New book: Keep Yourselves In God's Love: Chapter and appendix on blood

by truthseeker 50 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  BONEZZ

  STAY CLEAR OF BLOODGUILTY ORGANIZATIONS

  My favorite chapter heading!

  A self-condemnation if I ever heard one. Maybe just a Freudian Slip!

  -BONEZZ
• 

  Meeting Junkie No More

  Here's a gem from page 217:

  "Am I aware that refusing all medical procedures involving the use of my own blood means that I would not accept a blood test, hemodialysis, or a heart-lung machine?(bold mine)"

  So here they are saying that if you have accepted (I would say allowed, accept must be the legal term) a blood test, you have submitted to a medical procedure involving the USE OF YOUR OWN BLOOD!! Wow, I never knew this was against policy, but apparently, if blood is not poured out on the ground, you are not viewing it as 'sacred'? Ok, this is ABSOLUTELY INSANE...

  Just about EVERY WITNESS I have ever known has had a blood test, so if you've done that, you're already in violation of God's law; heck, by that reasoning, why not accept fractions? Why not have a transfusion? If you've ever had a blood test, the DOOR IS OPEN...

  The amount of doublespeak in this publication has reached critical mass...I didn't think it could get more convoluted....now, nobody can explain anything, but by God, you better be able to explain it all to your doctor.....in a 5-minute consultation!
• 

  still_in74

  I thought the illustration regarding the water given to David actually made the point of taking blood rather than not taking it. Along with their point about bleeding the animal correctly and having some residue left. All symbolic

  Yes the jews were forbidden to eat meat with blood. Yet all meat has blood. But as the paragraph states: as long as the procedure of draining the meat of its blood was followed then the respect for blood (life) was shown. Thus the trace blood consumed was of no consequence. We all know that, BUT.............
  JEHOVAH DETAILED HIS REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DRAINING OF BLOOD FROM MEAT THAT WAS TO BE EATEN.
  THAT IS IT!!! Dont eat meat that has not had this process applied first. This was the command. Jehovah knew they would eat blood and that was okay, as long as the meat was drained as he outlined.

  Where did Jehovah outline the process for blood transfusions?? The draining of blood was an "act" done to show Jehovah God respect for the life taken. It wasnt about consumption of blood, it was a demonstration that we appreciate that Jehovah sustains us with the life of the animal we just took.

  But as we all know, no life is taken when a transfusion is made. The "act" does not apply. The "act" only applied AFTER an animal was killed. A blood transfusion has no loss of life thus no "act" is needed. To say so is applying the necessity of the "act" retroactively.
  It is symbolic. SYMBOLIC. Dont eat dead animal blood until you do this first, then you can eat dead animal blood.
  To go beyond this is like saying that Adam & Eve could not eat any fruit that resembled the fruit of the forbiden tree because obviously that fruit is precious to God so not only must we follow Gods command, we must apply this principle to everything else!

  Yet the ultimate irony is that if we are to read into the prohibition on eating animal blood to include blood transfusions by saying: "well the bible says to pour it on the ground!" Then how does one justify fractions????? Was this blood "poured out?" NO!
  Thus this cannot be the WTS justification of banning blood, if it was then blood fractions would be banned too.

  Ultimately, the WTS has to have another reason to scripturally support its blood ban than the ol' pour it on the ground logic. Otherwise, I am going to have my local Deli make me up a batch of Blood Fraction Sausage !!
• 

  yknot

  I said:

  The dropping will happen........

  Here is what I expect to see in my lifetime.

  1. Gene Smalley dies, the blood issue is no longer written about or discussed....the distancing begins.

  2. After a decade a BOE letter announcing that the WTS still disapproves but encourages repentance only...auto DA is gone.

  3. The magic number has arrived! When the only JW living have all been baptized after June 1985 only then will it be fully stricken, never to be spoken of again....of course by this time no one will have heard of the blood ban in several decades.

  Result.....Coffers safe from lawsuit and blood on it's hands. The WTS own Akeldama

  Homerovah the Almight said:

  No the JWS will never drop the blood policy for this very reason......law suits

  My rebuttal:

  When the baptism was changed in 1985 to include question 2. (2) Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization. This makes the baptism a membership ritual and public declaration of a chosen, voluntary membership. Any JW can chose to accept blood, yes it violates the current membership rules and the membership is considered terminated by the person's actions but in no way has the WTS actually forced a member to choose or reject blood. It has simply stated it's current positon on the matter. .......In essense if you belong to a country club and you agree as a member to it's terms not to play with pink balls on Tuesday as it violates their current ban and still choose to play with a pink ball on Tuesday then you have gone against clubhouse rules and voluntarily rescinded you membership as stated in the membership handbook which you acknowledged before accepting said membership. They are not responsible to reinstate your membership if they change the rule later nor reimburse your money......of course if you play with a pink ball on Tuesday but profess your rule breaking to the pros and show repentance the pros may choose an option that alllows you to temporarily participate (guest membership) until they feel you are worthy to regain full membership...........yea it is STOOPID! .......but effective in arguing free-will....... Thus any and all lawsuits will be thrown out on the basis of free-will/ choice. baptism= voluntary membership contract, breakable at anytime by either parties.
• 

  yknot

  odd it reposted.
• 

  yknot

  ignore reposted again...
• 

  Fisherman

  REgarding Blood:

  There is an issue though for people who want to "live by the Bible". HOW should a Christian .."keep abstainning from blood..." What does that mean?

  Any thoughts?
• 

  jam

  how many jw,s eat rare beef??
• 

  Fisherman

  BlueBlades

  What is a Misrepresentation, the different types of Misrepresentations and how you can avoid from making one?

  An action for misrepresentation arises under the law of tort. A Misrepresentation occurs when the Representor makes a false statement of existing fact with knowledge of its falsity and with the intention that the Representee should act on it with the result that the Representee does act on it to his detriment.

  A false statement can be made either orally, in writing or by conduct. Any conduct designed to deceive another by leading one to believe that a certain fact exists is equivalent in law, as in morals, to be a statement in words that the fact does exist.

  In other words, when you either tell, give written instructions to or act in such a manner towards your Representeeon something which you know is not true or wrong with or without the intention of causing your Representee some form of harm as a result of him doing so, is tantamount to a misrepresentation.

  There are 3 forms of misrepresentation; Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation and Innocent Misrepresentation.

  Firstly, a Fraudulent Misrepresentation is one that is made knowingly by the Representor that it was false or if it was made without belief in its truth or made recklessly without regarding whether it is true or false.

  Secondly, a Negligent Misrepresentation occurs when a statement made by the Representor honestly believing in its truth (falling outside the scope of fraudulent misrepresentation) but without having reasonable grounds for so believing. (Making an honest but careless representation.)

  The last category of misrepresentation is Innocent Misrepresentation. .Such misrepresentations are those made by a Representor, who honestly believed in its truth (therefore not fraudulent) and he is able to show that he has reasonable grounds to believe in its truth (therefore not negligent).

  It must be noted that as a general rule, a representation can be expressed or implied from one's conduct but it normally has to take an active form. The Representor must have actually said or done something before he can be taken to have made a representation.

  Silence, however does not amount to a representation. Contracting parties are generally not obliged to disclose any information to the other party or even correct the other's misconception provided he himself had not induced the said misconception. A mere passive non-disclosure of the truth however deceptive in fact, does not amount to deceit in law. Absence of a contractual duty to speak, unless provided for in instances such as contract of insurance, means no such duty can arise in tort.

  Hence, silence by one party, even in the face of an obvious misconception on the part of the other, will still not amount to a representation that the misconception is true although, in some cases, it may amount to a unilateral mistake.

  As stated above, a misrepresentation must be a false statement of fact and not a mere broken promise. If words of the Representor are mere promises, then such cannot be the basis of an action in tort too. This means promises, which are not considered a term or condition to the contract, when not delivered cannot be the basis of an action in tort for misrepresentation.

  There are however, certain exceptional cases where silence or non-disclosure can have legal consequences such as half-truths or where a change in circumstances occurs before or at the time of contracting which renders untrue a statement of fact made previously or under certain types of contract, the law imposes a duty to make full disclosure as in the case of insurance contracts.

  As such, what are the remedies that the party so misrepresented, can claim against the Representor who made a misrepresentation?

  Firstly, the parties may consider to rescind the sale and purchase agreement altogether. This avenue puts the contracting parties to a position as if the contract did not take place. It is as if the contract was terminated from the beginning and parties are put back into position that they were before the contract. Any goods or monies passed are returned to the respective original owners.

  Secondly, the Representee could claim for damages from the Representor. Damages are actually monetary compensation for any losses suffered as a result of the misrepresentation.

  Thirdly, the Representee could seek the Representor to indemnify them for losses suffered because of obligations and liabilities created by the contract that was induced by the misrepresentation. It must be noted that this remedy is relatively less costly than that of Damages as indemnity limits the claims for losses arising out of obligations, which are necessarily created under the contract.

  .
• 

  Fisherman

  Here is the catch Blueblades.

  Since, a misrepresentation MUST be a false statement of fact, the wts is not LEGALLY responsible for misrepresentation relating to blood because the basis for Representee action is RELIGIOUS grounds and not based on wts stated medical facts. Statements made by wts moving Representee to action is religious conviction NOT STATEMENTS OF FACTS AS DEFINED BY LAW.