JW organization.

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:06 pm

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.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Wed Jan 18, 2017 8:40 am

Elijah John wrote: I think the others have addressed the issue of the blood quite well.

I disagree.

Nobody has addressed the issue that the prohibition is indeed in the Christiand Greek Scriptures (New Testament) so that even though the Hebrew prophibitions may not apply the fact that it was explicitly mentioned to Christians in the Christian bible stands.

Nobody has addressed the issue that the bible doesn't say "don't drink blood" but rather ABSTAIN from blood and that to abstain (by any dictionary definition) would cover all means of getting that substance into the body, whether by injesting it or by transfusing it through a tube.

So the issue has not been addressed "quite well" at least (to quote you back to you)

Elijah John wrote:Not to my satisfaction anyway.

JW

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Wed Jan 18, 2017 8:50 am

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

Not to my satisfaction anyway.

onewith him gave an excellent exposÃ© of the bible principles involved; perhaps we could offer further help if you explained what exactly you mean by "Christian freedom" and gave some example from scripture what kind of things would be incompatible with it and why.

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Wed Jan 18, 2017 8:54 am

JehovahsWitness wrote:
Elijah John wrote: I think the others have addressed the issue of the blood quite well.
I disagree.

Nobody has addressed the issue that the prohibition is indeed in the Christiand Greek Scriptures (New Testament) so that even though the Hebrew prophibitions may not apply the fact that it was explicitly mentioned to Christians in the Christian bible stands.

Nobody has addressed the issue that the bible doesn't say "don't drink blood" but rather ABSTAIN from blood and that to abstain (by any dictionary definition) would cover all means of getting that substance into the body, whether by injesting it or by transfusing it through a tube.

JW

Sorry, that verse is referring to the eating (or drinking) of blood not to any medical procedure.

I suppose one could interpret transfusions as "ingesting" but that is a stretch, and an example of the linguistic gymnastics literalists often employ in order to support their interpretations.

In this case to the detriment of common sense and life-saving procedures.

I side with postroad, William and hoghead1 on this matter.

This is an excellent case of your group's over-reading and literalism, and the dangerous consequences such interpretations may lead to.

William · Post by **William** » Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:04 am

Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Wed Jan 18, 2017 11:54 am

William wrote:
onewithhim wrote:
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.

William's right, blood donors give blood, and those who need it receive it.

No one steals it from them.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:40 pm

Elijah John wrote:Sorry, that verse is referring to the eating (or drinking) of blood not to any medical procedure.

Sorry but the word used is "abstain". Do you have a dictionary?

JW

William · Post by **William** » Wed Jan 18, 2017 12:40 pm

Elijah John wrote:
William wrote:
onewithhim wrote:
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.
William's right, blood donors give blood, and those who need it receive it.

No one steals it from them.

Primarily, this is what I see in the message attributed to being spoken of by Jesus.

GIVE.

The world does this=Problem solved

eta

and i dont have to self identify as being a "Christian" while i am about it. I just DO because it is Humane Instinct.

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Wed Jan 18, 2017 1:13 pm

JehovahsWitness wrote:
Elijah John wrote: And yes, you explained why, but not how those prohibitions are compatible with Christian freedom, and not legalistic.

Not to my satisfaction anyway.
onewith him gave an excellent exposÃ© of the bible principles involved; perhaps we could offer further help if you explained what exactly you mean by "Christian freedom" and gave some example from scripture what kind of things would be incompatible with it and why.

Paul said "all things are lawful, but not all things are helpful" or words to that effect.

He also taught that "love fulfills the law"

This was Paul at his best.

Peter had a vision that all foods are clean, the tablecloth vision in Acts.

Jesus taught that to "treat others as we would like to be treated" is the "Law and the Prophets".

And that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath".

These simple examples and principles are the epitome of Christian freedom.

Your organization, by contrast has outlawed harmless and even helpful and life-saving things.

That is the opposite of Christian freedom.

Let me ask you this..is a JW allowed to give blood if they want to? And still be a JW?

If not, isn't that a bit controlling?

What would happen to a JW if they publicly held a Christmas celebration, or went caroling?

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Wed Jan 18, 2017 1:23 pm

JehovahsWitness wrote:
Elijah John wrote:Sorry, that verse is referring to the eating (or drinking) of blood not to any medical procedure.
Sorry but the word used is "abstain". Do you have a dictionary?

JW

"Abstain" in context is referring to abstention from eating or drinking these things. Not from medical procedures.

That is the problem with Biblical literalism...JWs and Evangelicals often go far beyond the context of the times.

But even Evangelicals don't go so far as to prohibit blood transfusions.

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Wed Jan 18, 2017 1:41 pm

Elijah John wrote:
JehovahsWitness wrote:
Elijah John wrote:Sorry, that verse is referring to the eating (or drinking) of blood not to any medical procedure.
Sorry but the word used is "abstain". Do you have a dictionary?

JW
"Abstain" in context is referring to abstention from eating or drinking these things. Not from medical procedures.

That is the problem with Biblical literalism...JWs and Evangelicals often go far beyond the context of the times.

But even Evangelicals don't go so far as to prohibit blood transfusions.

That wasn't my question, my question was: Do you have a dictionary? If so what is the dictionary definition of the word "abstain"?