Question: Why was it ok to sell unbled meat to a foriegner for them to eat?

by Lady Liberty 44 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  watson

  Hmmmm. Interesting thread. For my records.
• 

  Gregor

  The individuals, Knorr, Franz, et al. who hatched this death doctrine back in the 1940's are all deceased. But their Governing Body successors are just as responsible because they have the power to recind it but do not. They know it could deal a possibly fatal blow to their precious little scheme called "Jehovah's Witnesses". If there was any justice in the world they would be tried and hung like war criminals.

  P.S. Ever consider the fact that this doctrine came at a time when blood transfusions were very much a part of the public consciousness due to it's prominent use in WWII? The GB had great results out of the draft refusal doctrine which had sent so many young JW men to prison. It forced real, life changing, commitment to the org. The blood doctrine upped the ante to the ultimate cult control.
• 

  LUKEWARM

  Truly sad that so many have died and will continue to do so because the WBTS lacks the humility to correct their interpretation of scripture on this matter.
  
  They keep talking about bloodguilt, yet fail to see how accountable they are for the unnecessary death of so many people.
  
  *** 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? -Paragraph taken from this letter http://newsblaze.com/story/20081209054218zzzz.nb/topstory.html

  They are just like the Pharisees Jesus spoke about when he said: "It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach as doctrines commands of men.' 8 Letting go the commandment of God, YOU hold fast the tradition of men." (Mark 7:7-8)
• 

  Mary

  BTTT cause this is another wonderful thread........
• 

  nelly136

  bttin so i can find it again