by rebel8 93 Replies latest jw friends
Good post as usual ,Password,(You were up early this morning ,did you wet the bed?)
You have explained what I was trying to say about informed choice,if most Dubs cannot even comprehend their own religions fractions policy,and from my own experience I believe this is the case,then can you believe they have considered the subject to the extent that they should make decisions about their childrens lives,or even their own?
Love
Wobble
There are so many issues here. For one, if JW’s thought it was medically unsound to take blood they might question their whole belief system. So the reason for the whole ‘it’s not medically safe to take anything related to blood’ speech is that it is a tactic to make them feel ok about following a crazy belief system.
Second they are under MIND CONTROL, yes the Catholic Church is evil but they do not practice mind control to my knowledge.
Slimboy you cannot compare JW’s to Church of Scientology, and Catholics to insist something they do is typical of mainstream religion.
These are cults. Catholics are very cult like too. That would be like me saying serial killers kill people too so it’s ok and normal. Serial killers are not mainstream, we cannot use them as the definition for normal any more than the Catholic church or Mormons. JWs do not have freedoms to decide things. They are told what do decide.
I cannot speak for what happens in other countries or other more lenient/normal congregations for that matter.
All I can say is that here in NY, in jw fundie bizarro world, Golden Age's wisdom still reigns supreme. Not only do jws here believe the contents as factually correct today, they retain the paranoid conspiracy theories about doctors, medical association (as quoted earlier, thanks). This means that there can be no true informed consent by a doctor to a patient. The patient has been coerced and brainwashed into not listening to a damn word the doctor ever says.
I was recently advised not to use aluminum pans because of what was printed in Golden Age, just to give you an example.
See my old posts re the drills we had to practice how to successfully lie to healthcare personnel, because Satan was controlling them.
Now I realize I was a kid and not responsible, but my mother is still completely brainwashed by a bunch of liars. I'm honestly of the mindset that she is not totally responsible for her beliefs.
They should have stuck to the doctrinal reasons for refusing blood and skipped the medical lies. Making up lies about what medical experts said is completely inexcusable, and in US law (where Kerry practices), causes legal liability.
PS slim--Kevin Trudeau is an example of how US law protects the public against false claims. wts has made serious false claims in its history and continues to do so.
passwordprotected, are you suggesting doctors declare all Witnesses insane and submit them to any treatment they like?
rebel, I am sorry to hear your mum is still a Witness. I had not picked up on that before.
By the way I personally avoid aluminium too because I read it might cause Alzheimer's. I don't know how firm the evidence is, and no I don't believe everything I read, but why take the risk? It's not like it is hard to avoid anyway. So does that make me a Golden Age nut too?
@ SBF - where did I suggest that?
Whilst the doctor/patient scenario is relevant the main issue is why the WTS are promulgating medical misinformation to support a religious belief.
Let irrational belief stand alone. Why the attempt to prop it up with medical propaganda?
You are right passwordprotected, you never said that. I don't know what I was thinking. Please excuse me, I think I was half asleep when I posted that.
Let irrational belief stand alone. Why the attempt to prop it up with medical propaganda?
Because they like to think that Jehovah knows best and that if he says not to take blood then there is possibly some (perhaps as yet not fully recognised) benefit in following that command. So they look for signs of that, and in their eagerness end up promoting some dodgy extreme views about the extent of the dangers of blood.
But if Jehovah knows best and if he's forbidden the use of blood medically, why are JWs allowed the medical use of blood?
It's being dishonest, misleading and confusing.
Because they like to think that Jehovah knows best and that if he says not to take blood then there is possibly some (perhaps as yet not fully recognised) benefit in following that command. So they look for signs of that, and in their eagerness end up promoting some dodgy extreme views about the extent of the dangers of blood.
And it's ok for them to do that? Shouldn't they be exposed for this, especially when parents are allowing their children to die, believing that they're pleasing their Creator?
I believe the Governing Body knows all the facts about the medical risks of using blood just as they know all the facts about 607 and the "signs of the last days". I believe the Governing Body deliberately manipulates the information regarding the medical risks of blood use as put forward in their publications.
Why do they do this?
Because they wish to provide supporting medical incentives for their adherents to follow the Biblical command to abstain from blood. So, by putting forward information about the risks of blood they reinforce in a JW's mind Jehovah's wisdom in prohibiting blood use.
However, a JWs decision not to take a blood transfusion should not be based on whether or not blood is safe. It should only be based on whether they view abstention from blood as being a command from God or not.
Let's compare abstention from blood with circumcision. The Jews are commanded to circumcise baby boys on the eighth day. Modern science has shown that a certain clotting factor in a baby's blood stream isn't present until at least the 8th day. So, it could be surmised that the command to circumcise on the eighth day and not the sixth day was because the baby's blood wouldn't clot quickly enough and they could become very ill. However, that wasn't for the Jews to know or to speculate on. Doing so would have been second-guessing YHWH. They were simply commanded to circumcise on that day...because that's what God told them to do. His reasons for doing so aren't in Scripture and shouldn't be speculated upon.
Likewise with JWs. Whether or not there may be medical risks to taking a blood transfusion should not be the issue and it certainly shouldn't play a part in the decision making process. Either you've to abstain from blood because it's a command in the Bible or it isn't. To print articles outlining the apparent medical risk of blood use should not have any bearing as to whether a JW takes a blood transfusion or not. If God says don't take one, then that should be the final deciding matter. To impute medical risk is to suggest that that was the reason why blood use is forbidden. But the Bible doesn't make any comment on the medical risks of blood transfusions. So, the Governing Body is second guessing Jehovah; they're assuming that any perceived medical dangers had some factor in Jehovah banning the use of blood. By doing so they're inferring that they know the mind of God, that they know perhaps why God bans blood use.
In summation, it should either only ever be about direct commands from the Bible or it shouldn't be.
