Originally posted by divegeestersorry but i think the churches of Christendom have committed way more 'heinous crimes', but its ok, i realise that Jehovahs witness are a convenient target for your ignorance and prejudices. I suspect its indicative of the emotional basis which forms your faith.
Suddenly being all "personal" is ok when your corporation's leadership decide they want to distance themselves from the consequences of their heinous doctrines.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI understand it is a personal decision, however, don't the Watchtower Society still expect the JW members to refuse blood transfusions for their children?
no one can forbid a blood transfusion to another person you brain dead zombie drooler. The decision to take or desist from blood transfusions is a personal one.
Originally posted by RJHindsits against the law to refuse a blood transfusion to a minor and its always been considered a conscience decision. No one can force you not to or to take a blood transfusion. Man your tin foil hat is bleeping like crazy Hindus.
I understand it is a personal decision, however, don't the Watchtower Society still expect the JW members to refuse blood transfusions for their children?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat "heinous crimes" are you referring to?
sorry but i think the churches of Christendom have committed way more 'heinous crimes', but its ok, i realise that Jehovahs witness are a convenient target for your ignorance and prejudices. I suspect its indicative of the emotional basis which forms your faith.
And don't think I didn't notice you misquoting me, I said "heinous doctrines".
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am very sure it has not always been a personal decision unless one was alright with being shunned by other members.
its against the law to refuse a blood transfusion to a minor and its always been considered a conscience decision. No one can force you not to or to take a blood transfusion. Man your tin foil hat is bleeping like crazy Hindus.