Thank you, Simon, Kanon and Marvin, for your very thoughtful responses. I believe each of you hit the nail on the head. I do not regret the decision I made because I believe it resulted in my son receiving a higher standard of care. But, your point is very well taken, Simon. What makes me shudder is the thought that, had the results of the EPO not been as effective in our son’s case, would I have let my son die? But even that thought is outweighed by the confidence I had in his treating physician. I am certain that he would not have permitted my son to die, even if I would have. He had much experience in treating children of JW parents in the past, and he had even gotten court orders permitting him to administer blood transfusions over the objections of misdirected parents, including a certain nephew of ours. Yes, Simon, if my son had died as a result of my cognitive dissonance at the time, I would be carrying a much heavier burden today. Thank you for making a very valid point.
Rufus T. Firefly
JoinedPosts by Rufus T. Firefly
-
17
Watchtower's deception regarding blood transfusions
by Rufus T. Firefly inyou also ask why one can be dis-fellowshipped for taking a blood transfusion but not for taking blood fractions.
while both may affect the life of an individual, the expression "life-sustaining" in connection with blood transfusions is synonymous with the idea of taking in food for nourishment.
in this regard both whole blood and major components of it carry nutrients, oxygen, and other nourishment to the body.
-
-
-
17
Watchtower's deception regarding blood transfusions
by Rufus T. Firefly inyou also ask why one can be dis-fellowshipped for taking a blood transfusion but not for taking blood fractions.
while both may affect the life of an individual, the expression "life-sustaining" in connection with blood transfusions is synonymous with the idea of taking in food for nourishment.
in this regard both whole blood and major components of it carry nutrients, oxygen, and other nourishment to the body.
-
-
Rufus T. Firefly
I appreciate all of the thoughtful responses to my post.
When our 13-year old son began chemotherapy for cancer, our local elders told us to be prepared to make our objections known regarding blood transfusions but to realize that our son’s treating physician would take whatever steps were deemed to be in the best interest of our son. Our son had to undergo several surgical procedures over the course of two years, and each time we made our objections known, the hospital provided a document for us to sign which was basically the Letter of Understanding. The only time that the blood issue was really pressed was when our son’s red cell count was at 3.2, and the treating physician ordered EPO to be administered to our son, and the need for a blood transfusion was averted. Prior to our son’s final surgical procedure, as we signed the document, the anesthesiologist expressed amazement that during two years of chemotherapy, our son had never received a blood transfusion.
At that time, I was still a Blood Card carrying JW, and I do not regret having taken the stand we took. My purpose of my original post was to show how deceptive the Watchtower has been regarding its blood policy. It wasn’t very long ago that my cognitive dissonance would not permit me to see how indoctrinated I had become. When I first read In Search of Christian Freedom, the chapter on the blood issue was the only one that proved hard for me to accept. I had to reread it a couple of times before it all sank in.
-
17
Watchtower's deception regarding blood transfusions
by Rufus T. Firefly inyou also ask why one can be dis-fellowshipped for taking a blood transfusion but not for taking blood fractions.
while both may affect the life of an individual, the expression "life-sustaining" in connection with blood transfusions is synonymous with the idea of taking in food for nourishment.
in this regard both whole blood and major components of it carry nutrients, oxygen, and other nourishment to the body.
-
-
Rufus T. Firefly
“You also ask why one can be dis-fellowshipped for taking a blood transfusion but not for taking blood fractions. While both may affect the life of an individual, the expression "life-sustaining" in connection with blood transfusions is synonymous with the idea of taking in food for nourishment. In this regard both whole blood and major components of it carry nutrients, oxygen, and other nourishment to the body. It is this aspect of taking in blood, that is, to provide nourishment that links blood transfusions with the Biblical prohibition. Note that "Questions From Readers" of the July 1, 1975, issue of The Watchtower stated: "The Bible specifically forbids the taking of blood to nourish the body.-Gen 9:4; Lev. 17:1-14; Acts 15:28, 29." The motive or reason for taking a serum is significantly different. It is not to feed the body, as would be the case if there was an eating of whole blood (or a major component thereof) by mouth or by having it transfused intravenously. Rather, the antibodies that have been separated out are administered for the purpose of immunizing the body against a certain disease. While blood fractions in certain situations can be lifesaving, they do not operate to feed and nourish the body and in this way sustain life but, rather, utilize other mechanisms.” (Watchtower Branch letter of March 23, 1998 to Randall Jensen.)
But the Watchtower Society had known since the 1950s that transfusing blood is far different from eating blood for nourishment, that transfused blood is not digested but retained in the body much like a transplanted organ. “Transfused blood cannot be used by your body as food any more so than can a transplanted heart or kidney.” – (Watchtower 9/15/58, p. 575)
“By your words you will be condemned.” (Matthew 12:37)
http://ajwrb.org/do-jehovahs-witnesses-really-abstain-from-blood
-
29
Fading and not "outing" yourself, what are your thoughts on it?
by Brock Talon infading and not "outing" yourself.. what are your thoughts on it?.
i ask, because i just received a scathing personal message on facebook from a person who read my latest book and in it i describe myself as a fader.
i was not dfd and i did not da myself.
-
-
Rufus T. Firefly
Brock, you left on YOUR terms, not on THEIR terms. I did the same. They can't tag you as 'disfellowshipped' or 'disaasociated.' That makes it harder for them to figure you out or to dismiss you. It gets under their skin. I say good for you! -
9
Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief
by Rufus T. Firefly ini hope this link works for everyone.
if you can watch this video, i think you will find it very interesting how closely scientology resembles the watchtower society.
for example, the watchtower's 'apostates' equate to scientology's 'suppressives.
-
-
Rufus T. Firefly
The Watchtower's 'disfellowshipping' equates to Scientology's 'disconnection.'
As with all cults, a complete nobody can join and become a somebody, finally achieving the sense of belonging to something, of having peers, regardless of how ridiculous it may be.
-
9
Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief
by Rufus T. Firefly ini hope this link works for everyone.
if you can watch this video, i think you will find it very interesting how closely scientology resembles the watchtower society.
for example, the watchtower's 'apostates' equate to scientology's 'suppressives.
-
-
Rufus T. Firefly
I hope this link works for everyone. If you can watch this video, I think you will find it very interesting how closely Scientology resembles the Watchtower Society. For example, the Watchtower's 'apostates' equate to Scientology's 'suppressives.'
-
11
What JW.ORG Needs - Live Chat Feature
by Garrett insomeone with influence needs to persuade the gb to add a live chat feature to the website.. i was strolling through the mormon site out of curiosity and noticed they had a live chat option.
golly, i can't pass this up.
i decided to talk to jake and spencer.
-
-
Rufus T. Firefly
I share your viewpoint, Garrett; however, the Watchtower Society is only interested in indoctrination, and that is made more difficult when open discussion is permitted. -
Author Lawrence Wright discusses Bible's Promised Land narrative
by Rufus T. Firefly inwriter lawrence wright discussed his book, thirteen days in september, regarding the camp david peace summit on c-span's book tv.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?321756-1/book-discussion-thirteen-days-september.
the transcript below begins at 11:40 on the video counter:.
-
Rufus T. Firefly
Writer Lawrence Wright discussed his book, Thirteen Days In September, regarding the Camp David peace summit on C-SPAN's Book TV.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?321756-1/book-discussion-thirteen-days-September
The transcript below begins at 11:40 on the video counter:
"The struggle for peace at Camp David is a testament to the enduring force of religion and the difficulty of shedding mythologies that lure societies into conflict.
"Let’s begin with the biblical concept of the Promised Land, the legend that is at the root of this conflict.
"In Genesis, God speaks to Abraham in a dream, and promises to give him and his descendants the land between the Nile and the Euphrates, a territory that would encompass southern Turkey, western Iraq, parts of Saudi Arabia, all of Syria, Jordan, Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai, and half of Egypt.
"Later, God makes a similar pledge to Moses as he leads his people out of Egypt, although the boundaries are now from the Red Sea to the Euphrates. On another occasion, God tells Moses that the Promised Land is really Canaan, which is an entity that is much more like modern Israel, including the West Bank and much of southern Lebanon. Defining borders has always been a problem in the Middle East, evidently even for God.
"When the wandering Israelites reached the river Jordan, God draws Moses up to Mount Nebo, and says, “This is the land that I promised to Abraham and his descendants, and you have the opportunity to see it, but I will not let you cross over.” And so Moses was able to look out from Mount Nebo and see all the way to the Mediterranean Sea, and then he passed away at the age of 120, having delivered his people out of Egypt and through the wilderness of Sinai.
"Now, at this point, God instructs Moses’ successor, Joshua, to take the Israelites into the Promised Land, saying, 'Every place you set foot I have given you.' However, the land is not vacant. The story of Joshua’s conquest of the Promised Land is one of the most shocking events in the Bible. Cities are burned to the ground, populations are wiped out, every man, woman, child, even the livestock, all slaughtered on the Lord’s instruction to kill every living thing. In that way the children of Israel finally came into possession of the Promised Land.
"One of the many problems with the Biblical account is that, during the time of Exodus, all of this territory was part of the ancient Egyptian empire. The 31 kings that Joshua is said to have executed were all paying taxes to the pharaoh before, during and after the supposed Israelite invasion. From the earliest times, the Egyptian people showed a terrific talent for bureaucracy. They kept extensive records. There’s no historical or archeological evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt.
"The Bible records that 603, 550 Israelite men above the age of 20, plus their wives and children and various hangers-on, a hoard estimated to be 2 million people, spent 40 years wandering in the Sinai on their journey to the Promised Land. But 2 million people, lined up 10 abreast, would stretch more than a hundred and fifty miles, more than the entire width of the Sinai Peninsula. There’s no evidence of their presence in the Sinai.
"Archaeologists have excavated most of the cities that Joshua is said to have razed. Many were not inhabited at the time or were not destroyed. On the other hand, there are abundant remains of Egyptian military outposts and administrative centers that testify to the imperial rule of one of the most powerful empires in the ancient world. So, even if the Exodus did occur in some fashion, the Israelites were making a journey from one part of Egypt to another. The Bible doesn’t mention this.
"The most likely explanation for the origin of the Israelites is that they were themselves the Canaanites. DNA studies have indicated that Jews and Palestinians are very closely related. Both of them are descended from the Canaanites. Genetically, they’re the same people. Both have been in this place thousands of years."
-
55
Are we pro-shunning or against it?
by Simon injust to continue my theme about religious freedom and how we approach criticizing the wts, i've also been thinking about 'shunning'.. i think shunning is the most unifying complaint that most ex-members of religious groups that practice it have in common.
it is the layer that runs under every other complaint - whatever the reason for leaving it seems "... and i was shunned" can be added to it as the final rap on the charge sheet.. of course it seems like a no-brainer to many of us and we hardly ever stop to really think about it - shunning is bad, the watchtower believes in shunning therefore the watchtower is bad.
they need to stop it.
-
-
Rufus T. Firefly
You raise some good points, Simon.
First, one must discern the distinction between Christian dis-fellowshipping (1 Cor. 5:11) and shunning (2 John 9-11). To understand what Christian dis-fellowshipping is, one must understand what Christian fellowshipping is: A sharing of spiritual association. To discontinue spiritual association with a "brother" who is an unrepentant evildoer (defined at 1 Cor. 5:11) does not require refusing to greet such ones in normal social situations. Paul said to "keep this one marked, stop associating with him...yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother." The only persons Christians are warned about greeting are former Christians who have rejected "the teaching of the Christ." (2 John 9-11)
I feel that dis-fellowshipping and/or shunning should be a strictly personal decision, and should not be mandated by any organization.
Some JWs feel it is proper to shun inactive family members they encounter at family funerals.
-
11
Acts 8:14 - Apostles are governing body - was this ever taught before?
by berrygerry intoday's wt study (nov 15, 2014 page 4, par 4.. the governing body in jerusalem sent the apostles peter and john to these samaritan converts, and they laid their hands on them, and they began to receive holy spirit.
(acts 8:5, 6, 14-17) .
there are multiple references to acts 15 whereby "the apostles and older men" were the governing body.. i have never noticed this applied to "the apostles" only in acts 8:14 before.. is this another new item to reinforce the concept of the governing body?.
-
-
Rufus T. Firefly
http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/minimoog-898174-gilead-grad-talk-59th-class/
Listen to Fred Franz explain that the first century Christian congregation had a governing body of one--Christ Jesus--and that Christ Jesus remains the sole governing body of today's Christian congregation.