Originally posted by Rajk999
Because you use the name Jehovah more than others, you think you are God's chosen people?

I know you are that stupid, but do you really think God is that shallow?

YES WE DO. Who else proclaims it worldwide even to death if need be?.........and you are the one trying making this a shallow and non important subject, not me.

Originally posted by galveston75
YES WE DO. Who else proclaims it worldwide even to death if need be?.........and you are the one trying making this a shallow and non important subject, not me.

So the Jehovahs Witnesses are Gods chosen people?

Originally posted by galveston75
So you are saying that no one and no group can have the understanding of the Bible correct? So your saying were all wrong which by the way would include yourself?
Has history not shown that God has had either a person or a group or even a nation of people under his approval and guidence in the past?
Do you deny that the Bible says "Jehovah would hav ...[text shortened]... Your like speaking to a stone and you have even less spiritual understanding then it has.

I'm not claiming anything despite your pretensions that I do. You claim that god wants his people to abstain from ALL blood and yet you and robbie have said here in this forum that when it comes to a matter of life and death of a loved one, that it is a matter of personal conscience.

Well, is it?

Originally posted by galveston75
Knew this silly comment would pop up again. You guys can't see past you noses can you with any kind of commen sense in understanding of the Bible.

Why but I'll try this one last time even though I know it's a complete waist of time.

Did God not tell Noah to drain the blood out of all animals they kill for food? Do you seriously think for one sec ...[text shortened]... her then you just want to argue or you truly are just so messed up by satan you just can't.

You claim that the doctrine is shrouded in common sense and some element of material grey area when it come to 'cooked' meat for example; but then if there are these compromise postions, why is it such a BIG deal in the first place?

Originally posted by galveston75
"Similarly, did God say this only applied to blood that comes from other people or is synthesised by people? Don't think so... He said "abstain from blood", no ifs, no buts, no special cases or exceptions - just abstain from b to God?? Please tell me why do you defy your God by not abstaining from *ALL* blood???"

And we do abstain from all blood........

I might as well play out the entirety of this conversation ...

Galveston75God says "abstain from blood" -oh well abstain means "avoid" - does he make any exceptions? ... nope, no exceptions, so in all cases we must avoid blood! simples!!!
someone else What about a bit of common sense?? clearly, 2000 years ago, "abstain" was meant in the context of drinking blood and sacrificing goats and $hit, not medical procedures that have no ritualistic or pleasure seeking purpose???[/b]
Galveston75 Read the Bible, he is quite clear, "abstain from blood", no exceptions whatsoever!
someone else So you abstain from blood then, because of some poorly worded directive that you interpret to mean 'avoid' in all cases when, when it could have been interpreted, a hell of a lot more feasibily in any number of different ways???
Galveston75 Yep...its easy peasy isn't it! 🙂
someone else So what about your own blood? Do you abstain from that too!?
Galveston75 ...
someone else *asks again in a different way*
Galveston75 Yes we abstain from all blood!
someone else So how come you're still alive to post this crap then if you have no blood inside you!???
Galveston75 What are you talking about, what do you mean about me having no blood?
someone else I just asked if you abstain from all blood, even your own, and you said you do - therefore, if thats true you must have no blood inside you
Galveston75 Are you ****ing serious why would I get rid of my own blood?
someone else Because as we've just established you take "abstain" to be "avoid" without any exceptions, and you claim to abstain from ALL blood...but your blood is part of ALL blood. Therefore you claim also to have no blood inside you!
Galveston75 Well you must be stupid because if I had no blood in me I'd be dead
someone else Yes...I established that ages ago, and so having deduced that you don't abstain from ALL blood, since you don't abstain from your own, can you tell me why you contradict yourself!???
Galveston75 What are you on about...I haven't contradicted myself at all - we JWs abstain from all blood - period
someone else So then why do you still have blood in you, why have you not drained it all!?[/b]
Galveston75 Because...lemme think about that...because I would die!??? do you think that might be why I don't drain all my blood away you stupid little man!?
someone else *(he's calling me stupid!???)*
Yes, like I've already established, the fact you are not dead means you do not abstain from ALL blood - namely your own... why don't you abstain from your own?
Galveston75 Because if God had wanted us to abstain from our own blood don't you think he would have told us...you have to use some common sense!!
someone else Well apart from you contradicting yourself about common sense, surely by the same token, if he had wanted us to abstain from blood transfusions, he would have told us that too. In one vein you claim to take the directive literally in all contexts, and then you contradict yourself in another by asserting that application of common sense compels us to make exceptions in some cases!!!
Galveston75What exceptions...we abstain from all blood - always
someone else *I'm "waist"ing my time here* 😞

Originally posted by divegeester
As Galveston will probably not reply to you I will.

You are correct. There is a principle inChristianity that says if you choose to place yourself under one part of the law then you are subject to all of it. That includes all the OT law.

These big religious corporations enjoy bringing the law into their teaching because it brings with it control a ...[text shortened]... h a blood transfusion, they default to "personal conscience". It is ridiculous in the extreme.

Well I prefer the dialects of Christianity that take a more balanced view of the Bible - those that look it as perhaps a work of ancient man that means to describe some ineffable being by approximating it through stories and allegory (biased by their collective sense of right and wrong back in those times).

That said, my objective here (acknowleding that their belief and actions on said belief in this respect is morally inexcusable), was to try and at least get our friend Galveston to see, as you observe, that he is inconsistent with respect to what he claims he and all other JWs do, and what they actually do when you apply tighter scrutiny.


But alas, neither I nor anyone else can possibly succeed in this endeavour...not even only to the point where he'll acknowledge an inconsistency with his position and claim Bible knows best.

Originally posted by Agerg
Well I prefer the dialects of Christianity that take a more balanced view of the Bible - those that look it as perhaps a work of ancient man as a means to describe some ineffable being by approximating it through stories and allegory (biased by their collective sense of right and wrong back in those times).

That said, my objective here (acknowleding that th ...[text shortened]... he point where he'll acknowledge an inconsistency with his position and claim Bible knows best.

Galveston reminds me of this quote I saw recently:

When you are dead, you dont know that you are dead.
It is the other people that have the problem.
Its the same when you are stupid.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Galveston reminds me of this quote I saw recently:

[b]When you are dead, you dont know that you are dead.
It is the other people that have the problem.
Its the same when you are stupid.[/b]

The thing is, much as it's gratifying to tell him he's an idiot (it really is!), I don't think, in all honesty, that he's as stupid as his arguments here suggest (Dasa on the other hand ...). There must be some psychological device (possibly established by his organisation) that is hampering him and all other JWs in *this* instance that I can't get my head around.

Originally posted by Agerg
Well I prefer the dialects of Christianity that take a more balanced view of the Bible - those that look it as perhaps a work of ancient man that means to describe some ineffable being by approximating it through stories and allegory (biased by their collective sense of right and wrong back in those times).

That said, my objective here (acknowleding that th ...[text shortened]... he point where he'll acknowledge an inconsistency with his position and claim Bible knows best.

And according to God's own words, how are we inconsistant? We do exactly as he says.

Think if you can on this for a bit before you answer.

God said to abstain from blood did he not?

In what ways could a human actually use blood back then?
We know god did approve of its use in a sacrificial setting but what else did he approve of the use of blood?

I'd ask and wait but in case anyone here has missed it...he aproved of the use of blood for "nothing" at all.

He said to abstain from it and it should not be used for food of any kind which would be used to sustain ones life and other then a sacrifice it was to be poured out onto the ground.

So until you are anyone here can produce from God's own words that the law did not include anything man might come up with in the future to use blood for, it is still a law by God.
Raj's not understanding what Jesus was using that scriputre for is not even close to cancelling out God's law on blood.

As simple as the word "abstain" is, it seems it might have to take a 3rd grade child to explain it to you all.

If your doctor told you to abstain from eating meat, what does that mean?
Don't eat it but go ahead and grind it up and shoot it into your veins.
If your doctor said to stop smoking, what does that mean?
If your doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, what does that mean?
Go ahead and inject it into your veins?
If your doctor told you to abstain from penicillin, what does that mean?
Etc, etc, etc.

Now your God has told you to abstain from blood, what does that mean?

Obviously in this context man has chosen it means something totally different. How foolish.......

Originally posted by Agerg
The thing is, much as it's gratifying to tell him he's an idiot (it really is!), I don't think, in all honesty, that he's as stupid as his arguments here suggest (Dasa on the other hand ...). There must be some psychological device (possibly established by his organisation) that is hampering him and all other JWs in *this* instance that I can't get my head around.

But you must be an idiot to get caught with the brain washing techniques that the WT use. I have studied this religion for serveral years now and the techniques revolve around convincing the followers that they are Gods organisation and only they have the truth.

Place that against the 100% failure of the hundreds of predictions they made and any sane individual must start to question the validity of this Gods organisation nonsense.

Originally posted by galveston75
And according to God's own words, how are we inconsistant? We do exactly as he says.

Think if you can on this for a bit before you answer.

God said to abstain from blood did he not?

In what ways could a human actually use blood back then?
We know god did approve of its use in a sacrificial setting but what else did he approve of the use of n this context man has chosen it means something totally different. How foolish.......

The funny thing is, I've actually anticipated most of what you hit back with here in my simulated conversation between yourself and another a few posts prior 😵

But for ****s and giggles

I'd ask and wait but in case anyone here has missed it...he aproved of the use of blood for "nothing" at all.

He said to abstain from it and it should not be used for food of any kind which would be used to sustain ones life and other then a sacrifice it was to be poured out onto the ground.
well using it in a medical setting is not using it for food! and so if it has still to be drained because it is not sacrificial then why is your own blood (the stuff that circulates round your own body), that also isn't sacrificial, not also to be drained? There really is an inconsistency with that one. Whatever "common-sense" establishes one can equally well establish the other; and also whatever "common-sense" makes an exception for one can equally well make an exception for the other.


If your doctor told you to abstain from eating meat, what does that mean?
Don't eat it but go ahead and grind it up and shoot it into your veins.
If your doctor said to stop smoking, what does that mean?
If your doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, what does that mean?
Go ahead and inject it into your veins?
If your doctor told you to abstain from penicillin, what does that mean?
Etc, etc, etc.
Counter this by asking what would a doctor be telling a smack/meth/speed/...-junky to do if he said abstain from drugs...does he mean don't drink Coca-Cola (because it has caffeine in it)???

The directive was meant for primitive folk who presumably liked to drink it, or worship it, or whatever... and it was meant to say that they should stop using it for these purposes. Not that it shouldn't be used to keep you alive in the operating theatre!

Originally posted by Rajk999
But you must be an idiot to get caught with the brain washing techniques that the WT use. I have studied this religion for serveral years now and the techniques revolve around convincing the followers that they are Gods organisation and only they have the truth.

Place that against the 100% failure of the hundreds of predictions they made and any sane individual must start to question the validity of this Gods organisation nonsense.

Well to be fair the "my religion is right and every other religion is wrong" line is a common feature of most religions. Not just his. Also with respect to brain washing, you have some people that believe that we are a depraved and feeble collection of humans because some folks long long ago (just over 6000 years btw) in a magic garden listened to a talking snake and ate a naughty apple from a magic tree; and so God sent his own son (who is also himself btw) to be tortured on the cross such that his own arbitrary ruling that the price of "sin" is death be satisfied; and finally that not only is this a really awesome plan, it is the *best* plan an all-knowing, all-doing god could have possibly devised
Totally believable if you're four!!!

As for prophecies and predictions - pretty much every other religion gets these pathetically wrong too. His organisation is no exception.


I agree with you and anyone else that would say he is spouting utter chite here but I'm not going to sell myself out and pretend others, from "better tolerated" religions, don't do the same - frequently


I expect most of them were caught when they were young and impressionable, and in any other setting are more than capable of being rational (except of course the real idiots).

Originally posted by Agerg
Well to be fair the "my religion is right and every other religion is wrong" line is a common feature of most religions. Not just his. Also with respect to brain washing, you have some people that believe that we are a depraved and feeble collection of humans because some folks long long ago (just over 6000 years btw) in a magic garden listened to a talking sn ...[text shortened]... her setting are more than capable of being rational (except of course the real idiots).

Well I guess its one of degree. Off the top of my head they stand out because of the following:
- they are the new Jews . Gods people
- the head office WatchTower is Gods chosen organisation
- 144,000 of their members are now in heaven with God
- all people who are non JWs will die in Armageddon and only JWs will live
- all their doctrines are sent to them directly from God, ie they dont actually intrepret .. God advises them directly.

As for their predictions, I wont say all religions do that and if so the degree is of significance. Here is a comment by Carl Sagan on it. {maybe you have seen this before] :

A few years after the complete collapse of everything C. T. Russell had predicted, J. F. Rutherford began a process of replacing Russell's unfulfilled predictions with a series of invisible and spiritual events associated with the years 1914 and 1918. By the early 1930s the process was complete.

An interesting comment on this transformation was made by Carl Sagan in his book Broca's Brain (New York: Ballantine Books, 1979, pp. 332-333):

Doctrines that make no predictions are less compelling than those which make correct predictions; they are in turn more successful than doctrines that make false predictions.

But not always. One prominent American religion confidently predicted that the world would end in 1914. Well, 1914 has come and gone, and -- while the events of that year were certainly of some importance -- the world does not, at least so far as I can see, seem to have ended. There are at least three responses that an organized religion can make in the face of such a failed and fundamental prophecy. They could have said, "Oh, did we say '1914'? So sorry, we meant '2014.' A slight error in calculation. Hope you weren't inconvenienced in any way." But they did not. They could have said, "Well, the world would have ended, except we prayed very hard and interceded with God so He spared the Earth." But they did not. Instead, they did something much more ingenious.

They announced that the world had in fact ended in 1914, and if the rest of us hadn't noticed, that was our lookout. It is astonishing in the face of such transparent evasions that this religion has any adherents at all. But religions are tough. Either they make no contentions which are subject to disproof or they quickly redesign doctrine after disproof. The fact that religions can be so shamelessly dishonest, so contemptuous of the intelligence of their adherents, and still flourish does not speak very well for the tough-mindedness of the believers. But it does indicate, if a demonstration were needed, that near the core of the religious experience is something remarkably resistant to rational inquiry.

Originally posted by galveston75
And according to God's own words, how are we inconsistant? We do exactly as he says.

Think if you can on this for a bit before you answer.

God said to abstain from blood did he not?

In what ways could a human actually use blood back then?
We know god did approve of its use in a sacrificial setting but what else did he approve of the use of ...[text shortened]... n this context man has chosen it means something totally different. How foolish.......

Are JWs permitted to be guided by personal conscience in a matter of life and death, where death can be avoided by a blood transfusion?

Originally posted by divegeester
Are JWs permitted to be guided by personal conscience in a matter of life and death, where death can be avoided by a blood transfusion?

Bump for Galveston, or robbie