by skyman 30 Replies latest watchtower medical
Very Clever Skyman - thanks for sharing this. I think the Society made a critical error (when was it? Post-War?) with the Blood Issue - grasping at maintaining an Organisation by introducing a 'New Light' which was loosely plucked and misinterpreted from the Scriptures. We have seen the Blood Issue evolve recently, and I believe it will soon be re-interpreted under 'New Light'.
Good Job Skyman.
Bump it Up (bttp with attitude)
Bttt
bump
I thought Skyman's write up was excellent. You can see how a NON GB member can understand the scriptures on this issue far more than the so called F&DS. They are wrong on blood, and are bloodguilty. Also as they claim that the Mediatorship of 'Christ's blood' only applies to the little flock, they are also BLOOD GUILTY, by keeping the rest of the 'Other Sheep' away from the cleansing blood of Christ.
They totally fail to obey Yahweh's instructions on the sanctity of blood by refusing to allow the OS from partaking of the flesh & blood of Christ, and sacrifice many on the altar of FALSE DOCTRINE.
Jehovah Witness Bogus Blood Transfusion Ban. Why they let Children Die.Children sacrificed,even Animals don't Eat their Young. Why Jehovah's Witnesses reject blood transfusions. Jehovah's Witnesses have a non negotiable doctrine of their belief system to reject Blood products. The origin of this dogma comes from their founding father Joseph Rutherford in the early 20th century.The consumption (eating) of blood was strictly forbidden under old testament law. The Watchtower leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses saw fit to extend this prohibition over to their belief system . They thought that the "end of the world" was coming back then (ca.1940),so,there would never be much of a body count causality. It is well into the 21st century,with the "end of the world" on hold,the Watchtower leaders have blood on their hands,with the deaths of innocent countless minor children.How would they account for this body count, if they repealed the 'no blood ban' now? More importantly, to them,the Watchtower parent corporation of Jehovah's Witnesses would be sued,for mega-bucks,for all the wrongful death lawsuits. Many children have died since rejecting life saving blood transfusions. Why do they maintain adherence to this archaic creed at all cost?Because the Watchtower fairy follows the money trail,and will do anything for a buck. Hello!What about all the dead Kids? Even wild animals don't eat their young. Watchtower leadership REPEAL THE BOGUS BLOOD BAN NOW! UPDATE:The absurdity of the Watchtower rulings now allow any of the COMPONENTS of blood to be transfused, but not whole blood, and yet people are dying and lives and families are being ruined over a few old men in Brooklyn who are always changing their minds on this matter. Some more educational links provided below: http://www.ajwrb.org/ http://www.towertotruth.net/Articles/blood_transfusions.htm http://www.dannyhaszard.com/cultvideos.htm Discovery channel video clip (Jehovah's Witnesses use many products that are derived from blood banks but they themselves won't donate a drop)
AN excellent post. Thanks, I will file it.I never noticed the script in Lev 17:15, 16, or if I did I must have just put it out of my mind. The bottom line is, will you follow the organization, even if you are shown the truth from the Bible?
The point made, "you don't need to wait on Jehovah", is a valid one, He already went to the trouble of putting it in the Bible. If you don't read it for yourself, the society is no better than the Catholic Church they love to vilify.There is one mediator between God and man, and it ain't a group of old guys in Bethel.
Skyman,
Thank you for posting that awesome letter!
so if israelites had just drained a little blood to drink from the animal without killing it, it would be okay?
I doubt it. the blood issue is about sacredness to God and also a protection as most of his laws on principle are.
THis letter is just trying to find loopholes on the blood principle.
Ask yourself one question.
If blood transfusions were not life and death would you adhere to the blood laws? and just clearly see that taking blood into your body by transfusion is if anything worse than eating.
Reniaa
so if israelites had just drained a little blood to drink from the animal without killing it, it would be okay?
Reniaa, Reniaa, Reniaa........as per usual, you fail to grasp what is really being said. The scriptures that instructed the Israelites to drain the blood from an animal that had just been slain was simply to show respect for the life that had just been taken. Leviticus 17:12 says:
"For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, 'None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood."
This law applied only to the Isrealites as Jehovah gave them the go ahead to sell unbled meat to foreigners (Deut. 14: 21) and most certainly was not "binding on all mankind" as the Society asserts. Furthermore, if it is soooo important that Jehovah's Witnesses abstain from blood, why are they now allowed to accept fractions of blood that (obviously) come from donors and are stored in medical facilities?
I doubt it. the blood issue is about sacredness to God and also a protection as most of his laws on principle are.
As noted above, yes, the blood issue was to make atonement for slaughtering an animal for food and to show respect to the Creator----that's the only reason blood was "to be poured out on the ground": when an animal had been killed for food. There are absolutely no scriptures indicating that blood was to be 'poured out' when an animal was still alive, are there? It applies only for dead animals. Since humans are not slaughtered for a blood transfusion, then there is no life to make atonement for and therefore, the law does not apply to transfusions which, by the way, saves lives. Ironically, in the March 15, 1980 WT, the Society had no problem using this reasoning when they suddenly allowed organ transplants:
"Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. . . . It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the "donor" is not killed to supply food..."
THis letter is just trying to find loopholes on the blood principle.
No Reniaa, we don't need to 'find loopholes'. We base our conclusions on common sense and rational thinking----two qualities that you are utterly lacking in.
Ask yourself one question. If blood transfusions were not life and death would you adhere to the blood laws?
This doesn't even make any sense. If blood transfusions were not 'life and death', no one would need them. That's precisely why they're given, because people die without them. Surely even you can grasp that concept.
and just clearly see that taking blood into your body by transfusion is if anything worse than eating.
And....you're basing that on what?
