JW organization.

[Elijah John]

Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to:

-vote
-celebrate birthdays
-celebrate Christmas or Easter
-donate or receive blood transfusions.

And if any JW openly persists in doing these things[edit to add publicly], they will be shunned or disfellowshipped, [edit to add or otherwise admonished or disciplined.]

For debate,

1) what do any of these check-list prohibitions have to do with Christianity?

2) And are any of these prohibitions compatible with the idea of Christian freedom?

3) Are these prohibitions arbitrary or legalistic?

4) And could Jehvoah's Witness as an organization flourish without these particular prohibitions and still honor God?

Please address any or all of the above.

[William]

E.J., what about the rest of my post?

.

What about my answer? Regarding the other matters I don't have any strong opinion on those, nor any expertise. (blood transfusions etc)

It seems to me to be yet another unnecessary prohibition, much like Christian Science prohibiting medicine.

In general, (as I see it) some Bible writers and their adherants place far too much importance on blood, especially as a medium of redemption.

Water seems a far better fluid-symbol then blood for that purpose. (Living Water, quenching Spiritual thirst, baptisms, washing clean, tears of repentance, etc, etc)

In a sense, what you are describing is an evolution of a god...from blood to water.

Now supposing that the god in the spotlight here, always knew that (and more) but having only humans and their perceptions to work with - the god had to assume patience in order to allow for the evolution of human thought and accompanying processes so that humans worked it out for themselves.

So blood, then water, then whatever may be next....consciousness perhaps...all metaphor in relation to the linear time involved.

We evolve the idea of god to suit the time, ever growing more closer to finding out the reality of god, as god actually is.

If indeed 'god' is anything. All the evidence isn't in...

[JehovahsWitness]

Regarding the other matters I don't have any strong opinion on those, nor any expertise. (blood transfusions etc)It seems to me to be yet another unnecessary prohibition ...

You are free to see the prohibition as "unnecessary" but from there to suggest that it is not *IN* the bible or to imply that Jehovah's Witnesses have invented the prohibition without any bibiblical indication to do so is inaccurate. One does not have to be an expert one just needs to be able to read.

God doesn't forbid [...] blood transfusions. Neither you nor your group has demonstrated that He does.

ACTS 15:29
"that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.�


Various other translations:
http://biblehub.com/acts/15-29.htm

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 156 by onewithhim]
I am getting a little bit frustrated here. Are you having some difficulty keeping track?

Luke 8:51-56New International Version (NIV)

51 When he arrived at the house of Jairus, he did not let anyone go in with him except Peter, John and James, and the child’s father and mother. 52 Meanwhile, all the people were wailing and mourning for her. “Stop wailing,� Jesus said. “She is not dead but asleep.�

53 They laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. 54 But he took her by the hand and said, “My child, get up!� 55 Her spirit returned, and at once she stood up. Then Jesus told them to give her something to eat. 56 Her parents were astonished, but he ordered them not to tell anyone what had happened.

. You can imagine any complications in doctrine in the statement that Jesus left with nothing more than he came with?

I'm not understanding your point. Can you be a bit more clear?

[onewithhim]

E.J., what about the rest of my post?

.

What about my answer? Regarding the other matters I don't have any strong opinion on those, nor any expertise. (blood transfusions etc)

It seems to me to be yet another unnecessary prohibition, much like Christian Science prohibiting medicine.

In general, (as I see it) some Bible writers and their adherants place far too much importance on blood, especially as a medium of redemption.

Water seems a far better fluid-symbol then blood for that purpose. (Living Water, quenching Spiritual thirst, baptisms, washing clean, tears of repentance, etc, etc)

I may be going loopy, but I could swear I distinctly remember you posting recently that no one had answered concerning the issues you listed. I already had, but apparently you hadn't read my post.

Blood is sacred to Jehovah. That is why it is so important to Him. Our life is in the blood. Our lives are sacred to Him.

To Noah: "You shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." (Gen.9:4, NASB)


.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 157 by Elijah John]

Did you actually read my post #61? I explained why we don't do those things. I also mentioned that we do things that are just as much fun on other days.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 164 by onewithhim]
And yet people die ever day with their blood still in them.

Job 34:14-16New International Version (NIV)

14 If it were his intention
and he withdrew his spirit and breath,
15 all humanity would perish together
and mankind would return to the dust.
16 “If you have understanding, hear this;
listen to what I say

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 164 by onewithhim]
And yet people die ever day with their blood still in them.

Job 34:14-16New International Version (NIV)

14 If it were his intention
and he withdrew his spirit and breath,
15 all humanity would perish together
and mankind would return to the dust.
16 “If you have understanding, hear this;
listen to what I say

It's the individual's blood and no one else has the right to take it.

The verses you quoted actually show what the "spirit" is that returns to God (
Ecclesiastes 12:7). Thank you for bringing that up.

[William]

It's the individual's blood and no one else has the right to take it.

Then it is the individuals right to give their blood.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 169 by William]

That's a good point. Plus, the biblical taboos are against eating blood. Blood transfusions did not exist back then and are not equivalent to "eating" blood, in the first place. Certainly, the Society is most hypocritical in its acceptance of this one dietary law, whereas it rejects all the others, unless, of course, members are also forbidden from eating ham, etc. I add that the Society is not a qualified medical authority, to start with, and therefore is not at all qualified to give members medical advice. Any religious organization, such as the Society, which coerces it members into denying themselves and others life-saving medical procedures deserves to be denounced as a destructive cult.

[Elijah John]

E.J., what about the rest of my post?

.

What about my answer? Regarding the other matters I don't have any strong opinion on those, nor any expertise. (blood transfusions etc)

It seems to me to be yet another unnecessary prohibition, much like Christian Science prohibiting medicine.

In general, (as I see it) some Bible writers and their adherants place far too much importance on blood, especially as a medium of redemption.

Water seems a far better fluid-symbol then blood for that purpose. (Living Water, quenching Spiritual thirst, baptisms, washing clean, tears of repentance, etc, etc)

I may be going loopy, but I could swear I distinctly remember you posting recently that no one had answered concerning the issues you listed. I already had, but apparently you hadn't read my post.

Blood is sacred to Jehovah. That is why it is so important to Him. Our life is in the blood. Our lives are sacred to Him.

To Noah: "You shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." (Gen.9:4, NASB)


.

First of all, I never said that no one had answered, so perhaps you are projecting and/or generalizing.

I did question if you in particular had considered my answer, because you replied with a one-liner.

EJ, what about the rest of my post?

Secondly, Yes I did read your post 61 and offered you as much rebuttal as I'm going to at this time.

I think the others have addressed the issue of the blood quite well.

But the prohibition of the holidays is of more concern to me.

And yes, you explained why, but not how those prohibitions are compatible with Christian freedom, and not legalistic.

Not to my satisfaction anyway.