Is Disfellowship Physically and Spiritually Necessary

Originally posted by galveston75
Lol. This from one who calls himself a Christian but in fact would openly eat blood or feed blood to one who was starving while pointing his finger to God's face in direct defiance of the scriptures that say not to eat blood.
Wow what hipocracy....

The bible also says women are worth 35 shekels while men are worth 50. Do you go by that rule also?

Originally posted by sonhouse
The bible also says women are worth 35 shekels while men are worth 50. Do you go by that rule also?

What is the context of your quote? What verses are you using?

Originally posted by KellyJay
What is the context of your quote? What verses are you using?

I forgot, you dis the OT. Leviticus 27 1-7.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I forgot, you dis the OT. Leviticus 27 1-7.

I what the O.T., what does 'dis' the O.T. mean?

Are you sure you are complaining about Leviticus 27? This is about vows
not about what a person is worth, you have another scripture in mind?
Even in the scripture you are talking about if you are to poor to pay, you
pay what you can afford.

Leviticus 27 New International Version (NIV)

Redeeming What Is the Lord’s

27 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If anyone makes a special vow to dedicate a person to the Lord by giving the equivalent value, 3 set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; 4 for a female, set her value at thirty shekels; 5 for a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels and of a female at ten shekels; 6 for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver and that of a female at three shekels of silver; 7 for a person sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekels and of a female at ten shekels. 8 If anyone making the vow is too poor to pay the specified amount, the person being dedicated is to be presented to the priest, who will set the value according to what the one making the vow can afford.

Originally posted by divegeester
What seems to be being missed here is that our two warm and charming JWs robbie carrobie and Galveston75 have said repeatedly, albeit not consistently, that taking blood in a transfusion is "matter of personal conscience". Clearly it isn't or beauroberts would not have been disfellowshipped.

I have been one of Jehovah's Witnesses for over 43 years and have never seen or heard of anyone being disfellowshipped for taking blood, even when the courts have forced it on them. Have you considered that BR was not Disfellowshipped for that reason but for another that we don't know about?
As humans we have a tendency to tell the story that makes us look best or gets the most sympathy.
jw.org

Originally posted by galveston75
The subject here is blood transfusions. There is no interpretation on this as the bible says more then once to "abstain from blood."

If one feels they need to ignor this command, that is their decision. But one has to answer to the congregations elder arrangement and depending on the circumstances and the attitude of ones involved, it is the command ...[text shortened]... ld would not exist now.

Listen and obey God's LAWS. Abstain from blood!!

Goodnight......

Along this line, if you believe in the Bible, our Creator, our Heavenly father, by name Jehovah God, gave His children, Adam and Eve, one house rule.
Many parents alive today understand and use the idea of a "house rule" to elicit proper behavior from their offspring.
Adam and Eve disobeyed by eating from the "tree of knowledge of good an bad". They broke the house rule.
They didn't need to. They were perfect and could have obeyed easily.
They suffered the consequences of death. This is what we as their children have inherited.
They were put out of the house (the Garden of Eden) and eventually at the time of the flood the Garden and the tree were destroyed.
Through Noah and his family, who we are all descended from, the human race survived.
Since we were still His children He had th right to give us another "house rule".
He did so at (Genesis 9:3-5) Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. 4 Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat. 5 Besides that, I will demand an accounting for your lifeblood. I will demand an accounting from every living creature; and from each man I will demand an accounting for the life of his brother.
Again a "house rule" that all can follow easily.
This rule applies to all humankind.
It is set out for Christians at (Acts 15:28, 29) For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”
Abstaining means voluntarily avoiding something.
So we can choose to avoid blood thus following Jehovah's "house rule" or we can disobey and take the consequences.
We may fall short, but Jehovah God is merciful and has provided a legal basis to forgive us if we do. He has provided His own dear spirit son, Christ Jesus, as a propitiatory sacrifice to cover us.
He is our modern day city of refuge.
So, no one needs to be disfellowshipped on this basis.

Originally posted by roigam
It is set out for Christians at (Acts 15:28, 29) For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality.

What does this have to do with life saving blood transfusions? The verses are clearly about pagan-like rituals.

Originally posted by roigam
I have been one of Jehovah's Witnesses for over 43 years and have never seen or heard of anyone being disfellowshipped for taking blood, even when the courts have forced it on them. Have you considered that BR was not Disfellowshipped for that reason but for another that we don't know about? As humans we have a tendency to tell the story that makes us look best or gets the most sympathy

Have you considered ~ by your own reckoning (as insinuated above) ~ that people might think it's you who is lying here for reasons of your own? As a human you might have a tendency to tell a story that makes you and your corporation look best or get the most sympathy.

Originally posted by FMF
What does this have to do with life saving blood transfusions? The verses are clearly about pagan-like rituals.

True, they did not have blood transfusions in the first century.
The pagans did though eat flesh and blood.
The Jews had dietary prohibitions that forbade them from eating blood.
When the Christian Congregation was formed, most of it's members were Jews. Their questions were concerning what part of Judaism and in particular its over 600 mitzvoth (laws) they were to follow.
Acts 15:20, 28,29 clarified some of the questions they had.
Notice that it is Jehovah God's Holy Spirit that decided that they should continue abstaining from blood as they would have done as good Jews.
The early Christians had the same problem with circumcision. In that case it was decided that physical circumcision was not necessary as now the Christian congregation would reach out to the nations.

Originally posted by roigam
True, they did not have blood transfusions in the first century.
The pagans did though eat flesh and blood.
The Jews had dietary prohibitions that forbade them from eating blood.
When the Christian Congregation was formed, most of it's members were Jews. Their questions were concerning what part of Judaism and in particular its over 600 mitzvoth (laws) th ...[text shortened]... circumcision was not necessary as now the Christian congregation would reach out to the nations.

The topic here is the lack of a Biblical basis for banning life saving blood transfusions ~ a perfect Christian spiritual metaphor, when you think about it ~ and not ancient Hebrew dietary customs or animal sacrifices or pagan blood rituals.

Originally posted by FMF
The topic here is the lack of a Biblical basis for banning life saving blood transfusions ~ a perfect Christian spiritual metaphor, when you think about it ~ and not ancient Hebrew dietary customs or animal sacrifices or pagan blood rituals.

If you don't see the reasoning I can't help you.
Hey, you have free will you can take it if you choose.
Adam and Eve could choose to eat of the tree too.
I can only pray that Jehovah will open the eyes of your heart.

Originally posted by roigam
If you don't see the reasoning I can't help you.
Hey, you have free will you can take it if you choose.
Adam and Eve could choose to eat of the tree too.
I can only pray that Jehovah will open the eyes of your heart.

That's a spiritual metaphor not literal.

Originally posted by roigam
If you don't see the reasoning I can't help you.

The only "reasoning" I can see is a corporation trying to set itself apart and create some "otherness" by conjuring up arbitrary 'unique selling points'.

Originally posted by FMF
The only "reasoning" I can see is a corporation trying to set itself apart and create some "otherness" by conjuring up arbitrary 'unique selling points'.

Just curious. You don't have to answer. Were you ever a baptized JW?

Originally posted by roigam
Just curious. You don't have to answer. Were you ever a baptized JW?

No.