Posted on 01/26/2006 10:32:58 AM PST by Check_Your_Premises
Jehovah's Witnesses are renowned for teaching that Jesus is not God and that the world as we know it will soon end. But another unusual belief causes even more entanglements - namely, that God forbids blood transfusions even when patients' lives are at stake.
The doctrine's importance will be underscored next week as elders who lead more than 98,000 congregations worldwide recite a new five-page blood directive from headquarters.
The tightly disciplined sect believes the Bible forbids transfusions, though specifics have gradually been eased over the years. Raymond Franz, a defector from the all-powerful Governing Body that sets policies for the faith, thinks leaders hesitate to go further for fear that total elimination of the ban would expose the organization to millions of dollars in legal liability over past medical cases.
(excerpt)
So I'm going to hell for all those blood donations I've made to the Red Cross, over the past 12 years or so? I'm complicit! I'm complicit!!!
You're not going to hell. You're going to Gehenna, which is a metaphor for the destruction of your soul with no further chance at resurrection. If you're going to make fun of a religion, at least make an effort at getting it right.
It's a religion. You participate by choice, thanks be to the founders of this fine country. You can leave whenever you want. No lawsuit.
Oh, but what if they misrepresent secular authorities to support their doctrine. Don't the all powerful leadership of the sect have a responsibility to those who see them as God's representatives?
Furthermore what if they use threats of osctracism against those who disobey the directives of the leadership.
Actually, the tort of misrepresentation has been applied to the Moonies already. That is the basis of the article in the Journal of Church and State.
"You're going to Gehenna"
I don't believe in Gehenna. I had to use hell.
You think you can trust AP to reveal this religion? I don't. I want to hear from the horse's mouth; rather than the commie filter.
What do you want to hear? Who is the horse?
Ok, assuming the horse is the Watchtower...
Here is the horse's mouth
http://www.reexamine.org/quotes/
All you need to know
Or more specifically...
http://www.reexamine.org/quotes/blood.htm
Apparently, what you link to is from the 1960s. It seems that there is about to be a new explanation. Perhaps the Jehovah's Witness leaders will take a somewhat different stance at this time.
I suggest waiting to see what the new rules are.
"I suggest waiting to see what the new rules are."
Oh, I doubt there will be any new rules (in fact I know, because dissident elders posted this letter on some other web sites already). I could post it but that would be alot of inside baseball.
In truth, I don't think they can ever just revoke the ban on blood transfusions. In this litigious day and age it would be the end of "God's Organization". Better to let their members die due to faulty exegesis.
No one has to believe what the Church officials represent, concerning the secular authorities, "in support of their doctrine", just like you do not have to believe the claims of food and drug product makers. The choice is yours.
"Furthermore what if they use threats of osctracism against those who disobey the directives of the leadership. "
If you are "ostracized" by officials of an organization that you belong to, and the basis of that ostracism is their belief in a position you disagree with, then don't you have to decide which is more important to you - your beliefs or membership in that organization? Maybe I'm missing something, I don't see the problem.
It sounds like you think there is something wrong with either: (a)feeling you must leave an organization that you no longer agree with or (b)an organization shunning members who do not agree with major positions of that organization, or (c) both of those possibilities. Are they not just part of life between individuals and organizations they participate in?
I can tell you this about the religion, coming from a true blue American conservative, and not from a communist filter.
The religion makes its children who are too young to make medical decisions die for a bible interpretation that is best described as esoteric and at worst described as extreme. They also use anti-blood
But you're assuming that this is a regular organization. This isn't. Families are in this organization. Friends are in this organization. Also, there are libelous rumors spread about you in that organization if you leave. If you're shunned in that organization, you're subject to libel beyond all belief. But then again, you know more about how cults operate than me or CYP do, so you can talk about it in a simple, plain manner.
Oh were it all that simple. I used to think as you do. Then I witnessed first hand the power of mind control in a loved one. Am I jaded. Admittedly, and rightfully so.
I don't know if this will pan out legally. I know the moonies got hit successfully using the tort of misrepresentation. Should it be used against the WT? I tend to think so.
Our legal system will probably never be able to articulate law that will protect people from mind control groups. It is unfortunate.
The damage they do is collossal. Jonestown was shocking because it all happened at once. Multiply the wt victims over the years this ban has been in place and you easily surpass Jim Jones crimes.
I understand this is a site that is very dedicated to the principle of limited government and against the restriction of religious expression. Furthermore, there is in most here a desire to celebrate free thought. If people choose to be stupid, why get in the way.
I must say though, that the WT provides really bad info on the subject. It isn't enough that they claim the ban is justified on their faulty exegesis. They go on to lie about medical facts in order to exaggerate the dangers and instill fear into their trusting, accepting sheep.
Is a store liable for not telling you the floor is wet when you slip? If you were to stupid to see the water, isn't that your own fault? Whether or not it is "right" is not the point. Regardless, the store will be sued.
Are the jw's stupid for believing the wt, and accepting this phony ban on blood? Yeah, probably. Darwin at work I guess... Until they get their hooks into somebody you care about. If they get sued into oblivion, I will smile.
There is another group here that needs to be mentioned as well; the children of jw's. They are especially vulnerable to the lies spread by the wt organization. Many states have laws that prevent parents from martyring their children. Hopefully there will be more.
CYP
Again, you base your argument about what is right or wrong with the choices people must make, concerning the organizations they belong to, as if those natural choices are predicated on the beliefs and actions of one organization; they're not.
Either you believe as that organization does, or you don't; and if you don't and that failure to agree requires that you no longer support it, then are you not better off, in terms of your own life and beliefs, to leave?
The "libel" you speak of extends not much further than the organization and its members. That simply presents the same choice, for the other members and you. They either trust and accept you, in spite of that "libel", or, in truth, you and they no longer see eye to eye on critical principals, so why would you seek their continued association, instead of new friends?
Most people who need to leave an organization that has been a major part of their life, when that need has been caused by a major disagreement, make that break cleanly and completely and, in time, do not look back. That is usually the road to success in such a break - with "libel" coming from that organization or not.
While this is an interesting news story, your posts bear an uncanny resemblance to bashing of this religous group. The Jehovah's Witnesses have a large following, with many members.
You may consider it a cult. That's fine. Lots of people consider many religions to be cults. However, bashing people's religious beliefs is not exactly kosher here on Free Republic.
It is the member's choice to belong to this religious organization. It is their choice to raise their children in it.
Some of us have sworn an oath to protect freedom of religion, among other rights. You don't agree with Jehovah's Witnesses. That's fine. However, when you try to pass laws prohibiting part of their religious tenets, you go too far for the USA.
I don't know what your religious beliefs are, or what religious organization you are affiliated with, but if I did, I could find someone, somewhere that thinks your group is also a cult.
"I don't know what your religious beliefs are, or what religious organization you are affiliated with, but if I did, I could find someone, somewhere that thinks your group is also a cult."
Yeah, but mine doesn't practice child sacrifice. I think that goes to far in the USA also.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.