Teleologist wrote:Neologist wrote:
Quote:Of course, that would not help in your misuse of the word 'fluting' and other grammatical indiscretions. But, in time, even those may be overcome.
I suspect that English is not this posters first language. Why not cut him some slack? I was able to understand all the points he made. If there is something you didn't understand then perhaps I can translate for you.
I apologize for the heavy handedness of my approach. Perhaps I should have suggested that if he were to shorten his posts to just one or two of his most important issues, I would be more inclined to give them my attention.
And use SpellCheck.
Neo. It seems that you are more interested in the grammatical indiscretions and fight with words, rather than look at the sentence of the content, but for your kind information I used the spell check, but unfortunately it changes, as you correctly point out, properly because I spell it wrong from the beginning, since I am not so familiar with English or the American language, but I like to and try to do my best, like I try to be obedient to Jehovah and not to an Organisation and their changing doctrines, 1914, 25 and 75, even that I also am a sinner and a faulty man, James 3:12-4! I have only had English for 3 years in the school for more than 35 years ago. But I invite you to communicate with my mothers tongue and you can be sure I will not mind anything, but forgive and accept every miss spelling and only ask if I have any doubts of the sentence.
You and others are invited to answer all the questions, for a sober debate, hereunder why a Jew and a Alien was allowed to eat all the blood in a self dead animal, only a ceremonial bath before evening and the matter was settled against God and the Society. Leviticus 17:15! How does it come, if the correct and general understanding is to avoid blood under every circomstances and not only as a recommendation as come forth in Acts 15:29!
How does it come that members of The Society have been disfellowshiped because they accept a vaccination, at the time it was banned. Have Jehovah changes his mind or was it wrong to put sanctions on an issue that wasn't God's law, but up to the individuals conscience. It was the same with organ transplantations and now is the Society using the same pattern in question of the blood. How does that come?
To avoid any misunderstanding, it is my personal view that everyone shall or should have had the right to chose, whether they refuse or will accept medical treatment with blood or derivates hereof, it is a personal matter between God and a person, except for children to avoid situations like Jim Jones afforded in New Guyana, with reference to Galatians 6:5 and the second letter to the Corinthians 1:24!
Instead of admitting that the Society was wrong, in question of vaccinations, organ transplantations and the blood, The Society transfer the problem to the individuals conscience, which they have learned that it displease God and now they are trying to wash their hands like Pilate did, in hope to not be responsible for all the death casualties their doctrines has coursed, during the many years they have banned vaccinations, organs and blood.
A natural question is, does the Watchtower Society really abstain from blood? They have built a religious house without a parapet, as described in Deuteronomy 22:8 and all brothers, sisters and their children who has died, did not get a free choice but was indoctrinated to believe that they would loose the everlasting life if they goes against the Society's ("Bible standards") doctrines and hereto sanctions against family and friends if they was obedient! What about them did they have a chance to listen to their own conscience without sanctions? They were so convinced like Jim Jones followers that they would face eternal punishment and end up in Gehenna. Did they have a choice and why did they choose the death, instead of the newly freedom to listening to their own conscience?
If I understand you right I would like to ask you the following question. If a doctor recommends a person that he shall abstain from oranges, otherwise he will properly die. Will he be obedient to his doctor's health recommendations if he take the shell of the orange and split it in pieces and eat one or mostly of the pieces without the shell? Will it not be an orange anymore?
The Society forbids their members to use red blood cells, but they accept the use of 97 % of the red blood cell without the shell (donut), is that a minor part of the blood and what admonition to avoid means to you?
Ones can discuss facts but not feelings and for me, the creation and the Bible gives us the facts we needs to understand Jehovah's personality, opposite different religious leaders changing doctrines, through that avoid ending up in a similar situation, like the A.mal'ek.ite who didn't knew David's personality. The second of Samuel 1:1-16! Under every circumstances, you are personal responsible and can not hang your hat at or refer to The Governing Body, like Adam try to do; "It was the woman you gave me" but it will always be your personal responsibility. Galatians 6:5!
Pls. do not work around but answer the questions, if you like to, and it will be possible to continue at a sober level, in opposite case, it will only result in pure nonsense and loos of god time!
Talkactive wrote: . . . How does it come that members of The Society have been disfellowshiped because they accept a vaccination, at the time it was banned. Have Jehovah changes his mind or was it wrong to put sanctions on an issue that wasn't God's law, but up to the individuals conscience. It was the same with organ transplantations and now is the Society using the same pattern in question of the blood. How does that come? . . .
never been instructed to disfellowship those who voluntarily take blood transfusions or approve them. We let the judgment of such violators of God's law concerning the sacredness of blood remain with Jehovah, the Supreme Judge. The only thing that can be done in the cases of individuals like this is to view them as immature and therefore not capable of taking on certain responsibilities, hence refusing to make certain assignments of service to such ones.
Since an individual is not disfellowshiped because of having voluntarily taken a blood transfusion or having approved of a dear one's accepting a blood transfusion, you have no right to bar this sister from the celebration of the Lord's Evening Meal. As an anointed member of Christ's body she is under orders and command by Christ Jesus to partake. Whether she is unfaithful as to what she professes to be by virtue of taking the emblems of the Lord's Evening Meal is something for Jehovah God to determine himself. His judgment begins at the house of God. It is not for you or anyone serving the Memorial emblems to act as the judge, but to allow the emblems to go to anyone in the audience as these are passed along in the normal manner of letting each one have the opportunity to partake."
(Emphasis added)
Talkactive wrote: . . . To avoid any misunderstanding, it is my personal view . . .
OK, now back to the bible or relevant facts, shall we?
Neologist wrote:
Quote:You are quite right, except for the sacred quality assigned to blood in the scriptures.
But does blood being sacred mean that it is wrong to take it into our body? Is so, then JW's are in violation of this rule. JW's eat meat that has blood in it. I think there is a teaspoon of whole blood in a Big Mac. JW's don't "pour out" blood that has left their body for several hours but instead have it injected back into them. JW's take medical products into their body that are derived from large amounts of donated blood. JW's have organ transplants even though there is blood in the organs. If blood is sacred wouldn't that mean that red blood cells are sacred? Since red blood cells are 97% hemoglobin wouldn't that mean hemoglobin is sacred? But JW's are allowed to have transfusions of hemoglobin. What about plasma? Is plasma sacred? If so, wouldn't the substances that make up plasma be sacred? But JW's are allowed to take into their body every substance that is in plasma.
Neo. They claim that they are Gods chosen channel and they teach their members Bible standards, that they convincing their members that they prefer to die rather than take a vaccination or an organ transplantation, wouldn't that not be the same as to say we are "perfect" believe in us?
I have to ask you, do you mean that and since Jim Jones followers was a minor part of the world population it doesn't matter that approximate 940 people died? Is one of your son or daughters life not important to Jehovah or you?
If it comes to love, I can give you an example: If a person gets DF, because he disagree and his conscience can't accept the year 1914, nearly everybody in the congregation do not dare or even talk to him, is that Christian love and in accordance to the Bible, Talk is one thing but acts is a totally different thing. Proverbs 17:17 and John 15:13!
Teleologist wrote:Neologist wrote:
Quote:You are quite right, except for the sacred quality assigned to blood in the scriptures.
But does blood being sacred mean that it is wrong to take it into our body? Is so, then JW's are in violation of this rule. JW's eat meat that has blood in it. I think there is a teaspoon of whole blood in a Big Mac. . . . .
I have answered this before:
http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2234284#2234284
But to repeat:
neologist wrote:
You've observed that a small amount of blood remains in an animal after it has been properly bled. That the Israelites were permitted to eat such meat tells me that the law is fulfilled by the act of showing proper respect for blood.
BTW, I don't eat Big Macs
It think the letter at the bottom of this link will give you an answer, that the Society talk with divided tongues:
http://www.ajwrb.org/basics/abandon.shtml
Talkactive wrote:Neo. They claim that they are Gods chosen channel and they teach their members Bible standards, that they convincing their members that they prefer to die rather than take a vaccination or an organ transplantation, wouldn't that not be the same as to say we are "perfect" believe in us?
. . .
If it comes to love, I can give you an example: If a person gets DF, because he disagree and his conscience can't accept the year 1914, nearly everybody in the congregation do not dare or even talk to him, is that Christian love and in accordance to the Bible, Talk is one thing but acts is a totally different thing. Proverbs 17:17 and John 15:13!
A person can't be disfellowshipped until he has first been member in good standing. Any one who does not understand basic bible truths, would not be approved for baptism. If you have learned the truth and then turn away from it you are in a situation such as described by Paul in Hebrews 10:26: " For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left"
Don't whine about disfellowshipping. I was disfellowshipped about 18 years ago and I sucked it up and changed my ways. Take my advice; it's worth it.
Neo, are you unaware that since the 1960's JW's have been disfellowshipped for taking a blood transfusion?
Talkactive wrote:It think the letter at the bottom of this link will give you an answer, that the Society talk with divided tongues:
Forgive me if I avoid the link. Why not put it in your own words?
Teleologist wrote:Neo, are you unaware that since the 1960's JW's have been disfellowshipped for taking a blood transfusion?
It's your assertion: Provide the reference.
Neologist wrote:
Quote:You've observed that a small amount of blood remains in an animal after it has been properly bled. That the Israelites were permitted to eat such meat tells me that the law is fulfilled by the act of showing proper respect for blood.
That's my point. God's law didn't require that one not take any blood into one's body at all. All it required was that animals killed for food be drained of blood as best they could. But in a recent post you seem to suggest that blood being sacred means that a Christian is forbidden from taking it into their body at all. That's why I brought up the fact that JW's eat meat. If that's not what you meant then please explain what you did mean.
Teleologist wrote:Neologist wrote:
Quote:You've observed that a small amount of blood remains in an animal after it has been properly bled. That the Israelites were permitted to eat such meat tells me that the law is fulfilled by the act of showing proper respect for blood.
That's my point. God's law didn't require that one not take any blood into one's body at all. All it required was that animals killed for food be drained of blood as best they could. But in a recent post you seem to suggest that blood being sacred means that a Christian is forbidden from taking it into their body at all. If that's not what you meant then please explain what you did mean.
Find the post for me and I'll explain it.
It's the last post on page 20.
You ask for documentation but refuse to look at it, how does that come!
It would be nice if you will comment Leviticus 17:15 that a Jew and an Alien was allowed to eat all the blood in a self dead animal, like a sausage. Only a ceremonial bath before evening and the matter was settled with God and the Society.
Teleologist wrote:It's the last post on page 20.
Do you agree there is a difference between food that has been properly prepared by removing blood according to the law and the blood that has been removed?
Talkactive wrote:You ask for documentation but refuse to look at it, how does that come!
It would be nice if you will comment Leviticus 17:15 that a Jew and an Alien was allowed to eat all the blood in a self dead animal, like a sausage. Only a ceremonial bath before evening and the matter was settled with God and the Society.
What would you expect me to say about it?
And what documentation are you referring to? If it is the link you provided, forget about it. I'm sure you are smart enough to extract the relevant information. Take your time. I'm not likely to go away any time soon.
If you are wondering why I won't visit your site, it is because I have found that the whinings of disfellowshipped witnesses are conspicuously devoid of the real reasons for their having been disfellowshipped. Remember, I was once disfellowshipped myself. I know the drill.
If you are asking me if there is a difference between eating a steak and drinking the blood that was drained from the cow from which the steak came, I would say, of course.
So, I guess we're on the same page. I'm checking out now for a few hours. Got to hit the gym, then watch a game or two, pop a brewski, stuff like that.
