A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
An old JW boss of mine almost lost his wife during the birth of his first child when she was badly haemorrhaging at home.
I tried asking him about it (a few years after the event) and he was obviously defensive, but the gist was that they wouldnβt have taken a transfusion, and that he would have accepted losing her.
Iβm not convinced - I think the decision was more dictated by her than him - but that would have been the end result.
Absolute madness
Controlling men like that need to have a life changing surgery of their own before they harm more women like that.
I prescribe a sharp metal pick and a hammer personally.
I think you missed the point of this. I believe it was her influence more than his, based on other factors Iβm aware of.
United youβre referring to the writers of the church doctrine as the controlling men.
The controlling men in this scenario are the 8 bastards in Brooklyn known as The Governing Body who make up these rules and dictate whether a person will lose their entire family and or social/support network for failing to obey them.
I think the decision was more dictated by her than him
I think the point is that he was never part of the decision.
Youβre correct
While I despise organized religion, this is a good thing. It'll save lives.
https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/jehovahs-witnesses-just-gutted-their
Despite the adjustment, the organisation was firm that its longstanding prohibition on whole-blood transfusions has not changed. It anchored the continued ban on its reading of biblical instructions to "abstain from blood," signalling that the shift applies only to the four major components, not to transfusions in their entirety.
People died because of this and now they just go "we looked at the rules again and we think they actually mean something else". What the fuck is this? The Supreme Court?
and "abstain from blood" in biblical times for sure meant "transfusions" too *head -> desk"
Which high up in their church needed a transfusion?
Oh, don't be so cynical. Maybe one of their elders bought a blood bank.
Yeah, but then they would come up with some internal blessing requirement for donated blood to ensure it stays in network.
Christianity also updates its Ts&Cs on occasion, like in 2007 when Pope John Paul II had a document commisioned, the publication of which was also authorised by Pope Benedict XVI, that basically said unbaptised children now go to heaven instead of limbo.
That was a good retcon though
The Mormon church 'conveniently' decided to change their rhetoric about non-white people being marked by god because of past sin, right around the time of the Civil Rights Movement.
Next up in the news, "Jehovah's Witnesses are going door to door asking for the blood of the innocent."
Isnβt this very old news
You might be thinking of this from back in March, about members being allowed to store their own blood for later use.
But the changes mentioned in the screenshot here is regarding the press release they came out with this past Friday.
Why? Shouldn't they happy to be able to visit God sooner?
Well what did they witness this time?