Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

[Deeje]

Because it is the view of the vast majority and in face unanimously among medical authorities that they are extremely viable and nigh irreplaceable as a functional treatment.

We demonstrate every day that this is not true.

How did they determine that such a high number is in necessary?

From the numerous studies they took their stats from....you didn't watch the video either, did you?

We have tons of cases where people didn't get blood and died. The rejection rate is extremely low and even that low number dwarfs the number of cases that deal with infections being passed.

We have equal numbers of cases where people didn't get blood and lived, in spite of the dire predictions of medical personnel. People die in spite of the fact that they have transfusions.
We have proven that doctors can be dead wrong about blood and its effectiveness.

My brother lost more than half his total blood during that surgery. There is no doubt he would have died. Add that to the fact you have about the same chance as being struck by lightning than get a disease from blood that makes it pretty safe to say benefits outweigh the risks imho

I have a close friend who lost more than half her blood in an auto accident. She was told point blank that she would die without blood. She didn't and recovered quickly without any blood transfusions being given. So how can doctors say with any certainty that someone will die? They don't really know....all they can do is guess.
That the benefits outweigh the risks is simply not true in our experience....and doctors are realizing it. We recover more quickly and with less post operative complications because we don't have blood.

 

[Shak34]

Why would we disfellowship someone for disassociating themselves from our ranks?
No one is disfellowshipped for disagreeing.

The only announcement after a person disassociates themselves is: [Person Name] is no longer a Jehovah Witness. That is the exact same announcement made for someone who is disfellowshipped. So people who willing leaving are shunned just like a disfellowshipped person. In a way there is no difference between disfellowshipping and disassociating since the end result is shunning for both.

 

[Olinda]

Sorry, I'll have to break this up into two parts.....

No, I am saying that improvements in communication and technical advances "should" facilitate a more co-operative attitude among the nations....and with each other. Adding a personal experience as proof that this isn't the case, is rather useless because if you are in a rather small minority, this doesn't really give us a proper picture of what's happening in the majority of cases.




We, as a global body of believers have achieved what many others have not. For example, in WW2 when members of Christendom's churches were killing one another because of national differences, JW's refused to participate in the bloodshed. We cannot call ourselves "Christians" if we cannot love our brothers and live in peace with them. (1 John 4:20, 21)

Also, when the civil war broke out in Rawanda, it was tribal differences that came to a head and former neighbors set upon one another with machetes, treating even former friends as hated enemies to be brutally killed. Church members became embroiled in the tribal hatred and even participated in the violence, killing members of their own church because they were from the "wrong" tribe.

Our brothers from the Middle East co-exist in love when their countrymen are hating one another and killing one another. There is no situation where we would ever be tempted to fight among ourselves over political or tribal differences. We follow Christ's example of loving our brothers first and foremost, and even showing love to our enemies.



It isn't lockstep...its LOVE. Do you know the difference? It isn't blindly following a set of rules, but actually loving the one who made them, and wanting to please him.

Here is the Bible's definition of what love "is" and what it "isn't"
1 Cor 13:4-8:
"Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous. It does not brag, does not get puffed up, 5 does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. 6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails."
Is this the kind of love that Christendom's churches display? That is the very reason why I left it.(John 13:34, 35)



If you really knew the story, you wouldn't need to ask. The Samaritan stopped to help a fellow human in need. But if the Jews had done what they were supposed to do in loving their neighbor as God had said, the Samaritan would never have had to stop and help the man who fell among the robbers. Two Jewish men passed him by on the opposite side of the road. Since he had been stripped naked, there was no way to tell if he was a Jew, so they just walked on without caring. The hated Samaritan was the hero of the story because he offered to help at his own expense. Our brothers offer help to their own first because that is what is recommended in the scriptures. We are to take care of our own, but if we then observe that others need assistance, we will do so willingly because their own churches do nothing. (Gal 6:10)

Christianity is not about giving the man a fish...it is about teaching him to fish. We help those who want to help themselves.

I am a stickler for detail.....its just who I am. I need details to be able to process things for myself.

And I'm a sorter. . .so I'll try to group our wide ranging discussions by topic.

1. Technology, One planet, communication changes in families

I expect that education should lead to adjustments in our understanding of the world and each other. As the world continues to get smaller and more interdependent, we should be able to put our differences aside and put the common good before selfish considerations. We only have one planet and until we realize that we are all one race (the human race) and must collectively take care of the only home we have, nothing will change. Given man's track record in this regard, I don't see anyone making overtures to fix anything...do you?

And I could reiterate that there's no reason for technological advances to bring about moral improvement, but let's cut to the chase. You see such cooperation as impossible and the only 'solution' is to wait for God to intervene by wiping out many billions of people who could not believe as you do. I just see as situation where we each have to do our best.
As for your last sentence, I see MANY 'people making overtures to fix anything'. What about government NGO and UN relief agencies? What about Red Cross and Red Crescent? You could also google 'Religious charities'. My own small religion runs a local support program called 'Champion'. My work established and funded a trust to help AIDS programs in Africa. A former colleague is running a charitable school in Kenya. . .and so on.
Of course none of these will fix all the world's woes. But we need to remember the great Burke quote : "Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little".

No, I am saying that improvements in communication and technical advances "should" facilitate a more co-operative attitude among the nations....and with each other. Adding a personal experience as proof that this isn't the case, is rather useless because if you are in a rather small minority, this doesn't really give us a proper picture of what's happening in the majority of cases.

In cities particularly, children are communicating with each other but hardly even talking to their parents (who are so busy working to provide the lifestyle that their children expect, that they seldom even see each other.)
We have ads here in Australia where parents are encouraged to invite their children back to the dinner table, just so that some meaningful dialogue can be set up between them. Electronic devices are put in a basket and banned from the table so that actual conversation can take place. What kind of world has to tell families to do that?

I'm glad you realise that that a personal experience isn't proof as you have several times mentioned anecdotal cases where patients survived without the recommended blood transfusions as support for your position. In any case I should have elaborated. My parents worked long and physically demanding hours to make a living for us on a small farm. This left little time or energy for family relaxation. Now before the technology we enjoy today this was an extremely common experience across the world and in many places it still is. So there's nothing new about 'parents so busy working'. The concept of an 8 hour working day is quite recent.
As to your last two sentences, haven't you gathered I'm right down here in Australia with you? Electronic devices are just another thing that has to be managed, not a cause for hand wringing.

 

[Olinda]

Sorry, I'll have to break this up into two parts.....

We, as a global body of believers have achieved what many others have not. For example, in WW2 when members of Christendom's churches were killing one another because of national differences, JW's refused to participate in the bloodshed. We cannot call ourselves "Christians" if we cannot love our brothers and live in peace with them. (1 John 4:20, 21)

Also, when the civil war broke out in Rawanda, it was tribal differences that came to a head and former neighbors set upon one another with machetes, treating even former friends as hated enemies to be brutally killed. Church members became embroiled in the tribal hatred and even participated in the violence, killing members of their own church because they were from the "wrong" tribe.

Our brothers from the Middle East co-exist in love when their countrymen are hating one another and killing one another. There is no situation where we would ever be tempted to fight among ourselves over political or tribal differences. We follow Christ's example of loving our brothers first and foremost, and even showing love to our enemies.



It isn't lockstep...its LOVE. Do you know the difference? It isn't blindly following a set of rules, but actually loving the one who made them, and wanting to please him.

Here is the Bible's definition of what love "is" and what it "isn't"
1 Cor 13:4-8:
"Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous. It does not brag, does not get puffed up, 5 does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. 6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails."
Is this the kind of love that Christendom's churches display? That is the very reason why I left it.(John 13:34, 35)



If you really knew the story, you wouldn't need to ask. The Samaritan stopped to help a fellow human in need. But if the Jews had done what they were supposed to do in loving their neighbor as God had said, the Samaritan would never have had to stop and help the man who fell among the robbers. Two Jewish men passed him by on the opposite side of the road. Since he had been stripped naked, there was no way to tell if he was a Jew, so they just walked on without caring. The hated Samaritan was the hero of the story because he offered to help at his own expense. Our brothers offer help to their own first because that is what is recommended in the scriptures. We are to take care of our own, but if we then observe that others need assistance, we will do so willingly because their own churches do nothing. (Gal 6:10)

Christianity is not about giving the man a fish...it is about teaching him to fish. We help those who want to help themselves.

2. Harmony, Common belief, Love and the Good Samaritan

We, as a global body of believers have achieved what many others have not. For example, in WW2 when members of Christendom's churches were killing one another because of national differences, JW's refused to participate in the bloodshed. We cannot call ourselves "Christians" if we cannot love our brothers and live in peace with them.

That's fine but bear in mind firstly, that many religions regard fighting for one's country as a conscience matter, and secondly, there are other religions that will not participate in any armed conflict.

It isn't lockstep...its LOVE. Do you know the difference? It isn't blindly following a set of rules, but actually loving the one who made them, and wanting to please him.

Yes, thanks I do know the difference. What you said still presupposes that everyone believes in EXACTLY the same way of expressing love for god and pleasing him. And when there are 'adjustments' to that way, the ALL believe the adjustments as well.
I'm just saying that we can get along in harmony ( as for instance I do with people of different backgrounds and faiths) without making an issue of our differences. I do understand that this can sometimes be more of a challenge.

"Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous. It does not brag, does not get puffed up, 5 does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury. 6 It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails."
Is this the kind of love that Christendom's churches display? That is the very reason why I left it.(John 13:34, 35)

I'm sorry if you had a bad experience with another church. It doesn't justify lumping them all together though. As you rightly said, personal experience doesn't equal proof.

If you really knew the story, you wouldn't need to ask. The Samaritan stopped to help a fellow human in need. But if the Jews had done what they were supposed to do in loving their neighbor as God had said, the Samaritan would never have had to stop and help the man who fell among the robbers. Two Jewish men passed him by on the opposite side of the road. Since he had been stripped naked, there was no way to tell if he was a Jew, so they just walked on without caring. The hated Samaritan was the hero of the story because he offered to help at his own expense. Our brothers offer help to their own first because that is what is recommended in the scriptures. We are to take care of our own, but if we then observe that others need assistance, we will do so willingly because their own churches do nothing. (Gal 6:10)

Christianity is not about giving the man a fish...it is about teaching him to fish. We help those who want to help themselves.

If I really knew the story eh? Let's break it down.

The Samaritan stopped to help a fellow human in need Right.
But if the Jews had done what they were supposed to do in loving their neighbor as God had said, the Samaritan would never have had to stop and help the man who fell among the robbers. Two Jewish men passed him by on the opposite side of the road. Since he had been stripped naked, there was no way to tell if he was a Jew, so they just walked on without caring.
So they would only help someone they identified as one of their own? That was their error.
The hated Samaritan was the hero of the story because he offered to help at his own expense
It had nothing to do with expense, and everything to do with instinctively responding to human need, without considering if he was 'one of them'.

Our brothers offer help to their own first because that is what is recommended in the scriptures. We are to take care of our own, but if we then observe that others need assistance, we will do so willingly because their own churches do nothing.

There are in fact many scriptures that support helping others, 'strangers' etc, without considering whether they 'belong'.
Consider Job 31:32, Isiah 58:7, Heb 13:2 and Matt 25:34.
Your assertion that 'their own churches do nothing' has already been shown to be a gross over-generalization at best.

Christianity is not about giving the man a fish...it is about teaching him to fish. We help those who want to help themselves.

Really? In light of all those quotes above? Could the robbers' victim in the Good Samaritan parable help himself? Is that a reason to pass on by?

Don't get me wrong, it's a fine thing to teach someone to fish. . after they have been healed, fed and clothed, of course.[/QUOTE]

 

[Olinda]

Not at all. What kind of a parent is Jehovah? Is he an overindulgent parent? One who turns a blind eye to wrongdoing or rebellion?

Deut 21:18-21:
“If a man has a son who is stubborn and rebellious and he does not obey his father or his mother, and they have tried to correct him but he refuses to listen to them, 19 his father and his mother should take hold of him and bring him out to the elders at the gate of his city 20 and say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, and he refuses to obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his city must stone him to death. So you must remove what is bad from your midst, and all Israel will hear and become afraid."

What if parents had such a command today? The rebellious one had to be brought before the elders by his own parents and they knew what the punishment would be.Tough love, wouldn't you say? And a strong deterrent for others thinking about doing the same.

For Christians, the punishment for unrepentant wrongdoing is only excommunication.....a much softer option than stoning someone to death.

Are you implying that JW's drive their children out of their homes and refuse to speak to them because they have a disagreement over religion? Seriously?
It would take a very serious problem indeed for a parent to take an action like that. A son or daughter who lives at home would have to be following a very immoral lifestyle in order to be evicted from home. I have a 17 year old grandson who has chosen, for the present, to try out life in the world. He has a non JW girlfriend (both are still at school) and he still lives at home. His parents have house rules and he happily abides by them. We wish he had made other choices but we still love him to bits. I think you have been listening to too many one sided sob stories. We allow our children to decide for themselves whether our religion is for them. We do not excommunicate them for making a choice we disagree with.

But if they have dedicated their lives to God in baptism and they then choose to go out into the world, they have broken a very serious vow and this will not be tolerated. Yet the child can still live under the parent's roof as long as they abide by the house rules. We don't kick our children out, but we won't tolerate immoral behavior under our roof either. Call us old fashioned, but we believe that God is old fashioned too.


The thing is...what is true today is still true tomorrow, but we just know more about it. That is why its called the truth. It cannot change but elements can be brought to light that modify our understanding of things. Thank heaven....or else we would all be stuck in a rut where there are no adjustments in our thinking about anything and things could never become better understood. Who wants to be stuck there? Not me.

3. Prodigal son, Shunning and Baptism

Not at all. What kind of a parent is Jehovah? Is he an overindulgent parent? One who turns a blind eye to wrongdoing or rebellion?

Deut 21:18-21:
“If a man has a son who is stubborn and rebellious and he does not obey his father or his mother, and they have tried to correct him but he refuses to listen to them, 19 his father and his mother should take hold of him and bring him out to the elders at the gate of his city 20 and say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, and he refuses to obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his city must stone him to death. So you must remove what is bad from your midst, and all Israel will hear and become afraid."

What if parents had such a command today? The rebellious one had to be brought before the elders by his own parents and they knew what the punishment would be.Tough love, wouldn't you say? And a strong deterrent for others thinking about doing the same.

For Christians, the punishment for unrepentant wrongdoing is only excommunication.....a much softer option than stoning someone to death.

No, I certainly wouldn't say god (or as you would say, Jehovah) is an overindulgent parent! As a parent myself I know there are many ways of dealing with wrongdoing. As for rebellion, it's either a very juvenile thing and easily coped with (eg when my child suggested she stop going to primary school) or a quite natural part of teenage development. If you deserve your teen's respect it is also manageable.
Your quote from Deut gives a primitive and appalling perspective on parenting. Any parent that allowed a child to become a drunkard and then simply reported him to authorities would need investigation by social services. It's not tough love, which can be a necessity, but copping out after failure. As for deterrent, they don't work terribly well. See if you can find a correlation between murders by US state and those with the death penalty.

For Christians, the punishment for unrepentant wrongdoing is only excommunication.....a much softer option than stoning someone to death.

Well, I guess that makes it all right then. Especially if they have been raised to fear the outside world and rely entirely on their religious community for support and social interaction. But my main issue is the word 'wrongdoing'. This may refer to serious misbehavior, but couldn't it also refer to accepting a blood transfusion or expressing doubt about a Governing Body directive?

Are you implying that JW's drive their children out of their homes and refuse to speak to them because they have a disagreement over religion? Seriously?
It would take a very serious problem indeed for a parent to take an action like that. A son or daughter who lives at home would have to be following a very immoral lifestyle in order to be evicted from home. I have a 17 year old grandson who has chosen, for the present, to try out life in the world. He has a non JW girlfriend (both are still at school) and he still lives at home. His parents have house rules and he happily abides by them. We wish he had made other choices but we still love him to bits. I think you have been listening to too many one sided sob stories. We allow our children to decide for themselves whether our religion is for them. We do not excommunicate them for making a choice we disagree with.

So far, so good. I would never suggest that jws do not love their children and grandchildren as dearly as anyone else.

But if they have dedicated their lives to God in baptism and they then choose to go out into the world, they have broken a very serious vow and this will not be tolerated. Yet the child can still live under the parent's roof as long as they abide by the house rules. We don't kick our children out, but we won't tolerate immoral behavior under our roof either. Call us old fashioned, but we believe that God is old fashioned too.

And this is where I have a problem. Your website clearly shows that children are strongly encouraged to aspire to baptism. And baptisms may take place when children are 10 years old or less, although more commonly in the early teens. Now there are good reasons why young children should not make binding choices so young; they are simply not mature or developed enough.
Then if they later identify with a different belief system they will have 'broken a very serious vow and this will not be tolerated'. And yes, I know of one child in this situation who was told to leave home at 18 years of age. And no, 'immoral behavior' was not an issue.

Now as for the Prodigal Son, a great parable. And I know that a repentant ex-jw would be accepted back into the religion. But not immediately, as the Father welcomed back his son, but after 'demonstrating repentance', for as long as the Elders deem necessary. And for that time, the shunning would continue. They would need to attend services with all their friends and family ignoring them. Rather harsh, I'd say.

The thing is...what is true today is still true tomorrow, but we just know more about it. That is why its called the truth. It cannot change but elements can be brought to light that modify our understanding of things. Thank heaven....or else we would all be stuck in a rut where there are no adjustments in our thinking about anything and things could never become better understood. Who wants to be stuck there? Not me.

So:
* teaching changed from forbidding organ transplants to allowing them is an 'adjustment'
* information presented against the use of vaccinations up to 1952 was 'adjusted'
* the definition of "generation" was 'adjusted' at least 3 times and now refers to overlapping groups?

Sure, we all need to be open to understanding things better. And that's why I try to avoid referring to my current understanding as 'truth'. I can see no reason for anyone else to be so certain that they have the 'truth' either.

I'm taking my own advice to you and researching marijuana, more later.

 

[Deeje]

The only announcement after a person disassociates themselves is: [Person Name] is no longer a Jehovah Witness. That is the exact same announcement made for someone who is disfellowshipped. So people who willing leaving are shunned just like a disfellowshipped person. In a way there is no difference between disfellowshipping and disassociating since the end result is shunning for both.

No one is disfellowshipped if they are repentant, no matter how serious the wrongdoing. They will be disciplined according to the severity of the offense, but not expelled. The elders are authorized to judge within the congregation and they take their responsibilities seriously. They are always exercised with love. We are told to submit to their authority. (Heb 13:17)

For a disassociated person to end their relationship with the congregation, they would either have to just stop coming to meetings and wait for the elders to visit, (as shepherds, they will call to see if they can help someone having problems) or the person can submit a letter stating their intention to disassociate and perhaps the reasons. Depending upon their attitude, (wanting to just let it go....or wanting to start making trouble for others) there will either be an announcement to inform the congregation of their status, or the elders will try to encourage that person to reconsider and perhaps talk through the problem. It could just be a misunderstanding.

To JW's, those who formally disassociate is to resign one's place in their global spiritual family. No one expects to keep close friendships with those who turn their back on Jehovah and leave the flock. (we only have one.) Many who disassociate or are disfellowshipped can't go back to Christendom because they already know that there is no truth in that place....so, left with nowhere to go, a lot of ex JW's just whine and complain (often very publicly) and try to justify their position and attempt to stumble others with their hateful speech. Why would we want to keep company with someone who has rejected what we believe and who tries to stumble our brothers? We no longer have anything in common with them. We don't want to keep company with them. I couldn't understand why they would want to keep company with us?

They know the rules before they ever make a commitment to God in baptism. Leaving the congregation of Jehovah's people (to us,) is the same as leaving Jehovah.

Do you disagree that shunning (excommunication) is entirely biblical? The shepherds are to judge those "inside" the congregation, whilst God judges those "outside" it. (1 Cor 5:9-13; 2 John 9, 10) Authority to judge comes from God.

 

[Deeje]

@Olinda I won't attempt to address everything, so I will address some of your points.

Of course none of these will fix all the world's woes. But we need to remember the great Burke quote : "Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little".

JW's (you sound like you are more than familiar with us....may I ask your connection?) don't get involved in hand to mouth charities because Jesus didn't tell us to set up charities to just give people physical food or clothing...he fed them spiritually first, and then he fed them the loaves and fishes, but only after three days. (Matthew 15:32)
We were told to take care of those amongst us who were in need. (orphans and widows were those without a breadwinner. James 1:27) Or those we came across in our immediate circumstances to render appropriate assistance. JW's do this as much as anyone else.

Israel's laws did not give charity to anyone. They were set up so that the poor could work for their own food. Self sufficiency was stressed, not the eternal giving to the eternally poor. Nothing is accomplished by doing that. All you do is keep them alive for today...we give people a hope that they can stay alive forever, never having to deal with poverty, crime or violence again.
We believe in giving people the most important thing in the world...a solid hope for an everlasting future and the way to attain it...."the good news of the kingdom" (Matt 24:14)

I'm glad you realise that that a personal experience isn't proof as you have several times mentioned anecdotal cases where patients survived without the recommended blood transfusions as support for your position.

Its not the odd anecdotal story...it is the broad experience of Jehovah's Witnesses all over the world. We get told we will die without blood....and for the vast majority of cases, we not only live, but recover and have less complications after surgery than those who accepted blood. The doctors in the OP video are specialists, not mavericks. They are basing their opinions on numerous studies that revealed blood was not such good medicine after all.

So there's nothing new about 'parents so busy working'. The concept of an 8 hour working day is quite recent.

The last thing I was thinking of with my comments about working parents was farmers. I was addressing the working parents whose only aim is to facilitate a lifestyle for themselves and their spoiled children. This is not farming families, (who are usually close knit. I am a country girl myself)....I am talking about the absent career parents who have little actual interaction with their children.

As to your last two sentences, haven't you gathered I'm right down here in Australia with you? Electronic devices are just another thing that has to be managed, not a cause for hand wringing.

Since this appears to be your first mention of it, how was I supposed to know that? Most of the people on this site are not Aussies.
And it would be nice if things could be "managed" the right way, but the simple truth is they are not. Electronic devices are managing us. Children are managing their parents. People's perceptions about a lot of things are being "managed" by the media. Nothing in this world is as it seems. (1 John 5:19)

 

[Deeje]

I'm sorry if you had a bad experience with another church. It doesn't justify lumping them all together though. As you rightly said, personal experience doesn't equal proof.

I had a bad experience with many churches. They all taught the same doctrines under different labels, but couldn't agree on much of anything else. The only positive experience I had was with Jehovah's Witnesses. I had questions....lots of questions, and no one could answer them until I started a Bible study with JW's. One by one my questions were answered from the Bible and I could see how different these people were.....not a weird kind of different, but a confident wonderful kind of different. I had found my spiritual home.

The Samaritan stopped to help a fellow human in need

Right.
But if the Jews had done what they were supposed to do in loving their neighbor as God had said, the Samaritan would never have had to stop and help the man who fell among the robbers. Two Jewish men passed him by on the opposite side of the road. Since he had been stripped naked, there was no way to tell if he was a Jew, so they just walked on without caring.
So they would only help someone they identified as one of their own? That was their error.

Jesus said to the Jews....
Matt 5:43-48
“You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? 47 And if you greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing are you doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? 48 You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

The law actually stated that they were to "love their neighbor", but there was no law that told them to hate anyone, not even an enemy. We are to be loving towards all.
The Samaritans were hated by the Jews, so if the Jews passing by the man who was beaten thought he was a Samaritan, they would have done nothing to help him, using their faulty interpretation of the law as justification. Jesus told them how wrong that attitude was. We are to treat our fellow humans with the same love that Christ recommended. We treat all people with love, but we take care of our own first.
Galatians 6:10 tells us to "work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith."

The hated Samaritan was the hero of the story because he offered to help at his own expense
It had nothing to do with expense, and everything to do with instinctively responding to human need, without considering if he was 'one of them'.

It was an instinctive humanitarian response without considering the cost. This is what Jesus would expect of us as his disciples.

 

[Deeje]

Job 31:32[/URL], Isiah 58:7, Heb 13:2 and Matt 25:34.
Your assertion that 'their own churches do nothing' has already been shown to be a gross over-generalization at best.

I am only quoting what people have said when we have offered assistance after a disaster. It isn't an over generalization, but a fact. The churches generally have no disaster plan to find and assist their brethren.

As for Job 31:32 It was common for God's servants to be hospitable. The Jews especially were noted for their kindness to strangers. Job was such a man, but he lived in the time of the Patriarchs, before the nation of Israel was formed.

Isaiah 58:7 is also confirmation of Israel's care for the less fortunate.....Jews lived in Jewish communities, mostly separated from the nations around them. The ones they cared for were mostly their own, but hospitality was an expectation. (Luke 22:35) Being a guest in someone's tent obligated the owner to feed and protect his guest for as long as he stayed.

Matthew 25:34 is Jesus commending the "sheep" for taking care of his "brothers" in their times of need...again he was talking about those related to him in the faith.

Don't get me wrong, it's a fine thing to teach someone to fish. . after they have been healed, fed and clothed, of course.

I don't think Jesus was recommending that we make "rice Christians" do you? He fed the people (who were all Jewish) with spiritual food before he fed them physically. He tested them out as to their real motives before he rewarded them. They went without food for three days before he fed them.

 

[Deeje]

Your quote from Deut gives a primitive and appalling perspective on parenting. Any parent that allowed a child to become a drunkard and then simply reported him to authorities would need investigation by social services. It's not tough love, which can be a necessity, but copping out after failure. As for deterrent, they don't work terribly well. See if you can find a correlation between murders by US state and those with the death penalty.

You need to take that up with God. He wrote the law. The scripture states that the son was rebellious and a drunkard who would NOT obey his parents. The law told them what to do about that.

Deut 21:18-21:
“If a man has a son who is stubborn and rebellious and he does not obey his father or his mother, and they have tried to correct him but he refuses to listen to them, 19 his father and his mother should take hold of him and bring him out to the elders at the gate of his city 20 and say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, and he refuses to obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his city must stone him to death. So you must remove what is bad from your midst, and all Israel will hear and become afraid."

They had tried to correct him, but he would not listen or obey them. This was obviously appropriate for the time and the circumstances. It isn't practiced today though, so why do you have a problem with it? Jehovah is a God of justice, not sentiment.

Expressing doubt about a Governing Body directive? No one is disfellowshipped for having doubts...it's HOW they express those doubts that makes the difference, as I have already mentioned in one of my previous posts. There are proper ways to deal with doubts....and we all understand why we need to talk about them.

I know of one child in this situation who was told to leave home at 18 years of age. And no, 'immoral behavior' was not an issue.

At 18 in Australia, they are a legal adult, not a child. For any person to be told to leave home, I am assuming it was a serious issue on the same level (spiritually speaking) as "immorality". No parent would turn their child out over a minor offense.

And I know that a repentant ex-jw would be accepted back into the religion. But not immediately, as the Father welcomed back his son, but after 'demonstrating repentance', for as long as the Elders deem necessary. And for that time, the shunning would continue. They would need to attend services with all their friends and family ignoring them. Rather harsh, I'd say.

When discipline has had the desired effect on our children we look for a change in their attitude towards the issue for which they were disciplined. Elders too must make sure that the repentance is genuine. They are authorized by Jehovah to judge within the congregation, so they are not operating outside their assignment. Humility will be demonstrated in this instance and the offender will show that they are willing to cop it on the chin. We admire them for this. Reinstatement is not far off if this is the case.

* teaching changed from forbidding organ transplants to allowing them is an 'adjustment'

Early transplants were not always successful and rejection was common. It was good to wait and check out all the information and I know that all JW's are grateful that we don't rush into anything without due consideration and prayer about it.

* information presented against the use of vaccinations up to 1952 was 'adjusted'

Vaccinations were often made with blood, so it was erring on the side of caution to wait until until more information was forthcoming.
I personally don't like vaccinations and never had my own children vaccinated. They got their childhood diseases, one at a time and gained natural immunity. I don't believe in overloading an infant's immune system with multiple antigens all at once. I also have my concerns about the epidemic of autism spectrum disorders and their connection to vaccinations. Robert De Niro brought this subject up again recently because he has an autistic child.

* the definition of "generation" was 'adjusted' at least 3 times and now refers to overlapping groups?

This never was a biggie for me so adjustments never made much impact anyway. I find it interesting that the use of the word "generation" was closely examined and considered.
But whatever is going to take place will take place, whether we understand the meanings of words or not. As long as God knows who is among that generation, that is all that matters.

 

[Shak34]

No one is disfellowshipped if they are repentant, no matter how serious the wrongdoing. They will be disciplined according to the severity of the offense, but not expelled. The elders are authorized to judge within the congregation and they take their responsibilities seriously. They are always exercised with love. We are told to submit to their authority. (Heb 13:17)

For a disassociated person to end their relationship with the congregation, they would either have to just stop coming to meetings and wait for the elders to visit, (as shepherds, they will call to see if they can help someone having problems) or the person can submit a letter stating their intention to disassociate and perhaps the reasons. Depending upon their attitude, (wanting to just let it go....or wanting to start making trouble for others) there will either be an announcement to inform the congregation of their status, or the elders will try to encourage that person to reconsider and perhaps talk through the problem. It could just be a misunderstanding.

That doesn't change the fact that a person who disassociates him/herself is treated just like a disfellowshiped person and is shunned.

To JW's, those who formally disassociate is to resign one's place in their global spiritual family. No one expects to keep close friendships with those who turn their back on Jehovah and leave the flock. (we only have one.) Many who disassociate or are disfellowshipped can't go back to Christendom because they already know that there is no truth in that place....so, left with nowhere to go, a lot of ex JW's just whine and complain (often very publicly) and try to justify their position and attempt to stumble others with their hateful speech. Why would we want to keep company with someone who has rejected what we believe and who tries to stumble our brothers? We no longer have anything in common with them. We don't want to keep company with them. I couldn't understand why they would want to keep company with us?

They know the rules before they ever make a commitment to God in baptism. Leaving the congregation of Jehovah's people (to us,) is the same as leaving Jehovah.

You really have an issue with people's stories. Not every story is a lie. Life is nothing but someone's story, the experiences they go through. Not everyone is out their to stumble you, some just need a compassionate ear. You can't understand because you refuse to listen.

Do you disagree that shunning (excommunication) is entirely biblical? The shepherds are to judge those "inside" the congregation, whilst God judges those "outside" it. (1 Cor 5:9-13; 2 John 9, 10) Authority to judge comes from God.

At one point in time the society didn't believe it was biblical.

January 8, 1947 Awake pg. 27

This is "canon law" which the Roman Catholic Hierarchy seeks to enforce on the pretext that it is God's law. The authority for excommunication, they claim, is based on the teachings of Christ and the apostles, as found in the following scriptures: Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:3-5; Galatians 1:8,9; 1 Timothy 1:20; Titus 3:10. But the Hierarchy's excommunication, as a punishment and "medicinal" remedy (Catholic Encyclopedia), finds no support in these scriptures. In fact, it is altogether foreign to Bible teachings.-Hebrews 10:26-31.

 

[Deeje]

That doesn't change the fact that a person who disassociates him/herself is treated just like a disfellowshiped person and is shunned.

In our understanding, there is but one flock that has one shepherd. (John 10:16)
He does not have many flocks all believing different things. There is but one truth, not many versions of it.
John 10:14:
"I am the fine shepherd. I know my sheep and my sheep know me."

Either we know Jesus and he knows us...or the opposite is true. At the judgment, the goats have no idea why Jesus sends them to their destruction. (Matthew 25:41-46; Matthew 7:21-23) Many of those who thought they were Christians are rejected outright as "workers of lawlessness" that he has 'never known.'

When one separates himself from the flock, following a different line of thinking, he has disfellowshipped himself. Why would we want to associate with one we view as a traitor...a Judas? One who puts his own thoughts and ways above the rest of the flock that Jesus is leading? Has Jesus spoken to him personally and given him permission to believe something different to the rest? How do you think Christendom got to be so divided? God's people are one nation...a spiritual nation whose citizens are found in every place on earth. We have one message that we preach to all....we all serve the same God that Jesus did, and we do the work that Jesus assigned to us. (Matthew 28:19-20) How many people want to listen? (Matthew 24:37-39; Matthew 7:13-14)

You really have an issue with people's stories. Not every story is a lie. Life is nothing but someone's story, the experiences they go through. Not everyone is out their to stumble you, some just need a compassionate ear. You can't understand because you refuse to listen.

I have had close family members disfellowshipped so I know both sides of their stories. No one is disfellowshipped lightly. The congregation is not privy to the details because it is nobody's business and we hate gossip. But having been personally involved and knowing the whole story is way different to hearing just one side. Thank heavens the judge knows everything about everybody's story. The "poor me's" I have heard on the net, just make me sick. People have real difficulty seeing their own faults but no trouble seeing the faults of others. Their "experience" is called "discipline" and we make no apology for it. It humbles the right people and hardens the proud ones. It separates the real sheep from the pretenders.

At one point in time the society didn't believe it was biblical.

January 8, 1947 Awake pg. 27

This is "canon law" which the Roman Catholic Hierarchy seeks to enforce on the pretext that it is God's law. The authority for excommunication, they claim, is based on the teachings of Christ and the apostles, as found in the following scriptures: Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:3-5; Galatians 1:8,9; 1 Timothy 1:20; Titus 3:10. But the Hierarchy's excommunication, as a punishment and "medicinal" remedy (Catholic Encyclopedia), finds no support in these scriptures. In fact, it is altogether foreign to Bible teachings.-Hebrews 10:26-31.

1947? You have to go that far back to dig up something to criticize? Seriously?....what about something in this century?

All ex JW's and opposers live in the past...we visited it once and moved on....its a shame so many of you can't do the same. Jehovah's organization has moved so far ahead that all the ones left behind would have difficulty catching up now.
We had the most interesting WT study today on why we need to keep up with the times and why adjustments were continually made by Jehovah's people throughout biblical history.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-march-2016/jehovah-guides-his-people/
Check it out....you never know, you might actually learn something about adjustments and the need for them.

 

[Sonofason]

Okay, that is none of your business.
This thread is to provide information to those who might be interested.

Please provide the information whether Class 3 and 4 hemorrhage patient should accept blood transfusion or accept no-blood-transfusion medical care.
Which medical care will have more survival chance/rate to be a life saver to save those patient life?

You don't know.
But you still saying blood transfusion is not a life saver.

So if there're any non-JW believes you and they make decision to choose no-blood-tranfusion medical care for themself or their family, then the patient die because of no-blood-tranfusion medical care, and if the survival chance using blood transfusion is highher than without blood transfusion in the situation of Class 3 and 4 hemorrhage, will you responsible for their death?
edit

The Bible never suggests that lives cannot be saved via blood transfusions, or perhaps in this sense consuming the blood of some person or animal via blood transfusions. It says don't you do it. It is a command that God has given us, and we don't have to know why. It is our obligation to obey God, not to disobey God in an attempt to save our own lives, and not to disobey God simply to save the life of another. Remember what is written:

"Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it." (Luke 17:33)
you can find this saying in all the gospels.

However, it is my assumption that mankind is far more attached to this earthly life than he ought to be. We all die, and its really no big deal. So if some incapacitated individual is losing too much blood, and the family and relatives make a decision to introduce strange blood into the incapacitated individual's body, I can hardly see how a just God would condemn the incapacitated individual for the decisions made by others. Thus the point I suppose I am trying to make is that transfusions are not what God intended to forbid. So do not knowingly consume the blood of any living or dead creature. Just just don't give yourself blood transfusions, and cook your meat, and you'll be just fine.

 

[Shak34]

Why would we disfellowship someone for disassociating themselves from our ranks?

No one expects to keep close friendships with those who turn their back on Jehovah and leave the flock.

When one separates himself from the flock, following a different line of thinking, he has disfellowshipped himself. Why would we want to associate with one we view as a traitor...a Judas?

We went through all of that for you to agree with me in the end, disfellowshipped and disassociated people are treated no differently. Disassociated = disfellowshipping ones self and disfellowshipped = disfellowshipping by an elder, both fall under disfellowshipping, just use different names.

I have had close family members disfellowshipped so I know both sides of their stories. No one is disfellowshipped lightly. The congregation is not privy to the details because it is nobody's business and we hate gossip. But having been personally involved and knowing the whole story is way different to hearing just one side.

I agree that it is better to know both sides if the story, I have also known a couple if them myself. But not every persons one side story makes them a liar or a slander. To automatically accuse every ex-JW if being dishonest makes your religion appear in a very bad light.
The funny thing about gossip is that it is everywhere, including the Kingdom Halls. Some are worse than others but it is always there. People will always talk about why the person is disfellowshipped, nothing stays secret.

Thank heavens the judge knows everything about everybody's story. The "poor me's" I have heard on the net, just make me sick. People have real difficulty seeing their own faults but no trouble seeing the faults of others. Their "experience" is called "discipline" and we make no apology for it. It humbles the right people and hardens the proud ones. It separates the real sheep from the pretenders.

Internet is a wonderful thing and many people are now recording their judicial hearing, it every interesting to watch them. Both sides are starting to be revealed, like I said it is very interesting.

1947? You have to go that far back to dig up something to criticize? Seriously?....what about something in this century?

All ex JW's and opposers live in the past...we visited it once and moved on....its a shame so many of you can't do the same. Jehovah's organization has moved so far ahead that all the ones left behind would have difficulty catching up now.
We had the most interesting WT study today on why we need to keep up with the times and why adjustments were continually made by Jehovah's people throughout biblical history.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-march-2016/jehovah-guides-his-people/
Check it out....you never know, you might actually learn something about adjustments and the need for them.

If the past wasn't important then the bible would have been thrown out long ago. The past of any group is important to know. If it wasn't there wouldn't so many articles written in the watchtower and awakes about the past other church's/religious groups.

If you read what I posted you would realize that I wasn't criticizing, merely stating fact.

 

[Olinda]

@Olinda I won't attempt to address everything, so I will address some of your points.





Since this appears to be your first mention of it, how was I supposed to know that? Most of the people on this site are not Aussies.
And it would be nice if things could be "managed" the right way, but the simple truth is they are not. Electronic devices are managing us. Children are managing their parents. People's perceptions about a lot of things are being "managed" by the media. Nothing in this world is as it seems. (1 John 5:19)

JW's (you sound like you are more than familiar with us....may I ask your connection?)

Certainly. An in-law family member became a jw. We had been very friendly since we met, and as time went on, we corresponded less and less about family matters (we live in different states) and more about religion and beliefs. This person sent two local jw ladies to call on me (not at my request) and they seemed intent on conducting a 'bible study' rather than a two way discussion. We met for a couple of months before they discontinued meeting, and my relative has not responded to any communication since then.
Perhaps you could call me a 'failed jw'

JWs don't get involved in hand to mouth charities because Jesus didn't tell us to set up charities to just give people physical food or clothing...

Well, I'm not Jesus, and still learning rather than lecturing (or 'providing spiritual food', if you prefer), so I interpret what God wants of me as giving what I can.

We were told to take care of those amongst us who were in need. (orphans and widows were those without a breadwinner. James 1:27) Or those we came across in our immediate circumstances to render appropriate assistance. JW's do this as much as anyone else.

I don't doubt that individually, they do.

Israel's laws did not give charity to anyone. They were set up so that the poor could work for their own food. Self sufficiency was stressed, not the eternal giving to the eternally poor. Nothing is accomplished by doing that. All you do is keep them alive for today...we give people a hope that they can stay alive forever, never having to deal with poverty, crime or violence again.
We believe in giving people the most important thing in the world...a solid hope for an everlasting future and the way to attain it...."the good news of the kingdom" (Matt 24:14)

Come to think of it, which country's laws require giving? You cannot legislate morals. Of course, our governments make provision for people out of work or disabled. I wouldn't want to live in a society that didn't. . . even if it was Israel. And no, aid to those in need should not and does not impede progress to self sufficiency.

Its not the odd anecdotal story...it is the broad experience of Jehovah's Witnesses all over the world. We get told we will die without blood....and for the vast majority of cases, we not only live, but recover and have less complications after surgery than those who accepted blood. The doctors in the OP video are specialists, not mavericks. They are basing their opinions on numerous studies that revealed blood was not such good medicine after all.

Perhaps you didn't do science? One anecdote, many anecdotes, still no evidence whatsoever. It needs to be gathered, statistically quantified, valid comparisons to people who received transfusions even to be worth debating. Yes, i watched the 'media release' video. Such videos are information sources that do not have to provide a balanced perspective, just media information. The opinions of the professionals quoted are just opinions. The research quoted is interesting, but again, one-sided, not a balanced overview of all research done on blood transfusions. Certainly far from definitive information as a basis for decision making.

The last thing I was thinking of with my comments about working parents was farmers. I was addressing the working parents whose only aim is to facilitate a lifestyle for themselves and their spoiled children. This is not farming families, (who are usually close knit. I am a country girl myself)....I am talking about the absent career parents who have little actual interaction with their children.

Sure, but this is a two way discussion and it is my perspective. Farming families (also farming communities) can indeed be 'close', in the sense of mutually supportive. And what is the work for, if not to 'facilitate a lifestyle' for themselves and their children? Why do you get to decide if and when that lifestyle becomes too comfortable, or the children 'spoiled'? My point was that interaction time with children suffers when parents work long hours and this has always been the case.

Since this appears to be your first mention of it, how was I supposed to know that?
Most of the people on this site are not Aussies.

OK, peace . Posting times is the obvious way, but also Olinda is a tourist town. Sadly, I don't live there.

{QUOTE] And it would be nice if things could be "managed" the right way, but the simple truth is they are not. Electronic devices are managing us. Children are managing their parents. People's perceptions about a lot of things are being "managed" by the media. Nothing in this world is as it seems. (1 John 5:19) [/QUOTE]
Yes, remember the despair that television was ruining family life? And if children are managing their parents, that's just poor parenting, nothing new either. At least now there are parenting classes!
The last sentence is quite true, and also an excellent reason to avoid generalizing.

More later.

 

[Olinda]

I had a bad experience with many churches. They all taught the same doctrines under different labels, but couldn't agree on much of anything else. The only positive experience I had was with Jehovah's Witnesses. I had questions....lots of questions, and no one could answer them until I started a Bible study with JW's. One by one my questions were answered from the Bible and I could see how different these people were.....not a weird kind of different, but a confident wonderful kind of different. I had found my spiritual home.



Jesus said to the Jews....
Matt 5:43-48
“You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? 47 And if you greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing are you doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? 48 You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

The law actually stated that they were to "love their neighbor", but there was no law that told them to hate anyone, not even an enemy. We are to be loving towards all.
The Samaritans were hated by the Jews, so if the Jews passing by the man who was beaten thought he was a Samaritan, they would have done nothing to help him, using their faulty interpretation of the law as justification. Jesus told them how wrong that attitude was. We are to treat our fellow humans with the same love that Christ recommended. We treat all people with love, but we take care of our own first.
Galatians 6:10 tells us to "work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith."

It was an instinctive humanitarian response without considering the cost. This is what Jesus would expect of us as his disciples.

I had a bad experience with many churches. They all taught the same doctrines under different labels, but couldn't agree on much of anything else. The only positive experience I had was with Jehovah's Witnesses. I had questions....lots of questions, and no one could answer them until I started a Bible study with JW's. One by one my questions were answered from the Bible and I could see how different these people were.....not a weird kind of different, but a confident wonderful kind of different. I had found my spiritual home.

I'm glad you found a 'spiritual home'. I'm still searching, but perhaps I'll learn more outside my comfort zone! But it wan't my experience that 'they' all taught the same doctrines.

As for the Good Samaritan, i think we agree on almost all of it. Depending, perhaps, on how we define 'neighbor'.

Galatians 6:10 tells us to "work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith."

With all respect to the wisdom in it, I do not regard the Bible as the inerrant word of God. Too many redactions, resulting in contradictions, and the need to interpret and reinterpret. Looking after your own is just too easy an option.

 

[Olinda]

Deut 21:18-21:
“If a man has a son who is stubborn and rebellious and he does not obey his father or his mother, and they have tried to correct him but he refuses to listen to them, 19 his father and his mother should take hold of him and bring him out to the elders at the gate of his city 20 and say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, and he refuses to obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his city must stone him to death. So you must remove what is bad from your midst, and all Israel will hear and become afraid."

You need to take that up with God. He wrote the law. The scripture states that the son was rebellious and a drunkard who would NOT obey his parents. The law told them what to do about that.

I mentioned my views on the Bible in my previous post. Anyway, that is no longer the law, in Israel or anywhere else that I know of.

It isn't practiced today though, so why do you have a problem with it? Jehovah is a God of justice, not sentiment.

/
Why mention it at all, then? "Obey or die" - sounds like a dictatorship, not justice.

Expressing doubt about a Governing Body directive? No one is disfellowshipped for having doubts...it's HOW they express those doubts that makes the difference, as I have already mentioned in one of my previous posts. There are proper ways to deal with doubts....and we all understand why we need to talk about them.

Could you please elaborate on the 'proper ways to deal with doubts'? I think perhaps how I expressed myself may have caused my 'failure' with the two jw ladies

At 18 in Australia, they are a legal adult, not a child. For any person to be told to leave home, I am assuming it was a serious issue on the same level (spiritually speaking) as "immorality". No parent would turn their child out over a minor offense.

Yes, a legal adult, but rarely has an 18 year old finished schooling and career preparation. If they are apprenticed, the take home pay is too low to rent anywhere decent. Surely a parent could help the child reach actual independence if they are progressing towards it? (as opposed to severe antisocial behavior such as drug abuse and/or violence, where real tough love is the only option)

When discipline has had the desired effect on our children we look for a change in their attitude towards the issue for which they were disciplined. Elders too must make sure that the repentance is genuine. They are authorized by Jehovah to judge within the congregation, so they are not operating outside their assignment. Humility will be demonstrated in this instance and the offender will show that they are willing to cop it on the chin. We admire them for this. Reinstatement is not far off if this is the case.

This is not what happened in the case of the Prodigal Son, however. I do see the point, but cannot understand how any person can judge the sincerity of another's repentance. Surely such things are between God and ones self?

Early transplants were not always successful and rejection was common. It was good to wait and check out all the information and I know that all JW's are grateful that we don't rush into anything without due consideration and prayer about it.

Vaccinations were often made with blood, so it was erring on the side of caution to wait until until more information was forthcoming.
I personally don't like vaccinations and never had my own children vaccinated. They got their childhood diseases, one at a time and gained natural immunity. I don't believe in overloading an infant's immune system with multiple antigens all at once. I also have my concerns about the epidemic of autism spectrum disorders and their connection to vaccinations. Robert De Niro brought this subject up again recently because he has an autistic child.

We are still going round in circles about this. But expressing legitimate ( or other) medical concerns is one thing and making it a doctrinal issue (and then changing it) is a far more serious matter.

This never was a biggie for me so adjustments never made much impact anyway. I find it interesting that the use of the word "generation" was closely examined and considered.
But whatever is going to take place will take place, whether we understand the meanings of words or not. As long as God knows who is among that generation, that is all that matters.

The timing suggests that the word "generation" was closely examined when the time was running out for the generation of 1914 (using the normal meaning of the word). That would certainly worry me!
At this stage I'm happier with a simple faith in whatever God does or doesn't do without all these convolutions.

 

[Deeje]

We went through all of that for you to agree with me in the end, disfellowshipped and disassociated people are treated no differently. Disassociated = disfellowshipping ones self and disfellowshipped = disfellowshipping by an elder, both fall under disfellowshipping, just use different names.

Went through all of what? It wasn't that cut and dried, hence the explanations.
If someone wants to bad mouth the elders or the governing body over beliefs they once accepted, but now reject, we have no interest in listening to them as if Jehovah would correct his flock through a renegade. We employ 2 John 9, 10.
Whatever needs correcting will come through the proper channel.

I agree that it is better to know both sides if the story, I have also known a couple if them myself. But not every persons one side story makes them a liar or a slander. To automatically accuse every ex-JW if being dishonest makes your religion appear in a very bad light.

I don't believe I said that every ex JW is dishonest or a slanderer. I said that the ones who want to publicly bad mouth their former brothers and sisters in an attempt to justify themselves, are not the sort of people we want to keep company with. Discipline separates the humble ones from the self-righteous ones who usually just want to get even.

The funny thing about gossip is that it is everywhere, including the Kingdom Halls. Some are worse than others but it is always there. People will always talk about why the person is disfellowshipped, nothing stays secret.

Jehovah hates gossip so if there are gossipers, they will answer to him...not me. Our relationship with Jehovah means that we are obedient to his direction....after all, disobedience got us into this mess. Jehovah is testing every single one of us by seeing how we conduct ourselves and where we direct our love, loyalty and obedience. It's a test we have to pass if we want to live in the new world. It is a criteria for citizenship in the earthly part of Jehovah's kingdom.

Internet is a wonderful thing and many people are now recording their judicial hearing, it every interesting to watch them. Both sides are starting to be revealed, like I said it is very interesting.

Judicial matters are none of our business, so I would not stick my nose into someone else's discipline. But when you attend a court hearing, a good lawyer can make a guilty one sound so innocent.....until you hear the other side of the story. It is the elder's job to judge within the congregation, so if they are negligent in that regard Jehovah will hold them accountable. They use the Bible as their guide and they desire for erring ones to see what they must do to retain Jehovah's favor. No one wants to see anyone disfellowshipped.

If the past wasn't important then the bible would have been thrown out long ago.

The past is a good thing to reflect on and to learn from...not a place to pitch a tent and take up residence.
Harking back to 1947 was before I was even born. What does that mean to me? Very little. I am not the person I was even 20 years ago...I have grown and matured in that period so I would hate for someone to take something I said or did back then and throw it in my face as if it is still relevant to who I am now.

Paul wrote at 1 Corinthians 13:11..."When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, to think as a child, to reason as a child; but now that I have become a man, I have done away with the traits of a child."
I would hope we can all do that. Our brotherhood has grown and matured too. It is taking some exciting new directions now. We are constantly learning.

The past of any group is important to know. If it wasn't there wouldn't so many articles written in the watchtower and awakes about the past other church's/religious groups.

It certainly is good to look back and see mistakes and know they were corrected.....unlike the churches who know about their mistakes and go on making them.

If you read what I posted you would realize that I wasn't criticizing, merely stating fact.

Me too. I spent the first third of my life in Christendom and I left it long before I started a study with Jehovah's Witnesses. My own experience in the church was walking in empty and walking out the same way. I never feel like that when I go to the Kingdom Hall.

Jehovah has one flock of imperfect sheep...they have flaws just like everyone else, but they are obedient to their shepherd like no others. They preach like no others in every nation on earth. They refuse to get involved in politics or war, unlike Christendom's churches who are up to their necks in being friends of the world. (James 4:4)

JW's tick more boxes for me in following the teachings of the Christ than any other professing body of Christians...and believe me, I tried quite a few.

 

[Deeje]

Certainly. An in-law family member became a jw. We had been very friendly since we met, and as time went on, we corresponded less and less about family matters (we live in different states) and more about religion and beliefs. This person sent two local jw ladies to call on me (not at my request) and they seemed intent on conducting a 'bible study' rather than a two way discussion. We met for a couple of months before they discontinued meeting, and my relative has not responded to any communication since then.
Perhaps you could call me a 'failed jw'

LOL...I don't think anyone should be dragged kicking and screaming into anything. I guess we should all know when to give something up as a bad job.

I don't doubt that individually, they do.

A lot of individuals make up a nation.

Perhaps you didn't do science? One anecdote, many anecdotes, still no evidence whatsoever. It needs to be gathered, statistically quantified, valid comparisons to people who received transfusions even to be worth debating. Yes, i watched the 'media release' video. Such videos are information sources that do not have to provide a balanced perspective, just media information. The opinions of the professionals quoted are just opinions. The research quoted is interesting, but again, one-sided, not a balanced overview of all research done on blood transfusions. Certainly far from definitive information as a basis for decision making.

http://noblood.org/forum/threads/3088-List-of-Hospitals-that-provides-bloodless-surgeries

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323494504578340962879110432

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-jehovahs-witnesses-are-changing-medicine

And it would be nice if things could be "managed" the right way, but the simple truth is they are not. Electronic devices are managing us. Children are managing their parents. People's perceptions about a lot of things are being "managed" by the media. Nothing in this world is as it seems. (1 John 5:19)

Yes, remember the despair that television was ruining family life? And if children are managing their parents, that's just poor parenting, nothing new either. At least now there are parenting classes!

Only the ones who care would take them.

 

[Deeje]

"Obey or die" - sounds like a dictatorship, not justice.

Jehovah is a dictator.....but a kind and benevolent one. You don't think that God invented democracy do you?
He gave us free will, but it was to be exercised only within the parameters set by him as our Creator. We were never truly free to do as we wish. He knows better than we do so he set the limits.

Could you please elaborate on the 'proper ways to deal with doubts'? I think perhaps how I expressed myself may have caused my 'failure' with the two jw ladies

It is never a good idea to set someone up for a study....it most definitely should be the choice of the individual.

The "proper" way to deal with doubts is to express them in a way that is not hostile, not demanding and not self righteous or belligerent.....nothing good can come from the wrong attitude.
If there are genuine concerns, then the elders are always willing to discuss any problems that we might have in a reasonable way, though we have many resources at our disposal to research things for ourselves. I personally love research.

Yes, a legal adult, but rarely has an 18 year old finished schooling and career preparation. If they are apprenticed, the take home pay is too low to rent anywhere decent. Surely a parent could help the child reach actual independence if they are progressing towards it? (as opposed to severe antisocial behavior such as drug abuse and/or violence, where real tough love is the only option)

Kids who think they are grown up enough to make their own adult decisions need to know that they are grown up enough to be responsible for the consequences of them. If they have house rules and don't want to abide by them, I believe that they should be shown the door. I am sick of the privilege of youth thinking that parents are the ones who should clean up after their selfish, irresponsible children. All rights and no responsibility doesn't wash with us. Tough love? You betcha.

This is not what happened in the case of the Prodigal Son, however. I do see the point, but cannot understand how any person can judge the sincerity of another's repentance. Surely such things are between God and ones self?

John the Baptist said of the crowds coming for baptism...“You offspring of vipers, who has warned you to flee from the coming wrath?  Therefore, produce fruits that befit repentance. Do not start saying to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones.  Indeed, the ax is already lying at the root of the trees. Every tree, then, that does not produce fine fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”

What does this indicate to you? To me this says that those NOT "producing the fruits that befit repentance" are kidding themselves. So we can show a repentant spirit just by our demeanor and conduct. It says we can take nothing for granted because if we fail to produce the right fruit, we are good for nothing but firewood.

The prodigal son was far off when his father saw him making his way home, his countenance was downcast and his attitude was humble....he had been sadly mistaken about his choice to squander his inheritance and live an immoral life. He had to hit rock bottom before he "came to his senses". But now he was going to beg his father to take him back...not as a son but as just a hired worker. He produced the fruits that demonstrated his repentance.

We are still going round in circles about this. But expressing legitimate ( or other) medical concerns is one thing and making it a doctrinal issue (and then changing it) is a far more serious matter.

It is a matter of law. We have no options to disobey God's law to save our present life. It is the breaking of God's law that would be of more concern to us than dying. We do not count this life as the most important one.

The timing suggests that the word "generation" was closely examined when the time was running out for the generation of 1914 (using the normal meaning of the word). That would certainly worry me!
At this stage I'm happier with a simple faith in whatever God does or doesn't do without all these convolutions.

I don't know of a single Witness that has a problem with any of it. We expect adjustments.....its part of the light on the path getting brighter. (Proverbs 4:18)