Jehovah Witness confusing doctrine about abstaining from blood

Blindbutnowisee

Why do Jehovah witnesses say they abstain from using blood

my parents - 40 plus years in - are really having a hard time understanding this change. the new forms are confusing and they see the future - in a decade new jws won't even think this is a big deal and the "old" ones will be gone.

one of my siblings was at their house as my mom tried desperatly to decipher it - my dad did not want to talk about it in front of a faded jw but it was so sad to see them not sure what their Much Adored Borg was trying to tell them to do My dads comment was that it was the evil slave trying to make it sound worse than it was - yet they don't have a clue what the GB'd direction to them is

as my sibling said - you were never allowed to drink milk - but now cream, 2% or even skim is ok ??? They replied that it was tecnology making it an issue yet as my sibling said "if it is wrong,who cares about technology??? And what about the ones dfed, or dead" It was a huge conversation . although my parents have already forgotten it

i really feel for them - they are starting to see that the entire house of cards is falling- and they are starting to see that we really have to talk about the future and their wishes for funerals, wills, our disabled brother....their promised paradise is a sham and they have no one to help them as they are the "loyal" long terms witnesses trying to help others see a truth that isn't there

purplesofa

It makes me mad as hell that so many people are dead or dying over the blood issue.

And, I dare any witness to say

Well, they were obediant and will be in God's memory.

How can anyone justify whats going on with this blood issue

purps

Terry

Thank Rutherford for the wacky, destructive force of this doctrine.

Judge Rutherford the contrarian gathered about him crackpots, faddists and flim-flammers. The 20's and 30's saw many an article (especially in the Awake!) filled with bunkum. Rutherford's purpose was to carve out a niche of high-publicity martyrs for his invention of a religion. He succeeded.

The nation of Israel had a horror of blood and it was reflected in its laws. The Gentiles, to be viewed as righteous, were only required to observe the Laws of the Sons of Noah (Noahyde law.) In this law, "blood" referred to murder and not the imbibing or eating of blood.

In Acts this is the same reference (Noahyde law) often quoted by JW's. The bleeding of animals was necessary (keep yourselves free from things strangled), but, murder was certainly to be avoided (free from bloodshed),

Confusing the one (bleeding animals) with bloodshed (not murdering) is the source of all the misunderstanding.

The financial liability of the Watchtower Society is at stake today and that is why the erosion of this insensible doctrine will continue.

Don't be surprised if one day it is entirely a matter of personal conscience.

still_in74

the erosion of this insensible doctrine will continue.
Don't be surprised if one day it is entirely a matter of personal conscience.

Terry, I am still in and have not filled out my new blod form. This issue is actually the beginning of my present "self examination".

Below is a portion of a long winded PM I sent a kind elder on JWD that has given me much needed support........

I have found lately that the more I meditate on the new view on blood the more this bothers me. No one can say that this is new light, "for with evil things Jehovah cannot be tried". Jehovah could never "withhold" an understanding on something that could/would mean the wasted deaths of his true servants and the pain for the families that goes with it. We all know the GB vote on these things and this issue no doubt has been debated for years. If the majority on the GB did not feel that this new view on fractions was not scripturally sound it would not be a "conscience" decision. But if this view is now considered scriptural then the previous understanding is therefore "unscriptural". Is this unscriptural view on blood Jehovahs fault? Of course not!

Unfortunately all of this had created in me a very "fleshly" view of the society. The entire blood issue, from its inception is "fleshly" reasoning. How could the WTS reason for decades that blood is wrong as it is to be "poured out on the ground" and not used for any other purpose, then to say that the fractions in the blood arent really blood so they are ok? Has the blood still not been "poured out"? Has it still not been used for another purpose?Has this not nullified the society's reasoning behind the entire blood issue to begin with? Or is this just the beginning? The history of the WTS shows time and again that this is how they broach change, slowly over years. 5-10 years from now blood transfusions will be a conscience decision. You watch. But how many more people will die? Who is responsible for them? Jehovah or the WTS? And why would it even be a conscience decision? If it werent for the WTS telling us for for decades that blood is wrong it wouldnt bother anyones conscience. If/when it is scripturally a conscience decision how many will choose not to "sin against their conscience" solely because the WTS has created in them such dissonance?
Considering how the GB works we can be certain that if the majority believe that fractions are ok then there are without fail some who believe the entire use of blood to be a conscience decision also. It is only a matter of time.

Long story short, I completely agree with you.........

darth frosty

Good point as always terry. Those darn noah hides.

neverendingjourney

Wasn't Fred Franz behind the blood doctrine? I thought Rutherford didn't buy into Franz's pet doctrine, but that Knorr let Franz run wild with it. Can somebody please clarify this for me?

sosad

if blood became a strictly conscience decision - how would the "lifers" justify it?

The generation change became light getting brighter and brighter - and now the fact that we preached the 70 or 80 years and "this generation will by no means etc" has actually been, not exactly denied but my jw family gets a glazed over look and they just shake their heads, because I have been away from the org too long and no longer see the light as it gets brighter and brighter

it's a terrible thing to think, but could that happen with the blood issue? Will they just forget

personally, I am going to donate blood to the Red Cross (i've thought it for a while, but now that I have posted it, I plan to actually do it!) The scrip about the Isrealites selling unbled meat to the non beleivers is a pretty compelling reason to help others - PLUS I have a lot of jw family that now may say OK to fractions - and where else does it come from???

anyone else planning to ante up?

besty

I definitely plan to donate - not today though as they would be classifying a new major fraction - brandy :-)

I think all ex-JW's should think seriously about blood/organ/stem cell donation - think about the great opportunity to tell medical staff what Witnesses really believe about blood!!

Besty (of the Blood Type Class)

greendawn

Terry I don't think it was Rutherford that introduced the blood ban as this took effect in 1961 long after he died. He did in fact impose another bad practice the banning of inocculations something that gave a lot of harassment to JW kids at schools as they were possible sources of infection creating an opening to the disease that inocculation was supposed to shut out.

The blood doctrine is an obvious mess and their policy is to give it time so that people will forget before they actually say that it is OK now to have blood. They are getting there step by step so as to diffuse the explosiveness of the issue.

People had to make the ultimate sacrifices which as the doctrine gets eroded they seem to have been pointless. Someone that took blood wouldn't have lost out on eternal life! Just as someone that didn't make sacrifices for a soon to be paradise didn't lose out.

Jehovah Witness confusing doctrine about abstaining from blood

Share this