Blood Issue - Could that mean bloodshed???

by cognac 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cognac

  TD ~

  You bring out some awesome points. this is what i say after all is said and done:

  There are arguments that could go either way. The society is bloodguilty in that they make a decision that could be argued at the very least both ways. If there is any possible chance that is, and, I say, at the very least, between what gopher said and the actual meaning of the word, the society has to admit that there is at the very least 1/2 way of a possibility that they may be wrong.

  I think they already realize that they may be wrong and that is why they are allowing so many fractions now. they are changing things little by little. If they were to change things all at once, everybody would leave.

  Has anybody written them these things in regards to the different possibilities??? What did they say???

  I can't be bloodguillty like that, why don't they say all of what it could mean and then leave it up to the individual? Why the disfellowshipping? Why the loss of so many lives???
• 

  yourmomma

  they no longer DF if you are repentant. there was a change in 2000 or 99. i forget which. the elders were instructed to be more "loving" if a person accepted blood in a moment of weakness.
• 

  jwfacts

  A few months ago Terry wrote a thread on JWD that went through in detail why the reference to blood meant murder. Maybe someone is able to find and link it.
• 

  cognac

  they no longer DF if you are repentant. there was a change in 2000 or 99. i forget which. the elders were instructed to be more "loving" if a person accepted blood in a moment of weakness.

  They are making changes little by little. In a few years, it will totally be a conscious matter. however, they know it's a conscious matter now. Anyways, the hell with that. I wouldn't be repentant anyways, they can just go to hell...
• 

  Watkins

  cognac, I've had the very same epiphany as you and others. I believe in my gut and heart of hearts this is true. Good thing we've had to re-research everything --- so many lies to uncover now that the blinders are off.. Early on in my research I found someone else's research that this particular admontion was about bloodshed and it just clicked - But then I lost my link, being very new to the net, and it kind of went by the way until it surfaced again with the recent WT maneuverings. I'm so glad there is building interest in this life-saving research. Terry has done a lot of his own --- Thanks Terry!

  Here are a few of his relevant links:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/115403/1.ashx

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/133029/1.ashx

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/116599/1.ashx

  watkins
• 

  Vinny

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/150613/1.ashx

  Hi Cognac!

  Above is a link with numerous points of evidence proving just how wrong the WT blood policy is.

  You are doing great here btw. I enjoy watching you work through all of this. You are a firecracker. Hope your hubby stays open-minded too. If he reads any of this, say hello for me. And tell him we'd love to have him post his thoughts too.

  Back to the ballgame...

  Aloha,

  Vinny
• 

  cognac

  thanks Vinny!!! i appreciate your comments...

  Honestly, until I started really researching scriptures and then testing things, it never dawned on me that we wern't open-minded!!! Wow, now that I'm dealing with all this crap, and now that i have actually reflected back on things I myself have done, I never realized how closed minded we/I was...

  It's really shocking to think about it... I was the person that didn't allow another baptised (inactive) witness to come to my wedding because of his hair... Wow, to look back at these things now, I feel so awful how I treated people... What an as@ I was... hopefully not still, but really, what would I know after what I have done???
• 

  Doug Mason

  If you go to:

  http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/The_Meaning_of__Blood_.pdf

  you will find the definitive study on the meaning of "Blood" in Scripture. I have been given permission by the copyright owner to make it freely available at my site.

  It was written by Stibbs as the outcome of presentations he made in 1947.

  The key religious issue is that throughout Scripture the term "blood" consistently and uniformly always means DEATH, and usually a violent one. It NEVER signifies "life".

  The presence of blood in a transfusion does not symbolise the death of the donor -- it is a gift given, a sharing of life. Ask any of us who have donated blood. The blood in a transfusion therefore never relates to the meaning given it in Scripture.

  Before you argue with me, first read what Stibbs wrote.

  If you go to my site at http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940 you will find a page devoted to the subject of blood, with a range of freely available material, including from the noted scholar Leon Morris.

  When I researched the WTS's 1977 booklet "Questions on Blood", I was horrified to see the number of times the author (and we know who that was) consistently misquoted and misrepresented the authorities he was supposedly citing. Blood on his hands?

  Anyway, the WTS is NOT a "no blood" organization.

  Doug
• 

  cognac

  Ok, so I just remembered something somebody told me that I hadn't given much thought to, until for some reason now...

  In Bulgaria, do you get disassociated if you take blood? What's the official stand on that?
• 

  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.