Questions No JW has answered

by 144001 27 Replies latest jw friends

  • blondie
    blondie

    Yes, AA, many people who came into the WTS after 1973 miss that point or were never told it. Too many JWs emphasize the health aspect. It was the spiritistic angle that made it a DFing offense. It is like blood transfusions while there are some negative health aspects to them, the WTS officially approaches it from a "spiritual" aspect. That is, even if blood transfusions were suddenly 100% safe medically....would the WTS let JWs have them? I don't think so...they'd have to do some fast-stepping.

    That's why I approach it from the drug angle. Could it be said that all drugs might have been used in "spiritism" or are being used in spiritism, that are being used in mainstream medicine? Are those drugs forbidden to JWs, nope.

    I don't smoke, never have, and wouldn't have even it I hadn't been raised around the WTS. Before 1973 most JWs quit smoking before getting baptized. I always figured the 1973 Tobacco Edict was an outgrowth of the 1975 Insanity.

    Is the chicken raised for meat or eggs? (inside joke)

    Blondie

  • LittleToe
    LittleToe

    They miss the spiritistic aspects of alcohol use, too.

    Communion wine-bibing wasn't a new invention 2000 years ago....

  • 144001
    144001

    Thank you to all for your responses. I notice that no JWs have responded, so I must assume that those JWs who are on this board agree with the statements by others here that purport to represent their views, are too timid to respond, or have no idea what they believe but are comfortable with being told what to believe by others. With that in mind, I'll respond to the some of the points made here.

    Blondie: Thanks for your points and excerpts from the WT publications. However, my parents were in the religion since the 60s, and Dad, who is quite the authority, has never raised that point (his focus was on the "defilement" aspect). Nevertheless, you certainly did support it with the excerpts from the WT pubs. Filip raises a good point in response; there are other addictive drugs used by Jehovah's Witnesses, including caffeine. Additionally, the scriptures cited in the Watchtowe publication excerpts you presented refer to druggery. If all drugs are related to spiritism, and spiritism is a bad thing, then the Witnesses ought to ban all drugs, including those that are essential for one to survive. Interestingly, your quote also reveals the racist, bigoted attitude of the Watchtower against American Indians, another example of the Watchtower's intolerance of others. How hypocritical for the Watchtower to constantly demand that their beliefs be tolerated via their trips to our Supreme Court, when they in fact do not respect or tolerate the beliefs of others.

    Filip: Thanks for the point about coffee drinking. Caffeine and nicotine are both drugs, and neither are essential for our survival (OK, Starbucks, please call off the hit men - I won't bag on coffee any more).

    Willpower: (Re: blood) - I don't recall any scriptural differentiation to support the views you attribute to the JWs. Furthermore, JWs eat blood all the time; inasmuch as they are permitted to eat the flesh of animals. But we're not talking about eating blood here; we're talking about injecting it into our circulatory system. Additinally, the blood in an organ is indeed utilized as sustenance, as without it, the organ would not be viable for transplant.

    LittleToe: Good point; but alcohol has always been favorable to the Witnesses due to Rutherford's enjoyment of it. This is just another example of what I referred to with respect to the "politically correct" aspects of the Jehovah's Witnesses; those who wield the political power on the boards of directors of the various corporations that control the Jehovah's Witnesses make the rules.

    Blondie: I don't smoke either and wouldn't even if I had never been involved with the JWs. I only have one body, so I try to keep it in good working order.

  • Will Power
    Will Power

    144... re blood I was being sarcastic sorry wp

  • garybuss
    garybuss

    Debating with a Witness is like being in a pissing contest with a skunk. Arguing with a Witness is like arguing with a drunk.



  • Doubtfully Yours
    Doubtfully Yours

    144001,

    It is what it is. Don't dwell too much on it.

    All organizations have silly/contradicting policies. Why ask why? Will we change anything by asking? Who really gives a damn anymore about their conflicting rules?

    DY

  • PinTail
    PinTail

    Blondie its weird huh, how they become lord and masters of us.

  • 144001
    144001

    Doubtfully:

    The objective of this thread is to give those who are JWs and are questioning their faith a chance to see some additional questions that they might not have considered. By putting it in a public forum, open to debate by all sides, those JWs with questions they're afraid to ask at the Hall can at least have a chance to see a balanced debate on these issues. Unfortunately, the JWs have chosen to avoid my questions, consistent with their past practice. I'm not at all surprised. Blondie probably knows more about what the JWs purport to believe than 99% of those who call themselves JWs. Nevertheless, Blondie's answers, while responsive to the question, did not provide a logical basis for the belief, as I indicated in my response. That's probably because there is no logical basis for their beliefs.

  • Doubtfully Yours
    Doubtfully Yours

    144001,

    Understood and agree with the logic.

    Already then!

    DY

  • filip
    filip
    Who really gives a damn anymore about their conflicting rules?

    uhm, I do.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit