Now I'm curious (JW) Deal breaker

[Heyo]

Oh good grief.....what do you care if we choose to obey God? Is it any skin off your nose? Is it harming you or your children in any way? Who made you our judges?

Read my responses...I've explained all that I am going to.
Your ignorance is unbelievable.

Haters gonna hate.....

Did I judge you? Do you feel judged?
I was just summarizing your position, no judgement intended.
If I misrepresented your position, please clarify. What I pointed out, is what I was able to gather from your postings. Maybe you should strife for more pungent language if you get misunderstood that often?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh good grief.....what do you care if we choose to obey God? Is it any skin off your nose? Is it harming you or your children in any way? Who made you our judges?

Read my responses...I've explained all that I am going to.
Your ignorance is unbelievable.

Haters gonna hate.....

The problem is that you are not "obeying God". You are putting a strange twist on Bible interpretation and harming others with it. Your children do not belong to you. They are not property. And you should be the last person to call anyone ignorant.

 

[oldbadger]

Strange. People who argue that a fetus is not something the mother should be able to decide about also argue that they should be able to decide about a child's fate 'till they are 18, including letting them die.

Hi....... I don't think that they can now.
They may argue that they should have control, but most countries around here (UK.... that's you as well, isn't it?) have lifted that out of parental hands.

In Scotland it is unlawful even criminal, for parents to smack their children..... and Wales, I think. England must surely follow soon. I must tell you that I haven't studied any Childrens Acts and am not sure of the score, but it would be strange if parents (here) could not smack a child but could decide to forego an operation, or a medical procedure. That's homework for me, sometime.

 

[Heyo]

Hi....... I don't think that they can now.
They may argue that they should have control, but most countries around here (UK.... that's you as well, isn't it?) have lifted that out of parental hands.

Germany, but it's the same here. Children are protected by law, against corporal punishment, even by their parents and a doctor can override the parents will in an emergency or let the court override it.
A cult, the twelve tribes, made headlines when they had their children taken for defying schooling laws and beating their children (and bragging about it).

In Scotland it is unlawful even criminal, for parents to smack their children..... and Wales, I think. England must surely follow soon. I must tell you that I haven't studied any Childrens Acts and am not sure of the score, but it would be strange if parents (here) could not smack a child but could decide to forego an operation, or a medical procedure. That's homework for me, sometime.

My guess is that it's similar in all of the EU but it's different in the US. Children there are less protected from their parents.

 

[sojourner]

That is hilarious.....as if the Bible would say that 2000 years ago?

Both instances involve breaking God's law to save a life.....the Christian martyrs in effect put God's law before saving their own skin (or in this case the lives of their children). Remember the devil tested Job for the very same thing. (Job 2:3-5) What will a man give to save his own life? Jesus said if you save your life by breaking God's law, you will lose it. (post #19)

God's law on blood was restated three times in the scriptures. The first time with Noah when he was given permission to eat animal flesh, he was to bleed the animal before consuming it.....but it also included the shedding of human blood. (Genesis 9:3-6)
It was next mentioned in God's law to Israel. (Leviticus 17:10-12)
Then finally it was restated to the Christians, particularly the Gentile Christians who previously had no such prohibition. (Acts 15:28-29) It was equated with sexual immorality......no strangled animal could be consumed (not properly bled) and it was said they must "abstain" from blood. Could an alcoholic be told that if he keeps drinking he will die, but if he infuses it straight into his veins then that is OK?

Blood is sacred....and its use was only for the atonement of sin. Since feeding the body when food by mouth is not possible, intravenous feeding involves putting liquid nutrition straight into the veins. How then is a blood transfusion not the same as eating it? God makes his laws for a reason and to us, they are not negotiable.

You can do whatever you like.

So, you’re just conveniently ignoring Jesus’ teaching about such strict adherence to the letter of the Law while also conveniently ignoring certain of the Law that is more specific than the mention of blood as a medicinal tool.

Got it. ;-)

 

[Deeje]

If I misrepresented your position, please clarify. What I pointed out, is what I was able to gather from your postings.

You have represented my position as you have interpreted it. It is skewed and inaccurate, but don’t let the truth stand in the way of your bigotry. Just read what I have already written and take off the “hate” lenses. There are no issues with JW’s and blood transfusions anymore. It’s a dead topic because it no longer exists. This whole “let your children die“ thing is a load of emotional codswallop. We seek medical assistance because we do not want our children to die, and if blood is an issue for an outdated doctor, we will find one that is up to date and willing to respect our position. Thankfully, there are more of those today than in times past. Why would there be whole hospitals all over the world dedicated to non blood management of their patients if it was not beneficial to do so.
If you watched the video I posted from the Australian Government’s website (post#19) you will see and hear all you need to re-valuate your point of view. If not, then there is nothing I can say to alter your opinion. You are stuck in our ignorance.

Maybe you should strife for more pungent language if you get misunderstood that often?

I don’t get misunderstood very often at all actually...only by bigots keen to push their own hateful agenda. If wouldn’t matter what I said, it would be misconstrued......nothing new here.

 

[Deeje]

So, you’re just conveniently ignoring Jesus’ teaching about such strict adherence to the letter of the Law while also conveniently ignoring certain of the Law that is more specific than the mention of blood as a medicinal tool.

Got it. ;-)

Have you got it sojourner? Or have you also got a bad case of obeying what’s convenient whilst ignoring why the laws were given?

God’s law on blood was restated three times in three different eras, so how can it be unimportant? If a Jew was in a desert with no water, would it be OK to save his life by drinking the blood of an animal? You tell me.

The “letter of the law” from the Pharasaical point of view was not strict adherence to the law itself but to their additions and skewed interpretations. The law on blood was not to be trifled with. Consuming blood was a capital offense, but if you don’t think so, please feel free to take in all the blood you wish.....that has nothing to do with me, just as my position has nothing to do with you.....we will let Jesus be the judge. OK?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have you got it sojourner? Or have you also got a bad case of obeying what’s convenient whilst ignoring why the laws were given?

God’s law on blood was restated three times in three different eras, so how can it be unimportant? If a Jew was in a desert with no water, would it be OK to save his life by drinking the blood of an animal? You tell me.

The “letter of the law” from the Pharasaical point of view was not strict adherence to the law itself but to their additions and skewed interpretations. The law on blood was not to be trifled with. Consuming blood was a capital offense, but if you don’t think so, please feel free to take in all the blood you wish.....that has nothing to do with me, just as my position has nothing to do with you.....we will let Jesus be the judge. OK?

If there are only "thee times" then why did you not quote them and provide links so that they could be read in context? It appears that the JW interpretation is very strained to say the least. I am pretty sure that they were all examples of dietary laws. How many time does the Bible condemn consuming pork, yet I do not know of any JW's that eschew bacon. If one quote mines the Bible one can get it to say anything. In fact the Bible says 15 times "there is no God".

 

[sojourner]

Have you got it sojourner? Or have you also got a bad case of obeying what’s convenient whilst ignoring why the laws were given?

God’s law on blood was restated three times in three different eras, so how can it be unimportant? If a Jew was in a desert with no water, would it be OK to save his life by drinking the blood of an animal? You tell me.

The “letter of the law” from the Pharasaical point of view was not strict adherence to the law itself but to their additions and skewed interpretations. The law on blood was not to be trifled with. Consuming blood was a capital offense, but if you don’t think so, please feel free to take in all the blood you wish.....that has nothing to do with me, just as my position has nothing to do with you.....we will let Jesus be the judge. OK?

I got it. There’s a vast difference between ingesting blood as food and receiving blood as medical treatment that I think you conflate.