THE EDITOR, Sir:

I'm not sure if Michael Abrahams' article 'The cruelty of Kingdom Hall' (Gleaner, June 25, 2018, is as serious as the title sounds. He attacked the callousness of the Jehovah's Witnesses first on their stance on blood transfusion. He suggested that Acts 15:29 prohibiting the use of blood speaks to ingestion of blood, not transfusion.

So if someone comes to you and you instruct them against the use of alcohol, does it mean they can take it by other means - maybe using a needle?

If God is love (1 John 4:6), don't you think there must be good reason for Him to put this restriction on the use of blood? Is our emotional charge too strong to see beyond immediate self-interest?

On the matter of disfellowshipping a member who flouts principles and heedlessly goes against counsel, would you respect an organisation that embraces adulterers fornicators, drunkards and so on without any kind of restrictions? What rules would there be to jar one back to one's senses if this were seen as normal?

Discipline cannot be equated with cruelty. To treat an unbridled sinner as a regular member of the organisation would only contaminate and corrupt the whole flock.

HOMER SYLVESTER

h2sylvester@gmail.com