Father faces off against Jehovah's Witnesses

[NewsBot/WarnBot]

The father of a teen who died after refusing a blood transfusion was back in a Calgary court Tuesday.
Jehovah's WitnessesTheologically, Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult of Christianity. The oppressive organization does not represent ...

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/news.php?p=9029&c=1

 

[Giovanni20]

People dont seem to understand that it says clearly in the bible that we must not consume or take blood into our body. Thats the problem. People want to do whatever they want and only follow the rules that benefit them. If people were to have true faith in god then they would know that they will see their loved one again. Abraham was commanded to kill his son as a sacrifice to god and he was willing to do it. Its all about faith. It proves everything.

 

[Giovanni20]

The people that say that JWs are a cult obviously do not know the meaning of the word Cult.

 

[SoyLeche]

The people that say that JWs are a cult obviously do not know the meaning of the word Cult.

The word really has little meaning outside of religious mud slinging - I've had it slung at me many times

 

[Draka]

cult (k

lt) [SIZE=-2]KEY [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]NOUN: [/SIZE]

1. 1. <LI type=a>A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
   2. The followers of such a religion or sect.
2. A system or community of religious worship and ritual.
3. The formal means of expressing religious reverence; religious ceremony and ritual.
4. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.
5. 1. <LI type=a>Obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to or veneration for a person, principle, or thing.
   2. The object of such devotion.
6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

~

as per http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/cult

 

[SoyLeche]

People dont seem to understand that it says clearly in the bible that we must not consume or take blood into our body. Thats the problem. People want to do whatever they want and only follow the rules that benefit them. If people were to have true faith in god then they would know that they will see their loved one again. Abraham was commanded to kill his son as a sacrifice to god and he was willing to do it. Its all about faith. It proves everything.

Context is everything. The passages in the Bible are warning against participating in the religious rites of the people around them. Since transfusions weren't even conceivable to the people then, that can't be what God was talking about.

I don't, however, have a problem with people refusing transfusions for themselves for religious reasons. When they start refusing them in behalf of little children, that starts to get into a very fuzzy area that I'm not as comfortable with. It has nothing to do with whether or not I believe that I will see my loved ones again - I have the assurance that I will. But life is precious - we only get one shot at this.

 

[Draka]

People dont seem to understand that it says clearly in the bible that we must not consume or take blood into our body. Thats the problem. People want to do whatever they want and only follow the rules that benefit them. If people were to have true faith in god then they would know that they will see their loved one again. Abraham was commanded to kill his son as a sacrifice to god and he was willing to do it. Its all about faith. It proves everything.

A transfusion is not consuming blood. And as for taking it into the body...if that means that if a person loses blood that they cannot have it replaced and that is the only thing that stands between life and death for them, then that is ridiculous. Can one recieve their own blood? If they donate blood at an earlier time then can they recieve their own blood back? Or is it wrong to donate blood to save yourself or others? You aren't taking the blood yourself at the time...you are giving it. Is there a diffence? Why is it okay to kill...but not to save a life? It's okay to sacrifice your child...but not to save them? Makes no sense to me.

 

[evearael]

The father of a teen who died after refusing a blood transfusion was back in a Calgary court Tuesday.
Jehovah's WitnessesTheologically, Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult of Christianity. The oppressive organization does not represent ...

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/news.php?p=9029&c=1

This website is extremely biased and only undermines your case. Any religion can be classified as a cult, though usually it is a derogatory term. Use of derogatory terms undermines your case. It is tragic that this child died, but if you seek to sucessfully argue that the family is out of line for following their faith and not supporting medical intervention then you need to come up with a reasoned argument that includes reliable sources without insults.

 

[Draka]

This seems to be the source for the statements made concerning cults and heresy:

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j02.html

 

[Ody]

=
Jehovah's WitnessesTheologically, Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult of Christianity.

Do you realize how degrading this statement is?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Thankfully, the Newsbot has been cancelled. (It was an automated process news-updater.) The reasons had to do with the the type of post that people are replying to. (Please also note the date: 10-20-2004, 02:00 AM)

 

[Karl R]

People dont seem to understand that it says clearly in the bible that we must not consume or take blood into our body. Thats the problem. People want to do whatever they want and only follow the rules that benefit them.

Jesus also clearly stated that nothing that goes into a man makes him unclean. It's what comes out of a man that makes him unclean.

The difference in beliefs come about because of which statements we feel are more important.

Like SoyLeche, I feel that people have the right to refuse transfusions. I don't believe a parent should be allowed to refuse a life-saving treatment on the behalf of a child who is capable of expressing an opinion, but I still feel that they have the right to persuade the child to refuse the treatment (even though I disagree with their beliefs).

 

[Runt]

There are several issues other than religion to be considered here. The girl who died was a child, only 16 years old. Who had the right to make medical decisions for her? Was she old enough to make them herself (which she did)? Should her mother AND father have had a say in her decision (which they didn't; her mother supported her choice, her father did not, and medical treatment was withheld)? Apparently the first court cases determined that the girl was NOT old enough to make the decision for herself. She was made a ward of the province and for a period of time she was forced to accept blood transfusions. However, when the transfusions proved unsuccessful, the court eventually reversed its decision. The girl was moved to an undisclosed location---WITHOUT THE FATHER'S KNOWLEDGE---where she continued a transfusion-less treatment and eventually died.

There are also questions of whether or not a religion is legally allowed to provide religious instruction to a child without his or her parents' consent. However, as far as I can tell, the man WAS a Jehovah Witness until this issue came up... so my guess is that, if parental permission is required for religious instruction in Canada, he probably gave his consent.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/726-_.html
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/archives/00000080.html
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/820-.html

 

[DeepShadow]

...all I know is I'm so glad the NewsBot has been redirected. I was so tired of "theologically, Jehovah's Witnesses (or Mormons, et al.) are a cult of Christianity."

I think I may just frubal the Newbot for that switch.

 

[Runt]

The anthropological or sociological use of the word "cult" is not actually a negative thing, but rather is nearly synonomous to "sect". However, I guess I have to admit that the article may not have been using the word in the academic sense... *grumbles*

 

[CaptainXeroid]

Thankfully, the Newsbot has been cancelled. (It was an automated process news-updater.) The reasons had to do with the the type of post that people are replying to. (Please also note the date: 10-20-2004, 02:00 AM)

Thank you for this reminder as many people have signed up and stayed active since the NewsBot was de-activated. I think the biggest problem was that it would pull mulitple accounts of the same story and start a different thread for each one. I think it's much more productive and interesting when real people start threads and kinda steer the discussion/debate.