Malawi and MCP Cards?

[Thinking]

8 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

That's a nice opinion. But it fails the test.

Of the substance of blood, nothing whatsoever records God having humans treat blood as a sacred substance until Mosaic Law. Pre-flood humans were not required to treat blood as a sacred substance. Post-flood, humans were still not required to treat the substance of blood as sacred.

I think you conflate the value God attributes to life with the substance of blood. Everything you say I find agreement in biblical text in relation to life. But regarding the substance of blood, I see none of it until the time of Mosaic Law.

The stand on blood comes from the mosaic law.

[TrueTomHarley]

2 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

How can you realize something you've never personally known of?

What kind of a silly question is that?

Come, come, Many Miles, you’re picking a fight. Everyone knows how you can learn of things that you don’t know from personal experience.

[Many Miles]

2 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The stand on blood comes from the mosaic law.

Of course the who blood policy of the society stands squarely on Mosaic law. Only, the society says that's not the case.

[Many Miles]

3 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Everyone knows how you can learn of things that you don’t know from personal experience.

I agree. But you characterized the occurrence as "occasional". How many times need I ask to get an answer of what you mean by that? If you can't quantify it then how to do characterize it as you have? So what does your characterization mean? 

Fight? Not hardly. I don't care a wit one way or another. I'm just asking a legit question. If you don't want to answer then just don't answer.

[Thinking]

Just now, Many Miles said:

Of course the who blood policy of the society stands squarely on Mosaic law. Only, the society says that's not the case.

There were only three things the elders put on the shoulders of the new Christian’s . And you know them well, idols fornication and abstaining from blood.

I don’t  understand what you mean by the who policy?

[Many Miles]

2 minutes ago, Thinking said:

There were only three things the elders put on the shoulders of the new Christian’s . And you know them well, idols fornication and abstaining from blood.

I don’t  understand what you mean by the who policy?

The society teaches the "three things" you refer to come from requirements predating Mosaic law. I guess that's the part you're missing.

[Thinking]

23 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I have known three people in my lifetime who were told, point blank, and without much empathy, that they would die without a blood transfusion. None agreed to one. None died. One of them was a teen backed by her parents. 

I realize that some persons have died, as you’ve indicated. I have just never personally known of one.

I also recall being asked to visit a teen from some rural congregation who had been in an accident and was being advised a transfusion was necessary. His mom was a Witness, his dad was not. I went with the idea that if this lad, who I did not know, wished for no transfusion, I would back him in his wish.  He did not indicate any such desire and he was transfused. I do not know what became of him afterwards. The experience was awkward and uncomfortable for me, not knowing any of the people involved. 

The closest experience with blood that I know, not exactly what you have asked,  is of a nearby couple whose son had a defective heart from birth. The local hospitals would not agree to operate without blood. His parents took him to a hospital out of state that specialized in bloodless medicine, where the heart was repaired without incident. Several years later the problem (or a new one) returned. This time, neither the local hospital nor the bloodless one held out much hope. Parents took him to the hospital that had operated the first time, and he died. Sorry, I don’t have the specifics of exactly what his defect was.

The husband was not a believer when these trials began. He acquiesced to his wife’s stance. The support he received from the friends at the faraway hospital made such an impression upon him that he later became a Witness, and was one at the time of the child’s second operation. He has remained steadfast in the faith and serves as an elder today.

Another elder who I don’t know well—his youngest suffered some malady and hospitals wanted transfusions. They held firm and the boy is well today, with what treatment I forget, but the man recalled to me his anguish at the time that his son might die “to no purpose.”

My goodness that would have been so hard to do with that young lad with an unbelieving dad…so happy you didn’t try to persuade him in any way….its sur not easy being a elder in these occasions .

I think miles regrets taking or encouraging one’s to stand firm with the blood issue and it weighs heavily…as it seems to have ended sadly.

[Thinking]

23 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I have known three people in my lifetime who were told, point blank, and without much empathy, that they would die without a blood transfusion. None agreed to one. None died. One of them was a teen backed by her parents. 

I realize that some persons have died, as you’ve indicated. I have just never personally known of one.

I also recall being asked to visit a teen from some rural congregation who had been in an accident and was being advised a transfusion was necessary. His mom was a Witness, his dad was not. I went with the idea that if this lad, who I did not know, wished for no transfusion, I would back him in his wish.  He did not indicate any such desire and he was transfused. I do not know what became of him afterwards. The experience was awkward and uncomfortable for me, not knowing any of the people involved. 

The closest experience with blood that I know, not exactly what you have asked,  is of a nearby couple whose son had a defective heart from birth. The local hospitals would not agree to operate without blood. His parents took him to a hospital out of state that specialized in bloodless medicine, where the heart was repaired without incident. Several years later the problem (or a new one) returned. This time, neither the local hospital nor the bloodless one held out much hope. Parents took him to the hospital that had operated the first time, and he died. Sorry, I don’t have the specifics of exactly what his defect was.

The husband was not a believer when these trials began. He acquiesced to his wife’s stance. The support he received from the friends at the faraway hospital made such an impression upon him that he later became a Witness, and was one at the time of the child’s second operation. He has remained steadfast in the faith and serves as an elder today.

Another elder who I don’t know well—his youngest suffered some malady and hospitals wanted transfusions. They held firm and the boy is well today, with what treatment I forget, but the man recalled to me his anguish at the time that his son might die “to no purpose.”

My goodness that would have been so hard to do with that young lad with an unbelieving dad…so happy you didn’t try to persuade him in any way….its sur not easy being a elder in these occasions .

I think miles regrets taking or encouraging one’s to stand firm with the blood issue and it weighs heavily…as it seems to have ended sadly.

[Thinking]

6 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

The society teaches the "three things" you refer to come from requirements predating Mosaic law. I guess that's the part you're missing.

Well fill me in…honestly I am genuinely asking.

[Many Miles]

10 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I don’t  understand what you mean by the who policy?

Here is what the society teaches about the "three things" you alluded to:

"When the issue involving application of the Mosaic Law to Gentile Christians was presented to the governing body in Jerusalem in the first century, their decision was in harmony with these facts. They recognized that Jehovah was not requiring Gentile believers to perform works in obedience to the Mosaic Law before holy spirit was poured out on them. The decision of that governing body did list as “necessary things” certain prohibitions that were in harmony with that Law, but these were based on the Bible record concerning events that predated the Law. So there was not an imposing on Gentile Christians of a responsibility to conform to the Mosaic Law or some portion of it but, rather, there was a confirming of standards recognized prior to Moses." (Ref United in Worship book, underlining added)

[Thinking]

6 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Here is what the society teaches about the "three things" you alluded to:

"When the issue involving application of the Mosaic Law to Gentile Christians was presented to the governing body in Jerusalem in the first century, their decision was in harmony with these facts. They recognized that Jehovah was not requiring Gentile believers to perform works in obedience to the Mosaic Law before holy spirit was poured out on them. The decision of that governing body did list as “necessary things” certain prohibitions that were in harmony with that Law, but these were based on the Bible record concerning events that predated the Law. So there was not an imposing on Gentile Christians of a responsibility to conform to the Mosaic Law or some portion of it but, rather, there was a confirming of standards recognized prior to Moses." (Ref United in Worship book, underlining added)

Thanks for this but let’s pull it apart ….what about the sentence where it says 

in harmony with that Law.

also the events that predated the Law …….

well that is what a number of us have been saying….( jehovahs view on blood and his attitude to blood all thru all the scriptures demands respect for blood ) even those predating the law…
I'm sorry for your personal pain in the past but I agree with the above and it’s basically what we have all been saying .

For myself I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

My goodness that would have been so hard to do with that young lad with an unbelieving dad…so happy you didn’t try to persuade him in any way

Some expected me to. I caught some flak next morning from one of the boy’s hometown elders. I didn’t answer then as I would today—that they should have been there themselves if they were concerned about his outcome. I just knew at the time with this unknown teen that if he hadn’t formed a stand by now it was a little late to start just then, or for me to encourage that.

Then, of course, adding to my prior answer to Many Miles, there was the time I was admitted myself for a sudden onset of pain and they advised surgery come Monday morning. I made clear at least twice how I felt about blood and was told, ‘Not a problem, easily accommodated, we do it all the time. Just sign here and here.’ Then, on the operating table, in comes the anesthesiologist who says, ‘I see you’re a Witness. If it should turn out that you need a transfusion, will you accept one? Or would you rather die?’

The experience is in ‘Tom Irregardless and Me,’ where it was attributed to Wayne Whitepebble. But it was really me.