xero
-
Posts
1,750 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
52
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
World Wiki
Events
Posts posted by xero
-
-
-
-
-
12 minutes ago, Many Miles said:
Regarding red cells, here's just how pharisaical it is under current JW policy:
JWs are not supposed to accept transfusion of red cells. But it is left to each JW to accept fractions of red cells. Right?
Fractionation matters. Right?
Quantity doesn't matter. Right?
JWs are taught regarding red cells, it matters not whether this is eaten through the mouth or transfused through the veins. Right?
It turns out that fractionating red cells is a very easy thing to do. Here are two methods:
- Add tap water to red cells. Done. All fractionated. No red cells!
- Boil red cells. Done. All fractionated. No red cells!
Since it matters not whether this is eaten through the mouth or transfused through the veins, JWs can now eat either of the above fractionated products.
If that sounds absurd, it is. But that's current JW policy.
I'm not even sure anyone is clear on the policy any more. All I get is "What should I do bro X?" and I say, read the scriptures, use your conscience and as long as you're settled in your mind and heart, that's all you can do. You can still be wrong, but then again everyone makes mistakes especially when things are ambiguous or they get complicated.
-
In the end I want non-blood medical management. Single unit transfusions are useless box-checking done to please the legalistic hospital administrators and to rack up line item expenses. Remember the hospitals and doctors are for-profit entities. My avoidance of blood in any form is more due to my ideas that it's not healthy for me physically, but even it if was good for me, like I had my own "blood boy" I would still not do it because of the history religious and otherwise. I suppose I might be likened to a jew who had never eaten pork and for whom doing so was gross. I might acknowledge that it was legal now since the mosaic restrictions aren't in place, but my brain would still be whispering "Yeah, so then why was it forbidden? Huh? Whatcha gotta say about that?"
- JW Insider, Anna, Pudgy and 1 other
-
4
-
Luke 8:21
-
-
7 minutes ago, JW Insider said:
I think this is true. A lot of people have made the argument that blood is 80% water, or that the major component called plasma is 90% water, and we know there is nothing wrong with water. This is still a bad argument.
It reminds me of what David might have said if some of his men said, "David, you said you wanted water, and a lot of men were bleeding, but we found a way to separate the water from their blood. Here! Won't you have this bottle of water we got for you?
2 Samuel 23:13-17,In this passage, David's mighty warriors risked their lives to fetch him water from the well near Bethlehem because David expressed a longing for it. However, when they presented the water to him, David considered it as if it were the blood of his men who had risked their lives to obtain it, and he refused to drink it, instead pouring it out as an offering to Jehovah.
-
1 hour ago, Anna said:
By the way, since this is a beard thread I thought I would mention that so far we have one elder and two MS with a full beard, one elder with a soul patch, as of the midweek meeting.
Soul patches and hair donuts should be grounds for immediate disfellowshipping and so should those with man-buns.
- JW Insider, TrueTomHarley and Anna
-
2
-
1
-
The closest thing to a biblical argument I've ever been able to muster is related to the holy anointing oil used by the priests. It was only to be used for spiritual reasons, not because you liked the smell. So whereas the individual elements could be used w/o worry, it wasn't OK to use them in the special combination that they were combined in.
“You will speak to the Israelites, saying, ‘This is to continue as a holy anointing oil to me during your generations.+ 32 It is not to be applied to the flesh of mankind, and you must not make anything with a composition like it. It is something holy. It is to continue as something holy for you. 33 Anyone who makes an ointment like it and who puts some of it on an unauthorized person* must be cut off* from his people.’” - Ex. 30:31-33
Based on the quantities given in Exodus 30:22-25, the composition of the holy anointing oil in terms of percentages of each solid ingredient is as follows:
- Liquid Myrrh: 33.33%
- Fragrant Cinnamon: 16.67%
- Fragrant Calamus: 16.67%
- Cassia: 33.33%
These percentages are calculated based on the relative quantities of each ingredient in shekels, excluding the olive oil, which is a liquid base and measured in a different unit (a hin). In ancient recipes like this, the exact method of combining the solid ingredients (measured in weight) with the liquid (measured in volume) is not always clear, so these percentages represent the proportion of each solid ingredient relative to the total solid content.
So if we consider "blood" to be a composite in the same manner as the holy anointing oil. Could some imagine it to not be "blood" if it wasn't represented in the same ratios?
At what point does a thing stop being that thing, if the thing is a composite?
-
40 minutes ago, JW Insider said:
I agree that it is. But that's if we are trying to claim we can take some fractions (especially the one you just alluded to) and claim we are still abstaining from blood. I'd say that it should be a matter of conscience if one accepts those fractions, but just don't go around claiming that you are still abstaining from blood. You are accepting blood, because your conscience has allowed you to take a risk that such a use of blood, even though technically not abstaining, is potentially life-saving. Also, that it is not the same as eating blood, and is still showing respect for life and the life-giving properties of blood itself. If it is a breaking of God's law, then it's only because one's conscience allows for the higher principles of Jesus about life over law, and the increased freedom of conscience that Paul promoted.
Exactly.
- Anna and JW Insider
-
1
-
1
-
My point is that when you can take what amounts to everything but the cell wall, just so long as you do it in small enough pieces just sounds to any unindoctrinated observer as pharisaical nit picking.
-
Is this where someone shows me the scriptural distinction between minor blood fractions and blood?
At some points of argumentation it begins to sound a lot like the kinds of arguments abortionists give.
"When does life really begin?" "How many clumps of cells does it take before it's considered a human?" -
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
29 minutes ago, Many Miles said:I think the current GB realizes it has a compilation of messes on its hands that can only accrue problematically. It's trying to dig itself out. But the fear is the pile is too deep. Ultimately the 1914 thing will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. Ultimately the blood policy will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. I think the society is looking for an exit ramp. Too many problems, too many informational sources. It'll only snowball.
The thing is, that one thing I go back to, is not so much that the humans behind the organization have been brilliant, or their ideas were literally from Jehovah's mouth to their ears (or even what was imagined w/regard to those who imagine themselves to be anointed) is this: Jehovah uses organizations to accomplish his will and purposes. With all it's defects this particular organization has highlighted and stuck to many important fundamental points. No Trinity, no hellfire, the kingdom is a government, Jesus is the king of that government, the need to personally get on board with preaching personally. It was the only one annoying enough to get my attention back when I was an unhappy atheist. "1914? Are you kidding me? That's pretty specific. How did you get that?" It little matters to me now that certain things I'd expected didn't take place as I'd expected, or even as I was led to believe. The people I was introduced to were really different and different because THEY believed what they were saying. There was a personal cost to the individual to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses. One can't say that about most nominally Christian organizations. Disfellowshipping, as painful as it is and has been is a critical factor as well, though I disagree with it's use as a tool to silence those drawing attention to perceived or real failings. In the end it is and has served in my view, Jehovah's purposes, though I'll admit to believing that it is not the only one in history or even today to be doing so. I think of the dragnet illustration,and the organizations admission to be part of that dragnet, and I believe that this is so, and though I couldn't attach myself to any other organization I still feel that it's up to each individual to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling (all the while I can't admit to so much trembling any more at this stage of my life, recognizing that I'm about as good as I can get right now and that's not so great either, so as the saying goes "so sue me" and "you can't get blood out of a turnip" if someone wants any more out of me. I trust Jehovah will deal with me justly (whatever that might be) and I'm OK with that). If a person feels that some other organization would better suit their spiritual growth, then they have the personal responsibility to go with them. I won't curse them if they choose to go even if that wouldn't be my choice.
What comes to mind as I ramble is "Greetings! Consider it all joy, my brothers, when you meet with various trials, 3 knowing as you do that this tested quality of your faith produces endurance. But let endurance complete its work, so that you may be complete and sound in all respects, not lacking in anything..." James 1:2People and organizations are like art. There's a proper viewing distance. Sometimes I see trees, sometimes I see the forest. Sometimes I see defects, and sometimes I see these as an opportunity.
In all this I look for Jehovah and to him and the guidance of his Son, and not to the humans who may or may not be moving in harmony with the Holy Spirit.For some reason that also reminds me of this clip from "Enter the Dragon"
"Don't concentrate on the finger"
- ComfortMyPeople, Pudgy, JW Insider and 2 others
-
5
-
26 minutes ago, George88 said:
Once again, "pudgy," you seem to have completely misunderstood everything about the Org. Why not let go of the negativity and start demonstrating a more mature approach? Pass it on to your friends.
You sure you weren't a stand-in for one of Jobs' comforters?
-
This is what Jehovah has said: “Cursed is the able-bodied man who puts his trust in earthling man and actually makes flesh his [chariot]. - Jer. 17:5
"Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ." - Mt. 23:10- JW Insider, Pudgy and Thinking
-
3
-
6 hours ago, Anna said:
I wonder if head coverings will be next....Out in service this morning I asked the car group (of six) who wants to come with me (on a study), they can't be male though because I haven't got anything to put on my head...
One might use the scripture about Timothy getting unnecessarily circumcised "on account of the jews" and take the principle there that you wouldn't wear a head covering, because to do so would make the study all about head covering and why the organization has this on the books, whereas you might/might not agree. So to take the analogy (am I twisting scriptures? I don't think so) it would be like not wearing a head covering "on account of the unbelievers". But of course "let each person be fully convinced in his/her own mind", would always be the principle to apply as well.
-
-
26 minutes ago, George88 said:
Given that Trump was once a Democrat, the argument has been established. However, how can one be certain that Trump never donned a hood, especially considering his demeanor as a highly influential figure in the Republican Party? It seems he is a perfect fit for a presidency reminiscent of the Confederacy, much like Davis himself.
What are you babbling about? You sound like a confused, economically ignorant, covetous socialist.
-
Like I said. Semiotics of various sorts. Some are externally worn, some are evident by the things they worry about. I'd rather worry myself about the Bible, Bible history, Biblical archaeology and various apologetics.
On the other hand my wife likes Project Runway and I've seen every episode. -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I remember having to tell a young woman that her dreadlocks weren't in keeping with the field ministry, that it was associated with Rastafarians and all that related to the same. She wanted to get baptized and the body left it up to me to explain to her the whole thing. I was annoyed at having to deal with being the congregation fashion coordinator on two counts: 1st that people couldn't read the room and conform to somewhere in the middle and 2nd that I had to enforce something that was a personal choice people were making. I did it thinking to myself that these kinds of people would likely have argued with Moses about circumcision, when there is zero explanation in scripture as to the reasons for it being a requirement other than Jehovah saying "because I told you to". I see both sides of these things. On the one hand, it's nice to have an external sign of people who could be troublemakers, on the other hand "Really? I have to deal with beards, and other fashion concerns? Don't we have bigger fish to fry?" Then I see it all as some kind of useful social exercise. It forces me to think about the benefits and hazards of conformity, and what standards to use, and balancing the differences. When we choose to look different from those we have social bonds with, we are sending messages. There's a whole social science dealing with these "semiotics". Are we Jehovah's Christian Witnesses? Then what does that look like? How does it act? Does it look like seeking it's own personal advantage? Does it look like lording it over the brothers and sisters in telling them what to do with regard to personal matters? Nature identifies juveniles by the way that they look when they are young, vs when they become mature. What do mature people look like? Do they wear themselves out over fashion?
I remember one elder before my appointment asking me whether I wondered why I wasn't appointed as an elder yet seeing as how I'd been a regular pioneer and servant for almost ten years then and was regularly giving talks outside the congregation. My response was "I imagined it was because Jehovah decided it wasn't the right time". I never asked, because I cared, but I didn't care either if you know what I mean, it's not like I didn't have things to do. The only things I didn't have to do looked more like the annoying things like judicial committees with people who can't take hints from the Bible about how to behave themselves. His reaction was a bit surprised, but then I could see that he needed to give me some counsel so I relented and he went on. It turned out my answers in the meeting suggested I relied on "Worldly Wisdom", my shoes weren't shiny enough and I walked funny when I went up to the podium. So I thought to myself that I want this elder to feel good about this counseling session so I asked him to watch me at the meetings and let me know if I was slipping in these areas. I told him that when conversing w/the friends I would mention where in the Societies pubs I read whatever it was I was commenting on, so they wouldn't get the idea I was pushing some novel idea unique to me as well. He seemed pleased with my responses. My thoughts were that as an elder you can do some damage, so if I make this elder happy about giving counsel he'll do a better job with the next publisher.
Anyway, I'm rambling now....
-
My mother used to say whenever anyone would say "Small things for small minds", "Small pants fit small behinds"
New Light on Beards
in Topics
Posted
Exodus 20:3 : "You must not have any other gods besides me."
Psalm 118:8 : "It is better to take refuge in Jehovah than to trust in humans."
Psalm 146:3 : "Do not put your trust in princes, nor in a son of man, who cannot bring salvation."
Isaiah 2:22 : "Stop trusting in mere man, whose life's breath is in his nostrils. Why should he be taken into account?"
Jeremiah 17:5 : "This is what Jehovah says: 'Cursed is the man who puts his trust in mere humans, who relies on human power and whose heart turns away from Jehovah.'"
1 Corinthians 3:4-7 : "For when one says, 'I belong to Paul,' but another says, 'I to A•polʹlos,' are you not acting like mere men? What, then, is A•polʹlos? Yes, what is Paul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the Lord granted each one. I planted, A•polʹlos watered, but God kept making it grow."
Matthew 23:8-10 : "But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ."
Colossians 2:8: "Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ."
Galatians 1:10: "Am I now trying to win the approval of men or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I would not be Christ’s slave.
Acts, 12:22 - "But the crowd were calling out, 'A god’s voice and not a man’s!'"
In this context, the people were praising Herod Agrippa I to the extent that they attributed divine qualities to him.It underscores the danger of excessive praise and attributing divine qualities to human leaders, which can have negative consequences, as Herod Agrippa I faced divine judgment for accepting such adulation.
Nope. Go no further than scripture allows.
1 Samuel 8:6-9 : "But the thing was bad in the eyes of Samuel, because they said: 'Give us a king to judge us.' Then Samuel prayed to Jehovah. Jehovah said to Samuel: 'Listen to the voice of the people as regards all that they say to you, for it is not you whom they have rejected; they have rejected me from being their king. Like all the other nations, they have done to me the same that they have done to you.'"
Prophets, yes? Kings? How very predictable and disappointing.
"And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, to build up the body of the Christ, until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ." (Ephesians 4:11-13)
Ephesians 4:11-13 does not suggest that ecclesiastical authority should hold a believer's conscience in thrall or control. Instead, these verses emphasize the role of certain spiritual gifts and positions within the Christian congregation for the purpose of equipping and building up believers.