JW organization.

[Elijah John]

Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to:

-vote
-celebrate birthdays
-celebrate Christmas or Easter
-donate or receive blood transfusions.

And if any JW openly persists in doing these things[edit to add publicly], they will be shunned or disfellowshipped, [edit to add or otherwise admonished or disciplined.]

For debate,

1) what do any of these check-list prohibitions have to do with Christianity?

2) And are any of these prohibitions compatible with the idea of Christian freedom?

3) Are these prohibitions arbitrary or legalistic?

4) And could Jehvoah's Witness as an organization flourish without these particular prohibitions and still honor God?

Please address any or all of the above.

[onewithhim]

BLOODLESS SURGERY


This is a story of one experience. It has been replicated thousands if not millions of times.

"By every standard, medical & logical, Henry Jackson, lying unconscious in a New Jersey hospital on his 32nd birthday, was finished. Massive internal hemorrhaging had drained him of 90% of his blood. His level of hemoglobin---the vital, oxygen-carrying compound in his red cells---had plummeted from a normal reading of 13 to an ominous 1.7, a number that one of his doctors characterized as 'incompatible with survival.' [In other words, 'he's going to die.'] A blood transfusion could save him, but his wife, torn between her husband's life and their beliefs as Jehovah's Witnesses---a religious community that prohibits transfusions because of biblical references to the sacredness of blood---had refused. Eventually, at the urging of members of her community, and in the face of a hospital threat of a court order to thwart her, Claudette Jackson had Henry transferred to nearby Englewood Hospital's New Jersey Institute for the Advancement of Bloodless Medicine and Surgery.

"It was an understandable choice. The institute is the leader among more than 50 in the U.S. [and this was in 1997; certainly there are more today] that now practice bloodless surgery. Without using any donor blood at all, they offer a wide range of surgical procedures that would ordinarily include transfusions, along with techniques that dramatically reduce, or virtually eliminate, blood loss.

"When Jackson was wheeled into the institute, Dr. Aryeh Shander, chief of anesthesiology and critical-care medicine, and his team moved swiftly. First, they essentially paralyzed the patient with drugs to reduce the demand for oxygen by his muscles, brain, lungs and other organs. Next, they gave him high-potency formulations of iron supplements and vitamins, plus 'industrial doses' of a blood-building drug, synthetic erythropoietin, that stimulates the bone marrow to produce red blood cells. Finally, intravenous fluids were administered to goad what little circulation he had left.

"Breathing on a ventilator, and without a drop of transfused blood flowing in his veins, Jackson gradually began to respond to the treatment. Within four days his blood count had risen significantly. Soon after, he was shaking his head in disbelief and telling his doctors, 'If it wasn't for this, I would not be here.' It was around then that the first hospital called to ask whether Jackson was dead. With undisguised satisfaction, Dr. Shander told them, 'He's not only not dead, but he's well and ready for discharge, and he'll soon be about his usual business.'

"If Shander, 49, an Israeli-born physician, is passionate about anything, it is blood....What concerns him most is how blood has become a convenient tool for his fellow anesthesiologists, and how it is sometimes used cavalierly when it need not be given at all....There are also indications that patients cannot tolerate levels of hemoglobin as high as previously thought and that young people especially have a built-in reserve of blood. ...As one of the directors of the Englewood institute, he is convinced that withholding blood is a viable and preferable choice for most patients. It not only benefits many patients but also forces surgeons to pay closer attention to technique and tests their willingness to depart from tradition."

("Bloodless Surgery," by John Langone, TIME,INC. SPECIAL ISSUE, Fall, 1997.)



There is more to the article that I will post subsequently.

[/i]

[onewithhim]

JWs are not forbidden to eat red meat that has been properly drained of blood. We would not eat meat that has not been bled. To refrain from draining an animal of its blood would be negligence of the highest order and total disrespect for God. (It's also nasty in taste.)

How odd of God to make dining so complex, and then to feel offended if folk use the wrong fork. We are in the 21st century; children in parts of the world are starving - they don't have the choice of separating blood from muscle. And yet God feels offended! Perhaps .... just perhaps .... we are making God rather ridiculous.

It is no big inconvenience for people to drain the carcass of the animal of blood. It is STANDARD PROCEDURE for everyone that kills an animal to eat, and not because they are following biblical directions. Un-biblical-thinking people do it routinely. Maybe you could google the draining of carcasses of blood and see why it is practiced all over the world.

So "dining" is NOT "so complex." The world practices draining blood from meat and does it for their own reasons. They don't think it is "so complex."



.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 209 by William]


[center]God, the patient vampyre[/center]

So when that abruptly ended, the god had to rethink and came up with the next phase.

I'm not too sure if you are talking about the dinosaurs, or the flood in the book "Genesis".

Specifically I was referring to pre-human era

So, any time before, say...200,000 years ago?
All animals back then were "monsters" do you think?

What "abruptly ended"?

That phase did

Could you define what you mean by "monster" a little bit, because I think you may mean that anything that eats meat is a monster.

Humans eat meat.
I'm not sure you mean that humans are monsters.

Top of that overall bloodline was "Human".

So, let me get this straight:

God creates monsters, that doesn't work out, so he gets rid of them all and then comes up with "humans". Is that what you're saying?

No.

I am saying that God adapted to the new circumstances

What new circumstances, do you mean when humans arrived on the scene by way of evolution? You don't believe in creationism?

and used the opportunity to create something more in line with being useful in creating means of survival and 'escape' into the greater neighborhood.

Sorry, I don't understand that.

Could you explain a little bit just what you MEAN by " something more in line with being useful in creating means of survival and 'escape' into the greater neighborhood. " I THINK you mean humans, but I'm not too sure.

It is an ongoing thing.

Are you talking about evolution again?

Are you talking about evolution now?

I am talking about dna and remnant imprints related to the distant past which still affect human consciousness.
Does that count as 'evolution' in your understanding? If so, then yes - I am talking about that.

Well, it may.

Every living thing has DNA that has been "passed along" from the distant past. We share the same common ancestors. And our brain and hence our consciousness retains a lot of that "stuff".

I THINK you are referring to what is called "evolutionary psychology".. but again, I'm not too sure just what you mean. If you have an interest, you might want to clarify the bits I don't understand. There are quite a few.

Killing is killing.

Meaning what? That it is not only parasites which kill?

You said a "rose by any other name"... same with killing. The word "bloodshed" is another word for that. It's a metaphor.

There are other ways to kill than simply spill a person's blood. You can drown a whole planet, for instance if you want to be more efficient. Killing everyone with a sword one by one might take longer.


And no, it's not just parasites that kill.

Or perhaps ditch both 'vampire' and 'parasite' as being surplus to the argument.
The Earth is a living organism which lives off her own form.

I think that's the Gaia hypothesis.
I forget now... did anyone prove that hypothesis had any merit?

Or that Greek goddesses exist?

It is how she has survived throughout biological history.

She?
The planet has a sex?

Where's the planetary vay-jay?

What I was talking about what the GOD being obsessed with blood and killing.

Your interpretation of the biblical god?

Yes, that's my interpretation, alright.
Almost every encounter humans have with the Bible god ends poorly for the humans.

I'm thinking of Job and Abraham.. tortured to prove a POINT.
God should have learned to debate, instead of torturing good people like that.

And I'm also thinking of everyone that God drowned in the Genesis flood.
To this outsider to the faith.. a VERY nasty piece of business, that.


What did the little KITTENS do to him?


The Bible character "God" seems like a maniac.

What I was talking about isn't to do with obsession, unless you count the desire to survive within biological forms dealing with the harsh reality of the universe as being some kind of obsession?

Yeah, for whatever reason, the Bible seems to focus on the very BAD parts of life.. and promises good things to come only AFTER we are all dead, instead.

I think the Bible is a little one sided that way.. we are all sinners, from birth no less, we have no real power, so we should think that everyone is some kind of a slave... that we have to follow 600 rules just to get through a day without getting stoned to death, many many many accounts of tribal wars and evil deeds... and if that's not all, supernatural destruction from on high.

So get on your knees and pray.


Life in the Bible = About as ugly as it gets


But what does Blastcat mean by the term "obsessed"?

I usually use the common dictionary definitions for words, unless I am using a word in a different way than most people. One such word that I would need to define is "Taoist" because I call myself one of those, but I sure use the term in a VERY personal manner.. My use is very RELATED to "Taoism", but I'm not too sure that many actual Taoists would agree with me. ( not too sure about that, actually )

So, just to be clear, since I am using the term, by "obsession", I mean an idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes on a person's mind.

The God of the Bible seems to be REALLY interested in all things "blood", don't you think? Death, birth, virginity, sex, menstruation, food rules... KILLING...

The Bible could have focused on the beauty of life... not just the horrors. Times were different then. A LOT scarier than now, for example. At least now, we have modern medicine.


( Blastcat is only alive due to the miracle of modern medicine, by the way )

Not saying that there isn't that, but I personally am not ready to concede that such is necessarily 'obsession'...but am open to the possibility.

Well, maybe the word "obsession" isn't the exact word, but then again, I don't know the "mind of God", so I'm just trying to figure out the stories in the Bible.

There seems to be a WHOLE lot of emphasis on death and destruction in the Bible.

Certainly - in relation to the 'keeping the blood clean' angle, that has much to do with survival, far as I can tell.

Well, back in the day, blood was scary since they didn't know a lot about how people get sick and die.

The people might have had a real good reason to try to keep everything as "clean" as possible. I'm pretty sure that they meant well. But if they just washed their hands with soap after they pooped, it would have saved MILLIONS of people.

I don't blame people for not knowing what they don't know... but instead of all that hand washing.. they concentrated on all things bloody. Well, they are partially right.



But it's not the blood itself that's unhealthy... its the little bugs inside that are.


That could be a clue about all of this "blood" obsession.
I think the people who wrote the Bible were blood and sex obsessed.

Of course, they were mostly working on what to a modern person amounts to a lot of "superstitions".


Talk about your old wives tales !!

When dealing with the bloodthirsty, the god has to lower its standards in order to participate...

Poor old God has no choice but to lower his standards and become obsessed with bloodshed.

You are projecting Blastcat. Cease using that as a genuine tool for good argument. It is not.

I honestly do not know where you see "projection" or why I would imagine that it's a good debate tactic.

I was reflecting your own words back to you, my friend.
If I don't GET it, it might mean that you didn't express your idea well enough.

So, just correct me and PLEASE don't accuse me of purposefully mangling your ideas.
I keep having to remind people that


BLASTCAT ISN'T PERFECT

I acknowledge that this is your interpretation but have to pull you up when you then project your interpretation of the god onto my own.

Go ahead and pull if you have the need.
I don't pretend to tell you what you think.

That's your responsibility, not mine.

They are obviously quite different.

I'm beginning to think so too.
Go on.....

Yours is obsessed and mine is simply using its intelligence to work within a particular pre-determined rule set.

Well, I have to admit that your way of putting is sure sounds nicer than mine, alright.

The 'lowered standards' was not used by me as some kind of judgment about the god or humans. It was an analogy of the process. The god is always a step ahead in knowledge and thus has to have patience when working with human beings - waiting for them to get up to speed on reality.

poor, poor god behind heaven's gate
never gets any break
All he does for our human gait
is wait and wait
so that finally, he can relate

It may be argued that it has some kind of 'obsession' with human beings, but I think this has more to do with being unavoidable connected to its (his) creation - and intimately so -

Oh don't use the "obsession" label. Let's say that God is simply using its intelligence to work within a particular pre-determined rule set.

Your way of putting it is SO much nicer.

We are like its data collectors, as well as at the same time being an aspect of its overall experience as a 'god'.

How did God know anything without us?

[center]
Pity the great big blood obsessed God in the sky.[/center]

Your ignorance shining through?

Maybe I am ignorant, but sometimes I write poetically, don't you?

What 'sky' are you even talking about?

A lot of the time when people are talking where "God" is.. they point "UP" to the "SKY".

Not "Down" to "Hell".... that's another guy.
Not as swell.


( possibly just as obsessed with blood, who can tell? )

[polonius]

JW posted:

EXTRACT: The red juice that often collects in a package of red meat is not blood, as many assume. Most of the blood is removed during processing and any that remains is usually contained within the muscle tissue.

The red liquid, instead, is a mixture of water and a protein called myoglobin, whose purpose is to help ship oxygen to muscle cells. Myoglobin is deeply pigmented, which is why the more myoglobin a meat contains, the darker (or redder) the meat will be.

Further reading: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... n-red-meat...

RESPONSE: Note: “Most of the blood is removed during processing and any that remains is usually contained within the muscle tissue.�

Clearly ALL blood is not removed from cooked meat.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/ ... =1&size=10

“As I grew older and began to think for myself, I realized that it didn't really matter how well the steak was cooked. If the meat had blood in it and I managed to cook it until it was burned to a crisp, the blood would still be there. It would just be cooked along with the rest of the steak. I began to see that eating a rare piece of steak shouldn't matter because if organ transplants were okay, then eating even an uncooked steak would be okay as well. You see, using the same blood transfusion equals eating blood logic, if you allow an entire liver, for instance, to enter your body via an organ transplant then what would be the difference if you ate an entire raw, uncooked liver.�

Perhaps you have an acquaintance has a microscope and will allow you to examine some cooked steak.

[onewithhim]

JW posted:

EXTRACT: The red juice that often collects in a package of red meat is not blood, as many assume. Most of the blood is removed during processing and any that remains is usually contained within the muscle tissue.

The red liquid, instead, is a mixture of water and a protein called myoglobin, whose purpose is to help ship oxygen to muscle cells. Myoglobin is deeply pigmented, which is why the more myoglobin a meat contains, the darker (or redder) the meat will be.

Further reading: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... n-red-meat...

RESPONSE: Note: “Most of the blood is removed during processing and any that remains is usually contained within the muscle tissue.�

Clearly ALL blood is not removed from cooked meat.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/ ... =1&size=10

“As I grew older and began to think for myself, I realized that it didn't really matter how well the steak was cooked. If the meat had blood in it and I managed to cook it until it was burned to a crisp, the blood would still be there. It would just be cooked along with the rest of the steak. I began to see that eating a rare piece of steak shouldn't matter because if organ transplants were okay, then eating even an uncooked steak would be okay as well. You see, using the same blood transfusion equals eating blood logic, if you allow an entire liver, for instance, to enter your body via an organ transplant then what would be the difference if you ate an entire raw, uncooked liver.�

Perhaps you have an acquaintance has a microscope and will allow you to examine some cooked steak.

God is interested in the attitude and actions of a person regarding the avoidance of eating blood. If someone drains the blood from a carcass to the greatest extent possible, Jehovah is satisfied with that person's endeavors.

You are harsher in your attitude and expectations than Jehovah is.


.

[William]

It's the individual's blood and no one else has the right to take it.

Then it is the individuals right to give their blood.

No, it is sacred to God, and it belongs in the individual's body that originally has produced it.

So it is sacred to the individual.

How do you figure that it's OK for a person to give their blood when their blood is designed for them and must stay in them?

Because for any amount of reasons blood does not always stay in the persons body. Also because sometimes blood from one body has helped another body to continue on.

Now I can certainly understand the desire to remain clean and appreciate the fear involved with dirty blood - indeed, I can even connect the dots in that department to understand why people would have observed a connection and how this eventually morphed itself into a 'command from a god' (gods are great in that way - they can be used to inspire fear as a means of protecting the herd) and if there are less risky ways of getting around the need for blood in surgery, this would be great argument against giving or receiving blood. No need to do so because the bible apparently informs you that 'god regards blood as sacred' when it appears the argument is really about common sense in relation to health and healthy practice.

That being said, healthy practice does happen in relation to hospitals and blood. Surgery always comes with risks, regardless of whether blood is involved or not.

OK, we'll toss aside respect for God. Let's talk about blood "helping" a body to continue on, by giving blood transfusions, strictly according to the medical community. Apparently that community has found out that giving patients blood is not actually helping the patient. Did you bother to read from the links I provided? Non-religious medical practitioners are saying that non-blood medicinal procedures are better than blood transfusions. Why do you argue with this?

Did you ever consider the idea that if a person dies "because they didn't take blood," so to say, that person would have died anyway? Blood substitutes are the far better way to go. There ARE less risky ways of getting around the need for blood, and some of us here have been saying so.

I'll post some excerpts from articles that I have appreciated in a subsequent post.

Good. So you see? There is no need to bring 'god' into the argument as someone who commands 'this and that' when it is obviously trial and error and human beings learning from their experiences.

Fashioning some idea of god and giving that authority over human lives brings with it the dangers of misuse and general abuse at the hands of the unscrupulous.

Which is historically significant, even in relation to the Abrahamic idea of god and how that has been (and is being) used as a form of mind manipulation.

Such an idea of god can indeed be 'tossed aside' as surplus to requirement...a god in a box/book trapped like a genie in a bottle and at the mercy of whatever humans dictate 'what god is'...to the point of the ridiculous.

"The bible says it is true so it must be truth' is not a relevant argument, ever.

Such a belief acts more as something which muddies the waters rather than clarifies them.

Human beings altogether make up 'what god is' relative to the localized event of humanity, on this planet, in a galaxy, in this universe.

Making it up as we go along. There is no real separation between 'God' and 'Human' other than what humans place there, for whatever unscrupulous reasons humans come up with.

Either we are all aspects of GOD or we will murder each other in our attempt to either deny GOD exists, or proclaim GOD separate from the human experience.

Certainly it seems apparent that the bible has that thread running through it, in the stories it tells. But lets not make the mistake then, that it must therefore be the final word on the matter.

[polonius]

JW posted:

EXTRACT: The red juice that often collects in a package of red meat is not blood, as many assume. Most of the blood is removed during processing and any that remains is usually contained within the muscle tissue.

The red liquid, instead, is a mixture of water and a protein called myoglobin, whose purpose is to help ship oxygen to muscle cells. Myoglobin is deeply pigmented, which is why the more myoglobin a meat contains, the darker (or redder) the meat will be.

Further reading: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... n-red-meat...

RESPONSE: Note: “Most of the blood is removed during processing and any that remains is usually contained within the muscle tissue.�

Clearly ALL blood is not removed from cooked meat.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/ ... =1&size=10

“As I grew older and began to think for myself, I realized that it didn't really matter how well the steak was cooked. If the meat had blood in it and I managed to cook it until it was burned to a crisp, the blood would still be there. It would just be cooked along with the rest of the steak. I began to see that eating a rare piece of steak shouldn't matter because if organ transplants were okay, then eating even an uncooked steak would be okay as well. You see, using the same blood transfusion equals eating blood logic, if you allow an entire liver, for instance, to enter your body via an organ transplant then what would be the difference if you ate an entire raw, uncooked liver.�

Perhaps you have an acquaintance who has a microscope and will allow you to examine some cooked steak.

God is interested in the attitude and actions of a person regarding the avoidance of eating blood. If someone drains the blood from a carcass to the greatest extent possible, Jehovah is satisfied with that person's endeavors.

You are harsher in your attitude and expectations than Jehovah is.


.

RESPONSE: Jehovah had no such expectation to begin with. The JH prohibition of 1945 was ftaken from men's writing (not God's). These were written down between 800 and 700 BC when the first 5 books of the Bible were actually written. (See attachments)

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/fi ... bible.html



http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora1.htm

And isn’t the JW prohibition against transfusion a comparatively recent teaching (c. 1945)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's ... ansfusions

"Watch Tower Society publications teach that the Witnesses' refusal of transfusions of whole blood or its four primary components—red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma—is a non-negotiable religious stand and that those who respect life as a gift from God do not try to sustain life by taking in blood,[4][5] even in an emergency.[6] Witnesses are taught that the use of fractions such as albumin, immunoglobulins and hemophiliac preparations are "not absolutely prohibited", and are instead a matter of personal choice.[5]
"The doctrine was introduced in 1945, and has undergone some changes since then. Members of the religion who voluntarily accept a transfusion and are not deemed repentant are regarded as having disassociated themselves from the religion by abandoning its doctrines[7][8][9] and are subsequently shunned by members of the organization.[10] Although accepted by the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses, a minority does not endorse this doctrine.[11][12]

"Inconsistency
Muramoto has described as peculiar and inconsistent the Watch Tower policy of acceptance of all the individual components of blood plasma as long as they are not taken at the same time.[100] He says the Society offers no biblical explanation for differentiating between prohibited treatments and those considered a "matter of conscience", explaining the distinction is based entirely on arbitrary decisions of the Governing Body, to which Witnesses must adhere strictly on the premise of them being Bible-based "truth".[100] He has questioned why white blood cells (1 per cent of blood volume) and platelets (0.17 per cent) are forbidden, yet albumin (2.2 per cent of blood volume) is permitted.[100] He has questioned why donating blood and storing blood for autologous transfusion is deemed wrong, but the Watch Tower Society permits the use of blood components that must be donated and stored before Witnesses use them.[123] He has questioned why Witnesses, although viewing blood as sacred and symbolizing life, are prepared to let a person die by placing more importance on the symbol than the reality it symbolizes.[112]"

[William]

[Replying to post 209 by William]

So when that abruptly ended, the god had to rethink and came up with the next phase.

I'm not too sure if you are talking about the dinosaurs, or the flood in the book "Genesis".

Specifically I was referring to pre-human era

So, any time before, say...200,000 years ago?
All animals back then were "monsters" do you think?

It's not what I think. It is the evidence which shows this to be the case. Forms where a lot, lot bigger back in the days before the human phase.

What "abruptly ended"?

That phase did

Could you define what you mean by "monster" a little bit, because I think you may mean that anything that eats meat is a monster.

Anything which might make one crap themselves.

Humans eat meat.
I'm not sure you mean that humans are monsters.

When it gets to defining human monsters, there are adequate definitions - you should be aware of those already and it is not necessary for me to give examples to you about that. Behavior most oft determines this.

Top of that overall bloodline was "Human".

So, let me get this straight:

God creates monsters, that doesn't work out, so he gets rid of them all and then comes up with "humans". Is that what you're saying?

No.

I am saying that God adapted to the new circumstances

What new circumstances, do you mean when humans arrived on the scene by way of evolution?

Yes.

You don't believe in creationism?

As in the literal interpretation of Genesis? I already told you.

and used the opportunity to create something more in line with being useful in creating means of survival and 'escape' into the greater neighborhood.

Sorry, I don't understand that.

Could you explain a little bit just what you MEAN by " something more in line with being useful in creating means of survival and 'escape' into the greater neighborhood. " I THINK you mean humans, but I'm not too sure.

Specifically the human form. yes. Ideal for that purpose.

It is an ongoing thing.

Are you talking about evolution again?

I am talking about the ongoing evolution of biological form in relation to intelligent design and purpose.

Are you talking about evolution now?

I am talking about dna and remnant imprints related to the distant past which still affect human consciousness.
Does that count as 'evolution' in your understanding? If so, then yes - I am talking about that.

Killing is killing.

Meaning what? That it is not only parasites which kill?

You said a "rose by any other name"... same with killing. The word "bloodshed" is another word for that. It's a metaphor.

There are other ways to kill than simply spill a person's blood. You can drown a whole planet, for instance if you want to be more efficient. Killing everyone with a sword one by one might take longer.


And no, it's not just parasites that kill.

Or perhaps ditch both 'vampire' and 'parasite' as being surplus to the argument.
The Earth is a living organism which lives off her own form.

I think that's the Gaia hypothesis.
I forget now... did anyone prove that hypothesis had any merit?

Or that Greek goddesses exist?

The use of the title "Gaia" is not to assume that whatever the Greeks thought and believed back then is necessarily relevant today.
The best explanation I have so far been able to ascertain is that the Earth being the form of an actual conscious entity not separated from the forms ON the planet but integral in relationship to all individual forms experiencing consciousness on the planet, is effectively what "Gaia" is. The sum total of all conscious experience on the face of the planet. (As well as afterlife experience of consciousness - another type of 'reality'.)


So what 'proof' would YOU consider to being able to thus make the hypothesis have any merit?

It is how she has survived throughout biological history.

She?
The planet has a sex?

Where's the planetary vay-jay?

It just seems apparent to me that IT leans slightly more toward the feminine than the masculine, but don't get tied up too much in that. IT is also well rehearsed in the experience of the masculine.
There is no particular problem referring to IT as 'he' or 'she' as long as one doesn't make the mistake of using one over the other. "IT" is also an acceptable pronoun in relation to being both masculine and feminine and more besides.

So yes, back to the point...It is how she has survived throughout biological history.

What I was talking about what the GOD being obsessed with blood and killing.

Your interpretation of the biblical god?

Yes, that's my interpretation, alright.

Okay.

Almost every encounter humans have with the Bible god ends poorly for the humans.

Yet I am sure that if you gave examples of this being the case and we examined these, we might indeed find that this is not entirely the case.

Indeed, my general interpretation of the stories show that human beings who get the short end of the stick were warned in advance and made their choices anyway.

I'm thinking of Job and Abraham.. tortured to prove a POINT.

Well how did that turn out for them?
If you separate GOD from human experience then you have no choice but to see it a certain way.

The stories show that everyone involved learned from the experiences. Job and Abraham were vessels of form in particular circumstances whereby GOD could push through prior limits and expand in self understanding through the experience.

God should have learned to debate, instead of torturing good people like that.

Or putting Itself through that. Perhaps at that time, the opportunity for debate wasn't an option?

And I'm also thinking of everyone that God drowned in the Genesis flood.
To this outsider to the faith.. a VERY nasty piece of business, that.
What did the little KITTENS do to him?

According to scietific investigation, the flood apparently never actually happened.

The Bible character "God" seems like a maniac.

Well to be fair, it is all a learning thing in which GOD is not really separate from the unfolding experiences ALL critters have, throughout the 'critters on the planet.' period (still ongoing.)

Historically one is coming from a dark and ignorant place, and to be equally fair, self aware consciousness within THIS universe is apt to react insanely while getting its bearings.

It is an insane position to be within, but one we nevertheless consciously have to deal with together.

If you take GOD out of the picture (as atheists do) then does the maniacal suddenly disappear?

No it does not.

What I was talking about isn't to do with obsession, unless you count the desire to survive within biological forms dealing with the harsh reality of the universe as being some kind of obsession?

Yeah, for whatever reason, the Bible seems to focus on the very BAD parts of life.. and promises good things to come only AFTER we are all dead, instead.

That's a bit sweeping. Certainly there seems to be an ultimate purpose which is more aligned with positive outcome, and it isn't so far fetched to think that collectively such is the best option to work toward.

Your statement above needs a bit of work as well. It isn't even accurate.

I think the Bible is a little one sided that way.. we are all sinners, from birth no less, we have no real power, so we should think that everyone is some kind of a slave... that we have to follow 600 rules just to get through a day without getting stoned to death, many many many accounts of tribal wars and evil deeds... and if that's not all, supernatural destruction from on high.

So get on your knees and pray.

If you want to debate the validity of the bible, you are arguing with the wrong individual.
I haven't at all claimed the bible is a valid and accurate interpretation of 'what god is' - All I have really said about it is that I can see GOD as an evolving idea therein...rather than any finished and complete authority on the matter.

Life in the Bible = About as ugly as it gets

One thing about that which I appreciate is that ugly is not the only thing the bible deals with in relation to human behavior.
But I can agree that it focuses more attention on human behavior (good bad and ugly) as a means of attempting to get humans to choose wisely in relation to the insanity they are experiencing.

But what does Blastcat mean by the term "obsessed"?

I usually use the common dictionary definitions for words, unless I am using a word in a different way than most people. One such word that I would need to define is "Taoist" because I call myself one of those, but I sure use the term in a VERY personal manner.. My use is very RELATED to "Taoism", but I'm not too sure that many actual Taoists would agree with me. ( not too sure about that, actually )

Useful data, perhaps...

So, just to be clear, since I am using the term, by "obsession", I mean an idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes on a person's mind.

Okay.

The God of the Bible seems to be REALLY interested in all things "blood", don't you think? Death, birth, virginity, sex, menstruation, food rules... KILLING...

Well since humans all have blood, then perhaps the interest is in all things HUMAN? Humans have the preoccupation with 'blood' and thus god works with what god has to work with.

Human obsession. It might not be the best idea to equate what GOD is interested in with what humans are obsessed with.

The Bible could have focused on the beauty of life... not just the horrors.

To be fair, it does. Sometimes individuals can be so obsessed with one aspect that they completely decline to acknowledge other aspects.
Perhaps this is what you are presently doing yourself, in relation to the bible blastcat?

Times were different then. A LOT scarier than now, for example. At least now, we have modern medicine.

And lots of light after dark. Perhaps rather than simply ditch the idea of god altogether, we might be more wise to allow it to evolve as well?

( Blastcat is only alive due to the miracle of modern medicine, by the way )

Blastcat should therefore acknowledge the evolution of human medicine from more dark times to present...that way blastcat can acknowledge the part of ignorance to enlightenment in his existing. Without the prior, the former cannot be.

That is the way of it in regards to the evolution of knowledge in relation to linear timeline.

Not saying that there isn't that, but I personally am not ready to concede that such is necessarily 'obsession'...but am open to the possibility.

Well, maybe the word "obsession" isn't the exact word, but then again, I don't know the "mind of God", so I'm just trying to figure out the stories in the Bible.

Perhaps.

There seems to be a WHOLE lot of emphasis on death and destruction in the Bible.

Well why wouldn't there be? Historically it appears the bulk of humanity has been obsessed with war and destruction.

The daily NEWS is doing just the same. I don;t get whatever point you are trying to make with that.

Certainly - in relation to the 'keeping the blood clean' angle, that has much to do with survival, far as I can tell.

Well, back in the day, blood was scary since they didn't know a lot about how people get sick and die.

The people might have had a real good reason to try to keep everything as "clean" as possible. I'm pretty sure that they meant well. But if they just washed their hands with soap after they pooped, it would have saved MILLIONS of people.

I don't know that soap is as old as humans.

Perhaps the main problem is that we assume humans thought the same then as they do now?

We learn through experience. The particular experience we are sharing is one in which pain and suffering are part of the process. If we assume there is some kind of God separate from our pain and suffering (or our joys and happiness) then yes - we can - from that assumption - feel cheated and be victims of experience.

I don't separate GOD from the experience. It helps me in many ways to accept the good bad and ugly as it is and attribute no blame to any particular idea of an entity which places Me in the role of the victim.

I don't blame people for not knowing what they don't know... but instead of all that hand washing.. they concentrated on all things bloody. Well, they are partially right.

Concider it a part of the evolution of consciousness in relation to intelligence.

But it's not the blood itself that's unhealthy... its the little bugs inside that are.

Potato/potato

That could be a clue about all of this "blood" obsession.
I think the people who wrote the Bible were blood and sex obsessed.

But were they really? Seems to me perhaps that it is more a commentary on humans who were obsessed with such things which in turn created problems for the whole herd of human society.

Of course, they were mostly working on what to a modern person amounts to a lot of "superstitions".


Talk about your old wives tales !!

Superstition therefore can be understood in the context of evolution of intelligence through correct and truthful analysis. Science.
But I think your commentary on biblical things is way too sweeping in its assessment and has the tint of obsessive bias attached in regard to that.

That, at least, is certainly the way you are presenting your argument. Perhaps you might try an experiment and see if you can find positive stories therein which define wisdom rather than superstition as the primary propellant of human faith?

Try not to be to harsh re 'old wives tales' as these too have much wisdom beneath the costume of metaphor.

When dealing with the bloodthirsty, the god has to lower its standards in order to participate...

Poor old God has no choice but to lower his standards and become obsessed with bloodshed.

You are projecting Blastcat. Cease using that as a genuine tool for good argument. It is not.

I honestly do not know where you see "projection" or why I would imagine that it's a good debate tactic.

I was reflecting your own words back to you, my friend.
If I don't GET it, it might mean that you didn't express your idea well enough.

So, just correct me and PLEASE don't accuse me of purposefully mangling your ideas.
I keep having to remind people that


BLASTCAT ISN'T PERFECT

But I did explain why I thought you were projecting Blastcat.

I didn't just SAY you were, I explained WHY I saw it as such.

I acknowledge that this is your interpretation but have to pull you up when you then project your interpretation of the god onto my own.

Go ahead and pull if you have the need.
I don't pretend to tell you what you think.

That's your responsibility, not mine.

They are obviously quite different.

I'm beginning to think so too.
Go on.....

Yours is obsessed and mine is simply using its intelligence to work within a particular pre-determined rule set.

Well, I have to admit that your way of putting is sure sounds nicer than mine, alright.

The 'lowered standards' was not used by me as some kind of judgment about the god or humans. It was an analogy of the process. The god is always a step ahead in knowledge and thus has to have patience when working with human beings - waiting for them to get up to speed on reality.

poor, poor god behind heaven's gate
never gets any break
All he does for our human gait
is wait and wait
so that finally, he can relate

This; Obsession with a particular idea of god.

It may be argued that it has some kind of 'obsession' with human beings, but I think this has more to do with being unavoidable connected to its (his) creation - and intimately so -

Oh don't use the "obsession" label. Let's say that God is simply using its intelligence to work within a particular pre-determined rule set.

Your way of putting it is SO much nicer.

Okay. Maybe the 'so much nicer' is really more to the point taking all things into consideration without the baggage of judgment re 'what god is' which is somewhat misrepresented by organised religion in general. An easy enough mistake to make, but one which can be avoided nonetheless.

We are like its data collectors, as well as at the same time being an aspect of its overall experience as a 'god'.

How did God know anything without us?

Please expand.

[center]
Pity the great big blood obsessed God in the sky.[/center]

Your ignorance shining through?

Maybe I am ignorant, but sometimes I write poetically, don't you?

Yes, but even so I try to remember to include my ignorance rather than give the impression of expression that I am somehow without it. Being poetical doesn't grant me or anyone else the right to thus use such as a costume to hide ignorance.

What 'sky' are you even talking about?

A lot of the time when people are talking where "God" is.. they point "UP" to the "SKY".

Not "Down" to "Hell".... that's another guy.
Not as swell.

Sure, but what of it in relation to what I am saying 'what god most likely IS'?

In truth, there is no 'up' and pointing 'down' is the same thing. It is all pointing OUT.

[otseng]

You didn't click on my links, did you? Why bother to refute an argument if you haven't even heard all of that argument?

Moderator Comment

Please just present your case without assuming what posters fail to do.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[onewithhim]

JW posted:

EXTRACT: The red juice that often collects in a package of red meat is not blood, as many assume. Most of the blood is removed during processing and any that remains is usually contained within the muscle tissue.

The red liquid, instead, is a mixture of water and a protein called myoglobin, whose purpose is to help ship oxygen to muscle cells. Myoglobin is deeply pigmented, which is why the more myoglobin a meat contains, the darker (or redder) the meat will be.

Further reading: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... n-red-meat...

RESPONSE: Note: “Most of the blood is removed during processing and any that remains is usually contained within the muscle tissue.�

Clearly ALL blood is not removed from cooked meat.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/ ... =1&size=10

“As I grew older and began to think for myself, I realized that it didn't really matter how well the steak was cooked. If the meat had blood in it and I managed to cook it until it was burned to a crisp, the blood would still be there. It would just be cooked along with the rest of the steak. I began to see that eating a rare piece of steak shouldn't matter because if organ transplants were okay, then eating even an uncooked steak would be okay as well. You see, using the same blood transfusion equals eating blood logic, if you allow an entire liver, for instance, to enter your body via an organ transplant then what would be the difference if you ate an entire raw, uncooked liver.�

Perhaps you have an acquaintance who has a microscope and will allow you to examine some cooked steak.

God is interested in the attitude and actions of a person regarding the avoidance of eating blood. If someone drains the blood from a carcass to the greatest extent possible, Jehovah is satisfied with that person's endeavors.

You are harsher in your attitude and expectations than Jehovah is.


.

RESPONSE: Jehovah had no such expectation to begin with. The JH prohibition of 1945 was ftaken from men's writing (not God's). These were written down between 800 and 700 BC when the first 5 books of the Bible were actually written. (See attachments)

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/fi ... bible.html



http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora1.htm

And isn’t the JW prohibition against transfusion a comparatively recent teaching (c. 1945)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's ... ansfusions

"Watch Tower Society publications teach that the Witnesses' refusal of transfusions of whole blood or its four primary components—red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma—is a non-negotiable religious stand and that those who respect life as a gift from God do not try to sustain life by taking in blood,[4][5] even in an emergency.[6] Witnesses are taught that the use of fractions such as albumin, immunoglobulins and hemophiliac preparations are "not absolutely prohibited", and are instead a matter of personal choice.[5]
"The doctrine was introduced in 1945, and has undergone some changes since then. Members of the religion who voluntarily accept a transfusion and are not deemed repentant are regarded as having disassociated themselves from the religion by abandoning its doctrines[7][8][9] and are subsequently shunned by members of the organization.[10] Although accepted by the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses, a minority does not endorse this doctrine.[11][12]

"Inconsistency
Muramoto has described as peculiar and inconsistent the Watch Tower policy of acceptance of all the individual components of blood plasma as long as they are not taken at the same time.[100] He says the Society offers no biblical explanation for differentiating between prohibited treatments and those considered a "matter of conscience", explaining the distinction is based entirely on arbitrary decisions of the Governing Body, to which Witnesses must adhere strictly on the premise of them being Bible-based "truth".[100] He has questioned why white blood cells (1 per cent of blood volume) and platelets (0.17 per cent) are forbidden, yet albumin (2.2 per cent of blood volume) is permitted.[100] He has questioned why donating blood and storing blood for autologous transfusion is deemed wrong, but the Watch Tower Society permits the use of blood components that must be donated and stored before Witnesses use them.[123] He has questioned why Witnesses, although viewing blood as sacred and symbolizing life, are prepared to let a person die by placing more importance on the symbol than the reality it symbolizes.[112]"

If everything is done to save the person, short of giving blood to the person, and yet the person dies, I believe he would've died anyway---even with a transfusion. The medical community now sees the wisdom in substitutions for blood transfusions.

"An increasing number of physicians are taking a harder look at bloodless medicine. According to the Jehovah's Witnesses, more than 75,000 doctors already practice bloodless surgery in the U.S....Medical technology has come up with a panoply of methods and machinery, some of them known for decades but refined and repackaged to fit today's needs and concerns. Bloodless techniques invariably begin with medicinal and nutritional approaches to increase a patient's blood count before surgery. Efforts are made to guard against unnecessary blood loss from tests, and standard blood drawings are either reduced or eliminated.

"Erythropoietin is usually the drug of choice for bloodless medicine because of its stimulative effect on red-blood-cell production. Hormones and vitamin B-12 are also prescribed to encourage cell production. Doctors may employ a hyperbaric chamber to flood patients' blood with higher concentrations of oxygen so that they can better withstand surgical procedures and low blood levels, while oximetry devices and other noninvasive monitoring equipment keep close watch over oxygen levels.

"During surgery, bloodless practitioners often do everything they can to stave off any blood loss that might require a transfusion....The blood that is shed during operations at places like Englewood may be suctioned out by cell-saving machinery, cleaned and then returned to the patient's body. Red blood cells can also be saved through hemodilution, where hemoglobin-rich blood is pumped unit by unit from a vein and replaced by an equal number of units of a nonblood fluid to expand the volume to normal.

"Since the Englewood program began in 1994, it has performed more than 1,500 bloodless procedures, twice that of any other institution [and this was written in 1997]. Most of them have been major operations that usually involve extensive blood loss and transfusions: liver resections, hip replacements, abdominal aortic aneurisms, hysterectomies and brain surgery. 'From a medical point of view, there are no technical barriers to performing bloodless surgeries,' says Dr. Sharo Raissi, a cardiac surgeon at Brotman Medical Center, one of a dozen hospitals in Los Angeles that offer such services. 'There is no limit as to what can be done for patients, from open-heart surgery even to transplants.'"


("Bloodless Surgery," by John Langone, TIME, Special Issue, Fall 1997)