Posts by Fisherman

38

Barred from entering kh

by poopie in

jw
friends

a friend of mine called last night we will call him tom.

he is df now for 2 yrs for associating with a a df person non relative.

anyway he arrived at the meeting this week and was informed by 3 elders that he was no longer welcomed at the hall.apparently he was caught greeting someone in the parking lot after meeting.

AM You don't know what you are talking about. The KH is not a public place. Meetings at a KH are not public. Neither does calling them public meetings held there make them such. The public has not right to be there. People of the general public including df are there by invitation. Such invitation can be revoked at anytime. The mumbo jumbo you posted about corporate "bylaws"does not give someone DF the right to be at a KH meeting.

@poopieEveryone can have thete say in court

But sometimes you pay a very expensive price -more than you figured it would cost you.

38

Barred from entering kh

by poopie in

jw
friends

a friend of mine called last night we will call him tom.

he is df now for 2 yrs for associating with a a df person non relative.

anyway he arrived at the meeting this week and was informed by 3 elders that he was no longer welcomed at the hall.apparently he was caught greeting someone in the parking lot after meeting.

Fisherman

You must give the court a reason why someone from the public is barred from a public place

Depends on local laws but in the US everyone is invited to attend a public meeting in a KH. The invitation to attend a KH is a license that can be revoked. A KH is a private place not public. When a person's invitation is revoked such person has no right to be there and can be arrested for trespassing. If such person claims that he was being treated in violation of the law, the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation, but that is another matter all together.

42

U.K. NHS Attitude to Blood Transfusion and its Safety

by BluesBrother in

while visiting someone at the local hospital i saw this leaflet " will i need a blood transfusion ?

- patient information" .

now i was raised in the belief that doctors are transfusion-happy and just give you one willy nilly if they operate , further that a trans.

Fisherman

The WT's argument that "Jehovah's Witnesses" don't accept blood transfusions can only be interpreted a couple of ways.

JW don't believe in the Trinity, Hell Fire,...., and they don't accept blood transfusions. If you do, you are not a JW. --It's up to each person what he wants to believe or do, mind you.

1. The WT's argument that "Jehovah's Witnesses" don't accept blood transfusions can only be interpreted a couple of ways. The first is that each Jehovah's Witness has carefully studied the matter, and independently reached a conclusion that happens to mirror the bizarre policy currently in place. The second is that there is no independent analysis happening, and that the policy is an organizational one all Jehovah's Witnesses must adopt and maintain.This is a very important point from the the standpoint of medical ethics, as well as the law which requires the presence of informed consent.

You should know by now that doctrinal decisions are made by the GB, not by individual JW.

42

U.K. NHS Attitude to Blood Transfusion and its Safety

by BluesBrother in

while visiting someone at the local hospital i saw this leaflet " will i need a blood transfusion ?

- patient information" .

now i was raised in the belief that doctors are transfusion-happy and just give you one willy nilly if they operate , further that a trans.

Fisherman

The notion that the blood transfusion ban somehow gave Jehovah's Witnesses special protection from AIDS is beyond ridiculous. -Lee

I have already explained that a JW facing death instead of a BT is not being protected from AIDS.

42

U.K. NHS Attitude to Blood Transfusion and its Safety

by BluesBrother in

while visiting someone at the local hospital i saw this leaflet " will i need a blood transfusion ?

- patient information" .

now i was raised in the belief that doctors are transfusion-happy and just give you one willy nilly if they operate , further that a trans.

Fisherman

According to you, it's all about the Bible command and health is irrelevant. -K99

But your post that I reply to refers to wt direction on BT as idiotic -not on doctrinal grounds.

42

U.K. NHS Attitude to Blood Transfusion and its Safety

by BluesBrother in

while visiting someone at the local hospital i saw this leaflet " will i need a blood transfusion ?

- patient information" .

now i was raised in the belief that doctors are transfusion-happy and just give you one willy nilly if they operate , further that a trans.

Fisherman

WTS cannot give it up completely without looking like a bunch of idiots

Well, a lot of people had that view before the AIDS epidemic. But after, just about everyone that ever had a BT in their life was walking around frantic and worried. --At least at that time WT health concerns about BT did not prove to be idiotic. Your referring to lawsuits and all seem to be implying that wt has different motives for their direction on blood at this time, again challenging wt leadership.

42

U.K. NHS Attitude to Blood Transfusion and its Safety

by BluesBrother in

while visiting someone at the local hospital i saw this leaflet " will i need a blood transfusion ?

- patient information" .

now i was raised in the belief that doctors are transfusion-happy and just give you one willy nilly if they operate , further that a trans.

Fisherman

This is therefore not a case of Lee Elder's interpretation vs. that of JW leaders and policy makers,

"Jehovah’s Witnesses hold that accepting whole blood or any of those four primary components violates God’s law. " WT 2004 QFR

42

U.K. NHS Attitude to Blood Transfusion and its Safety

by BluesBrother in

while visiting someone at the local hospital i saw this leaflet " will i need a blood transfusion ?

- patient information" .

now i was raised in the belief that doctors are transfusion-happy and just give you one willy nilly if they operate , further that a trans.

Fisherman

FM, I don't think Lee. is ignoring the base scriptural reference to blood. -K99

My point to LE is that JW leadership decides doctrinal matters for JW and JW have confidence and faith in the GB but there are those as yourself who are not JW that challenge JW leadership on doctrine and other grounds as you explain in your post, and you can do that and you are welcome to feel the way you do and others are welcome to join you if they wish, they are free to do so, but, the direction coming from the FDS at this time on blood is what it is.

42