by Voyager 35 Replies latest watchtower bible
Angharad.
Sorry for the language ,i can be a bit of a hot head when reading stuff like that.I have loved ones in the JW.They wouldnt hurt a Fly and the Blood issue would be very,very important to them both .I would honour theyre wishes (re blood)if it came to it ,no matter how much i disagreed.
No problem Fleeman
I understand, I also have close family still in and the comments disgusted me too, really people reading comments like theirs will just re-enforce the image that the WT likes to try and portray about Ex-Jws.
((((Angharad))))
M'
A very sad loss of life.
I wish the WTBTS would give up this "No Blood Transfusion" rule.
We are never really protected from random acts of violence like this.
Who would have thought they could get shot down going to the video store.
Special K
I wish the WTBTS would give up this "No Blood Transfusion" rule.
I agree.I think its just pure,unadulterated stubborness from Hq.Its such a basic cornerstone of the religion,the minute they abolished this rule i could see a House of cards!
Sadly,they will never budge,imo.
Here come the lawsuits:
Oh, but you CANNOT question a persons religious beliefs.
My opinion... if one refuses a life-saving medical procedure one automatically indemnifies all parties involved with ones death.
Goodness, altercation at a blockbuster. Just the thought of that makes me uneasy. I understand that it came from one or the other dinging the side of the other ones car. Words insued and hitting then a gun was pulled. Stupid senseless violence.
As for the refusal of blood that JW and his wife were doing what they were conditioned to do by the WTS. Can't help but wonder what provoked the JW fellow hitting the other guy over the head. Neither of them might not survive. My other thought is that blood might not saved their lives anyway, it depends on how injured they were. The guy with the gun should be prosecuted for shooting both the man & his wife. Why didn't the guy just call the cops rather than pulling a gun?
Don't pay to make a big deal out of someone dinging our cars that is for sure.
Balsam
thanks fleaman.
Elsewhere, if the patient refuses a medical procedure has no bearing on whether or not he was murdered. It is like a pre-existing condition. ie. He didn't just shoot anybody, he shot a JW - presumably (at least legally) knowing that they wouldn't take blood and would die because of it. Being a dub is stupid and adhering to the doctrine is moronic in the extreme - and I can prove it isn't Bible based; but the fact remains that the dub who was shot went into the situation with a long-standing and well-known stance on blood.
Legally, he was killed. His acceptance or refusal of medical treatment was irrelevant to the action undertaken. It was homicide. In my opinion, from my understanding of the case, it was justifiable; both legally and according to my own personal ethics. The man did not die because of his refusal to take blood, he bled to death as a result of the actions of the man in the parking lot with the gun.
I wish I could go on a speaking tour reasoning on the blood issue from the scriptures. I could really help a lot of witnesses, I think. But this is a symptom of a larger problem - the abandonment of dubs' personal responsibility to think for themselves and let the governing body do it all for them.
Another thought; the gun control crowd seems to want to think that not having a gun would have saved somebody's life that day - that's a bit backward. If the man hadn't had a gun, the dub would probably have beaten him to death or near to it with a PIPE. What a lousy way to go - worse than bleeding out, I think.
If the surface facts are accurate, second guessing the man's decision to defend himself with his legal options won't do any good.
Lesson: Don't hit people with pipes.
CZAR
:The man did not die because of his refusal to take blood, he bled to death as a result of the actions of the man in the parking lot with the gun.
I don't think that has been established. It may well be that he bled to a certain level of loss due to the man shooting him, and then he further bled to death due to refusing to allow himself to be saved.
I know what your point is, but the fact remains that the charges for an act that hurts someone, vs the same act that kills someone, are very different. It seems to me therefore that a person making a choice to die, should potentially mitigate the charges against the person who injured him.
It is terrible that he died and I wished his wife would recover and be able to give the police her side of the story. I will say this though, it would not be the first time I have seen people pick and choose when to be a Jehovah's Witness. It is sad and ironic that the man wasn't as concerned with the consequences of his actions in the parking lot, yet that kind of concern was the thing that eventually killed him.
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
