No, you are mistaken: Things never progressed to that point, even with my emergency surgery.

I was simply explaining my order of treatment: saline solution, after that plasma expanders, and only after all other volumizing solutions have been exhausted and it's now coming down to a lack of available oxygen in my blood, then blood will have to be to provide the oxygenation levels needed to allow my body to function and work toward healing and recovery. The trick is in finding a doctor who will work within your restrictions and respect your decision, but I have always made the effort to elucidate my position with the surgeons and have never had any issues arise as a result, even when they express their concern or reluctance as a surgeon.

~~Earthbound

 

@Earthbound you make a lot of great points. I share your thoughts on blood transfusions. The WT has imposed a very extreme interpretation of Acts 15:29. The GB interprets this scripture to apply to modern-day transfusions, but it is just an interpretation. Others may interpret this scripture to just mean the eating of blood. The GB has been wrong about Bible understanding in the past, and I am not putting my life in the hands of a group of fallible, imperfect men. I question why the WT elevates the blood law over the preservation of life. There are multiple events in the Bible where the value of life had precedence over other laws. Even if taking blood is a sin, it seems unloving to expel a Christian who takes one out of fear for their life. I highly doubt Jehovah, the God of love and reader of hearts, is unforgiving to such ones. We are all imperfect and weak and fall short of the Bible's perfect standards.

That is why I refuse to sign any of those medical directive cards, because I don't want the WT Society to be involved in my private medical choices. That's between me and Jehovah God. The HLC does a lot of good for JWs, but unfortunately their "help" extends only to those loyal to the blood policy. The minute a JW accepts a transfusion the HLC turns from helper to accuser. And it's really sad that the love in our organization is limited to those who stay in-line with organization policies.

 

Sister Wallflower: Amen to your words of wisdom, you are considered a "persona non grata" in the congregation that you associate,what are they missing out for not having a close spiritual relation with you. In loggers term they consider you a BLACK SHEEP but in your case B- is for Beautiful L- IS for Lovely A- is for Authentic C- is for Christian K- is for Kiss. Yes, your words of "Wisdom are a Beautiful Lovely, Authentic, Christian, Kiss Ro:16:16 - That is the kind of "Black Sheep" that we all like. Christian Love to you, Wallflower, and to all Regent

 

When - Return of Christ
why - denying Christ, or his real representatives in favor of the MoL.
Saved from what - death

 

I'm a big comic book reader 2k+ issues since I was 6 and as far as this topic goes there was something I read this year while I was researching the truth about the truth that relates to this topic of divisions and sects. Basically alien bugs are engaged in a long ongoing religious war between two factions a Catholic like one and one like the Hugeonats I recommend it though I do caution one character is nude through most of the story.

It seems clear that the emergence of corrupt religous orthodoxies Christian or otherwise and the development of divisions and sects that break away and eventually go down the same path is one of many patterns of imperfect human nature.

It's Doom Patrol #37-41

http://readcomiconline.to/Comic/Doom-Patrol-1987

 

I did not want to start a new subject, so I thought this would fit here.

Philosophy and Perception
Let’s look at these two words and see how they effect our thinking and behavior.

philosophy (n.)
c. 1300, “knowledge, body of knowledge,” from Old French filosofie “philosophy, knowledge” (12c., Modern French philosophie) and directly from Latin philosophia and from Greek philosophia “love of knowledge, pursuit of wisdom; systematic investigation,” from philo- “loving” (see philo-) + sophia “knowledge, wisdom,” from sophis “wise, learned;” of unknown origin. Meaning “system a person forms for conduct of life” is attested from 1771.

Philosophia (fil-os-of-ee’-ah) This is a compound of philos and sophos.
1. love of wisdom
a. used either of zeal for or skill in any art or science, any branch of knowledge. Used once in the NT of the theology, or rather theosophy, of certain Jewish Christian ascetics, which busied itself with refined and speculative enquiries into the nature and classes of angels, into the ritual of the Mosaic law and the regulations of Jewish tradition respecting practical life.

“And some of the Epicureans and of the Stoics, philosophers, fell in with him. And some said, What may this chatterer wish to say? And these others, He seems to be an announcer of foreign demons (because he announced Jesus and the resurrection to them).” ( Acts 17:18 LITV )

Philos (fee’-los) a primitive word
1. friend, to be friendly to one, wish him well
a. a friend
b. an associate
c. he who associates familiarly with one, a companion
one of the bridegroom's friends who on his behalf asked the hand of the bride and rendered him various services in closing the marriage and celebrating the nuptials

“The one having the bride is the bridegroom. But the friend of the bridegroom, standing and hearing him, rejoices with joy because of the bridegroom's voice. Then this my joy has been fulfilled.” ( Joh 3:29 LITV )

In the Greek scriptures, the word philos is translated 29 times as friend/friends.

Sophos (sof-os’) akin to saphes (clear)
1. wise
a. skilled, expert: of artificers
b. wise, skilled in letters, cultivated, learned
1. of the Greek philosophers and orators
2. of Jewish theologians
3. of Christian teachers
c. forming the best plans and using the best means for their execution

“Answering at that time, Jesus said, I praise You, Father, Lord of Heaven and of Earth, because You hid these things from the sophisticated and cunning and revealed them to babes.” ( Mt 11:25 LITV )

“Where is the wise? Where the scribe? Where the lawyer of this world? Did God not make the wisdom of this world foolish?” ( 1 Co 1:20 LITV )

Let us look more closely at the word perception.

perception (n.)
late 14c., “receiving, collection,” from Latin perceptionem (nominative perceptio) “perception, apprehension, a taking,” from percipere "perceive” (see perceive). First used in the more literal sense of the Latin word; in secondary sense, “the taking cognizance of,” it is recorded in English from 1610s. Meaning “intuitive or direct recognition of some innate quality” is from 1827.

perceive (v.)
c. 1300, via Anglo-French parceif, Old North French *perceivre (Old French perçoivre) "perceive, notice, see; recognize, understand," from Latin percipere "obtain, gather, seize entirely, take possession of," also, figuratively, "to grasp with the mind, learn, comprehend," literally "to take entirely," from per "thoroughly" (see per) + capere "to grasp, take," from PIE root *kap- "to grasp."

Replaced Old English ongietan. Both the Latin senses were in Old French, though the primary sense of Modern French percevoir is literal, "to receive, collect" (rents, taxes, etc.), while English uses the word almost always in the metaphorical sense. Related: Perceived; perceiving.

There are 8 different Greek words translated as perceive. They are: aisthanomai, ginosko, eido, epiginosko, theoreo, katanoeo, noeo, horao. Each word has a specific meaning within the sentence structure. One example is ginosko and epiginosko. Ginosko means: to know, recognize|recognise. Epiginosko means: to become thoroughly acquainted with, to know thoroughly.

So, a certain philosophy (teaching, systematic investigation, pursuit of wisdom) will effect the way we think about things, and that will affect how we perceive them. That particular perception will also affect the way we act or react to the events around us. “What you see, and what you think are both often wrong.” They are based on your philosophy and perception.

Examples: “For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.” ( Jas 1:23-24 NASB )

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.” ( Mt 7:15-18 NASB )

Believe it or not, these are philosophical statements from the Bible. “Many will say to me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness.” ( Mt 7:22-23 NWT )

We can go back in time to read the words of wisdom (Chokmah). (Psa 49) I once heard a pastor tell the congregation the he never saw a “Uhaul and trailer” following the hearse to the cemetery.

Whatever the philosophy of life is perceived and chosen will, determine by it’s results, whether it is true. “Pilate said to Him, ‘What is truth?’” ( Joh 13:38 NASB ) Which "Truth"/Philosophy/ do you perceive?

 

In the book titled: The Story of Philosophy : the lives and opinions of the great philosophers of the western world, published in 1933 by Will Durant; Durant writes: “Do you know,” asks Emerson, “the secret of the true scholar? In every man there is something wherein I may learn of him; and in that I am his pupil.” Well, surely we may take this attitude to the master minds of history without hurt to our pride! And we may flatter ourselves with that other thought of Emerson’s, that when genius speaks to us we feel a ghostly reminiscence of having ourselves, in our distant youth, had vaguely this self-same thought which genius now speaks, but which we had not art or courage to clothe with form and utterance. And indeed, great men speak to us only so far as we have ears and souls to hear them; only so far as we have in us the roots, at least, of that which flowers out in them. We too have had the experiences they had, but we did not suck those experiences dry of their secret and subtle meanings: we were not sensitive to the overtones of the reality that hummed about us. Genius hears the overtones, and the music of the spheres; genius knows what Pythagoras meant when he said that philosophy is the highest music. (Durant, Will. The Story of Philosophy (p. 12).)

Have you ever wondered where the word “music” comes from? How is philosophy the highest music?
The word comes from Muse. As a noun: late 14c., protectors of the arts, from Old French Muse and directly from Latin Musa, from Greek Mousa, “the Muse,” also “music, song,” from PIE root *men- “to think.” Meaning “inspiring goddess of a particular poet” is from late 14c.

Muse: As a verb: “to reflect, to be absorbed in thought,” mid-14c., from Old French muser (12c.) “to ponder, dream, wonder; loiter, waste time,” literally “to stand with one’s nose in the air” (or, possibly, “to sniff about” like a dog who has lost the scent), from muse “muzzle,” from Gallo-Roman musa “snout,” of unknown origin. Probably influenced in sense by muse (n.). Related: Mused; musing.
And, of course: amused.

The traditional names and specialties of the nine Muses, daughters of Zeus and Mnemosyne, are: Calliope (epic poetry), Clio (history), Erato (love poetry, lyric art), Euterpe (music, especially flute), Melpomene (tragedy), Polymnia (hymns), Terpsichore (dance), Thalia (comedy), Urania (astronomy).

Science gives us knowledge, but only philosophy can give us wisdom. Specifically, philosophy means and includes five fields of study and discourse: logic, esthetics, ethics, politics, and metaphysics. Logic is the study of ideal method in thought and research: observation and introspection, deduction and induction, hypothesis and experiment, analysis and synthesis— such are the forms of human activity which logic tries to understand and guide; it is a dull study for most of us, and yet the great events in the history of thought are the improvements men have made in their methods of thinking and research. Durant, Will (2014-02-06). The Story of Philosophy (pp. 11-12).

“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” ( Col 2:8 NASB ) also (Acts 17:18-31) Paul was very familiar with the philosophies of the Greeks and was able to speak on similar terms with the Greeks who believed in all the different gods.

Here is a site that lists all forms of religion. You can download the chart as a pdf. It helps to know the certain beliefs and philosophies, as Paul did, when defending our faith.
http://www.religionfacts.com/big-religion-chart

 

I think Paul was mainly referring to the Sophists nevertheless the implementation of the Trinity was strongly linked to Platonic thought.

 

Here is a commentary about the political view of Socrates. “He asked more [questions] than he answered, and left men’s minds more confused than before. Nevertheless he bequeathed to philosophy two very definite answers to two of our most difficult problems— What is the meaning of virtue? and What is the best state? No topics could have been more vital than these to the young Athenians of that generation. The Sophists had destroyed the faith these youths had once had in the gods and goddesses of Olympus, and in the moral code that had taken its sanction so largely from the fear men had for these ubiquitous and innumerable deities; apparently there was no reason now why a man should not do as he pleased, so long as he remained within the law. A disintegrating individualism had weakened the Athenian character, and left the city a prey at last to the sternly-nurtured Spartans. And as for the state, what could have been more ridiculous than this mob-led, passion-ridden democracy, this government by a debating-society, this precipitate selection and dismissal and execution of generals, this unchoice choice of simple farmers and tradesmen, in alphabetical rotation, as members of the supreme court of the land? How could a new and natural morality be developed in Athens, and how could the state be saved?
Durant, Will (2014-02-06). The Story of Philosophy (p. 15).

He [Socrates] had his own religious faith: he believed in one God, and hoped in his modest way that death would not quite destroy him; but he knew that a lasting moral code could not be based upon so uncertain a theology. If one could build a system of morality absolutely independent of religious doctrine, as valid for the atheist as for the pietist, then theologies might come and go without loosening the moral cement that makes of willful individuals the peaceful citizens of a community. If, for example, good meant intelligent, and virtue meant wisdom; if men could be taught to see clearly their real interests, to see afar the distant results of their deeds, to criticize and coordinate their desires out of a self-canceling chaos into a purposive and creative harmony— this, perhaps, would provide for the educated and sophisticated man the morality which in the unlettered relies on reiterated precepts and external control. Perhaps all sin is error, partial vision, foolishness? The intelligent man may have the same violent and unsocial impulses as the ignorant man, but surely he will control them better, and slip less often into imitation of the beast. And in an intelligently administered society— one that returned to the individual, in widened powers, more than it took from him in restricted liberty— the advantage of every man would lie in social and loyal conduct, and only clear sight would be needed to ensure peace and order and good will.

But if the government itself is a chaos and an absurdity, if it rules without helping, and commands without leading, how can we persuade the individual, in such a state, to obey the laws and confine his self-seeking within the circle of the total good? No wonder an Alcibiades* turns against a state that distrusts ability, and reverences number more than knowledge. No wonder there is chaos where there is no thought, and the crowd decides in haste and ignorance, to repent at leisure and in desolation. Is it not a base superstition that mere numbers will give wisdom? On the contrary is it not universally seen that men in crowds are more foolish and more violent and more cruel than men separate and alone? Is it not shameful that men should be ruled by orators, who “go ringing on in long harangues, like brazen pots which, when struck, continue to sound till a hand is put upon them”? Surely the management of a state is a matter for which men cannot be too intelligent, a matter that needs the unhindered thought of the finest minds. How can a society be saved, or be strong, except it be led by its wisest men?
* Athenian politician and general, 450?–404 b.c.
Durant, Will (2014-02-06). The Story of Philosophy (p. 15).

The information above: Durant speaking of his questions about the politics of Socrates, sounds like a description of the government of the present day America. The “Un-United States of America! Recently, they had a documentary titled “1968”. It covered the chaos that occurred here in the USA. That was 50 years ago! It appears we are having a repeat of history.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” - George Santayana (1863 - 1952)

“History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind.”
Edward Gibbon (1737 - 1794)

“And leading Him up into a high mountain, the Devil showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the Devil said to Him, I will give all this authority and their glory to You, because it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Then if You worship before me, all will be Yours.” Lu 4:5-7 LITV)

So, from this scripture we can see who the God of this system is. He gives to whomever he wishes. He is the God to whom the nations pray. He is the God spoken of in their pledge: “One nation under God. . .”

Thin Lizzy - Holy War

 

While reading about Greek philosophy, it reminded me of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. His teachings about the role of women shows an influence of Aristotle’s philosophy. (1 Cor 11:1-15 and 14:34-35 )

I read the following to my wife. Her hair caught fire! She said, “Aristotle was a . . .(fill in the blanks)

“Woman is to man as the slave to the master, the manual to the mental worker, the barbarian to the Greek. Woman is an unfinished man, left standing on a lower step in the scale of development. The male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; the one rules and the other is ruled; and this principle extends, of necessity, to all mankind.” Woman is weak of will, and therefore incapable of independence of character or position; her best condition is a quiet home life in which, while ruled by the man in her external relations, she may be in domestic affairs supreme. Women should not be made more like men, as in Plato’s republic; rather the dissimilarity should be increased; nothing is so attractive as the different. “The courage of a man and that of a woman are not, as Socrates supposed, the same: the courage of a man is shown in commanding; that of a woman in obeying... As the poet says, ‘Silence is a woman’s glory.’ “Aristotle seems to suspect that this ideal enslavement of woman is a rare achievement for man, and that as often as not the sceptre is with the tongue rather than with the arm. As if to give the male an indispensable advantage, he advises him to defer marriage till the vicinity of thirty-seven, and then to marry a lass of some twenty years. A girl who is rounding the twenties is usually the equal of a man of thirty, but may perhaps be managed by a seasoned warrior of thirty seven. What attracts Aristotle to this matrimonial mathematics is the consideration that two such disparate persons will lose their reproductive power and passions at approximately the same time. “If the man is still able to beget children while the woman is unable to bear them, or vice versa, quarrels and differences will arise... Since the time of generation is commonly limited within the age of seventy years in the man, and fifty in the woman, the commencement of their union should conform to these periods. The union of male and female when too young is bad for the creation of children; in all animals the off-spring of the young are small and ill-developed, and generally female.” Health is more important than love. Further, “it conduces to temperance not to marry too soon; for women who marry early are apt to be wanton; and in men too the bodily frame is stunted if they ‘ marry while they are growing.”
Durant, Will (2014-02-06). The Story of Philosophy (p. 43).