(post 40919) in Friends

Member	Post

Serious discussion of blood doctrine by Lee Elder on

Re: Serious discussion of blood doctrine by Thirdson on

Re: Serious discussion of blood doctrine by zev on

Re: Serious discussion of blood doctrine by Thirdson on

Re: Serious discussion of blood doctrine by somebody on

TR Re: Serious discussion of blood doctrine
Lee,
This is a stupid question, but here goes;
If a JW gets a transfusion, but wants to remain an active JW, he is not disassociating himself is he? I know that the congregation is told that he automatically DA's himself, but if he doesn't formally DA himself, is he really DA'd? The article quoted says DAing is initiated by the JW himself, not the congregation. This seems rediculous for the WTS to plays with words and peoples lives. So, what else is new, eh?
TR
IP: jP800+reYvO4t5ju

Re: Serious discussion of blood doctrine by expatbrit on

Re: Serious discussion of blood doctrine by Lee Elder on

Re: Serious discussion of blood doctrine by somebody on

Re: Serious discussion of blood doctrine by RedhorseWoman on

Re: Serious discussion of blood doctrine by TR on

Re: Serious discussion of blood doctrine by ianao on

TR	Re: Serious discussion of blood doctrine
	Lee, This is a stupid question, but here goes; If a JW gets a transfusion, but wants to remain an active JW, he is not disassociating himself is he? I know that the congregation is told that he automatically DA's himself, but if he doesn't formally DA himself, is he really DA'd? The article quoted says DAing is initiated by the JW himself, not the congregation. This seems rediculous for the WTS to plays with words and peoples lives. So, what else is new, eh? TR
IP: jP800+reYvO4t5ju