In the US, and most places, churches cannot be sued over internal matters of doctrine. Changes in doctrine do not change that. It's been tested many times.
peacefulpete
JoinedPosts by peacefulpete
-
169
Are the statistics out yet?
by slimboyfat inisn’t it about time they released the report for the service year?
or have they stopped publishing it?
did they released selected figures at the annual meeting as they usually do, such as the memorial attendance or record number of pioneers?
-
-
-
19
Weight Loss and Insulin Control
by cofty inask most fitness coaches, nutritionists or health professionals and they will tell you that weight control is about calories in versus calories out (cico).
after all, you can’t ignore the laws of thermodynamics!.
the flaw in this simplistic reasoning ought to be obvious; a human body and a steam engine are two different things.. our bodies have evolved complex systems of control and feedback loops in order to maintain a steady interior environment, also known as homeostasis.
-
-
peacefulpete
We can't exchange one oversimplification for another. The newest science recognizing the role of insulin resistance is changing the picture but there are many other aspects to factor in. The role of genetics is huge. Familial high cholesterol and cancer risk increase from inflammation causing foods (omega 6) and HAs and PAHs from grilling must not be dismissed as myth. Kidney disease, colitis, food sensitivities, EPA limits to eating of fish from polluted water, etc.
Even eating what is generally held to be good food has risks, eating a lot of spinach (sorry Popeye) or squash or tree nuts for examples, has been associated with a slew of health issues. Most everything we could eat has some toxins or risk. That is how vegetable and animal life evolved, nothing is concerned about keeping us healthy. Bodies have needs and those needs outweigh the risks of unwanted compounds in the organisms we consume. We now through science have the ability to quantify those risks.
In short, moderate exercise, eat your vegies in moderation, eat less red meat, limit sugars and fast once in a while for 12hrs or more seems a middle road that is hard to find fault with.
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
-
-
peacefulpete
One last thought. The prevailing Rabbinic approach to keeping the Law (described as 'building a wall around the Law'), that is, expanding definitions and legislating every possible scenario out of obsessive concern about rules is condemned by Christian theologians as oppressive. It's hard not to see this as an example of that.
When faced with a choice between following the Law or feeding hungry stomachs, the Jesus of the Gospels says: The (Law) was made for man, not man for the (Law).
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
-
-
peacefulpete
As JW interpret the Bible....The JW gb interprets that to mean no bt.
Your comments reveal a large part of the problem people have with the WT.
Your first statement suggests individual JWs have carefully considered the matter but your second nails it down by saying the GB have actually made that decision for them...that a phrase like "abstain from blood," shorn of context, has an almost limitless number of possible interpretations.
I know some have meant well arguing alternative takes of the passage in Acts but personally, I don't think trying to redefine "and from blood" as meaning something other than this taboo regarding blood of a slaughtered animal, is being faithful to the text. The question for those who wonder what early Christians believed about this topic are encouraged to read the surrounding context in Acts and the unambiguous passages in Paul that elicited this story in Acts. Paul was preaching Chrisian freedom from all the religious taboos of the Jews and some new Jewish Christain converts around Jerusalem were taking offense. The suggestion to not abuse their liberty so as not to stumble these weak ones is a pretty typical message of the period. The church leaders at the time of the writing of Acts were revising history a bit to present the image of a united church. But regardless the motives of the work, the context clearly describes a situation very different from how the WT spins it.
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
-
-
peacefulpete
The voluntary donation of blood of an unharmed person for the medical benefit of another is not prohibited in any text. Drawing parallels of the blood of slaughtered animals to blood transfusions is not a rational conclusion. The lack of concern about eating the blood in unbled animals illustrates the Levites did not have a pathological hemophobia. Theirs was a religious taboo with a specific context. If any parallel exists of our days with the pre-scientific context of the writings, it may be that, in the eyes of people of both ages, blood saves lives.
-
14
God Talks to Himself in the Trinity Bible
by BoogerMan inpsalm 110:1 (niv) “the lord says to my lord: “sit at my right hand until i make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”” .
psalm 110:1 (trv) “the lord god almighty says to a third of himself: “sit at my/our right hands until i make our/your enemies a footstool for our/your feet.”” (but don't tell the other third) .
-
-
peacefulpete
Religions need some counterintuitive elements to elevate the system to a spiritual religion. If it completely made sense it becomes mundane. That is one reason the JW church fails to invoke strong feelings of the numinous. Its power to influence is centered only in repetition and group dynamics. That works ok but rarely does it evoke a sense of the 'divine' or deep inspiration.
The Trinity doctrine certainly appears to be an overlay upon the Bible, but at the same time it better explains a great number of passages than Arianism. It is for a reason it is regarded as the Mystery of the Trinity. It isn't supposed to be obvious nor easily grasped. In the world of religion that doesn't mean it isn't 'true'. The earliest Christians believed it was their place to decode the sayings they inherited, to be inspired by them, not to literalize them, to neuter them to becoming merely texts. This why Christianity bloomed into a rich diverse cultural movement. It took centuries for this to become muted through hierchal authoritarian leadership which sought conformity and dogma.
Yes, the doctrine of the Trinity in its final polished form was voted into canon many years after the writings that inspired it, but it is at the same time a product of the writings. Groups like the WT were born in a modern Western context and fail to understand the more ancient mysterious nature of early Christianity.
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
-
-
peacefulpete
I can't help myself from reminding anyone interested in this topic that these "laws" were created around the time of the Babylonian Exile (possibly some tradition dates from the Assyrian exile of Israel) and continued to be revised until the 3rd century BCE. The retrojection of these "Mosaic" laws into the deep past is an artifice of the Levite elite who composed this material. It is true that some elements of Leviticus and Deuteronomy preserve more ancient sentiment, but apart from a few poems little can be said with certainty to be pre-Exilic.
-
169
Are the statistics out yet?
by slimboyfat inisn’t it about time they released the report for the service year?
or have they stopped publishing it?
did they released selected figures at the annual meeting as they usually do, such as the memorial attendance or record number of pioneers?
-
-
peacefulpete
I feel that those who misled me back then, including many org leaders, were sincere. However, the org is today deceptive and cold and self-serving.
Magnum...I see many posters mirror those sentiments. Problem is those sentiments are from people who left decades apart. The change of opinion about the church are the result of a person's perception and their experience, not really to the changes in the church. The church 'worked' for you when you were younger, but it no longer does. That may be because of your widening of your heart or your mind. Simply said, the church never really was the place we imagined when we were new converts or young people raised into it.
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
-
-
peacefulpete
Blood was ceremonially equated with life in living things. Life was sacred, blood was sacred only through connection with life. Blood in a found dead animal no longer had this ceremonial significance. Therefore, the prohibition on eating a carcass wasn't blood related at all. It was the death apart from approved purposes, slaughter for food or sacrifice, that made it ceremonially unclean. Much like the uncleanness of fallen soldiers was not because of the blood in their bodies.
Since the animal found dead was not slaughtered for food or sacrifice, it being not bled was not relevant. It is however relevant to a modern believer trying to determine whether passages prohibiting the eating of blood of slaughtered animals applies to blood transfusions.
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
-
-
peacefulpete
Perhaps of interest is how the Koran addresses this: Surah16,115
He has forbidden to you only carrion, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that over which any name other than God's has been invoked; but if one is driven [to it] by necessity - neither coveting it nor exceeding his immediate need - verily, God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.
Many conservative Muslims do interpret the prohibition of eating blood as relevant to transfusions. However, they also understand necessity for the preservation of life to be of greater importance. Shamefully, blood donations Muslims provide are to be given for other Muslims only and not sold to a commercial company.