Eggnog you are an Idiot!
Latest Watchtower page 30... They have some nerve to put this!
by TimothyT 100 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
Timmy,
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. Often the pharisees doctored the written law to make it easier for the people. WT often made a big deal about the pharisees deciding that carrying sandals with nails was work, but carrying sandals without nails was not work. They condemn the pharisees "legalism". In reality, the pharisees only made it clear that people could carry most of their sandals on the sabbath without feeling any guilt. AND anyone that carried a "heavy duty sandal" was not put to death or "disfellowshipped". Many of the pharisees "rules" actually made the archaic law tolerable for the Jews. Jesus often condemned the Pharisees because he believed the Mosaic Law should be interpreted even more liberally, lifting nearly all of the sabbath restrictions. 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.
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.
-
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.
To take it a step further, not all invisa-rules apply to every one. All elite positions impose regulations upon the underlings and so on down the line. To every higher level another set of standards, not always upheld by the enforcing position holder, are imposed upon the lower level. Each level has it’s own self-righteous rules that the holder gets to choose who it allows to break or keep such policies. Confused yet?
That’s how they want you; didn’t you know?
-
Celestial
Really? What's the difference between the people that were forced to drink the Kool-Aid provided by Jim Jones & Co. and the thousands of Witnesses who are forced to commit suicide by not accepting a blood transfusion? There.isn't.one.
Survivor Odell Rhodes of the Jonestown incident, stated that while the poison was squirted in some children's mouths, there was no panic or emotional outburst and people looked like they were "in a trance." These were obviously some sick people. I don't know if suicide or murder for a “higher purpose” was a part of the belief system of the People's Temple, but it sounds like the Temple members would do whatever Jim Jones said because of an irrational belief that he was inspired by a higher power. I never believed anything that irrational as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
I can try and understand the theory of mind-control when an extreme set of circumstances presents itself like Jonestown or the Heaven's Gate cult, but I can't relate to it. The theory of mind-control is potentially harmful. It absolves someone of personal responsibility for their actions.
You said the blood issue was non-scriptural. Jehovah's Witnesses may be mistaken, but they believe that it is. -
Mary
Celestial said: I don't know if suicide or murder for a "higher purpose" was a part of the belief system of the People's Temple, but it sounds like the Temple members would do whatever Jim Jones said because of an irrational belief that he was inspired by a higher power.
Of course they believed it was for a higher power and yes they believed whatever Jim Jones said, no matter how irrational. 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. Yes, Witnesses are taught that God would rather see them dead as a doornail, rather than accept a blood transfusion. This is the epitome of an irrational belief and it's done by mind control.
I never believed anything that irrational as one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
You're an idiot for saying something so ridiculous as that, as there are a million irrational beliefs that the WTS puts forth at "truth" and which you must accept as such, otherwise you're branded as an "apostate". I'm sure the followers of Jim Jones would say the same thing that you just said without batting an eyelash.
I can try and understand the theory of mind-control when an extreme set of circumstances presents itself like Jonestown or the Heaven's Gate cult, but I can't relate to it. The theory of mind-control is potentially harmful. It absolves someone of personal responsibility for their actions.
Riiiight. You really believe that anyone in a cult is willing to admit that they're under mind control?
You said the blood issue was non-scriptural. Jehovah's Witnesses may be mistaken, but they believe that it is.
Ya....so tell me something I don't already know. It makes absolutely no difference if Jehovah's Witnesses believe whole-heartedly that the blood issue is scriptural. Just believing something doesn't mean it's true. 500 years ago, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church was that the earth was the center of the universe. They used scriptures to try and support this doctrine and to go against it without recanting would cost you your life. We now of course, have proof that the earth is not the center of the universe, so it made no difference if people believed this doctrine 100%----it still wasn't true.
So I don't give a rat's ass if Witnesses are totally convinced that the blood doctrine is right, because we've shown it both on JWN and on other websites, that it is not scriptural.
-
Celestial
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.
This is dumb. I've never believed something like this, that God condemns people to Armageddon if you make a mistake, even if it's serious, although the idea of Armageddon in itself leads some to believe the God of the Bible is a sadist. But then again, so does the hellfire doctrine. You say I'm an idiot because I said I didn't believe something irrational. Some of the most intelligent people I know used to be members of Christendom and have become atheists. They believe they were mistaken, not irrational.
I guess it's ironic if you feel you were taken in by a “million irrational beliefs.” Did you not have the ability to articulate when you were a Witness? -
Azazel
BACK TO THE THREAD TOPIC
I would like to thank TimothyT for this thread and i believe his substituting the words the WTS really meant to say was acurate.
to the JW/apologists djeggnogg and celestial dont take over someone elses thread ,start your own and we wont have to read it. again celestial i have warned you your approach to others is really quite bad. Learn the rules here and play by them. REMEMBER this is generally an "apostate" forum so if you dont like us and our beliefs just go somewhere else like the back of your KH and talk amoungst yourselves.
Getting annoyed Az
-
keyser soze
So no rule requiring parents to shun their children. If so why am I being shunned by my parents?
I don't know. You will have to ask your parents. There is no rule.
And yet, JWs believe there is a rule, which is why the majority of them do it. And where do they get this idea from? 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? My father, a grown man, was once pulled aside by an elder for nodding hello at a disfellowshipped person. Not speaking, simply nodding.
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.
-
Mary
Celestial said: This is dumb. I've never believed something like this, that God condemns people to Armageddon if you make a mistake
You're right, this is dumb and apparently you haven't been 'paying close attention', because this is exactly what the Organization teaches:
Questions from Readers:
"In view of the seriousness of taking blood into the human system by a transfusion, would violation of the Holy Scriptures in this regard subject the dedicated, baptized receiver of blood transfusion to being disfellowshipped from the Christian congregation?" "The inspired Holy Scriptures answer yes."--- Watchtower , January 15, 1961 , p. 63"They know that if they violate God's law on blood and the child dies in the process, they have endangered that child's opportunity for everlasting life in God's new world......it may result in the immediate and very temporary prolongation of life, but that at the cost of eternal life for a dedicated Christian."---- Blood, Medicine, and the Law of God, p.54
Any part of that you don't get?
So no rule requiring parents to shun their children. If so why am I being shunned by my parents?
Egghead was actually dumb enough to say: I don't know. You will have to ask your parents. There is no rule.
Another braindead comment from a braindead Dub who also isn't paying close attention to the very doctrines he defends: No rule eh?
"...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
"...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
"...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.
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
Care to revise your bullshit comment there egghead?
-
Celestial
Mary, I didn't have the unwavering faith in the resurrection as one of Jehovah's Witnesses so I may not have rejected a blood transfusion. There's mention made in the Mosaic law about the misuse of blood. Under this same law King David murdered Uriah (which is obviously more serious than the misuse of blood) and was forgiven.
