Honesty
1009 has left the building.
Sorry, needed to spend some time with my (new) wife and slept during the night. Today I've to work. I will give some responses during the day, but one by one. There a lot of reactions here, I see I hit a snare. Is that correct English? English also is not my primary language, so I need some extra time to translate. I will try to response to each one of you. I see two very long replies, I appreciate that very much.
Now where did I stay? About here:
trujw
Hey it is estimated only 200,000 people have died from not having blood since 1945. No big deal. Jim jones only killed what 2000 people. A close friend of mine had his dad die. He should just get over it. Murder is murder if children die that could have been saved. Sorry I'm not over it.
That is ofcourse a serious issue. It is very sad when people die. I understand that a person who not supports the blood doctrine, becomes bitter when a loved one dies after refusing blood.
I remember a time I red in the newspaper a JW died from refusing blood. Later it became clear that the sister would have died anyway, even if she had accepted blood. So I always have my doubts when I read somewhere that a JW died from not having blood: was that really the cause? Also: I still prefer blood free alternatives.
I do not know the estimates. I think that is an overestimate. http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/02/more-than-50000-dead.html comes to an estimate of 50,000. But I got to admit: that is still a lot.
For an outsider it will always seem unreasonable to refuse a threatment, and when someone dies it is easy to blame the organisation that defined the doctrine. When I would have refused blood, that would be because I believed their doctrine is right. Nobody forced me to believe that. I made a choice. Maybe a wrong one. But to call WTG murderers? No, I (still) don't agree with that.