why does the WTS try to explain how good medically NO BLOOD IS?

by ?me? 11 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  ?me?

  looking at the questions to go over for the blood video, it looks like and i have heard in the past how the WTS expounds about the medical positives of not taking blood, and rails against blood for all the problems, diseases, and the fact that it does not always work........... the real question IS....... why do they even waste time on that if the issue is supposed to be a BIBLICAL/SCRIPTURAL RESTRICTION.?

  even if taking blood was the best thing in the world for you , the WTS stance is that the bible and jehovah forbid it, end of story. there is really no need to try to convince people who want to supposedly follow jehovah's command to abstain from blood. according to the WTS jehovah says no, so the answer is NO.

  do they just try to use medical "evidence" to persuade JW's even more to not take blood, or scare them with medical "what if's" to avoid blood? even though that evidence has NO bearing on what they think your view of blood should be, because according to them it is a SCRIPTURAL ISSUE, NOT A MEDICAL ONE!!!!!
• 

  AlphaOmega

  do they just try to use medical "evidence" to persuade JW's even more to not take blood, or scare them with medical "what if's" to avoid blood? even though that evidence has NO bearing on what they think your view of blood should be, because according to them it is a SCRIPTURAL ISSUE, NOT A MEDICAL ONE!!!!!

  I think that's the answer.

  I have spoken with several JWs that have all told me that even if they were DF'd (a couple were), that they would not take blood due to the dangers involved.

  So the WT know that they are on dodgy ground with the "blood argument" from scripture so they add the "fear factor" in for good measure to clinch the deal.
• 

  aSphereisnotaCircle

  I think it's a way of inforcing the idea that the command is from God.

  Jah knows whats best for us, so of course obstaining from blood must really be good for us.

  And the society will regale you with countless stories of how somebody somewhere lived/died because of taking or obstaining from blood.

  Heavy emphasis on the somebody somewhere part
• 

  Abandoned

  Liabilty.

  That way when someone refusing to take blood dies, they have a legal leg to stand on if it's proven that the person didn't accept a life-saving blood transfusion based on their untrained medical advice.
• 

  Abandoned

  Edit: Ooops, I guess it did go through. Ignore this post then...
• 

  VoidEater

  As I recall, there was quite a movement in the early 20th century to "prove" that Biblical injunctions (avoiding pork, and the like) had sound medical bases, casting God in the role of "Master Physician". Basically, people wanted Science to support issues of Faith.

  My experience with the blood issue in the 60's was a continuation of this way of thinking - it's not just that God reserves the blood for Himself, but it's also a medically positive thing for God to so wisely keep us safe. No pork, no trychinosis; no blood, no transfusion-related problems.
• 

  Homerovah the Almighty

  Its called theocratic warfare when they fight for a doctrinal law when in a way they are essentially are fighting for god and his laws there is

  no division between the two .

  Each jw has their duty and responsibility to fight for the for the organization , to have an open and balanced mind is not acceptable.

  Yes there have been problems with passing on illnesses through a small minority of transfusions but those have since been corrected and resolved.

  What the WTS. will not say and admit is the fact there has been millions of lives saved since the start of this medical practice some 50 years ago.

  So they are not presenting the whole truth, they gather any bits of information they can to support their agenda and leave out the rest with an obvious intension

  Kind of shows the disingenuous of the organization doesn't it
• 

  freydi

  They equate it to canibalism. What's the word for when you drive an idea right off a cliff?
• 

  oldflame

  why do they even waste time on that if the issue is supposed to be a BIBLICAL/SCRIPTURAL RESTRICTION.?

  It's how they cover up doctrine that is not correct from scriptures. It's the same as when President Bush said on tv several years ago. "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and besides that Saddam tried to kill my daddy" !
• 

  moomanchu

  the WTS expounds about the medical positives of not taking blood, and rails against blood for all the problems, diseases, and the fact that it does not always work

  I find this funny, they trust the medical experts with anything negative about blood,

  however they don't trust the same people if they say anything positive about blood.

  Has anyone seen this on the Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site under the blood section.

  When doctors transplant a heart, a liver, or another organ, the recipient's immune system may sense the foreign tissue and reject it. Yet, a transfusion is a tissue transplant. Even blood that has been "properly" cross matched can suppress the immune system.

  They admit that blood is a tissue transplant.