... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
If an Israelite was to bleed an animal without killing it - as the Maasai do - and take the blood to the altar, the blood would have no sacrificial value for the simple reason that no life had been taken.
I think that one thought is enough to make a thinking JW think again. I'd rephrase it as a question to present this way to a JW:
If a Jew had bled some blood from an animal without killing the animal, would the extracted blood have been acceptable as a sacred sacrifice by God?
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
I honestly didn't even bother reading it.
Why break the pattern now? You've been doing that very thing throughout this discussion at various times. You respond before you read. I made that very observation three days ago way back on page 3 of this discussion! You've been running in circles telling folks what they think and disregarding clear and unambiguous statements of the same folks declaring what they think. Your argument looks like this: I say so, so it must be true regardless of what you say you think.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
They are called bona fide occupational qualifications.
In my experience JW's working in, for instance, retail outlets have no problem whatsoever installing all manner of seasonal religious decorations. I know one JW who did the seasonal Santa Clause gig! No problem.
On the other hand, when there's a potential payday to be had, I've seen JWs work the system to the hilt even when what they were saying was false in terms of a bona fide religious tenet. Two of these cases are documented on my blog where JWs refused to sign oaths of allegiance and/or lost employment or employment opportunity. The courts were duped into thinking the claim was true based on how Watchtower publications have presented information, but it turns out the claim is false and a careful reading would have born that out. Of course, later on it was discovered that Watchtower's very elite had been signing the oath of allegiance the whole time. (See: Jehovah’s Witnesses and National Oaths of Allegiance, look in the Employers and Employee Sub-Sections)
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
Marvin - If that's the case then will all JW's be forced to partakes in holidays, military things, gay events, etc? If the jw refuses then the company fires them, can they no longer claim religious discrimination? Or if they are not hired no longer claim religious discrimination? (A jw works at any restaurant, they must partake in happy birthday or they are discriminating and the business can get in trouble so they don't hire them or fire them, etc,etc.) Can't say they can use other employees, what if they are the only server at the time?
That's a good question, and one of the complications at issue.
In the USA it's a tedious thing to compel an employee to do something that is directly contrary to a bona fide religious tenet. But for business owners it's a different thing. The business owner will have to offer products and services for one person as they would to another person without regard to their own bona fide religious views. As one poster suggested earlier, the owner should have realized what they were signing up for before they signed up. As employers maybe business owners can take the same position by disclosing to applicants the full range of duties to make sure the individual knows what they're agreeing to do as employees. Then, if later on an employee says their religious belief disallows something that is a condition of employment they have three choices: 1) comply, 2) quit or 3) be fired. This is one more reason for issuing authorities to make rules clear and then allow business owners time to get their house in order.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
If somebody owns a florist and they are the only employee, if they don't want to service a gay wedding, then the gay couple should move on to the next florist, somebody else will be more than happy to take their money.
Earlier I opined that might be a way to split the baby, but on second thought I don't see that as a solution for multiple reasons. State and local governments issue permits. If someone is to conduct business legally they have to abide by whatever conditions are tagged to that business licence/permit, whether it agrees with their religious preference or not.
But I still contend that permit issuing authorities and associated judiciaries owe it to the business community to convey clear and unambiguous rules on this issue, and if it's not clear now that time should be allowed for business owners to get their proverbial houses in order. The choices would end up 1) obey the law 2) sell the business or 3) shut the business down. Alternately, business owners can lobby legislative bodies to change law to their liking.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
...The problem is you assumed you knew what I meant by fine and OK and proceeded to...
I have no problem whatsoever reading "BS" keyboard by your hand to mean what I've just told you in expressly stated language is rejected by you as something other than what I'm thinking. You don't even address that response coming from you for what it says in terms of YOU telling me that YOU know what I'm thinking better than I know what I'm thinking.
I can't help it if you don't understand synonyms or bother to ask for clarification.
I understand what it means when I say "No" and your response is "BS". You've just told me that what I've written is not what I'm thinking, which is YOU pretending to know what I'm thinking.
The problem is you assumed you knew what I meant by fine and OK and proceeded to argue from that false perspective rather than ask for clarification to help you out.
My response of "No. But in this instance the discussion is about compelling individuals using written statutes, otherwise known as "laws". Hence in this case the discussion is about illegal forms of discrimination and not legal forms of discrimination." was given precisely to CLARIFY my remark was speaking of fine legally and not fine from any other perspective. I clarified my comments in relation to your statement, and your response was to reject my express statement and clarification, which was YOU asserting that YOU know what I'm thinking rather than letting my words speak for what they say. In THAT VERY instance had you let my words speak for what they actually said then you'd not have responded with "BS". But, no, you want to tell me what I'm thinking because YOU know better.
this is jim jeffries.
bear in mind that he's performing to an american audience in boston.
his routine does contain south strong language.. https://youtu.be/jl--yvnni0i.
Thanks for sharing that. I love Jim Jefferies' routines.
On a more serious note, I'd not take his portrayal of gun ownership by Australians too literally. Hundreds of thousands of Australians are legal gun owners and, when it comes to having weapons useful for self-defense, what Australian law permits is pretty much in line with what the average American gun owner has for self-protection, which is something like a .38 sidearm or shotgun.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
If you have an example me telling someone what they think, please show me where that has happened and I will, of course, apologize.
Otherwise, you're just making stuff up. Again.
Okay. On page 3 of this discussion you'll find where you stated of me:
So you think as long as there is no law against discriminating against women it's fine
I responded saying:
No.
Then you told me what I was thinking. You replied saying:
BS. You said if it was legal it should be fine.
You told me my explicit answer of "No" was "BS," universally recognized as telling me I just lied, which is you telling me what I'm thinking is not what I said, which is you telling me what I think..
Me saying lack of law against gender discrimination means it's not illegal to discriminate based on gender is NOT me saying that legal discrimination based on gender is "fine" or "should be fine". It's me saying it's fine PURELY FROM A LEGAL perspective, not simply "fine".
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
Why would anyone want to...
There could be a person in business that offers one service and one service only. Let's pick something ridiculously obscene like singing a really homophobic song followed by a sincere lecture on why gays should be isolated from society as pariah. This is the only service sold by the business owner. Perhaps the owner opened the business thinking someone like the KKK or some other nut-job group would be the primary customer and that's who the owner really wants to work with anyway so that was fine by the owner.
Fast forward to a time where gays see entertainment value in some fool who's willing to stand up in front of everyone and do this thing (perform this one service). So we have a pair of engaged gays who want this entertainment at their wedding reception, and they want the whole enchilada. They want full KKK regalia, lights (darkness!), sound, fire, everything! I can see this happening for one reason if not others: There are folks out there who'll pay money for just about anything and for reasons that would leave others with spinning heads trying to figure out "Why?"
The business owner would have to provide his/her service to one as they would to another. Why anyone would want this service would not matter.
i was deleted as the cobe after i let my adult child move back home and he admitted that he fornicated under my roof while my wife and i where away on a rbc project.
of course the elder mode in me kicked him out of the house.. the elders moved quickly to remove me because i was too involved in "theocractic activities", i had neglected my adult son.. i accepted this primarily because i didn't want to serve with a boe that did not want me.
i was devastated however because it was the only life i knew.
When someone invites me over and want me to bring a 6 pack of beer and a dozen wings, I going to bring a 12 pack and 2 dozen wings!
You have a standing invitation to my place. Let me know when you want to come. I'll make the arrangements so it works for both of us.
