just a few questions I don't want to ask directly hell

by Janey214 92 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Freedom Fighter

  Spike - thanks for your reply but it doesn't answer my question.

  The bottom line is this - if you belong to an organisation that stipulates that you do not undertake a potentially life saving medical procedure, then you may die obeying this command. Let's say that this organisation readjusts it's thinking and policy in the future so that now there is some leeway. Clearly it follows that people have lost their life from obeying an organisational rule that is now considered out of date. Imagine the torment of people who have lost family members needlessly.

  For an organisation to say - ' sorry, we've reviewed the policy now - sorry about your dead relatives ' is beyond contempt and morally reprehensible. This is clearly out of step with the teaching of a loving God.

  Euthanasia is an entirely different premise. This path should involve choice, when someone feels that their life is being made intolerable by illness or other related issues. Children who die through not receiving a blood based life saving treatment have no choice or say in their own mortality.
• 

  tenyearsafter

  Spike,

  I really don't understand how you can compare euthanasia with the use of blood. Even if we go with the premise about extending or ending a normal process of life, how does that apply to a situation where you are involved in a traffic accident where you receive severe trauma?? That is hardly a normal life's course and rarely the choice of the individual involved since they are often unconscious...even if they have a blood card, that was filled out in a non-life threatening situation.

  I find your explanations and reasonings troubling...it sounds to me like you are creating your own theology based on what you pick and choose from WT doctrines and then sprinkle it with your own interpretations.

  TYA
• 

  tenyearsafter

  Janey,

  Sorry that we keep getting off topic with Spike's postings, but I think it gives you some food for thought if nothing else...

  TYA
• 

  Spike Tassel

  to Freedom Fighter (Post 402): Jehovah's Universal Sovereignty is NOT a needless issue. The rulings change direction as Jehovah's celestial chariot changes direction. It's a matter of loyalty to Jehovah, since Jehovah's using the organisation to convey direction. Torment orf conscience comes to those who do not adhere to Jehovah's direction. As we sow murmuring, so we reap torment of conscience.

  Euthanasia is in violation of Christian principles. So is taking a blood transfusion. Life's consequences are in one's blood. Why should I add the consequences of someone else's sin to my own. No, it is wrong to mix someone else blood with mine. Children are under the law of their parents, Scripturally speaking, until they reach the age of spiritual maturity, "for better or for worse".

  to tenyearsafter (Post 310): The normal consequence of severe loss of blood without intervention is often death. Just as was true of Jesus' sacrificial death upon the stake. Jesus died for principle. Jesus' disciples do also.

  What is incorrectly called a "blood card" is correctly called an "Advance Medical Directive". I reason as my conscience dictates.
• 

  OUTLAW

  Spike..

  You have already been warned that your posts will be severly restricted,if you continue to Hi-Jack Threads..

  ..................OUTLAW
• 

  Spike Tassel

  Sorry, Janey214, I didn't think I was off-topic at all. To me, it's all related, directly or indirectly: it's hard for me to tell which.
• 

  DaCheech

  in other words "how many people died not wanting organ transplants due to wt law, and then the society changes its views"!

  people now can be saved, people then "zappo"!
• 

  Mary

  in other words "how many people died not wanting organ transplants due to wt law, and then the society changes its views"!

  I knew a young sister who died in November 1978 because she wasn't allowed to have a kidney transplant, thanks to the WTS's warped view on organ transplants at the time.

  "...When men of science conclude that this normal process will no longer work and they suggest removing the organ and replacing it directly with an organ from another human, this is simply a shortcut. Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic."----November 15, 1967 Watchtower p. 702 Questions From Readers

  Had she survived another 16 months, she would have been allowed to accept the transplant, thanks to 'new light':

  "...It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the "donor" is not killed to supply food. In some cases persons nearing death actually have willed body parts to be used for transplants."---March 15, 1980 Watchtower p. 31 Questions From Readers

  Isn't the Organization wonderful for dispensing food at the proper time???
• 

  Spike Tassel

  The donor isn't killed in the case of a blood donation either. So there must be some OTHER principle involved. It appears to me that both QFRs in Mary's Post 11038 are red herrings. My conscience now doesn't permit me to have either blood either extracted or injected into me, nor does it permit organ transplants. I reason all these issues from the one principle that each should be accountable for just their own sins. Since all humans alive today are sinners, their sin is contained in all parts of the body, including blood and all other organs.
• 

  tenyearsafter

  Spike,

  With all due respect, your comments are nonsensical...if you want to help Janey, address her question, not go off on unconnected tangents that have nothing to do with the topic.

  I AM TRYING TO FIND OUT WHETHER CT RUSSELL AND THE ORIGINAL MEMBERS OF THE WBTS WERE PROPHETS OR SCHOLARS? IF THEY WERE PROPHETS THEN WHAT HAPPENED? IF THEY WERE SCHOLARS DID THEY LOOK INTO OTHER FAITHS TO DISCOVER IF THE BIBLE TRUTHS WERE ALREADY RESTORED?

  Let's stick to that...