New book: Keep Yourselves In God's Love: Chapter and appendix on blood

by truthseeker 50 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  wha happened?

  wow I missed that. That was sort of a back door change.
• 

  parakeet

  Quote from book: "In fact, many in the medical field rate bloodless surgery as the 'gold standard' of modern medical care."
  
  
  How many in the medical field (which includes hospital maintenance staff) rate this as the "gold standard"? Three? Are they even M.D.s? Some names, numbers, and examples would be helpful here, but of course they can't be included because they're either made up or the numbers of bloodless successes are pathetically small.
  
  Anyone who accepts this piece of unscientific crap should watch "Trauma: Life in the ER." on the Discovery Health Channel. Countless patients are saved who would have died without blood transfusions. And that's just the ER, not scheduled surgery.
• 

  blondie

  *** w05 3/15 p. 18 par. 8 "You Were Bought With a Price" ***Consider the example of Elena, a young Christian in Spain. She had several classmates who were blood donors. They knew that Elena, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, would not donate blood or accept blood transfusions.

  *** w00 10/15 pp. 30-31 Questions From Readers ***Granted, the Mosaic Law is not in force now. Nevertheless, Jehovah’s Witnesses respect the principles God included in it, and they are determined to ‘abstain from blood.’ Hence, we do not donate blood, nor do we store for transfusion our blood that should be ‘poured out.’ That practice conflicts with God’s law.

  *** w92 8/1 p. 25 Letting Their Light Shine in India ***A student organizer also joined in the discussions with the young Witness. He was a chain smoker and a heavy drinker. At one time, he had wanted to beat up two fellow students who had learned the truth from the Witness. Because of accepting the truth, they had refused to join a college strike and also would not donate blood during a blood-collection campaign spearheaded by the student organizer. This young man is now happy to be a light-bearing Witness of Jehovah.

  *** w77 7/1 p. 410 Insight on the News ***Moreover, God’s law to his people of ancient times specified that blood, when taken from a body, was not to be used for anything, but was to be disposed of. (Deut. 12:16) Later, Christians were specifically required to ‘abstain from blood.’ (Acts 15:28, 29) So, ‘donating blood as sacrifice’ is neither effective nor approved by God.

  *** w61 1/15 p. 64 Questions From Readers ***If, however, he refuses to acknowledge his nonconformity to the required Christian standard and makes the matter an issue in the Christian congregation and endeavors to influence others therein to his support; or, if in the future he persists in accepting blood transfusions or in donating blood toward the carrying out of this medical practice upon others, he shows that he has really not repented, but is deliberately opposed to God’s requirements. As a rebellious opposer and unfaithful example to fellow members of the Christian congregation he must be cut off therefrom by disfellowshiping.

  *** w61 9/15 p. 561 par. 6 Using Life in Harmony with the Will of God ***This greatest of commandments therefore indicates that a dedicated Christian is not at liberty to donate his lifeblood for use by someone else. Life belongs to God, and we are free to give it only to him in his service. Nor would it be proper to argue that love of neighbor calls for one to give blood. It is not love of neighbor to collaborate with him in violation of the law of God. And since God’s Word indicates that it is wrong to take a blood transfusion, it is also wrong to give one’s blood for transfusion.
• 

  Blueblades

  Anyone know or have an update on "The Tort of Misrepresentation" that was filed against The Watchtower Society by a lawyer named ???Kerry Woods??? She is not a witness, however, her mother who was one died becauses of not taking a life saving blood transfusion. She is using "The Tort of Misrepresentation" to sue the society for wrongful death.

  It's been awhile since we heard anything further or updated on this case. Anyone remember, this was a big announcement some time ago. What happened since then.

  It seems the society is sticking to their guns with this new release and is not worried about this "Tort of Misrepresentation" suit.

  Blueblades
• 

  Blueblades

  How many of the rank and file really understand the breakdown on blood in this chapter?

  How many are dependant on someone else to explain this to them?

  How many elders will actually help explain it to the elderly and those under pressure who don't really understand the difference between whole blood and fractions.

  No one in a positon of responsibility wants to get invovled with the legal entanglements that could follow if they make any kind of personal recommendation to a member of the rank and file and that one dies because of the tort of misrepresentation.

  Many will just simply stick to the no blood policy and refuse a life saving blood transfusion thinking that by doing so it will keep them in Jehovah's Love

  Blueblades
• 

  POs Son

  I wonder if you took all the fractions and put them together, say in one IV bag, it would be acceptable? What is convenient about this is that God already did that, its called BLOOD.
  I am reminded of the story of the man who was in a flood and refused three different attempts at rescue, died, and found himself questioning the Lord. God answered, "I sent you three different rescuers, and you refused!!" In much the same way, God has allowed man to learn the benefits of blood transfusions along with other medicine. Maybe that is a gift that should not be refused.
• 

  yesidid

  They changed the teaching on alternative service in May 1996.

  The 1986 quote shows the old teaching:

  The

  Watchtower 1986 September 1 p. 20

  
  ...when Caesar demanded to have God's things, they acted in harmony with the principles stated at Acts 4:19 and Acts 5:29.

  Whether the issue was shedding blood, non-combatant military work, alternative service, or saluting an image such

  as a national flag, faithful Christians took the position that there was no middle ground. In some cases they were

  executed because of this stand, Matthew 24:9; Revelation 2:10

  Then came the change:

  The

  Watchtower 1996 May 1 p. 20.
  What, though, if the State requires a Christian for a period of time to perform civilian service that is a part of national

  service under a civilian administration? Here again, Christians must make their own decisions based on an informed

  conscience. What if the Christian's honest answers to such questions leads him to conclude that the national civilian

  service is a "good work" that he can perform in obedience to the authorities? This is his decision before Jehovah.

  Appointed elders and others should fully respect the conscience of the brother and continue to regard him as a Christian in good standing.
  
  

  They must have had some flak on this change so they blamed Jehovah. See below:

  (The

  Watchtower 1998 August 15 p. 17 Underlining added)

  In the past, some Witnesses have suffered for refusing to share in an activity that their conscience now might permit.

  For example, this might have been their choice years ago as to certain types of civilian service. A brother might now feel

  that he could conscientiously perform such without overstepping his Christian neutrality regarding the present system of things.

  Was it unrighteous on Jehovah's part to allow him to suffer for rejecting what he might do without consequences...

  What reason could anyone have to regret having followed his conscience in taking a firm stand for Jehovah?

  By loyally upholding Christian principles as they understood them or by responding to prodding of conscience

  they proved worthy of Jehovah's friendship. Certainly, it is wise to avoid a course that would disturb one's conscience...

  In modern times, there have been some Witnesses who were very strict in their view of what they would or would not do.

  For that reason they suffered more than others. Later, increased knowledge helped them to expand their view of matters.

  But they have no reason to regret having earlier acted in harmony with their conscience even when this possibly

  brought extra suffering. It truly is commendable that they demonstrated their willingness to suffer in faithfulness to Jehovah...
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  Since almost all transfusions are fractions, they are legally letting themselves off the hook.

  Agreed.

  Para. 10- Look out for the cult instructions that totally twist the scriptures.

  Jehovah's Witnesses recognize that "abstaining from ... blood" means not accepting blood
  transfusions and not donating or storing their own blood for transfusion.

  First of all, the scripture certainly doesn't mean any of that. It was about abstaining
  from eating blood. Second of all, it puts the ellipses in there before the word "blood." (...)

  That's so you don't have a big discussion about the other things they were to abstain
  from and how that's applied or not today.

  They go on to talk about fractions being a conscience matter, but not before they first
  tell you what your conscience must be in the beginning of the paragraph.

  All the conscience matter stuff is just legal mumbo jumbo to keep people from sueing them.
• 

  WTWizard

  Wow, that sure sounds like something I have seen in every single one of the study books from the washtowel slaveholdery.
• 

  tak

  I liked the analygy given here: bowen spam

  the leadership's blood policy
  can be likened to Adam and Eve being told not to
  eat the apple; but apple sauce, cider and pie made
  from it are OK to eat.