JW Question

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i never stated anything about it being optional, I stated it was a matter of conscience, which, if you have a conscience aligned with scripture, you will want to bring it into harmony with the perceived will of God, if not, you wont.

So how can it be both "a matter of conscience" and "[not be a case of] being optional" at the same time? Can each JW make their own conscience-based decision about what is and is not in "harmony with the perceived will of God" on the matter of blood in meat and blood transfusions?

Originally posted by FMF
It's not an entirely different issue, robbie. So, I'm asking, JWs can eat blood that's in meat and get involved in blood transfusions without having to leave the JW organisation?

first of all, its been pointed out that as its impossible to get every last vestige of blood
from meat there is very little option, if you have a method then please let it be know or
admit that its not only an overly pedantic claim, but ludicrous into the bargain, as for
the second statement, unless anything comes to light, either through self confession
or some other means, whether a person is removed or not i cannot say, for its
impossible to tell whether they are repentant or not, and the only way you shall be
removed is for non repentance or if you are deemed to be a danger to others. Again, i
must emphasis that its not possible to talk in general terms about whether a person will
be removed without knowing the full details or the circumstances.

Originally posted by FMF
So how can it be both "a matter of conscience" and "[not be a case of] being optional" at the same time? Can each JW make their own conscience-based decision about what is and is not in "harmony with the perceived will of God" on the matter of blood in meat and blood transfusions?

because its up to you wither you follow the advice or not, that is a matter of
conscience. Clearly abstain from blood is rather a strong and to me unambiguous
statement, yet its a far reaching principle and could range from eating black puddings
to taking blood transfusions and anything in-between.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
because its up to you wither you follow the advice or not, that is a matter of
conscience. Clearly abstain from blood is rather a strong and to me unambiguous
statement, yet its a far reaching principle and could range from eating black puddings
to taking blood transfusions and anything in-between.

So if a JW treats it as "a matter of conscience" and decides to get involved in blood transfusions, it's ok and they can remain as JWs?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Again, i must emphasis that its not possible to talk in general terms about whether a person will be removed without knowing the full details or the circumstances.

OK, then here is a scenario. A JW decides to be involved in a blood transfusion. Would they be removed from JW for doing that?

Originally posted by FMF
So if a JW treats it as "a matter of conscience" and decides to get involved in blood transfusions, it's ok and they can remain as JWs?

your having some trouble with this FMF, i repeat,

Again, i must emphasis that its not possible to talk in general terms about whether a
person will be removed without knowing the full details or the circumstances.

Originally posted by FMF
OK, then here is a scenario. A JW decides to be involved in a blood transfusion. Would they be removed from JW for doing that?

One would need to consider.

1. was it premeditated
2. are they repentant
3 do they show some evidence of repentance
4 was it done in ignorance
5 was there attempts to conceal it
6 how will it be viewed by others
7 does it set a precedent
8 were others involved
9 why did they do it
10 were they pressurised by non believing family or health professionals

so many things will need to be asked FMF,

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
One would need to consider.

1. was it premeditated
2. are they repentant
3 do they show some evidence of repentance
4 was it done in ignorance
5 was there attempts to conceal it
6 how will it be viewed by others
7 does it set a precedent
8 were others involved
9 why did they do it
10 were they pressurised by non believing family or health professionals

so many things will need to be asked FMF,

OK, then here is the scenario again. A JW decides quite deliberately to be involved in a blood transfusion. Being a matter of conscience, and believing sincerely that the decision is in harmony with their perceived will of God, they of course do not feel any need to "repent". Would they be removed from JW for doing the blood transfusion?

Originally posted by FMF
OK, then here is the scenario again. A JW decides quite deliberately to be involved in a blood transfusion. Being a matter of conscience, and believing sincerely that the decision is in harmony with their perceived will of God, they of course do not feel any need to "repent". Would they be removed from JW for doing the blood transfusion?

Clearly in such a scenario their conscience as manifest by their actions would be
adjudged to be out of harmony with the perceived will of God and would most likely be
removed, the same as if they had committed fornication and were unrepentant, or
were drunk and unrepentant. clearly their action was premeditated nd not a mistake.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Clearly in such a scenario their conscience would be adjudged to be out of harmony
with the perceived will of God and would most likely be removed, the same if they had
committed fornication and were unrepentant, or were drunk and unrepentant. clearly
their action was premeditated nd not a mistake.

So where does that leave your principle of "self-determination"?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Clearly in such a scenario their conscience as manifest by their actions would be
adjudged to be out of harmony with the perceived will of God and would most likely be removed

So the "the perceived will of God" you are talking about is not that of the believer him or herself - it's someone else's interpretation and perception, imposed on the believer?

Originally posted by FMF
So where does that leave your principle of "self-determination"?

As i explained to PK, our claim of the right of self determination is relative, not
absolute, relative to the perceived will of God. For example, we discern that
transfusion, based on the principle to abstain from blood is wrong, however, in the case
of euthanasia, another principle overrides absolute self determination, that being that
life is sacrosanct to God and not for any human to deliberately take, thus our right of
self determination, is relative.

Originally posted by FMF
So the "the perceived will of God" you are talking about is not that of the believer him or herself - it's someone else's interpretation and perception, imposed on the believer?

no, anyone can read the scriptures and decide for themselves, however in order to
become a witness one must agree with our stance, if you do not, you cannot become
one, therefore for one to do so and then renegade upon it as you have engineered in
your hypothetical scenario, is akin to apostasy and we have the right to kick them out
for failing to adhere to our standards.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
As i explained to PK, we our claim of the right of self determination is relative, not
absolute, relative to the perceived will of God. For example, we discern that
transfusion, based on the principle to abstain from blood is wrong, however, in the case
of euthanasia, another principle overrides absolute self determination, that being that
l ...[text shortened]... and not for any human to deliberately take, thus our right of
self determination, is relative.

So for you, there is no "self-determination" about saving lives of others by engaging in blood transfusions. The perception of whether it is "in harmony with the will of God" is a decision for the senior people within your organisation, it's not for you determine?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no, anyone can read the scriptures and decide for themselves, however in order to
become a witness one must agree with our stance, if you do not, you cannot become
one, therefore for one to do so and then renegade upon it as you have engineered in
your hypothetical scenario, is akin to apostasy and we have the right to kick them out
for failing to adhere to our standards.

How are your "stances" and "standards" decided and changed? Do you have any role in that process? Or are "stances" and "standards" in the hands of the people who run the organisation only?