming your way, what do you think is likely going to happen to you should someone more grave, should something more seriously come along and you are being judged by these same "hard core" elders and their unwritten "rules"? What you decide to do is up to you, but if you had asked me, I'd say, "Hold your ground. DON'T DO IT." But I'm not you. In fact, you go on to say about the local elders:

  Whether they are acting on the Society's behalf, or wholly on their own, they have a certain amount of power and authority over other JWs. This power/authority has been given to them, unreservedly, by the WT. And there are consequences for defying them.

  So cower in fear of the elders. Maybe you will be rewarded for being so cooperative; maybe you won't be. Take the "wait-and-see" approach if that is what you choose to do, but not all of the elders in God's organization have this cult-mentality. What may be true in your local congregation may not be true in all congregations. Maybe you will discover that you have been wrong in painting every one of the elders with the same brush, and maybe your opinion will be validated and you will find out that you were right all along, but try this: Visit a Kingdom Hall outside of yours, maybe one that is outside of your own circuit. Take the temperature there. Get a reading.

  @djeggnog
• 

  cantleave

  Eggnog you are an idiot!
• 

  TimothyT

  Haha... thanks for your responses eggnog.

  Do you know... i cant be bothered. I have better things to be doing than arguing about doctrine. Just like I will be, i encourage you to continue reading your bible and getting the best from it. Best of all I encourage you to continue to BE a Christian doing good to your neighbours, etc.

  I see no point in quoting scrips to you because, as was always the way with the JWs, it seems you have a clever answer in response to everything.

  However i will give you one of the discrepencies. As quoted above there is a huge difference between John 3:16 and many other verses in John regarding Jesus as the means of salvation, compared to this quote from the Watchtower: " To receive everlasting life in the earthly Paradise we must identify that organization and serve God as part of it." Watchtower 1983 Feb 15 p.12. A BIG difference there!

  :)
• 

  pharmer

  they get to 'choose' the sense they feel comfortable addressing while avoiding the sense they wish to avoid (for whatever reason--I'm not here to accuse). :) I often times see this happening amongst children, where they really do know the main point of an issue is correct and valid, but for different reasons they still choose to argue.

  ...once again.

  Also, found this gem...I think it applies at the moment:

  *** g788/22p.3DoOthersDoYourThinking?***

  Tricks ofPropagandists

  Symbols stir feelings. Words such as mother, home, justice, freedom—all pack a wallop for the heart. Slogans are catchy and seem to be packed with wisdom. Favorable facts are exaggerated; the others are distorted or concealed. Oratory often substitutes for sound argument, and it diverts attention from unpleasant truths that cannot be concealed. Burn a building in one place while robbing a grocery store somewhere else, is the technique.

  or·a·to·ry

  n.

  1. The art of public speaking.

  2. Eloquence or skill in making speeches to the public.

  3. Public speaking marked by the use of overblown rhetoric.
• 

  keyser soze

  If you know that Jehovah's Witnesses have the truth, why not let yourself be wronged and keep on serving Jehovah?

  I don't know where you got this idea from. I don't know that they have the truth. In fact, I know the opposite to be true.

  Visit a Kingdom Hall outside of yours, maybe one that is outside of your own circuit. Take the temperature there. Get a reading.

  I was a JW for many years- from birth, until my early thirties. I visited many Kingdom Halls, in differen't circuits, in differen't places in the US. While I noticed a few subtle differences, mostly cultural, they were all exactly the same with regards to how much control the elders had over the rest of the congregation.

  Maybe you will discover that you have been wrong in painting every one of the elders with the same brush

  I haven't painted anyone, with any brush. You obviously missed my point. I don't believe that all elders are corrupt. In fact, I will concede that the majority of the ones that I dealt with personally were good men, doing thankless jobs.

  But whether an elder is good or bad, right or wrong, the congregation is at their mercy, subject to their whims. This is the power that has been granted them by the FDS. If an elder decides that something is a rule, such as the way disfellowshipped ones should be treated, then it is a rule.

  And for the record, you are being rather disingenuous in implying that it is only a handful of elders who take such a hardline stance with regards to the disfellowshipped. It is far more than that. It is the majority. You know it as well as I do.

  I think you should hold your ground and write a letter about the matter to the branch, but what do I know?

  LOL. Yeah, I should do that.

  You are delusional if you believe the branch would ever side with a rank-and-file JW over a body of elders, or even just one elder. Their concern is with organizational unity, nothing more. Certainly not the rights or feelings of an individual.

  At best they would tell you to "wait on Jehovah". Putting the onus squarely on the wronged, and their seeming lack of faith, is far easier than acknowledging that many of the men they select to take the lead are incompetent, or power-hungry jackasses, who, despite what the WT itself says, are neither appointed, nor guided, by holy spirit.