THE BLOOD DOCTRINE CONFUSION!

by Blueblades 16 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Blueblades

  For lurkers and those not yet aware of this, because we have new ones joining us every day. In 1993 David Koresh led more than eighty Branch Davidians to their deaths in Waco, Texas. In 1978 some nine hundred followers perished in a mass suicide in Jonestown, Guyana, under the command of their cult leader, Jim Jones. These events sparked great media attention because of their sensational nature, and because so many deaths occurred at once.But another cult has, over the years, sacrificed untold thousands of lives. These deaths, occurring quietly and one at a time, have so far escaped large - scale scrunity.

  More kids are dying right now, in obedience to the Jehovah"s Witness ban on blood transfusions, than perished in the fire at Waco. From David Reed's book, " Blood on the Altar". Now with this new understanding, which has created what I call, "The Blood Doctrine Confusion" on the allowance of accepting fractions of Blood, nothing has really changed. Just ask any Elder in your congregation and he will refer you to the Watchtowers on this matter and tell you to read it for yourself. Because they too are confused!

  David continues, "How can a major religion with headquarters in New York City and thirteen million attending its services worldwide quietly leads victims to early and needless deaths without a public outcry?" The problem is largely a matter of perception and of media coverage. When many die together at one time, people notice and headlines are made. But when one or two die here and there at different times, it can easily escape public notice - even when the individual deaths add up to a much greater catastrophe.

  The Blood Doctrine Confusion is the cause of all these deaths. The society is trying to wiggle out of this doctrine. Legal is trying to avoid as many law suits as they can. Its just a matter of time before it catches up to them.

  For those who loss loved ones over this blood tranfusion issue, I am sorry. If you want to share your story, and it helps you, please do. If you have not read this book, I recommend it.

  Blueblades
• 

  choosing life

  They hide behind the issue of freedom of religion. No one wants to or seems to be able to tackle this one yet. Hopefully, that will change soon. They are definately trying to get out of this one as they know their time is running out. Some smart mind is going to find a way to nail them.

  You are right that if all these deaths happened at once, it would cause an uproar. But I do know that in the medical field most seem to actually consider JWs and their ban on blood to be on the crazy fundamental side.

  This is the final straw that caused me to seriously feel bloodquilt as part of that organization.
• 

  compound complex

  Greetings Blueblades,

  Thanx for posting this consideration of the worsening confusion over the blood issue. Please allow me to put up this link on the origin of the doctrine for lurkers and newbies. It deals with the masterminds behind the push on banning blood. It was not at the instance of the Judge, who opposed publishing the new concept. Fred Franz and Clay Woodworth had conspired on the lunatic interpretation before Rutherford's death and thereafter convinced Nathan Knorr to make it "official."

  www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/126825/1.ashx - "Persecution Wanes: Banning Blood Garners Publicity"

  Thank You,

  Compound-Complex
• 

  JosephMalik

  James was not an apostle and did not have authority to originate doctrine for the faith. His letter was not taken as doctrine by Paul who paid no attention to it. He only accepted it as a peace offering, the aftermath of the intense argument that he had with this same James, Peter, John and the rest of the believers in Jerusalem. If it was a binding document then it would be binding on everyone, and yet by James own admission it was only intended for the Gentile believers and not Jewish ones. Acts 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. His letter was intended only for them while James kept the LAW and all the ceremonies that went along with it. And Paul's crime was that he paid no attention to any of this and taught against it. If James was some sort of leader and could originate doctrine then we should all be shaving our heads and taking Nazarite vows the way James demanded of Paul. James was the PROBLEM not the solution to the problems that plagued Paul during his ministry.

  Joseph
• 

  Frequent_Fader_Miles

  I just can't fathom how anyone with even a half-functioning brain can swallow the 'new light' on blood fractions now. Who exactly gave them permission to allow blood fractions all on a sudden, the GB aren't scientists.
• 

  Emma

  The problem is that the GB has convinced everyone they speak from god. Once you have someone convinced of this you can tell them just about everything. The r&f certainly don't understand it; everyone is waiting on jehovah to resolve doubts. How do you crack the "gb speaks from jah" lock and chain that keeps everyone in their place?
• 

  Pahpa

  More and more the Watchtower is using the argument that it is up to a person's "conscience" when deciding the use of blood in medical procedures. This is a convenient strategy to avoid the legal ramifications of law suits. It's obvious that the Watchtower is in retreat on the blood issue. It's allowing far more usage of blood fractions than it did a few years ago. But it is going to be very difficult for it to allow transfusions of whole blood in view of its stand since the 1940s.
• 

  Clam

  Yes it is incredible how they get away with interpreting scripture. For instance is Acts 21 really saying this?

  (verse 25) . . but as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent them a letter telling them we decided that they must not eat any food that has been offered to idols, or the primary components of blood, namely red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma. However fractions of all primary components are permitted. Having said that, when it comes to fractions of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful and prayerful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself. . .
• 

  garybuss

  Hi Emma, You wrote: How do you crack the "gb speaks from jah" lock and chain that keeps everyone in their place?
  
  I believe for some like me, it takes a disconfirmation followed by a social set back kind of close together. I had a huge disconfirmation with the 1974 year text and the backpedaling that went on in 1975. At the same time I had a series of run-in's with Witness rule enforcement personnel.
  
  Local Witnesses harassed me for not always wearing a necktie to group sponsored meetings, and at a district assembly my 3 year old son and I were belly pushed away from a vending machine by two Witness employed security guards (called attendants).
  
  The disconfirmation and the social confrontations together pulled my plug clear out of the wall.
  
  
• 

  Gayle

  I know it's not enough, but the allowance to take fractions has at least poked a hole in the blood doctrine. Some with inclination hopefully will "think" about their "personal conscience." Once an individual taps into their own real "personal conscience" there's no stopping it and then goes the "domino effect."