Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To refuse to take the Watchtower and send Jehova's Witnesses away with parish magazine?

378 replies

Elasticwoman · 05/09/2007 22:34

They said: hey, you've got to take a Watchtower, it was a deal!

But I welshed on it.

Was I unreasonable, and what do other people do when the God Squad come to their door trying to sell God to them?

OP posts:
Aimsmum · 08/09/2007 18:00

Message withdrawn

Caroline1852 · 08/09/2007 18:08

Aimsmum Please don't ask your mother . I am not sure I could ask the doorknockers either. They are always sensibly clad ladies with their polyester-mix skirt suits and 80s court shoes. Perhaps I could ask the always-in-tow teenager in the buttoned up to the neck shirt (the look screaming I am very very uncomfortable in every possible way). Compensation for him missing out on a morning spent looking at internet porn?

Aimsmum · 08/09/2007 18:22

Message withdrawn

Elasticwoman · 08/09/2007 19:29

H'mmm. No black pudding or blood transfusions in biblical times, so what were the original bible-writers getting at when they said that?

OP posts:
Elasticwoman · 08/09/2007 19:30

And btw Aimsmum, thanks for your comment on my original post, but the JWs at the door didn't want to discuss anything - just wanted me to read their literature. If they are not up for debate, why should I engage with them?

OP posts:
Pruners · 08/09/2007 19:36

Message withdrawn

Mistymoo · 08/09/2007 22:29

Elasticwoman - in Biblical times they were told to bleed the animal before eating it. This law was given to Noah when he was allowed to eat meat. Not all nations did this. Obviously there were no blood transfusions back then but the principle of not taking blood into the body applies.

krang · 09/09/2007 15:18

Howdydoody/lisa123
"Because to me to say "well in was some time in the millions of years of the evolution process" is far more woolly than believing in creation.

And while I'm at it why dont we see mid state human/monkeys, why has the process just stopped?"

The essential difference being that there is evidence for evolution and no evidence whatsoever for the existence of some bloke in the sky with a beard. Science, unlike religion, moves forward by disproving its own theories and admitting its own ignorance in the hope that this will spur others on to new discoveries. We are just standing at the boundaries now. It's incredibly exciting.

Slightly confused by your second question. Are you saying that evolution has stopped? Or are you wondering where an exact mid-point between humans and monkeys occurred, ie where are the monkeys with human arms and monkey heads? If the former, no, evolution has not stopped, though it usually takes place over such a long period that we who only live for relatively few years might not see any changes to any lifeforms in our lifetimes. If the latter, I strongly suggest that you read an elementary textbook on how evolution works. You don't wake up one day with longer arms, or a bigger head, or fins.

Caroline:
I assume UQD, Krang and others (who's atheism is theism - surely?) - that you did not marry in church or Christen your children or send your children to a CofE or other faith school?
No, my atheism is not theism because I do not believe in a God of any kind. Atheism is defined as "a rejection of belief in God or gods.' And no, I did not marry in church, or have my child christened, and he's not yet old enough for school. I wouldn't mind him going to a faith school if it was the only alternative as I am quite happy for him to learn about the beliefs of others if he wishes. He can then make his own choice as to his beliefs. It is vital to ask questions and find out about other religions in order to make up your own mind about things.

Oh, and the conscience/consciousness question. Sorry, typing and reading in a hurry, misread the vital word! TBH, my answer remains the same. I have no idea. Around the time that man/woman first figured out that being nice to other people gave them an evolutionary advantage, I imagine. Interesting question though and I have been thinking about it a lot this weekend. I shall investigate what others far more qualified than me say.

MrsSpoon
Krang, in answer to your question "if you live by Leviticus 17:14 and 7:26, why not also live by Leviticus 12.6?" this was part of the Mosaic Law that Christians at the time lived by but when the Mosaic Law was lifted this was said at Acts 15:28&29
"For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!?
Christians were no longer required to make animal sacrifices but were still required to abstain from blood.

Did the Mosaic Law also lift the requirement to kill those taken in adultery by stoning? (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
And the requirement to stone to death a woman who was not a virgin on her wedding night? (Deuteronomy 22:13-21) And the requirement to stone to death anyone who touches Mount Sinai? (Exodus 19:13)?
And the requirement to execute 'a man who lies with another man'? (Leviticus 20:13 Incidentally, if this last one has also been lifted, I really think there's some Anglicans who should know about it.

Elasticwoman · 09/09/2007 21:20

"They didn't have blood transfusions in biblical times but the principle still applies."

WHY?

Sounds like an enormously unjustified leap to me.

However, let JWs believe that one if they like. A fully informed adult should be allowed to refuse medical treatment if they wish, for any reason or none. But no child should be allowed to die because of this interpretation of scripture. IMO.

I've no objection to JWs evangelising by less intrusive methods eg by advertising in local or national media, but I'd rather they didn't importune me at my door if they won't even discuss what they're trying to sell.

OP posts:
MrsSpoon · 09/09/2007 22:32

"They didn't have blood transfusions in biblical times" and neither did they have intravenous drips but we still believe that a person is being nourished by the contents of the drip and in the same way they are being nourished by a blood transfusion, taking it as a food.

I'm sure parents (JW or not) often have opinions about the correct choice of medical treatment for their children, are you suggesting things are changed so that parents have no right to query or request certain medical procedures to be used/or not used? Or should this just apply to JW's and their children when it comes to blood tranfusions? At the end of the day parents can only state their case and request that their wishes (and often, in the case of an older child, the wishes of the child) that surgery/procedures are done without blood are adhered to and as I mentioned earlier bloodless surgery does not equal certain death, no more than a blood transfusion equals life.

Elasticwoman · 10/09/2007 08:42

That a blood tranfusion means taking blood as a food is a matter of opinion and mine is that it is not the same thing at all.

When sperm enters a body during intercourse, a woman is not taking it as a food.

Good point about all parents inc jws being allowed to choose treatments. If a blood transfusion is clinically indicated and you choose non clinical reasons to refuse it, you are putting your child's life at risk for the sake of your interpretation of what was written thousands of years ago. I support the community's right to make that child a ward of court in those circumstances.

OP posts:
krang · 10/09/2007 09:14

A handy diagram for those confused about the differences between science and religion:
www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith. html

UnquietDad · 10/09/2007 09:16

That doesn't work, krang. Can you try it again?

krang · 10/09/2007 09:18

And again with a working link!

www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.html

Chickhick · 10/09/2007 09:22

I worked with a guy who was a JW and recieved a calling from god on his honeymoon telling him that he had to give up work and knock on peoples doors instead. I think he was just suffering from Lazyitis and did not fancy going back to work after 2 weeks in the Maldives.

YABU though, you did say you would take it if they took the parish mag.

MrsSpoon · 10/09/2007 09:32

Chickhick, doesn't sound like a JW to me, we work to support ourselves and don't get "a calling from God"(although before someone tells me they know a JW on the dole, like many some do struggle to find employment).

Elasticwoman last time I had sex with my DH I didn't inject the semen straight into my veins so IMO there is a difference.

I respect your right to support the ward of Court, the same way as I hope you will respect my right to request what I believe to be good for my children.

I am parping myself on this subject now and taking my leave as it will just go round and round and round.

mellowma · 10/09/2007 09:33

Message withdrawn

TheMuppetMuggle · 10/09/2007 09:33

It bugs me when they come knocking at my door, i don't go preeching my faith to them so don't see why they should do it to me.
I tell them i'm CofE and to bugger off basically.

mellowma · 10/09/2007 09:34

Message withdrawn

krang · 10/09/2007 09:35

Don't go, MrsSpoon! I really genuinely want to know the answer to my question about Mosiac Law that I asked you a few posts back!

Any other experts on Mosaic Law here?

No?

wanders off to search the vast outer reaches of the internet

mellowma · 10/09/2007 09:36

Message withdrawn

MrsSpoon · 10/09/2007 10:13

Krang, I'm no great expert on the Mosaic Law but the laws were put in place principally to keep the nation clean. However when Jesus came to earth his sacrifice changed things for all time.

I am going this time.

krang · 10/09/2007 10:15

Oh, I shall indeed.

It's very interesting.

Apparently there is huge controversy even over the correct translation of the word 'law' - possible variants are 'instruction', 'custom', 'point' - root of the Hebrew word 'yarah' is apparently the verb 'to shoot arrows'. Fascinating. Takes me back to my university Qu'ran studying days.

krang · 10/09/2007 10:18

It also seems that many authorities consider that Paul's epistles indicate that Christians should no longer be under the rule of any Old Testament laws as these are contrary to the teachings of the New Testament. Which kinda brings me back to the cherry-picking aspect.

LoveAngel · 10/09/2007 11:03

PMSL. Just had a JW lady come to my door. I told her I was in the middle of something and she said with a smile 'No problem, take a copy of this and read it when you have more time. Thank you. Bye.' gotta be a first!