Posts by Gamaliel

119

If Your JW Relative Needed Blood, Would You Force It On Them?

by minimus in

jw
friends

due to the fact that most of us do not feel that it is scripturally wrong to take blood, if your relative was told that they needed a transfusion and you could see that they get it, even if it's against their wishes, would you force blood into them??

?

Gamaliel

onacruse,

For a while there, I thought you were onacrusade, yet we may not be as far off as you keep indicating:

You say that if you saw a hesitation you would give them the blood, too. Also you've repeated that you can base a good part of your answer on what to me is a "foundation argument:" the idea that the JWs have chosen rationally not to accept blood. That foundation doesn't hold for me, and I'm thinking that someday that same foundation could stop holding for you, too.

When I first left the JWs it was not just because I had discovered dishonesty at the "highest levels," but because I was specifically asked from the "highest levels" to be dishonest to help cover up problems until Jehovah saw to it that the corrections were made. Blood was something I hadn't even thought of until a few months after I DA'd, and I still held some ingrained prejudices against its use for a while longer.

I appreciate what Hillary_Step and AlanF have already said about your "foundation argument." It would only cloud the issue, for now, to start talking about other situations and other medical treatments. This one is easier for me to decide because even adult JWs are effectively innocent "children" when it comes to the non-acceptance of blood.

I know my JW relatives well. If the WT changed the stance on blood in the July 1 Wt and the emergency happened the week after they read the article, then they'd accept the blood; if the accident happened the week before they received their copy, they still wouldn't accept the blood. They wouldn't even have to hear what the WT reasoning was, only what the WT had concluded. Also I have many JW relatives, but I really think that all of them would finally understand my reasoning if only they would allow me just a couple hours to explain it. So far every one that sincerely opened up to talk about JW issues has soon left (cousin, brother, sister, another cousin, and many others who weren't relatives but had been close friends, former roommates, etc.)

I saw the other new thread you started, thanks. I thought that this subject seemed to be veering off towards ethics and morals in a very general sense. When I get back later tonight, I'll respond to that thread.

Gamaliel

Ecclesiastes 9:4 ,[5] As long as we are alive there is hope. [After that there is nothing]."A live dog is better than a dead lion." (9:4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.)

119

If Your JW Relative Needed Blood, Would You Force It On Them?

by minimus in

jw
friends

due to the fact that most of us do not feel that it is scripturally wrong to take blood, if your relative was told that they needed a transfusion and you could see that they get it, even if it's against their wishes, would you force blood into them??

?

Gamaliel

My point here is not to put you to a wall about the "life after death" issue, but to say: If you haven't fully resolved this issue for even yourself, then what moral and ethical right do you have to dictate decisions for others who feel they have figured out those questions?

I volunteered the information because it may affect people's decisions in matters of life and death. I have fully resolved the matter for myself. I am absolutely sure that I don't know anything about future life, spirit and/or resurrection. So I will absolutely make a decision based on that knowledge. If and when I do know something about those matters, I will bring that knowledge into any decision I make, but like I said before, I can't yet see how it would change anything for me. My moral or ethical decision to help someone is based on my beliefs, not theirs. Why should I care if my good deeds will be punished or if they will be rewarded?

Someday, we'll have to pick up this subject again in another thread, I think we're hogging it.

Gamaliel

119

If Your JW Relative Needed Blood, Would You Force It On Them?

by minimus in

jw
friends

due to the fact that most of us do not feel that it is scripturally wrong to take blood, if your relative was told that they needed a transfusion and you could see that they get it, even if it's against their wishes, would you force blood into them??

?

Gamaliel

onacruse,

Gamaliel:
I currently don't know anything about future life, spirit, or resurrection, so I couldn't base a decision on that. Any decision I would make has to based on how sure I am that I'm actually saving their life
I submit, therefore, that your own self-admitted ambivalence disqualifies you from making such decisions for others. To assume that the continued physical existence of the body is all that matters is unwarranted.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. I could see how a true believer might be ambivalent because they could leave it in God's hands and therefore might not worry about what decision they made either way.

For myself, though, I can't figure out where the ambivalence would come from. Since I don't know about any future life, I can't be ambivalent. It's true that I would be more likely to make a decision based on saving the life in front of me, but isn't that just like Jesus' example of the sheep in the pit, or the Samaritan who needed medical attention on the side of the road, or orphans and widows in their tribulation, etc.?

I do know that the belief systems will often create different assumptions, but I'm not sure what practical difference the belief system should make. But the reason I can't see a difference is because the believer has two options to options to consider about the person in front of him: either God will resurrect him or God won't. I have effectively the same two options: either there is a God who will resurrect him or there isn't a God who will resurrect him. The only difference is that the believer probably shouldn't let that knowledge influence him, and I am not able to let such knowledge influence me because I don't have any such knowledge.

Also, it doesn't mean that I assume that the continued physical existence of the body is all that matters. I have to respect that it might matter and that it does matter to the person who doesn't want the blood. Still, if I can override their decision, I will. My decision would be based on my faith in the righteousness or morality of motivation I based the decision on.

Gamaliel

39

Was CT Russell a CHILD MOLESTOR? (WTS says: Child Molestation NOT IMMORAL)

by Gamaliel in

before i get to the evidence of the claim above, i need to offer the following explanation.

most of you will know exactly where i am going with this story, but i'd like the opinions of those who don't have any idea.

they might be free from the kinds of biases that i know i already have.

Gamaliel

LadyLee,

It's starting to sound to me like no one came to live with them quite that young. Sounds like Chuck needed to impute youth to impute innocence.

Gamaliel

39

Was CT Russell a CHILD MOLESTOR? (WTS says: Child Molestation NOT IMMORAL)

by Gamaliel in

before i get to the evidence of the claim above, i need to offer the following explanation.

most of you will know exactly where i am going with this story, but i'd like the opinions of those who don't have any idea.

they might be free from the kinds of biases that i know i already have.

Gamaliel

Mulan,

You are absolutely right, of course. I had never read the book by Barbara Harrison, and just assumed it was by Barbara Anderson, but I knew it had something about Rose, so I just picked it up and I only read that one chapter (Chap 2). I'm sorry to hear Barbara Harrison died, she did an excellent job on the subject. I had hoped to let her know how much I appreciated it. Barbara Anderson is the one who worked on Proclaimers then. I'm sure it will be worth the wait.

Gamaliel

119

If Your JW Relative Needed Blood, Would You Force It On Them?

by minimus in

jw
friends

due to the fact that most of us do not feel that it is scripturally wrong to take blood, if your relative was told that they needed a transfusion and you could see that they get it, even if it's against their wishes, would you force blood into them??

?

Gamaliel

Just because I feel I know better about a matter than another, it doesn't mean that I have the right to force my viewpoint upon such a one.

There's no such thing as forcing a "viewpoint" on someone. We were talking about physically forcing blood on someone. If it means holding them down while they are kicking and screaming to let them die, then of course the answer is, no I wouldn't. Even if they were lucid enough to merely say no, I could only insist up to a point where I had given them an opportunity. But the question included "if I could" and my answer is that yes I absolutely would if I could. There are practical limits to the force of persuasion and insistence against a relative's physical efforts and I'm sure I couldn't get very far. But I'd still want to know that I either gave my permission or tried as far as I thought it depended upon me. I was imagining a situation where doctors were asking my permission because the relative is unable to say much at the moment. The force of the word "force" makes the question sound different, but remember you had also said:

if your relative was told that they needed a transfusion and you could see that they get it,

For people who believe more strongly that this life is not all there is, the answer may be simply to leave it in God's hands. I currently don't know anything about future life, spirit, or resurrection, so I couldn't base a decision on that. Any decision I would make has to based on how sure I am that I'm actually saving their life. My conscience would fault me less.

If MY child was of legal age and maturity, I believe that I would not force blood or any other treatment on her that she would not want. Whether we feel that we really do know better, it's immaterial........

My case is easier for me to imagine because I'm 45 and my daughter is 16, one her best female friends is a JW, and who's to say she won't run off with some JW and elope someday? I don't know about other treatments in question, but if I find her in a hospital with a JW No Blood card, then I know exactly where the "blood treatment" idea would have come from. In this case, the fact that I know better is not "immaterial" to me. If other treatments in question were clear-cut, I imagine you would think differently too if it were your daughter. What if she wouldn't accept anything but garlic for snakebite. I'd override that decision even if she carried a "Garlic Card" at all times, and I bet you would, too.

In a totally different case, if I saw a person killing themselves with drugs or alcohol, I cannot force or should not try to force an individual to stop their harmful behavior......"FORCE" is the key word here.

If it were a relative, even a parent, and I could, I know I'd force any poison out of their hand, (if it was obvious that's what they were using it for). It's not very smart, and I hope she never tries it again, but in the past my wife has forced a gun and a couple knives away from persons on various occasions. They weren't relatives, but were troubled high-school students who just needed the force of persuasion and often some physical insistence. Force isn't always a "key" word. I know a case where someone was forced out of a burning car, even though she insisted she stay and die with her children. Firemen are trained to override this situation as a matter of course. Forcing someone to get life-saving medical attention can be just as important as forcing life-threatening material away from them. Where I'd draw the line would depend, I hope, on whatever mixture of common sense, conscience, ethics and knowledge I was able to muster under the circumstances. Gamaliel

28

A BALTANT LIE in this weeks Isaiah study.

by apocalypse in

a baltant lie in this weeks isaiah study.. .

in this weeks book study of the book isaiah vol.2, there is the paragraph i copied here below, page 253 par.

12. read it carefully, and then see the comments below.

Gamaliel

So Rutherford goes into a liquor store in San Diego. "I need to stock my bar...I'm looking for some 4,000 year old whiskey -- No, no, it's not for me, it's for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph..etc.etc.."

Gamaliel

119

If Your JW Relative Needed Blood, Would You Force It On Them?

by minimus in

jw
friends

due to the fact that most of us do not feel that it is scripturally wrong to take blood, if your relative was told that they needed a transfusion and you could see that they get it, even if it's against their wishes, would you force blood into them??

?

Gamaliel

I don't mean to be graphic, but I thought it might help if we used practical examples. What would you do in this situation:

If you were 50 had a daughter who was 21. The daughter had became a JW at 21, her wallet contains a no blood card, but was not retrieved from the scene of an accident, for example. You are at the emergency room and have a chance to tell them about the blood card yet you know it's an obvious unequivocal situation where blood would save her life and not getting blood would sacrifice her life.

If you would use a parental prerogative to save her life even though your daughter is an adult, then think about whether or why you might treat it differently if she was carrying the blood card and you were therefore asked if you would give overriding permission. (BTW, in Canada I think that the child is considered an adult in terms of accepting or rejecting medical treatment as young as 16 or so in some Canadian courts.)

In the first case you merely didn't speak up to honor her known wishes, and perhaps she had never spelled them out to you although you were aware. In the second situation you choose either to let her die or override her wishes at the request of her doctors or the emergency staff who have seen this same situation 100 times before.

If you would accept responsibility over your daughter's wishes, what were the reasons? Would you use different reasons on your parents, because perhaps they are older, or because you "honor" them in a different way? What about a grown cousin, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew. If I'd save a life of one of them (e.g., daughter) and my reasons were loving, I don't see how I could sacrifice the life of another relative if it were in my power to do otherwise.

I'm sure I could be wrong even from a true legal standpoint, not just JW law, but some of these principles seem bigger than either civil or JW law to me.

And one more example, a little less likely (I hope): Your fundamentalist mother-in-law has been heaping vitriolic hell-fire sermons on you and your wife for years. Your wife, in fact, had a stroke and died due to her abusive mother. Now this same mother-in-law, after doing 5 years in the slammer for hiring a hit-man to kill you, has just joined a snake-charming cult. The cult doesn't believe in doctors or medical attention of any kind. Also you know you are in her will for $250,000,000 after estate taxes and you have been broke for these 10 years because she personally has seen to it. She gets bitten. What do you do?

Gamaliel

39

Was CT Russell a CHILD MOLESTOR? (WTS says: Child Molestation NOT IMMORAL)

by Gamaliel in

before i get to the evidence of the claim above, i need to offer the following explanation.

most of you will know exactly where i am going with this story, but i'd like the opinions of those who don't have any idea.

they might be free from the kinds of biases that i know i already have.

Gamaliel

Lady Lee,

Actually the idea of Maria both supporting her husband while taking legal actions against him sounds exactly like any abused wife. They are caught between two worlds. And the women I know who have been the wives of religious leaders are even more torn between the two extremes than most. They may be angry at the husband but they want to maintain faithfulness to God - hence the polarities.

That sounds right. She also could have made some valiant attempts to save a marriage that never worked. So she had no choice but start being brutally honest. It may also be that she didn't defend him in quite the words that Russell says she defended him. Russell knew how important his reputation was and he kept a very tight control on what was published. I've been suspicious of some other letter support that Russell published, and he may have taken editing liberties with what Maria actually said. The possibility that she completely made some of this stuff up seems very remote. Gamaliel

39

Was CT Russell a CHILD MOLESTOR? (WTS says: Child Molestation NOT IMMORAL)

by Gamaliel in

before i get to the evidence of the claim above, i need to offer the following explanation.

most of you will know exactly where i am going with this story, but i'd like the opinions of those who don't have any idea.

they might be free from the kinds of biases that i know i already have.

Gamaliel

Her age at the time of her marriage is a major proof too. Barb will have it all in her book, but it will be a couple of years, I suspect, before we can read it. She has great responsibilities with her aged mother, which prevents her from writing full time as most authors are able to do.

Mulan, I'll be contacting Barbara as soon as I finish her Visions of Glory book. I'm embarrassed to say that I just started it. I hadn't been able to get a copy until very recently and I didn't realize how much great work she'd already put into this subject in her first book. Her suspicions are "spot on" as far as I can tell, so far. Even without her book, I'd think that most anyone would see Russell's abusiveness from the court records, but a suspicious person can even see some of it in Russell's own defensiveness in the WT. The 1906 judge did not have to be all that insightful to understand the abuse and he didn't even need the charge of "adultery" to give the case to Maria. I don't see how JFRutherford could have missed this either when reviewing this case for the pamphlet in Russell's defense (in the 1915 "Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens"). The idea that Rose moved in at 10-years-old sounded suspicious to me when she was identified as as Russell's stenographer. She had her own desk in the Watch Tower Offices on Arch Street, too. If I remember, Maria used to help Charles with stenography and later quit (in a huff). But Russell was not even in favor of high school education, so I had the impression that either Maria had taught Rose stenography, or she had learned it in school. But these ideas were from my notes from 1979, and it wasn't until a month ago that I noticed the "typo" in the court transcript about Rose's age. I go to Pittsburgh in July and had planned to try to request the old marriage license between EC Henninges, WTS Secretary Treasurer, and Rose Ball. Seems that Barbara may already have done this. Barbara also must have seen the dates for Joseph's (CTR's father) marriage to CTR's sister. My notes had it that CTR's father married CTR's wife's sister, but I must have had the order wrong: Charles married his father's [second] wife's sister. I have to assume Barbara had seen the paperwork, or that this was common knowledge I had glossed over. Gamaliel