Absolutely Fuming. My own brother was an accessory to stealing my car!

by ThomasCovenant 17 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  ThomasCovenant

  Hi

  Sorry to have misled. Illustrations was never my strong point when giving talks.

  There was no stolen car.

  This is an illustration I came up with to try and get my head around the blood fractions policy.

  So far everyone I have described it to has agreed that if the person, in this illustration my brother, knew that it was stolen goods then purchasing just a small part is no different to a large part of the vehicle. Just because a fraction of blood is small or not vital doesn't alter the fact that Big J has said the blood is his and should be poured out on the ground.

  The WTS can't have it both ways in my opinion. I would love to try this illustration out on my father in law as he has very strong views on the morality of stealing as well as being a staunch JW. I feel I could corner him into saying that even purchasing the smallest part of the vehicle would be wrong if you knew the vehicle was stolen.

  Isn't it the same as stealing the smallest fraction of blood from Big J?

  Once again apologies for not being more clear in the original posting.

  Is it a good illustration? Should I work on it or forget the whole idea?

  Thanks

  Thomas Covenant
• 

  nelly136

  dya remember years back when there was a scare on ice cream maybe containing blood products,

  i can remember my parents vetting icecream for a long time after that. it may or may not have contained a particle here n there but it was off the menu.

  the argument they use from the bible is about eating blood which comes from animals, didnt mention anything about chewing on a human,and yet some jws are quite happy to ingest hemopure......cows blood

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemopure as scriptures were specifically talking animal blood i tend to think theyre breaking more of their own rules by getting cow transfusion, its not only a blood product, but its an animal blood product specifically named as unclean by their own rules.

  a few years back the jws started donating cell savers, i can remember my childhood friends dad practically ripping her a new one because she'd dared to suck a cut finger that was bleeding....premise being blood that leaves your body should be poured on the ground/destroyed, but cell savers are fine.

  when i got a brief look at my mothers blood card, i just laughed and said.....oook you can drink the ribena as long as the colourings took out, needless to say i just got the stiff jaw and glassy eye response.
• 

  Sad emo

  Perfect illustration - Pubsingers been using it for ages (as he mentioned)!

  Perhaps to clarify the legal position in the UK as it may not be so elsewhere - if you knowingly (or even sometimes unknowingly too) accept/buy stolen property, you can be charged with receiving stolen goods if caught.
• 

  144001

  Now to my simple mind, those valves and every last nut and bolt on that car belong to me.

  In the eyes of the law, you're right on. Thieves cannot convey good title, even to a good faith purchaser, in most if not all states in the USA. Oh,and our laws are based on the common law of England, so I would bet that the same is true in the UK. Your brother needs to cough up the tire valves and learn from his stupidity.
• 

  OUTLAW

  Bad illustration..Car is stolen..It can`t be fixed..Your paid for the vehicle,by your insurance..The car is towed to the wreckers..The wrecker is in legal possession of this vehicle..Your brother buys parts off your old car,that you`ve been paid for.....Your brother has done nothing wrong....................OUTLAW
• 

  MissingLink

  Illustrations was never my strong point when giving talks

  You don't say.
• 

  Abandoned

  is this a blood policy reference?
• 

  VoidEater

  The analogy holds as long as the groundwork is you can't take blood because it belongs to God.

  If that distinction isn't realized (that taking blood is merely wrong because it contains life, or due to dietary restrictions), then the car story isn't so great.

  Of course the "borther" is receiving property. This would be true in the transfer of any property that has been stolen and transferred to a third party. The law will follow up on the transfer of stolen property whether insurance has paid on a claim or not.

  For those that disagree, let's go in the opposite direction - my brother notices my 2007 Ferrari for sale on eBay. It was stolen and in fact because I carry gap insurance the entire outstanding balance on the loan was paid off. My brother then buys the car.

  Would anyone think the brother is not receiving stolen property in this case?

  I think most folks will realize the series of events that would ensue: investigation into how the car got into the hands of the seller with likely prosecution, confiscation of the car from the brother, insurance company handling the resale of the car to recoup their losses.