Compulsion: Contributions -No, Blood, Yes!

by metatron 5 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  metatron

  What sort of warped logic prevails amidst the elderly vultures who run the Watchtower that allows them to compel

  someone's death in refusing a blood transfusion ("disassociation") but avoids compelling anyone from contributing

  money? It is the very idea of compulsion that is morally repugnant about the blood issue. Even Japanese Kami-kaze pilots,

  who were willing to become human bombs, resented the notion of being ordered to kill themselves. The act of martyrdom elevated

  their effort above mundane soldier's duties.

  Nevertheless, despite the refusal of the Watchtower to officially drop their disgusting compulsion on blood transfusions,

  they still generally maintain their original standard of not compelling contributions ("Prohibit collections at all

  meetings" pg 361 Proclaimers book). In the now infamous "Bulgarian Compromise" they even lied to European

  officials to maintain this "sanction".

  What is it that makes begging for money wrong - but demanding someone's death right? - and that complete with elders

  from the "Visitation" Commitee or "Hospital Liaison Committee" hovering over a patient's bed, monitoring their compliance?

  Perhaps we should all make an appeal to the "Boss" and Chief Pharisee of the Watchtower Society, Theodore Jaracz,

  "If you must be hypocritical, take collections as you wish, but please stop this policy of trying to compel someone's

  death to satisfy your organizational policies".

  While I clearly am no friend of the Watchtower, for the sake of mercy, I still think that they could quietly move away from the

  blood issue without upsetting the friends, if they emphasized this issue of willing, voluntary and uncompelled

  martyrdom, rather than comtinuing with their inconsistent and shameful policies.

  metatron
• 

  silentWatcher

  Hi Metatron,
  
  I really enjoy your threads and posts. However, I'm not quite sure I follow.
  
  Even if they did "officially" drop the Blood ban and kept an "unofficial" one -- how is that any better? It's similar to voting. Technically, JW are allowed to vote. However, the CO re-iterated that "sometimes Caesar forces the WT to say one thing publically, but we all know what Jehovah REALLY wants."
  
  >So, how would the "soft ban" on blood you propose be any different in practice?
• 

  metatron

  AS to voting, I'm still not sure that they wouldn't disfellowship someone for that if it became too obvious. Nevertheless, let's say you're right.

  Like the Pharisees of old, we are dealing with some extremely stubborn villains , who can only be forced into change as long as it

  ensures the maintenance of their power and positions, regardless of who dies or suffers. Like some dictator in a wretched third world

  country, it is more merciful ( to the subjects) to give these weasels sanctuary and a villa somewhere, rather than have them fight on to the last

  man ,in a burning Presidential compound.

  You'll never get these "seared in the conscience" GB types to admit they were wrong. That's why I suggest a way out that is discreet,

  so that this inflammatory issue can be gradually done away with. Removing the repellent compulsion is first, assimilation

  will take care of the rest, in time. The Christian Scientists - often in trouble with medical authorities - have lost fervor in recent

  years - it can ( and will) happen!

  metatron
• 

  Scully

  metatron:

  if they emphasized this issue of willing, voluntary and uncompelled martyrdom

  Oh, but they doooooo!! The Advance Medical Directive / Power of Attorney for Health Care documents clearly state that the person is making this choice of their own volition! And the individual signs it!! And another person witnesses the signature and signs the document too. It's all good and legal.

  That's all the WTS really cares about: the appearance of willing, voluntary and uncompelled martyrdom, all tied with with a nice neat bow of legal propriety.
• 

  Honesty

  metatron:

  if they emphasized this issue of willing, voluntary and uncompelled martyrdom

  Oh, but they doooooo!! The Advance Medical Directive / Power of Attorney for Health Care documents clearly state that the person is making this choice of their own volition! And the individual signs it!! And another person witnesses the signature and signs the document too. It's all good and legal.

  That's all the WTS really cares about: the appearance of willing, voluntary and uncompelled martyrdom, all tied with with a nice neat bow of legal propriety. Scully

  It's all perfectly legal just as their God ordered.
• 

  metatron

  Yes, I understand what you're saying - about the "appearance" of the blood issue being voluntary, But understand what I'm saying.

  It may be that the Society feels backed into a corner on this deadly issue - and cannot change or get away from it.

  However, by emphasizing this point about voluntary service ( and martyrdom), they could drop the compulsion ( letter to elders,

  "Dear Brothers - In light of recent instruction by the faithful slave, discontinue efforts at exposing such transfusions and leave the

  matter entirely in Jehovah's hands").

  I am presenting a discreet way out for the Society, even at this late stage of the controversy. They could start with a Watchtower

  article or two about willing service and then ease into dropping the "disassociation" compulsion quietly , on that basis.

  In this way, they could back away without admitting that they were wrong about transfusions, all along.

  Thereafter, they would phase out all comments about "God's law on blood" and in a few years, state that it's all

  personal conscience.

  The above is better than having them 'dig in their heels' and 'man the bunkers' ( as with my dictator who gets asylum analogy).

  metatron