A public thank you for the EMAIL sky. Even while reposting he had the sincerity to email this to me.
I was told: The bible condemn Blood transfusions Period!!!
by skyking 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
CHILD
This blood issue is what spurred me to research and begin my road to freedom. Thanks for this info.
-
monophonic
thank you very much for this.
-
bebu
That was not too long to post, sky! One of the best reads I have had here in a long time, and very thought-provoking.
bebu
-
llbh
Powerful stuff young man. I'll bet u were populaa wtih the elders.
regards Sam (David)
-
Leolaia
Here are the key scriptures I point to that demonstrate the error of the Watchtower teaching:
1) Leviticus 17:4, 11: The reason why blood is not eaten is because it is offered in "atonement" for committing bloodshed. Since blood donors are not slaughtered in order to give blood, one does not need to atone for taking a life, and if no atonement needs to be made, then blood does not have to be reserved for atonement.
2) Leviticus 19:16-18: This is the commandment mentioned by Jesus, Paul, and the author of James, as the central principle of the Law that Christians must follow. Love for neighbor requires one to "not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life" [literally, "stand against your neighbor's blood"]. Preventing others from receiving life-saving measures violates this commandment, as it jeopardizes the life of another person.
3) Mark 2:23-27: If someone is in need, it is the right thing to do to break a commandment in order to survive, or to help other people survive. A person's needs take precedence over the need for a law to be observed. This of course accords with the principle in Leviticus 19, and thus abides by the greater principle in the Law.
4) Mark 3:4: What is truly "lawful" is for a person to "save life", even if saving a person's life -- or improving the quality of a person's life (as it was in healing people on the sabbath) -- seemingly violates a lesser commandment. "Saving life" is more sacred and more important than the stipulation to follow any particular commandment.
-
Gilberto
Great Post. Thank you.
-
Lady Liberty
Dear SkyKing,
You have a PM from me....
Thank you for posting that information..I thought it was EXCELLENT!! There were a couple of scriptures I never knew existed!! SO THANK YOU!!!!!! I printed it off to share with my ex JW family and friends.
Was it after almost losing your daughter that you did indepth research and confronted the C.O.??
Sincerely,
Lady Liberty
-
Witness 007
I hate the blood issue...it is clearly wrong. The website AJWRB {Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for reform on blood} helped me exit the "truth."
-
WTWizard
They cannot prove that the Bible condemns blood transfusions. All the Bible does condemn is eating blood, not using it as a drug (which is, in effect, what you are doing when you take a blood transfusion). In fact, that would be like eating Cephalexin. That would be quite stupid. But if you have an infection and the doctor prescribes it for the infection, then eating the stuff (in the form of a pill) is not as stupid, as long as you take this potentially dangerous antibiotic as directed.
Since they cannot prove it, and they need to continue with the illusion that it is and that they have the authority, they will appeal to their own bogus authority and say it is so because they say so. To me, this is a very circular argument. You will get nowhere winning such an argument, and yet the hounder-hounder is the one that is wrong. As long as you pretend that the hounder-hounder is an expert in the Bible, he is going to have this bogus authority.
In truth, most hounder-hounders are not experts in the Bible. They know a few key scriptures (always the same ones that they all use) to misapply to back up the Tower doctrine. But, they do not know many passages just beyond The Track that would, in context, blatantly derail the whole doctrine. They are kept so busy that they do not have time for independent Bible study. Thus, they know just enough to put up a front on their authority. The truth is that the average apostate knows more about the Bible than the hounder-hounder does.
As for me, I do not even pretend to be an expert in the Bible itself. But, I know more about it than the average hounder-hounder does. That is because, despite being antitheist, I am open-minded to outside opinions and beliefs. And, when I was in, they would read a scripture and I had a nasty habit of going off The Track by reading the whole block in context. To me, that should be a big embarrassment when I, with little knowledge of the Bible, know more than a typical hounder-hounder or even hounder-hounder-hounder knows. Maybe if they would become more open-minded and tolerant of outside beliefs, they too could learn more about the Bible. Perhaps they could learn more than I know (which shouldn't be that difficult).
I wonder if I know more about the Bible than Ted Jaracz does, even as an apostate and antitheist, just because I have read the apostate sites and have learned how to use some of the scriptures against them.