BIG ELDERS MEETING ON THE BLOOD ISSUE! SHOCKING CHANGES AFOOT!? (page 4)

thetrueone

It is estimated that one hundred jw's die every year around the globe for the simply reason of not taking an transfusion, an awful shame in a human sence.

Does it not seem scripturally correct to heal somebody when they are sick, Jesus did it when he came upon a sick person.

The bible says to respect life as if it was your own and Jesus's greatest commandment above all was to love one another !

Walk in his foot steps if you are to please god and so on..........

I hardly think by taking in blood from another person in an effort to heal them would be displeasing to god in a biblical sense, you can still respect the

sacredness of blood in it's meaning and give blood to heal and at the same time keep true to biblical guidlines.

The abstaining law was handed out to the people then at a time when the religious leaders thought the people were disrespecting the use of it.

Perhaps they were drinking it, and there is writen history to support that, perhaps they were dying their cloths with it or even painting with it who knows,

but given the human social mindset at that particular time of human history one can only imagine.

The WTS will never change their policy on blood transfusions and I mean never. All jw's know by now that many of their chosen flock have perished due to not taking a transfusion.

If this was to change abruptly the damaging effect would be too weakening to their power structure and they certaintly wouldn't take a chance at that.

Their fraction policy is nothing more than hypocritical bullshit !

Cellist

Considering that it took them two days to teach the elders how use the index, it's amazing that they aren't booking a month of intensive study on the blood fractions.

Cellist

thetrueone

Sorry for the type-o's.......... Charlie Brown has spoken !

Gil, if thats the case, then it might be something that is Britan related only. Any American elders hear anything like this? I haven't.... They might be having unusual problems. (Ok, that was ironic to say, all their problems are unusual, but that would mean this one is really big)

I doubt it is changes, I bet it is a ball bashing with the elders. Bet it will be fun. It sure sucks to be them!

DannyHaszard

It is the new face, the fractions, that has made total donkeys of their Masters in Brooklyn. Imagine being an elder who has to defend this bizarre policy to a well educated and experienced surgeon in the intimidating atmosphere of an hospital where a JW lies dying.

Trauma - Life in the E.R . - This is a 15 minute video clip documenting the story of a San Antonio, Texas (U.S.A.) Jehovah's Witness couple who were involved in a serious automobile accident. They requested and received Watchtower approved "bloodless" medical treatment. Both husband and wife died . Real Media player is required.

MILLIONS HAVE SEEN THIS

orangefatcat

I will never understand the Society's policy's, To me is seems logical that if a witness can take factions of blood, then why can't they use their own blood?

Talk about double standards, I will never get their stupidy.

I think the Society is grabbing at straws these days. They have in the past forbade the witnesses from touching blood in any shape or form but all of a sudden lets change things. We have had maybe too many law suits and so lets appease the congregations by using some new technological terminologys . That way we don't have any more lawsuits. No more deaths. We are off the hook.

Let me say they will conjure up anything these days to save our bacon..

Orangefatcat

zack

The GB have been divided over blood issue for years. There has not been the requisite 2/3 needed for a change. However, as they get older and medicine advances and more therapies are derived from blood products, they will need this treatment themselves and will change their stance based on self preservation. I am sure they will find a way to circumvent their "life begins at conception" once therapies are derived from stem cell research.

Gary what you say is what I find inthe congo: Older ones and many younger hardcore JW's will take no blood in any form or in any of its broken down components. They feel the scripture says NO BLOOD and it mean NO BLOOD. What they do not comprehend is that the GB are "watering down" God's commandments (cause that's what they beleive it to be) So, why stay with a group that water down God's commandments?

Zack----

SirNose586

Trauma - Life in the E.R . - This is a 15 minute video clip documenting the story of a San Antonio, Texas (U.S.A.) Jehovah's Witness couple who were involved in a serious automobile accident. They requested and received Watchtower approved "bloodless" medical treatment. Both husband and wife died . Real Media player is required.

What a tragedy...more martyrs for the Tower.

AllTimeJeff

The GB have been divided over blood issue for years. There has not been the requisite 2/3 needed for a change.

In the HLC office at Brooklyn, we toured through before Gilead started, and I asked about what would happen if a person didn't want treatments involving fractions. The brother literally got mad and raised his hands and said,"Then there isn't much we can do for them." It was at this point that he launched into a diatribe about how the red stuff coming that comes out of raw chicken and meat is blood. He then said, no matter if you get a perfect draining, you will never get all the blood out. He said that those with conscience matters needed to understand that the blood was ceremonially poured out to show respect, but even the Israelites never got all the blood not. So what, he reasoned, is the difference with medicines made from fractions?

There is a lot of controversy in the upper circles on blood and fractions. Depending on which brother they send out, elders in different parts of the country and the world get slightly different takes on what you can and can't take. Should be interesting to see how it turns out.

Vinny

I officially left due to this pathetic embarrassment of an issue. I never felt comfortable with this position, even in the beginning. Yet, like many others I just "trusted" the WT Society on this one. That is, until the net exposed hundreds of other mistakes made by the WT org. Then after a thorough examination (due to the WT Society credibility taking a major HIT from these newer revelations), one that took enormous amounts of time, I came to the inescapable conclusion that this policy forced on all JW's is as wrong as the NO Vaccinations, No Organ Transplants, No Alternative Service, NUMEROUS end of the world mis-predictions and bad policies before it.

Here were my specific conclusions for rejecting this JW blood policy, as turned in with my letter of disassociation in Feb 06. Not one JW, either in person before this was turned in, nor from any website/e-mail debate/exchange afterwards has been able to refute one bit of it. NOTHING. Only thing I hear over and over is wait on Jehovah, and the Light gets Brighter. 60 years is pretty long to wait....

WHY THE JW BLOOD POLICY IS IN ERROR:

*** A blood *transfusion* is not the same as eating or drinking blood as has been illustrated with the: "If a doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, but instead of drinking it, you transfused it into your veins..." illustration that the society often uses. If a person was starving to death and was given multiple blood transfusions instead of food, he would still die. A transfusion of blood replaces the volume of blood lost (much like replacing an organ) which is needed to sustain life, nothing more. No nourishment is gained by a blood transfusion, as would be the case when eating or drinking the blood, which is forbidden. This illustration often used by the society does apply with alcohol and other digestible foods, but not for blood. It simply stays in your system indefinitely.

*** The scriptures in both the Hebrew and Greek sections of the bible, which say: "blood must be drained out" and to, "abstain from... blood" were always referring directly to the eating or drinking of animal blood. The blood of the animal that had been killed was to be "poured out" rather than eaten or drank. This token act of faith demonstrated to Jehovah that the life that had been taken belongs to him. The blood of the animal represents the life of that animal. Humans do have the right to take animals for food only because the creator allows us to do so. Pouring out the blood first, acknowledges this arrangement. By including modern day blood transfusions in the current application of these verses however (which is not the same as eating or drinking of animal blood), the society is going beyond what is actually written in its application. In addition, the one supplying the blood for a transfusion has not died at all, which was always the case when an animal was bled. A "living" donor instead provides the needed volume of blood-fluid that has been lost for another "living" individual. And in many cases over the years, as a last resort this has been and can still be a life-saving medical act. In other cases by refusing this particular medical treatment because of our stand against blood transfusions, lives have been and will continue to be lost. Is this what Jehovah wants, and is this premature loss of life really necessary?

*** We can also learn something about this from Jesus very own example. Jesus was also willing to perform miracles on the Sabbath (something against the mosaic law) in order to save lives, or even just heal the sick. Would not Jesus have made an exception then to a dietary rule in order to save a human life? In Luke 14:5-6, the bible account says: "And he said to them: "Who of YOU, if his son or bull falls into a well, will not immediately pull him out on the sabbath day?" 6 And they were not able to answer back on these things." The account in Mathew 12:11 goes even further, it says: "So they (Pharisees) asked him "Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?" that they might get an accusation against him. 11 He said to them: "Who will be the man among YOU that has one sheep and, if this falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not get hold of it and lift it out? 12 All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do a fine thing on the Sabbath." If Jesus was willing to value the life of an ANIMAL enough to rescue that animal's life despite this "work" being done on a Sabbath, how much more so then should the life of a human being be given priority over the strict interpretation of the law? Well, we need not really ask since Jesus answered this himself when he said in verse 12, "All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep!". Yes rescuing a sheep from a pit on the sabbath is the loving and merciful thing to do. Additionally, Jesus performed many other miraculous works on the Sabbath. Yet to work on the Sabbath was to bring the death penalty upon oneself. And in fact, the scriptures actually record this penalty being meted out to a Sabbath violator. (See Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36. Here we see clear evidence though that Jesus appreciated the principle that love triumphs over law. That when life is at stake, (even an animal's life), rules can be set aside as circumstances require. LIFE is valuable and precious. Jesus showed this love for life and people over and over. While by contrast the oppressive, rule-keeping religious leaders often missed the entire purpose of the law. By not allowing a blood transfusion to be given, especially in last-resort situations, but rather allowing these ones to die instead, is the proper "respect" for life being shown as Jesus clearly demonstrated? Imagine if this involved allowing one of "our own" to die due to such a strict stand by the society.

*** I've also appreciated another example that demonstrates this same "principle" of Jesus' valuing a person's life over the written law. It had to do with the woman who had a flow of blood for 12 years. Under the Mosaic Law a running discharge made her "unclean", and anyone even touching her would also have to wash and be considered unclean until evening. However, she went even further than this by actually touching Jesus garment secretly in hopes of getting healed without anyone knowing. Jesus as we know, perceived that power went out from him and realized what she had done. Others too were watching. Notice though, that rather than condemn this woman for what she did, Jesus instead compassionately tells her: "Your faith has made you well. Go in peace, be in good health from your grievous sickness...." Once again we can see the spirit of the law (and the value of a human life) taking precedence over the supposed letter of the law, which the woman had clearly broken.

*** Acts 15:28-29 (which is the foundation scripture for society's position against blood transfusions since the Mosaic Law is no longer in force -this too is the society's view-) reads: 28 "For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!" The society considers this to be an all-encompassing, absolute, eternal command. However, notice that along with abstaining from blood, we also hear the command to abstain from "things sacrificed to idols" Now, if you read 1 Corinthians 8:4-8, we can see that Paul there helps the reader to see that the "eating of food sacrificed to idols" was really a conscience matter. Obviously then, the Acts 15:28-29 could not have such a broad, absolute, universal meaning since another part of that same scripture is considered a conscience matter by the apostle Paul in another verse. This decision instead was rendered so that the newer "Gentile" Christians would be conscious not to stumble the more traditional Jewish Christians, many of which were still rooted in Mosaic Law. The decision was acknowledged that they were not under Mosaic Law any longer. However to prevent unnecessarily stumbling of these traditional Jewish Christians, this decree was given. This is also how most bible scholars today understand these verses. The account at Acts 21:20-32 gives further evidence that this decree was given because the older, traditional Jewish Christians were being stumbled, since once again this very same prohibition found at Acts 15:28, 29 is repeated ten years later in Acts 21:25. Notice specifically how verses 24 brings out that this decree was given because the Jewish Christians thought Paul had discarded all Jewish law and customs which were causing these Jewish Christians to be upset and stumbled. Paul's words quoted above at 1 Cor 8:4-8 once again only adds further evidence that this command was not an eternal, universal law from God since again, he there states that "eating foods sacrificed to idols" (also included in Acts 15:28,29 along with blood) is a personal decision for each individual Christian. The command to abstain from fornication however is an absolute, eternal, universal command, since it is clearly repeated often throughout the Christian Greek scriptures. Not the case at all regarding blood. Nowhere else is this mentioned. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5: 19-21 contain many specific warnings for Christians, but blood is not one of them. Nor is it mentioned anywhere else in the Greek scriptures. And even if it were considered a universal, eternal command, which clearly it is not, that decree then would be regarding the EATING of animal blood, and not the receiving of blood fluid from a living human donor to another living human donor.

*** If consuming blood was such a capitol offense, why were Saul's men not executed when they fell to eating blood along with the meat? (1 Sam. 14:31-35)

*** I also wanted to find out how the most traditional, conservative and orthodox Jews today felt about accepting blood transfusions, since they still object to any traces of blood in their meat and other strict dietary guidelines from the bible by insisting on kosher foods. After researching, I found out that they DO accept blood transfusions, considering these bible commands to be based on the eating and drinking of animal blood; something a blood transfusion is not.

*** Another thing that now clouds the blood transfusion issue altogether for me is the 2000 decree that certain blood "fractions" are now permissible. Many of these are now considered a "conscience matter". Just a few years ago most of these were forbidden. I have studied this very carefully and thoroughly as well. Some of these "fractions" take far more blood and donors to make them, than accepting the whole blood unaltered takes. Some hemophiliac treatments for example, (which have been long permitted) require the collection and storage of massive quantities of blood (up to 2500 blood donors for a single treatment). These are not just some made-up numbers thrown out here, but can be easily verified. Other more common "fractions" still require many liters of blood, from many different people to donate. It is often just a "concentrated" form of blood. These facts bring up two different, problematic issues in my mind then. For one, how can we say that we as Jehovah's Witnesses "abstain from blood", since all of these fractions that Watchtower Society now permits like albumin, EPO, hemoglobin, blood serums, Immunoglobulins, and hemophiliac treatments (clotting factors VIII & IX) clearly tap into the world's blood supply and can be (and are) used by Jehovah's Witnesses today? And two, if then, we as Jehovah's Witnesses can with a clear conscience now USE these fractions that come from the blood supply, why are we then forbidden from donating to this same blood supply that we now are allowed to tap into? And, why are we still not allowed to store our own blood? The pouring of blood "back to the ground" was long ago nailed to the torture stake when Jesus sacrificed his life; hence we are no longer under that Mosaic series of laws. It sure appears to me then, that we no longer abstain from blood, and can and do dip into the worlds blood supply, often in great quantity, yet we are still not allowed to put back into this same supply, nor can we store our own blood.

Another problem with "fractions" (for me) is that certain fractions such as "Albumin" ARE acceptable by the society, but others making up even smaller amounts are not. "Albumin" for example is a blood plasma protein that is produced in the liver and forms a large proportion of all plasma protein. This "authorized" fraction, Albumin, however makes up just 2.2 percent of the whole blood and again IS approved by the society today. White blood cells on the other hand are NOT allowed, not authorized by the society, yet these white blood cells make up less that one percent of whole blood. White blood cells are absolutely needed to fight infections and are often very important for accident and post-surgical patients. Yet again, these white blood cells are not acceptable by the society. Another fraction, Blood "Platelets" are needed to help cause clotting, so people do not bleed to death (especially important with chemotherapy, other cancer treatments and hemophiliacs). Yet platelets are another fraction NOT authorized. Platelets make up only .17 percent of whole blood. That's not even one quarter of one percent, (a far smaller portion than albumin). Yet these platelets are forbidden by the Society. I have read the literature and fail to see the logic of this "approved" and "disapproved" list with no explanations anywhere. It's also worth noting that if you add up all of the fractions that ARE acceptable by the society, you come up with a total of 97 percent of what makes up whole blood that is pumping through our veins right now. However, these cannot be taken together as whole blood, but must be instead broken down and taken separately, in minute fractions. It has been compared before to being allowed to eat ham, bread and cheese, as long as they're kept and eaten separately. Yet not being allowed to eat them together for instance as a ham and cheese sandwich. I just fail to see the reasonableness in this kind of doctrine. "Hemopure" is an acceptable blood-product that Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to use. It is made from purified bovine, or in simpler terms, Cow's Blood. How can we as humans be allowed to use this purified animal blood today, yet not be allowed to use our own blood, or that of another living human donor?

So then, when I add up all of the facts listed above here; that blood transfusions are not the same as eating blood. That the scriptures themselves are always referring to the "eating or drinking" of animal blood that is forbidden (not transfusions). How Paul shows at 1 Corinthians. 8:4-8 that the Acts 15:29 command is not all encompassing command but had a particular purpose. That Saul's men were not killed after eating blood. How the strictest of Jews today allow blood transfusions. That Jesus clearly demonstrated how life (even that of an animal) was more important than a narrow, strict interpretation of the law, with the "animal that fell into a pit on the Sabbath" illustration he used, and the "Woman with a flow of blood" real-life example. How the one donating blood is a LIVE donor and offering this blood to another person that is also alive and in need. That the Society was wrong before about forbidding vaccinations and organ transplants and then reversed these decisions. Many loyal Witnesses nonetheless died from such stands. And, the Society has now changed its position once again, instead of saying no to all blood, to now say "fractions" of blood are acceptable, even though the particular fractions approved and disapproved seem to have no particular rhyme or reason and we are still not allowed to donate blood nor store their own. Though we can use cow's blood. It seems fairly easy for me then, to come to the conclusion that I can no longer support the society's position on blood transfusions today. In fact I believe it was an erroneous decision from the beginning, and has only been made even more confusing and unstable with the latest "fractions" adjustments.

BIG ELDERS MEETING ON THE BLOOD ISSUE! SHOCKING CHANGES AFOOT!?

Share this