by Duncan 39 Replies latest jw friends
Thanks for that Leolaia,
On starting this thread yesterday, I had half-imagined that the official WT line on this (and I had never come accross the idea of pet transfusions before) would be that "it's okay to save the dog, but you have to let the child die"
It seems that particular absurdity is not on offer.
But this surreal business about ensuring that the "animals in your jurisdiction" don't consume any blood is quite enough to be getting on with, I guess.
Duncan.
Just more evidence of Watchtowerism whackyness. Should animals be disfellowshipped for fornication and should we have animal weddings if we breed them so they can be guilty of adultry when they hump another animal not their mate? If animals are expecteded to be subject to the blood ban then why not all human morality? Murder, theft, loose conduct. Complete nonsense even if I bought into the human blood ban doctrine why would it be the only human law which is applied to animals? Absurdity upon absurdity.
I believe the dog's conscience comes into play on several of these matters.
Rub a Dub
If animals are expecteded to be subject to the blood ban then why not all human morality? Murder, theft, loose conduct.
Yes, I clearly remember sitting down with my dog several years ago and having to clearly explain that sniffing the genitals of the neighbor's female cocker spaniel was not proper and could stumble others.
Rub a Dub
But, if the dog is a minor (2.3 human years), shouldn't the dog's parent be responsible for the decision? And, what if the bitch can't be found? Can the dog become a ward of the court and be administered a transfusion with the aid of a court order?
Yes, I clearly remember sitting down with my dog several years ago and having to clearly explain that sniffing the genitals of the neighbor's female cocker spaniel was not proper and could stumble others.
Rub a Dub
If your dog sniffed with "greediness" that could be considered loose conduct. Only a JC could determine that. And, if you caught them, you're under obligation to report him!
Any domestic animal that voluntarily takes a blood transfusion should by their actions be viewed as 'disassociated' by the Christian Congregation. Right-thinking owners who wish to keep the consciences clear before 'the God who inspects all consciences' can feed these wayward animals, as this is their responsibility under Jehovah's arrangement, but must try hard not to to share with them 'at the table of demons' by patting them or sharing in dog or cat talk with them.
Some Christian youths have, under the pretence of exercising these animals, been sneaking out to parks and walk-ways and sharing their M&M's with their dogs, somehow thinking this will help them spiritually. Evidence proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that such behavior, rather the build an animal up spiritually often results in those desiring to help becoming infected with fleas, and in some more serious cases, ticks.
HS
I notice the conversation has focused entirely on dogs. But, wouldn't this principle hold true for all animals? Are dogs singled out for special treatment? No.
Therefore, lions should ensure that their zebras are thoroughly bled before partaking. Any lion not observing God's righteous laws must be counselled, and if need be, punished - but only if there are two witnesses.
And, mosquitos can be trained to subsist on a mixture of oatmeal and sugar.
What about: Those troublesome ticks! Those heathen oxpecker birds that eat those blood-filled ticks and sometimes suck the blood out of the animals themselves! Those darned vampire bats!
Can you imagine the headache Noah, caretaker of all them animals musta had on that ark?
Actually, Noah would have had no worries at all. Did you forget that humans and animals were all vegetarian until after the flood? No flesh was consumed until Noah walked out of the ark and God dropped the green flag and said, "Let the carnage begin".
Vampire bats ate quiche before the flood.
