Posts by Euphemism

16

NHS stuff about blood

by PoppyR in

a sister sent me this link via email, and i found it threw me all over again.

i just dont know what to think about the whole blood transfusion issue.. it's a nhs site.. (for us etc, thats government health, not witness related at all) and seems to be backing up totally the wt thing about blood being dangerous.. i want some other opinions, it's one jw belief i dont know what to think about!.

poppy xx.

Euphemism

(I'm not a medical expert, and I'm sure this analogy isn't perfect, but here goes...)

A non-autologous blood transfusion is essentially a type of transplant. Someone else's blood is being transplanted into your body.

If someone has a diseased liver, or kidney, or heart, the doctors will try to operate on it. Transplants have a lot of downsides, and they are a last resort, when other measures are inadequate.

But just because they're a last resort, it doesn't mean you wouldn't get a transplant if it was your only hope!

Same thing with blood. It's better not to use it if it's not truly necessary. But sometimes, it's life-saving.

36

Two classes of Christians after all?

by Narkissos in

jw
friends

first, as i am just back online, happy new year to everyone!

totally unrelated to the above (or maybe not), it just occurred to me that the unscriptural wt doctrine of "two classes of christians" might have some faint pars veritatis after all as far as the nt is concerned.. of course it is not about "anointed or not," "two hopes," "heaven vs. earth".. yet several segments of early christianity did seem to allow for a huge difference in levels of requirement, vocation, or fate among believers.

on the one hand, the high and hard way of the apostles, disciples, missionaries, evangelists, martyrs; on the other hand, the minimal requirement of the rest.

Euphemism

Little Toe wrote:All are equal, life is a gift, but each has different "gifts", purpose, and role in life and none should judge the other in that. Suffering and avenues of service are by degree, and the execution therein is due to providence. Regardless, the main focus is Christ and a life of faith and love.

So, the requirements for salvation are different depending on what each person is called to, but that's okay because the fulfillment of those requirements is through divine providence anyway. Is that a fair description?

I see no contradiction when you consider the context of the occurance.

So Jesus was not actually making a general pronouncement beyond the circumstances of the specific occurrence. Gotcha.

(Okay, that was a little unfair of me. The statements could be differentiated as 'anyone doing good is okay, even if they're not with me' as opposed to 'anyone not doing good is doing bad.' I honestly don't see much justification for that in the text, but I asked how you reconcile them, and you did answer.)

Little Toe wrote:Why am I put in mind of Mark 10:2, 3? How do you reply?

I think the Pharisees were damn smart people. Of course, there is a plausible theory that Jesus himself was a Pharisee, or at least Pharisaically educated. In any case, his genius was that he understood the concept of 'framing'. He realized that if you actually try to rebut your opponent's logic, you've conceded the battle to them. Instead, you have to change the terms of the argument, and if possible, put them on the defensive. It may not be kosher in academic debate, which is what the Pharisees were accustomed to, but it plays well to the crowds. Which I guess shows that Jesus would do really well on TV if he were around nowadays.

28

What did you do with your literature when you left?

by ontarget in

jw
friends

what did you do with your literature when you left?

i burned my literature except for the wt cd which i sold on ebay.

i did not want to just throw the literature away as i did not want the trash man to read it and become a witness.

Euphemism

I sent my KMs to AlanF; I didn't have anything rare or valuable.

My wife dumped all hers when we moved in together. I boxed mine up and stuck it in a closet; I wasn't sure if it might prove useful for anti-WTS research at some point. I hadn't touched the boxes in two years, however, so when we moved a couple of months ago, I finally dumped it all, except for my Illuminators book, since it's a personal keepsake (I do have fond memories of Pioneer School), and my NWT, since I have a collection of bibles from my brief post-Watchtower Christian phase.

I've kept the WT CD since it's useful for occasional discussion of JW topics here on JWD; but I haven't downloaded any of the latest releases.

36

Two classes of Christians after all?

by Narkissos in

jw
friends

first, as i am just back online, happy new year to everyone!

totally unrelated to the above (or maybe not), it just occurred to me that the unscriptural wt doctrine of "two classes of christians" might have some faint pars veritatis after all as far as the nt is concerned.. of course it is not about "anointed or not," "two hopes," "heaven vs. earth".. yet several segments of early christianity did seem to allow for a huge difference in levels of requirement, vocation, or fate among believers.

on the one hand, the high and hard way of the apostles, disciples, missionaries, evangelists, martyrs; on the other hand, the minimal requirement of the rest.

Euphemism

Narkissos wrote:On the other hand the financial support for the Pauline "mission" and churches rests on the benevolence and generosity of a few wealthy "patrons" or sponsors, especially the hosts of the "home churches" who are naturally given respect and authority. No wonder that "giving up all one's belongings" is no part of the Pauline Gospel, which on the other hand is bound to be socially and politically conservative

That connection hadn't occurred to me, but it makes a lot of sense. I guess you could call it the Mark Felt school of theological inquiry: "Follow the money."

Little Toe... I'm just curious how, as a thoughtful Christian, you reconcile texts such as Matthew 16:24,25 and 7:13,14:

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

with others such as Matthew 10:41,42 and 25:40:

Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward. And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.

The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Don't these seem to be espousing very different views of the requirements for salvation?

Of course, the difference between these two views is most directly embodied by the famous contradiction between Luke 9:50 and 11:23:

"Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against you is for you."

He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.

(As a side note, as far as I can tell, Matthew only contains the latter saying, and Mark only contains the former. Luke is the only one to include both contradictory sayings.)

I guess this is actually a two-part question:

1) Intellectually, how can you deny that there are two very different ideas about salvation embedded in the gospels?

2) Theologically, if you are a universalist (or at the very least, if you believe that atheists like me can be saved), what meaning--if any--do passages about the 'narrow way' and other limitations of salvation have to you?

23

Has my biological family stopped shunning me?????

by Elsewhere in

jw
friends

one of my favorite movie quotes is from bill and teds excellent adventure: strange things are afoot at the circle k. (bill and ted said this after seeing themselves arrive from the future in a flying phone booth time machine.).

starting last week some very strange things have been happening.

first, on christmas day i got a phone call from my parents phone number.

Euphemism

My uncle went "apostate" in the late 70's, and of course my non-Witness grandparents were shocked that my dad would shun his own brother. I remember one time my grandpa asked my dad: "What about when I die? Will you talk to him at my funeral?" And my dad said that yes, he would, because that's "necessary family business." I don't know if maybe that's how your family justified it to themselves.

Either way, it sounds like your family was genuinely loving and accepting this time, so good for them.

And also, of course, my condolences on the loss of your grandmother.

36

Two classes of Christians after all?

by Narkissos in

jw
friends

first, as i am just back online, happy new year to everyone!

totally unrelated to the above (or maybe not), it just occurred to me that the unscriptural wt doctrine of "two classes of christians" might have some faint pars veritatis after all as far as the nt is concerned.. of course it is not about "anointed or not," "two hopes," "heaven vs. earth".. yet several segments of early christianity did seem to allow for a huge difference in levels of requirement, vocation, or fate among believers.

on the one hand, the high and hard way of the apostles, disciples, missionaries, evangelists, martyrs; on the other hand, the minimal requirement of the rest.

Euphemism

And a Happy New Year to you as well, Narkissos!

This high/low differentiation was one of the things that perplexed me when I was trying to develop a sane Christianity within the framework of Witness teachings. (Thankfully, I am no longer involved in such a futile endeavor.)

It strikes me that all three of the Pauline or pseudo-Paline passages you quote are in the context of the author attempting to establish his authority (cf 1 Cor 1:14-21; 2 Cor 3:4-6; Col 2:1-5). He connects suffering and authority more explicity in passages such as 2 Cor 11:21ff. ("Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods ...")

The Catholic church seems to embody this dichotomy (between ordinary Christians and special "suffering Christians") to some degree in its concepts of religious orders and of saints. The explicit connection to authority, however, is missing. That makes sense, since a hierarchical, bureacratic organization cannot allow people to claim authority based on their individual holiness.

29

January Kingdom Ministry -The Number 1 book -Bible Teach

by stillajwexelder in

the january kingdom ministry has two study articles and the the whole insert - all about how the what does the bible really teach is now the number 1 teach aid - no longer the knowledge book.

in fact the instructions in one of the sm items is to switch to the teach book as soon as possible with our bible studies.

it will be the offer in march and of course is being studied in book groups after the daniel book.

Euphemism

The Knowledge book actually had quite a few pictures. If anything, the WTS seems to have been increasing the number of pictures in books; part of the general 'dumbing down', I guess.

So let's see... Let God Be True was from '46 to '68: 22 years. Truth book was from '68 to '82: 14 years. Live Forever was '82-'95: 13 years. Knowledge was '95-'05: 10 years. It looks like the lifespans of their books are gradually decreasing. At this rate, in a few decades they'll be live-blogging.

37

Campaign to destroy "lol"

by ballistic in

jw
friends

i'm not sure where this idea came from, but apparently it's been discovered that hardly anyone is actually "laughing out loud" when using the term "lol".

lol if they really are laughing out loud, there is something wrong with them (they could be retarded or have a bad sense of humor lol).

please show your support for my new cause in which i attempt to bannish the term lol from the english language.

Euphemism

I have nothing against LOL... but having been a 'net user for 10 years, I do have to insist on the old ways: LOL should be used to indicate that you are laughing at someone else's joke. If you're trying to indicate that you yourself are kidding, there's j/k, gd&r, or of course smilies.

Yes, I take this way too seriously.

43

"THIS IS JEHOVAH'S HOUSE..." GAG!

by stillAwitness in

some of the kids my age in my hall are just an insult to my generation.

at the service meeting last week i was talking with one and we were near the front of the hall and there were a bunch of little kids running and jumping around the stage.

she goes: "what a shame.

Euphemism

There was a big long list of things that couldn't be at the KH, not even outside. Also, it was inappropriate to put a drum beat behind the "Kingdom Melodies" because it was holy music.

LOL That must have been before the smooth-jazz Kingdom Melodies came out (#9, I believe).

328

Journal of Church and State: WT NO-BLOOD EXPOSE'

by AndersonsInfo in

(baylor university, waco, tx) an essay entitled, "jehovah's witnesses, blood transfusions, and the tort of misrepresentation," found in the autumn issue of baylor universitys prestigious journal of church and state, published december 13, 2005, exposes the vulnerability of jehovahs witnesses religious organization to massive claims for compensation because of the religions misrepresentation of the medical risks of blood transfusions.

this milestone essay critically examines one of the religions main publications for teaching their children and new recruits about their blood beliefs, how can blood save your life?

the peer-reviewed essay details many misrepresentations of medical facts, which the religion partly relies on to support its blood prohibition, thus denying its members from making fully informed medical decisions.

Euphemism

AuldSoul wrote:his field of law does not brush against tort law as applied to religion, whereas the student who wrote the piece is specializing in that niche

According to Ms Louderback-Wood's profile at her law firm, she specializes in Business and Taxation Law.

Of course, the reviewers who approved the article are undoubtedly specialists in the field of law and religion. But the author herself is not.