Posts by beginnersmind

18

Re: Blood- Society sent letter saying: DO NOT SHARE THIS INFO. WITH OTHERS

by Lady Liberty in

dear friends,.

our dear friend, skyking started another thread which on the 3rd page he shared something so shocking, that i felt it deserved its own thread!!!

hope that's ok with you skyking!!

beginnersmind

They have made sure that 'technically' that is fact. Jehovah's Witnesses will not expel you for that. Or so they say. BUT if you do so, you are considered to have expelled yourself, as in disassociated yourself. So, as they twist it, you have voluntarily left due to choosing to ignore the doctrine. Same with those who join the military.

Exactly Jeff, I posted the quote below regarding this in another thread. Reading the documents it seems you can have a blood transfusion in Bulgaria without 'sanctions' but elsewhere you will get 'sanctions'. The reality is you will be 'sanctioning' yourself if you willingly have a blood transfusion!

In reality there was no 'deal' with Bulgaria though was there? They were just plain dishonest just to get their religion recognized. Instead of being disfellowshipped anyone taking blood willingly would be classed as having disassociated themselves ie the same result! Theocratic warfare at its best or should I say worst!

3

WT stance on blood transfusion is not biblical - proof from NWT

by Philippus79 in

they are idiots, not understanding that the purpose of blood is to sustain/save life.

god did not always punish the "abuse" (intake) of blood.

not when it was done in a life-threatening situation: .

beginnersmind

Interesting reading. Firstly I have to say I think the no blood transfusion ban should be lifted however I dont know wether I agree with your final interpretation of this account ie no penalty.

So obviously there are circumstances wherein abusing blood carries no penalty. We deduce from this account that such circumstances are when the abuse of blood is for the purpose of saving or protecting life.

If there was nothing wrong or no penalty how do you explain these verses?:

34 After that Saul said: Scatter among the people, and you must say to them, 'Bring near to me, each one of you, his bull and, each one, his sheep, and you must do the slaughtering in this place and the eating, and you must not sin against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.' Accordingly all the people brought near each one his bull that was in his hand that night and did the slaughtering there.
35 And Saul proceeded to build an altar to Jehovah. With it he started altar building to Jehovah.

Are not those verses explaining what happened because the people were "eating along with the blood"? Were they making atonement for their sin? I dont know, I'm just saying it could mean that and if it did that would hardly prove they could take blood without penalty as it was still a sin.

Let me reiterate I do not support banning blood transfusion im just saying I'm not sure this proves what your trying to say it does.

46

I was told: The bible condemn Blood transfusions Period!!!

by skyking in

this is what i was told by a c.o.

eight years ago.

that was before we went over bible information that i had compiled.

beginnersmind

"Jehovah Witness makes secret deal with Bulgaria," "JW's can have blood transfusions with out any sanction in the country of Bulgaria"

In reality there was no 'deal' with Bulgaria though was there? They were just plain dishonest just to get their religion recognized. Instead of being disfellowshipped anyone taking blood willingly would be classed as having disassociated themselves ie the same result! Theocratic warfare at its best or should I say worst!

46

I was told: The bible condemn Blood transfusions Period!!!

by skyking in

this is what i was told by a c.o.

eight years ago.

that was before we went over bible information that i had compiled.

beginnersmind

Double post sorry.

46

I was told: The bible condemn Blood transfusions Period!!!

by skyking in

this is what i was told by a c.o.

eight years ago.

that was before we went over bible information that i had compiled.

beginnersmind

Interesting account to say the least. Wish I could help my family still in to understand how wrong this blood ban is.

4

True to thee 'til death: why Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood

by Bryan in

i haven't seen this posted..... http://www.journal-online.co.uk/articles/show/2719.

true to thee 'til death: why jehovah's witnesses refuse bloodfrom a sociological perspective, blood is a powerful symbol of allegiance for the witnesses simply because it is unimportant to other faith communitiesprint article.

post to facebook.

beginnersmind

Interesting, cheers for the post.

77

What's the big deal with Jesus' "sacrifice"?

by bluesapphire in

what was the big deal with that dam tree to begin with!

beginnersmind

how many similar stories of gods crucified and risen from the dead, etc., born of a virgin mom, blah, blah, blah..
Predate those of Jesus? Any Xtians want to answer that one?

Im not sure if this is what you mean, Mithra and all that, but take a look here:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/136105/2426726/post.ashx#2426726

33

Logic and the fallacy of 1914

by neverendingjourney in

logic dictates that to prove a conclusion you must break it down into its individual parts and prove each individual element.. for instance, i can prove that 2+2=4.

i can also prove that 4 - 1 = 3 and that 3+10= 13. therefore, i can definitely prove my conclusion that that 2+2-1+10=13.. however, i would be unable to prove that 2+z-1+10=13.

because one of the elements, z-1, is unverifiable.

beginnersmind

With the fear of incurring your wrath I agree with Farkel's first post about "not being able to prove 2+z-1+10=13". As you can prove z in that equation it renders it useless in trying to use that specific equation in the illustration imho. However the general mathmatical equation you used u+v+w+x+y+z=1914 to illustrate the absurdity of reaching 1914 I wholeheartedly agree with.

You said, "are you content with making your point by attacking the form of my argument instead of its substance?" Obviously this wasnt to me but theres no need to be so defensive. Even though I disagree with a small part of your post I still think you make a very good point. Its all good.

4

Eyeless vision - Ronald Coyne's eyeless-vision act

by VM44 in

eyeless vision - ronald coyne's eyeless-vision act.

martin gardner for four decades ronald coyne (pronounced "coin"), a pentecostal preacher who lives in my hometown of tulsa, oklahoma, has been wowing church groups with what magicians call an "eyeless vision" act, but first a little background.. for centuries conjurors have known how difficult it is to blindfold a person so effectively that he or she cannot obtain a peek down the side of the nose.

noses project so far from the cheekbones that an opaque blindfold, covering nose and eyes, invariably leaves two tiny loopholes.

beginnersmind

Thanks for the posts. I found them interesting.

23

BBC Radio 5 Live recording and transcript

by IT Support in

thanks for your call, peter.

should a doctor be able to override a patients wishes?.

lets take just one more call before we let you go.

beginnersmind

Thanks for posting this much appreciated.