by Gill 49 Replies latest watchtower medical
Gill - I think they'd work it in somehow. Something like the ban was there for reasons we didn't fully understand at the time, but Jehovah was protecting his people (who never questioned, but faithfully obeyed) while the rest of the World was at risk (from AIDS, hepatitis etc). Now these 'risks' can be identified. Then some drivel about the FDS/food at correct time.
BizzyBee - thanks for sharing that - very interesting!
This is a good discussion because I think it's leading you ( all) into the ugly paradox , that even
though some in the Society Know that the blood issue is bogus, the lawyers may feel that the
safest thing to do is keep on encouraging people to die. By keeping the issue blindly
religious, they don't get sued.
metatron
Metatron - 'Religion' is the 'Get out of Jail card' for the WT Society.
Whether Society will allow religion to continue using this reason to allow intolerable behaviour is something yet to be seen.
There are somethings that society at large will NOT allow religions to get away with already such as murder, sexual assault etc..... Perhaps one day, allowing yourself or your dependents to die for a bogus policy will also be included in this list.
It is illegal for anyone including church clergy or elders to murder or cause the murder of other people.
The Aztec religion is a religion but it is not permitted for its priests (such few as now exist in hiding) to cut out the living heart of a person.
In many lands government officials are afraid to challenge groups whose members die senselessly such as among Jehovah's Witnesses who are mistold the Bible opposes all blood usage (contrast 1 Samuel 14:32; Mt 12:7) and Christian Science where members are told it is wrong to use medical doctors and medicine (Luke was a physician and physicians use medicine).
What's the solution? The fact that people including children are dying has to be pointed out as clearly and audibly as possible, and that may mean graphically by photos on placards, by demonstrations or whatever it takes.
I'm a peaceful but effective activist. Email me at [email protected] if you want to be one too.
I'm in a biomedical ethics class right now at university, it's a fourth year class required for nursing students but allowed for other arts students. The public opinion seemed to be that they had already seen a lot of lessening of the faith of JWs in the blood doctrine and a number of them were putting forth the idea that they felt in the next few years blood and JWs would be a moot issue. Now this is the opinion of complete outsiders, albeit those who are going into the medical profession.
In my view, their only option is to retrench back to the position that accepting blood is a ``conscience matter." all the while deploring the practice but pointing out that taking a transfusion is a sign of weakness NOT wickedness. The only ones who would be really upset in this case would be those who suffered the loss of loved ones who obeyed the prohibition despite serious misgivings and still died.
I believe the achille's heel to the blood issue is that the GB has framed the issue not as religious but as medical. For example, they have at least 2 brochures dealing with blood as a medical issue. They have 3 videos dealing with blood as a medical issue. They have the Hospital Laison Committees which advise on blood substitutes.alternative therapy, etc.... These are MEDICAL interpolations by a religious corporation. Are they licensed to PRACTICE medicine? The practice of medicine can be as simple as giving somone medical advice. Are they licensed and trained to do this? They tell their members it is a matter of religion and yet advise them on a matter of medicine.
I think if someone with the juice, say some bored tobacco company suing lawyer wants a crusade, he can get one against the WTS. Hell, they went after and won against McD's for serving hot coffee. That isn't nearly as egregious as killing people. For that matter, they won against Big Tabacco and has bigger pockets then them? It takes a Big Gun to bring down a Big Elephant. I think they're out there.
I'm a peaceful but effective activist.
An "effective activist"? Please give details.
In the meantime, I'd advise "let the buyer beware".
The Society doesn't need to change the blood doctrine. They need to change the shunning doctrine . . . just quit shunning people for taking blood medical treatment.
Gary - I agree with you that it is the 'shunning' policy that needs to be removed. However, once shunning is removed, the flood gates will be open for JWs to begin to feel the loosening of their shackles from the WT. If shunning is removed only for those who choose to take a blood transfusion then it will be seen as a removal of the blood ban and reported as such. At the moment the BAN remains because it is punishable, even though this is not the angle that the Society want people to see.
I remember when the DF'ing rule was changed to DA'ing and the press reported it as a removal of the blood ban. BUT, then the weasel words of the Watchtower were heard, that anyone taking blood was infact saying they were no longer one of Jehovah's witnesses and JWs immeadiately understood what 'mother' was saying and that nothing had changed!!!
The world at large is a little more confused on the issue as it cannot seem to grasp the mind control tricks of the WT Society.
The WT society has become the persecutor of its own people. It strips away their choices and their rights and then accuses the world of being persecutors of Them!!
