cookie/are you serious - you've said some truths there. My father was responsible for circuit funds and he says exactly the same thing. It's not about there being some scandal of the halls making a profit, it's the way that the dubs are conned into thinking there is a deficit. If the announcement was transparent then there would be a lot less giving at the assembly.
konceptual99
JoinedPosts by konceptual99
-
39
"Deficit" at JW Assembly
by cookiemaster ini've recently been at an assembly here in romania and there was an announced they were running a 10,000 euro deficit and urging all attendees to donate more money besides the already 5k has was donated during that day.
i really don't understand these things.
it's their own assembly hall.
-
-
-
16
Ok I feel like a dumb ass. Men have one less rib than women..
by James Mixon inwhy in the hell would we (men) have one less rib...help me folks the adam and eve story has screwed up my thinking...
-
-
konceptual99
Er... no... men and women have the same number of ribs.
-
39
"Deficit" at JW Assembly
by cookiemaster ini've recently been at an assembly here in romania and there was an announced they were running a 10,000 euro deficit and urging all attendees to donate more money besides the already 5k has was donated during that day.
i really don't understand these things.
it's their own assembly hall.
-
-
konceptual99
Given that in the UK all the assembly hall accounts are available on line through the charity commission and the scam is obvious it should surprise me that more have not woken up to this. The reality is of course that individuals don't care even when it's pointed out. They are just happy the money can go to the branch.
-
43
How Many Witnesses Would Really Take Blood?
by minimus inup 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.
-
-
konceptual99
Well, the majority of people that leave JW is because they got angry at something or they rather be doing something else. Later on they look for ways and examine the answers after they already decided for themselves. But there are also those that are curious about what the apostates are thinking.
I must have forgot to pass my reasons by you then.
And the JW minority that winds up accepting BT is out of fear -they don't want to die even if they also believe in the FDS, others that also make up that minority when faced with death rationalize and don't believe the gb is correct on this one. The rest of JW will face death putting faith in the gb decision.
Agreed. I don't see how any of this, which I already said most people, for or against the JW policy, would agree with changes the validity of the proposition that most Witnesses would change their view of what is acceptable and not acceptable on the whim of the GB and not their own conscience. I think you probably agree with this as well.
-
43
How Many Witnesses Would Really Take Blood?
by minimus inup 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.
-
-
konceptual99
If a JW believes that the gb are only a bunch of men dictating policy as you say, then why should he continue to be a JW?
Why indeed FM....? But we were all there weren't we? We all believed that the GB were the conduit but then we started allowing ourselves to investigate the answers to the questions we had glossed over for so long.
That's what this site is about - helping those who have questions examine the answers.
-
43
How Many Witnesses Would Really Take Blood?
by minimus inup 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.
-
-
konceptual99
K99, you are mistaken to proclaim your commentary as reality. Why are you willfully misunderstanding what I post ?
Maybe I don't understand what you are saying?
From what I can see you seem to be missing the point that pretty much everyone would agree with you that most Witnesses would not have a blood transfusion of a product deemed not acceptable by the GB.
I also think you are missing the point that most people would agree with you that most Witnesses would view it as a Bible command and look to the GB to advise them how the command should be interpreted.
Where you seem unable to grasp the point is that even taking the above into account, should the GB change their mind on the interpretation of the Bible command then the conscience and decision tree of an individual Witness will change to match the will of the GB. Everybody agrees with you that it's the GB that sets the agenda. You also seem unprepared to agree that the policy is inconsistent with even their own base position (i.e. the donation dichotomy).
No one here expects the GB to change their minds just because a bunch of malcontents write some posts on an internet forum. We are far more interested in providing input to those JWs lurking here, those who are thinking about inconsistencies in doctrine and helping them evaluate counter arguments to the nonsense they get from JW sources.
Have I misunderstood you?
-
43
How Many Witnesses Would Really Take Blood?
by minimus inup 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.
-
-
konceptual99
Fisherman...
Are you wilfully misunderstanding what people post?
The consensus amongst most critics of the WT blood policy is to a greater or less extent as follows:
1 - most Witnesses will not willingly accept any procedure/product that is declared unacceptable by the WTS (i.e. whole blood + the four arbitrary components)
2 - most Witnesses will accept any procedure/product that is declared a conscience matter by the WTS (e.g. cell salvage, fractions etc.)
3 - most Witnesses will change their view on what is acceptable and not acceptable based on what the WTS say is such
4 - the WTS has consistently maintained that it is unacceptable to donate blood as shows disrespect to God's law
5 - the WTS has, over the years, had to respond to medical technology advances and has gone away from a fundamental interpretation and application of scripture to one of woolly and contradictory policy (e.g. donation is unacceptable, using processed blood fractions = acceptable)
6 - the WTS has deflected criticism that people don't have a choice by making acceptance of a blood transfusion a "DA by actions" matter. They speak from both sides of their mouth and claim Witnesses have no sanctions yet we all know DA is the same result as being DFed.
7 - the policy is so complex it requires a small army of enforcers to keep people in line and doctors fed with chaff that makes them think Witnesses have a choice
8 - a Witness can make a choice that is not acceptable one day without knowing if the policy will change the next day or vice-versa.
9 - many speculate that the WTS would like to drop the policy but since it is one of the core doctrines that has defined Witnesses as different for years and required people to make life and death choices it shies away from dropping it, preferring to dilute it to the complex mess it is now.
So in answer to the OP...
How many Witnesses would accept a treatment the WTS defines as unacceptable. A small minority.
How many Witnesses would accept a treatment the WTS defined as unacceptable yesterday but changes to being acceptable today. An almost total majority.
Forget the Bible. This is the reality.
-
43
How Many Witnesses Would Really Take Blood?
by minimus inup 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.
-
-
konceptual99
OTWO - I recall there is some documentation somewhere that shows the HLC in at least one area (Canada?) will give tacit approval to parents to basically send strong hints to the medical team to make a child a ward of court. It's a simple way out.
Even if it's not an unwritten instruction it absolutely happens.
-
42
U.K. NHS Attitude to Blood Transfusion and its Safety
by BluesBrother inwhile 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.
-
-
konceptual99
and they don't accept blood transfusions.
They don't accept transfusions of whole blood or of four other components of blood. They accept a whole host of other components and products derived from blood.
They do not allow the donation of blood even for storage and use by the same person. They say the blood removed should be destroyed. Yet they willingly accept many products derived from donate blood.
If everyone in the world was a Witness there would be no donated blood. The blood policy is a mish mash of compromise and obfuscation. The blood policy stands in good company with lots of other WTS doctrine in it's level of illogicality but surpasses all others for it's hypocrisy, danger and selfishness.
-
42
U.K. NHS Attitude to Blood Transfusion and its Safety
by BluesBrother inwhile 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.
-
-
konceptual99
It's idiotic because it makes no logical sense. They have put tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives at risk, forced people to make life or death choices - all on the basis of a doctrine they clearly don't believe in enough to stick to a fundamental interpretation. Their woolly, arbitrary policy, made up of an evolution of compromises, requires a team of enforcers to keep the R&F in line and medical practitioners hoodwinked into thinking it's a reasonable religious position.
The fact that people did catch illnesses through transfusion in the past makes no difference to the validity of the policy. They don't maintain the policy for sensible doctrinal reasons. They don't even maintain it in order to improve medical technology. They do it because they have put some much into it - not least the lives of thousands - they cannot back down without seriously undermining their own authority and risking opening the floodgates of litigation.