What's Sacred, what's not?

by Frenchy 47 Replies latest jw friends

  • Frenchy

    Caytf: I'm smiling as I type this, I don't want to sound argumentative but you say :"What I said was that the society won't try to police individuals medical decisions"

    But they do! They did it with innoculations before the 50's and they did it with transplants and now they are doing it with blood. Remember that it's not only whole blood transfusions that are forbidden but ALL 'major' blood components.

    You also say: "the society can no longer police sex practices within a consentual marriage relationship" --They may, for the present, CHOOSE not to do so but they CAN if they want to. It's just bad PR for the moment.

    You state: "Not a few have been disappointed in the societies (relatively new) decision to no longer police in a proactive fasion ." I'm not quite sure what you mean by "proactive fashion" but the Society is still very active in policing the lives of the flock. Try a little fornication for example and see what happens. Now I'm not condoning this action by any means but the point is that you will get some VERY ACTIVE action on that!

    You asked: "You say the society has no one to check their decisions but do you really believe that?" There is no one they have to consult with before making such a decision and there is no one (as yet) that can make them change it.

    Your last comment: "...Also Frenchy your post dated April 20th is incorrect when you stated that people could get disfellowshipped for gambling. It is not gambling that is a disfellowshipping offense it is greed ." It makes no difference what it's called, they get DF'd for gambling. At what point does gambling become greed? Now I have to ask, 'Do you really believe what you are saying?' When was the last time you heard of someone being disfellowshipped for eating too much? When was the last time you heard of someone getting disfellowshipped for working too much so as to make more money? When was the last time you heard of someone getting disfellowshipped for investing (risking, gambling) more than they could afford in the stock market? When was the last time you heard of a brother losing his privileges for investing in the stock market? Now, my final question: How many of your elders and M.S.'s are gamblers and freely admit it before all?

  • Caytf

    Freely admitting? are you nuts or just naive? You are an interesting fellow who can't possibly be what you claim to be. I just thank you for the opportunity Jehovah has used me for in drawing you out on that limb your hanging on to. Take a look back brother at those who are reading the direction your posts have taken--they're shaking their heads (I am too). What they didn't know before was what your nay-saying was saying about you as an individual and where you truly stand in regards to respect for the truth.
    You didn't want to be argumentative?? Sounding reasonable while stating "facts" about the society is a tactic used frequently by an evil dude we all know too well.
    Let's see in your last post you confused the line between disfellowshipping and removal of privledges--big difference!
    You confused the line between greed and gambling yet one is a disfellowshipping offense and the other is not.
    You blurred the line into obscurity of who checks the socities actions when it is known to all Witnesses of Jehovah that all matters get taken up with a higher authority.
    You've blurred in my mind exactly when you fell away from the truth because you hold onto antiquated notions and say the society polices us---thus trying to blur in the minds of any weak faithed ones what the society of todaydoes and does not get involved in.

    But there was no blurring or confusion of your stand when you stated it was bad "PR" for the society to disfellowship for this or that practice....PR???? Now I'm shaking my head in dismay. Tsk tsk tsk... Be careful your slip is showing Frenchy.

    As for your recommedation to committ fornication--no thanks. That was a pretty pathetic invitation and I've managed to thwart the very best mind you. Not tempted in the least. :)

  • Ben

    Catyf: "That was a pretty pathetic invitation and I've managed to thwart the very best mind you. Not tempted in the least. :)"

    -I'm afraid that you are bringing this down to a personal level and I don't wish to exchange insults with anyone. I will not be replying to any of your posts in the future. I'm sorry you chose this path.

    Frenchy, posting as Ben

  • Simon

    Caytf / Ben / Frenchy
    I know it is very easy to get emotional over topics like this when both sides hold very strong but very different opinions.
    Don't forget that things aren't always done in a consistent fashion everywhere so it is possible for two people to claim that the society behaves in completely different ways and both be right - each person has a different and unique experience of things which determines what they see as beeing 'the norm'.
    I hope you're both willing to 'agree to differ' and continue sharing your thoughts with us !

  • Ben

    Thank you, Simon. You're quite right. I don't mind different views (actually I welcome them) but I just will not engage in personal inuendos and character attacks. There is no reason to resort to name calling because then emotions come into play and what started as an intellectual exercise turns into a brawl. I love to discuss and debate but I will not be provoked into a verbal free for all.

    I've seen enough of that on the other boards.

  • Simon

    Yes, sorry Ben
    I didn't mean to seem to condone the personal inuendos and character attacks which there is NEVER any excuse for.
    I have found that people tend to resort to those when they have a weak argument and want to divert attention away from it (very like politics isn't it?).
    You know they have the ultimate weak argument when they just point out spelling mistakes in your posts

  • Frenchy

    Soooo.... (still on the blood thing): Why do fractions not have to be poured out on the ground?

  • Caliban

    Because when the superstitious tribe of hebrews wrote the bible thousands of years ago they didn't know that blood was made up of other things.
    That's why fractions don't get a mention. It's also why sick people (eg. with epilepsy) would have been labeled 'demon posessed' and there was no provision made for caring for the mentally ill other than by stoning them to death.
    Hmmn...you'd think that if the bible was inspired like it's supposed to be that God would have known these things wouldn't you? Maybe we're just cleverer than he is...

  • RedhorseWoman

    What has always bothered me is how "rules" can easily change to "suggestions" depending on the current climate in the "world".

    People at one time were disfellowshipped for drunkenness. As soon as it was determined that alcoholism was a disease condition, that "offense" disappeared.

    Likewise, it seems that other disfellowshipping offenses are constantly modified to fit more comfortably with the world's view on the matter.

    It has always also bothered me that the Society will not take responsibility on matters. It is always left up to the person's "conscience". Is this truly a way to hone our relationship with Jehovah on an individual basis, or is it merely a means to avoid making an unpopular pronouncement that might later return in unflattering ways?

  • Frenchy

    Hello, Red [:0]

    You said: -What has always bothered me is how "rules" can easily change to "suggestions" depending on the current climate in the "world".-

    The 'rules' change to 'suggestions' when it becomes apparent (not by divine inspiration either!) that the rules were stupid in the first place because they were based on erroneous beliefs and assumptions.

    If you have the time, look up information in our publications on suicide and see how drastic a change has occurred in the way that this is looked at today from what it was years ago. Enlightment, and not 'increasing light' was responsible for this.

    You also said: -It has always also bothered me that the Society will not take responsibility on matters. It is always left up to the person's "conscience".- Actually the society HAS taken it upon themselves to become our conscience in quite a few matters and therefore disallowing us the free use of our God-given faculty of conscience. Once it became apparent that some of those 'rules' were nonesense or at the very least, questionable, then they gave us our conscience back on those things.

    I agree with you that the Society fails to take responsibility but perhaps in a way different than you are saying here. Once it becomes apparent that mistakes were made they do not take the responsibility for making those mistakes but brush them off of try to phrase it in such a way as to make the general JW populace believe that it was THEIR misunderstanding of things. This, I find, is most reprehensible.

    Why do we need 'pronouncements' anyway?

Share this