Shadow Puppetry
Member
This blows my mind.
Extreme how? They already got put in camps alongside the Jews in Nazi Germany and they never became "extremists"One I knew was disowned from her family for being gay, so there's that.
But then again, that happens in Christian and Muslim families too, albeit without protocols and guidelines surrounding cutting people out of your life.
People characterizing them as "those nice people who knock on your door" are being a little reductive.
(Obviously, what Russia is doing is wrong, however, as that will only lead to them actually being extreme)
A good way to show you care is to let your kids get blood transfusions when they need them. It's what a good parent would do. If your religion is more important to you than your kids you are a bad parent.
A good way to show you care is to let your kids get blood transfusions when they need them. It's what a good parent would do. If your religion is more important to you than your kids you are a bad parent.
Edit: I guess I don't really have a dog in this fight, we don't let Witnesses refuse transfusions for their kids in Canada anyways.
What an idiotic statement, are we somehow now forgetting the myriads of risks involved in blood transfusions? So if one looks at those risks and decides they rather try a bloodless alternative they are bad? Jehovah's witnesses have pioneerd bloodless surgeries and alternatives to transfusions, alternatives that are universally praised. Its not really hard to look up, it's good to understand something before trying to demonize it.
Real doctors also use the alternatives to blood transfusionsThey're so amazingly effective that real doctors stil use transfusions. Get out of here with your alternative medicine bullshit.
They're so amazingly effective that real doctors stil use transfusions. Get out of here with your alternative medicine bullshit.
They're so amazingly effective that real doctors stil use transfusions. Get out of here with your alternative medicine bullshit.
Unless they really need to use a blood transfusion, in which case they will.Real doctors also use the alternatives to blood transfusions
That said. I've always had issue with the stance against blood transfusions in many cases
Though i don't know how similar they are to the Finnish counterparts in other countries.
All that hatred you have, a shame.
They are pacifists, completely apolitical, non-materialistic, and virtue obsessed.
Sounds exactly like the sort of people we should label extremists.
Jehovahs Witnesses.
Jehovahs Witnesses.
WHAT.
Witnesses do not reject the state, do not confuse their pacifism as a rejection of the system they live under. "Give ceasers things back to ceaser", witnesses are law abiding citizens of whatever country they live in. They pay their taxes and respect the laws of the land aslong as that law does not require them to kill. If taking up a gun or 'voting' is the only criteria one has to be judged on for accepting a state then the world is truly fucked up. Anyways, I made an argument a few years ago that Russia wasn't quite a dictatorship (at that time) but it seems they are firmly one now and the government is truly asinine. Should they ban Jehovah's witnesses I hope the government gets what it deserves, because that group is among the most peaceful religious groups on earth (unfortunately among the most persecuted too).
Actions are no different anywhere in the world. It is literally unified worldwide.
I was wondering when this topic would come up here, was curious to see the take here. I was raised and still attend. I have met a lot of great folks and I have had a pretty awesome life because of it.
Extremist is a terrifying term to be applied to the situation. Literally the most peaceful people you will find.
They don't vote and they abide by the law of the land. They show respect for government and obey the law. There's really no extremism at all.
It's just really messed up.
It depends. If you were baptised then you'd be have to be classed as 'dis-fellowshipped'. This means that as a JW you shouldn't associate yourself with this person. Even if they're a close relative.What happens if you leave?
N-O-T-H-I-N-GWhat happens if you leave?
What happens if you leave?
Vaccines? We don't have a view of vaccines at all. People should get them.
There seems to be two main groups of ex JW's. Those that absolutely abhor the practices they undertake and those that are apologists and defend them, suggesting everything they do is in good faith. It's a really difficult discussion to have. On one hand they're just like any other ultra conservative group that put their faith above anything else in their lives. On the other hand that unwillingness to bend their faith for the ones they should supposedly love, creates deep emotional scars for some that leave. Another issue in this argument is that not every JW practices in the same way, some parents are very strict while others interpret the rules alot more loosely. This adds to the differing in experiences of ex Jehovahs Witnesses.Calling Jehovah's Witnesses extremists and picking them out to be among other religions is like cutting a flower amongst weeds.
I grew up a Jehovah's Witness and most people have the weirdest and flat untrue views on them. They're peace loving people, the stories you heard from ex-JWs are from jaded people who did something wrong and got disciplined for it. They're simply butthurt.
JWs are NOT perfect so yeah, there are some flaws here and there but a lot of folk take all flaws as absolute and anything good as exaggerated or fabricated. Yes, they don't believe in blood transfusions but rather alternatives, blood transfusions not only go against the Bible (which most Christians know it does so stop fucking playing) but also comes with huge risks.
Not true, you're only dis-fellowshiped if you do something against the Bible that's considered a gross sin,that's only if you're caught, someone tells, or you tell on yourself but if you just leave, you're just labeled as inactive. If you say you don't want to be a witness, you're not disfellowshiped.It depends. If you were baptised then you'd be have to be classed as 'dis-fellowshipped'. This means that as a JW you shouldn't associate yourself with this person. Even if they're a close relative.
It often leads to individuals being completely exiled from their social support group (friends and relatives).
You're shunned. But hey, apparently, according to people in this thread, being forced to cut off close friends or family members if they come to the conclusion they don't believe the same things you do isn't the behavior of a cultish or a corrupt organization, so it's okay!What happens if you leave?
They don't vote and they abide by the law of the land. They show respect for government and obey the law. There's really no extremism at all.
It's just really messed up.
Well, the Jehovah witnesses in the area I live in are anti vaccines. I assumed that all Jehovah witnesses share their beliefs. I apologise.
The 'gross sin' category is a huge moral grey area. For instance a wife divorcing a husband that she claims is physically abusive is still considered enough to be disfellowshipped if the woman was to stand by her decision. Edit: Only until recently, giving blood to your dying child was also enough to be disfellowshipped. Smoking? Disfellowshipped. Sex before marriage? Disfellowshipped. Homosexual? Disfellowshipped. It's a huge moral grey area that leads tonnes of people to be completely cut off from their social network for simply living their lives in the way they deem appropriate or healthy.Not true, you're only dis-fellowshiped if you do something against the Bible that's considered a gross sin,that's only if you're caught, someone tells, or you tell on yourself but if you just leave, you're just labeled as inactive. If you say you don't want to be a witness, you're not disfellowshiped.
There seems to be two main groups of ex JW's. Those that absolutely abhor the practices they undertake and those that are apologists and defend them, suggesting everything they do is in good faith. It's a really difficult discussion to have. On one hand they're just like any other ultra conservative group that put their faith above anything else in their lives. On the other hand that unwillingness to bend their faith for the ones they should supposedly love, creates deep emotional scars for some that leave. Another issue in this argument is that not every JW practices in the same way, some parents are very strict while others interpret the rules alot more loosely. This adds to the differing in experiences of ex Jehovahs Witnesses.
You're shunned. But hey, apparently, according to people in this thread, being forced to cut off close friends or family members if they come to the conclusion they don't believe the same things you do isn't the behavior of a cultish or a corrupt organization, so it's okay!
Calling Jehovah's Witnesses extremists and picking them out to be among other religions is like cutting a flower amongst weeds.
I grew up a Jehovah's Witness and most people have the weirdest and flat untrue views on them. They're peace loving people, the stories you heard from ex-JWs are from jaded people who did something wrong and got disciplined for it. They're simply butthurt.
JWs are NOT perfect so yeah, there are some flaws here and there but a lot of folk take all flaws as absolute and anything good as exaggerated or fabricated. Yes, they don't believe in blood transfusions but rather alternatives, blood transfusions not only go against the Bible (which most Christians know it does so stop fucking playing) but also comes with huge risks.
The 'gross sin' category is a huge moral grey area. For instance a wife divorcing a husband that she claims is physically abusive is still considered enough to be dis-fellowshipped if the woman was to stand by her decision.
so they don't go to hell.
They don't believe in hell. They believe you cease to exist in all forms upon death.
From my knowledge domestic abuse is behaviour that can be altered and modified. A woman shouldn't resort to divorce in this case as they see the mans behaviour as being fixable. From my experiences getting the authorities involved is to be avoided if at all possible. It should be handled by the elders of the congregation.I'm going to look into that because I'm not sure that's the case. Pretty sure that isn't the case. Easy to find out tho. Abuse in my view is considered grounds. Especially if authorities are involved.
The 'gross sin' category is a huge moral grey area. For instance a wife divorcing a husband that she claims is physically abusive is still considered enough to be disfellowshipped if the woman was to stand by her decision. Edit: Only until recently, giving blood to your dying child was also enough to be disfellowshipped. Smoking? Disfellowshipped. Sex before marriage? Disfellowshipped. Homosexual? Disfellowshipped. It's a huge moral grey area that leads tonnes of people to be completely cut off from their social network for simply living their lives in the way they deem appropriate or healthy.
You're shunned. But hey, apparently, according to people in this thread, being forced to cut off close friends or family members if they come to the conclusion they don't believe the same things you do isn't the behavior of a cultish or a corrupt organization, so it's okay!
From my knowledge domestic abuse is behaviour that can be altered and modified. A woman shouldn't resort to divorce in this case as they see the mans behaviour as being fixable. From my experiences getting the authorities involved is to be avoided if at all possible. It should be handled by the elders of the congregation.
I'm pretty sure they'd be fine, it was against the girls and her parents wishes. Anyway getting blood transfusions are fine now. It's now left up to the parents to decide rather than a flat out no from the church.I'm just curious, when Doctors in Canada give medically necessary blood transfusions to 12-year-olds against the wishes of her parents is it the parents who get the scarlet letter? Or the girl?
I'm just curious, when Doctors in Canada give medically necessary blood transfusions to 12-year-olds against the wishes of her parents is it the parents who get the scarlet letter? Or the girl?