StopTheInsanity
Well-known member
I've been meditating lately on the gaslighting from the organization used in the GB updates about the vaccine.
The position they have taken is that personal rights must take a back seat to the superior authorities when their edicts supposedly do not conflict with God's laws.
That position has bothered me ever since they've said it and I've been meditating on the scriptures to try and poke holes in their argument since it just doesn't feel right. Also, they have written about bodily sovereignty in regards to not taking blood products, but they seem to feel that that doesn't apply to infectious diseases like COVID and taking vaccines. They use the scriptures in Leviticus on quarantining as being proof that God agrees with the authorities and how they handled things, but then stretch that to the vaccine, which has no basis in scripture as vaccines did not exist in Bible times. In my opinion, this is just like when Satan twisted the scriptures.
So here are my thoughts on why they are misapplying Romans 13 with regards to the vaccine:
1) They hypocritically say that insisting on personal rights with regards to wearing masks and taking vaccines is "selfish" and yet they themselves signed up for membership with the UN under the heading of "human rights". In the subject index in the publications, they have an article under "Patients Bill of Rights" which is supposedly posted in every hospital on the wall and clearly states that patients have the right to refuse any medications that they do not want. So you can't take two positions simultaneously. You are either pro-human rights all the time or you are not. The very nature of human rights mean that they can be violated and if you are pro-human rights, that means that you are against rights being violated ever. Period.
2) WT passionately advocates for bodily sovereignty for the right to refuse blood products and has set up the HLC and has trained attorneys to help JW's to fight against mandates to take blood. They teach that individual JW's must respect each other's consciences on whether or not they take blood fractions and then turn around and imposed their own consciences on the unvaccinated and discriminate against them.
In the workplace, an employer must provide reasonable accommodations for employees with regards to medical issues. So if that means the employee who is unvaxxed needs to work from home, so be it. But WT won't make a Zoom provision for elders and pioneers who want to attend their Theocratic schools who are unvaccinated. Why?
They provide a Zoom option for regular meetings. And why are the theocratic schools any different from large conventions and even weekly meetings where there are far more people there and it's open to the public so your chances of sitting next to an unvaccinated person is greater? Are the rank and file JW's not worth protecting but people with positions are? That is blatant favoritism and discrimination. They are not being consistent.
3) The issue I've been thinking a lot about lately, though, is about the fruit of God's Holy Spirit, Self-Control, and what that really means.
Self-control literally means "control over one's self". It has many applications. It means that a Christian controls what comes out of their mouth in terms of speech. We are encouraged to control our tempers and not speak rashly.
It means we must also control what goes on with and into our bodies. Again, this has many applications. We control our drinking and the amount that is consumed. Over-consumption of alcohol is condemned in the scriptures. We control our eating and are encouraged by Christ not to over eat. We control our sexuality and do not use our sexual organs for purposes not condoned by the scriptures such as adultery, fornication, pedophilia, rape, homosexuality and masturbation.
AND, it is not a stretch to say that self-control also gives each individual the power and authority over each and every medical treatment that goes into their body. We literally have been given control over our own bodies by God's Holy spirit. We have personal accountability for those choices.
The scriptures bear this up in 2 Corinthians 7:1 where it talks about not defiling the flesh. Over and over the scriptures show that each Christian is accountable for how they use their body and not to defile it with tobacco, etc.
So why is tobacco "defiling"? Well, when you break down the individual ingredients, there are many harmful toxins like formaldehyde and heavy metals like arsenic.
If those ingredients are what defile the body, then how do those same ingredients which are in many vaccines (heavy metals such as mercury and aluminum which cause neurological disorders) also not going to defile the body?
And why can't a reasonable accommodation be that the unvaccinated stay on Zoom if that is their choice? Why the guilt videos saying that every MUST attend in person?
And, if self-control does cover authority over one's body and medical choices, then the GB mandating it is LITERALLY OPPOSING THE HOLY SPIRIT since self-control is a fruit of God's Holy spirit and the scriptures say so in Galations 5:22, 23:
22 On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, 23 mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Bam! There you go. There is NO LAW that any man can proclaim that can come against God's Holy spirit and self-control is bound up with God's spirit.
In 2 Corinthians 3:17 is says:
“Where the spirit of Jehovah is, there is freedom.”—2 COR. 3:17
Love shows consideration for other people's choices even if different from ours. If we feel that would be harmed by another person such as when they smoke cigarettes, we have the right to not be around them when they smoke. I cannot, however, dictate to that person to stop smoking. I also cannot dictate to a drunk driver to stop drinking. I can only be a defensive driver.
I remember being new in the truth and hearing about a brother named Major Spry who argued in court on behalf of JW's saying that forcing a blood transfusion on them is tantamount to rape. It's not a stretch. The premise being bodily autonomy.
If it's rape for a male to insert his organ into a woman without her consent, and if it's medical rape to insert blood into an individual without their consent, then how is it not medical rape to inject a needle with an unwanted vaccine into a person without their consent?
The argument that has been used is "It's for the greater good. You are showing love of neighbor by getting vaxxed." "You are showing respect for the sanctity of life"
Well, how many times have doctors and hospitals forced blood transfusions on JW's because they genuinely, if not wrongly, believed that is was "for their own good" and for the good of the surviving family members?
What would happen to the GB premise of obeying the authorities if they passed a law mandating that everyone donate a kidney because society had too many alcoholics that could die if they didn't get new kidneys? That's for the "greater good", right? I mean, you're obviously a selfish person if you want to keep your own kidneys if that means another person that you don't even know will die if you don't donate.
Think, too, about their position on abortion. They say that if the mother's life is in danger, then the decision to have an abortion to save the mother's life is acceptable. So, using the same line of reasoning, why should an unvaccinated person risk their life to get vaccinated in order to save another person's life? Is the unvaccinated person's life also not important? Should not BOTH people's lives be taken into account when coming up for solutions to keep EVERYONE safe. not just a few?
It sounds very much like Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" where all humans are test-tube babies to be harvested and used at will for whatever purposes they desire. Your "free will" and desires are "over" according to Yuval Noah Herari and don't matter.
It is absolutely unscriptural to see how the GB has taken this stand against the sheep that they have be charged with protecting and forcing their consciences on them and dictating the most personal of decisions on them and then threatening expulsion due to "causing division" for anyone who objects.
They have hypocritically shown by not protecting children and the unvaxxed medical preferences that they've never cared about our welfare or rights and have used such phrases as a means to gain trust to be able to deceive and manipulate and exploit.
The position they have taken is that personal rights must take a back seat to the superior authorities when their edicts supposedly do not conflict with God's laws.
That position has bothered me ever since they've said it and I've been meditating on the scriptures to try and poke holes in their argument since it just doesn't feel right. Also, they have written about bodily sovereignty in regards to not taking blood products, but they seem to feel that that doesn't apply to infectious diseases like COVID and taking vaccines. They use the scriptures in Leviticus on quarantining as being proof that God agrees with the authorities and how they handled things, but then stretch that to the vaccine, which has no basis in scripture as vaccines did not exist in Bible times. In my opinion, this is just like when Satan twisted the scriptures.
So here are my thoughts on why they are misapplying Romans 13 with regards to the vaccine:
1) They hypocritically say that insisting on personal rights with regards to wearing masks and taking vaccines is "selfish" and yet they themselves signed up for membership with the UN under the heading of "human rights". In the subject index in the publications, they have an article under "Patients Bill of Rights" which is supposedly posted in every hospital on the wall and clearly states that patients have the right to refuse any medications that they do not want. So you can't take two positions simultaneously. You are either pro-human rights all the time or you are not. The very nature of human rights mean that they can be violated and if you are pro-human rights, that means that you are against rights being violated ever. Period.
2) WT passionately advocates for bodily sovereignty for the right to refuse blood products and has set up the HLC and has trained attorneys to help JW's to fight against mandates to take blood. They teach that individual JW's must respect each other's consciences on whether or not they take blood fractions and then turn around and imposed their own consciences on the unvaccinated and discriminate against them.
In the workplace, an employer must provide reasonable accommodations for employees with regards to medical issues. So if that means the employee who is unvaxxed needs to work from home, so be it. But WT won't make a Zoom provision for elders and pioneers who want to attend their Theocratic schools who are unvaccinated. Why?
They provide a Zoom option for regular meetings. And why are the theocratic schools any different from large conventions and even weekly meetings where there are far more people there and it's open to the public so your chances of sitting next to an unvaccinated person is greater? Are the rank and file JW's not worth protecting but people with positions are? That is blatant favoritism and discrimination. They are not being consistent.
3) The issue I've been thinking a lot about lately, though, is about the fruit of God's Holy Spirit, Self-Control, and what that really means.
Self-control literally means "control over one's self". It has many applications. It means that a Christian controls what comes out of their mouth in terms of speech. We are encouraged to control our tempers and not speak rashly.
It means we must also control what goes on with and into our bodies. Again, this has many applications. We control our drinking and the amount that is consumed. Over-consumption of alcohol is condemned in the scriptures. We control our eating and are encouraged by Christ not to over eat. We control our sexuality and do not use our sexual organs for purposes not condoned by the scriptures such as adultery, fornication, pedophilia, rape, homosexuality and masturbation.
AND, it is not a stretch to say that self-control also gives each individual the power and authority over each and every medical treatment that goes into their body. We literally have been given control over our own bodies by God's Holy spirit. We have personal accountability for those choices.
The scriptures bear this up in 2 Corinthians 7:1 where it talks about not defiling the flesh. Over and over the scriptures show that each Christian is accountable for how they use their body and not to defile it with tobacco, etc.
So why is tobacco "defiling"? Well, when you break down the individual ingredients, there are many harmful toxins like formaldehyde and heavy metals like arsenic.
If those ingredients are what defile the body, then how do those same ingredients which are in many vaccines (heavy metals such as mercury and aluminum which cause neurological disorders) also not going to defile the body?
And why can't a reasonable accommodation be that the unvaccinated stay on Zoom if that is their choice? Why the guilt videos saying that every MUST attend in person?
And, if self-control does cover authority over one's body and medical choices, then the GB mandating it is LITERALLY OPPOSING THE HOLY SPIRIT since self-control is a fruit of God's Holy spirit and the scriptures say so in Galations 5:22, 23:
22 On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, 23 mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Bam! There you go. There is NO LAW that any man can proclaim that can come against God's Holy spirit and self-control is bound up with God's spirit.
In 2 Corinthians 3:17 is says:
“Where the spirit of Jehovah is, there is freedom.”—2 COR. 3:17
Love shows consideration for other people's choices even if different from ours. If we feel that would be harmed by another person such as when they smoke cigarettes, we have the right to not be around them when they smoke. I cannot, however, dictate to that person to stop smoking. I also cannot dictate to a drunk driver to stop drinking. I can only be a defensive driver.
I remember being new in the truth and hearing about a brother named Major Spry who argued in court on behalf of JW's saying that forcing a blood transfusion on them is tantamount to rape. It's not a stretch. The premise being bodily autonomy.
If it's rape for a male to insert his organ into a woman without her consent, and if it's medical rape to insert blood into an individual without their consent, then how is it not medical rape to inject a needle with an unwanted vaccine into a person without their consent?
The argument that has been used is "It's for the greater good. You are showing love of neighbor by getting vaxxed." "You are showing respect for the sanctity of life"
Well, how many times have doctors and hospitals forced blood transfusions on JW's because they genuinely, if not wrongly, believed that is was "for their own good" and for the good of the surviving family members?
What would happen to the GB premise of obeying the authorities if they passed a law mandating that everyone donate a kidney because society had too many alcoholics that could die if they didn't get new kidneys? That's for the "greater good", right? I mean, you're obviously a selfish person if you want to keep your own kidneys if that means another person that you don't even know will die if you don't donate.
Think, too, about their position on abortion. They say that if the mother's life is in danger, then the decision to have an abortion to save the mother's life is acceptable. So, using the same line of reasoning, why should an unvaccinated person risk their life to get vaccinated in order to save another person's life? Is the unvaccinated person's life also not important? Should not BOTH people's lives be taken into account when coming up for solutions to keep EVERYONE safe. not just a few?
It sounds very much like Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" where all humans are test-tube babies to be harvested and used at will for whatever purposes they desire. Your "free will" and desires are "over" according to Yuval Noah Herari and don't matter.
It is absolutely unscriptural to see how the GB has taken this stand against the sheep that they have be charged with protecting and forcing their consciences on them and dictating the most personal of decisions on them and then threatening expulsion due to "causing division" for anyone who objects.
They have hypocritically shown by not protecting children and the unvaxxed medical preferences that they've never cared about our welfare or rights and have used such phrases as a means to gain trust to be able to deceive and manipulate and exploit.
Last edited:
