up until the very end, my mother refused blood.
it didn't matter if it was a blurred line or not, the bible says "no blood"!
i wonder if she was in the minority, in her thinking.
I wonder if she was in the minority, in her thinking. Would JWs of today take the blood or give it to a loved one in a medical emergency?
JW have spent years in concentration camps and then commit immorality. Most JW that get df is for immortality. Even those JW that succumb to sexual immorality would not have accepted a BT. The great majority of JW would face death instead of a BT. Giving blood to a loved one is a different question.
up until the very end, my mother refused blood.
it didn't matter if it was a blurred line or not, the bible says "no blood"!
i wonder if she was in the minority, in her thinking.
2 JW's take blood in the last 3 months. It's supposed to be confidential, so the elders never find out.
They are not JW. A JW could cave in out of fear and not wanting to die though and confess.
"the way you walked was thorny, through no fault of your own, but as the rain enters the soil, the river enters the sea, so tears run to a predestined end.
now you will have peace for eternity.
" -- maleva, the wolf man.
'What we've got here is failure to communicate' ---Cool hand Luke
'You see these people over here?' 'These are the real ones; these are real people.' -One flew over the Cukoos Nest.
'People with ropes around their necks don't always hang.' The Good the bad and the ugly.
'I don't want you living with roaches.' -Mohamed Ali
'You are dispicable!' -- Daffy Duck
(The entire script of Once Upon a Time in the West is a Masterpiece.) ".... The future don't matter to us, nothing matters now, not the money not the land, not the woman, cause I came here to see you.." --Once Upon a time in the West
'But I am a superstitious man, and if my son Michael was to be hit by lightning, I would hold some of the people in this room responsible -and that I cannot forgive.' -The Godfather
'Not everything is what it seems' - Karate Kid
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
