Awesome blog re blood issue

by rebel8 93 Replies latest jw friends

  • besty
    besty

    What the Catholic Church says about condoms is not the point of this thread or this forum and doesn't make the WTS position on blood any more tenable.

    The WTS has published a lot of medical information about the risks of blood therapy. Why? If it is a centrally a religious point then why have the HLC? As I have argued elsewhere the HLC is there to ensure the JW's get the maximum allowable blood therapy (97% of whole blood at the last count) as most misinformed JW's would refuse 'everything' - more needless deaths and bad publicity.

    Claiming the WTS are incorrect in their intepretation of scriptures such as Acts 15:28,29 is not unique to KLW - mainstream Judaism and Christianity have come to the same conclusion.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat
    What the Catholic Church says about condoms is not the point of this thread or this forum and doesn't make the WTS position on blood any more tenable.

    It is relevant because the argument that Witness views on blood should not be taken seriously is not based on an objective evaluation of the relative rationality of their stance compared with other faiths. It is an invitation on the part of the opposers of the Witnesses to the wider community to conspire not to take the views of Witnesses seriously because they are a deviant 'sect'.

    Would a Catholic be forced to read an account of the errors of the Catholic Church before a doctor will accept their 'informed' decision to reject an abortion advised on medical grounds?

    The Catholic Church is permitted its eccentric views on condoms and birth control because it is a 'historic faith'. Jehovah's Witnesses on the other hand are seen as a deviant upstart sect and therefore fair game.

    Well I say we treat all irrational beliefs equally. It is not the place of outsiders to tell believers their views are unscientific. If they don't want to read opposing viewpoints then that is their choice.

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    Release the bonds, Slim. Please.

    They're killing babies!

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat
    Claiming the WTS are incorrect in their intepretation of scriptures such as Acts 15:28,29 is not unique to KLW - mainstream Judaism and Christianity have come to the same conclusion.

    You really think Bible interpretation has any place in a scientific/legal argument? So what if every Bible commentator who ever lived thinks they are wrong? Are they not entitled to have a different view?

    The WTS has published a lot of medical information about the risks of blood therapy. Why? If it is a centrally a religious point then why have the HLC?

    To help people be able to maintain their religious stance. The literature is clear, I was clear when I believed it, every Witness I know is clear that rejecting blood is based on the interpretation of Bible texts. The view that blood is also dangerous is just icing on the cake, it is not the reason for their stance. I think you are being disingenuous if you do not acknowledge that distinction.

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    Well I say we treat all irrational beliefs equally.

    Some irrational beliefs kill people.

    Therefore, we must not treat them equally.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat
    Some irrational beliefs kill people.

    Like the belief that using a condom will alienate you from God. That certainly kills people who contract Aids needlessly.

    People must be allowed to hold whatever beliefs they choose, even if outsiders perceive it as being to their detriment.

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt
    People must be allowed to hold whatever beliefs they choose, even if outsiders perceive it as being to their detriment.

    Wrong. We have an obligation to protect those who cannot protect themselves. This is why courts usually force blood into JW minors. This trumps the religious freedom of the parents.

  • rebel8
    rebel8

    I note the subsequent absence of legal victories on the basis of the argument Louderback made with little surprise.

    Why do you find this worthy of mention?

    Lawsuits need complainants who have personally experienced permanent disfigurement or death [that is provable in a court of law]. That doesn't even include me! The rest are either dead, not willing to sue wts, or unable to prove their case. Of the few remaining, they need to be aware of their right to sue, be sure to file within the statute of limitations, and either fund the 5-figure legal fees themselves or find an attorney willing to take a shaky case on contingency.

    Again, Slim, American law doesn't provide a mechanism to sue foreign clergy. Therefore it is not an issue relevant to the discussion of Kerry Louderbach's article (about suing under American law).

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat
    Why do you find this worthy of mention?

    Because the whole purpose of her argument was to encourage/enable such action. It is relevant to note nothing has so far come of it. I remember reading that peers were not exactly impressed with the legal argument either. Oroborus21 (Eduardo) was very good on this subject when he still posted. Have legal scholars taken up her argument at all in the literature? It would be interesting to know; again I would be surprised. Her argument was emotive, and strayed into making judgements on religious interpretations.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit