by scotsman 29 Replies latest jw friends
Of course you would have to get someone to "OFF" you so that you could get resurrected as well, but hey someone has to "take one for the team"
I have often heard people say that if dieing for most Christians was going to end up in their eternal bliss in heaven - why fight it?
Your "logic" is not flawed, but please don't test it.
So the logical conclusion would be to kill as many people as possible for their own sakes - Every person you murder will be resurrected into a paradise earth.
I actually, made this comment after a funeral after a sister said it was a blessing the non-JW person had died before Armageddon, and now they had a hope of being resurrected. I said, "Perhaps then we should be killing people from door to door since it is such a blessing." What a look she gave me.
Blondie
What it would come down to is, can they get disfellowshipped for stumbling their brother over something the society tells them is ok, up to their conscience? If the answer is yes, then, give me my blood.... and then bite me.
If I'd thought of it I'd have scanned it, and posted it here but as I wasn't actually that engrossed in the latest Wt developments... I didn't bother. All the fading Dubs that post should have a copy of it anyway, so one of them can post it and reveal which part of part of part of blood is a conscience matter. I do recall that anti-venom is a matter of conscience.
Tell me about when the article was and I'll try to find it
I'm gonna burn my blood card in a satanic ritual (haha - I'd like to have some closure but I don't know Satan or have any ties whatsoever to him!) and then claim that I lost it if it ever comes up. No way am I going to refuse blood if I need it. If that's what is going to "out" me as a nonbeliever, then I don't care. Protecting myself comes before giving into JW non-sense.
It must be the most recent WT. Saw it at my Mum's, so she must have got it on Thursday. The cover was either about Loneliness or Teaching Children, can't recall which was the WT, but guess it was the latter.
So if a dub refuses a blood-derived product because they don't want to offend other dubs or be looked down on, and they then die - their family won't have any legal comeback. And I bet if you did have a blood derived product you *would* get treated differently, regardless of the WT's official line.
their family won't have any legal comeback
I beg to differ................http://www.newstribune.com/articles/2004/04/25/news_state/0425040035.txt
They screwed the surgeon.
Her choice to die thru' none blood doctrine. I wonder how much of this payout went into the contribution box at her local KH?
their family won't have any legal comeback
I beg to differ................http://www.newstribune.com/articles/2004/04/25/news_state/0425040035.txt
They screwed the surgeon.
Her choice to die thru' none blood doctrine. I wonder how much of this payout went into the contribution box at her local KH?
Sorry about the duplication.
Anyone remember "REPITITION FOR EMPHASIS"..............grrrrrrrr!
WallFlower's link :::
The Ariticle said:
Alvin A. Wolff Jr., representing Grissom's family, said cutting the aorta during what was supposed to be a bloodless surgery would be "malpractice every time. I can't imagine anything else."
Gaskin acknowledged he had cut or nicked arteries in 1996, 1997 and 1998, and took a voluntary suspension of privileges at a medical center for a little over two months in 1998
The jury said the surgeon was 55% at fault and the family 45% at fault.
I think that was fair.
