Jump to content

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

TrueTomHarley -
JW Insider -
27
580

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

Maybe we finally have this City of Refuge thing down pat after yesterday's study article. The way the Law had it, the accidental manslayer had to flee to one of the six cities of refuge, where his case would be heard. If the 'avenger of blood' (closest relative of the deceased) killed him before he got there, he was guiltless. He might simply have lost it. Or he might figure there wouldn't have been an accident if the fellow had been more careful or not neglected safety. (aspects of safety on the job were also considered, as in 'What can we learn from this?')
 
BUT some have said that he could not do otherwise. He MUST put the killer to death. It is not his prerogative to overlook or forgive, because principles greater than just a matter between two humans come into play. Still, it is hard to believe that a man, bereaved himself, would HAVE TO put to death someone, maybe a close friend or even a relative, who had accidentally taken a life.
 
How does the following work as a compromise? The killer MUST flee to one of the cities of refuge - that much is clear. Why couldn't the avenger of blood take his sweet time in his 'pursuit' - or even walk there with him, if he was really a close chum? Our minds are skewed by the picture in the Watchtower decades ago of the manslayer running for all he is worth with the avenger hot on his heals. Who is to say it was always (or even usually) like that?
 
The death was an accident. The city of refuge was a place where one might live a normal, productive and rewarding life. It was not a prison. But suppose the manslayer refused to go there, insisting he didn't have to, insisting he was 'guiltless' because he didn't mean to do what he did?
 
THEN he would be put to death, not just for the accidental killing itself, or even primarily, but for the greater crime of thumbing his nose at God, for it is his arrangement. Put to death BY WHO becomes secondary. Maybe the avenger of blood. But if the avenger simply couldn't find it within himself to do it, it is hard to believe there would not be a posse or something to help him out or even take it off his hands.
 
Of course, if the real sin is thumbing one's nose at God, the avenger would probably be incensed over THAT and would possibly 'rise to the occasion' on that count, whereas the death itself he would be willing to forgive.
 
Does it work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, does anyone remember that Twilight Zone episode where the driver strikes and kills the kid? -obviously and accident. His wife remarks over dinner how horrible it is that the unknown driver did not turn himself in, and is puzzled by her husband's agitation. His car begins to haunt him. It wakes him up out of a sound sleep with blaring horn. (as a child, it was spooky as all get-out!) He tells his wife the next morning that he will walk to work, since the car has been acting funny. She is amazed to see the garage door open, and the car follows him - he panics and falls. The car stops inches from crushing his head. The passenger door opens. He gets in and it drives him presumably to the police station to confess. The car is the avenger of blood!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2018 at 7:16 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

The death was an accident. The city of refuge was a place where one might live a normal, productive and rewarding life. It was not a prison. But suppose the manslayer refused to go there, insisting he didn't have to, insisting he was 'guiltless' because he didn't mean to do what he did?

My father was in one of the assembly dramas back in 1967. Brother Glass had worked out this "play" with the Gilead students and produced the one-hour skit that was recorded by him and the Gilead students and a couple of other Bethelites with good voices (especially from the other primary instructors: Maxwell Friend, Harold Jackson, Karl Adams, Bert Schroeder). I remember that we attended two assemblies that year because of the drama. I was baptized at the first one.

Those dramas had just started in '66 (Aachan and the theft of contra-"ban" at Ai) and that year they had learned that subtle gestures don't show up well in large stadium audiences, so they taught everyone to over-gesture (and gesticulate) so hard that everyone was karate-chopping the air with every syllable so you knew who was speaking.

But the only thing I remember from the content was that it was used to show that everyone should stay in the protection of Jehovah's arrangement for security (the organization) or they would die. That we are all blood-guilty even if just "accidentally" so, through the sin of Adam, and that we must remain until the "high priest dies" but that he already died in 33 CE, so we are no longer bloodguilty, but we need to stay put anyway.

Of course, that wasn't the whole story, but it definitely was NOT mined for treasures or gems the way that more recent discussions have done (including yesterday's WT study).

I was also thinking that it highlighted safety issues, and it also did something else that isn't mentioned anywhere as far as I know. It's not just to provide a cooling-off period for the avenger who would be tempted to avenge potentially innocent manslaughter ("innocent" in the sense of unintentional). It's also a loving provision for the families who would have to continue to live and work next to the person responsible for such trauma and pain. Defending honor has developed into some terrible practices around the world, including Hatfield and McCoy style feuds that can go on for a century or more. I saw the play Hamilton last year which means I know even less about U.S. History now than I did before, but it showed a facet of dueling that I wasn't aware of, wherein, persons could use it for personal revenge, or purposely arrange to "miss" so as to forgive.

Last year, I spent several days over the course of a week at the British Museum and asked if I could find information on other nations that were known to have sanctuary cities or cities of refuge. The answer was surprising, and got to read one of the recent books they had from David P. Wright and a couple articles in the JBL, including Jeffrey Stackert. 

  • Why Does Deuteronomy Legislate Cities of Refuge? Asylum in the Covenant Collection (Exodus 21:12-14) and Deuteronomy (19:1-13) Author(s): Jeffrey Stackert Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 125, No. 1 (Spring, 2006), pp. 23-49

The book by Wright would be very controversial for most of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something similar happens when you put out a contract to have someone killed, when you are too old or disinclined to do it yourself.

Your "hit man" does your bidding, but it can be traced back to you.

So you get a second "hit man" to bump off the first one.

Then you get a third one to off the second one, etc., etc.

..... but ultimately, it's free !

By the way, with the Hatfields and McCoys, the reason that stopped their feuding is the Hatfields, most of them I am told, became Jehovah's Witnesses. It may or may not be true, as I have forgotten where I got that info ... so just consider it an old man's fairy tale.

However, I had the distinct pleasure of dancing with Libby Hatfield, of Chattaroy, West Virginia, at a "gathering" in Roanoke, Virginia., circa 1976.

THAT ... I remember.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone also made a point that if the accidental manslayer was a son, still living at home, who killed his brother, then the next of kin to be the blood avenger would have been the father of the two boys. However, the whole family of the "guilty" son could go with him to the city of refuge, including the father of course. This shows that it wasn't about the avenging of blood as such, but more about respecting Jehovah's institution of the "refuge", on both the part of the manslayer, and the avenger of blood. In this case, one can imagine the whole family, including the manslayer and the avenger of blood walking together to the city of refuge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Anna said:

Someone also made a point that if the accidental manslayer was a son, still living at home, who killed his brother, then the next of kin to be the blood avenger would have been the father of the two boys. However, the whole family of the "guilty" son could go with him to the city of refuge, including the father of course.

Sounds interesting, but isn't it all just speculation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2018 at 12:16 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

But suppose the manslayer refused to go there, insisting he didn't have to, insisting he was 'guiltless' because he didn't mean to do what he did?

I agree with the comment by JWI on the speculative nature of scenarios in connection with the cities of refuge. I haven't investigated cities of refuge in a historical context simply because reliable information seems rather scant.

Apart from the setting out the provision in Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua,, there doesn't appear to be any reference to the use of the provision in the Hebrew Scriptures, like for example, the cameo appearance of Ruth with reference to the provision of "levirate" marriage.

There is a lot of what I term as higher-critical gobbledegook on the matter, but really only of some academic interest (to me). Perhaps, rather like the Sabbath Year and Jubilee provisions, there was little adherence to the legislated procedure over the years. (Compare Jer.2:34 "Even your skirts are stained with the blood of the innocent poor ones, though I did not find them in the act of breaking in")

Anyway, with regard to TTH's comment, this manslayer, self assessesed as "guiltless", has rather missed the point. Where human blood has been shed there is no "guiltlessness" as the basis for the Mosaic provision makes clear at Genesis 9:5-6. Anyone of that opinion was not thinking in harmony with Jehovah God's view of the matter of shedding human blood in any circumstance, and would be putting themselves greatly at risk of an execution of judgement without mercy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2018 at 12:11 PM, JW Insider said:

The book by Wright would be very controversial for most of us.

Why?

On 1/15/2018 at 12:11 PM, JW Insider said:

asked if I could find information on other nations that were known to have sanctuary cities or cities of refuge.

Not exactly the same, but in The Hunchback of Notre Dame by Dumas ('dumb ass', per Shawshank Redemption) almost an entire chapter is devoted to 'ayslum'' Anybody, no matter how vile their deed, could flee to a section of the huge church and, as long as they stayed there, they were untouchable. They would not be turned over.

 

On 1/15/2018 at 12:11 PM, JW Insider said:

good voices (especially from the other primary instructors: Maxwell Friend

I always thought - dare I say it? - that Friend's voice distracted in that it was so Shakesperian. 

I met him in our Kingdom Hall because he was friends with someone in the sister congregation. I was not happy to see him unexpectedly, because I had a part that night and I was insufficiently prepared. I needn't have worried. I had done these Q and A's before, and this part went smoothe. He sat in the audience like everyone else. He raised his hand for a question. I called on him and he answered like everyone else - not some uber profound answer from a Gilead instructor. Just a plain vanilla answer that any reasonably spiritual person might give.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I always thought - dare I say it? - that Friend's voice distracted in that it was so Shakesperian. 

I was IN his congregation for 3 years. I had originally been assigned to the Bronx which I loved, but when I had extra assignments at work, I was ultimately transferred to the BH congregation where he also attended. I once interviewed him (taped) for about an hour with a list of questions that he mostly wrote himself. I liked him, but I agree that his voice was over-the-top. I mentioned Harold Jackson in my list of drama voices. He actually was rarely used due to a "country" accent. Sydlik had the kind of voice for dramas and he was often used alongside Maxwell Friend. People thought Sydlik was too much "Brooklyn" for doing the voice of God. I heard someone make fun of his drama voice once saying: "Hey youz gize down thayer!"

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:
On 1/15/2018 at 12:11 PM, JW Insider said:

The book by Wright would be very controversial for most of us.

Why?

Wright and Stackert, too, saw the same thing that G.Fishing mentioned. There is very little actual information about how this was put into practice. Because of this, in large part, they considered it to be an idealized legal concept that had solely a literary source, but may not have been practiced. I don't buy this completely because the ideal city locations were designated for an obvious practical purpose, along with the reminder to keep roads clear for the practical purpose of getting there. I also think it was practical in the sense that it didn't waste tax dollars for jails. The taxes were given to the priests, and the priests were given walled cities and farmland. The six cities of refuge were also chosen from the priestly cities, 5 Levitic, and 1 Aaronic, if I remember correctly. Instead of a local judge who had a higher likelihood of being related to one of the families involved in the manslaughter dispute, a priest was also educated, knew the law, had extra room, for a "jail," and could always use extra help. To me, all this goes to practicality, and therefore I suspect, something that was at least sometimes put into practice.

Of course, this isn't proof. It's hardly evidence for that matter. Also, there is nothing wrong with a law that was included because it showed the best way to handle justice for accidental manslaughter, even if the Jewish nation themselves didn't take advantage of it.

Wright was the one who found some additional material that I can't explain within our current perspective about the Mosaic Law. I'll go on if someone asks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Sounds interesting, but isn't it all just speculation?

Ya, you know I love speculation :D But apparently (according to the WT) some Jewish sources say the fugitive could bring his family with him/her. So if that is true, and I don't see why it shouldn't be as why would Jehovah want to separate a husband from his wife and children for example, then it stands to reason a young man who had to flee because he accidentally killed his brother living under the same roof with the parents would not necessarily have to be severed from his family. So if that was the case, then why make a "show" of fleeing, if your family was going to join you anyway? And if one member of that family was to be the avenger of blood, would he make a "show" of staying behind just till you made it to the city, and then join you later?

The law was that the avenger of blood was not allowed to touch the fugitive in the city of refuge, it says nothing about the avenger of blood not being able to live in the same city does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Anna said:

But apparently (according to the WT) some Jewish sources say the fugitive could bring his family with him/her.

There are many Jewish sources which are merely additional types of speculation. The speculation is perhaps a bit more likely to be of interest because Jewish sources have often been speculating on such things for a much longer period of written history than any so-called Christian sources. Many, historically, have had the advantage of speculating in the same language the Bible was written in and therefore have noticed nuances of language that most of us would miss. Often the same so-called advantages have led them astray, too. Looking through the Babylonian Talmud for early commentary on various subjects, for example, one might find answers relying on numerology and/or gematria. One also finds pure contradiction in some of the ancient Jewish traditions. For example, paraphrasing (but not by much):

  • Rabbi so-and-so said this means one thing, and Rabbi thus-and-such said this means the opposite.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

There are many Jewish sources which are merely additional types of speculation. The speculation is perhaps a bit more likely to be of interest because Jewish sources have often been speculating on such things for a much longer period of written history than any so-called Christian sources. Many, historically, have had the advantage of speculating in the same language the Bible was written in and therefore have noticed nuances of language that most of us would miss. Often the same so-called advantages have led them astray, too. Looking through the Babylonian Talmud for early commentary on various subjects, for example, one might find answers relying on numerology and/or gematria. One also finds pure contradiction in some of the ancient Jewish traditions. For example, paraphrasing (but not by much):

  • Rabbi so-and-so said this means one thing, and Rabbi thus-and-such said this means the opposite.

 

True of course. But I didn't want to focus so much on whether Jewish sources were always reliable, but in this case it would make sense because the point of the cities of refuge was not punishment, but rather a merciful provision for those who otherwise would have to be executed, because that was the law, regardless whether it was accidental or not. It would make no sense for example  if the accidental manslayer was a wife, and  her husband and dependent children would have to abandon her. I don't think the point of this law was to break up families.There are so many other  scenarios one could think of, that obviously could not all be covered by the law in detail, so the law must have been applied in principle. This wasn't even my observation but a friend of TTH suggested that the father of a fugitive son who had accidentally killed his brother would be allowed to go with him. It made sense to me....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I've probably said enough about this, but I've thought of another scenario. Suppose a wife has just given birth and because of loss of blood, she passes out momentarily and drops the baby on its head, and the baby dies. Her husband now becomes the avenger of blood. Is he really going to immediately start beating the life out of her with a stone, knowing that there is no way a woman that had just had a difficult birth is up to fleeing goodness knows how far? Or is it more likely he going to wait until she is strong enough and then pack everything up and take the whole family to a new life in the city of refuge. He could of course lie, and tell everyone that the baby died of natural causes, and stay put. So it's his attitude and respect for Jehovah's laws that would make him choose the correct path and take the blood guilt away from the city, to where his wife would become "clean" again, even if it meant rather a lot of inconvenience. He wouldn't surely have to kill her right here and there to show obedience to the law. Unless he hated her and that was his perfect chance. But Jehovah is the reader of hearts and motives and he will be the ultimate judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Wright was the one who found some additional material that I can't explain within our current perspective about the Mosaic Law. I'll go on if someone asks.

So of course I'm curious. What did he say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

the ideal city locations were designated for an obvious practical purpose, along with the reminder to keep roads clear for the practical purpose of getting there.

It would hardly do to break an axle due to a pothole while fleeing to the city of refuge - while the AOB is closing in swinging a truncheon. So I liked that bit about keeping the roads in good repair.

On 1/15/2018 at 12:11 PM, JW Insider said:

it definitely was NOT mined for treasures or gems the way that more recent discussions have done

i liked even more the modern day application of keeping the roads open today. Since the accidental manslayer's counterpart must flee to where he can get spiritual help, the latter should keep the roads open. If they are known to be 'difficult people' with 'personalities' (let the reader use discernment), it is rather like a pothole that the supplicant may break an axle on.

There is such a thing as homophobia in the truth. Our definition would differ from that of the LGBT world, who think that failure to be cool with their lifestyle is homophobia. It is not our definition. However, were there an elder who was known to absolutely rail and froth over gay things, out of proportion to anything else - and then a Christian committed such an act - well, it would be tough going to that elder, wouldn't it? The latter hadn't kept his road in good repair.

It's just an example. To our credit, this type of elder is rare. I can't, off the top of my head, think of one. Our people keep things in perspective, whereas there are fundamentalist churches which seem almost solely devoted to anti-gay crusades

. One could expand the application of roads to include any elder, about anything, who is known to be rough, or opinionated, or derisive (say - AlanF would make a good elder, I think! NOT!) even of just a person or two, or who is nursing a grudge over something. There would be plenty of potholes on that road. I would think twice before I drove it.

10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Wright was the one who found some additional material that I can't explain within our current perspective about the Mosaic Law. I'll go on if someone asks.

If you have the time, I have the ears. There are places where the prophets say the Jews hadn't kept the law for decades, other than the picayune stuff.I can easily picture the cities of refuge being established, but not necessarily made use of during those times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2018 at 1:25 AM, Anna said:

So of course I'm curious. What did he say?

Didn't mean to set this up like a "tease" to drum up interest. Especially if the actual point will turn out to be such a letdown. But I'll continue . . .

Many of us probably barely noticed that the first "kernel" of the "Cities of Refuge" laws started out in Exodus 21:12-15, especially in the highlighted portion.

  • (Exodus 21:12-15) 12 “Anyone who strikes a man so that he dies must be put to death. 13 But if he does it unintentionally and the true God lets it happen, I will designate for you a place where he can flee. 14 If a man becomes very angry with his fellow man and he deliberately kills him, the man must die even if you have to take him from my altar. 15 One who strikes his father or his mother must be put to death.

But we have two versions to compare for much of Exodus 21. For example, let's start out by comparing two versions, starting in Exodus 21:28-32  in the way that Wright does:

image.png

image.png

I think a lot of people already know where this is headed, but this is a good place to start. I'll follow up in the next post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think a lot of people already know where this is headed

Trying to justify Hammurabi as the source for much of the Mosaic Law? Including the refuge city concept? (Believe me , this is only a guess.So I could be completely wrong!  It's not something I have researched...yet!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

While waiting- Did you ever see this?

Yes. It's the same as an article that Brother C.Aulicino had been working on for years. He had been giving most of these points in a couple of non-outline public talks. I was hoping to find that they had been recorded somewhere, because he has about two hours on this same material. He has collected old books (commentaries, etc) on the subject for years. Excellent points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Gone Fishing said:

Trying to justify Hammurabi as the source for much of the Mosaic Law? Including the refuge city concept? (Believe me , this is only a guess.So I could be completely wrong!  It's not something I have researched...yet!)

That's basically it. Up until last year, I thought these particular verses represented the only true "intersection" between the two Law codes, so it was pretty easy to dismiss as just a coincidence, anomaly, gloss, etc. But then I saw that Wright took this to the next step. I hadn't realized that there were not just overlapping "coincidental" laws, but that such a large number of the topics of the Laws of Hammurabi, were still in the same order. This speaks to the overall structural similarities between the Mosaic Law and the Laws of Hammurabi, not just some places where the wording happens to match.

Here's one place where Wright shows a chart of this structural similarity:

image.png

This particular chart, however, shows just one of several relationships. But the similarity shown above should be enough to absorb and try to explain first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By The Librarian
      103-113-Safety.mp3
      Safety by Judge Rutherford
      Convention Columbus OH 9/18/1937
       
    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      WHY would Jehovah's Witnesses reject Government  calls for Independent Inquiry into sexual abuse?


    • By JOHN DAVIS
      WHAT DO THE INNER ROOMS REPRESENT? AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT WE REMAIN OBEDIENT RIGHT NOW AT THIS TIME?
    • By Outta Here
      De.19:15 is pretty explicit:
      “No single witness may convict another for any error or any sin that he may commit. On the testimony of two witnesses or on the testimony of three witnesses the matter should be established."
      However, increasingly, De.22:25-27 is set against this requirement as a justification for relaxing the 2 witness requirement in modern cases of abuse.
      "“If, however, the man happened to meet the engaged girl in the field and the man overpowered her and lay down with her, the man who lay down with her is to die by himself, and you must do nothing to the girl. The girl has not committed a sin deserving of death. This case is the same as when a man attacks his fellow man and murders him. For he happened to meet her in the field, and the engaged girl screamed, but there was no one to rescue her."
      The witness absence factor is compared to a case of murder. We know there were provisions in Israel for this in the form of the cities of refuge procedures (Nu.35:10-32, where the single witness prohibition is stated at v30), and the bloodguilt removal procedure in the complete absence of a perpetrator as outlined at De.21:9.
      With regard to the sexual crime, further procedures were in place in which Jehovah's participation as a witness was invited. These are outlined at Nu.5:11-31. Obviously, Jehovah can serve as a witness in the case of secret sin of this nature (2Sam.11:27) without invoking a ritual,  because he is aware of these things. 
      Does anyone know of instances in Jewish history or commentaries where the matter outlined in De.22:25 was handled appropriately?
    • Guest Nicole
    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      Has the Society ever ruled on what happens if a man or woman abandons their spouse forever ... is the one abandoned stuck forever ?
    • By Bible Speaks
      A New World of Justice
      The Bible tells us what kind of rulership we can expect, rulership that all righthearted individuals now long for. Psalm 145:16 will then find fulfillment in its completest sense: “You [Jehovah God] are opening your hand and satisfying the desire of every living thing.”
      Moreover, Isaiah 32:1 says: “Look! A king [Christ Jesus in heaven] will reign for righteousness itself; and as respects princes [Christ’s earthly representatives], they will rule as princes for justice itself.” 
      Regarding the King Jesus Christ, Isaiah 9:7 foretells: “To the abundance of the princely rule and to peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom in order to establish it firmly and to sustain it by means of justice and by means of righteousness, from now on and to time indefinite. The very zeal of Jehovah of armies will do this.” 
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
       
      IMG_1281.mov
      Two pictures each moving and a GIF 

    • By Bible Speaks
      "With humility consider others superior to you."—Phil. 2:3.
      Imitate Jesus’ Humility and Tenderness
      “Christ suffered for you, leaving a model for you to follow his steps closely.”—1 PET. 2:21.
      WE TEND to imitate those whose personality and ways we admire. Of all the humans who have walked the earth, no one is more worthy of imitation than Jesus Christ. Why is that? Jesus himself once said: “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father also.” (John 14:9) 
      Jesus reflects his Father’s personality so perfectly that observing the Son is like seeing the Father. Therefore, as we imitate Jesus, we draw closer to Jehovah, the greatest Personage in the universe. What a reward for imitating the qualities and ways of his Son!
      How, though, can we know what Jesus is like? Thankfully, we have an inspired written portrait of Jesus. Jehovah provided that record, as found in the Christian Greek Scriptures, because he wants us to become acquainted with his Son so that we can imitate him. (Read 1 Peter 2:21.) 
      In the Bible, the example Jesus left is compared to “steps,” or footprints. In effect, Jehovah is telling us to walk behind Jesus and match our steps to his. 
      Of course, Jesus left a perfect example for us, and we are far from perfect. But Jehovah does not expect us to follow Jesus’ steps perfectly. 
      Rather, the Father expects us to imitate his Son to the best of our ability as imperfect humans.



    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      ST. LOUIS, Feb. 28, 2017 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A few years ago, Julie Jones witnessed the respect Mercy employees have for the different backgrounds of others after the unexpected death of a co-worker.
      This co-worker was from India and of the Hindu faith. Since his family had few financial resources, co-workers raised money to transport his body back to India for a proper burial. They also held a prayer service with his team members, which included a chant for peace performed by other co-workers of the Hindu faith.
      "It was one of those moments where I felt so proud to be part of Mercy because we helped him have a proper burial and our interfaith prayer offered comfort," said Jones, vice president of mission and ministry at Mercy.
      As the fifth largest Catholic health care system in the nation serving multiple states, Mercy treats patients and hires employees from diverse backgrounds and religious beliefs. At many of Mercy's facilities, religious texts are available for different religions.
      Here are several examples of how Mercy has embraced people from different faith traditions and cultures:
      Culturally and religiously sensitive care:
      During Ramadan — a month-long period of strict fasting from sunrise to sunset for Muslims — Mercy dietitians have worked with patients to ensure they respect their traditions while receiving the necessary nutrients.
      Mercy provides advance directives and declination of blood product forms as requested since many Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in accepting blood products.
      Prayer requests:
      A non-denominational Christian woman loved to go to church on Sundays, but was unable to since she was hospitalized and was dying from cancer. Mercy co-workers arranged for her church to come to the hospital and perform a church service.
      Practicing Muslims are required to pray several times per day. Some Mercy facilities have found designated spaces for patients, families and Mercy co-workers to have a private place to pray.
      Many of Mercy's facilities offer battery-operated Shabbat candles, which are lit on Fridays before sunset to welcome in the Jewish Sabbath.
      End-of-life traditions:
      In one Mercy community, a man of American Indian descent was in the intensive care unit and was dying. The Mercy team arranged to have a medicine man come to the hospital and lead a ceremony with family.
      Mercy has assisted Buddhist families in the ritual cleaning of a patient's body prior to death.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • Guest Nicole
    • By Jack Ryan
      If we should "get out of Babylon the Great" then why is it ok to go into hospitals that have been set up, and have funding from Churches? Such as Mercy hospitals or Catholic Healthcare West or Methodist hospitals etc....
      Isnt that a little contradictory or hypocritical?
  • Forum Statistics

    60,058
    Total Topics
    109,384
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,194
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Vinod
    Newest Member
    Vinod
    Joined




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.