Church won't 'shun family' despite bl...

Church won't 'shun family' despite blood transfusion

There are 180 comments on the The New Zealand Herald story from Jul 16, 2012, titled Church won't 'shun family' despite blood transfusion. In it, The New Zealand Herald reports that:

Jehovah's Witnesses say a 2-year-old girl will still be 'a very beloved member of the family' even after blood transfusion.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The New Zealand Herald.

First Prev
of 9
Next Last
unlisted

Greensboro, NC

#1 Jul 16, 2012
even if the kiddie has a transfusion she will still be a member of the family?
is this true? will they accept her? it is it publicity?
hMMMMM

Farmington, UT

#2 Jul 16, 2012
unlisted wrote:
even if the kiddie has a transfusion she will still be a member of the family?
is this true? will they accept her? it is it publicity?
Sounds like spin control.
They will just guilt the poor girl her whole life, how she was "stained" by the "world" with her blood transfusion.
Just imagine the problems this girl will have as a teenager, knowing her parents preferred her dead?

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#3 Jul 16, 2012
Evidently the current JW leadership would like to bury the no blood doctrine, but are afraid of the legal issues that could be raised by JWs who lost loved ones over the doctrine. At present the Watchtower has in place a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

So the little girl shouldn't have any problems regarding the medical procedure.
unlisted

Greensboro, NC

#4 Jul 16, 2012
so with the lawsuits that may occur with blood transfusions and the scandal now with the court case.. admiral kolchak do you think this will be a turn around with the org in the fact it replaces all the policies or rewrites them in fear of lawsuits. especially now that the California case may be an open door to many more coming forward? thanks.
TPMP

Union City, NJ

#5 Jul 16, 2012
unlisted wrote:
so with the lawsuits that may occur with blood transfusions and the scandal now with the court case.. admiral kolchak do you think this will be a turn around with the org in the fact it replaces all the policies or rewrites them in fear of lawsuits. especially now that the California case may be an open door to many more coming forward? thanks.
Louise Arena,

Everything will be fine with WTBTS.

==========

Worry about your Catholic church.
one

Los Angeles, CA

#6 Jul 16, 2012
TPMP wrote:
<quoted text> Louise Arena,
Everything will be fine with WTBTS.
==========
==========
Worry about your Catholic church.
Of course everything's gonna be fine with the WTS, they have die hard Dopes like you to crutch on...

“Bustin' Myths”

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#7 Jul 16, 2012
This seems like the perfect compromise for the WTB&TS, for courts to take the matter out of the parent's hands. The WTB&TS can still scream "No blood" and the children can get the needed medical treatment to save their lives.
free of false teaching

Clermont, FL

#8 Jul 16, 2012
forever light changing doctrine. FOOLS they are!!!!!Your truth will cage your soul!!!

“Paradise Earth”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#9 Jul 16, 2012
Why would anyone think that Jehovah's Witnesses would ever shun a child who was forced to have a blood transfusion?

The ONLY reason why people think that is all the lies and misrepresentations that people promote about Jehovah's people.

*** Matt 10:25 It is enough for the disciple that he be like his teacher, and the servant like his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more those of his household!
pipek

Baltimore, MD

#10 Jul 16, 2012
TPMP wrote:
<quoted text> Louise Arena,
Everything will be fine with WTBTS.
==========
Worry about your Catholic church.
you are right TPMP
WTBS jw modifiacation law achieve good solution,put all responsibility for single JW, is he/she wish blood transfussion or not?
good idea, because each one single is responsible for his own sin transgressions before Jehova,h God,not before man on this earth,or their leaders

I am not jw under WTBSJW but in case of blood transfussion,I would,nt allow myself to take blood contaminated by other humans deseases,smoking ,alcohol,drugs,hiv, or lunatic,or many others deseases transfered by blood
one

Los Angeles, CA

#11 Jul 16, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
Why would anyone think that Jehovah's Witnesses would ever shun a child who was forced to have a blood transfusion?
The ONLY reason why people think that is all the lies and misrepresentations that people promote about Jehovah's people.
*** Matt 10:25 It is enough for the disciple that he be like his teacher, and the servant like his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more those of his household!
Jehovah's witness are trained to shun any baptized member who the elders deem fit to crucify...once again the great Misleader is up to his old tricks..

“Paradise Earth”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#12 Jul 16, 2012
one wrote:
<quoted text>
Jehovah's witness are trained to shun any baptized member who the elders deem fit to crucify...once again the great Misleader is up to his old tricks..
You are talking rubbish.

Elders are under the same rules as everybody else. They are not able to arbitrarily "crucify" anyone. There are strict Bible rules that must apply in each judicial case.

Furthermore the elders are very reluctant to disfellowship anybody. It is ALWAYS the very last resort and always considered temporary.

Since: Apr 12

Glenside, Australia

#13 Jul 16, 2012
unlisted wrote:
even if the kiddie has a transfusion she will still be a member of the family?
is this true? will they accept her? it is it publicity?
OF COURSE IT'S TRUE. We do not take action over something we have no control over. The issue is not the parents, it is the doctors problem. If the Auckland Hospital or NZ does not have doctors skilled enough to perform the operation as do doctors in the USA it is not their fault or the parents fault.

If a JW was unconscious and a non JW close relative gave the OK for a transfusion against the known wishes of the JW, no action would be taken against the JW. The JW would have to decide if they wanted to forgive the person hat OKed the blood.

Since: Apr 12

Glenside, Australia

#14 Jul 16, 2012
Admiral Kolchak wrote:
Evidently the current JW leadership would like to bury the no blood doctrine, but are afraid of the legal issues that could be raised by JWs who lost loved ones over the doctrine. At present the Watchtower has in place a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
So the little girl shouldn't have any problems regarding the medical procedure.
Where on earth did you get THIS SILLY IDEA from. Gods view on the sanctity of blood is very clear in the Bible.

I have posted many times links to doctors sites that say that blood transfusions are not best medical practice. Go and do some serious homework on the subject. Only ignorant people still believe that blood transfusions save lives. Only doctors that have not as yet developed the skills to perform with out blood still use it.

Blood trading is big business. Perhaps man doctors are afraid of being sued for giving blood if their former patients new that blood does then harm and kills many thousands of people each year, by causing problems that show up some time after the transfusion. Again research it. If you knew the problems that blood causes you would not want it especially when there are safer alternatives to blood transfusions.

Since: Apr 12

Glenside, Australia

#15 Jul 16, 2012
hMMMMM wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like spin control.
They will just guilt the poor girl her whole life, how she was "stained" by the "world" with her blood transfusion.
Just imagine the problems this girl will have as a teenager, knowing her parents preferred her dead?
Absolute rubbish. My father was not a JW he ordered a blood transfusion for me because I was a Rhesus child.

We JW Parents do not prefer our children dead. We want the BEST medical service for ourselves and our families. BLOOD is NOT the best. IT is the WORST thing in medicine. Do some honest research. GO ON I DARE YOU to do that. Look up on the internet "bloodless
medicine" I will help you out. ARE YOU UP TO THE CHALLENGE???? Start here with bloodless surgery for infants and children

http://www.mybloodsite.com/content/can-infant...

ww.youtube.com/watch...



http://www.noblood.org/content/bloodless-medi...

http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com.au/20...

http://www.pennmedicine.org/bloodless/ask.htm...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/apr/24...

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/blood-transf...

There are hundreds of sites to look up that will show you the benefits of not having blood as well as the dangers.

Have you looked up any of the above or are you so blinded by years of "brain washing" to still think blood is good.

This subject always makes me narky as it should NEVER be a subject of contention any more

“"Leave the dead horses alone"”

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#16 Jul 17, 2012
unlisted wrote:
even if the kiddie has a transfusion she will still be a member of the family?
is this true? will they accept her? it is it publicity?
Of course it is true. It is a shame that forums like this one and the constant lies you are exposed to on here has made you have to even ask this question.

How long have you been posting on this forum?

Since: Oct 10

Homebush, Australia

#17 Jul 17, 2012
Gods Kingdom Rules wrote:
<quoted text> Of course it is true. It is a shame that forums like this one and the constant lies you are exposed to on here has made you have to even ask this question.
How long have you been posting on this forum?
I think nearly as long as you Gareth

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#18 Jul 17, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
<quoted text>
You are talking rubbish.
Elders are under the same rules as everybody else. They are not able to arbitrarily "crucify" anyone. There are strict Bible rules that must apply in each judicial case.
Furthermore the elders are very reluctant to disfellowship anybody. It is ALWAYS the very last resort and always considered temporary.
Tell that to Raymond Franz :-)))

sidgi

Since: Oct 10

Homebush, Australia

#19 Jul 17, 2012
Aneirin wrote:
<quoted text>
You are talking rubbish.
Elders are under the same rules as everybody else. They are not able to arbitrarily "crucify" anyone. There are strict Bible rules that must apply in each judicial case.
Furthermore the elders are very reluctant to disfellowship anybody. It is ALWAYS the very last resort and always considered temporary.
depends on who it is, as they go by how long the sin has been committed, whether the persona came to them willingly, you see some child sexual abusers never got DF at all, because of who they were, even though they committed the crime some as long as twenty years.
UNchained

Sevierville, TN

#20 Jul 17, 2012
JW's,

Make sure that you legally appoint one of your nonJW relatives as your Power of attorney.

You may find yourself in the hopsital one day and in need of a trasfusion to replace the blood you lost in a car accident.

Your nonJW relative will not allow the HLC to murder you and in the event that the no blood policy is completely overturned 3 or 4 years later you will still be alive.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Religion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why banning the Jehovah's Witnesses won't work ... 4 min Sparlock 113
News Sexual Abuse Lawsuit: Federal court dismisses c... 21 min Matt9969 22
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 23 min mentor 1 5,588
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 34 min wondering 236
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 38 min wondering 67,025
News Will Islam Inherit the Earth? 58 min Rabbeen Al Jihad 181
News Islam Will Conquer Italy and the Entire West (Sep '10) 1 hr Faith 514,045
More from around the web