JW Insider

I programmed mine to fool TrueTomHarley into thinking it was his wife.

I programmed mine to fool TrueTomHarley into thinking it was his wife.

... some nights I lay in bed thinking ... and my wife thinks I am thinking about "kingly bed warmers", but in reality, I am pondering what would happen if two people on opposite sides of the Earth both dropped a piece of bread at the same time ....
.... would the Earth briefly become a sandwich?

This has to be the best off topic entry ever!
And have you noticed (in the movies) 
Everyone has a black umbrella if it rains at a funeral People always leave car keys behind the sun shade Computer passwords and even government systems are always hackable in seconds or minutes You can nearly always park just where you need to Single bullets can spectacularly explode cars Friends, (and others) can often just walk into houses People are always having dreams that make them sit bolt upright in bed Gangs often walk four abreast in rows whether goodies or villains Nobody ever finishes their breakfast Heroes can often shoot rifles accurately one-handed, but baddies demolish walls and ceilings with automatic assault rifles Pedestrians always jump out of the way of reckless drivers, even if they are driving on the pavement Ventilation shafts are often accessible, human sized, well-lit, spotless and go anywhere you want People often clean their teeth without toothpaste, in fact only villains have bad teeth. And regardless of overall dirty appearance, goodie's teeth are perfectly white and dentally manicured. News reports about you always start as soon as you turn on the TV, even though someone told you it was on already

Well at least it's popular

And I made it look like I was blaming you. Sorry. As I recall, you had already defended yourself very well a few hundred posts back in this thread. They even talked about threaded replies. And I knew it wasn't your fault from the start. I've been asked to split off several threads myself, and I always have trouble with the fact that the initial post is the oldest relevant post that can be added to the thread so it looks like that person started the new thread. It gives the impression that some innocent person had deemed a side-track topic to be important enough for its own thread. 

And I made it look like I was blaming you. Sorry. As I recall, you had already defended yourself very well a few hundred posts back in this thread. They even talked about threaded replies. And I knew it wasn't your fault from the start. I've been asked to split off several threads myself, and I always have trouble with the fact that the initial post is the oldest relevant post that can be added to the thread so it looks like that person started the new thread. It gives the impression that some innocent person had deemed a side-track topic to be important enough for its own thread. 

I for one, thank you for sticking around for this discussion. Yes, I remember how unfair it seemed that someone started a thread with your name in it, just to make it clear that they didn't trust your own stated reasons. But, of course, forums are full of opinions sprinkled with a few facts sometimes, but just to bolster opinions. People rightly treat most of this like YouTube comments, or some other "worst" example of the way people's opinions can cloud out anything useful. But I stll think that what you have provided here is a first hand experience (prior to JW association) and a subsequent reaction to WTS policies that is very important for most of us to reflect on, even if it's different from the way most of think we would react.

IT was the librarian, he was punishing me for not sticking to a topic. Now it looks like I started this thread. I would never start a topic with a title like that.

I think you are getting confused with John the Baptist who ate locusts. 
However you may see the reason for my comment if you look on other topics, and i did say IF it is true.  

it is not that they declined it willfully. They 'declined' it as a practical matter, for just the reason you go on to state. The overall world presides over a chaotic mess, and nobody, ARC or not, has the power to kick them in the rears so as to make them get their act together.
Herein lies the strength of Jehovah's organization. It the governing members decide on a policy change, it is telegraphed around the world to all branches in no time flat. Make minor allowances for the fact that people are flesh and don't turn on a dime, and it is a fait accompli.

Oops, misunderstanding here. We are most certainly not friends, in any sense, if you thought I was implying such. No, we are "mates" in this sense: MATE: "used to show that two people share a space" and that space is here on this forum, "forum-mates". Bit like travelling on the London Underground in the same carriage. Then we would be "tube-mates" But we probably wouldn't know each other from Adam. Hope that's clear? No offense intended.
If you are referring to your "almost funny" comment, I still don't know what you meant. I'll assume you mean "strange or peculiar" because no comedy is involved in the subject matter. So my comments still apply. And I'm quite happy being "funny" in any sense for that matter, so "get over it"? Not really an issue.
Oh, a clarification. Well that's useful. I'll duck out of it now then,  'though I will echo @JW Insider 's comment that it is "your reaction to WTS policies that is very important for most of us to reflect on".
All the best with your search, (forum) mate. ☺️

Due to this gracious response, you have restrained me from highlighting John's words "I am not you mate" and letting them stand without comment. Thank you sincerely for this and for your overall help in getting me to reign in some of my hyperboles and occasional dignified barbs.
I have pointed out before that it is beneath me to resort to despicable trolling. I confine myself to engaging in dignified perusal of internet resources in search of fatheads to set straight.

I for one, thank you for sticking around for this discussion. Yes, I remember how unfair it seemed that someone started a thread with your name in it, just to make it clear that they didn't trust your own stated reasons. But, of course, forums are full of opinions sprinkled with a few facts sometimes, but just to bolster opinions. People rightly treat most of this like YouTube comments, or some other "worst" example of the way people's opinions can cloud out anything useful. But I stll think that what you have provided here is a first hand experience (prior to JW association) and a subsequent reaction to WTS policies that is very important for most of us to reflect on, even if it's different from the way most of think we would react.

Laughing at the idea that we are 'helping Jehovah' by setting aside a specific, pre-planned amount of money in advance every month so that we don't forget to donate -- and automatically get a receipt. "Because this way, I can help Jehovah every month" a sister says at 2min20sec into the tutorial video.
We can help Jehovah's people, help Jehovah's organization, even help Jehovah's "cause" in a sense. But only persons who have an extreme ego, or who confuse Jehovah with the organization believe they are "helping Jehovah." 
*** w91 12/1 p. 31 How Can We Repay Jehovah? ***
Such giving is not restricted to a tithe, or tenth, and there may be circumstances in which an individual is moved to give more to advance Kingdom interests.—Matthew 6:33. The apostle Paul said: “Let each one do just as he has resolved in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” (2 Corinthians 9:7) If you give cheerfully and generously in support of true worship, you will fare well, for a wise proverb says: “Honor Jehovah with your valuable things and with the firstfruits of all your produce. Then your stores of supply will be filled with plenty; and with new wine your own press vats will overflow.”—Proverbs 3:9, 10. We cannot enrich the Most High. To him belong all the gold and silver, the beasts on a thousand mountains, and valuable things without number. (Psalm 50:10-12) Never can we repay God for all his benefits to us. But we can show our deep appreciation for him and for the privilege of rendering sacred service to his praise. And we can be sure that rich blessings flow to those who give liberally to promote pure worship and honor the loving and generous God, Jehovah.—2 Corinthians 9:11.  

The vast majority of Witnesses have the expectation that the WTS will always try to do what is right, no matter what the topic. But like all institutions, reputation is paramount. The WTS is full of people who want to enhance the reputation of the WTS. This is a problem, but also natural --almost expected-- if we are also sure that we have the most life-saving message, and that this message will likely be rejected if our reputation is sullied. A college or sports organization will be just as guilty of protecting their reputation through maneuvering, or even more so, when the motive is as mundane as staying in business.
We've been through these ideas before, but it's quite possible that TTH is correct in assuming that the WTS/JWs have made great strides in protecting young ones from abuse. I notice that the media has tended to move from "Catholics only" to "Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses." But part of that perception is the fact that we Witnesses have our ears "tuned" to listen to anything the media says about JWs. We will sometimes think we are being bashed when we are actually being treated fairly, just because we perceive we are being ganged up on. It could just as easily be true that only a small percent of our own sexual abuse issues make the news, but the exposure of Catholic clergy and institutions has made Catholics might be highly overexposed by the media.
I was Googling, "Barbara Anderson" and also picked up a short booklet on Amazon that she had written (or it looks like someone wrote for her). But I noticed that she has also said that the problem is not something for which the media should focus on just Catholics and JWs. I found a quote where she said that Billy Graham's son, a well-known Protestant preacher, said that the problem of child sexual abuse is greater in the Protestant religions, especially the mega-churches. I noticed that some Catholics in Australia had no problem finding numbers from the "Commission" (ARC) that proved that the problem among JWs and another set of religions was shown to be much bigger among these non-Catholic religions. 
But another couple quotes from Barbara Anderson also said something about seeing a court document, not shared publicly, that could explain why the "GB should keep so much info . . . all to themselves." For one thing she says that many of these cases involve incest and an exposure of the names of either victims or perpetrators when combined with the crime could bring another level of public hurt upon the victim. Also I saw a quote from her that said that it really was true that quite a number of persons for which the WTS admitted that their pedophile status was known was through our prison outreach program. When persons locked up for child sexual abuse are baptized and then released, or released and then baptized, this inflates the number of persons listed in the WTS records even if they have not ever been known to commit a sexual abuse crime after leaving becoming a JW.
Another point that I sensed from combining a few ideas she wrote about is this. The WTS lists contain a wide range of abuse crimes, and some of them truly are those from which a sensible person would not think right to expose to the court and law enforcement (risking also the leaks to the media). A 17 year old, for example, might have done things in high school that have truly not been a problem for the last 40 years. Of course these same lists have been shown now to have contained heinous crimes that were covered up and should obviously be exposed to law enforcement. But starting this process creates a slippery slope to a decision-making process where the WTS can't trust itself to always "redact" correctly, and the WTS has never trusted the world to handle anything correctly, especially where it relates to protecting their own reputation. So, it's the old dilemmas: "between a rock and a hard place" / "between the Devil and the deep blue sea" / "between the Pharoah and the deep Red Sea."
This is probably true. Even here no system is without potential loopholes in justice. But it's back to the idea that the WTS would potentially give up control of its reputation to "the world." In these cases its something that should absolutely be done. It's not perfect, but it's much better, and a culture in which this is expected will result in a much better sense among all of us that it should have been done this way all along. I referenced a website which TTH has quoted from, and noticed that the general point of this entire website is that reporting ALL accusations is a culture change that all institutions need to begin, religious and non-religious.

The vast majority of Witnesses have the expectation that the WTS will always try to do what is right, no matter what the topic. But like all institutions, reputation is paramount. The WTS is full of people who want to enhance the reputation of the WTS. This is a problem, but also natural --almost expected-- if we are also sure that we have the most life-saving message, and that this message will likely be rejected if our reputation is sullied. A college or sports organization will be just as guilty of protecting their reputation through maneuvering, or even more so, when the motive is as mundane as staying in business.
We've been through these ideas before, but it's quite possible that TTH is correct in assuming that the WTS/JWs have made great strides in protecting young ones from abuse. I notice that the media has tended to move from "Catholics only" to "Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses." But part of that perception is the fact that we Witnesses have our ears "tuned" to listen to anything the media says about JWs. We will sometimes think we are being bashed when we are actually being treated fairly, just because we perceive we are being ganged up on. It could just as easily be true that only a small percent of our own sexual abuse issues make the news, but the exposure of Catholic clergy and institutions has made Catholics might be highly overexposed by the media.
I was Googling, "Barbara Anderson" and also picked up a short booklet on Amazon that she had written (or it looks like someone wrote for her). But I noticed that she has also said that the problem is not something for which the media should focus on just Catholics and JWs. I found a quote where she said that Billy Graham's son, a well-known Protestant preacher, said that the problem of child sexual abuse is greater in the Protestant religions, especially the mega-churches. I noticed that some Catholics in Australia had no problem finding numbers from the "Commission" (ARC) that proved that the problem among JWs and another set of religions was shown to be much bigger among these non-Catholic religions. 
But another couple quotes from Barbara Anderson also said something about seeing a court document, not shared publicly, that could explain why the "GB should keep so much info . . . all to themselves." For one thing she says that many of these cases involve incest and an exposure of the names of either victims or perpetrators when combined with the crime could bring another level of public hurt upon the victim. Also I saw a quote from her that said that it really was true that quite a number of persons for which the WTS admitted that their pedophile status was known was through our prison outreach program. When persons locked up for child sexual abuse are baptized and then released, or released and then baptized, this inflates the number of persons listed in the WTS records even if they have not ever been known to commit a sexual abuse crime after leaving becoming a JW.
Another point that I sensed from combining a few ideas she wrote about is this. The WTS lists contain a wide range of abuse crimes, and some of them truly are those from which a sensible person would not think right to expose to the court and law enforcement (risking also the leaks to the media). A 17 year old, for example, might have done things in high school that have truly not been a problem for the last 40 years. Of course these same lists have been shown now to have contained heinous crimes that were covered up and should obviously be exposed to law enforcement. But starting this process creates a slippery slope to a decision-making process where the WTS can't trust itself to always "redact" correctly, and the WTS has never trusted the world to handle anything correctly, especially where it relates to protecting their own reputation. So, it's the old dilemmas: "between a rock and a hard place" / "between the Devil and the deep blue sea" / "between the Pharoah and the deep Red Sea."
This is probably true. Even here no system is without potential loopholes in justice. But it's back to the idea that the WTS would potentially give up control of its reputation to "the world." In these cases its something that should absolutely be done. It's not perfect, but it's much better, and a culture in which this is expected will result in a much better sense among all of us that it should have been done this way all along. I referenced a website which TTH has quoted from, and noticed that the general point of this entire website is that reporting ALL accusations is a culture change that all institutions need to begin, religious and non-religious.

Because knowing ... when others do not ... is what has given, scam artists, flim-flam men, shamans, priests, and ecclesiastical tap-dancers  power prestige, and money, and position in various societies, since four guys went hunting for animals, and OG, the caveman,  supposedly was the only one who knew where the best hunting grounds were.
You do not actually have to BE a wise man, or in the case of Punxsutawney Phil, a weather predicting Groundhog in Gobbler's Knob Pennsylvania .... you only need the REPUTATION !
Clergy by ANY nomenclature are trained experts at "knowing the mind of God".
It's their Busine$$.
 
 

We don't really care, or shouldn't care as much what God had in mind in Genesis, Exodus, or Leviticus. But we should care what James and Peter had in mind when they gave an edict "abstain from blood" to Paul and Barnabas to spread among the Gentile believers.
Even so, I think you are right -- assuming that we truly believe that the intent of the edict "abstain from blood" referred to any means of taking it into the body. And this is exactly what we believe, whether by medical procedure or by consumption through the mouth.
I always imagined it like this:
Let's say Adam and Eve had been told to abstain from eating from a certain tree of the garden and let's say that this tree had been, for example, a banana tree, and there was only one of these trees in the whole garden. So they proceed to pick the fruit and find ways to make food products from it: banana puree, banana wine, banana sugar, banana jam, dried banana chips, banana powder, banana oil, including products from banana peels, banana leaves, banana tree bark, and banana tree roots. Satan appears in the form of a tarantula spider and tells them that all these products are just fine because they aren't really eating from the tree, they are eating byproducts from the tree. Satan says that as long as you process and smash and dry and mix and powder and recombine with other products, it's not really the same as eating from the banana tree. Just don't eat the whole banana fruit at once,  or the whole leaf, or the whole root, or the whole peel. Otherwise, it's just a matter of conscience.  I should add, however, that in the last couple of years, I've changed my mind on just how far one could apply this specific illustration. And now --based on something very specific and clear that the apostle Paul wrote-- I think that the whole blood issue is entirely a matter of conscience. Due to conscience, I might personally view the matter more strongly than another believer, or less strongly. But I would not wish to impose my own conscientious view on others.

No. The red liquid is not technically referred to as cow bovine. It is bovine in the same way that a cow's hide is bovine, or a baseball glove is bovine, or a leather chair, or a kind of saliva, or a certain type of sound, or a kind of meat, or a specific kind of hoofprint in the mud, or a certain kind of "mudpie"/"patty"/"buffalo chip"/etc.
In other words, the milk I drank this morning was bovine, but it did not contain any bovine. The meat I ate last week was bovine, but it did not contain any bovine. There is no such phrase as "cow bovine" as far as I know.

I finally saw Hitchens' documentary. When I first tried to watch it, the local Blockbuster video store kept saying they had 5 copies, and I put one on hold, until they realized they had all been stolen, or checked out by fake ID's, never to be returned.
I think we should be fair with the old man. He should not be executed until after a trial. He is guilty of war crimes, but that's also true of almost every U.S. president since Eisenhower.

If Iraq is asked to pay only $15 Billion from Germany and could choose to pay, say, $20 Billion to the U.S. for the equivalent work, they would almost surely have to waste the extra $5 Billion on the U.S. But this will be nothing new to Iraq. The US was behind the sanctions (mostly under B.Clinton) that literally killed about ONE MILLION PEOPLE (mostly women and children) by intentionally bombing and sabotaging Iraq's clean water, agricultural and power infrastructure long before the US invasion of Iraq. And recall too that the US invaded Iraq due to the actions of a man that the US had supported, Saddam Hussein. So, in a perfect world, you might think that the US owed the Iraqi people billions of dollars in war reparations, rather than worry about whether a US company gets a lucrative contract.
It reminds me of how even during the intentionally murderous sanctions, a large US corporation (military contractor) continued to "secretly" make hundreds of millions of dollars by doing oil related work in Iraq. They paid less than 10 million dollars in fines over their intentional breaking of US law, but were then quickly awarded 1.2 billion in contracts in Iraq, even though these contracts were supposed to go to the lowest bidder. That was Halliburton, of course. But the same thing happens with many US companies with respect to controversial defense contracts. Some of these companies, like G.E., Google, etc., are not even typically thought of as defense contractors, and many have been awarded contracts for work for which they have little to no experience. 

If Iraq is asked to pay only $15 Billion from Germany and could choose to pay, say, $20 Billion to the U.S. for the equivalent work, they would almost surely have to waste the extra $5 Billion on the U.S. But this will be nothing new to Iraq. The US was behind the sanctions (mostly under B.Clinton) that literally killed about ONE MILLION PEOPLE (mostly women and children) by intentionally bombing and sabotaging Iraq's clean water, agricultural and power infrastructure long before the US invasion of Iraq. And recall too that the US invaded Iraq due to the actions of a man that the US had supported, Saddam Hussein. So, in a perfect world, you might think that the US owed the Iraqi people billions of dollars in war reparations, rather than worry about whether a US company gets a lucrative contract.
It reminds me of how even during the intentionally murderous sanctions, a large US corporation (military contractor) continued to "secretly" make hundreds of millions of dollars by doing oil related work in Iraq. They paid less than 10 million dollars in fines over their intentional breaking of US law, but were then quickly awarded 1.2 billion in contracts in Iraq, even though these contracts were supposed to go to the lowest bidder. That was Halliburton, of course. But the same thing happens with many US companies with respect to controversial defense contracts. Some of these companies, like G.E., Google, etc., are not even typically thought of as defense contractors, and many have been awarded contracts for work for which they have little to no experience. 

This is a good concept to remember, but it produces some questions. If the blood referred to was the LIFEBLOOD then one could discontinue draining as soon as the animal was lifeless. If a live animal, heart beating, was hung upside-down, and then its throat slit, its "LIFEBLOOD" would already be gone even when only half the blood is drained. If the animal was already killed by lethal weapon, blunt force, or from another animal, or even had just died on its own, the amount of blood that could be drained by hanging it upside-down and slitting its throat would be much less than if it died during the draining process. In any case, the Jewish law required that the draining take place, and blood be poured onto the ground, as a kind of ritual of respect. We assume then that the animal was drained at least until the pouring stopped and the pouring turned into a drip. Since it was a ritual of respect before Jehovah, I would assume that it might be kept in position until the dripping had also stopped.
Of course, Christians of most stripes, should be informed by Acts 15 and 21 on this matter, more so than Genesis through Leviticus. Otherwise we would have to treat the fat with the same amount of respect, and the fat has exactly the same problem, not draining out completely when cooking.
(Leviticus 3:17) 17 “‘It is a lasting statute for your generations, in all your dwelling places: You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’” Why was fat put on the same level as blood here? Perhaps we get a hint from the very first use of the word "smell" in the Bible:
(Genesis 8:20, 21) . . .Then Noah built an altar to Jehovah and took some of all the clean animals and of all the clean flying creatures and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And Jehovah began to smell a pleasing aroma.. . . When meat-eaters enjoy a juicy steak, much of the intrinsic flavor is from left-over blood and fat. The "pleasing aroma" of cooked meat comes more from the fat. The blood is poured downward to the ground, and the fat smokes upward "toward heaven."
To me, this says that this Mosaic law was based on a ritual of respect, the same as we see in many cultures who understood the grave seriousness of taking another life, killing a soul. Some Native American cultures were well-known for this, whenever an animal was killed for its meat. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice .  Part of the idea is that man shouldn't take another life for pleasure. And enjoying the savory meat as food is taking pleasure from killing another life.
Should note that some cultures preferred to sacrifice by strangling their meat, boiling it whole, etc. (See Scythians in the Wikipedia article above.) Homer and Hesiod wrote of sacrificing/cooking meat on their altars and how their god ("God the Father," Zeus) loved the savory aroma from the fat that rose high into the heavens. (Interesting discussion here: http://www.moyak.com/papers/hesiod-theogony.html )
Of course, turning to the Greek Scriptures, again, we know that Jehovah no longer accepts any animal or human sacrifices after Jesus himself. And, as Jesus' body was never burned, the aroma is obviously figurative, not literal, of course:
(Ephesians 5:2) . . ., just as the Christ also loved us and gave himself for us as an offering and a sacrifice, a sweet fragrance to God. Extrapolating from the concept of comparing LIFEBLOOD with "fractionated blood" is a bit too dependent on one particular facet of Hebrew Scripture definitions, without considering other aspects of sacrificial ritual. (It might even imply that less care be taken with blood drainage, when measuring the threshold of blood necessary for life-sustenance compared to the original amount of blood.) And of course, the continuation of the idea in Acts 15, might also be primarily about abstaining from idolatry-related rituals, especially now that Christians realized that sacrificial rituals had no more place in the true worship of God.

The problem with that is that sometimes in someone's eyes you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. And what someone calls being stumbled, someone else calls being strengthened, by exactly the same thing. I suppose it all boils down to attitude and :
Colossians  3:13
"Continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely even if anyone has a cause for complaint against another. Just as Jehovah freely forgave you, you must also do the same. 14  But besides all these things, clothe yourselves with love, for it is a perfect bond of union."