Belle

You need a permission slip or ID card showing you're mature enough to look? According to the picture legend at the very bottom of the page - PULSATING = HOT So, apparently my first guess IS correct. :P I think the little black arrow on the envelope means that you have posted in that topic already.

It's logic, my dear. Jesus (and the apostles) all say that the law is done away with - this is merely ONE example - Jesus is clearly saying that it's not what a person eats that matters - it's what's in his heart. If Jesus doesn't give a whit about what people eat, then why does the JW church? NOT WHAT ENTERS INTO HIS MOUTH DEFILES A MAN..... If you're going to equate a blood transfusion with "eating blood", then here is only one of many verses where Jesus says that what a person "eats" is not important. Sounds like the JW's are teaching their own legalism and "doctrines of man" while lying and twisting scripture to make people believe that it's a command of God - you posted it right there in black & white: This is the exact same example used on the JW sites - Furthermore, your scriptural proof is from the wrong administration: According to YOUR religion - WE ARE NOT UNDER THE MOSAIC LAW TODAY. The Bible tells us this in no uncertain terms (See Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:23-25, Ephesians 2:15). The verses you use concerning blood, when looked at in context is only in reference to butchering an animal for food. You already violate that which you preach to be wrong It is a scientific fact that blood cannot be completely removed from any living thing that is used for food. Virtually everyone that eats meat or its by-products has "eaten" a large amount of blood during their lifetime. This means that virtually every Watchtower Society members -- unless they are strict vegetarians -- has consumed a large quantity of animal blood during their lifetime. Totally irrelevant to the discussion, then - why even bother bringing it up? Actually, all things on this doctrine are NOT religious. Just look around - it's actually not the case. It's John 6:53-ff, sorry about that. That's exactly what your church is doing. They can not prove from the Bible that a blood transfusion is evil. It takes great leaps of logic and denial of common sense to come to the conclusion that they have about blood. This is why they've already changed their stance many times. They can not back it up under scrutiny. Mark 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. Nothing entering into a man (through his mouth nor through his veins) can defile him. Why is that so hard to understand? Is Jesus a liar? Do you just "ignore" verses like this because they don't support your argument? 1Cr 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. According to this, accepting a blood transfusion to stay alive would be not only lawful, but expedient.... and, like Bramble's case, edifying indeed. 1Cr 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you [to a feast], and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. So, this is wrong? Let's just ignore this verse because it doesn't fit with what you want to believe? 1Cr 10:29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another [man's] conscience? Who the heck is the JW board of "right reverend so & so's" to tell anyone what to do with their lives and own personal healthcare? Romans 14:3-ff (some excerpted) For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Clearly, we are no longer under the law. Clearly, we are able (and expected) to eat and drink as we so choose. Clearly, it's not what we eat that will be judged. Clearly, we are not to judge one another. Romans 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] unclean. How many verses FOR THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION do you need in order to contradict the handfull of MOSAIC LAW verses? edited because of formatting

Interesting, Clay. I've been reading more about this lately, actually, but most of these are new names to me. Thanks. :) I'll read this later today. Regarding the "mind-body problem" - I highly suggest checking out Candace Pert's "Molecules of Emotion" if you're interested in a scientific mind-body connection viewpoint.

What do you think doctrine means, Starbird? Why would YOU be able to contribute more to a discussion than Oakspear? ESPECIALLY a doctrinal section of a message board for people who used to belong to the same group..... a group you were never even involved with?

Then, address these points that you ignored earlier. Is it maybe too much at one time for you? Maybe we should just post one question or one point at a time?

Starbird, I honestly tried to engage you in a discussion. But, I really only have so much patience and your total lack of any sort of conversational skills has grown wearisome. It has nothing to do with who has or hasn't posted on the thread, although I am very thankful to have made so many good friends here. It's your lack of counter points to any of the issues, verses, questions, etc. posed by myself and others on the thread that has caused me to lose interest in anything you have to say. You persist in merely repeating almost word for word what's been programmed into your brain by your church. There's no reasoning skills required for that and it's obvious that you don't really even know what you're talking about given that most of the information that you have posted is inaccurate. We recognize it all too easily here at the cafe because many of us, at one time, did the same thing. If you can't/won't reason, apply logic and actually respond to the questions here, then what's the point? I just don't see any reason to waste my time when you're not going to read what I wrote - respond to the actual posts or even acknowledge them. *shrug* Can you tell me why I should behave otherwise?

I missed it, too. Can you please show me where you've participated in the discussion - not where you've merely repeated what you heard and not where you've merely posted a link. AND, AGAIN - That link is NOT an EX JW site. AND, AGAIN - you still haven't answered the very simple "yes" or "no" question.

:eusa_clap: AWESOME, THEHIGHWAY!!! Now, we just need to get some of our resident experts to put it to music so Paw can add it to Greasespot Radio.

That's debatable, my friend. Highly debatable. LOL! The teachings that make sense to me now are ones that are very similar to gnostic and mysticism. Take out the Bible verses and/or look at them in a different light and - bam! You've got gnostic or Kaballah doctrine or the spirituality teachings that TWI shuns. Oakspear and I both can tell stories of presenting to TWI leadership our personal research and study that didn't line up with TWI teachings and the very negative response it generated. TWI, and vee pee, may have said that we should do our own studies, but they did not really mean it. They didn't want to hear anything that questioned or challenged what they were teaching. I know one of my studies went all the way to the Region level, if not higher - and it's still being taught in the WAP class. I also know of quite a few other folks who presented questions or contradictory studies only to be shut down. Thanks, Cool and WB. :) He's from Africa, but the tone of his posts give me pause to wonder if he and Allen have the same IP address.

Welcome, md! May I offer you some danish and coffee? Sounds like you had a wonderful experience and got just what you needed. :) I'm glad. Yes, there are quite a few folks with the same kind of wonderful experiences and answers. I also think that being so far from New Knoxville prevented a lot of people from being exposed to the ugliness in TWI. I love hearing about all the groovy Christians, listening to their beautiful music and when they reminisce about the wonderful, fun and also crazy things they did "back in the day". I look forward to hearing about more of yours. I didn't get involved till the early 90's and most all of my experiences are not so nice. I was raised in a typical Southern Baptist Church and, as far as the core beliefs, TWI didn't teach me anything new. The "new" stuff they DID teach me, I have since determined to be extremely inaccurate.

I LOVE IT, PAW!!!!

It's just for fun. Use it or don't. Everything doesn't have to be so friggin' serious all the time. I've made quite a few friends here at the cafe and I'm not going to hide that fact. If someone thinks that a person is jumping to my defense just because we might be "friends" (cyber or otherwise), then that's THEIR problem - not mine. I disagree with my friends as much as I do with anyone else sometimes. The people on my "friend" list are folks I consider true friends, or are folks I just really like and enjoy reading but might not "technically" be called friends. I think we strain gnats too much sometimes.

It's STILL a "yes" or "no" question that you still haven't answered.

How about YOU address the issue since YOU raised it? How about a DISCUSSION instead of just mimicking what you've heard or read? How about addressing the points that have been raised on this thread? In YOUR OWN WORDS.

Precisely why I have to get this straightened out QUICKLY!! *sigh*

Welcome to the discussion, Noni and Combination! Roy sure is someone special, isn't he? It's a very simple "yes" or "no" question, Starbird. "Yes" or "No"? I don't know if you realize it, but you are merely repeating the same verses and the same example in each of your posts. This leads me to believe that you are only parroting what you've been taught and don't really understand it. That explanation also explains why you haven't addressed any of the points that have been raised on this thread. Nor are you informed. The site I posted links to is run by ACTIVE JW's. Professionals in the medical field and others who see the danger, inconsistency and lack of logic regarding the JW legalism with regard to blood transfusions. Source for above quote: The Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on BloodYou might want to look at what your church presently considers acceptable, because you're either mis-representing the truth or you're grossly mis-informed. These are some of the other teachings of JWs in times past. Could it be possible that what you've been taught about blood is one more in this list of erroneous, dangerous and deadly doctrines? edited because I can't spell "grossly"

Ahhhh, friends. Friends know all your dirt and idiot-syncracies and love you anyway. Friends are happy when you're happy. Cry with you. Work you into their day no matter how inconvenient if it's something that's important to you. When my best friend in the whole wide world got married, after I got over the gawd-awful $300 pink dress she made me wear, all I could think about while they were saying their vows was, "I wonder if he knows she snores like a freight train..." When I got out of TWI and called her, she accepted me back with open arms and said, "I didn't understand but if you were happy, I was happy for you. I just missed you."

Naw, I think it's just that most of us don't like rude people, especially rude people who pass judgment on folks they don't know anything about.

Bump, Maybe YOU have fully evaluated and dealt with the ramifications in your life from being involved with TWI, but not all of us have. I think you still have an arrogance problem, but that's just my observation. If you want to help then help, but your attitude leaves much to be desired. I've been out for a little over two years, so I'm still working this stuff out in my head. I still have a lot of questions and a lot of things that I struggle with. If that's a problem for you, then perhaps you should skip my posts. There are others who have been out of TWI less time than I have and they may benefit from my "thinking out loud". There are some who have been out a long time, but may benefit too. Just because YOU don't get anything out of someone's observation doesn't mean that NO ONE does. Furthermore, if you don't know what TWI in the US was like in the 90's then you don't have a clue as to what we've been through. vee pee was dead before I had even heard of TWI, but his teachings definitely impacted my life - and not so nicely.

Vegan, I think that's precisely why it's so annoying. I remember all too well the arrogance and almost bully-like behavior I exhibited as a TWIt and responded very badly toward those who refused to accept and believe what I believed. Almost like reformed smokers can also be the most offensive and most offended by smokers in their vicinity. I do believe that a lot of the "converts" to veg*ism years ago were a lot like the religious zealot that I was. Nowadays, through more "humane" behavior on the parts of many of the veg*s there have been great changes and more acceptance of that lifestyle. Look at how many more options there are in stores and how much more widespread "organic" produce is available. Those kinds of changes don't happen when people are butting heads constantly, so there has definitely been a shift in the "how" of communication on the parts of both veg*s and omnivores. I, for one, am glad about that because I do buy organic and I do buy products geared toward veg*s. I eat healthy, but that healthy also includes meat. I may not have been as clear as I could have in my earlier post. In the past I seemed to only run into the annoying, zealous veg*s, but in the past few years I have yet to run into one. All the veg*s I know today and had occasion to interact with have either not mentioned their diet or not made a big deal about it. And that's the way I think it should be - for all of us - for all topics/habits/lifestyles - and we all do have those personal things that we are extremely passionate about. I think the perception comes from run-ins with the obnoxious fringe element, which did seem to be extremely pervasive in my sphere of influence for quite some time. I think it's like when we go to a restaurant that's on the verge of becoming our favorite place to eat and we encounter very bad service a couple of times. Those two bad experiences taint the whole perception and feeling about the restaurant despite all the good encounters. You have been respectful and I hope that you didn't take my steak comment as offensive. I was just trying to bring a little levity to the post. So, in the words Oakspear hates so much, "IF I offended you, I'm truly sorry." :)

What about suicide, Starbird? Is suicide also wrong? Isn't it wrong to refuse a blood transfusion that could save your life?

So you're sticking to your select few verses and don't want to address all the other verses to the contrary? Nor, do you want to address the facts I stated from that site? Then, I guess the discussion is over. :)

Starbird, This is a very interesting discussion. I hope you're not merely quoting the company line without really knowing or understanding why you believe what you've been taught. Are you aware that there is a reform movement of JW's to change the JW policy? Are you aware that the JW church has changed it's policy bit by bit over the years to the point where accepting Hemopure - Cow's Blood as a transfusion is now acceptable? Isn't that a bit hypocritical? The church has further gone on to allow blood transfusions as long as the "whole blood" is not used. I suppose as long as it's administered different parts at a time, then it's acceptable. It appears as though the Biblical interpretation of the JW ruling authorities is not withstanding scrutiny and they are unable to support their position sufficiently enough to enforce this aspect of the legalism within the JW religion. Another Policy Change It appears as though changes in this policy are beginning to happen on a regular basis and it's only a matter of time until they begin to phase the blood transfusion teachings out of the strict doctrine. This is similar to what is happening with the TWI doctrine of debt. It's being less and less taught and enforced because TWI is and has been wrong on this, but will never admit it.

1 Cor 10:23 If "all things" are lawful, then, blood transfusions would be included in that, no?1 Cor 10:27-28,31 It would seem that, as long as the blood wasn't sacrificed to idols (which, in the hospital would be highly unlikely), then it's lawful and acceptable to God.

How are you getting blood transfusions equate to eating blood? I don't see the logic there. :huh: The two are totally unrelated. On that point alone, your argument loses validity. You're the one who brought up DNA and you use the fact that "your blood is unique to you" and contains DNA as a reason for not having a transfusion. But DNA is NOT in the blood used for transfusions. So, why did you bring up DNA if it's not an important part of your position? On one hand you say that a blood transfusion does not change a person nor his DNA, but then you go on to say that your blood is unique to you because of DNA. It seems like you're using the uniqueness of a person's DNA as a reason for not having a transfusion, but there is no DNA exchanged in a blood transfusion. How do you explain John 5:53-56: Are JW's dispensational? Is the OT not written "to us"? Or is that a moot point with the JW religion? I know for TWI doctrine, those verses in the OT are not "to us" so they aren't relevant as far as any practice goes. The tithe, however, is still relevant in TWI logic, but that's talking about giving money to the church, so of course that practice is still expected. How do these additional verses fit with the argument against blood transfusions? Mark 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. Matt 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. (Although, with a blood transfusion - one is not eating blood.) Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. "Back in the day" there were groups of people who believed that drinking blood would provide supernatural powers. This is idolatry and the primary reason the practice was forbidden. A blood transfusion to save life is not idolatry. It is a scientific fact that blood cannot be completely removed from any living thing that is used for food. Virtually everyone that eats meat or its by-products has "eaten" a large amount of blood during their lifetime. This means that virtually every Watchtower Society members -- unless they are strict vegetarians -- has consumed a large quantity of animal blood during their lifetime. Again, I'm glad that science is able to accommodate the laws of your religion, but I think your argument for avoiding blood transfusions is without merit.