1. Standard membermenace71
    Can't win a game of
    38N Lat X 121W Lon
    Joined
    03 Apr '03
    Moves
    140197
    05 Jun '12 01:11
    Did you know the watchtower once believed and taught this?



    The constellation of the seven stars forming the Pleiades appears to be the crowning center around which the known systems of the planets revolve.... It has been suggested, and with much weight, that one of the stars of that group is the dwelling place of Jehovah and the place of the highest heavens;....

    The constellation of the Pleiades is a small one compared with others which scientific instruments disclose to the wondering eyes of man. But the greatness in size of other stars or planets is small when compared to the Pleiades in importance, because the Pleiades is the place of the eternal throne of God.

    J. F. Rutherford, Reconciliation, 1928, p. 14.


    Manny
  2. Standard membermenace71
    Can't win a game of
    38N Lat X 121W Lon
    Joined
    03 Apr '03
    Moves
    140197
    05 Jun '12 01:19
    Jehovah Drives a Flying Saucer?

    Since Jehovah was viewed as existing in outer space during the Rutherford period, he was not Transcendent, Omnipresent or Imminent as Christians have traditionally believed. He was confined to a body located in "the space amongst the Pleiades." When he sent angels to communicate to those on earth light-years away they would have to travel through space to get here. This took time. Days, in fact. [9]

    Did they use some sort of spaceship to travel from the Pleiades to Earth as some have suggested? Or could they survive traveling through interstellar space unaided and unprotected? At this point the Society's 'occultic' view of Jehovah and his angels sounds more like Erich Von Daniken's "gods" from outer space than the Alpha and Omega of Scripture! It sounds more like the "ancient astronaut" theory that the "gods" of the religions of earth including the God of the Bible were actually aliens from space. (See R. L. Dione's book God Drives a Flying Saucer. ) [10]

    Manny

    man they believed in some crazy stuff sounds like ancient aliens to me 🙂
  3. Standard memberRajk999
    Enjoying
    On the Beach
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    170571
    05 Jun '12 02:05
    Originally posted by menace71
    ..they believed in some crazy stuff..
    And still do.
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    05 Jun '12 04:42
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    And still do.
    Like prohibiting blood transfusions.
  5. Standard membermenace71
    Can't win a game of
    38N Lat X 121W Lon
    Joined
    03 Apr '03
    Moves
    140197
    05 Jun '12 04:53
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Like prohibiting blood transfusions.
    I think the day is coming when they are going to change their policies on this one. maybe never full on transfusion but I think they are already splitting hairs because they can take parts of blood. Of course their argument or excuse will be well God has given us more light on this matter and so now we can take blood.



    Manny
  6. Standard membermenace71
    Can't win a game of
    38N Lat X 121W Lon
    Joined
    03 Apr '03
    Moves
    140197
    05 Jun '12 04:59
    http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/blood-transfusions.php#L3


    they can justify taking parts or fractions of blood but not the whole product ? incoherent to say the least.


    Manny
  7. Standard membermenace71
    Can't win a game of
    38N Lat X 121W Lon
    Joined
    03 Apr '03
    Moves
    140197
    05 Jun '12 05:06
    The Watchtower blood issue supposedly centres on the sacredness of blood. The Watchtower 1961 Sep 15 p.559 stated that "Whether whole or fractional, one's own or someone else's, transfused or injected, it is wrong." Blood was not be eaten or transfused but poured on the ground out of respect for God and his gift of life. If this is so, how can the Watchtower now consider the use of blood fractions and blood substitutes such as Hemopure as acceptable? The taking of large quantities of blood and processing it into components for later use shows less sanctity for blood than a blood transfusion.

    Consider the logic behind the latest concept that a minor fraction is acceptable but a major one is not. At Genesis 3:3 God forbade Eve from eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

    "'But as for [eating] of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'YOU must not eat from it, no, YOU must not touch it that YOU do not die.'"

    Would Jehovah have considered it acceptable if she had just nibbled on the peel, or fractionated it and partaken of the juice, or somehow just extracted the Vitamin C?

    Acts 15:29 also says to abstain from "things strangled". Using Watchtower logic that a fraction of blood is acceptable, a fraction of a strangled animal would also be acceptable, including byproducts such as tallow or protein meal. This is clearly bypassing the intended meaning of the passage and could hardly be considered to be abstaining from things strangled.

    taken from: http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/blood-transfusions.php#L3


    Manny
  8. Standard membermenace71
    Can't win a game of
    38N Lat X 121W Lon
    Joined
    03 Apr '03
    Moves
    140197
    05 Jun '12 05:10
    Watchtower Justification of its Stance

    Jehovah's Witnesses come under tremendous criticism for applying their stand on blood to blood transfusions. The Bible never mentions blood transfusions but the Watchtower reasons that if blood cannot be eaten, then it must follow that it would be equally disrespectful to transfuse it. As will be shown, much of the reasoning the Watchtower has used in regards to transfusions is inaccurate, with the result being an inconsistent stance on how blood may or may not be used.

    The reasoning originally given to support why blood transfusions were banned was that it was a nutrient in the same way that food is.

    "Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden." Watchtower 1958 Sep 15 p.575

    Blood is not a nutrient. Blood transfusions do not nourish the body and this is not the reason a patient is given a transfusion. Blood is used as a volume expander and to carry oxygen. The Watchtower now understands this and no longer uses this incorrect reasoning. However, rather than change the prohibition on blood a new line of reasoning started to be used. To link blood transfusions with eating blood the Watchtower now uses the following illustration.

    "Consider a man who is told by his doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?" Reasoning from the Scriptures p.73

    Medical professionals find this argument is also illogical. Although an alcoholic is advised not to drink alcohol, it would not prevent a doctor administering alcohol based medicine in case of a medical emergency. Furthermore, when blood is introduced directly into the veins as a transfusion it circulates and functions as blood. Similarly, when a person orally ingests alcohol it is absorbed as alcohol into the bloodstream. Alcohol is not broken down by the stomach and for this reason it is the same as injecting it directly. On the other hand, orally eaten blood when digested does not enter the circulation as blood, but is broken down into simple components.

    A blood transfusion is actually a cellular organ transplant and organ transplants are permitted by the Watchtower Society. To show how irrelevant the illustration is, consider it when put another way;

    "Consider a man who is told by his doctor that he must abstain from meat. Would he be obedient if he quit eating meat but accepted a kidney transplant?" (Source www.ajwrb.org/history/index.shtml)


    man so basic and how flawed the logic of the watch tower really is

    Manny
  9. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86379
    06 Jun '12 06:55
    Originally posted by menace71
    Jehovah Drives a Flying Saucer?

    Since Jehovah was viewed as existing in outer space during the Rutherford period, he was not Transcendent, Omnipresent or Imminent as Christians have traditionally believed. He was confined to a body located in "the space amongst the Pleiades." When he sent angels to communicate to those on earth light-years away they woul ...[text shortened]...
    Manny

    man they believed in some crazy stuff sounds like ancient aliens to me 🙂
    They are the "sole holders of god's truth on earth"...

    As 'God's truth' is a spiritual constant; one wonders which parts of what JW's believe are the truth, which parts are "subject to revision", which parts are "not inspired" and which parts are "open to error/mistakes".

    On the other hand, it's blatantly obvious.
  10. Standard membermenace71
    Can't win a game of
    38N Lat X 121W Lon
    Joined
    03 Apr '03
    Moves
    140197
    07 Jun '12 04:39
    Originally posted by divegeester
    They are the "sole holders of god's truth on earth"...

    As 'God's truth' is a spiritual constant; one wonders which parts of what JW's believe are the truth, which parts are "subject to revision", which parts are "not inspired" and which parts are "open to error/mistakes".

    On the other hand, it's blatantly obvious.
    Not sure LOL



    Manny
Back to Top