Adoption by Jehovah's Witnesses is blocked

by expatbrit 72 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  fodeja

  but that still does not change the fact that Jehovahs asks his fatihful followers to abstain from blood

  Hold it, hold it.

  1) Who, exactly, told which persons, exactly, in which context, exactly, to abstain from blood?

  2) Abstain from DOING what with blood? Touching it? Looking at it? Writing your name in the snow with it? Painting your windows with it? Eating it? Please give exact references.

  and in modern day blood transfusions fall in that catagory

  3) Who says that, exactly?
  4) Does the person(s) have the authority to make such decisions in the name of God?

  Please give exact references and write clearly. This is an open-book test, you can even ask your neighbour.

  f.
• 

  AlanF

  Like almost all JWs, largo, you have some serious misunderstandings of scripture brought about by unthinking devotion to Watchtower teaching.

  Since Bible writers and their early readers knew nothing of blood transfusions, it is obvious that Acts 15 is talking about abstaining from eating blood. A transfusion is in no sense eating blood. Therefore Acts 15 does not apply. Period.

  Furthermore, the Bible nowhere puts a blanket prohibition upon mankind or even Christians from eating blood. Only the Jews were prohibited from eating any kind of blood. However, Deuteronomy 14:21 expressly allows Jews to sell dead, unbled carcasses to gentiles for them to eat. It is inconceivable that God would make this allowance if he had already prohibited such consumption of dead carcasses to non-Jews. If he did, he would be aiding and abetting humans to break his own law. Thus, Genesis 9:4 cannot be an absolute prohibition on eating blood. A careful consideration shows that Genesis 9:4 simply instructs that people should not eat the blood of animals that they kill for food. It does not mean that people should avoid eating blood in animals that died of themselves. Thus, since Acts 15 is based not on the Law of Moses but upon Genesis 9:4, Acts 15 does not even prohibit the eating of all blood. And since a blood transfusion does not involve killing anyone for food, Genesis 9:4 does not prohibit transfusions.

  A thorough discussion of these points can be found at http://www.jwbloodreview.org .

  AlanF
• 

  kenyata

  This message is to Nelly 136. If a kid is adopted, when they get older they are going to have questions regardless. There have been many pictures and movies where adopted kids had questions when they got older and they wanted to know who their natural parents are, why they were given up. The religion of the parents when they gave them up is irrelavent. There are people who arent't religious or of other religions who don't believe in blood transfusions, birthdays and holidays either, are they unequiped to adopt also. You not looking at the big picture, a family, regardless of religion should be tested and scanned just like any other couple who wants to adopt. Nelly136, you call the kid an "it". This person is a she or a he, or a they.
• 

  happytobefree

  In my opinion a JW should NOT be allowed to adopt a child at all. I know personally of an adopted child that was disfellowshipped and with child at the age of 19, the JW mother disowned her and threw her on the streets. Being that her natural parents are dead, this poor young lady fell upon some very bad times. A non witness relative of mine took her in, but her rejected from the only family she has and the only friends she had, is still very hard.

  I'm was raised a witness and still have parents who are very zealous active witnesses and I WILL NOT allow them to take my children inside a kingdom hall and have changed my will, so that my parents will not be able to raised them, if something happen to me.

  And as far as the mother putting her child up for adoption, this is usually done not because you don't LOVE for your child, but because you want a better life, situation for the child. And even the best intentioned Witness family is not capable of loving this child unconditionally, because of the constraints of the cult in which they serve. I feel raising a child in the JW religion is PURE CHILD ABUSE.

  Happy to be Free (Me)
• 

  happytobefree

  And Largo,

  Blood may be sacred, but is it more sacred that LIFE?

  If I need blood to preserve my LIFE, I definitely will choose life and not suicide.

  Happy to be Free (Me)
• 

  bijou

  Kenyata,

  The mother has the right to decide who adopts and raises her child. If a woman puts a child up for adoption because she wants it to have a better life, then she is certainly not going to "give" her child to people who will only love it conditionally. All circumstances are different. You can't make a blanket statement that the woman is not capable of parenting and therefore can't make decisions. She may have decided to have the child rather than abort because the decision making process and the option of placing that child in a safe, loving, and caring environment was left to her.

  You have no way of knowing what circumstances led the woman to place her child up for adoption. If a JW girl put her child up for adoption and requested that it be raised by JWs, would you take issue with that?

  I do agree that it makes little sense that these people were considered suitable for fostering but not adoption. Possibly, the biological mother was not consulted about their background until adoption became an issue.
• 

  largo

  well true the bible never states that you should take blood transfusion, it simply says that you should "keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [unbled meat] .........and from fornication." (Acts 15:22-29)

  the use of blood for medical purposes is nothing new. egyptians drank from blood to a roman naturalist, Pliny, report that human blood was a treatment for epilepsy. so its nothing that was not heard of in biblical times.

  but why would Jehovah not allow us to take in something that could preserve our life? well because it was something special to him and he wanted it to be special for us and his followers respect that. when he gave the Law code to ancient Israel he showed how serious he was about them abstaining from blood.

  i think that it is being looked at way to close and nit picking instead of accepting. besides if we die because we regected blood, we have been faithful to Jehovah until death and i'm sure he will remember that when his kingdom comes. there is defenitly and upside to this that is being overlooked.

  ..::: be free :::..
  http://www.theomoi.com
• 

  Agape

  Kenyata,

  I wish that you, as what I assume to be a practicing Jehovah's Witness, could counter what has been said in these wonderful responses on this topic. From my experience as a non-JW, I have only met one JW who was willing to fully engage in an OPEN, HONEST, CONSTRUCTIVE, NON-DEFENSIVE manor.

  Then again, you are taught not to entertain the thoughts and ideas of non-JWS. You are not free to think independently, on your own, without the guidance of the higher authority. Are you sure that you should be on this site.

  I am baiting you a bit here. But, seriously, I challenge you to go back and re-read the above responses, and to re-think this issue ON YOUR OWN.

  Wrong is wrong, so why is it that wrong becomes right, and right becomes wrong? As rhetorical as that question may seem, "new light" cannot be more transparently self-serving unless the Prince of Darkness has ahold of your eyes.

  Prayerfully, I suggest that you and all Witnesses pray that Jehovah God reveal Himself to you. Do so earnestly and with humility, not as one who has been given all the answers, but rather as blank slate upon which you agree to let Him write what he will. That kind of devotion that you presently give the Society (creatures), repose that and more to the Creator, who alone created the Heavens and the Earth.

  At the very least, to use a legal term, be responsive...take what someone has confronted you with and ANSWER it. It is amazing what atrocities happen when otherwise thinking people let others' think for them.

  With all due respect, I reiterate my previous assertion that this cult is "worse than Waco" in creating their own "Jonestown." Please respond with point for point organization, with fact by fact accuracy. Again, we all look forward to your reply.

  Agape
• 

  fodeja

  largo,

  I'm afraid you flunked the test, but I saw at least a little bit of promising effort. Come back in two weeks. Use the time to do your research at, for instance, http://www.jwbloodreview.org and http://www.ajwrb.org . You know, some people have really taken the time to find out. Actually, most people around here have. You should, too.

  the use of blood for medical purposes is nothing new. egyptians drank from blood to a roman naturalist, Pliny, report that human blood was a treatment for epilepsy. so its nothing that was not heard of in biblical times.

  And how is a blood transfusion similar to drinking blood? Mind you, this question has already been beaten to death. So you may want to do your research first and come back prepared.

  but why would Jehovah not allow us to take in something that could preserve our life? well because it was something special to him and he wanted it to be special for us and his followers respect that.

  You really, really should try to read the book you claim to believe in.

  i think that it is being looked at way to close and nit picking instead of accepting.

  If I were a person who's never been in contact with Witnesses before, I would conclude from your statements that

  * JWs do whatever their senile leaders tell them (even if it means to let their children die)
  * in spite of claims to the contrary, they don't accept the bible as their primary authority ("that's just nitpicking")
  * whenever someone takes the time to present actual argumentation, they simply ignore it and repeat their mantra again
  * they make lots of spelling mistakes.

  You're giving a very, very bad witness here.

  f.
• 

  nelly136

  I'm a lazy typer, 'it' is quicker to put in than he/she.
  I said...blood issue aside, but seeings as you mentioned it
  when I left jws I was told it would have been better if I'd had
  an accident as a child and died being refused blood than to have left and become 'walking dead' with no chance of ressurection.
  I didnt mention the religion of who was giving the child up.
  All I asked was what is the point of giving a child to someone who will probably only love *him/her* on the condition they become and stay a fully fledged jw.
  When you're a jw your only loyalty is to the organisation, marriage partners parents grandparents children are classed as disposable if they do not conform to the rules and choose to leave,
  if they are capable of considering their own flesh and blood as walking dead then do you really think that some child of 'worldly' origin would get any more consideration should they decide they dont want to be a jw as they grow up?
  nelly