Are Blood Transfusions Really Life Saving?

[Shak34]

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.

It is actually very cut and dry.

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

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.

Then you went on and on about what one has to do to disassociated themselves then I replied.

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

When one separates himself from the flock, following a different line of thinking, he has disfellowshipped himself.

Disfellowshipped and disassociated are basically the same, just the means to get there are different. Both are treated the same. Yes all very cut and dry.

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.

You are right, you never said every, but you sure do imply it.

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.

Wow, your always complaining about one sided stories how they can't be trusted. Now you have opportunity to see both sides and refuse. That really says a lot. You can't even use court or lawyers as an example since a brother or sister called to a JC is not allowed to bring in one.

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.

I love it, don't quote something from the 40's, but let's quote from the bible which is even older.

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.

I don't see the crusades going on today the church moved on and yet it is still brought up in articles to be used against Catholics.

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.

This doesn't even apply to what was being said, you said I criticized and I said I was merely stating fact.
Anyway, I have also been to a lot if churches even been kick out the minute I walked through the door of one.(Not sure what that was all about) I have never seen much of a difference between Kingdom Halls and churches. I've seen ones that do preaching works, helping the poor and hungry, and much more. Jw's are not the only ones that tick off boxes.

 

[Olinda]

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.



A lot of individuals make up a nation.



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




Only the ones who care would take them.

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 wasn't kicking or screaming though. Although I didn't realise at first that a 'Bible study' was intended, I was happy to meet and talk. As I've indicated, I'm still searching for doctrines that I could accept.

A lot of individuals make up a nation.

True but irrelevant. I was agreeing that individual jws could be benevolent, but as you've also pointed out, as a religion they are neither required nor encouraged to materially help others. You also mentioned 'rice Christians' earlier and I meant to respond to that. Material help only falls into that category when there is a requirement or expectation that it will lead to involvement in their religion. And that is not real altruistic help, nor is it what the Good Samaritan did.

You then provided three links. Unlike you (with the links provided by Kelly of the Phoenix) I read them. What is clear is that the Watchtower is 'seeding' articles, supporting a website (noblood.org) and conducting large-scale meetings to encourage and publicise alternatives to transfusions. And why would all this be necessary if there were a genuine 'groundswell'?

From the Wall Street Journal article (by far the most balanced) "
Still, doctors are quick to point out that they need to have the freedom to use their judgment when it comes to avoiding transfusions.

"I think there's no risk as long as it's not proscriptive," says Harvey Klein, chief of the department of transfusion medicine at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center. What you don't want is to "become so fixated on the dollar bottom line that you don't do what's in the patient's best benefit," he says."
That the possible risks of transfusions should be considered, I have no doubt. But as Kelly's links clearly showed, there are risks to using extenders too. Hopefully these will be mitigated as development continues. Meanwhile a one-sided approach is of no benefit.

Only the ones who care would take them.

The context was poor parenting and the availability of parenting classes. Of course the great majority of parents 'care'! And many benefit from such classes, while even more are helped by friends, grandparents and education professionals. No cause for hand-wringing here.

 

[Olinda]

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.

.



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.



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)

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.

You make Him sound very like one of those parents who don't want the kids to grow up

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.

Good, then it wasn't anything I did . What would happen if your discussion with the elder didn't alleviate your doubts?
And does your research include materials not provided by the Watchtower?

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.

As for letting kids feel the consequences of their choices, that is a valuable teaching tool and one i used a lot. Naturally, though, these consequences must be moderated depending on the age of the child - particularly, the age at which the choice was made. i don't think you addressed my thoughts on allowing young children to be baptised, or did i miss it?

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.

What it indicates to me - a rather harsh way of putting things? Nevertheless, I agree that unless we understand where we err and the consequences, we cannot grow beyond that and are likely to 'do it again'. It seems that by saying 'we can take nothing for granted' you are agreeing that it's very difficult for one person to assess anothers' repentance.

"his countenance was downcast and his attitude was humble" Really? Does it say that in your Bible??

Here's how it reads in the NIV

17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death!18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father.

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.{/QUOTE]

He was repentant, I agree, but no human father could have been sure of that. Even if he approached as you said, he could have been fearful of being turned away, or just suffering sore feet. Yet his father did not wait to establish how sorry he was before offering love and forgiveness.
And that I believe is the example we should follow.

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.

Did you mean it is a matter of law to refuse blood transfusions, or to obey the Governing Body's directives on, for example, organ transplants?

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)

Sure. I'd expect that any who are as bothered as I would be, would have left.

 

[Deeje]

It is actually very cut and dry.
Disfellowshipped and disassociated are basically the same, just the means to get there are different. Both are treated the same. Yes all very cut and dry.

A disfellowshipped person has been through a judicial process where things are discussed openly and counsel is given. The elders are within their scriptural rights to judge those "inside" the congregation. If people disagree with their decision, or they believe that they have been wrongly accused of something, they can take it further. But if there is no other evidence to be be presented, then the elders' decision stands.

A disassociated person has made a decision that they do not want to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses anymore. The outcome is the same, especially if the one disassociating is hell bent on making their opinions public. That is apostasy and we don't keep company with apostates. (2 John 10-11; Proverbs 11:9)

You are right, you never said every, but you sure do imply it.

I was addressing the multitude of anti-JW sentiment expressed by disgruntled former JW's on hate sites and forums all over the world. We are content for the most part to let them go and say whatever they like. Not a single "sheep" will be influenced by them. (John 10:27-28)

Jesus warned that his disciples would be hated for doing what he did. (Matthew 5:11-12; John 15:18-21) He exposed the false teachings of the Pharisees but very few of the indoctrinated Jews responded to him as Messiah. (Matthew 7:13-14) They were so sure that he was everything the Pharisees said he was that they even cursed themselves and their children with his blood. (Matthew 27:25) Will the majority of people today find themselves in the same position? Failing to render aid to "Christ's brothers" because they did not accept them as such? (Matthew 25:41-46) I guess we will just have to wait and see.

The fact is, people don't like to be told that they are doing the wrong thing and when they are caught out, they make excuses or blame someone else (just as Adam and his wife did) Human nature does not change. Very few go quietly because the discipline we administer has the desired effect...as I said, it leads the right-hearted ones to humble repentance, but with those who are proud, it reveals their true personality. It appears as if Jehovah keeps those whom he wants, and lets go those whom he doesn't. It is he who is choosing the citizens he wants in his kingdom. (John 6:44)

Wow, your always complaining about one sided stories how they can't be trusted. Now you have opportunity to see both sides and refuse. That really says a lot. You can't even use court or lawyers as an example since a brother or sister called to a JC is not allowed to bring in one.

A lawyer? Are you serious? This is a religious hearing, for a judicial process that only applies within our brotherhood. It does not require lawyers because it not a legal case recognized by anyone but us. You think Jehovah would approve of bringing in worldly legal representatives to speak for their "clients"...like that would make a difference to the one who instituted the process? OMG! (1 Corinthians 6:1-7)
Anyone who thinks like that has lost the plot!

I love it, don't quote something from the 40's, but let's quote from the bible which is even older.

That "something from the 40's" was from the words of men....informative and faith strengthening at the time, but subject to change as our understanding increases.....the Bible is the word of God. We don't view the Watchtower as scripture. Like I said...how about something from this century?

I don't see the crusades going on today the church moved on and yet it is still brought up in articles to be used against Catholics.

Actually the bloodshed has never ceased. It continues to this day when the churches encourage their members onto the battle field under the banner of their "other" equally cherished religion..."nationalism". They seem to forget that Jesus taught us to 'love our enemies and to pray for those persecuting us'...how do you love someone with a gun or a bomb? Do you tell them you love them before or after you kill them?

Anyway, I have also been to a lot if churches even been kick out the minute I walked through the door of one.(Not sure what that was all about) I have never seen much of a difference between Kingdom Halls and churches. I've seen ones that do preaching works, helping the poor and hungry, and much more. Jw's are not the only ones that tick off boxes.

I don't think that Jesus commanded us to preach in our own little neighborhood or country....the preaching was to be done globally by one united brotherhood who all believe the same things and who all have just one message about the kingdom before God brings this system crashing down. (Matthew 24:14) It is very close and as Jesus said, it will be "just like the days of Noah". No one believed him until it was too late. (Matthew 24:37-39) If we are not on the 'ark' when the door closes, there is no life-raft for the stragglers or the indecisive ones. We get one shot in this judgment period, just as the people of Noah's day did. Our choices have everlasting consequences. I hope we all make them wisely.

 

[Shak34]

Do you tell them you love them before or after you kill them?

I'm very loving. I make sure to tell them before, during (especially during), and after. LOL!

 

[Deeje]

I wasn't kicking or screaming though. Although I didn't realise at first that a 'Bible study' was intended, I was happy to meet and talk. As I've indicated, I'm still searching for doctrines that I could accept.

What doctrines did you reject (apart from blood transfusions)?

True but irrelevant. I was agreeing that individual jws could be benevolent, but as you've also pointed out, as a religion they are neither required nor encouraged to materially help others.

Yes we are...we are required to assist those related to us in the faith and any others that we can personally assist like the good Samaritan.

You also mentioned 'rice Christians' earlier and I meant to respond to that. Material help only falls into that category when there is a requirement or expectation that it will lead to involvement in their religion. And that is not real altruistic help, nor is it what the Good Samaritan did.

We are not interested in helping people who can help themselves, but just want handouts or free stuff. The churches have enough of those as they grimly keep providing for lazy people who don't want to improve their lives at all. They just have their hands out for all they can get for nothing. We will help any sincere person to get back on their feet but we are not interested in perpetuating a faulty mindset.

You then provided three links. Unlike you (with the links provided by Kelly of the Phoenix) I read them. What is clear is that the Watchtower is 'seeding' articles, supporting a website (noblood.org) and conducting large-scale meetings to encourage and publicise alternatives to transfusions. And why would all this be necessary if there were a genuine 'groundswell'?

Anyone in the medical profession will tell you that old habits die hard with many doctors. It opens up a legal can of worms too if the procedure they have been performing all this time actually contributes to mortality and morbidity. Sweep it under the carpet and pretend that its not there and voila! It doesn't exist. It always takes great courage to change medical mindsets. Look at the guy who suggested that stomach ulcers were the result of a bacterial infection....he was almost howled down and cast out as an idiot. Thank goodness some doctors and researchers listened and ran trials. Many people who suffered with ulcers for years were completely cured after a simple course of the right anti-biotics.

From the Wall Street Journal article (by far the most balanced) "
Still, doctors are quick to point out that they need to have the freedom to use their judgment when it comes to avoiding transfusions.

"I think there's no risk as long as it's not proscriptive," says Harvey Klein, chief of the department of transfusion medicine at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center. What you don't want is to "become so fixated on the dollar bottom line that you don't do what's in the patient's best benefit," he says."
That the possible risks of transfusions should be considered, I have no doubt. But as Kelly's links clearly showed, there are risks to using extenders too. Hopefully these will be mitigated as development continues. Meanwhile a one-sided approach is of no benefit.

I couldn't agree more....its just that the strongest "side" has their fingers firmly planted in their ears.

The context was poor parenting and the availability of parenting classes. Of course the great majority of parents 'care'! And many benefit from such classes, while even more are helped by friends, grandparents and education professionals. No cause for hand-wringing here.

Do you still live in the country? Have you ever lived in a big city? I have lived in both and I know what a struggle many parents are having with communication between themselves and their children, especially in large cities where both parents have to work to even afford somewhere to live. But, today's kids are a breed apart...they are the most self-centered generation many people older generations have seen. Teachers, school bus drivers and others who have dealings with today's kids will tell you that its really hard to manage them when they have no discipline and no respect for any authority.

We have created these monsters through ill thought out laws. "The International Rights of the Child Charter" passed through the UN in the 80's was ratified by many nations who thought it would do some good. It was supposed to prevent the exploitation of children in poorer nations, but that exploitation and the poverty that drives it, continues in those nations to this day. All it did in developed nations was a produce a bunch of brats who had all the rights in the world, but could not be held accountable for anything. The law is on their side and they know it. A minor child now can leave home with financial support from the government, and live with whomever they wish and their parents can't do nothing about it. The law no longer protects them from moral danger and their parents can't make them come home where they will be looked after and kept safe.

Like everything man does, the pendulum always swings too far the other way. We never seem to be able to achieve a balance.

 

[Deeje]

You make Him sound very like one of those parents who don't want the kids to grow up

Well actually, he is one of those parents who says, "don't do that because...." but if you disobey him he allows you to feel and see the consequences of your own actions.

Ever tried to defy the law of gravity? It lets you know painfully and immediately that the law means what it says. Sometime you get away with a bit of pain and a little skin off...other times you can be permanently maimed and still other times you might lose your life. God doesn't dictate the outcome but simply issues the warning. His laws are always for our good...if Adam and his wife had trusted that, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.

Good, then it wasn't anything I did . What would happen if your discussion with the elder didn't alleviate your doubts?
And does your research include materials not provided by the Watchtower?

I have several sources that I consult. If someone presents me with a scripture, I first of all look it up in a few different translations to see how the passage is rendered in each. Then I go to Strongs Concordance to ascertain how the words are translated and what they mean in the original language, then I see how it is used in other parts of scripture.
We have an online library that is also helpful when we have doubts.

Listening to apostates is not something I would do as they twist everything to make their own points seem valid. A closer examination of their scriptural "evidence" when compared with the rest of the Bible quickly points out the flaws in their reasoning.

If someone has been influenced to turn their back on their faith, or they believe that they can find the truth elsewhere, then we must let them go. If they become apostate, we will have no dealings with them. If they are just spiritually weak, we will try to strengthen them. Not everyone who leaves is wicked...some are just tired of fighting the things that satan keeps throwing at us. The devil said we would give anything in exchange for our life....that we would turn our back on God and even curse him. (Job 2:4) In the case of a blood transfusion, that is not true. We will not have blood no matter if it was the most life saving thing on the planet. (which we now know it isn't)

As for letting kids feel the consequences of their choices, that is a valuable teaching tool and one i used a lot. Naturally, though, these consequences must be moderated depending on the age of the child - particularly, the age at which the choice was made. i don't think you addressed my thoughts on allowing young children to be baptised, or did i miss it?

I think I must have missed that one.....sorry.

Sometimes baptism is seen as a sort of protection because one will think twice about disobeying Jehovah's laws when they know what the consequences are. God used the law as a deterrent for his people so that others would not follow a similar path. But at the end of the day, a child is responsible before Jehovah to uphold his commands as much as an adult is. A child is considered as under the protective care of a parent until they reach an age of accountability. That is not a chronological age, but one where a child knows right from wrong and can make informed decisions. No child is considered for baptism unless they are mature and know what their dedication means. We had a study about that just recently. It is an important step, and one NOT to be made lightly. Children are like adults, there are some who grow up and mature early and others who don't mature till much later. I know some adults who have never matured at all.

What it indicates to me - a rather harsh way of putting things? Nevertheless, I agree that unless we understand where we err and the consequences, we cannot grow beyond that and are likely to 'do it again'. It seems that by saying 'we can take nothing for granted' you are agreeing that it's very difficult for one person to assess anothers' repentance.

"Producing the fruits" to me means that it will be obvious that someone is sorry for the things they have done. It will be obvious in their conduct. The elders will have kept a watchful eye on a disfellowshipped person to ascertain a change in attitude. They want the erring one to come back into the family, (as we all do) so their concern is for a good outcome, not more judgment.

"his countenance was downcast and his attitude was humble" Really? Does it say that in your Bible??

Here's how it reads in the NIV

I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father.

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him

He was repentant, I agree, but no human father could have been sure of that. Even if he approached as you said, he could have been fearful of being turned away, or just suffering sore feet. Yet his father did not wait to establish how sorry he was before offering love and forgiveness.
And that I believe is the example we should follow.

Seeing as how this is a parable and the father in this story represents God, the Father already knew the condition of his son's heart. Parables are a teaching aid to help us understand things a little better. This one demonstrates that even when one is far off from coming "home", Jehovah knows that they have begun their journey and will run to meet that one, walking back with them, so to speak. Because our elders are appointed to their positions after many years of qualifying, we trust that God will guide them by his spirit to do the right thing by someone who might be starting their journey back. Their actions are always a matter of intense prayer and Jehovah is the one who sorts the sheep from the goats in this process.

 

[Deeje]

I'm very loving. I make sure to tell them before, during (especially during), and after. LOL!

Well I guess that makes it OK then.

Fire away.

 

[Pudding]

Let's see, if the JW church disfellowship a follower X who insists a new light revelation into the scripture which will involve on moral/rule changing which disagree by the church because God's old revelation for the church is contradict with God's new revelation for X. To the church, X is misguided; to X, church is misguided.

If the person being disfellowship is not X but Y, X will probably said it's impossible for the church to be misguided because God is in guiding, then Y say the church is misguided and God have make new revelation to him to help the church living more close to God.
If the disfellowship JW open a new denomination of JW church, bingo, new variation for JW church born.

Then perhaps some of those JW variations will say that only their version is guiding by God and truthful. Only the people who follow their version, is true christian. All other variation which contradict with their version, is misguided...

That is how exclusivity religion works according to some believer...
No problem, when and if the end comes, maybe God will told everyone whose version correct whose version false, who is true christian, we'll see whose version will win in the end, and sympathy for those who lose. Or other different situation is present by God.

Until the end comes, new denomination and revelation/light may continue to show up, many people preach to each other whose right whose wrong and try to convert other people to their denomination or what they believe is true.

Meanwhile people may use their beliefs version of God's moral/law to impose on others whether it's upon theist or atheist, intention is to help people avoid damnation/punishment/consequences and to help everyone to follow God to receive reward for doing so.

Thanks God for this revelation test for humanity, if God exists...

Everyone should have faith that God will sort the controversy out, assume if God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and he have the plan and willing to sorting out the controversy which is directly and indirectly created by him, assume if God exists.

Let the debate and preaching be continue...

Lets see who'll win in the end.

Oops, before the end comes, many people have die because of aging.

Waiting, still waiting when will the end comes, when will God comes to told us who win, if God exists.

Preaching, debate, continue...

 

[Shak34]

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.

I love it, don't quote something from the 40's, but let's quote from the bible which is even older.

That "something from the 40's" was from the words of men....informative and faith strengthening at the time, but subject to change as our understanding increases.....the Bible is the word of God. We don't view the Watchtower as scripture. Like I said...how about something from this century?

The bible was also written by men, there is no tangible proof that God played any role in it. To tell me to use something from this century and then turn around and quote the bible is preposterous.

 

[Purusha]

Today news:

2,234 Indians Contracted HIV Due To Blood Transfusions In 17 Months.....Absolutely TRAGIC

http://www.scoopwhoop.com/RTI-Query...ve-Contracted-HIV-Through-Blood-In-17-Months/

If there are alternatives to transfusions, government should push it..

 

[Deeje]

Today news:

2,234 Indians Contracted HIV Due To Blood Transfusions In 17 Months.....Absolutely TRAGIC

http://www.scoopwhoop.com/RTI-Query...ve-Contracted-HIV-Through-Blood-In-17-Months/

If there are alternatives to transfusions, government should push it..

There have been alternatives to transfusions for years, but blood is big business and most doctors are dictated to by their peers and medical schools who often have vested financial interests in promoting medicine that makes money. They will be reluctant to admit that this practice is not as safe as they first thought because it may well make them accountable for many unnecessary deaths.

 

[Deeje]

The bible was also written by men, there is no tangible proof that God played any role in it. To tell me to use something from this century and then turn around and quote the bible is preposterous.

To quote your descriptor here...."Don't deny the possibility of a higher power" it appears as if you do. That "higher power" inspired the book you disparage.
By the time you see the "proof"...it will not be necessary. Faith requires no proof.

 

[Olinda]

What doctrines did you reject (apart from blood transfusions)?


Yes we are...we are required to assist those related to us in the faith and any others that we can personally assist like the good Samaritan.

Anyone in the medical profession will tell you that old habits die hard with many doctors. It opens up a legal can of worms too if the procedure they have been performing all this time actually contributes to mortality and morbidity. Sweep it under the carpet and pretend that its not there and voila! It doesn't exist. It always takes great courage to change medical mindsets. Look at the guy who suggested that stomach ulcers were the result of a bacterial infection....he was almost howled down and cast out as an idiot. Thank goodness some doctors and researchers listened and ran trials. Many people who suffered with ulcers for years were completely cured after a simple course of the right anti-biotics.

I couldn't agree more....its just that the strongest "side" has their fingers firmly planted in their ears.



Like everything man does, the pendulum always swings too far the other way. We never seem to be able to achieve a balance.

What doctrines did you reject (apart from blood transfusions)?

The biggie was having to believe whatever the Governing Body said (until they changed it), but I'm happy to discuss any individual doctrines. Another thread maybe?

Yes we are...we are required to assist those related to us in the faith and any others that we can personally assist like the good Samaritan.

'Any others that we can personally assist' - how does that work? do you have guidelines as to the type or amount of assistance?

We are not interested in helping people who can help themselves, but just want handouts or free stuff. The churches have enough of those as they grimly keep providing for lazy people who don't want to improve their lives at all. They just have their hands out for all they can get for nothing. We will help any sincere person to get back on their feet but we are not interested in perpetuating a faulty mindset.

And how does that make you special? Do you really think the rest of the world is so different? perhaps you could provide an example of churches "grimly providing for lazy people" because I don't know of any.

Anyone in the medical profession will tell you that old habits die hard with many doctors. It opens up a legal can of worms too if the procedure they have been performing all this time actually contributes to mortality and morbidity. Sweep it under the carpet and pretend that its not there and voila! It doesn't exist. It always takes great courage to change medical mindsets. Look at the guy who suggested that stomach ulcers were the result of a bacterial infection....he was almost howled down and cast out as an idiot. Thank goodness some doctors and researchers listened and ran trials. Many people who suffered with ulcers for years were completely cured after a simple course of the right anti-biotics.

Sure, all branches of the sciences have diehards. I'll even give you another great medical example: google "Ignaz Semmelweiss".
However, it only takes 'great courage' if you are a medical researcher and/or practitioner. Producing publicity is far safer. Also, this didn't really address my reply so I'll repeat:

You then provided three links. Unlike you (with the links provided by Kelly of the Phoenix) I read them. What is clear is that the Watchtower is 'seeding' articles, supporting a website (noblood.org) and conducting large-scale meetings to encourage and publicise alternatives to transfusions. And why would all this be necessary if there were a genuine 'groundswell'?

Do you still live in the country? Have you ever lived in a big city? I have lived in both and I know what a struggle many parents are having with communication between themselves and their children, especially in large cities where both parents have to work to even afford somewhere to live. But, today's kids are a breed apart...they are the most self-centered generation many people older generations have seen. Teachers, school bus drivers and others who have dealings with today's kids will tell you that its really hard to manage them when they have no discipline and no respect for any authority.

I do live in a large city and have worked in the CBD for 40 years. I don't know any such self-centered children as you describe, although I was in close touch with many of my children's friends and classmates. I'm sure some exist. Children now as always, are profoundly affected by parenting and environment.

We have created these monsters through ill thought out laws. "The International Rights of the Child Charter" passed through the UN in the 80's was ratified by many nations who thought it would do some good. It was supposed to prevent the exploitation of children in poorer nations, but that exploitation and the poverty that drives it, continues in those nations to this day.

The charter is ratified by a country so that it can be used internally as a basis for laws and policies. It doesn't in the least affect how a poorer country either ratifies or applies it.

All it did in developed nations was a produce a bunch of brats who had all the rights in the world, but could not be held accountable for anything. The law is on their side and they know it. A minor child now can leave home with financial support from the government, and live with whomever they wish and their parents can't do nothing about it. The law no longer protects them from moral danger and their parents can't make them come home where they will be looked after and kept safe.

Please tell me which specific provision of the charter is addressed and which laws and/or policies were changed based upon it. As far as I know minor children could always seek refuge and support if it was not provided in the family home. Maybe an example?

 

[Milton Platt]

For decades now Jehovah's Witnesses have copped a fair amount of criticism for their refusal to accept blood transfusions for religious reasons. For those who believe that blood transfusions are the life saving procedure that they are claimed to be, please watch this video so that the facts can be brought to the public's attention. This is information provided by the Australian Government, not by Jehovah's Witnesses.

https://www.blood.gov.au/media

The video is not advocating that absolutely no transfusions be done. It is suggesting that it is over-used or used in situations where it may be unnecessary. JW's refuse blood on religious grounds for ANY reasons, not on scientific grounds. My own life was saved with transfusions, otherwise I would have "bled out" and died. It also only talks about red blood cell transfusion. It does not address plasma transfusions at all. There are inherent risks in all medical intervention. People sometimes die from complications of heart surgery or bone marrow and organ transplants too, but they would have died with certainty without the surgery. What was lost??? Also, one would need to see the research paper, as they video did not demonstrate a definite causal link to the transfusions, only a correlation. There is a difference.

 

[Shak34]

That "something from the 40's" was from the words of men....informative and faith strengthening at the time, but subject to change as our understanding increases.....the Bible is the word of God. We don't view the Watchtower as scripture. Like I said...how about something from this century?

The bible was also written by men, there is no tangible proof that God played any role in it. To tell me to use something from this century and then turn around and quote the bible is preposterous.

To quote your descriptor here...."Don't deny the possibility of a higher power" it appears as if you do. That "higher power" inspired the book you disparage.
By the time you see the "proof"...it will not be necessary. Faith requires no proof.

That still doesn't mean that a possible higher power played a role in the bible. Just because faith doesn't require proof, it doesn't mean it is correct.

 

[blue taylor]

There have been alternatives to transfusions for years, but blood is big business and most doctors are dictated to by their peers and medical schools who often have vested financial interests in promoting medicine that makes money. They will be reluctant to admit that this practice is not as safe as they first thought because it may well make them accountable for many unnecessary deaths.

There have been alternatives to religion for years, but religion is big business and most religious lesders are directed to, by their peers and theological schools, who often have a vested financial interests in promoting a religion that makes money. They will be reluctant to admit that this religious practice is not as fullproof as they first thought because it may well make them accountable for many millions of lost dollars used for the wrong purpose.

Not plagiarism. Just satire.

 

[Olinda]

Well actually, he is one of those parents who says, "don't do that because...." but if you disobey him he allows you to feel and see the consequences of your own actions.

Ever tried to defy the law of gravity? It lets you know painfully and immediately that the law means what it says. Sometime you get away with a bit of pain and a little skin off...other times you can be permanently maimed and still other times you might lose your life. God doesn't dictate the outcome but simply issues the warning. His laws are always for our good...if Adam and his wife had trusted that, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.



If someone has been influenced to turn their back on their faith, or they believe that they can find the truth elsewhere, then we must let them go. If they become apostate, we will have no dealings with them. If they are just spiritually weak, we will try to strengthen them. Not everyone who leaves is wicked...some are just tired of fighting the things that satan keeps throwing at us. The devil said we would give anything in exchange for our life....that we would turn our back on God and even curse him. (Job 2:4) In the case of a blood transfusion, that is not true. We will not have blood no matter if it was the most life saving thing on the planet. (which we now know it isn't)



I think I must have missed that one.....sorry.

Well actually, he is one of those parents who says, "don't do that because...." but if you disobey him he allows you to feel and see the consequences of your own actions.
Ever tried to defy the law of gravity? It lets you know painfully and immediately that the law means what it says.

So, a controlling parent with an electric fence around the yard . How does such parenting raise responsible adults (we've already discussed letting kids experience consequences as a parenting tool so no need to rehash).

I have several sources that I consult. If someone presents me with a scripture, I first of all look it up in a few different translations to see how the passage is rendered in each. Then I go to Strongs Concordance to ascertain how the words are translated and what they mean in the original language, then I see how it is used in other parts of scripture.
We have an online library that is also helpful when we have doubts.

So I understand that to resolve doubts you use internal Watchtower resources and Strong's Concordance, is that right? What if it is not about a particular scripture?

Listening to apostates is not something I would do as they twist everything to make their own points seem valid. A closer examination of their scriptural "evidence" when compared with the rest of the Bible quickly points out the flaws in their reasoning.

But I was asking generally about non-Watchtower resources, because you would not look up references to current medical journals. Do you assume all of these to be produced by apostates?

Sometimes baptism is seen as a sort of protection because one will think twice about disobeying Jehovah's laws when they know what the consequences are. God used the law as a deterrent for his people so that others would not follow a similar path. But at the end of the day, a child is responsible before Jehovah to uphold his commands as much as an adult is. A child is considered as under the protective care of a parent until they reach an age of accountability. That is not a chronological age, but one where a child knows right from wrong and can make informed decisions. No child is considered for baptism unless they are mature and know what their dedication means. We had a study about that just recently. It is an important step, and one NOT to be made lightly. Children are like adults, there are some who grow up and mature early and others who don't mature till much later. I know some adults who have never matured at all.

I understand that "knowing right from wrong" is a biblical concept not related to a specific age. Nevertheless a child is not capable of making informed decisions that affect her/his entire life because of the lack of development and experience. That's why minors are not permitted to marry, for instance. Allowing, encouraging a child to make a massive commitment such as baptism and then holding him/her accountable when they later cannot live in accordance with those promises is simply wrong.

"Producing the fruits" to me means that it will be obvious that someone is sorry for the things they have done. It will be obvious in their conduct. The elders will have kept a watchful eye on a disfellowshipped person to ascertain a change in attitude. They want the erring one to come back into the family, (as we all do) so their concern is for a good outcome, not more judgment.

That sounds nice.

Seeing as how this is a parable and the father in this story represents God, the Father already knew the condition of his son's heart. Parables are a teaching aid to help us understand things a little better. This one demonstrates that even when one is far off from coming "home", Jehovah knows that they have begun their journey and will run to meet that one, walking back with them, so to speak. Because our elders are appointed to their positions after many years of qualifying, we trust that God will guide them by his spirit to do the right thing by someone who might be starting their journey back. Their actions are always a matter of intense prayer and Jehovah is the one who sorts the sheep from the goats in this process.

Thanks, I know what a parable is, and there are many aspects to interpreting and understanding it. For instance, do you identify the older brother with Israel? The father in the story can indeed represent God the Father, but I've also seen the 'Prodigal Son' video produced by the Watchtower where the actions of the biological father exactly mirror the parable. When the son returned to his home his father dashed out into the rain to embrace him and bring him inside. He did not stop to check whether the son was 'truly repentant' did he?

 

[Shak34]

The biggie was having to believe whatever the Governing Body said (until they changed it), but I'm happy to discuss any individual doctrines. Another thread maybe?

I know that I am not part if this conversation, but I am curious. What do you mean until they changed it?

 

[Deeje]

The biggie was having to believe whatever the Governing Body said (until they changed it), but I'm happy to discuss any individual doctrines. Another thread maybe?

Always happy to discuss individual doctrine...fire away.

'Any others that we can personally assist' - how does that work? do you have guidelines as to the type or amount of assistance?

That is left up to individuals, but because we are out in our work all the time, opportunities open up on a daily basis. We don't blow a trumpet about it because it isn't what we are primarily about....we are first and foremost preachers and teachers like Jesus was. He was sent exclusively to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" so the ones he helped were his own fellow believers. When it was time to open up the way for gentiles to come on board, then opportunity was extended to those of other faiths, to come into our community.

And how does that make you special? Do you really think the rest of the world is so different? perhaps you could provide an example of churches "grimly providing for lazy people" because I don't know of any.

I have seen this with my own eyes and heard it from those who operate church charities in my area. They have something called "Hope Fellowship" here where addicts and people who are living less than good lives can come for help and counseling, but they provided coffee and cake and other freebies afterwards so the majority of those who showed up don't listen to the counseling but stay around for the free handouts. They have no intention of altering their lifestyle or coming to God in any way.

I do live in a large city and have worked in the CBD for 40 years. I don't know any such self-centered children as you describe, although I was in close touch with many of my children's friends and classmates. I'm sure some exist. Children now as always, are profoundly affected by parenting and environment.

I absolutely agree, but the parenting and environment have changed radically in the last decade or so. Parents have no rights over their children's activities and the environment in which they are being raised is polluted, physically, socially, morally and spiritually. Who can survive in such an environment and remain unscathed? Very few.

The charter is ratified by a country so that it can be used internally as a basis for laws and policies. It doesn't in the least affect how a poorer country either ratifies or applies it.

Once something becomes "law" the common person has no rights to oppose it. The Bible warns about an international body that will enshrine laws that will take away the freedom of every person on this planet. It has been talked about for decades (The New World Order or Globalization or now Federalism) but the Bible foretells times of great distress in connection with it. (Matthew 24:21)

Please tell me which specific provision of the charter is addressed and which laws and/or policies were changed based upon it. As far as I know minor children could always seek refuge and support if it was not provided in the family home. Maybe an example?

Have you not seen news items on current events programs in recent years where parents were forced to kidnap their own teenage children in order to being them home? They were living in awful situations. All these children had to do was spin a sob story to Centrelink about being abused and they could leave home with full financial support from the government. These kids have rights under law that came at the expense of the rights of their parents. Government departments are trying to cope with the demand in child welfare cases but they are swamped. Parents are now more more responsible for contributing to the problem, than they are for solving it.

https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsi...ticles/australias-children-safe-and-well?HTML