The bottom line argument a dub must accept to refuse blood

by Check_Your_Premises 14 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Check_Your_Premises

  Since the entire scriptural, historical, and medical basis for the ban on blood is baseless and incoherent, ultimately it rests on the credibility of the WT as God's organization.

  Of course we can't rely on that either, because the history of the WT includes a ban on organ transplants and vaccinations. Today they allow those treatments, and therefore by their own admission they incorrectly placed restrictions on them in the past. Unquestionably people died adhering to those restrictions.

  So if you ask a dub, "suppose it is ok to accept blood/organ transplant/vaccination in God's eyes. Is it then wrong for you to accept it even though the the org says it is not?" I am sure many of us have asked this question and received the following terrifying response:

  "Even if the JW are wrong in their interpretation, they are God's organization. God would still expect me to follow His arrangement and obey His organization. We all die. But only those who submit to His arrangement can expect a hope of resurrection."

  So my question from a scriptural standpoint is this:

  Has God EVER given this sort of authority to men?

  Has God EVER expected men to obey a human He chose as His special servant even when they acted outside His authority? when they acted in error? or against the conscience of the people His special servant is given authority over? to the point of sacrificing themselves or their children?
• 

  ringo5

  Great question!
  
  But I'm thinking if there is any kind of example in the Bible that could even come close to suggesting this, it would be have been turned into a Distict Convention theme by now , followed by a yearly text and probably a 192 page book scheduled for repeated book study review.
  
  Perhaps you've predicted some new light?
• 

  Mysterious

  Conscience matters are never conscience matters in the JWs either. It always comes down to reading their slant on it and making the "right" decision.
• 

  BluesBrother

  Just been reviewing the June 15th WT now - Sister BluesBrother has got to completer her card . Like the other ones that I have heard speak frankly, she is totally confused.

  Perhaps this new card will bring home to them the folly of WT policy. They are faced,for the first time with having to chose what they would want in an emergency situation. How does one know now how you would feel then? I mean, a lot of older ones have a visceral dislike of blood treatment and their gut reaction is to say 'no' to any of it. But if they are really in a trauma situation, and another witness in an identical situation can chose blood fractions and stay alive, would they still make the same decision at that time? Who knows?

  They are made aware of these difficult long words that they simply ignored before. And not to forget that the WT article suggested in par 16 that a conscience decision was not a licence for a free for all , even within the sub 'big 4' elements of blood.

  Decisions, decisions... I will try to point out a helpful points I gained from the ajwrb site.
• 

  Honesty

  Satan has been using the WTBT$ for many years to get what he wants... people's souls. He knows that if they die separated from God through Christ he has them for eternity. One of the primary tools he uses to accomplish his diabolical scheme is the Watchtower's anti-blood policy.
• 

  Van Gogh

  "Has God EVER expected men to obey a human He chose as His special servant even when they acted outside His authority? when they acted in error?"
  Ringo5:
  "But I'm thinking if there is any kind of example in the Bible that could even come close to suggesting this, it would be have been turned into a Distict Convention theme by now..."
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  C_Y_P, Perhaps you sensed present truth:
  At the July/Aug 2005 Dis Con in Utrecht, The Netherlands, the following was stated:
  We must obey/follow God’s organization/representatives EVEN IF (we know) they are wrong.
  The scriptural basis was given was (don’t pin me down on the exact words used):
  King David was apparently disregarding God’s directives stating that the Ark was to be carried by means of the acacia poles. In this particular instance, The Ark was moved instead on a new wagon led by Uzzah (2 Sam 6:3).
  According to the speaker, Uzzah should have followed to the full the ad hoc erroneous instructions substituted by King David. By trying to thus take the initiative to independently rectify the consequences of David’s mistake, Uzzah was not showing proper obedience to God’s representative/anointed, despite the fact that this representative was obviously wrong. Uzzah paid the ultimate price for taking this course of action and was consequently immediately killed by God.
  BTW, a couple of weeks ago (at the last circuit assembly I ever went to) Br. Gounod, the Dutch Branch Office Overseer made a point of emphasizing that thinking in terms of a distinctive heavenly org as opposed to an earthly one was “of course” superfluous. The org was one and the same, whether located in heaven or on the earth.
  Theo
• 

  Scully

  CYP

  When I asked a similar question many years ago, an elder pointed me to the example of King Saul and David. Because Saul was Jehovah's "anointed" king, and David was to replace him, David did not take it upon himself to raise his hand against Saul and become bloodguilty by causing Saul's death. He Waited On Jehovah™ (apparently) and in time, Saul was killed, and David became King.

  So for the JW, even if the WTS is thoroughly corrupt, they believe that this is a test of their loyalty to the Organization™ of God's choosing. They feel that if they stay through thick and thin, they will be rewarded with a kinder, gentler Society™ once all the Apostates™ have been weeded out.
• 

  Forscher

  No. I don't think that God ever gave that kind of authority to any man where he expected submission no matter what. Let's take David for example. If that kind of submission was what God was asking, then David would've been expected to stand right there and let Saul run him through when Saul attempted to murder him. He didn't. David dodged the spear and fled. He didn't turn himself in for execution when Saul persued him and left Israel. Although he didn't organize a rebellion and waited on God. He did get out when things were bad and kept God's approval.
  Even the king was under the law, not above it. Moses, who perhaps had the most power and authority any man has ever been given by God, was under the law, not above it. When I read about Moses in the Bible, I get the feel that he was very cognizant of that and never demanded the kind of mindless obedience to his every whim that the Governing Body does.
  That is my own opinion, some of you may differ.
  Forscher
• 

  YoursChelbie

  I agree with Forscher.
  

  The Jewish religious leaders are a prime example of those who were members of "God's chosen ones." However, their many rules were condemned by Jesus himself as "teachings of men."

  It was by means of a Tribunal by these Jewish Teachers and "self-proclaimed sons of God" ---antitypical Judicial Meeting---that Jesus was judged unfavorably and in fact accused of blasphemy.

  We know how Jesus felt about these Jewish teachers who imposed a heavy load on the Jews who were trying to do what was right.

  So, there is no proof that any "chosen or appointed" human ever was deserving of obedience when that would clearly contradict Biblical principles.

  YC
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  According to the speaker, Uzzah should have followed to the full the ad hoc erroneous instructions substituted by King David. By trying to thus take the initiative to independently rectify the consequences of David’s mistake, Uzzah was not showing proper obedience to God’s representative/anointed, despite the fact that this representative was obviously wrong. Uzzah paid the ultimate price for taking this course of action and was consequently immediately killed by God.

  That's a beautiful misapplication of that story! It would've been fun to watch a guy trying to present it, his face must've been a bit contorted as he spewed it, knowing it was beyond stretching.

  Uzzah died because he touched the ark, right? But they say it was because he failed to obey David?

  Man, that's astounding. What about the israelites that obeyed Aaron's call to worship the golden calf, and were killed by it? It seems Jehovah can't decide WHO he wants his people to obey...

  Dave