JW Question

Originally posted by FMF
It is not considered appropriate to debate such things directly with fellow believers? You have to go through the 'chain of command'?

no you could debate it, no one could stop you unless the person them-self said, its
crazy talk! enough! I really really need to sleep FMF, i enjoyed this very civil
discussion and i thank you for it - regards Robbie.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it wasn't always like that, in the early years they used to have mega debates until
things got ironed out eventually. I think its good spiritually for we are united, whereas
if you contrast to the nominal Christians, they all believe different things and are
disunited as a consequence. Our Christianity is not an intellectual undertaking, our
truths are quite simple.

Shouldn't spirituality be about curiosity, about questioning things, weighing them up, about respecting or embracing diversity (we are talking about faith, after all, not objective facts), about an ongoing search - rather than agreeing to agree on what has been "ironed out" after the healthy and undoubtedly fertile debates of the past have now been replaced by procedures where you send requests for "clarification" to an office and a superior somewhere?

Is your unnecessary (at least when addressing me) partisan swipe at what you call "nominal Christians" a function of JW "unity"?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
whether its ok to eat a rare steak or to accept a blood transfusion is for your
conscience, we reserve the right of self determination, the issue is resolved as far as
we are concerned, crisis over.

So a JW may take or give ablood transfusion by thier own decision, based on thier own conscience and self determination - and without any recrimination from the JW leadership or need for repentance...?

Correct?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
everyone as an individual is free to use principles as they wish, this is the beauty of
a principle, for its not actually dependent on the original application.

God’s law to the people of Israel commanded: “You must not wear mixed stuff of
wool and linen together.” (De 22:11; see also Le 19:19.) Regarding this, the
Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jer ...[text shortened]... n, we can establish a principle on
this basis which has its application in all sorts of ways.

Everyone as an individual is free to use principles as they wish.

I'm still not quite following this, this was the reason you gave as to why your organisation still follows the law regarding blood -

'because even though the law has been annulled in practice, the principles remain binding'.

So why does this not apply to the wearing of clothes from two or more fibers or to the law regarding hair length? If the principle is still binding then surely that act is still a sin. I remember a conversation you had with Conrau with regard to homosexuality in which you stated the same thing, the law has been annulled ie. the killing of homosexuals, but the principle remains ie. that homosexuality is a sin. Using that same reasoning it follows that the laws i illustrated above should still be classed as sins? If not, why not?

Originally posted by FMF
Shouldn't spirituality be about curiosity, about questioning things, weighing them up, about respecting or embracing diversity (we are talking about faith, after all, not objective facts), about an ongoing search - rather than agreeing to agree on what has been "ironed out" after the healthy and undoubtedly fertile debates of the past have now been replaced by p ...[text shortened]... sing me) partisan swipe at what you call "nominal Christians" a function of JW "unity"?

no spirituality is about demonstrating love through action, all academic arguments are
secondary to this.

Originally posted by divegeester
So a JW may take or give ablood transfusion by thier own decision, based on thier own conscience and self determination - and without any recrimination from the JW leadership or need for repentance...?

Correct?

its already been answered in detail with discussion with FMF, i cannot comment upon
individual cases with vague generalities and in terms of whether a person will remain a
witness or not for accepting a blood transfusion, we do not accept blood transfusions,
why this is so hard for you to grasp,. i cannot say. If you have any further queries as
to the beliefs of Jehovahs witnesses you may go to


watchtower.org

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Everyone as an individual is free to use principles as they wish.

I'm still not quite following this, this was the reason you gave as to why your organisation still follows the law regarding blood -

'because even though the law has been annulled in practice, the principles remain binding'.

So why does this not apply to the wearing of clot ...[text shortened]... t follows that the laws i illustrated above should still be classed as sins? If not, why not?[/b]

this was the reason you gave as to why your organisation still follows the law regarding blood -

nope this is a self evident truth, you are free to take blood transfusions we are free
to claim the right of self determination and desist.

No its not binding because a principle is different from a law, if a principle has no
real tangible application derived from the type, as in the case of garments of
different threads, although it was pointed out that this may be a reference to
keeping the sacred and mundane separate, then what is there to say about it, the
law is annulled although any principles upon which it was based, may have some
bearing in practice, but not always.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no spirituality is about demonstrating love through action, all academic arguments are
secondary to this.

No I don't agree. Spirituality is about striving to understand. Someone could quite easily demonstrate what they think is "love" without understanding anything at all, and by simply subscribing to doctrine or instructions as to what "action" to take. To be just "demonstrating" something could just as easily be done with "spirituality" as without.

Originally posted by FMF
No I don't agree. Spirituality is about striving to understand. Someone could quite easily demonstrate what they think is "love" without understanding anything at all, and by simply subscribing to doctrine or instructions as to what "action" to take. To be just "demonstrating" something could just as easily be done with "spirituality" as without.

yes that is true, but understanding is merely a stepping stone, for knowledge is one
thing, its application quite another, for if I know what i aught to do, understanding the
implications and yet withhold from doing it, of what benefit is my knowledge? as
Christian we are counselled that our faith is useless if it does not find its application in
love. Ones faith must find expression or its simply redundant, i think.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this was the reason you gave as to why your organisation still follows the law regarding blood -

nope this is a self evident truth, you are free to take blood transfusions we are free
to claim the right of self determination and desist.

No its not binding because a principle is different from a law, if a principle has no
real tangible appli ...[text shortened]... ugh any principles upon which it was based, may have some
bearing in practice, but not always.

nope this is a self evident truth, you are free to take blood transfusions we are free to claim the right of self determination and desist.

I understand that, but what i'm trying to understand what is deemed acceptable in the eyes iof God. I know i am free to take blood transfusions, you choose not to because you believe it breaks the principle of a Mosaic Law.

if a principle has no real tangible application derived from the type, as in the case of garments of different threads,

But who decides whether it has no real tangible application?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]nope this is a self evident truth, you are free to take blood transfusions we are free to claim the right of self determination and desist.

I understand that, but what i'm trying to understand what is deemed acceptable in the eyes iof God. I know i am free to take blood transfusions, you choose not to because you believe it breaks the principle ...[text shortened]... ments of different threads,[/b]

But who decides whether it has no real tangible application?[/b]

you believe it breaks the principle of a Mosaic Law.

this is perhaps where the confusion is, the law is a type, it merely represented a
greater reality, theretofore when it was annulled its practices became obsolete, but
the principles upon which it was based are still binding. For example, we no longer
live under the ten commandments, they are part of the law, but a law like , you
must not steal, is still binding in principle upon a Christian. Now if you extend that
reasoning to the use of blood, or abortion, or unlawful killing, then its easy to see
that there are principles which apply even though the law, in practice is
redundant.

In the case of blood and its uses or prohibitions, it was reiterated to the Christian
congregation, in the book of Acts, that they abstain from blood, now what does that
mean, in actuality? Is it that it is with reference to solely eating blood, as some
have attempted to assert? or does it have a much broader spectrum of application?
now let us reason a little, if the Bible forbids the eating of blood as unhealthy (the
apostle makes this clear when he adds the phrase, good health to you if you
abstain from these things) then how can one construe that while eating is forbidden,
intravenously injecting blood which carries far greater implications than merely
eating it, becomes acceptable? I use an illustration,

a doctor forbids for the sake of health reasons that one does not drink alcohol, how
is it possible to reason that since the prohibition is against drinking alcohol that
injecting it intravenously is acceptable, although the dangers are far greater, any
reasonable person can see that such reasoning is a nonsense, dont you think? I am
not asking you to agree with our stance, nor accept it, merely to try to understand
our position.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes that is true, but understanding is merely a stepping stone, for knowledge is one
thing, its application quite another, for if I know what i aught to do, understanding the
implications and yet withhold from doing it, of what benefit is my knowledge? as
Christian we are counselled that our faith is useless if it does not find its application in
love. Ones faith must find expression or its simply redundant, i think.

Whether spirituality necessarily leads to 'having to do this' or 'having to do that' or 'not having to do anything specific' is moot. It is a matter for contemplation, self-determination and conscience I think.

Originally posted by FMF
Whether spirituality necessarily leads to 'having to do this' or 'having to do that' or 'not having to do anything specific' is moot. It is a matter for contemplation, self-determination and conscience I think.

On the contrary a spirituality which leads to non action is moot! one would be as well
as joining a tennis club.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
On the contrary a spirituality which leads to non action is moot! one would be as well
as joining a tennis club.

That is what your spiritual search has led you to believe, robbie. And you are entitled to believe it. Unlike you I am not a religionist.

Originally posted by FMF
That is what your spiritual search has led you to believe, robbie. And you are entitled to believe it. Unlike you I am not a religionist.

Sure that is fine, I know you are not a religionist, but you are a human being,
therefore, let me ask you, how can one be say merciful FMF without the outworking of
your mercy manifesting itself in a tangible way?