A DPA question

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

Quote @JW Insider  "Jesus meant for us to think about the more important things. A law should never get in the way of showing love or saving a life."

What Jesus did at Matthew 12 v 9 through 12, was breaking the God given Law to the Nation of Israel. But Jesus proved that things can be more important than just following 'law'. We no longer live under that Law of course, in fact 'we' never did.

At the time of Jesus and His followers in the first century, it seems to have been common practice for Romans to drink human and animal blood. So can you prove that the instruction to 'abstain from blood' was not referring to the drinking of blood ? 

However when you say "A law should never get in the way of showing love or saving a life." Do you mean a human law or God's law ? 

Quote "Therefore, if the Bible says "Abstain from blood" ("New Testament" not OT), then we need not dive too deeply into any science to understand the meaning. We merely abstain from blood." 

If Jesus had used that principle then as the scriptures said Not to do any work etc on the Sabbath, he wouldn't have cured that man. 

I'm sorry but you seem to be complicating the matter. 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

15 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Yes, two way. You can tell a lie, half-truth, truth without some important elements ... etc. ... if that is helping God' and Jesus' and Kingdom' interests here on Earth. But when you have to tell about same things to elders you are not entitled to use "theocratic warfare". :)))

Srecko, I am sorry. It is not your fault. It is mine.You have plainly stated that English is not your first language. If I had to express myself in another language, I....well, I wouldn’t be able to do it.

But there are times when I can detect a general odor from one of your remarks, but if someone asked me exactly what is the point that you are making, I would have to answer “I haven’t a clue.’

Ideally, I should spend whatever time it takes to decipher it, but times when I do, I usually end up saying: “Oh...it is that point JTR was making” and I got it from him a whole lot easier, plus with some cartoons thrown in.

I almost feel mean posting this. You are doing your level best to malign Witnesses & perhaps I should feel it my duty to bear with it and discern whatever it is you are trying to say, but I am not always up to it.

Sorry.

[JW Insider]

32 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

But when you have to tell about same things to elders you are not entitled to use "theocratic warfare". :)))

In a brotherhood, sometimes its better to open up to family, when you might not be quite as open to strangers. Depends on the circumstance. If we trust that elders are there to help, we would not hold back. If we trust that enemies are there to hurt, there are times when we can be cautious as serpents, but still innocent as doves.

[Srecko Sostar]

4 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Srecko, I am sorry. It is not your fault. It is mine.You have plainly stated that English is not your first language. If I had to express myself in another language, I....well, I wouldn’t be able to do it.

But there are times when I can detect a general odor from one of your remarks, but if someone asked me exactly what is the point that you are making, I would have to answer “I haven’t a clue.’

Ideally, I should spend whatever time it takes to decipher it, but times when I do, I usually end up saying: “Oh...it is that point JTR was making” and I got it from him a whole lot easier, plus with some cartoons thrown in.

I almost feel mean posting this. You are doing your level best to malign Witnesses & perhaps I should feel it my duty to bear with it and discern whatever it is you are trying to say, but I am not always up to it.

Sorry.

As i know, Bulgarian Government and representatives for JW's made "friendly agreement" more than 20 years ago: 

"The applicant undertook, with regard to its stance on blood transfusions, to draft a statement, for inclusion in its statute, providing that members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association."

According to this, blood issue aka full blood, is no more question or religious teaching where WT Society have monopoly over members decisions. 

5 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

In a brotherhood, sometimes its better to open up to family, when you might not be quite as open to strangers. Depends on the circumstance. If we trust that elders are there to help, we would not hold back. If we trust that enemies are there to hurt, there are times when we can be cautious as serpents, but still innocent as doves.

You and I know the difference. :))

[JW Insider]

18 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

What Jesus did at Matthew 12 v 9 through 12, was breaking the God given Law to the Nation of Israel. But Jesus proved that things can be more important than just following 'law'. We no longer live under that Law of course, in fact 'we' never did.

True. But a few things have been repeated from that Law for Christians to benefit from as principles and truths.

19 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

At the time of Jesus and His followers in the first century, it seems to have been common practice for Romans to drink human and animal blood. So can you prove that the instruction to 'abstain from blood' was not referring to the drinking of blood ? 

I can't. But I think it might have even been a wider principle than just refraining from drinking human or animal blood directly. It might refer to abstaining from bloodguilt, which can be brought upon ourselves by reckless driving, reckless use of a firearm, parachute diving for pleasure, etc.

23 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

However when you say "A law should never get in the way of showing love or saving a life." Do you mean a human law or God's law ? 

Both. Not even God's law should override the value of a life, according to Jesus:

(Matthew 12:3-7) 3 He said to them: “Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him were hungry? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him or those with him to eat, but for the priests only? 5 Or have you not read in the Law that on the Sabbaths the priests in the temple violate the Sabbath and continue guiltless? 6 But I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 However, if you had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless ones.

I believe that Paul understood that even the "laws" that the Jerusalem Council came up with could be ignored if conscience allowed. He didn't think those idols that the meat had been sacrificed to meant anything, so he said a person could eat it if his conscience allowed. James and Peter had said NO!

 

[Arauna]

6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

According to this, blood issue aka full blood, is no more question or religious teaching where WT Society have monopoly over members decisions. 

Whether they drank blood in Roman times and eat blood sausage in our times does not matter. What matters, is to follow bible instruction.

The first law jehovah gave to Noah after the flood was about blood - it is called the 'everlasting covenant' which was repeated to Israel and also by jesus' disciples.

So what part of the instruction "abstain from blood and fornication"  may we disobey?  If we break the one instruction - is it not as serious as breaking the other one?

One must choose - do you want to obey the bible -  or not. This is not a WT Society issue but one about obedience to God.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

Whether they drank blood in Roman times and eat blood sausage in our times does not matter. What matters, is to follow bible instruction.

The first law jehovah gave to Noah after the flood was about blood - it is called the 'everlasting covenant' which was repeated to Israel and also by jesus' disciples.

So what part of the instruction "abstain from blood and fornication"  may we disobey?  If we break the one instruction - is it not as serious as breaking the other one?

One must choose - do you want to obey the bible -  or not. This is not a WT Society issue but one about obedience to God.

 

Thanks for respond, but my comment what took place in Bulgaria, is not about eating or drinking blood. It is about blood transfusion for medical reasons. JW's representatives, your brothers elders, signed agreement with secular authorities that JW congregants will not be dfd if decide to take blood transfusion for their children or themselves.

Despite this written document regarding JW's in Bulgaria, WT Society still implement mandatory rule, under treat of dfd, if JW member decide to take full blood transfusion (and 4 components) in medical emergency.

I have to ask, do JW members making decisions about serving and worshiping God exclusively by own will and conscience or do they depending on administrative decisions made in WT Society? Please, have in mind that WT Society made written statement before US Court how "preaching service" (and preaching is almost main reason why WT Society and JW organization existing) is done only as free will choice of individual member, and how preaching is not under supervising of elders or congregation or WT Society. 

If this crucial element of JW's faith, the preaching, witnessing, is solely based on your decision and conscience how this is something what God ask of you to do, but if you don't no one have the right to punish you. As i know if JW member stop preaching he/she will not be dfd because of that. 

So, how WT Society come to the point that they making decisions how some rules in Organization are question of conscience and some are not? What is basis for not dfd if you stop preaching but they can dfd you if you take full blood or if you take part of blood that they decide is not allowed to take, because single part is not only part but representing full blood. 

We have Bible idea how blood (not blood fractions and components) representing life. On other side, we have GB idea how one component representing whole blood (and by that life). Is this sound reasonable to you?   

If you can comment this part i will be glad to hear what is your position about JW official statement made in 1997/98. -https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"appno":["28626/95"]}

 

PS

 We firmly believe that God's law of blood cannot be changed to keep pace with impermanent opinions. - https://wol.jw.org/hr/wol/d/r19/lp-c/2004448 Questions from readers

How come that GB changing impermanent opinions on blood regarding fractions and components? Not need to mention previous opinions that changed few times already.

   

[Arauna]

If you have stomach surgery and cannot eat - you eat through a drip in the arm. There is no difference between this way of eating blood.  

The scripture says : ABSTAIN from blood...... this means eating, drinking, in artery, etc. 

When it comes to fractions - how do we know what has fraction in it? When you wash your meat a fraction may still be there...... but Jehovah is not unreasonable.  He can see when we obey his laws WILLINGLy........ .try our best to keep the everlasting covenant of respect for the blood which represents life.

We cannot wilfully go ahead and break the law of God.