JWs and blood transfusions

Originally posted by divegeester
You "drew the line" by protesting that Jehovah's Witness parent should be allowed to let their child die (the alternative being to provide a life saving blood transfusion) on the basis that the state interviewing was causing the JWs to have their conscience seared before their god.

That me calling you out over this makes your "line look bad" would be ...[text shortened]... perspective in it, wasn't so serious. How you can sit there and post this stuff is astonishing.

Okay, fine find someone else to discuss this with too. I'm sick and tired of
you and FMF claiming I'm okay with children dying after I told you I have had
a child die and would not wish that on anyone.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not follow Jehovah Witness, I believe they are a cult! I don't care who you
are, or what you believe, if you are confronted with something that harms your
conscience, I'd not subject you to it if possible. That is the bottom line of all of
my arguments in this discussion. Now again if you want to twist that into letting
children die, just say so we can end all of our future conversations from this
point in time too.
Kelly

If you look very carefully at your screen you should be able to just about make out that I wasn't replying to you.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, fine find someone else to discuss this with too. I'm sick and tired of
you and FMF claiming I'm okay with children dying after I told you I have had
a child die and would not wish that on anyone.

Kelly it is you who posted in the other thread that the state were wrong to intervene and save the child's life because this compromised the JW parents conscience before their god. I am simply responding to that position.

Originally posted by divegeester
That me calling you out over this makes your "line look bad" would be hilarious if the subject matter and your preposterous perspective in it, wasn't so serious. How you can sit there and post this stuff is astonishing.

KellyJay apparently won't even state on which side of the "line" he mentioned he would place things like parents raping their children or female genital mutilation. It seems his prime concern is an ideological one which is about the "force" used by the "state" and being against "anyone should be forced to do anything they had a heart felt belief was wrong" rather than any concern for children or how they should be protected.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm sick and tired of you and FMF claiming I'm okay with children dying after I told you I have had a child die and would not wish that on anyone.

You strongly supported the JW's "right" to let their children die unnecessarily a couple of months ago. Have you changed your stance?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not follow Jehovah Witness, I believe they are a cult! I don't care who you are, or what you believe, if you are confronted with something that harms your conscience, I'd not subject you to it if possible.

If parents' conscience tells them to mutilate their daughter's genitals do you think the state should seek to prevent it from happening?

Originally posted by FMF
KellyJay apparently won't even state on which side of the "line" he mentioned he would place things like parents raping their children or female genital mutilation. It seems his prime concern is an ideological one which is about the "force" used by the "state" and being against "anyone should be forced to do anything they had a heart felt belief was wrong" rather than any concern for children or how they should be protected.

I note that Kelly has "lost a child" himself; and of course I am not without empathy for what must be a painful loss. However using this personal tragedy as an appeal to the forum that his stance of not permitting the state to intervene and save the JW parents child, actually makes his view even more astonishing and honestly makes me wonder what is driving it. After all Kelly is not a Jehovah's Witness and does not accept their religious views as being accurate.

Originally posted by redbadger
well he is my JW guru

🙂

Originally posted by redbadger
where is Robbie Carrobie when you need him?

Robbie's posting strategy usually involves a self imposed retreat or even a forum fast after a single, or as was the case recently, multiple "pants at ankles" experiences.

Originally posted by divegeester
Robbie's posting strategy usually involves a self imposed retreat or even a forum fast after a single, or as was the case recently, multiple "pants at ankles" experiences.

true but you always get a laugh out of him , right or wrong he is funny.

Originally posted by redbadger
true but you always get a laugh out of him , right or wrong he is funny.

thankyou badger i do try to be pleasant and walk lightly upon the ground. I simply refuse to remonstrate with people these days, especially the windy scourgebag FMF and his sideflick diveslapster. They are in my opinion incapable of rational thought, all they ever proffer is their own propaganda.

Originally posted by redbadger
true but you always get a laugh out of him , right or wrong he is funny.

I'll grant you there is entertainment value in the little weasel.

Originally posted by DeepThought
With complete respect for your point of view I find myself disagreeing with it. An earlier poster made a point about female genital mutilation and that happens with the parents', or at least the father's, consent. We live in societies where one is not entirely free, the constraints upon us make us richer, we gain more (in general) from being not perfec ...[text shortened]... se a new recruit on the grounds they had had such a treatment in their own past? I suspect not.

Thanks for your viewpoint and honesty. But no of course not on you last question. Many JW's were not raised as such and would not be held accountable for their former actions just as many were in that situation in Jesus's day.
And yes we know for most we do not justify, as you say, for what we know the bible is saying on blood and especially with the few children that may die each year earth wide, which is no doubt a very small number especially with the advances with blood expanders and break thrus in other options used instead of blood, that blood is no longer needed in most settings.
We view our children as actually belonging to Jehovah and a gift to us as he is the one who gives life to all. We have to teach and raise that child and as such, we have to listen to his laws and honor them on all levels on raising and nuturing his creation.

PS 127:3; 3 Look! Sons are an inheritance from Jehovah;
The fruit of the womb is a reward.


We know the Bible cleary says to "abstain" from blood just as this and others commands us,

Acts 15:29American Standard Version (ASV)

29 "that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare ye well."

Christians are still under these laws. For example we still cannot commit fornication without having to answer to God and it could be an mistake that could make us loose out on future life.
Christians still are told not to worship idols and that too is a direct command from God.
Why would the command to stay away or abstain from blood be differrent? When did he change his mind on that one law and keep the rest?

So the point is we are still under those laws, at least we are supposed to be even though most have lost that fact in their hearts. So how could a parent go against that law with a child who is a gift from our creator himself, and who set those laws down in writing that are in every bible on the planet?

Originally posted by galveston75
...Christians are still under these laws...

...we are still under those laws...

Incorrect.

...for you are NOT UNDER LAW but under grace...
Romans 6:14

I notice you have not addressed the situation in the link I posted where the state had to intervene to save a child's life from the doctrines you hold so precious. No doubt you will justify this ignorance by telling yourselves "divegeester is of the devil" or more likely "a slobbering zombie".

You carry on.

Originally posted by galveston75
Thanks for your viewpoint and honesty. But no of course not on you last question. Many JW's were not raised as such and would not be held accountable for their former actions just as many were in that situation in Jesus's day.
And yes we know for most we do not justify, as you say, for what we know the bible is saying on blood and especially with the ...[text shortened]... r creator himself, and who set those laws down in writing that are in every bible on the planet?

Abstain from blood. I rather think that the Bible is referring to things like black pudding rather than blood transfusions. So you are saying if artificial blood plasma were available it would be acceptable? I don't know if such a thing exists, I'm just wondering about the scope of the prohibition.