explain that to the cop who gave me ticket for crossing a red light in the middle of the desert at midnight
What the law says...
by TD 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
yesidid
Excellent, really excellent post TD.
I am a little surprised that the natural progression to the WT's stand on blood has not received attention in this thread.
-
moshe
TD, If you saw a child drowning in 3 or 4 feet of water, almost every able bodied person would attempt to save the child's life and you would, too. That's human nature and if you believe that God created man, then that nature was part of God's design. Denying your child a life saving blood transfusion goes against that human nature to protect your child from harm. Ask yourself, why would God give man a no-blood transfusion law that put his creation at odds with the nature he created it with? It's a paradox, if God did this.
JWs were never any good at logic.
-
TD
Ask yourself, why would God give man a no-blood transfusion law that put his creation at odds with the nature he created it with? It's a paradox, if God did this.
Yes. It's a disaster when the Christian belief that "Life as we know it is not that great and a much better life awaits" is fused to an observance of Jewish law. Even simple dietary requirments morph into ways for God to test you to the point of death.
-
moshe
TD, I remember when my son was born in 1980 and my wife had severe bleeding. I remember walking into the hallway and saying to myself, whatever is needed, blood whatever, I'll sign for it. My children aren't going to grown up without a mother. They were able to stop the bleeding, but I think that was my point of realizing I could leave the KH. A few months later the WT made organ transplants a conscience matter. I wondered why I was the only one in the KH who was asking about why the WT didn't have blood guilt over the deaths of JWs who died from refusing an organ transplant. After that, I refused to sign a no-blood card and elders always cornered me on why I hadn't gotten them get to sign my card. They didn't like it, but there was no rule that forced a JW to have a signed card. Maybe there is today.
-
Married to the Mob
TD- you make some highly valid points.
Without digging out the cases as I am at work, the law certainly in the uk has changed over the years from one of fault to respect of life.
Back in 1880s there was case of 2 children going on to a slag heap in mine and unfortunately comming to a sticky end. The court ruled in favour of the mine due to boys should not have been there.
In the thirties in the case of a man who was injured after he fell in a hole created by the post office which was marked but no barriers again the post office won due to the man not paying attention to the warning sign.
By the fifties in a similar case the man won damages because the post office failed to provide adaquate protection of the hole.
Even today whilst tresspassing is essentially dangerous and can lead to loss of life the company has a duty of care to ensure that tresspassers cannot access the grounds.
Essentially the protection of life is more important than the protection of property.
The change took place becasue we in general have become a more compassionate society and it is widely accepted that we have a duty of care to protect life.
-
Band on the Run
Our negligence law evolved very, very slowly to accomodate evolving ideas about power. The railroad cases were awful in law school. It seemed that almost all litigation revolved around the rr. Government protected the rr as an economic engine. Ordinary people were disposable. I vaguely remember all these silly legal notions tacked on to change the outcomes.
I went to college in NY. B/c of protests, the school recruited Yeshiva girls. They were Orthodox Jews. There was no logical consistency about rules. They did not like mixing with Gentiles but I served their purpose. Lightbulbs could not be switched on at night. So rather than break the law, I was awakened at three am, more than once, to flick the switch. Telephone calls were forbidden yet if I were on the line and the other end had a Gentile, too, we could pass on messages. All this was completely new to me. It annoyed me. It hurt b/c I was never accepted or even rejected for me. I was the Gentile. So I told myself that Christians had nutty rules. Yeshiva University existed. Finally, the faculty revolted and said all they could do was recite facts. Nothing was questioned.
Jesus dined socially with Pharisees. I can see the enmity between Jesus and the Saducees. Jesus appears to me to be a Pharisee, roaming the country side applying the Law to local conditions. My hunch is the two movements were closely aligned until Stephen was martryed. Woe to you Pharisees and scribes. Something was going on that is not revealed in scripture, IMO>