Can JW's value life when they OPPOSE abortion but BAN blood transfusions?

by truthseeker 15 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  truthseeker

  Someone needs to get the word out that the only reason blood was banned was to incite persecution against Jehovah's Witnesses

  after the end of World War II did not bring Armageddon.

  The book Four Presidents of the Watchtower Society says that individuals were considering banning blood transfusions but that Rutherford was against it.

  Jehovah's Witnesses say that abortion is wrong, that even if life is just a few cells, it's worth protecting and would be MURDER if someone aborted it YET

  they will say it's right to REFUSE blood because God says it's sacred.

  The ORIGINS rather than the interpretations of the blood ban need to get out - once people see that blood was only banned to generate persecution and

  publicity for the Jehovah's Witnesses, they will be more apt to expose them.
• 

  nicolaou

  Nah! I respectfully disagree truthseeker. No-one outside the JW/ex-JW sphere of influence could care less about the roots of of some wacky doctrine held by some wacky cult. They only care when children are involved.

  By all means push the truth 'out there' but don't expect many to get excited about it. For most of the world Watchtowerism is beneath insignificant.
• 

  TowerWatch

  The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society says Blood is sacred because it represents life. Jehovah’s Witnesses are expected to give up their lives out of respect for blood because it represents life. What I have yet to figure out is, how can something be more sacred than what it represents.

  Questions

  FromReaders

  In

  thelightofBiblecommandsabouttheproperuseofblood,howdoJehovah’sWitnessesviewmedicalproceduresusingone’sownblood?

  Rather than deciding solely on the basis of personal preference or some medical recommendation, each Christian ought to consider seriously what the Bible says. It is a matter between him and Jehovah.

  Jehovah, to whom we owe our lives, decreed that blood should not be consumed. (Genesis 9:3, 4) In the Law for ancient Israel, God limited the use of blood because it represents life. He decreed: "The soul [or life] of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls." What if a man killed an animal for food? God said: "He must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust." (Leviticus 17:11, 13) Jehovah repeated this command again and again. (Deuteronomy 12:16, 24; 15:23) The Jewish SoncinoChumash notes: "The blood must not be stored but rendered unfit for consumption by pouring it on the ground." No Israelite was to appropriate, store, and use the blood of anothercreature, whose life belonged to God.

  ........

  Cal
• 

  Death to the Pixies

  The other side of that coin is, how can the Hospital support aborting the BC babies (not sure if all of them, but I heard that it was mentioned) but not support the parents right to choose for themselves the treatment. The parents could have decided to abort and no-one would have been up in arms.
• 

  kwintestal

  I would say it's the same as various Christian groups who are "pro-life" along with "pro-death penalty". Some people like having it both ways when it suits them.

  Kwin
• 

  truthseeker

  Good point Nicolau, but if people see that banning blood wasn't originally for some sacred purpose that Jehovah commanded, but only to generate publicity and persecution, it might make people wake up - especially those JW's that died who had worldly relatives.
• 

  garybuss

  We could get the rumor out, but where's the proof?
  
  
• 

  fullofdoubtnow

  Death to the Pixies wrote:

  The parents could have decided to abort and no-one would have been up in arms.

  Bull$hit. Abortion is considered murder by the wts, and had their parents done this and the news got back to their congregation elders, I suspect they would have been in serious trouble, maybe even df'd or considered da'd by their actions.

  The wts are hypocrites. They ban abortion, even if it's the safest option for the expectant mother, and her life may be in danger if she proceeds with the pregnancy, but allow and even expect jw parents to let their children to die for want of the blood that might save them.
• 

  truthseeker

  Compound Complex wrote an earlier post describing the reason for banning blood:

  Sheer Madness --- Perpetuated by Two Madmen Who Prevailed Over the Judge [Almost]

  "After the Judge's death, as World War II was ending and persecution against the Witnesses began declining, along with the attendant drop in news-media publicity, Hayden C. Covington told the author [of THE FOUR PRESIDENTS] that Fred Franz saw the prohibition against blood transfusions as a way to accomplish two things: to continue to publicize the religion, and to create an uproar in the community. This reaction would convince the membership they were being "persecuted" and "suffering for righteousness sake," a sure sign they were "in the truth."

  According to Jerry Bergman, author of BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS: A HISTORY AND EVALUATION OF THE RELIGIOUS, BIBLICAL, AND MEDICAL OBJECTIONS, 1994, p. 5:

  "The blood issue has brought witnesses more publicity than any other issue in the last twenty years."

  "The ban on blood transfusions was an effort to solidify the Knorr administration." [Knorr initially objected to the weird scriptural interpretation justifying the abstaining from blood; he understood the scriptures to be in reference to animal blood only. Nevertheless, he went along with the ban.]

  "Key Watchtower officers held a view of distrust toward the medical profession."

  "Some high level Watchtower official naively reasoned that, if eating blood was wrong, blood transfusions were also wrong because they are 'intravenous' feeding as opposed to extravenous feeding, or normal eating."

  While Rutherford swallowed some irrational rantings by Franz and Woodworth over the beginnings of the blood issue, he would not allow publication of FWF's "special knowledge" as "new light" in THE WATCHTOWER. The two mischief makers kept things stirred up and began convincing others, including Knorr. The author was told that now that "King Saul" [FWF] is dead, the leadership would like blood transfusions to be a matter of conscience and lay the blame for all the suffering at the feet of Franz and Woodworth.

  Does tacit approval on the part of the Governing Body constitute blood-guilt?

  THE FOUR PRESIDENTS OF THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY (JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES), Edmond C. Gruss, Editor, pp.74, 75, 231

  Compound-Complex
• 

  garybuss

  Who do we attribute the quotes to from the Four Presidents book? What FACT can we look at to prove the blood policy is a conspiracy? Having "faith" that there was a conspiracy ain't gonna work. All I see so far is smoke and mirrors.