Jehovah's Witneses

[Pegg]

But transfusion is not "drinking".

The only consumption of transfused blood occurs when it is broken down and reabsorbed by your body, but your body does this with your own blood as well.

your definition of 'consumption' is obviously different to mine.

your definition seems to be saying that a person who 'eats through the mouth' is consuming... but a person who 'injects through the veins' is not actually consuming the product.

Would you say that a person who injects heroin through the veins is not actually 'consuming' that drug?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

your definition of 'consumption' is obviously different to mine.

your definition seems to be saying that a person who 'eats through the mouth' is consuming... but a person who 'injects through the veins' is not actually consuming the product.

No, the blood eventually gets consumed... but so does the blood that your own body produces. Both are blood, both are consumed, so if you have a problem with the consumption of blood, then you have a problem with your innate physiology.

Would you say that a person who injects heroin through the veins is not actually 'consuming' that drug?

Would you say that he's drinking it?

 

[Pegg]

Would you say that he's drinking it?

i would say he is certainly not 'abstaining' from it

 

[Blackdog22]

we take this stand because we cherish our life and we acknowledge that our life is only possible because God permits us to exist. So willfully disobey his laws is pointless because death is the result of disobedience.

obedience leads to life though.

Sounds more like you are somewhat suicidal and consider death meaningless because it, "isn't a dead end."
Why would God give us life only to let us die from a disease that can be prevented by blood transfusion? How is that cherishing life? You would die, not live, you wouldn't be cherishing much.

You say willfully disobeying his laws results in death, yet people who get blood transfusions for anemia or after surgery have much better chances of survival. It appears reality directly contradicts your beliefs. How exactly do you make sense of that?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I've never really had anything against Jehovah's Witnesses, even though - as an atheist - people seem to expect me to be contractually obliged to spontaneously combust with rage as the prospect of being proselytyzed to on my own front door step. Thing is, I lived for two years around the corner from an evangelical church who used to frequet my front door step about once or twice a week. In comparison, the JW's were actually quite receptive and intelligent on the whole, and I always felt that - when I was in the mood - I could engage them happily in a debate, and when I wasn't in the mood they were usually gracious enough to leave me alone. Evangelists, on the other hand, tend to specialize in talking at people rather than talking with them. They were completely unreceptive to any argument I made, and most of their arguments were based on their ignorance of reality.

 

[Antiochian]

I believe Charles Taze Russell, like Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Aimee Semple McPherson, and others, was a fraud.

I believe the practice of disfellowshipping is cruel, at least as I understand it.

I'm sure there are plenty of good JW's. And bad ones, like in all religions. Nothing personal.

 

[Friend of Bill W]

Are JWs meant to hate apostates?

'Haters of God and his people are to be hated... We must hate in the truest sense, which is to regard with extreme and active aversion, to consider as loathsome, odious, filthy, to detest. ...Jehovah's enemies are recognized by their intense dislike for his people and the work these are doing.' Watchtower Oct 1, 1952, Page 599 par 11 - 13

Is this true?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are JWs meant to hate apostates?



Is this true?

Seeing how this has been edited down so heavily that it doesn't make grammatical sense any more, I know I'd want to see the full passage (and hopefully some context) before trying to decide what the intended meaning is.

 

[Pegg]

Seeing how this has been edited down so heavily that it doesn't make grammatical sense any more, I know I'd want to see the full passage (and hopefully some context) before trying to decide what the intended meaning is.

HATING JEHOVAH’S ENEMIES
10 The Lord Jesus said, “Continue to love your enemies.” (Matt. 5:44, NW) And he also said, “Every kind of sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven. For example, whoever speaks a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the holy spirit, it will not be forgiven him, no, not in the present system of things nor in that to come.” (Matt. 12:31, 32, NW) Men may condemn us and still may be forgiven. We do not love them for their hurtful works to us, but there must not be hatred toward them on this account. Rather the commandment is to pray for such persons. But the situation is entirely different when opposers get to a state of antagonism against God and the spirit, so that even regardless of the facts in evidence of Jehovah’s workmanship and power, they distort them and accuse God of wickedness....
11 Haters of God and his people are to be hated, but this does not mean that we will take any opportunity of bringing physical hurt to them in a spirit of malice or spite, for both malice and spite belong to the Devil, whereas pure hatred does not. We must hate in the truest sense, which is to regard with extreme and active aversion, to consider as loathsome, odious, filthy, to detest. Surely any haters of God are not fit to live on his beautiful earth. The earth will be rid of the wicked and we shall not need to lift a finger to cause physical harm to come to them, for God will attend to that, but we must have a proper perspective of these enemies. His name signifies recompense to the enemies.
12 What do you do with anything loathsome or repugnant that you detest and abhor? The answer is simple. You get away from it or remove it from your presence. You do not want to have anything at all to do with it. This must be exactly our attitude toward the haters of Jehovah.

we only put apostates in this class of people. Apostates are those who have been JW's and have turned away, not just leaving the organization, but actively fighting against it by their lying propaganda and twisting of the things we teach. they also seek to turn other interested people away and even try to make other JW's leave the organization by spreading lies and making up things that put the elders/governing body and organization in a bad light. There are many apostates active on the internet and a lot of the information 'Friend of Bill W' puts up come from those apostates.

 

[Kerr]

For Jehovah's Witnesses opposers, WHY?? Opinions welcome, but I want people to be able to use scriptures to back their argument. I have yet talked to someone who can give me good points.

I dont have an issue with Jehovahs Witnesses. But I voted on all the options, because I wanted to see if I could, and I could .

 

[4YAH80]

well I for one stay away because of the circular reasoning, the fact that they use the name "Jehovah"and the whole flip flopping doctrine and calling it "new light". I do not hate them, I just don't agree with them on most things. It wasn't until recently that I realized they were right about not celebrating the pagan holidays, but other than that....straight confusion.

 

[Alceste]

Reasons in order of importance to me:

They bother me at home.

They are far too repressive (no celebrating anything), which is very hard on their kids.

Their publications are anti-scientific and irrational.

They are very isolated and authoritarian, which gives them a cult-like quality.

I worked for a JW who gradually phased out all his employees and replaced them with people from his church. He didn't see anything wrong with that.

 

[Me Myself]

Arent they the ones who would let their children die if they need a transfusion?

If they are, how did that miss to be a poll option?

 

[Alceste]

Arent they the ones who would let their children die if they need a transfusion?

If they are, how did that miss to be a poll option?

Jeez, are they? I absolutely despise religions that abuse or neglect children in the name of their God. The JW kids I knew in school were so sad. They didn't choose their parents' religion, but they were never allowed to do anything fun with the other kids, which was alienating for them and made them obvious targets for bullying. If they were also not permitted medical care... Geesh.

 

[Ingledsva]

Reasons in order of importance to me:

They bother me at home.

They are far too repressive (no celebrating anything), which is very hard on their kids.

Their publications are anti-scientific and irrational.

They are very isolated and authoritarian, which gives them a cult-like quality.

I worked for a JW who gradually phased out all his employees and replaced them with people from his church. He didn't see anything wrong with that.

I agree with all of these.

They are definitely authoritarian. When we visited our step-grandparents we were told we had to dress in dresses, sit quietly and not speak, and not to move until the elder let us go. They were down right mean. Old school religious discipline, etc.

My stepfather hated his JW parents because they wouldn't allow certain procedures, or blood transfusions for his older brother when he was in an accident. He barely survived, and had mental and physical problems for the rest of his life.

I think the courts need to step in when injured kids are underage so they get the full medical help they need.

 

[Alceste]

I agree with all of these.

They are definitely authoritarian. When we visited our step-grandparents we were told we had to dress in dresses, sit quietly and not speak, and not to move until the elder let us go. They were down right mean. Old school religious discipline, etc.

My stepfather hated his JW parents because they wouldn't allow certain procedures, or blood transfusions for his older brother when he was in an accident. He barely survived, and had mental and physical problems for the rest of his life.

I think the courts need to step in when injured kids are underage so they get the full medical help they need.

I agree. There should be a line drawn between religious freedom and imposing your religious views on your dependents, to the detriment of their mental or physical health.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't have any particular dislike of JWs. As someone earlier mentioned, they are generally polite when knocking on doors, and listen as well as speak, which I can respect. I don't like door-knockers, full-stop, but I'd put them ahead of most in terms of being polite and unobtrusive. Certainly better than the utlities companies...

But, the refusal of transfusions for children is a problem for me. I have an overall issue with putting religious beliefs on children who aren't of an age to make their own minds up, and this is a fairly stark example of that.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I don't know, how often do JW's visit homes? There's a Kingdom Hall about 6 miles out of my area, maybe my town is considered too far for them to visit? They visited my area/home twice before in 17 years (my whole lifetime).

Or maybe they just try to avoid Jedi's

I don't hate JW's, I just mainly recognize their major factor of no holidays though

 

[ZooGirl02]

I checked the wrong option. I checked "Do not dislike at all." but I do dislike their religion. I believe it is false.

 

[sojourner]

I don't dislike JWs. I dislike their doctrine, because there is an absolutism to it that fosters iconoclasm and stifles the freedom of spiritual growth, wherever it differs from that doctrine. There is little space for diversity and its interweaving. It is, therefore, inhospitable, because it assumes that "everyone must look, act, and think as I do."