Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
This seems like too easy an out for my taste. Being 'hated' is easy. The question is, are you being 'hated' for the right reasons?

Remember - any chucklehead can get to 'hated' simply by acting obnoxious enough.

Well look at the comments being made by most here of the disgust they have for the JW's for not accepting blood transfusions. Would that not be considered hate?
Wouldn't these people here that clearly state their disgust of our stand in obeying God's command of abstaining from blood, if given the opportunity if one of our children were the focus of a parent refusing to allow a transfusion because of the bible's command, physically remove that child from us even no doubt to the point of violance towards us as being their parents or instagate us being jailed?
Of course they would and most here know that.
God's people all thru history have been objects of hate and even put to death for it.

But that is a side note to the subject here and that is blood and what Gods laws are on that and if one chooses to go against that law, there will be consequences for that disobedience just as there is with any law god has set for us to follow.

God has had in the past and even now has set up older wiser men or elders to use to direct the congregation by guidance from him. This is his arrangment and one that has to be honored as being set up by God by the members.
This is a direct command from God to use this channel just as Jesus set up in his day.
No where in the scriptures is our spirituality just left up to us and to deside what is right and wrong and to lean upon our own understanding. That is not the wayu God works as is clearly set out in the Bible.
When one wants to do "his own thing", he will never have God's direction and will be seperating himself from God.

Most of the world do not see that and will not agree to that. They will never be called a sheeplike person or as one who can be led by Jesus and his Fathers organization.

Originally posted by divegeester
And there's that wonderful circular reasoning again.

- God says his true church will be hated

- We do bad things to people

- People despise us for doing these things

- Because we are despised, proves we are God's true church

You are such value Galveston75.

Lol. This from one who calls himself a Christian but in fact would openly eat blood or feed blood to one who was starving while pointing his finger to God's face in direct defiance of the scriptures that say not to eat blood.
Wow what hipocracy....

Originally posted by galveston75
Lol. This from one who calls himself a Christian but in fact would openly eat blood or feed blood to one who was starving while pointing his finger to God's face in direct defiance of the scriptures that say not to eat blood.
Wow what hipocracy....

I'm pleased you are back posting again; I'm mean that sincerely. These boards are nothing without the cut and thrust of differing opinion. Please try to remember that your view of God, scripture, heaven, hell and everything else is probably at least 90% different to mine. I completely disagree with you, so throwing "LOLs" at me and accusing me of hypocrisy while making you feel better, are actually irrelevant.

Originally posted by galveston75
...if given the opportunity if one of our children were the focus of a parent refusing to allow a transfusion because of the bible's command, physically remove that child from us even no doubt to the point of violance towards us as being their parents or instagate us being jailed?

Do you think it can sometimes be right for society to protect children from the actions of their parents?

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm pleased you are back posting again; I'm mean that sincerely. These boards are nothing without the cut and thrust of differing opinion. Please try to remember that your view of God, scripture, heaven, hell and everything else is probably at least 90% different to mine. I completely disagree with you, so throwing "LOLs" at me and accusing me of hypocrisy while making you feel better, are actually irrelevant.

"These boards are nothing without the cut and thrust of differing opinion."

We could be discussing the coercive aspects of religious shunning and its effects in the here and now, rather than another iteration of "JWs and blood". But here we are again.

Originally posted by JS357
We could be discussing the coercive aspects of religious shunning and its effects in the here and now...

Perhaps you need to address a poster like galveston75 about "the coercive aspects of religious shunning and its effects in the here and now"? Just a thought. Have you debated him much directly on the issue?

Originally posted by JS357
"These boards are nothing without the cut and thrust of differing opinion."

We could be discussing the coercive aspects of religious shunning and its effects in the here and now, rather than another iteration of "JWs and blood". But here we are again.

Indeed.

Originally posted by FMF
Perhaps you need to address a poster like galveston75 about "the coercive aspects of religious shunning and its effects in the here and now"? Just a thought. Have you debated him much directly on the issue?

That's fair. Maybe he will pick up on it from your suggestion. However I'm not so much seeking a debate as a general discussion of how different religions deal with it. My own original faith, RCC, had excommunication.

There is an overview at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication

the JW's are not alone, it is just the closeness of th JW community that can make disfellowship more severe in its here and now consequences.

To be sure, any group that assembles for a joint interest has the right to exclude individuals who do not meet the terms and conditions of the group (aside from civil rights laws).

Originally posted by JS357
To be sure, any group that assembles for a joint interest has the right to exclude individuals who do not meet the terms and conditions of the group (aside from civil rights laws).

I disagree completely; on what basis do you make this generalised assertion. I'm thinking specifically of beauroberts description in this thread of the elders advising his wife not to associate with him.

Originally posted by divegeester
I disagree completely; on what basis do you make this generalised assertion. I'm thinking specifically of beauroberts description in this thread of the elders advising his wife not to associate with him.

I assume you are speaking of moral right. I'm speaking of legal right, here.

But either way, telling her to exclude him is not the same as excluding him from their meetings, and she can ignore them. That said, I'd call them arrogant b*****ds for trying to run their marriage, and worse, if they use psychological coercion.

Originally posted by galveston75
Well look at the comments being made by most here of the disgust they have for the JW's for not accepting blood transfusions. Would that not be considered hate?
Wouldn't these people here that clearly state their disgust of our stand in obeying God's command of abstaining from blood, if given the opportunity if one of our children were the focus of a p ...[text shortened]... ver be called a sheeplike person or as one who can be led by Jesus and his Fathers organization.

Some thoughts about 'leaning on your own understanding'.

I assume, since you are a JW, that it is because someone from their organization said, or did, something that resonated with you. Something that got your attention, and motivated you to further study their teachings. Those teachings also resonated, at least to the point where you decided they would make a good permanent spiritual home for you.

Perhaps you even saw reasons why this organization's teachings were more worthy of attention that those of other religious organizations.

Am I right?

Originally posted by galveston75
Well look at the comments being made by most here of the disgust they have for the JW's for not accepting blood transfusions. Would that not be considered hate?
Wouldn't these people here that clearly state their disgust of our stand in obeying God's command of abstaining from blood, if given the opportunity if one of our children were the focus of a p ...[text shortened]... ver be called a sheeplike person or as one who can be led by Jesus and his Fathers organization.

"But that is a side note to the subject here and that is blood and what Gods laws are on that and if one chooses to go against that law, there will be consequences for that disobedience just as there is with any law god has set for us to follow. "

The OP specifically requested that this thread not be about blood.

" I ask that you put the blood issue aside and refrain from bashing the organization as a whole and simply focus on the matter of disfellowship and whether or not it is physically necessary or spiritually necessary and whether or not it has worked or can work or if it can only have adverse effects. "

But there is enough seeking of confirmation of presuppositions to defeat any such requests.

Originally posted by galveston75
Well look at the comments being made by most here of the disgust they have for the JW's for not accepting blood transfusions. Would that not be considered hate?
Wouldn't these people here that clearly state their disgust of our stand in obeying God's command of abstaining from blood, if given the opportunity if one of our children were the focus of a p ...[text shortened]... ver be called a sheeplike person or as one who can be led by Jesus and his Fathers organization.

You are seeing hate where none is galveston! I disagree with the views of
the JW, but respect anyone's heart felt views. As far as I'm concern you are
wrong and preaching something that isn't Biblical with that respect. Saying
that does not mean I hate you, just disagree.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are seeing hate where none is galveston! I disagree with the views of
the JW, but respect anyone's heart felt views. As far as I'm concern you are
wrong and preaching something that isn't Biblical with that respect. Saying
that does not mean I hate you, just disagree.

Hear hear.

Originally posted by galveston75
Well look at the comments being made by most here of the disgust they have for the JW's for not accepting blood transfusions. Would that not be considered hate?.

Yes, most people here have expressed their disgust at this particular JW teaching, but I agree with KJ that it cannot be called hate.

The JW doctrine on blood transfusions is unique to them (as far as I know) although the passages on which it is based (in Acts and Leviticus, for example) are in all Christian Bibles. They are just interpreted differently (and in our view, correctly).

Let us assume that you were to take the single verse of God commanding Abraham to sacrifice his son literally, and apply it today. After all, God DID say it! And let's assume that you now secretly practice child sacrifices, because it is in the Bible.

Of course, you would have to do it secretly, because it would be against the law. And, of course, you would be despised (and even hated) by all who are aware that you are doing this.

My point is that this relates to your doctrine on blood in the same way. We all have the same Bible, but you insist that YOUR view is correct, even though it is universally condemned by scholars and spiritual people everywhere, outside of your narrow fold.

Should make you think, but I wouldn't bet on it.