by sd-7 42 Replies latest watchtower medical
Therefore to a Jewish person, definition #2 is simply religious bigotry.
I'm sure the vast majority in this forum are not Jews, so the majority of us are very well connected with the dictionary meaning of being A hypocritically self-righteous person.
From a JW GB perspective ..(if it has not been said already) ....the SYMBOL of LIFE is greater than LIFE itself !! . ..NOT !
It's just a good way to get free publicity at our expense !
I think it is because the contingenicies around taking blood differ significantly from those around committting - for example - adultery.
Historically, the medical profession makes decisions for patients (i.e, the concept of explicit consent is of recent origin) so the Watchtower realizes that if it relaxes the rules on blood, JWs could say they had no choice, the surgeons gave them blood. The floodgates would be open.
This contrasts with 'sins of the flesh' where no such reason for 'sinning' exists (i.e., you cannot say that the decision to have sex was made for you).
Between 1967 and 1980, jws would not have an organ transplant,, it was cannibalism. I had a friend go ahead and have a kidney transplant, lived, but was df'd. Two friends died during that period refusing a transplant. No apologies to their families when the WTS changed policy and said in 1980 that it was a conscience matter. My df'd friend was not retroactively reinstated, she was guilty of disobeying the organization, wrong or not. The same was true when you could not divorce a spouse who had committed bestiality or homosexuality and remarry scripturally. People who did were df'd. But then the WTS changed their policy. But people who disobeyed during the previous period were still considered df'd for disobeying the WT policy then.
*** w80 3/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.
*** w72 1/1 p. 32 Questions From Readers ***
While both homosexuality and bestiality are disgusting perversions, in the case of neither one is the marriage tie broken. It is broken only by acts that make an individual “one flesh” with a person of the opposite sex other than his or her legal marriage mate.
*** w77 10/1 p. 607 Questions From Readers ***
Jehovah God’s law to the ancient nation of Israel made provision for divorce on various grounds. (Deut. 24:1, 2) Adultery, homosexuality and bestiality were bases for ending a marriage; the guilty person was to be executed. (Deut. 22:22-24; Lev. 18:22, 23)
I'm sure the vast majority in this forum are not Jews, so the majority of us are very well connected with the dictionary meaning of being A hypocritically self-righteous person.
I don't think it's a Christianity versus Judaism thing.
I suppose a better question for the mentally deficient and intellectually challenged would be whether they're connected with the reasons why that definition is unfair, wrong and anti-semitic?
Certainly not all Christians fall into that mold. From my perspective, it's primarily an affliction of JW's and kindred groups
I just finished reading the blood section in Penton's book. There was reverence for blood in ancient cultures. As so-called Christians, we can eat pig but not have a blood transfusion. Jesus would have freaked if he ever ate pork or shrimp. There are so many scriptures that say we are free of these Mosaic laws. See St. Paul. How is a blood transfusion eating blood? They devalue life, not the science that administers blood transfusions.
There are a host of ways to retreat from their long state policy.
I wonder if they have any creative leaders. This policy is the one that most upsets worldlies. They are shedding blood, not the Red Cross.
It truly is Simon says.
I suppose a better question for the mentally deficient and intellectually challenged would be whether they're connected with the reasons why that definition is unfair, wrong and anti-semitic?
Certainly not all Christians fall into that mold. From my perspective, it's primarily an affliction of JW's and kindred groups
Define pharisee as an adjective is not a problem of JW's and kindred groups, and for the record I do not consider myself a defender of the JW.
Simply, several dictionaries support the use of this word to describe a hypocritically self-righteous person and none of these dictionaries, to my knowledge, are produced by the WT or any other religious group. Same with "Judas". Biblically one was half brother of Jesus and the other a traitor. Hardly, if a person call another to be a Judas, would think of the half-brother of Jesus.
What is a problem is when someone starts to see "anti-Semitism" in any comment.
From another point of view, the thought of blood commonly evokes queasiness in people. Hence reactions at the sight or thought of shed blood. It doesn't take too much for religious people to infer that the taking in of someone else's blood is deeply wrong whereas sins of the flesh are - at least in the short-term - pleasurable.
Define pharisee as an adjective is not a problem of JW's and kindred groups, and for the record I do not consider myself a defender of the JW.
I had a friend go ahead and have a kidney transplant, lived, but was df'd. Two friends died during that period refusing a transplant. No apologies to their families when the WTS changed policy and said in 1980 that it was a conscience matter.
The fact that JWs get organ transplants now without any problem show that it was never about principle, but was just about the fear of punishment by the elders trumping attachment to life itself.
The elders have so much blood on their hands, in the sense of being responsible for innocent people dying, that they really are an abomination.
