Who Has the truth? Who Will Bring World Peace?

[sooda]

Where was this and how long ago? For us, blood transfusions are a serious issue. It would be highly unlikely for a JW to enter a dangerous medical situation without prior notification of their refusal to receive blood. This issue would not even arise today because the medical professional who have kept up to date on best practice understand that blood is not the "life-saving" procedure it was once thought to be. It's dangers in fact, greatly outweigh its benefits.

It would also be highly unlikely for a woman to go through a pregnancy without medical supervision unless these people were not in a financial situation to afford such. Having already delivered 4 other children she was not exactly a novice at childbirth. The medical systems in some countries don't treat the poor with much compassion.

If your hospital heard from a lawyer within 20 minutes, then the medical professionals who administered the transfusion without the patient's permission were obviously liable. Would he even call if there was no case to answer? I don't believe this is the full story. Your version of it is a little suspect in view of your biased comments so far. What details are you leaving out?



This is also a bit suspect because we have permission by law to approach your front door. We are only trespassing if we refuse to leave when asked to do so. We are not calling to bother people but to offer a message of hope. If you are such disgruntled people, why would we bother to keep calling? "Morning after morning"? Are you seriously going to ask me to believe that we actually do that? We go door to door as the first Christians did.....but we don't call on those who tell us not to come back. Nor do we go back to the same house, unless someone is not at home on our first call. Perhaps you didn't answer the door? It is the only reason we would have returned so soon. Ignoring us doesn't make us go away. You can politely tell us not to call again and we will politely follow your wishes. It doesn't have to be ugly unless you make it ugly. We are not breaking the law.

Do you really think that we have nothing better to do than invite law suits on ourselves....or to take out lawsuits on others? Please....

This was 1990 .. and she dropped in the ER instead of having her 5th child in the parking lot. She was bleeding out and couldn't consent. Thank God she survived.. My young board certified OB/GYN could not stand by and let her die.

Yes, morning after morning in spite of being politely turned away the first time. Twice at 7 AM they let my dog out. I finally had to call the police.

The second location was an apartment complex.. .. again the police had to get involved .. NO soliciting means NO soliciting.

 

[Dawnofhope]

"Seeing the term as analogous to species makes the most sense as a way of distinguishing different animals"......sure, if you want to confuse the issue.
There is a marked difference between a "kind" of creature and "species" within a kind. When Darwin was formulating his ideas on the evolution theory, what was he observing? He saw finches, but not like the ones on the mainland.

These are all varieties of one "species" of bird. These are all finches. There are many more. To suggest that all representative members of every bird family needed to be on the ark is ridiculous...and not what the Bible says at all. One pair of representative finches would in time produce many varieties due to natural adaptive changes according to the food source or environment in the locations where they ended up.

The iguanas on the Galapagos had also adapted to a marine environment, but were still clearly a "variety" of iguana....a "species" of the reptile family. Darwin saw evidence of adaptation, not the kind of evolution that science suggests, but cannot prove.

All creatures possess adaptive capabilities as a survival mechanism....even humans. How many different varieties of humans are there? Their location on earth usually determines skin, hair and eye color. Hot climates usually produce people with dark skin, dark hair and dark eyes as a protection from the sun....in cold climates the skin is usually fair, the hair can be dark or blond or even red. Eyes are often blue. There are fat ones and skinny ones, tall ones and short ones.....infinite variety, but all of the human "kind".

There is the horse kind, the feline kind and the canine kind...these can include every species of horse, cat or dog in one classification. A "kind" is not a "species" but encompasses the whole taxonomic family. That is not hard to understand surely?

I have no problem with a definition of a 'kind' as being a family of species that are closely inter-related and it can be demonstrated through adaptation over a brief period of time they were once the same species and have diversified. I accept Darwin's finches would come under that category and so it would not be necessary to have all the different species of finches on Noah's Ark. At least we have a defined starting point. So how many species can we reduce to? 1 million? 50,000?

The more we reduce the number of species so they can fit Noah's Ark, the bigger the next problem...fossils and carbon dating. If there are 2 million species now that evolved out of say 50,000 species then there would have been even more species before the flood. Fossil records would easily demonstrate a mass extinction event less than 6,000 years ago and then the proliferation of species from a single starting point...the Ark. Of course fossil records provide no evidence of such a narrative.

No Adrian, it is merely stating a fact. It was not necessary for all species to be on the Ark. God brought them, so he chose them, not Noah. I think God knows what he's doing, but you seem to doubt him for some reason?

I agree that God does know what He's doing, all the more reason to reject the notion that God would destroy most of His creation because of the spiritually deaf and blind in Noah's day.

Spiritually speaking, what do you believe other than what your prophet tells you? Are you seriously going to go there?

Hmmmm. Are you projecting?

What is projective identification?

I find none of it insurmountable actually. Science is the only thing that makes it complex. What the Bible says simply makes perfect sense to me. There was plenty of room on the ark for all the basic "kinds" and obviously there was no problem with them breeding after they came out of the Ark, because we have all these amazing varieties of creatures now, all over the world. Maybe God put them where he wanted them to be.....as I said, Genesis concentrates on what became of the humans, not the animals. Who knows for sure? God does obviously. In faith I believe him. I don't necessarily believe science as if it must know better than the Creator. You can if you like....

I agree that you don't have any trouble believing the story of Noah's Ark.

Is that impossible for the Creator? Are you placing limitations on him again, as though he has some? It says clearly in the scriptures that God accomplishes all that he sets out to do. (Isaiah 55:11) Are you saying that he can't do that for some reason?

Pseudo-science debunks itself.....it only takes a little bit of digging to see that none of what it believes about macro-evolution is actually provable. That makes it a belief, not a fact. Facts are provable. Suggestions and assumptions are not facts. There is no "established science" relating to macro-evolution. Its mostly guesswork based on adaptation, but taken way beyond anything provable by science.

I haven't mentioned anything about macroevolution of course but on a slightly related topic how do you account for evidence of the first human's being around 100,000 if Adam was the first man?

Earliest Human Remains Outside Africa Were Just Discovered in Israel | Science | Smithsonian

Giving my view of things is not attacking.....I am just speaking the truth as I understand it and responding to what you have said. When people misrepresent the God of the Bible, and twist his words to suit their own beliefs, then I will call them out on it. Are you not doing the same? We each give our reasons for why we believe as we do, and others are free to take away from that what they wish.

I too am speaking the truth as I see it and responding in kind. But when you make statements about those who misrepresent the God of the Bible I do see more than a little irony.

If the dissenters want to put their 2 cents worth in then that is up to them. I have no wish to read their distorted ramblings....why would I?
This is a religious debate forum.....its about debating the subject of religion, is it not? When you feel as if you have to attack someone yourself, perhaps its time to take that break? ......

You really do despise those who have left the JWs. I can see some altruism and sincerity in why they would want to warn others of the risk of joining the JW movement. Perhaps you know their beliefs better than I do. They certainly know a lot about their former faith.

 

[Deeje]

This was 1990 .. and she dropped in the ER instead of having her 5th child in the parking lot. She was bleeding out and couldn't consent. Thank God she survived.. My young board certified OB/GYN could not stand by and let her die.

Did she get to the ER on her own? Was nobody with her? No one who could tell the medical staff that she was a JW? In 1990 the medical profession were aware of the dangers of blood transfusions because of the spread of AIDS via contaminated blood in the 80's. Many were avoiding transfusions because of that, not necessarily because they were JW's. Giving this woman blood may have exposed her to the deadly virus and taken her life anyway.

If it was known that she was a JW and the doctor decided to transfuse her anyway, that would have been grounds for the lawsuit. Do you know how many of my brotherhood have died as a result of refusing a transfusion? Very few, in fact more people have died after receiving one. If doctors know how to treat patients within the parameters of their beliefs then they are respecting more than just the patient's body. They are respecting the whole of who they are.

Yes, morning after morning in spite of being politely turned away the first time. Twice at 7 AM they let my dog out. I finally had to call the police.

The second location was an apartment complex.. .. again the police had to get involved .. NO soliciting means NO soliciting.

This is completely against everything we are taught. We do not knock on people's doors at 7am. We don't even meet for witnessing until 9am. We are then given direction on where we will be witnessing on that morning. Normally we don't start before 9.30 am. We don't just randomly call on people. This does not ring true at all.

"What is the legal definition of soliciting?
solicitation - Legal Definition. n. A request or petition intended to obtain something; criminally urging, advising, or ordering someone to commit a crime; offering to pay for sex or requesting money in exchange for sex; an attempt to increase the number of one's actual or potential clientele.

Solicitation dictionary definition | solicitation defined - YourDictionary"

Jehovah's Witnesses are not governed by solicitation laws. A 'no soliciting' sign does not apply to us. We're not selling anything.

We don't break the law....and the last thing we want to do is badger people. I think your descriptions here are an exaggeration.

 

[Deeje]

I have no problem with a definition of a 'kind' as being a family of species that are closely inter-related and it can be demonstrated through adaptation over a brief period of time they were once the same species and have diversified. I accept Darwin's finches would come under that category and so it would not be necessary to have all the different species of finches on Noah's Ark. At least we have a defined starting point. So how many species can we reduce to? 1 million? 50,000?

The more we reduce the number of species so they can fit Noah's Ark, the bigger the next problem...fossils and carbon dating. If there are 2 million species now that evolved out of say 50,000 species then there would have been even more species before the flood. Fossil records would easily demonstrate a mass extinction event less than 6,000 years ago and then the proliferation of species from a single starting point...the Ark. Of course fossil records provide no evidence of such a narrative.



I agree that God does know what He's doing, all the more reason to reject the notion that God would destroy most of His creation because of the spiritually deaf and blind in Noah's day.



Hmmmm. Are you projecting?

What is projective identification?



I agree that you don't have any trouble believing the story of Noah's Ark.





I haven't mentioned anything about macroevolution of course but on a slightly related topic how do you account for evidence of the first human's being around 100,000 if Adam was the first man?

Earliest Human Remains Outside Africa Were Just Discovered in Israel | Science | Smithsonian



I too am speaking the truth as I see it and responding in kind. But when you make statements about those who misrepresent the God of the Bible I do see more than a little irony.



You really do despise those who have left the JWs. I can see some altruism and sincerity in why they would want to warn others of the risk of joining the JW movement. Perhaps you know their beliefs better than I do. They certainly know a lot about their former faith.

I'll get stuck into this tomorrow....bedtime zzzzzz

 

[sooda]

Did she get to the ER on her own? Was nobody with her? No one who could tell the medical staff that she was a JW? In 1990 the medical profession were aware of the dangers of blood transfusions because of the spread of AIDS via contaminated blood in the 80's. Many were avoiding transfusions because of that, not necessarily because they were JW's. Giving this woman blood may have exposed her to the deadly virus and taken her life anyway.

If it was known that she was a JW and the doctor decided to transfuse her anyway, that would have been grounds for the lawsuit. Do you know how many of my brotherhood have died as a result of refusing a transfusion? Very few, in fact more people have died after receiving one. If doctors know how to treat patients within the parameters of their beliefs then they are respecting more than just the patient's body. They are respecting the whole of who they are.



This is completely against everything we are taught. We do not knock on people's doors at 7am. We don't even meet for witnessing until 9am. We are then given direction on where we will be witnessing on that morning. Normally we don't start before 9.30 am. We don't just randomly call on people. This does not ring true at all.

"What is the legal definition of soliciting?
solicitation - Legal Definition. n. A request or petition intended to obtain something; criminally urging, advising, or ordering someone to commit a crime; offering to pay for sex or requesting money in exchange for sex; an attempt to increase the number of one's actual or potential clientele.

Solicitation dictionary definition | solicitation defined - YourDictionary"

Jehovah's Witnesses are not governed by solicitation laws. A 'no soliciting' sign does not apply to us. We're not selling anything.

We don't break the law....and the last thing we want to do is badger people. I think your descriptions here are an exaggeration.

She was by herself and had never had any prenatal care.. No one knew her. Her husband arrived after she was in crisis and being transfused.. He was VERY quick to call a JW lawyer in Atlanta.

I haven't exaggerated anything.. In fact, I have given you the soft version of events.

She probably should have had her baby in the parking lot instead of threatening to wreck the career of the fine young doctor who saved her life.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Only the credulous believe in universal flood.

 

[ManSinha]

I have a similar personal story about a child of a family with one JW parent - we had to get a court order - to prevent the kid from dying - in order to transfuse - well one swallow does not a summer make - but when one hears repeated versions of the same story....

 

[ajay0]

I don't believe I mentioned them in that regard.....are you a member of their religion?

If that is the case, then there will never be peace. Humans are not interested in tolerance and acceptance....they are only after what is good for themselves and they don't care about anyone else..

If you are stating this emphatically, it shows that you have no faith in human nature and goodness.

According to Wiki....there are concerns about the Brahmakumaris.....

"Adherents have been criticised by nonmembers for hiding or downplaying their prophesied physical destruction of the world[84] particularly as they still believe that such an event will happen "soon". However, they maintain that their primary purpose is to teach meditation and peace of mind, not to push their views about the different challenges the world is facing on nonmembers who may be visiting the group to learn about meditation or values based living.[46]

In the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Howell reported that the Brahma Kumaris protected itself from the practice of families "dumping" their daughters with the organisation by requiring a payment from the families of those wishing to dedicate their daughters to the work and services of the organisation. The payment is intended to cover the living expenses incurred during the trial period.[85]

John Wallis wrote a book examining the status of tradition in the contemporary world, which used the religion as a case study,[86] focusing on recruitment methods, the issue of celibacy, reinterpretation of religious history. He reported the rewriting of the revelatory messages (Murlis) by the Brahma Kumari.[87][88] They have been accused of breaking up marriages.[89][90]

When the organisation started, empowering women to assert their right to remain celibate, particularly in marriage, was a prime factor in the controversy that arose in 1930s Sind, as it directly challenged the dominance of men over women in the patriarchal Indian subcontinent.[1] Feminist commentator Prem Chowdry has criticised the practice of celibacy within the organisation as being a form of patriarchal control.[91]"

Would you like to address these concerns? I know how things can become distorted when they are reported on by others, so please tell us how you would answer these criticisms? To remain celibate in marriage seems a bit extreme....is it true?.

There are some women who prefer to stay celibate in marriage or be unmarried, just like the monks and nuns in other religions like catholicism, buddhism, jainism or other sects of hinduism.

If a woman prefers to be unmarried or celibate in marriage, it is her wish to do so, and to force sexual intercourse upon her by her husband would be equivalent to rape. And there are some who does not practice celibacy. I would say it is their personal choice which ought to be respected.

The rest of the other details are insignificant , and are the usual minor challenges of logistics or theology faced in an organisation. The Prajapita Brahmakumaris have created feminine leaders in both the east and west to address global issues concerned with human values or its lack, and for teaching spirituality and meditation to all, irrespective of race, religion, nationality or gender. They have received seven peace messenger awards in the UN, and has set trends in pursuit of green energy, including the world's largest solar cooker at Mount Abu, Rajasthan which cooks nearly 40000 meals a day.

I
I have never seen God either, but I can see what he has made, and I see that the kindness of Jesus Christ as reported in the scriptures towards the afflicted, is a reflection of his Father's loving personality.....I also see what kind of influence the devil can have on those who throw the door open to him by their choice of entertainment, and how they relish the bloodshed and violence of war both on the screen and in real life. The world is a horror film at present. The blood is real.

There is bloodshed because of intolerance and non-acceptance of the other based on superficial differences. The way for peace and harmony is to overlook the differences and emphasize the common denominators, and this is what the Prajapita Brahmakumaris are doing.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

....having had NO prenatal care.

That doesn’t sound right. Why didn’t she?

Knocking on the door morning after morning and refusing to leave the property when asked.

Again, that doesn’t sound like JW’s. Did you own the property? If it was your home, we would quietly leave.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

....prefer to stay celibate in marriage

Why? You mean for a short time? Or for the duration?

 

[sooda]

That doesn’t sound right. Why didn’t she?


Again, that doesn’t sound like JW’s. Did you own the property? If it was your home, we would quietly leave.

Yes I owned both properties.

I don't know why she didn't have prenatal care.. She was a charity patient, so I am assuming they were quite poor.

 

[ajay0]

Why? You mean for a short time? Or for the duration?

That depends on the lady. If she does not want to have sex for a short time, or for the duration, or wants to have sex, it is all her choice and dignity, which ought to be respected.

If you are stating that a lady who prefers to be celibate, must have sex, that would be ungentlemanly of you.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Yes I owned both properties.

Then we would’ve left it. It wasn’t JW’s, refusing to leave. The only other issue...are they apartment complexes?

 

[savagewind]

Read it again! It dealt w/ that!

Are you ok? Or just trying to be mean?

I did read it again. But, I have asked you to copy what you say was there and of which you thought worthy of insulting me.

Now it's you being mean. Matthew 7:1

 

[Hockeycowboy]

That depends on the lady. If she does not want to have sex for a short time, or for the duration, or wants to have sex, it is all her choice and dignity, which ought to be respected.

If you are stating that a lady who prefers to be celibate, must have sex, that would be ungentlemanly of you.

Then she shouldn’t have gotten married. If her mate agreed to such an arrangement before the marriage, I could understand. But if not, the Bible states, “each (mate) should render their dues.”

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I did read it again. But, I have asked you to copy what you say was there and of which you thought worthy of insulting me.

Now it's you being mean. Matthew 7:1

Why should I talk to you? (The answers are clear, in those links.) You reneged on your promise to Jehovah. You’ll have to deal w/ Him.

 

[ajay0]

Then she shouldn’t have gotten married. If her mate agreed to such an arrangement before the marriage, I could understand. But if not, the Bible states, “each (mate) should render their dues.”

In Hinduism, celibacy or chastity of women, even married, is given a lot of regard. I would say, it is the choice of the lady. I know of a married couple, with both husband and wife deciding to be celibate so as to have greater depth in meditation.

Imo, the bible was mentioning that each mate must render their dues to the other as in taking care of the other in sickness or poverty, not necessarily having sex all the time.

 

[savagewind]

Why should I talk to you? (The answers are clear, in those links.) You reneged on your promise to Jehovah. You’ll have to deal w/ Him.

But you did talk to me. You insulted me. Matthew 5:23.

 

[savagewind]

And now, who wants to bet that you will lie saying, it was a question and not an insult?

 

[savagewind]

The point which only mentally seeing people can see is that it would be impossible for eight souls to take care of any number of animals for that long. Did Jehovah feed them, walk them, keep them from fighting, help with births.......and what about sunshine? Did Jehovah make the sun shine inside the ark? Did no soul man or animal get sick and need care? How did it work? Magic?