|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 25, 2017 13:11:26 GMT
"So what am I doing?
1. Answering the question that was easy to find."
No, you didn't answer my question at all. All you did was point out that, under Canadian law, a judge must take into account the wishes of the minor if she seems mature.
My question was not about Canadian law, but rather about whether the Watchtower would expect parents to take possibly illegal measures to avoid a transfusion even if it means violating a lawful court order.
I doubt very much you know the answer to that (unless you ask a JW elder). I don't expect you to know. Just don't claim to have answered my question when you didn't address it.
I most certainly answered the question.
My answer wasn't about Canadian law but what JW's do for someone who is forced to have a blood transfusion.
You should be happy to know that they don't give them the boot based on the clear information I provided o a girl who was forced to have one and is now featured in one of their publications AND is a pioneer to boot.
So they don't expect them to take illegal action for a forced procedure.
If that didn't answer the question, then you weren't interested in an answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 25, 2017 13:12:03 GMT
Wouldn't this just depend on what the Jehova's Witnesses we ask want to make up? Not when there's information on their website about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 25, 2017 13:19:18 GMT
Wouldn't this just depend on what the Jehova's Witnesses we ask want to make up? Not when there's information on their website about it. But then that's the Jehova's Witness we're asking--whoever wrote that, whoever approved it. They're the JW's who made it up in that case. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 25, 2017 13:34:57 GMT
wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/302005003#h=33:0-33:614Here's another one. Another pattern as I come across these is that the reason to refuse blood transfusions has nothing to do with consequences from the congregation. That may have been what the OP was alluding to...That JW's do things only because the organization tells them to rather than it being their choice in the first place. Are all JW's scared of the elders to the extent that they would rather die than disobey them? Is that the actual question?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 25, 2017 13:39:08 GMT
wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102014254#h=22:0-23:533In this case, no one even knew she had the transfusion, but she couldn't let it go since it was a rights issue.
Again, seemingly no repercussions.
The big problem about the repercussions thing is that there's no reason to discuss something that doesn't happen. You can only deduce from the evidence that no one faces consequences. JW's don't make any indication that they punish people who receive forced transfusions, but sadly in the minds of people that hate them, this is evidence that they actually do something to them.
The news information is sketchy too. Surely some hardworking theophobiacs out there can do the work to look for newspaper articles regarding people who were forced transfusions AND subsequently were disfellowshipped as a result.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 25, 2017 13:42:55 GMT
"Suffice to say, JW's are well aware of the lines they can and can't cross and rarely do they ever openly rebel against the government as an organization unless it involves compromising their belief. A forced blood transfusion does not do this."
JWs believe that taking a blood transfusion is a VIOLATION of God's law. You cannot possibly argue that being ordered by a court to get a transfusion wouldn't involve "compromising their belief".
The WT clearly stated, "Jehovah’s Witnesses obey the laws of the land when these do not conflict with God’s laws." That can only mean that JWs would NOT obey the law of the land when it DOES conflict with God's laws.
The WT prints articles about how JWs get sent to prison for refusing to obey secular laws that would compromise their beliefs. And they don't mention that the WT will make an exception when the law orders a blood transfusion. If the WT will allow JWs to place the law of the land ahead of God's law in the case of blood transfusions, then they must explain why they expect JWs to go to prison rather than violate other beliefs of theirs.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 25, 2017 14:30:25 GMT
"Suffice to say, JW's are well aware of the lines they can and can't cross and rarely do they ever openly rebel against the government as an organization unless it involves compromising their belief. A forced blood transfusion does not do this."
JWs believe that taking a blood transfusion is a VIOLATION of God's law. You cannot possibly argue that being ordered by a court to get a transfusion wouldn't involve "compromising their belief".
The WT clearly stated, "Jehovah’s Witnesses obey the laws of the land when these do not conflict with God’s laws." That can only mean that JWs would NOT obey the law of the land when it DOES conflict with God's laws.
The WT prints articles about how JWs get sent to prison for refusing to obey secular laws that would compromise their beliefs. And they don't mention that the WT will make an exception when the law orders a blood transfusion. If the WT will allow JWs to place the law of the land ahead of God's law in the case of blood transfusions, then they must explain why they expect JWs to go to prison rather than violate other beliefs of theirs.
This argument has become silly. You are pretending like power has no play in this.
It's like blaming them for getting arrested for preaching which, after arrest, violates God's law for not preaching.
It's a violation of God's Law only if they choose it, not if it's forced.
That is clear by all evidence and if you don't see that, then maybe you should review their information more before assuming that one simple statement encompasses all there is to know about obeying Caesar's laws.
I asked you flippantly what your solution to this action is, but now I realize I should have asked it more seriously.
What do you think a JW would need to do in order to ensure they aren't given a blood transfusion? If they go to prison, how does that stop the transfusion exactly?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 25, 2017 14:58:45 GMT
Not when there's information on their website about it. But then that's the Jehova's Witness we're asking--whoever wrote that, whoever approved it. They're the JW's who made it up in that case. So JW's just make up stuff on the fly at any given time officially?
OK
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 25, 2017 15:34:21 GMT
Another flaw the argument...errr question...is that the JW parents would be on the hook in the first place. The article implies that the girl is baptized (Otherwise this wouldn't normally be an issue in the first place). If that's the case and we pretend that people get in trouble for their choices, the parents would not be the ones in trouble, but rather the girl who chose to be forced to have a transfusion (  ) So they would not be obligated to do whatever the OP thinks is needed for them to stay faithful since the decision is entirely on the daughter as a baptized JW. This, of course, makes it even more unlikely that the transfusion avoidance would be successful. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 25, 2017 15:58:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 25, 2017 16:17:21 GMT
CoolJGS said:
"It's like blaming them for getting arrested for preaching"
Not at all. It's questioning why the WT would make it permissible for a JW to violate God's law about blood if the secular law requires it, but on the other hand make it impermissible to do so when faced with other secular laws (preaching, military service). In other words, why shouldn't a JW think, "Why do WT leaders expect me to go prison rather than obey an order to join the army, but don't expect that parent to disobey that order about a blood transfusion?"
"It's a violation of God's Law only if they choose it, not if it's forced."
Then the same principle would have to apply when laws "force" JWs to do other things that violate God's law. Obeying a law to join the military or obeying a law banning preaching would likewise not be violations of God's law, since they have been "forced" by the law.
"What do you think a JW would need to do in order to ensure they aren't given a blood transfusion?"
To be consistent with the WT's view on other matters, treat a transfusion the way they would treat (as in your example) a rape. Do everything in one's physical power to resist. A court order is not force. A court order still leaves the parent with the choice to disobey and face the penalties. That's what the WT expects of JWs in other areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 25, 2017 16:48:22 GMT
But then that's the Jehova's Witness we're asking--whoever wrote that, whoever approved it. They're the JW's who made it up in that case. So JW's just make up stuff on the fly at any given time officially?
OK
"Officially" depends on whether we're talking about officials, and it's also an issue of whether they've already crafted the relevant fiction or not. But that's all it is--crafting a fiction. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Sept 25, 2017 22:16:54 GMT
tpfkar Why do you feel the need to give at least tacit defense for all these horrible things JWs do? 1. They aren't that horrible. Most of them either aren;'t a big deal or there's two sides to the story. I have no reason to listen only to the side that is whining is all. IF there is evidence of something sucky on both sides I have never defended it, but pretending that JW's are horrible because they keep to their standards is a stupid opinion to have. That dizzy rank apologist crazytime never disappoints. What else are they if they keep to and enforce "horrible" standards? That they encourage/press minors and their parents to embrace irresponsible practices that can greatly harm the minors' health and well being. Somebody's gotta defend the horrible? And then you lay out and bitch about an "argument" nobody but you is using. Him disagreeing with your reprehensible position doesn't in any way mean he "doesn't understand" or "hasn't bothered to research". It's positively comical how you blatantly project your explicit actions. The parents could choose not to transport their kid to, or choose to remove their kid from transfusion appointments, for one thing. You persist with the dishonest suggestion that the JW positions indicate that parents should comply because of a legal ruling when their doctrine states that they should not.
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 26, 2017 13:21:35 GMT
So JW's just make up stuff on the fly at any given time officially?
OK
"Officially" depends on whether we're talking about officials, and it's also an issue of whether they've already crafted the relevant fiction or not. But that's all it is--crafting a fiction. So, again, you don't think official websites have official information?
Even if everything is fiction, the information on the fiction would be official.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 26, 2017 13:26:34 GMT
"Officially" depends on whether we're talking about officials, and it's also an issue of whether they've already crafted the relevant fiction or not. But that's all it is--crafting a fiction. So, again, you don't think official websites have official information?
Even if everything is fiction, the information on the fiction would be official.
If I write "'Officially' depends on whether we're talking about officials," then do I think that an official website has official information? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 26, 2017 13:31:29 GMT
IsapopAgain, these are your terms no theirs. You are using one line while absolutely refusing to actually research. Why would I or they take your argument seriously considering how stubborn you're being? Again, if they are violating God's law based on something forced on them, then how is it different when they are forced to do anything that stops them from doing Gods will? Are they supposed to just be killed since they don't allow suicide? You also choose to ignore the notion that their stand has nothing to do with what the elders will do to them, but let's assume that you think they are all hypnotized and go with the faultiness of your initial argument... They aren't forced to join the military. They have a choice between military service or jail or death. Compare that to their options for blood transfusions. They won't let them die or save them by other options. If they go to prison, that would mean receiving the transfusion anyway. You aren't thinking this through... So what makes you think they aren't doing that? This goes back to the law can knock a kid out and inject them with sweet tasty blood at any point in time. Again, the parents have nothing to do with it. If the kid said she wanted a transfusions, they would have given it and the parents wouldn't have a defense in court in the first place. So focus on the kid, since you are so attuned to JW's rules and regulations, and admit that you're saying the kid should just run away from JW home to JW home as a escaped convict to go ahead and complete the stupidity of your argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Sept 26, 2017 14:24:48 GMT
On the off chance, CoolJGS, that you are not being deliberately obtuse I'm going to make it really simple. Here are two exchanges between "The State" and a Jehovah's Witness, so you can see the discrepancy I speak of:
1)
State: "Join the army."
JW: "That's a violation of God's law, so I won't do it."
State: "The law says you must."
JW: "I still won't do it. Punish me if you will, but God's law comes first with me."
2)
State: "Make your child available for a blood transfusion."
JW: "That's a violation of God's law, so I won't do it."
State: "Here's a court order, so the law says you must."
JW: "Oh, well that's different. Now the law of the state will come first with me."
That's the way it appears to work - indicating that the Watchtower doesn't operate on coherent principles.
|
|
)
