Supreme Court Blood Case - WTS LOSES (page 13)

shamus100

That's right Spike.

That's why I left the dubbies. Because I didn't want to go simply by the advice by "the gang".

skeeter1

Spike,

It sounds like you agree that the congregation is askew on this subject. Don't run ahead of Jehovah.

It is these reasons that current JWs secretly accept blood and no longer follow the WTS. They realize that the WTS no longer beleives its own doctrine, reasons for which were once so carefully set out.

Te State will step into a situation to stop citizens from killing themselves. In the case of a child, the State wants that child to grow into an adult and to make such decisions as an adult. The State and its laws are there to protect citizens first, and to see that children grow into adulthood. If an adult, such as yourself, makes the decision to die for his God, then he has it.

What this court is saying is that religion is "a" factor and not "the" factor that Canadia courts should use. There are other rights in your Consitution, and the WTS changing doctrine, coercion, misrepresentation, and admonisions to avoid independent thinking....yield a child of 13 too immature to consider the question of life-death properly. We all know that children and teenagers re poor decision makers over all. So, the State has to protect them.

Sometimes a State's decision is not to thwart religious freedom, but to make sure it has the opportunity to grow into adulthood. France does not like headscarves, not becuase they want to stop Islam....but because they realize that wearing the headscarf stops the young girl from choosing her own identity and religious thought.

If children are too young to dedicate their lives to Jehovah through Baptism, then aren't they too young to make the blood decision?

Spike Tassel

Jehovah's spirit and truth must rule in every case. If the individuals are sowing to the flesh, trusting in mankind to solve their problems, then they will reap corruption from the flesh, in this case by a transfusion forced upon them.

allelsefails

Spike - You think someone would reap corruption from the flesh, from a transfusion forced upon them? Why do you go to the doctor if you aren't trusting in man to solve the problem? ............. I can understand the point that God's clear commands come before all other considerations, but It has been shown many times that the prohibition agaist blood is "eating or ingesting blood". A tansfusion is a blood "transplant" not ingestion anymore than a kidney transplant is cannibalism. ........

You may want to understand that we are not trying to convince YOU necessarily, but point out the silliness of your religions teaching on the matter. I have much more respect for someone who says "No Blood" and means it - no serums or vaccines taken from blood, no blood fractions, no "unscriptural" use of blood at all. The WTS wishy washy inconsistant teaching is unsupportable - Either No Blood means No blood or it is a conscience matter nothing in between is scripturally possible.

shamus100

Thank you for reverting to circular logic.

Let me know when you have something with a little more substance.

isaacaustin

Spike Tassal, aka WT vassal:

Jehovah's spirit and truth must rule in every case. If the individuals are sowing to the flesh, trusting in mankind to solve their problems, then they will reap corruption from the flesh, in this case by a transfusion forced upon them.

My reply: Agreed that Jehovahs spirit must rule in every case. So you are saying this blood ban is brought about by Jehovah's spirit? Exactly what version? Was it absent prior to the WT blood ban or present? How about when the WT banned all fractions? How about now where fractions are allowed but not whole blood or major components? Please elaborate.

Spike Tassel

allelsefails: Actually I didn't say that I DO go to a doctor now where blood could be an issue now, did I? I would rather be shrewd than inexperienced, for one. I don't believe in transplants of any type, plain and simple. My religion is mine, not anyone else's. To each, his own, I say. I am one who says "No Blood" and means it - no serums or vaccines taken from blood, no blood fractions, no "unscriptural" use of blood at all. I agree that a wishy washy inconsistent teaching is unsupportable - No Blood means No blood.

Twitch

Spike Tassal, aka WT vassal

lol

and hurrah for the advocates of reason and natural law, in a sense.

now back to your regularly scheduled debate,....

isaacaustin

Spike...the point is not whether one, thru his own reaserch and conscience decides for a transfusion, or some other sort of treatment. The point is JWs are not allowed this freedom- they have not come to this choice of their own volition. It is a mandate put upon them by the WT- put forth as a command of God. And when analyzed it obviously has no scriptural basis.

Spike Tassel

Jehovah is the proper Source as to what freedoms are allowed. We each reap as we each have sown. We each have free will and must use it responsibly.

Supreme Court Blood Case - WTS LOSES

Share this