I don't think there's a one size fits all answer, just like there are a variety of reasons that exJW's come here. I have been here for about 4 years and still a JW. Whenever I post, there is generally a certain amount of venom mixed in with some reasonable people. IMHO the board seemed more interesting when Maximus and some others posted. I guess now it's just a habit. I have talked to a few people through private messages but my masochistic streak isn't wide enough to make me want to post here very much.
shadow
JoinedPosts by shadow
-
43
Why do active witnesses frequent the site?
by jimakazi ini'm somewhat currious why active witnesses appear to frequent the site, and if the information on this site causes any to "fade away" or "dis-associate"?.
personally if i have known 18 years ago what i know now i would have been a lot more active in trying to convince all i cared about to leave, instead of fading away [gone with a bang so to speak].
it's funny how when you are in it you can't see it for what it is.
-
-
-
41
Blood taking...is it a disfellowshipping offence or up to conscience.
by Gill incan you tell me whether the taking of blood is a conscience matter or a disfellowshipping matter?.
i ask this because i have just come away from a heated discussion with my parents and they insist that taking blood or blood products has always been a matter of conscience and no one has ever been disfellowshipped for taking blood.
they say that a question was raised at the service meeting over the new blood card/documents whether taking blood fractions was breaking gods law and the presiding overseer j.h said that taking blood has always been a conscience matter and never was anyone disfellowshipped for it.. is this true?
-
-
shadow
deleted for poor formatting
-
22
Are blood fractions safer than primary blood components?
by IT Support ini'm thinking through my new position on blood transfusions, and would appreciate your 'pearls of wisdom.
i now feel that, while a blood transfusion is still dangerous, i would accept it as a last resort, if all else failed.
i would not die, or allow any of my family to die, for want of a transfusion of plasma, platelets, or red or white cells.
-
-
shadow
Blondie,
Related to the question of storage are these comments:
NoBlood.org -
13
BLOOD -- WTS Questions and Sound Answers 9
by Marvin Shilmer inblood -- wts questions and sound answers 9
the decree issued to noah answers the question of what blood god required righteous persons to abstain from.
the blood humans should abstain from is the same blood noah had to abstain from -- the blood of animals killed for food.
-
-
shadow
Marvin has devoted much time and effort on this policy. Hopefully publicizing the flaws and contradictions in this policy will have some positive effect at some point.
The account in Acts 15 continued to permit the consumption of blood in unbled meat as stated in Deut 14:21.
(Acts 15:19-20) Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
(Deuteronomy 14:21) "YOU must not eat any body [already] dead. To the alien resident who is inside your gates you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner, because you are a holy people to Jehovah your God.. . .
This can be discerned by the fact that they made a distinction between blood and things strangled. Naturally an animal slaughtered by strangulation would still contain the blood. An animal found dead would also still contain the blood. One act was prohibited while the other was not. Given the fact that many of those present were former Pharisees, this omission was certainly not accidental. This reinforces understanding this as applying to consumption of blood as food and giving due respect to the Creator when slaughtering an animal. If the decree meant to abstain from eating all blood found anywhere, it seems redundant to specify both blood and things strangled and very sloppy to omit things found dead.
Interestingly, the WT goes beyond requirements of both the Law and Acts 15 by stating that it is sinful to eat road-kill.
***
w83 4/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***Consequently, true worshipers today will not eat unbled meat, whether from an animal that some man killed or from a creature that died in another way.
This same article reasons that the relatively easy requirement stipulated (washing self and garments Lev 17:15) for someone eating an animal found dead (which would contain blood) was due to eating it in ignorance. T
(Leviticus 17:15) As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean.
***
w83 4/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***So, no worshiper of God could eat blood, whether from (or in the flesh of) an animal that had died of itself or from one that was killed by man. Why, then, does Leviticus 17:15 say that eating unbled flesh from such an animal that died of itself or was killed by a beast merely produced uncleanness?
We can find a clue at Leviticus 5:2, which says: "When a soul touches some unclean thing, whether the dead body of an unclean wild beast . . ., although it has been hidden from him, still he is unclean and has become guilty." Yes, God acknowledged that an Israelite might err inadvertently. Hence, Leviticus 17:15 can be understood as providing for such an error. For example, if an Israelite ate meat served him and then learned that it was unbled, he was guilty of sin. But because it was inadvertent he could take steps to become clean. This, however, is noteworthy: If he would not take those steps, "he must then answer for his error."?Leviticus 17:16.
footnote
We find an instructive parallel in another part of the Law involving blood: A man who unwittingly had sexual relations with his wife as she began to menstruate was unclean, but he could take steps to be forgiven. However, the Israelite who deliberately disregarded his wife?s menstrual blood was cut off.?Leviticus 15:19-24; 20:18.
This article does not mention an even more instructive passage found at Lev 11:39,40.
(Leviticus 11:39-40) "?Now in case any beast that is YOURS for food should die, he who touches its dead body will be unclean until the evening. And he who eats any of its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening; and he who carries off its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening.
No doubt this was left out, because few could swallow the argument that this was also eaten in ignorance. A more reasonable view of this scripture is presented at times such as this
*** w84 2/15 p. 29 Leviticus?A Call to Holy Worship of Jehovah ***Holy Worship Demands CleannessLev 11:40?How can this regulation be harmonized with Deuteronomy 14:21, which says: "You must not eat any body already dead"?
Actually, there is no disharmony between these texts. Deuteronomy 14:21 forbade the eating of an animal that died of itself or was found dead. But Leviticus 11:40 specified what was required if an Israelite violated this prohibition. Similarly, the Law prohibited such acts as stealing, but some people did steal. Penalties that were imposed upon wrongdoers gave force to the Law?s prohibitions.
This leaves the WT in the position of going beyond the Law and even the Pharisees in attempting to shore up the blood policy and to blatantly ignore scriptures that are inconvenient.
-
9
4 Freds
by shadow inhas the story of the 4 freds in bethel been posted here?
or posted on another site?
i tried a few different searches but came up empty.
-
-
shadow
I wish I could but it was before my time in Brooklyn. I just wanted to read about it again myself.
-
9
4 Freds
by shadow inhas the story of the 4 freds in bethel been posted here?
or posted on another site?
i tried a few different searches but came up empty.
-
-
shadow
4 Freds that gave a report about conditions in Bethel in early 70's? They pointed out some problems and Knorr went ballistic.
I think that they might have been former CO's
-
9
4 Freds
by shadow inhas the story of the 4 freds in bethel been posted here?
or posted on another site?
i tried a few different searches but came up empty.
-
-
shadow
Has the story of the 4 freds in Bethel been posted here? Or posted on another site? I tried a few different searches but came up empty.
-
104
How do we protect the abuser?
by ???? in.
so many of you keep posting in this forum that we protect the abuser not the abused.
is this true?
-
-
shadow
Given the nature of the WTS, it is still difficult to compile an accurate statistical picture of what transpired due to previous WT policy.
The experience I spoke of occurred since 2000.
Brumley sounds more like a lawyer than a Christian. I believe WT is less than open about this to protect their image.
The current policy is much better than the old one.
What would you like current JW's to do?
-
104
How do we protect the abuser?
by ???? in.
so many of you keep posting in this forum that we protect the abuser not the abused.
is this true?
-
-
shadow
Disclaimer:
No dispute that many cases seriously screwed up and WT policy was more concerned with image than children.
Just trying to correct some misinformation.
-
104
How do we protect the abuser?
by ???? in.
so many of you keep posting in this forum that we protect the abuser not the abused.
is this true?
-
-
shadow
I have personal knowledge of a case where child told parents (father an elder). First call made was to a therapist. Therapist called police. Then elders were called. Elders did call Legal Dept. Parents would not permit, nor did elders ask to speak to child until after advised by therapist.
Never even a hint of suggestion that this course was inappropriate.