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.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 164 by onewithhim]





[center]Jehovah has an obsession for human blood.[/center]

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.

Perhaps that's why Jehovah is so very very bloodthirsty.

Maybe he is a bloodthirsty vampire with magical powers.
I think that most vampires are depicted as evil psychopaths, so it makes at least some sense.

Any ideas?

[William]

[Replying to post 164 by onewithhim]





[center]Jehovah has an obsession for human blood.[/center]

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.

Perhaps that's why Jehovah is so very very bloodthirsty.

Maybe he is a bloodthirsty vampire with magical powers.
I think that most vampires are depicted as evil psychopaths, so it makes at least some sense.

Any ideas?

Yes.

There is a smidgen of truth in this outlook - there is a connection with The Beast.

It hearkens back to day when creatures god had created literally thirsted for blood.

Monsters.

So when that abruptly ended, the god had to rethink and came up with the next phase.

Top of that overall bloodline was "Human".

Echos of a distant past still exist within the human psyche and resonate with the individual.

As can be observed - human history is packed full of bloodshed.

Such behavior can be likened to 'vampirism' or - a rose by any other name...a 'parasite'.

Evolved enough is the idea of the god of the bible that it (he) understands the nitty-gritty of the circumstances and offers ways around the barriers created through the process of the practice of War.

When dealing with the bloodthirsty, the god has to lower its standards in order to participate...something obviously not a bother in regard to this particular god, having been there and experienced that...but with the condition that those humans who will, also choose to raise their own a smidgen in resonance of response.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 198 by JehovahsWitness] Your link indicates that most of the blood is removed but that which remains is in the muscle tissue. But that means you eat the blood when you eat the meat.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 201 by William]




[center]
Pity the great big blood obsessed God in the sky.[/center]

There is a smidgen of truth in this outlook - there is a connection with The Beast.

It hearkens back to day when creatures god had created literally thirsted for blood.

Monsters.

Do you mean "carnivores" and "omnivores"?
Because we still got them, you know.

So when that abruptly ended, the god had to rethink and came up with the next phase.

I'm not too sure if you are talking about the dinosaurs, or the flood in the book "Genesis". What "abruptly ended"?

Top of that overall bloodline was "Human".

So, let me get this straight:

God creates monsters, that doesn't work out, so he gets rid of them all and then comes up with "humans". Is that what you're saying?

( I'm just guessing here as to what you are talking about )

Echos of a distant past still exist within the human psyche and resonate with the individual.

Are you talking about evolution now?

As can be observed - human history is packed full of bloodshed.

Such behavior can be likened to 'vampirism' or - a rose by any other name...a 'parasite'.

Killing is killing.
What I was talking about what the GOD being obsessed with blood and killing.

When dealing with the bloodthirsty, the god has to lower its standards in order to participate...

Poor old God has no choice but to lower his standards and become obsessed with bloodshed.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 198 by JehovahsWitness] Your link indicates that most of the blood is removed but that which remains is in the muscle tissue. But that means you eat the blood when you eat the meat.

Excellent point.

This reminds me of the "pound of flesh" bit from the Merchant of Venice.

Legalism confounded by it's own technicalities.

A pound of flesh, no more, no less. Including or excluding the blood.

[onewithhim]

Definition of ABSTAIN:


"To keep from; to voluntarily do without."




(Webster's New World Dictionary With Student Handbook)

I have referred to the dictionary definition of the words in the text several times onewithhim, it seems to me that this is being overlooked. The bible makes a clear prohibition on the use of blood. JWs simply obey.

AGAIN MT QUESTION:

Are JW's forbidden to eat a steak (contains blood)?

Didn't see your question. JWs are not forbidden to eat red meat that has been properly drained of blood. We would not eat meat that has not been bled. To refrain from draining an animal of its blood would be negligence of the highest order and total disrespect for God. (It's also nasty in taste.)


.

[onewithhim]

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.

No, it is sacred to God, and it belongs in the individual's body that originally has produced it.

So it is sacred to the individual.

How do you figure that it's OK for a person to give their blood when their blood is designed for them and must stay in them?

Because for any amount of reasons blood does not always stay in the persons body. Also because sometimes blood from one body has helped another body to continue on.

Now I can certainly understand the desire to remain clean and appreciate the fear involved with dirty blood - indeed, I can even connect the dots in that department to understand why people would have observed a connection and how this eventually morphed itself into a 'command from a god' (gods are great in that way - they can be used to inspire fear as a means of protecting the herd) and if there are less risky ways of getting around the need for blood in surgery, this would be great argument against giving or receiving blood. No need to do so because the bible apparently informs you that 'god regards blood as sacred' when it appears the argument is really about common sense in relation to health and healthy practice.

That being said, healthy practice does happen in relation to hospitals and blood. Surgery always comes with risks, regardless of whether blood is involved or not.

OK, we'll toss aside respect for God. Let's talk about blood "helping" a body to continue on, by giving blood transfusions, strictly according to the medical community. Apparently that community has found out that giving patients blood is not actually helping the patient. Did you bother to read from the links I provided? Non-religious medical practitioners are saying that non-blood medicinal procedures are better than blood transfusions. Why do you argue with this?

Did you ever consider the idea that if a person dies "because they didn't take blood," so to say, that person would have died anyway? Blood substitutes are the far better way to go. There ARE less risky ways of getting around the need for blood, and some of us here have been saying so.

I'll post some excerpts from articles that I have appreciated in a subsequent post.

[marco]

JWs are not forbidden to eat red meat that has been properly drained of blood. We would not eat meat that has not been bled. To refrain from draining an animal of its blood would be negligence of the highest order and total disrespect for God. (It's also nasty in taste.)

How odd of God to make dining so complex, and then to feel offended if folk use the wrong fork. We are in the 21st century; children in parts of the world are starving - they don't have the choice of separating blood from muscle. And yet God feels offended! Perhaps .... just perhaps .... we are making God rather ridiculous.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 205 by onewithhim]




[center]How much bled is bled enough?[/center]

Are JW's forbidden to eat a steak (contains blood)?

JWs are not forbidden to eat red meat that has been properly drained of blood. We would not eat meat that has not been bled. To refrain from draining an animal of its blood would be negligence of the highest order and total disrespect for God. (It's also nasty in taste.)

Properly bled

What do you do, eat meat with absolutely no blood, just a little blood, or are you permitted to eat the juicy steaks, too?


How much blood must be bled for meat to be properly bled?

[William]

[Replying to post 201 by William]

There is a smidgen of truth in this outlook - there is a connection with The Beast.

It hearkens back to day when creatures god had created literally thirsted for blood.

Monsters.

Do you mean "carnivores" and "omnivores"?
Because we still got them, you know.

Of course!

Point I was making was 'monsters exist(ed)' "Dem bone dry bones."

For nothing is concealed that will not be uncovered, or hidden that will not be made known.

So when that abruptly ended, the god had to rethink and came up with the next phase.

I'm not too sure if you are talking about the dinosaurs, or the flood in the book "Genesis".

Well I can understand the metaphorical as well as the scientific. Specifically I was referring to pre-human era.

What "abruptly ended"?

That phase did

Top of that overall bloodline was "Human".

So, let me get this straight:

God creates monsters, that doesn't work out, so he gets rid of them all and then comes up with "humans". Is that what you're saying?

No.

I am saying that God adapted to the new circumstances and used the opportunity to create something more in line with being useful in creating means of survival and 'escape' into the greater neighborhood.

It is an ongoing thing.

Echos of a distant past still exist within the human psyche and resonate with the individual.

Are you talking about evolution now?

I am talking about dna and remnant imprints related to the distant past which still affect human consciousness.
Does that count as 'evolution' in your understanding? If so, then yes - I am talking about that.

As can be observed - human history is packed full of bloodshed.

Such behavior can be likened to 'vampirism' or - a rose by any other name...a 'parasite'.

Killing is killing.

Meaning what? That it is not only parasites which kill?

Or perhaps ditch both 'vampire' and 'parasite' as being surplus to the argument.
The Earth is a living organism which lives off her own form. It is how she has survived throughout biological history.

What I was talking about what the GOD being obsessed with blood and killing.

Your interpretation of the biblical god?

What I was talking about isn't to do with obsession, unless you count the desire to survive within biological forms dealing with the harsh reality of the universe as being some kind of obsession?
Not saying that there isn't that, but I personally am not ready to concede that such is necessarily 'obsession'...but am open to the possibility.

Certainly - in relation to the 'keeping the blood clean' angle, that has much to do with survival, far as I can tell.

When dealing with the bloodthirsty, the god has to lower its standards in order to participate...

Poor old God has no choice but to lower his standards and become obsessed with bloodshed.

You are projecting Blastcat. Cease using that as a genuine tool for good argument. It is not.

I acknowledge that this is your interpretation but have to pull you up when you then project your interpretation of the god onto my own.
They are obviously quite different. Yours is obsessed and mine is simply using its intelligence to work within a particular pre-determined rule set.

The 'lowered standards' was not used by me as some kind of judgment about the god or humans. It was an analogy of the process. The god is always a step ahead in knowledge and thus has to have patience when working with human beings - waiting for them to get up to speed on reality.

It may be argued that it has some kind of 'obsession' with human beings, but I think this has more to do with being unavoidable connected to its (his) creation - and intimately so - We are like its data collectors, as well as at the same time being an aspect of its overall experience as a 'god'.

[center]
Pity the great big blood obsessed God in the sky.[/center]

Your ignorance shining through? What 'sky' are you even talking about?