Jehovah's Witneses

[AmbiguousGuy]

isnt that what Jesus wanted us to do...to imitate him means that we must look, act and think as he does.

there is no room for different opinions in christinity...we must do it Jesus way, and his way is the only way.

For what it's worth, your description strikes me as the very opposite of spirituality. I can't imagine a God who would want all of His creations to march in lockstep. Instead, he would most value those who struggled fiercely and honestly to search for Him, ignoring any mental authority which tried to control their search.

In other words, my God loves the individual and despises groupthink.

Just for whatever it's worth to you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

isnt that what Jesus wanted us to do...to imitate him means that we must look, act and think as he does.

there is no room for different opinions in christinity...we must do it Jesus way, and his way is the only way.

So Romans 14 isn't in your Bible?

How we individually reason on this and what we choose to do is a conscience matter...that means that what I 'feel is right' is what I should do, and if someone feels it is wrong, then they need to refrain from doing what i would do.
We have to live by reason of our own conscience and not the consciences of others.

If you're going to jeopardize your own life, that's your business. I think it's foolish to do so, and I think it's an unsound position based on twisting certain Bible passages and ignoring others, but I wouldn't force you, an adult of sound mind who has made a free and informed choice, to go against that choice.

However, I think that children are a different matter altogether. It's one thing for you to risk yourself; it's another thing to risk the life of someone else.

 

[Sha'irullah]

There are too many JW's in my area and I purely despise them on the grounds of being annoying and unbearable to talk to.

This does not mean I hate them I just hate the preachy ones . But I will not admit they give a cultish impression. No offense

 

[savagewind]

9-10ths_Penguin I think that children are a different matter altogether. It's one thing for you to risk yourself; it's another thing to risk the life of someone else.

Pegg We have to live by reason of our own conscience and not the consciences of others.

I believe a person should live by her own conscious according to what she knows is right. But I don't think that is what Jehovah's Witnesses do. Conscience defined is acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior. Jehovah's Witnesses do not allow themselves to be guided by themselves. They are guided by the faithful and discreet slave who is guided by The Bible. They do not instill a good conscience in their children so the children might be guided by their own good conscious. (By which I will be the first to admit it is the hardest job in the history of the world to accomplish). They inculcate trust for the faithful and discreet slave in their children.

 

[Pegg]

So Romans 14 isn't in your Bible?


If you're going to jeopardize your own life, that's your business. I think it's foolish to do so, and I think it's an unsound position based on twisting certain Bible passages and ignoring others, but I wouldn't force you, an adult of sound mind who has made a free and informed choice, to go against that choice.

However, I think that children are a different matter altogether. It's one thing for you to risk yourself; it's another thing to risk the life of someone else.

I appreciate your concern, but dont be. Blood as a therapy is just one approach to blood loss....there are many other forms of therapy which work even better. We've rejected blood transfusions for over 100 years because the bible tells us to... doctors are only just catching on about the benefits of not using blood and they are beginning to push more of the bloodless technology that we readily use. Gods Word always trumps aces.

Even the US Military are taking it up.
[youtube]JAWhRqCjT9w[/youtube]
U.S Military Doctors Learn Bloodless Surgery Methods - YouTube

 

[averageJOE]

I appreciate your concern, but dont be. Blood as a therapy is just one approach to blood loss....there are many other forms of therapy which work even better. We've rejected blood transfusions for over 100 years because the bible tells us to... doctors are only just catching on about the benefits of not using blood and they are beginning to push more of the bloodless technology that we readily use. Gods Word always trumps aces.

Even the US Military are taking it up.
[youtube]JAWhRqCjT9w[/youtube]
U.S Military Doctors Learn Bloodless Surgery Methods - YouTube

That video leaves out so much on how the military operates it's hard to take seriously.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I appreciate your concern, but dont be. Blood as a therapy is just one approach to blood loss....there are many other forms of therapy which work even better.

There are many "tools" in the medical "toolbox". The fact that one approach works in some cases doesn't mean a different approach isn't better - or even necessary - in other cases.

We've rejected blood transfusions for over 100 years because the bible tells us to...

No, you haven't and no, it doesn't.

The doctrine against blood transfusions wasn't established until 1945, and when it was, it was from a bizarre, contradictory interpretation that blood is "eaten" when it's transfused, but then ignores the passages in the New Testament that say it's permissible to eat anything.

doctors are only just catching on about the benefits of not using blood and they are beginning to push more of the bloodless technology that we readily use. Gods Word always trumps aces.

The fact that a screwdriver is a useful tool doesn't mean I don't need a hammer. The fact that sometimes bloodless surgery is useful doesn't mean that blood transfusions are never necessary.

 

[Pegg]

There are many "tools" in the medical "toolbox". The fact that one approach works in some cases doesn't mean a different approach isn't better - or even necessary - in other cases.

No, you haven't and no, it doesn't.

The doctrine against blood transfusions wasn't established until 1945, and when it was, it was from a bizarre, contradictory interpretation that blood is "eaten" when it's transfused, but then ignores the passages in the New Testament that say it's permissible to eat anything.


The fact that a screwdriver is a useful tool doesn't mean I don't need a hammer. The fact that sometimes bloodless surgery is useful doesn't mean that blood transfusions are never necessary.

basically you are saying that parents and individuals dont have the right to make decisions on their own medical treatment.

We just have to sit back and let others make the decisions for us?

A sad case (which was not an isolated case) was in Puerto Rico, in November of 1976, 45-year-old Ana Paz de Rosario agreed to surgery and needed medication but requested that because of her religious beliefs, no blood be used. Nevertheless, armed with a court order, five policemen and three nurses went to her hospital room after midnight, strapped her to the bed, and forced a blood transfusion on her, contrary to her wishes and those of her husband and children. She went into shock and died.

Who's responsible for her death in that case? Who takes responsibility for all the many deaths that have occured because of contaminated blood?

Its only the person, who receives the blood who must live, or die, with the consequences so it should never be forced on someone who doesnt want it.


but if thats the sort of world you want to live in you can do that... i dont want to live in that sort of world where I dont have control over my own body.


(and your are right, it was around the 40's that the transfustion issue had to be addressed formally. But the reasoning was that the biblical law required that any blood removed from a body should be disposed of as a sign of respect for life. And various christians all through the centuries have held to that view...even Issac Newton mentioned it in some of his writings. )

 

[Philomath]

There are too many JW's in my area and I purely despise them on the grounds of being annoying and unbearable to talk to.

This does not mean I hate them I just hate the preachy ones . But I will not admit they give a cultish impression. No offense

Unlucky or maybe lucky me. I've never met a Jehovah's Witness is my life . In fact I've never had door to door proselytization happen to me....maybe it's because of where I live lol.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

basically you are saying that parents and individuals dont have the right to make decisions on their own medical treatment.

We just have to sit back and let others make the decisions for us?

No, I'm saying that you shouldn't have the right to kill your children.

I don't even think you should have the right to kill them even if you think it's really, really important to do so, or even if you incorrectly think your choices won't kill them.

A sad case (which was not an isolated case) was in Puerto Rico, in November of 1976, 45-year-old Ana Paz de Rosario agreed to surgery and needed medication but requested that because of her religious beliefs, no blood be used. Nevertheless, armed with a court order, five policemen and three nurses went to her hospital room after midnight, strapped her to the bed, and forced a blood transfusion on her, contrary to her wishes and those of her husband and children. She went into shock and died.

I already said that I support the right of adults of sound mind to choose to do foolish things that will kill them or to refuse medical care for themselves for NY reason, including silly ones.

But since we're swapping stories, here's one for you:

In 2004, a 6-week old baby died of starvation. His parents were ardent vegans who, for reasons of conscience, refused to feed him any sort of animal product, including breast milk. For the six weeks of his life, they only fed him soy milk and apple juice while he lost weight from malnourishment until, eventually, he succumbed. The parents were charged and convicted with various forms of homicide and cruelty to children and were sentenced to life in prison.

Vegan couple gets life over baby's death - US news - Crime & courts | NBC News

Do you think the parents should have been charged?

Its only the person, who receives the blood who must live, or die, with the consequences so it should never be forced on someone who doesnt want it.

but if thats the sort of world you want to live in you can do that... i dont want to live in that sort of world where I dont have control over my own body.

And if we're talking about your right as an adult of sound mind, I agree. You should be free to make whatever foolish choices you want as long as they don't hurt anyone else (though keeping in mind that at a certain level of foolishness, that "sound mind" assumption gets called into question).

What I object to is the idea of you imposing your choice on others, such as children who don't have the legal right to choose for themselves.

... and I think it's telling that you keep dancing around this issue and trying to spin it into a discussion of your rights rather than the child's rights.

(and your are right, it was around the 40's that the transfustion issue had to be addressed formally. But the reasoning was that the biblical law required that any blood removed from a body should be disposed of as a sign of respect for life.

Exactly where in "Biblical law" does it say that blood removed from a body should be disposed of? And if this really was the case, then why would the Watchtower Society approve of products made from certain blood fractions?

Also, do you eat bacon?

And various christians all through the centuries have held to that view...even Issac Newton mentioned it in some of his writings. )

Isaac Newton was a brilliant physicist and mathematician, but also held completely wacky ideas about alchemy and, from the accounts I've heard, was a vindictive, bitter man and a ruthless social climber. He had some revolutionary ideas, but I don't think it's reasonable to hold him up as some sort of epitome of clear thought.

 

[Muffled]

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 don't like that scripture is vastly misinterpreted and then defended as though it had to be right because they are JW's. I don't like the study methods which don't allow for free exploration of the Bible and propmote false teaching.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't like that scripture is vastly misinterpreted and then defended as though it had to be right because they are JW's. I don't like the study methods which don't allow for free exploration of the Bible and propmote false teaching.

It's the same thing as all Christians say about virtually all other Christians, especially Christians outside of their own denomination.

The other guy is misinterpreting the scripture.

Me, I like people who think differently than I do. Maybe that's the basic difference between the faithful and the freethinkers.

 

[savagewind]

and I think it's telling that you keep dancing around this issue and trying to spin it into a discussion of your rights rather than the child's rights.

Also, the grandparent's rights. It is possible and very likely that a pregnant Jehovah's Witness has parents who are not JW. If the pregnant woman sadly must have an emergency delivery and the situation is critical because she is losing too much blood, and the baby might die, but she and her husband refuse blood because the Bible seems to say they should and the governing body says they should, how will the mother and father of the lady feel? At peace with God? Absolutely not!

The prohibition of blood in The Bible seems to be present to discourage greedy cruelty. I bet my right to post that many people believe the Jehovah's Witness "DOCTRINE" that prohibits blood transfusions is cruel. But cruelty is what it was meant to prevent imho.

 

[Philomath]

Originally Posted by CarrieBethplus4
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'm not opposed to the JW. But from what I've seen it seems very cult like.

 

[sojourner]

basically you are saying that parents and individuals dont have the right to make decisions on their own medical treatment.

We just have to sit back and let others make the decisions for us?

A sad case (which was not an isolated case) was in Puerto Rico, in November of 1976, 45-year-old Ana Paz de Rosario agreed to surgery and needed medication but requested that because of her religious beliefs, no blood be used. Nevertheless, armed with a court order, five policemen and three nurses went to her hospital room after midnight, strapped her to the bed, and forced a blood transfusion on her, contrary to her wishes and those of her husband and children. She went into shock and died.

Who's responsible for her death in that case? Who takes responsibility for all the many deaths that have occured because of contaminated blood?

Its only the person, who receives the blood who must live, or die, with the consequences so it should never be forced on someone who doesnt want it.


but if thats the sort of world you want to live in you can do that... i dont want to live in that sort of world where I dont have control over my own body.


(and your are right, it was around the 40's that the transfustion issue had to be addressed formally. But the reasoning was that the biblical law required that any blood removed from a body should be disposed of as a sign of respect for life. And various christians all through the centuries have held to that view...even Issac Newton mentioned it in some of his writings. )

Yeah, well, when I was born, I had to have two complete blood transfusions -- whole blood, mind you -- or I would have died.

All I can say is, I'm glad my folks weren't JWs.

 

[averageJOE]

(and your are right, it was around the 40's that the transfustion issue had to be addressed formally. But the reasoning was that the biblical law required that any blood removed from a body should be disposed of as a sign of respect for life. And various christians all through the centuries have held to that view...even Issac Newton mentioned it in some of his writings. )

By this then it can be argued that even bloodless surgeries violate your biblical law.

 

[Shiranui117]

I appreciate your concern, but dont be. Blood as a therapy is just one approach to blood loss....there are many other forms of therapy which work even better. We've rejected blood transfusions for over 100 years because the bible tells us to... doctors are only just catching on about the benefits of not using blood and they are beginning to push more of the bloodless technology that we readily use. Gods Word always trumps aces.

Even the US Military are taking it up.
[youtube]JAWhRqCjT9w[/youtube]
U.S Military Doctors Learn Bloodless Surgery Methods - YouTube

That is a really cool thing. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Pegg]

And if we're talking about your right as an adult of sound mind, I agree. You should be free to make whatever foolish choices you want as long as they don't hurt anyone else (though keeping in mind that at a certain level of foolishness, that "sound mind" assumption gets called into question).

What I object to is the idea of you imposing your choice on others, such as children who don't have the legal right to choose for themselves.

legally, it is the parents who must choose for their children... thats why children are called 'dependants'

They are dependent on their parents for everything and parents are given the right and responsibility to provide their care and make their decisions until they come of age.

Are you suggesting that some stranger should be given the rights over your child?

Exactly where in "Biblical law" does it say that blood removed from a body should be disposed of? And if this really was the case, then why would the Watchtower Society approve of products made from certain blood fractions?

Deut 12:15*“Only whenever your soul craves it you may slaughter, and you must eat meat according to the blessing of Jehovah your God that he has given you, inside all your gates. The unclean one and the clean one may eat it, like the gazelle and like the stag. 16*Only the blood YOU must not eat. On the earth you should pour it out as water


Leviticus 17:13*“‘As for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust


Genesis 9:3*Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. 4*Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat. 5*And, besides that, YOUR blood of YOUR souls shall I ask back. From the hand of every living creature shall I ask it back

Also, do you eat bacon?

Read Genesis 9:3 again. This was Gods permission to Noah...'all' flesh was permissible to eat. That would include pork.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

They are dependent on their parents for everything and parents are given the right and responsibility to provide their care and make their decisions until they come of age.

Are you suggesting that some stranger should be given the rights over your child?

It happens all the time when parents are judged to be dangerous to their children.

 

[illykitty]

Well I don't really have anything against them. I knew someone that was one and she was really nice. She spoke to everyone and wasn't cutting people out, heck her husband isn't a Witness, afaik. People thought she was strange because she didn't celebrate things but it's no reason to look down on someone. Faith is really important to some people. Some of their beliefs make a lot of sense to me, in a Christian context.

I do however question the Watchtower, I'm a little iffy about them.