Posts by defender of truth

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

defender of truth

3) Uncleanness under the Law was a temporary condition that could be changed once a person took the necessary steps. An act that made someone 'unclean' did not have to be [a sin].

I apologise, I'm very tired tonight. This is the wording I should have used to convey the intent of my post. (Don't want some picky person to take that the wrong way and point out that we are all sinful, and all acts are sinful.)

As Cofty pointed out, having sex with your wife is not a sin.

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

defender of truth

Fisherman has not responded to 1 Samuel 14:32. Perhaps he's embarassed that I found a verse where blood was eaten and nobody got 'cut off'.

So, to recap..

1) Blood only had to be poured out as a sacrificial offering after a life had been taken.
Blood from a live animal was never used in a sacrifice.

2) The law did not require that anyone eating any blood, in any circumstance, was to be declared permanently unclean and cut off from the people.
Examples of exceptions have been given.

3) Uncleanness under the Law was a temporary condition that could be changed once a person took the necessary steps. An act that made someone 'unclean' did not have to be sinful.
Uncleanness was unavoidable.

"From First Samuel 14:31-35 it may be deduced that “eating with the blood” means eating meat without first pouring out the blood before God, normally on an altar."
"What Was Done about Uncleanness
These regulations imply that one should avoid ceremonial impurity if possible, but the nature of the rules given above shows that often this was, even by natural biological processes, impossible. Everyone became unclean from time to time. Periodic states of uncleanness were unavoidable.

Where contraction of impurity occurred, it was obligatory that the unclean person avoid that which is holy and take steps, involving the rituals for disposal of impurity, to return to a state of cleanness."
"Uncleanness and the danger pertaining thereto lingered [only] upon those who did not take the necessary steps to be purified (Numbers 19:12-13; Leviticus 17:16)."

www.kneillfoster.com/aar/2000/AAR2000-2Laws.php

10

Watchtower Reports on Child Sexual Abuse in Other Religions

by steve2 in

is there a thread devoted to outlining year-by-year every published watchtower and awake!

article on child sex abuse scandals in the churches of christendom?

if so, how far back does the organization's literature go on this topic?

defender of truth

Here is a list of references:
www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/48389/watchtower-condemns-catholics-pedophile-cover-up?page=1&size=20

This is a sample from it:
"The Watchtower, June 1st 2002 Issue, Page 25:
Certain incidents in particular shocked me.... Another time, the principal of the Baptist school attempted to abuse me sexually. I learned afterward that he was a homosexual and had abused others. I pondered these things, wondering to myself, 'Does God approve of religions whose members and even whose leaders are not held accountable for gross sins'."

And another list...
www.silentlambs.org/Catholicarticles.htm

77

Blood Transfusion: Letter of Understanding

by defender of truth in

http://ajwrb.org/science/blood-transfusion-letter-of-understanding.

"every parent among jehovahs witnesses worried about how local watchtower appointed elders will respond to letting their child have blood transfusion without opposing it should download this letter of understanding and be ready to hand a copy to them.

then ask those elders to leave them (the parents) and doctors alone to concentrate on the childs best interests.".

defender of truth

If anyone is interested, it seems as though it was a local thing.

Here's an article about the situation:

"Toronto’s Sick Kids now will go to “all lengths” to find alternatives to transfusing blood when Jehovah’s Witnesses voice their opposition, said Rebecca Bruni, a bioethicist at the hospital. It also asks parents to sign a letter of understanding — drafted with the help of one of the church’s hospital liaison committees — that says the institution recognizes their religious objections and will try to avoid transfusions if at all possible. The letter is not a consent form, but adds that where the child is at imminent risk of serious harm or death, medical staff will press ahead with the transfusion.

“What is beautiful about this is that it’s a symbolic way of embodying respect and dignity and when we do this, we don’t need to call Children’s Aid, which can be messy and ugly.”

McMaster Children’s Hospital has a similar letter of understanding, recognizing that providing a blood transfusion can be traumatic when “it has potentially eternal consequences,” said Ms. Frolic.

McGill Children’s Hospital in Montreal has had such a protocol for about a decade, and found that it brought about a “real, significant drop” in conflicts, said Lori Seller, a clinical ethicist at the facility.

All the ethicists stress, as well, that some Jehovah’s Witnesses do not agree with the blood ban, but are anxious that their green light to transfusion be kept confidential.

“Some families are really more concerned about other Jehovah’s Witnesses finding out they consented to the blood transfusion,” said Ms. Seller.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/20/without-fanfare-jehovahs-witnesses-quietly-soften-position-on-blood-transfusions

77

Blood Transfusion: Letter of Understanding

by defender of truth in

http://ajwrb.org/science/blood-transfusion-letter-of-understanding.

"every parent among jehovahs witnesses worried about how local watchtower appointed elders will respond to letting their child have blood transfusion without opposing it should download this letter of understanding and be ready to hand a copy to them.

then ask those elders to leave them (the parents) and doctors alone to concentrate on the childs best interests.".

defender of truth

www.ajwrb.org/science/blood-transfusion-letter-of-understanding

77

Blood Transfusion: Letter of Understanding

by defender of truth in

http://ajwrb.org/science/blood-transfusion-letter-of-understanding.

"every parent among jehovahs witnesses worried about how local watchtower appointed elders will respond to letting their child have blood transfusion without opposing it should download this letter of understanding and be ready to hand a copy to them.

then ask those elders to leave them (the parents) and doctors alone to concentrate on the childs best interests.".

defender of truth

http://ajwrb.org/science/blood-transfusion-letter-of-understanding

"Every parent among Jehovah’s Witnesses worried about how local Watchtower appointed elders will respond to letting their child have blood transfusion without opposing it should download this Letter of Understanding and be ready to hand a copy to them. Then ask those elders to leave them (the parents) and doctors alone to concentrate on the child’s best interests."

This has been around since 2007. Full credit to Marvin Shilmer.

I had not heard about this letter before, has anyone else heard of it?

7

Mother and Unborn Baby Die from blood transfusion refusal

by Coded Logic in

it's a very sad story.

their deaths were completely avoidable if she hadn't refused the blood transfusion:.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/04/07/why-doctors-let-a-jehovahs-witness-and-her-unborn-baby-die/.

defender of truth

smiddyan hour ago

"Did I not read on this board somewhere , that the governing Body had a letter/policy of some sort absolving any" Witness" from responsibility , leaving the decision to be made by the medical staff treating the patient ?

A letter/policy that has not been made available to the rank and file even though it was drafted some months even years ago ?"

Is this what you were looking for?

http://ajwrb.org/science/blood-transfusion-letter-of-understanding

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

defender of truth

Straight from the revised New World translation, if you are a Jehovah's Witness reading this thread.. 1 Samuel 14:32

"So the people began rushing greedily at the spoil, and they took sheep and cattle and calves and slaughtered them on the ground, and they ate the meat along with the blood."

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/books/1-samuel/14/

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

defender of truth

Fisherman said earlier:
"... Regarding blood, show me one verse where God allowed Israel to eat blood. Unbled meat sometimes, but never blood."

Ok. 1 Samuel 14:32.

They ate blood.

Nobody was punished or cut off from their people.
Neither God or his anointed one ordered anyone to be killed or punished.
Yet the men knew exactly what they were doing.
Don't try and tell me it was 'not intentional'.

This was clearly an example of animal blood being eaten deliberately, instead of being poured out.
See all of the translations and cross-references for this verse here:
http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/14-32.htm