Posts by ScenicViewer

42

LeavingWT's DA letter

by irondork in

the blood issue has been an ongoing arguement between the roomie and me.

not heated, by any means, but she keeps qouting back established wts reasoning on the subject.

"it's feeding, jason.

LeavingWT's DA letter

by irondork in

the blood issue has been an ongoing arguement between the roomie and me.

not heated, by any means, but she keeps qouting back established wts reasoning on the subject.

"it's feeding, jason.

ScenicViewer

Do you have a link to where the letter can be found?

30

What is the WT's current stance on the age of the earth?

by popcorn_eater in

the reason i ask is i remember reading quite recently, in i think an "awake" mag about creation, that other churches confuse people by insisting on young earth creationism, which causes people to lose their faith.

the magazine was going off on groups and churches who insist on teaching science that conflicts with the bible (....).

i thought the wt was a proponent of this young earth creationism as well.

ScenicViewer

"They've quietly dropped it [7000 yr Day], never to be repeated, but the old timers still remember it..."

I too have heard Witnesses mention the 7000 year Day since 1975, even in a talk once, but it was probably 20 yrs ago. I fugured he was not up to date, or never understood the logic behind the 7000 yr day to begin with, which is a problem with many Witnesses...they don't understand the reason for many of their beliefs and it doesn't register with them when something gets dropped.

I blame the Society for that too, since they don't clarify when a change in belief happens. I guess they do this on purpose, to not alert the Witnesses that there was a wrong belief.

30

What is the WT's current stance on the age of the earth?

by popcorn_eater in

the reason i ask is i remember reading quite recently, in i think an "awake" mag about creation, that other churches confuse people by insisting on young earth creationism, which causes people to lose their faith.

the magazine was going off on groups and churches who insist on teaching science that conflicts with the bible (....).

i thought the wt was a proponent of this young earth creationism as well.

ScenicViewer

A thought regarding the 7000 year length of a creative Day...

Wasn't the 7000 year idea tied in with the 1975 predictions? 1975 was supposed to be the end of 6000 years of human existence, and if we add the 1000 yr reign of Christ to that, we get 7000 yrs, a number that is supposedly Scripturally perfect and made sense for the length of the 7th Day, the day of rest.

The Society figured that if the Day of rest was 7000 yrs, then all the creative Days were also 7000 yrs.

The 7000 yr idea was an assumption based on Armageddon happening in 1975.

When Armageddon didn't happen in 1975, the idea of the 7000 yr creative Day also failed. Eventually the organization had no choice but to (quietly) give up on the concept of the 7000 yr creative Day.

Am I missing something here? Was there ever any other evidence that the creative periods were 7000 yrs?

30

What is the WT's current stance on the age of the earth?

by popcorn_eater in

the reason i ask is i remember reading quite recently, in i think an "awake" mag about creation, that other churches confuse people by insisting on young earth creationism, which causes people to lose their faith.

the magazine was going off on groups and churches who insist on teaching science that conflicts with the bible (....).

i thought the wt was a proponent of this young earth creationism as well.

ScenicViewer

How you view the age of the earth -- 49,000 years or less vs billions of years -- will depend on how you view Day 1 of the creation.

I. Some people feel that Day 1 included the creation of the heavens and the earth, and if each creative period is 7,000 years long, the earth would have to be no more than 49,000 years old. This web site lays out the Days this way, https://www.calvinseminary.edu/worship/artwork/creationDays.php.

II. Others feel the heavens and the earth were already here when the 7 creative periods began, so Day 1 begins with creating the light. This allows for the heavens and the earth being much older than other created things.

That's how this web site shows it, http://www.bibleview.org/en/Bible/Genesis/7Days/

The WTS takes the second point of view, light was created on the first Day. This chart is from the Insight book, p 527.

Leolaia's excellent research shows that the Society has no problem accepting that the earth could be billions of years old, which their view of Day 1 of creation allows for.

17

It's Time to Stop Saying...

by zengalileo in

it's time to stop saying that jehovah's witnesses do not accept blood transfusions.

it just isn't true any longer.

i have posted documentary evidence of jws world wide accepting whole platelets , whole plasma, whole white blood cells, their own whole blood after it being stored up to six hours, and evidence of them saying they are "very happy" that the courts ordered the transfusion of their children saving their lives.

ScenicViewer

I received the following information, in a PM, from a JWN member as a follow-up to my post above. By request his/her user name is withheld. Thank you for the information!

you said:
(It really is the same thing, since hemoglobin is 97% of red blood cells, but the WTS calls it a fraction, making it ok for Witnesses to take.)

yes you are correct, but you are forgetting that the same insert also allows "Hemin" which it states as "less than 2% of red blood cells"

well if you add up 97% and 1.75% (for Hemin) you are now broaching 99% of red blood cells as a conscience matter.

I used this ridiculous wording as a way to get my naive JW family to "allow" red blood cells.
I had the dr. write up the consent form to allow "packaged hemoglobin". He even laughed that if the lab saw this they would have no idea what he meant.
Hemoglobin outside of red blood cells are basically waste product the body disposes of (billyruben for example)
If there was one component of blood that DEFINED blood it would be Hemoglobin - hospitals speak of Hemoglobin and RBC analogously.

The WTS allows virtually 99% of the red blood cell as hemoglobin but draws the line at the membrane that holds it hemoglobin together, which is made of fat and cholesterol!

Think about this...... the bloodiest part of blood (hemoglobin) is acceptable, but a sack made of fat and cholesterol is NOT ALLOWED!
99% of RBC - Allowed (hemoglobin)
1% - NOT allowed (cholesterol)

I consider 1% a "fraction" far more than 99%

can you see the absurdity?? On top of this the WT June 15, 2004 QFR's states that "any fraction" of the 4 main components is acceptable.
Is the 1% membrane of the RBC a fraction? Absolutely! on its own that 1% is acceptable, on it's own the 99% hemo is acceptable. Just don't take them together!!!

My Dr. literally laughed at the writing but totally understood where I was coming from. He looked me in the eye and said - "so we just need to word this right and play their same game of semantics"

EXACTLY!! And we wrote up a consent for that my whole family of JW's was happy with when in the end it was allowing red blood cells. MY FAMILY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW! They were proud they upheld Jehovah's law on blood.

And this Dr. had been involved in court cases with the HLC before and asked for copies of the articles I showed him.

I felt like a super hero after that.

You can post my PM if you like but do not refer to my user name as I am keeping low key on this site due to some JW spies keeping tabs on me.
I just thought you'd appreciate the points above
peace out...

I enjoyed reading this member's information. These parts are memorable to me...

"the bloodiest part of blood (hemoglobin) is acceptable..." That is well put.

"...you are now broaching 99% of red blood cells as a conscience matter."

"Is the 1% membrane of the RBC a fraction? Absolutely! on its own that 1% is acceptable, on it's own the 99% hemo is acceptable. Just don't take them together!!!"

"My Dr. [said] - "so we just need to word this right and play their same game of semantics""

"my whole family of JW's was happy with when in the end it was allowing red blood cells. MY FAMILY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW!"

83

What was your most DISTURBING event as an elder ? (Per T.O.S. no full names please).

by Balaamsass in

i'll start the ball rolling.

dealing with kids in any type of judicial manner.

i would do everything i could to get parents to "deal with it-kindly" at home.

ScenicViewer

Thank you Mad Sweeney.

That is puzzling to me. Abortions are banned, even in unusual situations where the fetus can't survive, and possibly even put the mother's life at risk? I don't support abortions, but that really doesn't make sense. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this point at anything the WTS does or teaches.

69

What was the last meeting you ever went to?

by lilbluekitty in

i figured out it's been 4 months and 5 days since my last meeting ever.

july 10th, it was a sunday.

i hadn't been there in 2 months or so and decided to see if anyone noticed i'd been gone.

ScenicViewer

Last regular meeting for me was May of 2006. I attended 2 memorials after that, out of respect for Jesus Christ. As I learned more about the Watchtower I could no longer even attend their memorial, since I had become thoroughly convinced the WTS in no way represents Jesus Christ.

69

What was the last meeting you ever went to?

by lilbluekitty in

i figured out it's been 4 months and 5 days since my last meeting ever.

july 10th, it was a sunday.

i hadn't been there in 2 months or so and decided to see if anyone noticed i'd been gone.

ScenicViewer

I learned a lot of great stuff, like 10 different ways to give money to the society.

Now that is funny. Doubled over laughing here.

17

It's Time to Stop Saying...

by zengalileo in

it's time to stop saying that jehovah's witnesses do not accept blood transfusions.

it just isn't true any longer.

i have posted documentary evidence of jws world wide accepting whole platelets , whole plasma, whole white blood cells, their own whole blood after it being stored up to six hours, and evidence of them saying they are "very happy" that the courts ordered the transfusion of their children saving their lives.

ScenicViewer

Zen said, The only component I have not found JWs to be openly accepting is red blood cells.

Hasn't this essentially been changed too, since the year 2000?

Hemoglobin, which is the same thing as red blood cells, minus the membrane surrounding the cells, is acceptable to JWs now. All the contents inside that membrane -- which is the working part of the red blood cell, the part that delivers oxygen through out the body -- is hemoglobin.

Why would whole red blood cells be needed when hemoglobin does the same job? (It really is the same thing, since hemoglobin is 97% of red blood cells, but the WTS calls it a fraction, making it ok for Witnesses to take. Before the year 2000 hemoglobin transfusion was banned.)

The one component of blood that is needed most often in a life-saving situation is red blood cells. Now, by accepting hemoglobin, the WTS has gotten around the issue that caused more deaths among JWs than any other.

Am I missing something here?