Blood Doctrine Debate

by garyneal 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • garyneal
    garyneal

    As has been the case over the summer, my wife and I have been going to two different churches every Sunday. Generally, before church service we speak of religion and the various differences and, of course, why she believes hers is right. This time, we spoke briefly about holidays first. She told me last night that she still wants to celebrate them and feels torn and doesn't understand why God does not want her to celebrate them (something like that).

    So this morning, I brought that up with the phrase, "If you feel torn about celebrating the Holidays, imagine how you might feel if our daughter needed an emergency blood transfusion that would save her life." Her response? "Well, I personally believe that blood really does not save lives the way they claim and I do not support blood transfusions of any kind." I replied, "Even though blood saves 10,000 lives a day?" "The saline solution works just as good." "The saline solution does not carry oxygen. Your cells are 'suffocating' due to lack of oxygen that the red blood cells bring. Saline solution cannot replace blood." "The saline solution has water, and water has oxygen." "The body cannot extract oxygen from water like that. Red blood cells are needed."

    I then pointed out the inconsistencies of their doctrine. They allow blood fractions, but not blood. They do not allow Jw's to donate blood so that the fractions may be used to help another JW. I asked her, "So where does the blood used to make these fractions come from?" Doesn't this parallel in a way abortions when one asks, when is a fetus not a living person? So when is blood, no longer blood? Her response, "When it can no longer sustain life." It's hopeless....

    Of course, her final response was, "Look, I do not support it, but as my head, if you decide that our daughter needed the transfusion, I will not go against it." I just followed up with, "Well, if it will help you to hide behind my headship so you won't get disfellowshipped over it, I'll accept full responsibility to the witnesses and if necessary to God for my decision on this." This is an issue where I believe the Watchtower to be wrong on (and I did not come to this conclusion easily).

    For all Jehovah's Witnesses lurking these posts, try to understand that the blood fractions that are allowed by the Watchtower can be recombined together with water to reproduce the majority of the contents of blood (greater than 97% of it). I'm sure you've heard this all before but I find it difficult to understand how the Watchtower can have such a complicated doctrine regarding blood (when compared to God's simple commandments, this certainly sound man-made). Even if the Watchtower Society is correct in its interpretation of "abstaining from blood" in applying it to blood transfusions, why create these 'exceptions?'

    The most dangerous aspect of this doctrine is what happens to hapless Jehovah's Witnesses who are faced with the scenario I described. Trying to wrestle with their desire to serve Jehovah while simultaneously asking themselves (and God) how He could be so cruel to deny this life-saving treatment of their little one. (Just ask Paul and Pat Blizzard of this.) Not abstaining from blood may be considered a sin according to the Watchtower, but it is not the unpardonable sin so why be so quick to disfellowship them and cut them off from the everlasting life? Who amongst the Jehovah's Witnesses who truly cares about another person's life wouldn't feel torn over this rule?

    Even Jesus loosed the sabbath day restriction to heal others and quickly pointed out to the hypocritical Phariseahs that they would be quick to 'work on the sabbath' as well if the circumstances were right.

  • Lillith26
    Lillith26

    I would sujest you check out the laws in the country/state you live in on this issue- I was suprised to learn that in Australia, JW parents (or anyone else) are by law NOT allowed to refuse blood transfusions for there minor children. So even though this doctrine is preached by the WTBTS in many countrys- it is actually against the laws of some.

  • garyneal
    garyneal

    Lillith26,

    I'm sure a 'devout' Jehovah's Witness would respond with "we must follow God rather than men." Never-the-less, I bet there are many Jehovah's Witnesses in Australia who are 'secretly relieved' because of this law. I'm sure given the nature of the U.S. that there is no law against refusing blood transfusions but even if there are, I would not refuse it for my daughter if there are no other alternatives. As I told my wife, "I could not in good conciense allow my child to die over this unloving rule that I believe the Bible does not support."

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    You seem to have a good grasp on the problem and understand the issues here.
    But here's some more stuff to learn about the blood doctrine: http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/blood-transfusions.php

    Never-the-less, I bet there are many Jehovah's Witnesses in Australia who are 'secretly relieved' because of this law.

    You betcha. My JW mother let my non-JW father decide for their son when it was needed.
    Years later, she let her (completely different) non-JW husband decide for her mother.
    She has used letting someone else save them.

  • garyneal
    garyneal

    Thanks OTWO, I was just thinking about how my wife was describing the policy concerning blood from the Watchtower the last time we had this discussion and as I think about it, I cannot help but to think about how much an average JW must know concerning these legalistics rules. I guess only the U.S. tax code (another man made law) is more complicated. I love my wife and I know she is simply trying to please God in the best way that she knows how. How tragic that this religion has taken the simple truth about God and has added so many complicated (and contradictory) rules.

    The last time I dealt with legalism was when I was attending the fundamentalist churches back when I was originally baptised.

  • Heaven
    Heaven

    Of course, her final response was, "Look, I do not support it, but as my head, if you decide that our daughter needed the transfusion, I will not go against it."

    This may not always be her position so be careful. Also, if for some reason you are unavailable and your daughter requires a transfusion and your wife must make the decision, what will her decision be? Will she agree to the transfusion without your input?

    I just followed up with, "Well, if it will help you to hide behind my headship so you won't get disfellowshipped over it, I'll accept full responsibility to the witnesses and if necessary to God for my decision on this."

    Yay!

    How can a religion profess to be 'God's People' when the symbol of life has become more important than life itself... life which their God says is precious?

    I see it this way. If JWs truly believed the blood doctrine, then they would have no problem pumping all of the blood out of their bodies right now. That would be the ultimate in 'abstaining'. I guarantee there isn't one JW that would do this.

    On a side note... the blood doctrine did not always exist. It was a concoction of Freddie Franz's. Prior to this guy taking the reins, they were allowed to take blood (just like they also celebrated Christmas at one time. This religion is pure wank!).

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    At best, AT BEST, the blood transfusion issue, because it ias based on an interpretation of biblical pasages, should be based on personal concsience.

  • wobble
    wobble

    The trouble is PSac,

    If you are not fully informed ,you cannot make a proper decision,and JW's would claim they are making a coscientious decision when they kill their babies and little ones.

    Of course their conscience is trained by the twisted men in Brooklyn, not God's Word or common sense.

    Who in their right mind would kill their child if they had read JW Facts or Freeminds essays on blood ? But JW's don't get accesss to the information.

    Love

    Wobble

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Wobble,

    Maybe its me, but if I had to decide about saving a life and some biblical passage written 1000's of years ago in regards to dietary restrictions, I think I would be all over that in a flash !!

    I would never take ANYONE's views on that, ever.

  • yknot
    yknot

    Just because it is relevent..... http://www.ajwrb.org/

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit