Easily Led

[JJ50]

Why is it that some people are easily led by people who force feed them a doctrine, however crazy? Like sheep they will follow them even if it puts their lives, and that of their loved ones, in danger. We have had some startling examples of that over the years, the dreadful Jonestown Massacre, for instance.

Islamic extremists somehow talk their adherents into following their unpleasant dogma to the death. The JWs have persuaded their conscripts that having blood transfusions is not approved of in the Bible, so even if death results because they have refused one for themselves or their families, so be it!

Many TV evangelists persuade their sycophants to fund their lavish live styles. The Benny Hinn and other 'healers' manage to convince the gullible that they have performed miracles.

The Catholic Church has managed to get away with many crimes against humanity over the centuries, The Inquisition being one of the most heinous. Other evil blots on their tainted copy book was turning a blind eye where paedophile priests are concerned, and consigning unmarried pregnant girls to homes like the Magdalene Laundries. Those girls were cruelly treated, their babies stolen when they were born, and often sold to the highest bidder! The protestant lot have nothing to be smug about either, the rabid pastors who scare folk with their hell-fire garbage if they don't get 'saved' garbage do Christianity no good at all.

If only people would realise those who preach to others, and claim to know the mind of god/s, have no more idea than the rest of us if any god exists. Matters of faith should never be accepted without thorough questioning.

[Elijah John]

If JJ50's acount is to be believed, (and I see no reason to doubt it) then the JWs in question went well beyond "only asking that their wishes be honored".

You see no reason to doubt it do you? When you have attended the kingdom hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses did you come in contact with people that seemed capable of such a remark? Have any Jehovah's Witnesses that have called on your home or that you have encountered anywhere else EVER made personal remarks of any kind to you? Have any people of your acquaintance implied Jehovah’s Witnesses were anything but kind, polite and respectful? Have you seen anything in our literature or read anything on our website, that implied we were to treat people with anything but the utmost respect?

Putting faith aside how many HUMAN BEINGS have you ever met that would condone, let alone say such a callous thing to the mother of a dead child. Is there any circumstance were you would say such a thing? If not, why not?

You see no reason to doubt it do you? That tells me a lot about what you think of Jehovah’s Witnesses and that, my friend is good to know.

Have a most excellent day,

JW

ps: And no I will not be responding to any of your requests as I personally find them deeply offensive. I will leave my brothers and sisters to make up there own minds how they wish to respond.

What "requests"?

In experience, the JW's I have met in real life have been much more pleasant than those that I have interacted with here on these boards. A little more convincing, far more willing to see and appreciate what others have in common with them, instead of reflexively viewing non-JWs as antagonists. Perhaps that is just the nature of a debating format.

But I have not heard as much Catholic bashing as I have from a few of our JWs here.

The JWs on the boards here seem exceptionally strident and inflexibly wed to Watchtower dogma, no matter how ridiculous. Y'all seem to march in lock step with each other and with the WTS, never questioning., ever quick to resort to "debate by link" to the mother ship. That gives the impression of a very controling, very legalistic, "group".

And some perpetuate misconceptions about other sects of Christianity, like the RCC.

In short, the JW's I have met in real life have been far better reps than what I've seen here from the WTS. Not to the point of making me want to become a JW, but the folks on our boards here make me want to run for the hills, far away from the WTS!

But it is good to know that even you would not go that far... even though you renounce blood transfusions. (for other's too? Is it sin for non-JWs to have blood transfusions?)

Those particular JWs then, must have been loose cannons.

I'll take your response as the repudiation of those callous JW's that I was waiting for and asking for earlier. Thank you.

Frankly, it is refreshing that you can admit that they were very wrong, instead of circling the wagons to defend the indefensible.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 19 by JehovahsWitness]

I'll just say that the JWs I have interacted with in person seem like better witnesses for the WTS, less strident and antagonistic.

But that perhaps is the nature of the debating format vs. "real life".

I'll take your response as the repudiation your fellow JWs that I requested earlier. Good to see you are not "circling the wagons" on this one and attempting to defend the indefensible.

[onewithhim]

The JW cult is pure evil. When my adopted son had a blood transfusion to save his life as a baby in 1986, two JWs turned up on my doorstep. When I told them about my son's blood transfusion they said he would have been better off dead rather than receiving blood from another person! There is nothing in the Bible which says you can't have a blood transfusion as they hadn't been invented in those far off days.

I thought I had written a post already, offering apologies for anything our spiritual brothers may have said to upset you. It seems to have disappeared from any of the threads. If those brothers said your son would be better off dead, they were beyond out of line. They were unconscionable in their uttering such a thing. No one I know says things like that to anybody.



As to the blood issue itself, Blood is Dark Ages medicine. Apparently you didn't bother to go to my links either, which show how major hospitals are practicing bloodless medicine.

You're right....transfusions hadn't been invented yet in Bible times. That is exactly why the Scriptures say to ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD. That would mean not putting it into your body by any means. I'm happy that your son lived, and I can also say that he would be alive, too, if he had taken blood substitutes.


If you still want to besmirch JWs' reputations by calling them "evil," at least do some simple research if you want to show that our position is wrong. Go to the links I posted, and the information that JehovahsWitness provided. If you don't want to bother, at least stop condemning JWs as "evil."

.

[onewithhim]

Before you slander an innocent organization by saying that they hard-heartedly let their children die because they refuse blood transfusions, get your facts straight, please.

That's secondary. Is it better to let a child die than to do a blood transfusion? It should be a easy question to answer for the vast majority of people.

It is NEVER a positive thing that a child dies. Blood substitutes are available, and they have been for years; they are also superior to taking blood itself. I have provided links to hospital sites, hospitals that provide bloodless medicine, but apparently no one bothers to check them out. Why? Again, why, when the blood substitutes are far better than someone else's blood? Recovering time is faster, no side effects, less cost (blood is very expensive and serves big business interests).

Once again I provide the links. If no one wants to be informed, then so be it, but I think you will find the information valuable and interesting. If people are reticent to click on these links because they think they are from JW sources, that is not true. They are websites from non-JW sources.


www.hopkinsmedicine.org/bloodless_medicine_surgery

https://www.pennmedicine.org/for-patien ... e-medicine


.

[onewithhim]

There is nothing in the Bible which says you can't have a blood transfusion as they hadn't been invented in those far off days.

There's nothing in the bible which says you can't shoot your neighbour with a kalashnikov AK74 either since hadn't been invented in those far off days yet either. Your point?

Jehovah's Witnesses exercise their right to say what is or isn't put into their bodies and on the matter of blood there is sound scriptural and medical reasoning behind their decision. They ask only that thir wishes be honoured.

If JJ50's acount is to be believed, (and I see no reason to doubt it) then the JWs in question went well beyond "only asking that their wishes be honored".

Stating that someone's else's child would be "better off dead" (especially over a matter of religious practice) is beyond disgusting.

The reason the two JW's made their disgusting statement was NOT because they were JW. There is no doubt in my mind that this is an empirical fact. The reason they said what they did was because they were human.

Yes, they were human and not versed in common courtesy. Probably young and inexperienced with life and people's suffering.

.

[onewithhim]

Those girls were cruelly treated, their babies stolen when they were born, and often sold to the highest bidder!

You make some valid points, but what are you talking about here?

The RCC providing alternatives to abortions? If these women don't want their children, isn't it better to give those children up for adoption rather than killing them in the womb?

How is that "stealing and selling" them?

Maybe you are referring to something I have not heard about.

Please provide support and citation for this charge.

No woman should be forced to go through pregnancy if she doesn't want a child.

The RCC in Ireland had unmarried girls placed in those ghastly Magdalene laundries where they were treated no better than slaves. When the babies were delivered they were removed and put up for adoption whether the women wished it or not! That flipping church has got a lost of evil deeds to answer for!

"Whether they wished it or not" IS a description of stealing. But please provide documentation that this is actually happening if you want to make such a serious charge. I doubt stealing babies is legal anywhere, including in Ireland.

And if the RCC was actually practicing this enslavement of girls and confiscation of babies, surely the government of Ireland would have put a stop to it..

Oh no, the gov't of Ireland would NOT have put a stop to it. That gov't was in the pocket of the Catholic Church, and has just recently awakened to its precarious association with it. These things have been known to people for decades upon decades, if not for centuries. The same things happened in Italy, and documentaries have been shown. Also in Canada....taking babies and even worse.


.

[onewithhim]

There is nothing in the Bible which says you can't have a blood transfusion as they hadn't been invented in those far off days.

There's nothing in the bible which says you can't shoot your neighbour with a kalashnikov AK74 either since hadn't been invented in those far off days yet either. Your point?

Jehovah's Witnesses exercise their right to say what is or isn't put into their bodies and on the matter of blood there is sound scriptural and medical reasoning behind their decision. They ask only that thir wishes be honoured.

If JJ50's acount is to be believed, (and I see no reason to doubt it) then the JWs in question went well beyond "only asking that their wishes be honored".

Stating that someone's else's child would be "better off dead" (especially over a matter of religious practice) is beyond disgusting.

The reason the two JW's made their disgusting statement was NOT because they were JW. There is no doubt in my mind that this is an empirical fact. The reason they said what they did was because they were human.

Then let a JW among us disavow this ridiculous statement as not reflecting the position of the Watchtower organization.

They are quick to provide links on just about everything else, so can we please have a statement or a link from a JW that (on face valule) these two JWs were WAY out of line in telling a parent that their child would be "better off dead" than receive a blood transfusion?

I HAVE disavowed that statement. It is on this page. I also was sure that I had previously said that I wanted to apologize for that terrible statement, but I can't find my post anywhere.

.

[tam]

[Replying to post 26 by onewithhim]

I can vouch for what one has said. I remember her apologizing for whoever made that statement.



Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[shnarkle]

There is nothing in the Bible which says you can't have a blood transfusion as they hadn't been invented in those far off days.

There's nothing in the bible which says you can't shoot your neighbour with a kalashnikov AK74 either since hadn't been invented in those far off days yet either. Your point?

Jehovah's Witnesses exercise their right to say what is or isn't put into their bodies and on the matter of blood there is sound scriptural and medical reasoning behind their decision. They ask only that thir wishes be honoured.

If JJ50's acount is to be believed, (and I see no reason to doubt it) then the JWs in question went well beyond "only asking that their wishes be honored".

Stating that someone's else's child would be "better off dead" (especially over a matter of religious practice) is beyond disgusting.

The reason the two JW's made their disgusting statement was NOT because they were JW. There is no doubt in my mind that this is an empirical fact. The reason they said what they did was because they were human.

Then let a JW among us disavow this ridiculous statement as not reflecting the position of the Watchtower organization.

They are quick to provide links on just about everything else, so can we please have a statement or a link from a JW that (on face valule) these two JWs were WAY out of line in telling a parent that their child would be "better off dead" than receive a blood transfusion?

No, this is nonsense, especially given what I just posted on this topic. If the common denominator is that they're human, then we all need to disavow it because we're human. This isn't a problem for JW's; this is a problem for humanity. Why don't you start by disavowing this ridiculous statement as not reflecting the position of humanity?

[oldbadger]

Why is it that some people are easily led by people who force feed them a doctrine, however crazy? Like sheep they will follow them even if it puts their lives, and that of their loved ones, in danger. We have had some startling examples of that over the years, the dreadful Jonestown Massacre, for instance.

Hi...... you are a Brit, or maybe a Scot, anyway, your UK, and we have all been very easily led many times, it's not just small groups of folks....

Do you remember how we all believed that Iraq harboured WMDs, and watched intensely as we helped to bomb and invade Iraq? Easily led?

Do you remember how we all read our newspapers and decided that our Human Rights Act was not wanted, simply because people that we didn't like took some benefit from the act?

Yes.... we are all easily led, when it suits us, when we get some small thing out of it, when we think wishfully....

In fact, we are human, and that is the one fact about us all that can tend to cause any one group of us to just 'be easily led'.

Don't worry about 'them', whoever they are..... worry about 'us'.