1. Standard membermenace71
    Can't win a game of
    38N Lat X 121W Lon
    Joined
    03 Apr '03
    Moves
    154888
    24 Sep '12 03:51
    1.2 so long where do we start so I just took a sample out


    Great Pyramid as a "stone witness" of God. Russell wrote in 1910 that God had the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt built as a testimony to the truth of the Bible and proof of its chronology identifying the "last days".[60][61] In 1928 Rutherford rejected the doctrine and claimed the Pyramid had been built under the direction of Satan.[62]

    Beginning of the "last days". From the earliest issues of the Watch Tower, Russell promoted the belief that the "last days" had begun in 1799 and would end in 1914.[70] As late as 1921 Watch Tower publications were still claiming the last days had begun in 1799.[71] In 1930 that date was abandoned and 1914 was fixed as the beginning of the last days.

    Treatment of disfellowshipped persons. In the 1950s when disfellowshipping became common, Witnesses were to have nothing to do with expelled members, not conversing with or acknowledging them.[90] Family members of expelled individuals were permitted occasional "contacts absolutely necessary in matters pertaining to family interests," but could not discuss spiritual matters with them.[91] In 1974 The Watchtower, acknowledging some unbalanced Witnesses had displayed unkind, inhumane and possibly cruel attitudes to those expelled,[92] relaxed restrictions on family contact, allowing families to choose for themselves the extent of association,[93] including whether or not to discuss some spiritual matters.[94] In 1981, a reversal of policy occurred, with Witnesses instructed to avoid all spiritual interaction with disfellowshipped ones, including with close relatives.[95] Witnesses were instructed not to greet disfellowshipped persons.[95][96][97] Parents were permitted to care for the physical needs of a disfellowshipped minor child; ill parents or physically or emotionally ill child could be accepted back into the home "for a time". Witnesses were instructed not to eat with disfellowshipped relatives and were warned that emotional influence could soften their resolve.[98] In 1980 the Witnesses' Brooklyn headquarters advised traveling overseers that a person need not be promoting "apostate views" to warrant disfellowshipping; it advised that "appropriate judicial action" be taken against a person who "continues to believe the apostate ideas and rejects what he has been provided" through The Watchtower.[99] The rules on shunning were extended in 1981 to include those who had resigned from the religion voluntarily.[100][101]

    Manny
  2. Standard membermenace71
    Can't win a game of
    38N Lat X 121W Lon
    Joined
    03 Apr '03
    Moves
    154888
    24 Sep '12 04:10
    Blood
    Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions
    Jehovah's Witnesses reject transfusions of whole allogenic blood and its primary components (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets and plasma), and transfusions of stored autologous blood or its primary components. As a doctrine, Jehovah's Witnesses do not reject transfusion of whole autologous blood so long as it is not stored prior to surgery (e.g. peri-operative extraction and transfusion of autologous blood). This religious position is due to their belief that blood is sacred and represents life in God's eyes. Jehovah's Witnesses understand scriptures such as Leviticus 17:10-14 (which speaks of not eating blood) to include taking blood into the body via a transfusion.[229] Controversy has stemmed, however, from what critics state are inconsistencies in Witness policies on blood, claims that Witness patients are coerced into refusing blood and that Watch Tower literature distorts facts about transfusions and fails to provide information that would allow Witnesses to make an informed decision on the issue.[138]
    [edit]Fractions and components
    In the case of minor fractions derived from blood, each individual is directed to follow their own conscience on whether these are acceptable.[230][231] This is because it is difficult to define at what point blood is no longer blood. As a substance is broken down into smaller and smaller parts it may or may not be considered the original substance. Therefore some of Jehovah's Witnesses personally choose to accept the use of blood fractions and some do not. However, if a fraction "makes up a significant portion of that component" or "carries out the key function of a primary component" it may be objectionable to them.[232]
    Such a stance of dividing blood into major components and minor fractions rather than either accepting all blood or requiring all blood components to be poured out onto the ground has led to criticism from organizations such as the Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood.[233] Witnesses respond that blood as the fluid per se is not the real issue. They say the real issue is respect and obedience regarding blood, which they perceive as being God's personal property.[234][235] Members are allowed to eat meat that still contains small traces of blood remaining. Once blood is drained from an animal, the respect has been shown to God and then a person can eat the meat. Jehovah's Witnesses view of meat and blood is therefore different from the Jewish view that goes to great lengths to remove even minor traces of blood.[236]
    According to lawyer Kerry Louderback-Wood, a former Jehovah's Witness,[237] the Watch Tower Society misrepresents the scope of allowed fractions. If taken together, they "total the entire volume of blood they came from".[238] An example of this can be seen in blood plasma, which consists of 90-96% water. The remaining amount consists mainly of albumin, globulins, fibrinogen and coagulation factors. These four fractions are allowable for use, but only if taken separately. Critics have likened this to banning the eating of a ham and cheese sandwich but allowing the eating of bread, ham and cheese separately.[239]
    [edit]Storing and donation
    Jehovah's Witnesses believe that storing blood violates direction from the Bible to 'pour blood out onto the ground'. They do not donate blood except for uses they've individually pre-approved.[240] However, they are told that acceptance of blood fractions from donated blood is a matter of conscience. A 2006 issue of Jehovah's Witnesses' newsletter Our Kingdom Ministry stated, "Although [Jehovah's Witnesses] do not donate or store their own blood for transfusion purposes, some procedures or tests involving an individual’s blood are not so clearly in conflict with Bible principles. Therefore, each individual should make a conscientious decision" [emphasis added].[241] Critics have challenged these policies because acceptable blood fractions can only be derived from stored blood provided by donors.[242]
    [edit]Legal considerations
    Regardless of the medical considerations, Jehovah Witnesses advocate that physicians should uphold the right of a patient to choose what treatments they do or do not accept (though a Witness is subject to religious sanctions if they exercise their right to choose a blood transfusion).[243] Accordingly, US courts tend not to hold physicians responsible for adverse health effects that a patient incurred out of his or her own requests.[244] However, the point of view that physicians must, in all circumstances, abide by the religious wishes of the patients is not acknowledged by all jurisdictions, such as was determined in a case involving Jehovah's Witnesses in France.
    The situation has been controversial, particularly in the case of children. In the United States, many physicians will agree to explore and exhaust all non-blood alternatives in the treatment of children at the request of their legal guardians. Some state laws require physicians to administer blood-based treatment to minors if it is their professional opinion that it is necessary to prevent immediate death or severe permanent damage.[citation needed]
    Kerry Louderback-Wood has claimed that Jehovah's Witnesses' legal corporations are potentially liable to significant claims for compensation if the religion misrepresents the medical risks of blood transfusions. Wood claims that constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion do not remove the legal responsibility that every person or organization has regarding misrepresenting secular fact.[245]
    [edit]Animal blood
    The Watchtower has stated that "Various medical products have been obtained from biological sources, either animal or human ... Such commercialization of ... blood is hardly tempting for true Christians, who guide their thinking by God's perfect law. Our Creator views blood as sacred, representing God-given life ... blood removed from a creature was to be poured out on the ground, disposed of."[246]
  3. Standard membermenace71
    Can't win a game of
    38N Lat X 121W Lon
    Joined
    03 Apr '03
    Moves
    154888
    24 Sep '12 04:12
    An example of this can be seen in blood plasma, which consists of 90-96% water. The remaining amount consists mainly of albumin, globulins, fibrinogen and coagulation factors. These four fractions are allowable for use, but only if taken separately. Critics have likened this to banning the eating of a ham and cheese sandwich but allowing the eating of bread, ham and cheese separately.[239]

    I thought this funny so you can't eat the whole ham sandwich but you may eat the bread oh and the cheese and don't forget the ham LOL 😉 such retardation

    Manny
  4. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    24 Sep '12 05:42
    Originally posted by menace71
    An example of this can be seen in blood plasma, which consists of 90-96% water. The remaining amount consists mainly of albumin, globulins, fibrinogen and coagulation factors. These four fractions are allowable for use, but only if taken separately. Critics have likened this to banning the eating of a ham and cheese sandwich but allowing the eating of bread ...[text shortened]... y eat the bread oh and the cheese and don't forget the ham LOL 😉 such retardation

    Manny
    haters gonna hate
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    24 Sep '12 09:521 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    haters gonna hate
    You are hung up on this hate business. How about trying to love for a change.
  6. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    24 Sep '12 10:42
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You are hung up on this hate business. How about trying to love for a change.
    I love haters, trying to turn them from hate to love.
  7. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    24 Sep '12 12:42
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    I love haters, trying to turn them from hate to love.
    You might consider addressing issues, then, rather than dodging them with ad hominem slogans like "haters gonna hate".
  8. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    24 Sep '12 12:52
    Originally posted by FMF
    You might consider addressing issues, then, rather than dodging them with ad hominem slogans like "haters gonna hate".
    no i canny be bothered, haters are gonna hate is just so convenient.
  9. Standard memberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    53689
    24 Sep '12 12:55
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    no i canny be bothered, haters are gonna hate is just so convenient.
    Convenient for a 'dodger'. 🙂
  10. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    24 Sep '12 13:01
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    Convenient for a 'dodger'. 🙂
    I think robbie is rather 'mugging to camera' in an effort to disguise the fact that he fell in a rhetorical hole of his own making on this thread yesterday.
  11. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    24 Sep '12 13:02
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    Convenient for a 'dodger'. 🙂
    honestly it saves a plethora of typing
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    24 Sep '12 13:02
    Originally posted by FMF
    I think robbie is rather 'mugging to camera' in an effort to disguise the fact that he fell in a rhetorical hole of his own making on this thread yesterday.
    what you think has relevance to you and no one else.
  13. Standard memberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    53689
    24 Sep '12 13:03
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    honestly it saves a plethora of typing
    Well then why bother posting at all?
  14. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    24 Sep '12 13:06
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    Well then why bother posting at all?
    Indeed, an excellent question!
  15. Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    34587
    24 Sep '12 13:09
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    what you think has relevance to you and no one else.
    We all share our opinions on this forum. I don't need you to look upon them as "relevant" - and no one else here actually needs you to agree with me - for those opinions to contribute to the discussions that people have here.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree