That's because you don't know the reasons why we refuse blood. If you knew and understood the reasons you would not be making such a statement. It's best to be well informed about things before making rash statements.
I meant no disrespect.. To me, it just seems silly. I was raised Catholic... I still eat meat on Friday, and use birth control. I guess I just do not take everything literally.
Fair comment. I was raised Catholic too and I still eat meat every day and have no problem with birth control. However, when it comes to blood I am very careful for two reasons. 1) It's scriptural and I take that seriously. 2) It's unhealthy. I say this because of the way the medical societies around the world are starting to realise the dangers of blood transfusions. There are now a number of hospitals (public hospitals) that practice 100% bloodless surgery. There are now more alternatives at hand. That's why I say it is best to be well informed. Col
I was pointing out things about the organization, not about you. I then asked if you denied a certain problem with the organization and rather than dispute it you report me?? The organization calls the Christian church the Whore of Babylon and I am sure they go easy on the Catholic church and their similar problem. I'd say the organization is the one that is being unwarranted, rude, and slanderous.
Sorry dude, but I don't see a personal attack here. Are you following in the footsteps of the other dudes that whenever you challenge them they turn around and start bagging the Bible? You and I have our differences, still, I expected better from you.
Now that is very interesting indeed. Your link provides readers to read the very first paragraph: "Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Babylon the Great, the great harlot (NWT) symbolizes the world empire of false religion, including, but not limited to, Christendom, a term they use to refer to all religious organizations who tell lies about the true identity of God almighty and His purpose for mankind. Among John’s visions recorded in the book of Revelation appear pronouncements of judgment against “Babylon the Great,†as well as a description of her and of her downfall.—Re 14:8; 16:19; chaps 17, 18; 19:1-3." Hmmm...that paragraph and the associated paragraphs underneath it pretty much state that's what the Bible says. Therefore, the organization is stating what the Bible says about who Babylon the Great is. Here's a question for you. Who do you think Babylon the Great is?
Your explicitly say that the blood is the cause we are alive. The woman died because she didn't accept blood. In the time where above verses were written, transfusion was not known. So there is no reason to avoid taking blood from someone and giving it to the other one. Bible does not forbid transfusion. It is the way how you interprete the Bible.
I agree with you boron except for the last sentence. Let me put it how I see it: "It is the way how you MISSinterpret the Bible." This misinterpretation is another characteristic of JWs. Even the followers of the founder had to make certain "corrections". Just like the time when they prophecied the second coming of Jesus. Anyway, I am sure we will have more "interpretations" corrected in the future. The sad part about the JWs is they are sincere people, nevertheless they are also deceived.
So you think there is no difference between eating blood and taking it into your veins via transfusion? How does this fit into "abstaining" from blood? You can trust me on this point. I am in no way deceived. In fact, I feel I am very well informed. Exactly who do you think is deceiving me?
How many times were the JWs wrong??? And still you claim the Watchtower is the ONLY organisation with the proper "light". I can go into further details but this will suffice. Kind of like when homosexuals defend their lifestyle. yes, there are nice and decent homos in many ways and yet we know what the Bible says about homosexuality so there is no point in going further discussing with them.
No where near as many as other religions got it wrong. Touche! It seems to be addressing mankind's problems and giving proper spiritual food at the right time every time. That would be a strong yes. Am I correct in saying you are outcasting homosexuals? Therefore, you are judging them. I believe anyone that lawfully is not a judge has no right to be judging anyone.
Would it be OK to let homosexuals continue in their sin and not warn them of their imminent end? I actually just realised you don't believe in hell so maybe that is why it doesn't matter to you. As about proper spiritual food??? From what I remember the first Christians were breaking bread daily or at least once a week. The JWs being more enlightened do it once a year?? Sorry but I like to stick with the Bible. If I was to err, I would rather err on the side of the Bible. I honestly appreciate your honesty and devotion to "The Cause", but your dedication is more to the organisation not to the word of God. It's sad. In a previous post you told me YOUR definition of a false prophet. But it seems that does not apply to the Watchtower dudes
If you see a sentence written in the Bible, you can interprete it this way or that way. You yourself could limit the word 'abstain' to eating or you can use it widely - let's say like not even touch the blood. If you eat meat, there is quite possible there will be a drop of blood somewhere in that meat, so it is possible that you break the rule sometimes when you eat meat - and knowing it's possible that's some blood in it. What I find as missconception of JW explanation of the Bible is, that you find a rule and then you feel obligation to follow the rule. Rules are not for the purpose to be followed, but to bring something good. Rules are good, if they help to achive something good. Bible and other books were often abused from persons (mainly political and other leaders) to achive goals they wanted. One can always find a sentence in Bible and provide a twisted explanation to achive some bad goal. Jesus Christ was murdered because of purposedly misinterpreted Bible. They asked him: "So, you are the Son of the God"? He said: "I am". There is a sentence in Bible which says, that every man who will represent himself as a God, must die. But this obviously doesn't apply for Jesus, who was sent from the God. His judges knew for all miracles he has done, so why their judging didn't go in that way: He must be a Son of God if he is capable of doing things like that.
Sorry but jesus wasnt an extremist, he came into this world and was healing people on the sabbath. Its rediculous to know that your dying and the only thing that can save you is a blood transfusion and your religion doesnt allow it. jesus broke some laws because he understood that these laws were guidelines not etched in stone. I had the same arguments with a few fellow catholic friends of mine a few years ago and they disagreed that the church should educated people in africa on condom use because these people were dying by the tens of thousands from aids. She said that the church is right and these people shouldnt be having sex if they dont want to die. To me this is coldness personified, anyways when the new pope argued that the vetaican said people in africa should be educated on condom use as the lesser of the 2 evils they still wouldnt support it and wouldnt believe the pope said this.Any religion that follows a law that would allow people to die because they wouldnt take a blood transfusion is scary. The jw's should abolish this law. I have met many jw's and they are good natured people but they are too absolute in the laws that they follow. This doesnt give them leeway for MODERATION which jesus christ himself( or saint michael the archangel oops just kidding lol) favored.
Of course it matters to me. It's not my decision what homosexuals want to do with their lives or anyone else for that matter. All we can do is show them what the Bible teaches. They have to make their own decisions based on scriptural information. If they don't want the information there is nothing we can do about that. Belief in Hell has nothing to do with this point. Well, that's your interpretation and you are entitled to your opinion. However, I see it differently. I can only hope you accept I am entitled to my opinion too. I dedicate my life to God and I firmly believe our organisation is fully backed by God in every way. Oh...you mean the one in Revelation? That's very different to the one I was referring to. Are you trying to tell me that Gehazi was not a false prophet? He acted as a prophet for greed and material possessions did he not? Technically speaking, Gehazi is not the "false prophet" mentioned in the Bible. If it is the "false prophet" in Revelation then that is referring to "one's who encourage people to listen to lies rather than the true warnings from God. People that tell their own ideas instead of God's thoughts and teachings." That's why it is good to do wider reading of other scriptures that fit in with the theme of the Bible. I don't see refusing blood transfusions as a bad goal. I see it as honouring your integrity to God. I have to mention this. Each individual is well informed to make their own decisions when it comes to being offered a blood transfusion. Not children under the guidance of parents of course. However, you will rarely hear any Jehovah's Witness say "my religion does not allow it". Your statement is just plain wrong.
Do JWs ever make a "well informed" decision that doesn't go along with the organizations present doctrine and remain in the organization? If you told a local elder that you made a well informed decision to have a blood transfusion would the local elder say "Spot on mate, she'll be right!" or would he persuade you to fall in line and then start the disfellowshipping process if you wouldn't?
My own opinion is, that is no reason why abstaining from blood should be a rule (meaning - applied to all). On the other side I can understand that someone accepts this rule as his personal rule from some reason - only reason would be if God personally tells someone to do so, or if someone is completely sure that this is right thing to do - the self proof for beeing right is to feel peace and joy at that decisuon and - the decision itself has to match some written doctrine, which someone believes it is correct. A Christian believes that the Gospel is that text which represents the reference for all decisions. The Old testament's rules do not apply any more. Now it is everyone's decision which text someone takes as the basis. I think this is a debate which we have here. I'm confused here, so I'll ask this way: If JW decides to accept blood - is this considered as a sin and what measures (if any) follow? Or denying blood is maybe only recommended, but not required - so like allowed to be a personal decision?