Page 4 of 6 [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Twilightprincess
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,864
Location: Small Town From Hell

10 Sep 2022, 8:00 pm

klanka wrote:
It could be said that this is the most important idea to convey in the whole Bible.

so repeating it three times helps to highlight it.

Similar ideas are stated elsewhere. It just seems like overkill/bad writing to me.

But we all like different things.


_________________
Away.


Twilightprincess
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,864
Location: Small Town From Hell

10 Sep 2022, 8:05 pm

AardvarkGoodSwimmer wrote:
With blood transfusions . . .

I understand JWs have loosened up a little bit and now allow blood “fractions” [don’t know how much difference this makes in emergency situations]

and also have taken a few timid steps to viewing a transfusion as a matter of conscience, although I may be mistaken on this point.
Blood fractions are considered a matter of conscience. JWs who are really strict, like my grandmother, won't even take those. Blood transfusions still aren't allowed. If a person gets a blood transfusion and it is known, they will be excommunicated and shunned.

Quote:
Potential joke:

Next time I see my local JWs outside my local library, perhaps I’ll shyly confess that I help out another group, a smaller group who really needs the helps, the AWs.

The AWs? they’ll ask [hopefully!]

Yes, the Adonai Witnesses! [another name for God in the Old Testament]
:lol:

The probably wouldn't get it.


_________________
Away.


AardvarkGoodSwimmer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,556
Location: Houston, Texas

11 Sep 2022, 12:29 pm

Twilightprincess wrote:
Blood fractions are considered a matter of conscience. JWs who are really strict, like my grandmother, won't even take those. Blood transfusions still aren't allowed. If a person gets a blood transfusion and it is known, they will be excommunicated and shunned.

Just to lay my cards on the table and all, I’m an atheist, too. :D

I got interested in the Jehovah Witnesses from a couple of conversations. And curiously, I understand they do allow major transplants such as a kidney transplant. But with blood, they rely on a few verses which say, don’t eat blood.

Okay, a blood transfusion is much more akin to an organ transplant. But . . .

Whoever said the human race was logical anyway! ? ! :P Especially regarding entrenched religious practices.

Makes you wonder how we ever make progress on anything. But in some areas we do, almost unexpectedly at times!



IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 50,823

11 Sep 2022, 12:32 pm

Twilightprincess wrote:
AardvarkGoodSwimmer wrote:
With blood transfusions . . .

I understand JWs have loosened up a little bit and now allow blood “fractions” [don’t know how much difference this makes in emergency situations]

and also have taken a few timid steps to viewing a transfusion as a matter of conscience, although I may be mistaken on this point.
Blood fractions are considered a matter of conscience. JWs who are really strict, like my grandmother, won't even take those. Blood transfusions still aren't allowed. If a person gets a blood transfusion and it is known, they will be excommunicated and shunned.



Should I assume JW's won't / can't donate blood either?
Are they allowed to save non-believers?



Twilightprincess
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,864
Location: Small Town From Hell

11 Sep 2022, 12:49 pm

IsabellaLinton wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
AardvarkGoodSwimmer wrote:
With blood transfusions . . .

I understand JWs have loosened up a little bit and now allow blood “fractions” [don’t know how much difference this makes in emergency situations]

and also have taken a few timid steps to viewing a transfusion as a matter of conscience, although I may be mistaken on this point.
Blood fractions are considered a matter of conscience. JWs who are really strict, like my grandmother, won't even take those. Blood transfusions still aren't allowed. If a person gets a blood transfusion and it is known, they will be excommunicated and shunned.



Should I assume JW's won't / can't donate blood either?
Are they allowed to save non-believers?

If they are caught donating blood, they will be shunned.

They aren’t allowed to save anyone this way.


_________________
Away.


Twilightprincess
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,864
Location: Small Town From Hell

11 Sep 2022, 12:57 pm

AardvarkGoodSwimmer wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
Blood fractions are considered a matter of conscience. JWs who are really strict, like my grandmother, won't even take those. Blood transfusions still aren't allowed. If a person gets a blood transfusion and it is known, they will be excommunicated and shunned.

Just to lay my cards on the table and all, I’m an atheist, too. :D

I got interested in the Jehovah Witnesses from a couple of conversations. And curiously, I understand they do allow major transplants such as a kidney transplant. But with blood, they rely on a few verses which say, don’t eat blood.

Okay, a blood transfusion is much more akin to an organ transplant. But . . .

Whoever said the human race was logical anyway! ? ! :P Especially regarding entrenched religious practices.

Makes you wonder how we ever make progress on anything. But in some areas we do, almost unexpectedly at times!

Their stance on blood transfusions is utterly absurd.

I could understand Jews or Christians being against eating blood sausage for religious reasons, I guess, but to make something a disfellowshipping offense that isn’t mentioned in the Bible is beyond absurd. (Disfellowshipping IS absurd, but I digress.)

There’s a lot of concerning behavior over this issue. JWs have committees that oversee this stuff. If a JW is in the hospital and is at risk of needing a blood transfusion, one or two members of the local committee will visit the person, claiming to be providing “pastoral care” for the patient to the hospital staff, when their sole goal is to make sure that the person “stands firm” about refusing a blood transfusion. It’s disgusting behavior that needs to stop.


_________________
Away.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,107
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

11 Sep 2022, 1:51 pm

The JW Bible is…sad, really, in that it is selectively translated to support a specific theology. The Bible in its original Hebrew and Greek doesn’t need any help. Theology should support the Bible, not the other way around, at least when it comes to translation.

I’m partial to the HCSB because it renders YHWH as Yahweh, which is nice to know since most of us aren’t aware of God’s name being used in the original text. It is NOT known exactly how YHWH was intended to be pronounced, so the CSB backtracked by using more traditional references to “the Lord” or “the Name of the Lord.” I like that the translators sought to strike a balance between literal word-for-word translation and the intended meaning of various words and phrases, but I find some of the motivations for walking back certain things in the CSB to be kinda sketch. Idk if I really want to trust it, and overall I’m suspicious of anything that comes out of LifeWay.

The ESV is kinda cool, though. I got one as a gift a few years ago. I should probably read through it sometime.



Twilightprincess
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,864
Location: Small Town From Hell

11 Sep 2022, 9:06 pm

Occasionally, the New World Translations makes the Bible, especially the Old Testament, slightly more palatable (although less accurate). For example, Moses gives orders concerning the Midianites in Numbers 31:17, 18. The New World Translation says:

Quote:
17 Now you should kill every male among the children and kill every woman who has had sexual relations with a man. 18 But you may keep alive all the young girls who have not had sexual relations with a man.

The NRSV which is very similar to other translations says:
Quote:
17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.


_________________
Away.


AardvarkGoodSwimmer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,556
Location: Houston, Texas

12 Sep 2022, 10:52 am

Twilightprincess wrote:
Occasionally, the New World Translations makes the Bible, especially the Old Testament, slightly more palatable (although less accurate). For example, Moses gives orders concerning the Midianites in Numbers 31:17, 18. The New World Translation says:
Quote:
17 Now you should kill every male among the children and kill every woman who has had sexual relations with a man. 18 But you may keep alive all the young girls who have not had sexual relations with a man.

The NRSV which is very similar to other translations says:
Quote:
17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Absolutely horrendous.

The Bible [Old Testament] is telling us to invade, murder family members, but keep underage girls for sex abuse.

But I’m sure you also know that a fundamentalist Christian will twist themselves into a pretzel to justify this— Oh, it was only for that particular time. Or, sometimes you have to be tough. Or, it didn’t say sex abuse, it was probably for eventual marriage. And they’ve have a few more justifications. And then basically, they’ll just rotate between the justifications.

The Bible is written by human beings.

And is a very flawed document. It often seems like it’s the viewpoint of the powerful. Or perhaps more accurately, scribes who are trying to curry favor with warrior chiefs [and justify anything the damn warrior chief does].

Okay, if we really want to get in the wheelhouse of fundamentalists, generally we’ve got to get into the contradictions involving numbers: such as the number of horses King Solomon had in his stables. Two different verses says two different things. Now, we know it’s just a scribal error. But that one is really hard for a fundamentalist to explain away.

And same for two different verses which give different ages for when a particular king came to the throne.



AardvarkGoodSwimmer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,556
Location: Houston, Texas

12 Sep 2022, 11:22 am

Image

The Bible doesn’t deserve any more respect than the epic poem Beowulf.

[and sometimes it deserves less!]



AardvarkGoodSwimmer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,556
Location: Houston, Texas

12 Sep 2022, 11:46 am

https://reformedwiki.com/solomon-stalls-horse

Quote:
1. There Was a Copyist Error

This is probably the most likely explanation. The footnote for the ESV translation of 1 Kings 4:26 says this:

Hebrew; one Hebrew manuscript (see 2 Chronicles 9:25 and Septuagint of 1 Kings 10:26) 4,000

.
.

It is reasonable to believe that a tired scribe could easily mistake 40,000 and 4,000.

2. 2 Chronicles 9:25 says “for horses and chariots”

.
.

If Solomon had stalls that contained both horses and chariots, these stalls would obviously need to be much larger than stalls that contained only horses, and there would be much fewer of these larger stalls. . .




https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Quote:
1 Kings 4:26:

Solomon had four [Some Septuagint manuscripts (see also 2 Chron. 9:25); Hebrew forty] thousand stalls for chariot horses, and twelve thousand horses [or charioteers].

* NIV version

** I added underlining. And notes in [ ] are at Bible Gateway.


Yes, this part with the number of horses is a problem for those who want to take a literal, word-for-word view of the Bible.

Okay, we have no tangible evidence for the existence of God, but even if we did . . . I think He or She would still want us to use own our common sense.



AardvarkGoodSwimmer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,556
Location: Houston, Texas

13 Sep 2022, 5:48 pm

https://vedika-khatwani.medium.com/vasu ... a0afdd29e8

Image

Yes, I’d say most religions have a version of the Golden Rule.

But sometimes this seems too high a standard. For example, in Taoism: “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” Just too high a standard. Especially trying to feel that way, which we’re probably not going to be able to do even 50% of the time. I’m sorry, but jealousy is a big part of the human condition.

Even in terms of action, this is kind of telling us that we should spend most of our free hours working for the welfare of others — when others are probably not reciprocating back to us.



klanka
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Mar 2022
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,395
Location: Cardiff, Wales

13 Sep 2022, 9:12 pm

Yeah I've spent time volunteering and time working, working was much better due to the money :) I would've thought that if volunteering was pleasing to God that something good would've come out of volunteering but it didn't... Except meeting a few nice people... But I don't see them outside of the volunteering so.....



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,107
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

13 Sep 2022, 9:58 pm

AardvarkGoodSwimmer wrote:
https://vedika-khatwani.medium.com/vasudhaiva-kutumbakam-fa0afdd29e8

Image

Yes, I’d say most religions have a version of the Golden Rule.

But sometimes this seems too high a standard. For example, in Taoism: “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” Just too high a standard. Especially trying to feel that way, which we’re probably not going to be able to do even 50% of the time. I’m sorry, but jealousy is a big part of the human condition.

Even in terms of action, this is kind of telling us that we should spend most of our free hours working for the welfare of others — when others are probably not reciprocating back to us.

New Testament reciprocity is distinctly anti-altruistic. It carries the expectation that good things will happen, that when you do good things for others you receive ROI. If there’s no point to doing good things for others, why do it?



Twilightprincess
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,864
Location: Small Town From Hell

14 Sep 2022, 5:39 am

Quote:
If there’s no point to doing good things for others, why do it?

I’m an atheist and follow my version of the Golden Rule because it feels like the right thing to do. I’m not interested in pleasing a deity, and I don’t always expect to get something in return.

I think that the desire to help other people is in our genes because it is a beneficial trait from an evolutionary perspective. Maybe this explains why religions are all on the same page here.


_________________
Away.


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 85,796
Location: Queens, NYC

14 Sep 2022, 5:56 am

The point to doing good deeds….is that it benefits the recipient; and, therefore, it benefits you.

Why deny yourself the opportunity to do good deeds just because it “selfishly benefits you?”

I don’t see the point in NOT doing good deeds.