LOL --I guess that means that JW children can't keep tropical fish as pets since most tropical fish food contains blood. Ditto for snakes that eat mice and other small rodents. Heck, even the family cat would be suspect by that logic.
Blood Transfusion Question - Dogs
by Duncan 39 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
JWdaughter
OMG, that is so whacked. Even for JWs! Even JWs must know how truly whacked that is.
Shelly
-
Clam
I don't see why Jehovahs Witness dogs can't have fractions. They could carry a little blood card in a thingy on their collar.
My vet asked me last year about my 2 dogs donating blood and this post has reminded me. Thanks Duncan.
-
-
fullofdoubtnow
Just when you think this religion can't get any crazier....
Imagine being df'd for using fertiliser that had blood in it! According to that watchtower, it's possible, as you would have knowingly used blood for the wrong purpose.
-
OnTheWayOut
Perhaps we can get an update and new light from the GB. It seems that they are so busy
re-thinking the position of humans and blood fractions, that they've forgotten about FIDO.
I would say a letter with a new question from readers would be appropriate. -
jrjr4189
I am so blown away by this. I can't even believe how crazy this is. Thank you for sharing this, it just shows how whacked out the reasoning is. What would be the difference if your cat killed a mouse and ate it?? This is mind blowing.
-
Duncan
Many thanks to all for their replies.
Atlantis, great find on the QFR item, I vaguely remember it, but it was much longer ago than I thought.
Reading it now, what I thiought was striking about that article was the way they simply pronounced upon the issue of pet transfusion with no reference to any scripture or argumentation at all - it was simply "improper" and a "violation" of God's law.
Then they go and introduce this idea of having "jurisdiction" over animals and being "responsible" for them, making sure they don't break Jehovah's law. The trouble with making stuff up on the fly like this is that it just heaps absurdity on to absurdity.
So, you're responsible for making sure your pet cat doesn't consume any blood in any food provided by you - but you will be aware that the cat may very well be supplementing its diet with mice - strictly on its own time of course. How should a God fearing Christian feel about this - surely, without doubt, it is incumbent upon him - having "responsibility and jurisdiction" for that animal - to take all reasonable measures to prevent such sinful and God-displeasing actions. Yes, the only righteous course would be to chaperone that animal at all times in order to prevent any mice-killing, or to observe the proper bleeding of the prey at the kill.
Fine, upstanding Christians who, perhaps live on a farm and keep working dogs for hunting rats, foxes and other vermin undoubtedly have an obligation before Jehovah to ensure that these activities are carried out by their animals in such a way that no blood is consumed. Likely, there is an Awake! magazine published in the last few years containing useful animal-training information in one of its articles.
And if any Christian ever finds himself in employment as the worker in a nature reserve, possibly actively managing dynamic populations of lions, antelopes and zebras, well, the mind boggles at what measures that brother would have to take in order to ensure his unblemished standing before Jehovah - certainly he could not allow the animals under his juridiction to continue with all that messy, bloody carnage and slaughter.
On a smaller scale, if a Witness has an exotic pet snake, sometimes fed mice and other small creatures, is he seriously expected to bleed those animals first, before feeding the snake?
The principle of Jurisdiction, so casually invoked in this QFR, is a legal concept, and creates an obligation upon the person having the jurisdiction to uphold and enforce the law in his jurisdiction, so none of what I've just suggested above is entirely fanciful - it all follows from the idiotic Watchtower reasoning on the matter.
Duncan.
-
AuldSoul
All I can say is, WOW! I love this thread. Thanks, Duncan, and the other contributors. whyizit, your reasoning in that conversation was superb. I wish I had something spectacular to add, but I don't.
This thread brings down the issue of their doctrine on blood to the level it really deserves, the level of absurdity.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
Leolaia
There is an interesting story behind that QFR. Joan Cetnar moved to Santa Ana, California, in 1963 after her husband was disfellowshipped on the grounds of apostasy for questioning the blood transfusion ban, and a sister in the Santa Ana congregation had already given a blood transfusion to her poodle when its life was endangered. She learned from Mr. Cetnar that the Society considered that a violation of God's law and she couldn't believe it so she wrote the Society. She received this response:
She found this response amazing since animals eat blood by nature. Would a pet cat be required to drain the blood of a mouse it caught? She wrote back inquiring about this and they responded: "You must keep your animals under control". LOL!!!
Her husband, BTW, once had a conversation with a former editor for the Awake! and was told privately that he did not agree with the blood policy tho he continued as a JW.
