Fed up with JW's

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:33 pm

Good evening, Ted, how is everything in BC this evening? You are well? I can't help but notice you've included references to Bush in a couple of your responses to me. Do you think a Christian's faith should be subject to their politics, or that their politics be subject to their faith? I ask because it seems that many Christians demand justice from others, but expect grace and mercy for themselves. Is the church guilty of picking and choosing when to demonstrate justice and when to demand grace and mercy? By example, I've read recently that the divorce rate among 'believers' now exceeds that of non-believers. This is a lack of justice both for the children involved, and from an institution that supposedly reflects Christ's relationship with his bride. It is an internal, non-political shame, but the Religious Right seems more concerned with their political agenda. I mean absolutely no disrespect to you, sir, but perhaps I could take Christianity more seriously if I could take Christians more seriously. What do you think, Ted.

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. M. Gandhi

BH672 · Post by **BH672** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:37 pm

To be fair, I should not have singled out the Religious Right, simply made reference to the church in general.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 10:58 pm

Ciao, your belligerent attitude is becoming very tiresome for someone who is so new here. It makes me feel like you have nothing worth saying that I care to read as all it is is 99 percent argument on your part. I'm sure you'll come back at me with something as that seems to be your pattern. Matter of fact, you are just downright unfriendly to people. So why are you here then? :-2

Ciao, Bella! · Post by **Ciao, Bella!** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:34 am

RedGlitter;554069 wrote: Ciao, your belligerent attitude is becoming very tiresome for someone who is so new here. It makes me feel like you have nothing worth saying that I care to read as all it is is 99 percent argument on your part. I'm sure you'll come back at me with something as that seems to be your pattern. Matter of fact, you are just downright unfriendly to people. So why are you here then? :-2

RG, what, exactly, do you want from me? Are you pushing this matter because you want me to validate your choices in life? I can no more do that than I can hang the moon in the sky.

If you happen to think I am unfriendly, why do you keep coming back at me? This is no longer about what I think of the JW faith. This has become a personal vendetta for you, and I cannot figure out why, nor am I willing.

I'm going to say this again. Put me on your ignore list, and you won't be bothered by anything I post. You'll be much happier, I'm sure.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:00 am

Ciao, Bella!;554230 wrote: RG, what, exactly, do you want from me?

[snip]

I'm going to say this again. Put me on your ignore list, and you won't be bothered by anything I post. You'll be much happier, I'm sure.

I don't think anyone actually *wants* anything from you at all - perhaps it's

because you keep banging on and on and on about the same thing, no matter

what, and when someone disagrees (or you feel they do) you just say "Oh,

let's just ignore each other, and everything will be OK, OK?". OK?

Shweet tatersalad · Post by **Shweet tatersalad** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:05 am

BH672;553885 wrote: Is that a yes or a no, S t?

If you mean that Their end justifies my means then yes.

Although I do like the electric fence idea.More too keep them in would be better.

Rain · Post by **Rain** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:01 am

Ciao, Bella!;552673 wrote: ... You started a conversation with me, asking a list of questions. My answers didn't go the way you wanted, so you started with the personal attacks, calling me angry, and now obsessed. Where is your degree in psychology?

Ciao, I did indeed ask questions. This is an internet forum where ppl discuss issues. You answered. AND got mad. There was no reason to get mad. You didn't have to answer those questions. You chose to! Why would you get mad? And why would you think your answers "didn't go my way"? I'm an adult who knows how to have a decent conversation. I don't care one bit if someone has different views. That's what makes the world go round.

What you feel about JW's makes no difference to me what so ever. It was your anger that I objected to. I cannot have conversations with ppl who grow angry. I found it sad that you couldn't simply discuss something. You hold way to much anger for me, so I decided to move on. It's as simple as that.

Btw, in post #254 you said that I said you never even listened to them. You took my comment personally. I was making a general statement when I said that. I never said (or meant) YOU personally.

ciao also said in a more recent post... Rain wants to persuade me I am wrong. I don't see her point of view, so I can't lie to myself, just to soothe her ruffled feathers.

I think if Rain lets it go, she'll be pleasantly surprised. I think you'll find the same holds true for you, as well.

Where did I ever say I wanted to persuade ANYone? And, just what am I suppose to "let go of"?

Rain · Post by **Rain** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:20 am

[QUOTE=Shweet tatersalad;551435]

Rain asked her some questions ,Did not get the answers she wanted and then turned it all on CB for explaining herself.

QUOTE]

WHY do you say that? (bold) When I ask a question about anything, I never know what the answers are going to be. I never baited her. I think this thread is full of misinterpretations. I saw where Ciao said she was mad. Can you tell me where I said I was mad that her answers didn't "go my way?" That's such a crock of crap I can't believe it.

I think ppl are reading what they want into these threads and that's why I left. So don't read anything or put words in my mouth that I never said.

Rain · Post by **Rain** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:25 am

Ted;551443 wrote: On the martyrdom of children thread I invited Rain to discuss.

After thinking about it today, I in fact started a discussion on the interpretation of the Bible. She left angry. No discussion. It is not likely there will be one. But hey, whatever.

Shalom

Ted:-6

I did Not leave angry. I was having a conversatin. But You put words in my mouth I never said. That was/is your agenda. I don't talk to ppl who twist things. They can't be trusted.

Rain · Post by **Rain** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:53 am

Shweet tatersalad;553561 wrote: Perhaps CB is getting tired of the repeated torment from certain people who just keep trying too push this cult crap on her.For a brief moment this thread was taking a calm and different track,where there was no fighting.But The JW answer a question with a question door step barrage just had too come through.It annoys people too their breaking point.Then the home owner with the dog crap on his doorstep ends up looking like the bad one.Because Retard robots won't take no for an answer.

I do think setting up a camera is a good idea,would make good film on you tube.

we can call it Waco and kool- aid at your front door.

I have been speaking with some X-JW's at work and talking too them about some of the tactics they use.When they so much as a hint that some one might be vulnerable they get the street addy or phone number and they use GOOGLE EARTH too locate the house and they go after it.

They very much prowl the net for weak and groomable people too impose their filth.

So you see if we seem angry it's because you have brought it out of us because we are backed into a corner and we are forced too defend our selves.

Whoever told you this stuff is full of crap. They do NOT google earth and prowl the net for weak and groomable ppl. They do not target couples. (as was mentioned in an earlier post) This is so odd that ppl would make crap up just for the sake of hearing their own voices (the ppl at your work) What a crock. :wah: No one has backed anyone into any corner and no one is Forced to defend themselves. Give me a break. :rolleyes:

"Retard Robots"... "Waco and koolaid"... now THERE'S some intelligent comments :rolleyes:

Rain · Post by **Rain** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 12:05 pm

Ok, so now that I've taken some time to update myself on this thread and to defend myself from certain members who have dug at me let's move on.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 2:59 pm

Rain:-6

I did not intend to offend you. That is how I took the situation. If I was wrong than I do apologize.

I do value your input. We may not always agree as you have said, but you're right that is what makes the world go round.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:18 pm

BH:-6

Thanks. Things are well here. My torn right rotator cuff is healing, slowly but healing.

The question of religion and politics is a real dilemma. I would not want to live in a Christian theocracy for any reason. It would be intolerable. On the other hand Jesus message was spiritual, secular and political.

Politically he was opposed to the domination systems of the day: The Roman Empire and the Temple where the chief priests were collaborating with Rome. That being said he was a non-violent resistor. Here we are some 2000 years later and we still have even larger and more powerful domination systems. Nothing has changed.

It was both secular and spiritual in that he preached the Good News of the Kingdom of God. This kingdom was to be one ruled by God, egalitarian and just.

I would say your quote from Ghandi is right on. Thankfully it is changing as progressive Christians move closed to following the essential message of Jesus. I think even Ghandi would be pleased. The past and present exclusivism of many branches of the Christian faith is wrong and is contrary to the very life of Jesus and his example.

The justice spoken of in the Bible, God's justice, is not retributive justice but distributive justice. That one of the central features of the kingdom of God. The idea of vengeance is contrary to the life and message of Jesus of Nazareth. The Bible is clear when it has God say "vengeance is my says the Lord". When I hear Christians demanding justice they usually mean retribution or vengeance and clearly this is wrong.

My reference to Bush was simply to show that this vengeance and fear being generated is not leading to a solution to the problem. 9/11 was a symptom and not the problem. The American and Canadian war on drugs is a total waste of money. This is money that would probably more than solve the problem. The drugs are simply a symptom of a deeper problem.

My approach to the Christian faith is called the emerging paradigm as opposed to the earlier paradigm which is what the Christian right is trying to foist on people. It makes a mockery of the life and message of the One they claim to follow.

Hope this helps.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:31 pm

BH:-6

I think you would find the following very interesting.

http://www.tcpc.org/template/index.cfm

The Center for Progressive Christianity - Home

It gives a good insight as to our 21st cent. theology.

A couple of interesting quotes.

"I don't like religious people. They tend to be territorial, cliquish, exclusive, not hospitable. They're so heavenly-minded, they're no earthly good-so fixed on doing what they think God would have them do or say that they're not authentically present to the person right in front of them. . . ."Bishop John Spong

I'm not sure I would say it quite that way but he is making a very strong point.

"The bond that links our human family is not one of blood . . . doesn't have to do with color . . . doesn't have to do with gender . . . doesn't have to do with sexual orientation. . . the true bond that links our human family. . . is one of respect and joy for all people everywhere, regardless of blood, color, creed, gender even those of your own family you'd like to forget about." Richard Bach

Shalom

Ted

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 3:40 pm

magenta flame:-6

I am truly pleased that you stayed on.

I was considering the objection to blood transfusions. I also know that the Jehovah Witness organization is taking another look at this.

The other problem I have is with the fundamentalist/literalist view of the Bible. I know this might fit others branches of the faith better but for want of a better term I used that one.

Perhaps you could comment on these.

Thanks

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:20 pm

magenta flame:-6

Thanks for the reply.

Obviously I don't agree with everything but certainly do not oppose the development of alternatives. I watched an interview with a couple of blood specialists and pediatricians, on the TV when the sextuplet thingy came up in Vancouver. They were quite adamant that in certain cases there was not a viable substitute.

In my particular cases my wife and I both owe our lives to blood transfusions. This is not even questioned.

I have no idea as to what the Jehovah witness practice is concerning haemophiliacs is. It is my belief that if a blood transfusion is necessary there is no religious or moral reason to do otherwise.

Obviously I disagree with the Jehovah Witness beliefs about the Bible every bit as much as I disagree with many other Christian denominations.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:23 pm

magenta flame:-6

I was just thinking that if this kind of discussion is to carry on that another thread with a different title would be better: something like "The Jehovah Witness Perspective" would be more appropriate.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:29 pm

magenta flame;554858 wrote: Your blood is 50% water

Hi MF, nice to see you - a comment on that post, there's quite a lot I disagree

with (N.B. from a *technical* perspective including the above, I am not

questioning what you believe in your faith) - ISTR from a long time ago, that

JWs are able to "blood bank" their personal supplies for future use - is this

so, or has my memory bogged up again? If you post your other reasoning

sometime, which I am unfamiliar with, it'd be interesting to me...

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 7:21 pm

magenta flame:-6

To whom was the "which bit" addressed? If it was myself I'm not really sure what ou are asking. Thanks.

Shalom

Ted

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:37 pm

magenta flame:-6

Two points. We have a lady living in our condo whose body has ceased to produce blood. The reason is not fully understood. Without a blood transfusion at least once a month and sometimes twice she would not live more than a few weeks. I doubt very much that God would have her die. We have another friend who had a bleeding spot in her small intestines which they could not find. As her body could not produce blood fast enough she needed two transfusions a week. Water replacement would not suffice as her body would have ceased to function with such a low blood count. Thankfully at this point it seems to have healed itself after about 4 years and at least for now no more transfusions are needed. It seems to me that God gave us the intelligence to develop the science and expects us to use it.

Now I will comment with reference to the Bible. The literal interpretation is not at all consistent with todays knowledge. It is not as simple as picking up the Bible and reading it, otherwise one reads into it what they want.

There are many factors to take into consideration in Biblical interpretation: The culture of the day, the history, the language, the faith of the day, their fund of knowledge, their conceptualization ability, their thought processes, their experiences and a host of others.

The Bible is a Jewish book written by Jews. They had a particular way of writing sacred scripture which if not understood will not get anyone back to the original meaning. That ancient method is called midrash. The ancient term midrash meant two things; both a method of writing and a method of interpreting. Midrash is a style of writing in which one event is interpreted in light of a former event. This style makes great use of metaphor. John Spong, Michael Goulder, Raymond Brown and a host of others.

Were the men who compiled the Jehovah Witness Bible scholars? Did they go back to the original Hebrew? (apparently not from what you write) Was their work subject to scholarly peer review among a wide range of Biblical scholars?

I could write more if you wish.

Lest anyone think I don't know that about which I am talking I have spent some 40 years in both formal and informal biblical studies. I am trained in translation and interpretation in both Hebrew and Greek as well as theology and biblical history with some knowledge in the archaeological research as it pertains to the Bible.

I could in fact write a book on this particular topic.

To answer your question about "in whose opinion?" I use primary and scholarly sources in my studies. Not only is that opinion mine but accepted by hundreds of scholarly men and women around the world. It does not come out of a vacuum or in listening to one perception of the story. So in that sense it is an opinion based on thousands of man hours of research over many centuries.

I hope that helps to answer your question. Ask more if you like.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ciao, Bella! · Post by **Ciao, Bella!** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:20 pm

Ted;554976 wrote: magenta flame:-6

Two points. We have a lady living in our condo whose body has ceased to produce blood. The reason is not fully understood. Without a blood transfusion at least once a month and sometimes twice she would not live more than a few weeks. I doubt very much that God would have her die. We have another friend who had a bleeding spot in her small intestines which they could not find. As her body could not produce blood fast enough she needed two transfusions a week. Water replacement would not suffice as her body would have ceased to function with such a low blood count. Thankfully at this point it seems to have healed itself after about 4 years and at least for now no more transfusions are needed. It seems to me that God gave us the intelligence to develop the science and expects us to use it.

Now I will comment with reference to the Bible. The literal interpretation is not at all consistent with todays knowledge. It is not as simple as picking up the Bible and reading it, otherwise one reads into it what they want.

There are many factors to take into consideration in Biblical interpretation: The culture of the day, the history, the language, the faith of the day, their fund of knowledge, their conceptualization ability, their thought processes, their experiences and a host of others.

The Bible is a Jewish book written by Jews. They had a particular way of writing sacred scripture which if not understood will not get anyone back to the original meaning. That ancient method is called midrash. The ancient term midrash meant two things; both a method of writing and a method of interpreting. Midrash is a style of writing in which one event is interpreted in light of a former event. This style makes great use of metaphor. John Spong, Michael Goulder, Raymond Brown and a host of others.

Were the men who compiled the Jehovah Witness Bible scholars? Did they go back to the original Hebrew? (apparently not from what you write) Was their work subject to scholarly peer review among a wide range of Biblical scholars?

I could write more if you wish.

Lest anyone think I don't know that about which I am talking I have spent some 40 years in both formal and informal biblical studies. I am trained in translation and interpretation in both Hebrew and Greek as well as theology and biblical history with some knowledge in the archaeological research as it pertains to the Bible.

I could in fact write a book on this particular topic.

To answer your question about "in whose opinion?" I use primary and scholarly sources in my studies. Not only is that opinion mine but accepted by hundreds of scholarly men and women around the world. It does not come out of a vacuum or in listening to one perception of the story. So in that sense it is an opinion based on thousands of man hours of research over many centuries.

I hope that helps to answer your question. Ask more if you like.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted, you're right, your opinion is the mainstream one. Explain more about Midrash, please.

And, doesn't too much water dilute your electrolytes, leading to death? Replacing blood loss with water, if I read the post correctly, simply isn't possible, is it? (I am not associated with the medical field, so I'm asking anyone out there with a degree in medicine.)

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:25 pm

CB:-6

Recently a radio station in California had a contest as to who could drink the most water. A woman joined in and died as a result of the excessive water consumption. You are correct she diluted the electrolytes so much that she died.

I will address midrash further later on when I have more time. If I forget just remind me.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:38 pm

magenta flame:-6

Drinking too much water dilutes the electrolytes in the body and results in death. Too many blood expanders could have the same effect. The body can only produce red cells in a slow process and if one dilutes the blood cells down too much the body dies. The red cells are necessary to maintain oxygen levels in the body or brain death results when the level drops too low.

Shalom

Ted:-6

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:15 pm

The woman refuse dto urinate so she could win a contest. That is why she died. She poisoned herself.

Rain · Post by **Rain** » Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm

Get this... to win an Ipod! No the staion had these 2 women sign a form in the beginning. But 3 or 4 ppl got fired including the DJ's.

Bill Sykes (?) you asked something about JW's storing their blood for future use. No. They do not do that.

Ted, I had a surgery 8 years ago. The Dr. cut an artery and claimed it was an accident. Anyway, I bled out. My numbers got down to a 4.2. Wheeling me back in to the OR, I had ppl screaming and angrily yelling at me that if I didn't take blood I was sure to die. Threats were screamed in to my ear. I wasn't going to take blood for any reason and I did not. I woke up in ICU. I was told it was a miracle I lived. I don't think so. It just goes to show how low on the charts humans can go without taking blood. I wonder if you and your wife would have lived had you not taken those transfusions. I would say yes. What were your numbers?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:29 pm

Rain:-6

I may have survived but I don't know the number. My wife's was about 2 and it was deemed critical. Saline would have been absolutely useless. With the red cells to diluted one dies. If the electrolytes in your system become to out of balance you die. Merck has a good medical manual that will confirm that.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Feb 20, 2007 10:35 pm

magenta flame:-6

If one's blood is too diluted they will die. Saline is mostly water. It is the red cells that keep you alive. Any reputable medical manual will confirm that. (Mercks being one) I wasn't speaking of tap water.

You asked about the Bible. I gave you my answer then you complain about what you called my resume. You asked for the source of my authority and info. I answered you and get that kind of remark. If you don't want to know than don't ask. If you don't like the answer you don't have to agree with it. If you don't want to hear the answer than don't ask. Was that another attempt to inflame? I thought we had got away from that.

You haven't answered my questions. Was that an oversight?

Shalom

Ted:-6

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 3:45 am

Rain;555025 wrote: Bill Sykes (?) you asked something about JW's storing their blood for future use. No. They do not do that.

Thank you for your answer. I have had a quick look on the 'net, and seen some

quite interesting stuff, including at:http://www.ajwrb.org/. It seems a

rather complex issue!

Ciao, Bella! · Post by **Ciao, Bella!** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:39 am

From http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/ ... 5259.shtml

"(CBS/AP) A Sacramento area radio station fired 10 employees Tuesday, including three morning disc jockeys, in reaction to a tragedy in which a woman died Friday after an on-air water-drinking contest at the station's studios.

The hosts of the KDND-FM "Morning Rave" show - who go by the on-air names Trish, Maney and Lukas - were fired a day after the station suspended the show and said it is investigating the circumstances surrounding the death.

Jennifer Lea Strange, 28, died after participating in a water-drinking contest on the hit music radio station, which calls itself – playing on the sound of its call letters – The End.

CBS News station KOVR-TV reports that during the contest, a listener - self-identified as a nurse - called the live radio broadcast and warned that the game was dangerous.

"I want to say that those people drinking all that water can get sick and die from water intoxication," said the caller.

"Yeah, we're aware of that," replied a DJ, according to the broadcast news report. "They signed releases so we're not responsible, okay?"

Donnie Logsdon – one of the 18 contestants trying to win a Nintendo Wii gaming console by drinking the most water without going to the bathroom – tells KOVR-TV news that they didn't hear that on-air warning in the room where he and the others were filling up way beyond comfort.

"Maybe she would have walked away," says Logsdon. "But we didn't hear that inside there."

Strange was second to last to stop drinking, and when she bowed out, she did say on the air that she was not feeling well.

"My head hurts. They keep telling me that it's the water...that it will

tell my head to hurt and it'll make me puke." Strange told the DJ, live on the air, before leaving the station. "Who told you that, the intern?" was the DJ's response, according to the KOVR-TV news report on the radio show.

John Geary, vice president and general manager of KDND parent company, Entercom/Sacramento, announced the firings Tuesday in an e-mail to reporters: "Effective immediately, the 'Morning Rave' program is canceled and ten employees are no longer with the station."

A company spokesman, Charles Sipkins, confirmed that the three DJs, as well as two other on-air personalities, "Carter" and "Fester," are among those fired. Five other employees who worked on the "Morning Rave" also were let go. All 10 were fired, the spokesman said, for violating terms of their employee agreements.

The "Morning Rave" had been on the air for about five years and was one of Sacramento's top-rated morning radio shows.

During the contest, participants were given two minutes to drink an 8-ounce bottle of water and then given another bottle to drink after a 10-minute break.

The contest was called "Hold your Wee for a Wii."

Contestant James Ybarra said he quit drinking after imbibing eight bottles, but Strange, who placed second, and other would-be winners kept going even after they were handed even larger containers.

In all, according to witness reports, Strange may have drunk nearly two gallons. Afterward, she appeared ill when she went on the air, one contestant said.

After the contest, Strange called in sick to work, crying and saying she was heading home in terrible pain. About five hours later, Strange – who had three children - was found dead by her mother at her home in the Sacramento suburb of Rancho Cordova.

According to the Sacramento County coroner, preliminary autopsy findings indicate she died of water intoxication.

Drinking large quantities of water rapidly can throw off the body's balance of electrolytes, causing brain swelling and leading to seizures, coma, or even death.

In February 2005, a Chico State University student died after drinking too much water in a hazing incident at a fraternity. Matthew Carrington was forced to repeatedly drink from a 5-gallon jug and then do calisthenics.

In that case, one fraternity member pleaded guilty to felony involuntary manslaughter and two others pleaded guilty to being accessories to manslaughter, among other charges.

Sgt. Tim Curran, spokesman for the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, which would have jurisdiction over the KDND incident, said officers are not investigating Strange's death.

"It was a contest and people are saying there was no coercion. On its face, it appears it was all done voluntarily, and no criminal activity was involved," Curran said.

In the studio, Ybarra said Strange showed fellow contestants photographs of her two sons and daughter, for whom she was hoping to win the Nintendo Wii. The game console retails for about $250."

Yes, it was a contest, and she did enter willingly. However, I think the radio station employees showed a considerable lack of concern about the dangers of this contest.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:15 pm

BH:-6

It seems to me it was this thread on which you asked about midrash.

Midrash is a style of writing in which a newer event is defined in terms of a former and important event.

One example is the story of Joshua entering Canaan across the Jordon on dry land. Because the story of the entrance into the promised land was so important it was told in terms of the crossing of the Reed Sea which is the most important sacred story of the Hebrew.

Another example of midrash is the birth story. After these folks had decided that Jesus was in fact the Messiah, which I firmly believe, the evangelists who wrote the stories went to the OT to find the so called prophesies that seemed to point to the coming Messiah. Thus they used those details in describing the birth of Jesus. An example is Jesus was in all likelihood born in Nazareth and not Bethlehem so in writing up the Isaiah had said he would be born in Bethlehem thus it was written. This is not an attempt to deceive but a method of showing how important the event was. There were no angels in the sky or shepherds or wise men. These are directly from the OT. In that sense they are metaphor. Jesus is often referred to as the second Adam and sometimes as Moses all metaphors designed to show the importance that they placed on him. The flight to Egypt is from the OT.

The order, by Herod, to kill all the male children, is a story directly from the story of Moses.

Jesus is "the Lamb of God". Another metaphor we are not reading about Mary had a Little Lamb. He is described as the true light. No he is not a candle or a light bulb. These are metaphors.

Once we understand metaphor than most if not all of the problems encountered with the Bible simply disappear. They are no longer a problem.

When it comes to the crucifixion and the resurrection we enter the field of metaphor. We have no language with which we can discuss the great mystery of God. We can only resort to metaphor.

Hope this helps. (M. Goulder, Bishop John Spong)

Shalom

Ted:-6

Rain · Post by **Rain** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 8:08 pm

If anyone besides Bill is interested in finding the truth about the JW religion, please go to the official website which is http://www.watchtower.org/

You can scroll down to the box "more topics" and see info on blood. There is a small video there too.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:51 am

This was in the news today.

THREE surviving sextuplets were taken into care after their Jehovah's Witness parents refused to allow them lifesaving transfusions.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories ... _page.html

Shweet tatersalad · Post by **Shweet tatersalad** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:24 am

abbey;557662 wrote: This was in the news today.

THREE surviving sextuplets were taken into care after their Jehovah's Witness parents refused to allow them lifesaving transfusions.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories ... _page.html

Theres your sign

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:30 am

Shweet tatersalad;557676 wrote: Theres your sign

:-3 Where?

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:31 pm

abbey:-6

Thanks for the link.

Shalom

Ted:-6

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:44 pm

Ted;558054 wrote: abbey:-6

Thanks for the link.

Shalom

Ted:-6
Always a pleasure, never a chore :-6

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 7:32 pm

If the courts need to take the children from their parents who are making serious decisions that may affect their lives, when the children have no idea of consent or non- consent, it is justified. If they were of age to give or not give their consent it would be a different matter.

If one chooses to live in a society that has clearly indicated that is what will happen they have made their choice. If they don't like it they should choose another country.

In Canada a group of Muslims tried to get sharia law into legal place. Since it relates to a small minority and infringes on the rights of the women it was refused as it should have been.

Children are not chattel or the property of their parents. They are individual human beings who deserve the right to make up their own minds. Until they can they will become wards of the state, as it should be.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Rain · Post by **Rain** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 8:47 pm

magenta flame;557541 wrote: Rain do you have the CD with all the books on it? I have to order it and I've forgotten what it's called.

You mean the Watchtower Library?