Let the org. now use Paul's words at Acts 20:26, "Hence, I call YOU to witness this very day, I am clean from the blood of all men."
Golf
Journal of Church and State: WT NO-BLOOD EXPOSE'
by AndersonsInfo 328 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
Golf
-
DannyHaszard
Keep your powder dry everyone!
-
sammielee24
Not being a lawyer, but having an excessive degree of optimism that change can, does and will take place by the people and for the people -
2. If anything it is a Free Exercise issue and the Society is certainly going to be allowed to believe whatever it wants
Believing in something is okay but is misrepresentation of the facts to secure membership in your organization legal? Is there not a hint of fraud in any organization acting this way? If an organization believes that the use physical discipline is a right of their members and part of their doctrine religiously, does this make it okay for them to beat those same members regardless of age and get away with that on the basis of freedom of religion? At what point does it cross over to a criminal act? When a person dies? This is interesting since in effect we can then add freedom of choice to this argument. The argument may be that people have freedom of choice to practice any religion however, we then would have to define the age of effect since children raised in a cult will for the most part have no independent or critical thinking skills and subsequently have no way of understanding the real meaning of freedom. We could then say again that freedom of choice is in effect for adults joining an organization but do we not have to look at the reasons they join? The doctrines must be clearly spelled out with appropriate, clearly defined punishment indicated beside every infraction or else the punishment of the organization and it's doctrines is clearly misrepresented.
This is the problem with lets say the disfellowshipping doctrine. We can read that offences of adultery, drunkenness, thievery or greed are punishable offences if the person committing the acts is not repentent. We can read that a person will be disfellowshipped for that offence. What we are not told is what the term disfellowshipping is defined as and this causes a problem when a person believes that the term is applied as excommunication from their church and the society defines the act as 'removal and total disassociation' of the offender from the lives of every Witness, regardless of relationship. Misrepresentation can also be applied when those offences that people are disfellowshipped for are not listed but instead simply applied at will and on a whim. There must be accountability and responsibility for the severe application of such punishment that destroys peoples lives and livlihood.
I guess we all have a right to believe in anything but when that belief becomes twisted by us in order to have others join in, well that to me is misrepresentation.
Lets not forget either - one can say that a person or organization is acting from the standpoint of religious belief and so acted in good faith, however, if it can be shown that over a period of time - perhaps even years, that this belief is being interpreted, read or understood incorrectly and that the organization or person chose to ignore requests for dialogue or change to this belief that might result in a change of doctrine that they refused to consider because it might harm the organization, then we would have a case for deliberate manipulation and misrepresentation.
Anyway, its the wee hours of the morning - just a few meanderings and let's not jab away at my run on sentences because I'm too tired to think straight..sammieswife.
-
belbab
2:30 am Pacific time
I have read up to page 7, except for Edourdo Leaton Jr.,,Esq. seven pages. I get to that in the morning.
For all of you out there who are having difficulty out there grasping all this like myself, for my own understanding I summerize my take or it with the following illustration:.
If there was a big funeral with overflowing crowds in it and standing at the doors, and some fool started screaming fire, fire. and the crowd stampeded and people died in the melee., would I be able to plead freedom of religious speech in my church to avoid liability?
The Watchtower has been calling down fire from heaven for decades on members of their church who take blood transfusions. Thousands of their members have died from refusing blood. Can they plead not guilty of murder under the freedom of religious expression?
Oh man, oh God, let the fun continue,
belbab
-
Outlawed
Sorry for my bad English, I'll hope you understand but concider that the lecture of the WT is offered also in public. Could they be forced now to rectify their lies. P.s. I'm gonna make place on my website for this "BIG BANG"; http://websitemaker.kennisnet.nl/JehoshuaFellowship/index.htm Regards Robert
-
wednesday
I have for many years wondered why JWS went to such lengths to prove blood was bad medicine. , It was enough for me as a loyal JWS that "mother said not to take blood. I knew my life coud be on the line. It used to be just that, an act of faith to not take blood. Then HIV appeared and the WTS could not resist saying "we told you so'. They should have left this as a faith doctrine and stayed out of the medical business.
weds
-
Dansk
The reason JW's refuse blood is of course purely spiritual, scriptural.
Actually, it isn't! The reason JWs refuse blood transfusions is because they are actively encouraged to by the Organisation. Pressure is put on all members to refuse transfusions. This pressure comes in many guises, but the fact that everyone else in the kingdom hall is signing their blood cards and having them witnessed by two other people is a form of peer pressure. Then, there's the talk that precedes the signing or distribution of the cards, which always highlights what a legally-binding document it is (this, too, is a form of pressure because it makes one think that the society has done its job making things legal on behalf of the members so it must be worth signing). Let's face it, the society uses pressure bottom line by insidiously putting fear into its members that if they don't follow its proposals they aren't true followers of God and will ultimately suffer the consequences in this life or the next. The blood booklets, pamphlets and videos all add to the pressure, even though the average JW hasn't got a clue.
Everyone knows that if a JW accepted a blood transfusion for his/herself or their children they would be looked down upon. They would be made to feel they have betrayed Jehovah and had no real trust in him (and possibly be disfellowshipped). I shudder to think that, yes, when I was a JW I would have let my children die rather than let them have a blood transfusion. It has absolutely nothing to do with it being spiritual or scriptural at the end of the day (the former could be argued but not the latter as all other Christian denominations, I believe, accept blood transfusions).
I KNOW there are other issues here other than just the blood issue but I just want to point out what the majority of us already know. We would have refused blood because we were directed to! We NEVER really had a free choice in the issue. The organisation definitely pressured us into not accepting blood through its false teachings and its use of psychological means, e.g. such as by "convincing" its members that all should refuse blood transfusions because not only was it scriptural but it was proven to be dangerous and that all one's Christian brothers and sisters were signing the forms so it was the right thing to do, etc. People followed like sheep.
To make matters worse, any JW with a medical background, such as a nurse or, like my wife, a physiotherapist, who was seen to sign the blood forms/card added to the society's credibility The pressure was definitely and still IS definitely there.
I hope the society has its pants sued off it now and that it is bankrupted. My fear, like many others, is that somehow they'll even squeeze out of this one. The old GB members probably won't be around when any real legal damage is implemented. They'll have spun their years of deceit, got away with it and then die in comfy surroundings, leaving the newer GB members and others in positions of authority to face the flack. Whatever, there is genuine hope that litigation will bring the Tower down at last and one way or another thousands if not millions will be set free. THAT'S got to be good news!!
Ian
-
badboy
I f the WT mispresent evidence from secular sources,eg creation,could you sue them for deceiving?
-
Check_Your_Premises
But think of all the family members who are not JWs that lost family members due to the WTS policy. Think of all the non-JW family members fighting to have a blood transfusion administered to a JW family member.
The beauty of this is that we are going to find out EXACTLY how many people died. Courts of law are public and solicit facts. These facts are going to become known. I think they are going to become widely known. This could turn into a feeding frenzy. Remember Jim and Tammy Bakker? One little spark brought down their whole rotten house of cards. Once the press smells blood and a good story, they won't let up until someone dies or goes to jail.
This is going to be huge on so many levels: fincancial, long drawn out public exposure, and of course....
membership.
SIC SEMPER TYRANNUS
-
luna2
Well, I just waded through all seven pages of responses, including Eduardo's legal critique of the article, and I'm trying to digest the information.
The WTS has long been guilty of misquoting secular authorities, disseminating false or misleading information, and being deceptive in their publications. Most of the time rank and file JW's have no idea...or if they did recognise a quote or a piece of information as being wrong, put it down to human error and didn't equate it to a general policy of misinformation and/or mangling of truth by the WTS in a dishonest attempt to bolster their religious doctrines with secular "facts".
As an active witness, I had no idea that the reason they so quickly came out with a new Creation book was that they were being threatened with lawsuits over all the misquotes. This, though, has the potential to blow up enough that the information that their oh-so-holy, Jehovah-endorsed and approved religion manipulates facts by deliberatly misquoting experts, history and statistics will reach even the most unaware JW's. Even if such information doesn't affect how they view blood transfusions, it has to make a dent in how they view the society they are a part of. I know that I would not be very proud of representing an org that feels it has to lie and deceive. I certainly wouldn't want to be placing literature that is full of embarrassingly false "support" from secular sources.
As has been mentioned before in this thread, the question that would bother me most as a witness would be, why? Why would the WTS feel it necessary to twist the truth if their policy is dictated by Jehovah? Why would they, in effect, lie? Aren't lying and deceit from Satan? Why would Jehovah allow his name to be besmirched by His own organization? Why would he let something like this happen?
I'm sure lawsuits will be brought, the defense of which will hit the WTS in the pocketbook somewhat. Even if they successfully defend themselves and don't have to pay monetary damages, the publicity, hopefully, will be the real damage they suffer. They will become even more of a joke to the world at large and those trapped inside may see enough that they start questioning whether Jehovah could ever truly be behind such a bunch of slimey, pathetic liars.