TD,
I always enjoy reading your contributions, particularly regarding issues and details related to Watchtower's blood doctrine. The precision you bring to the discussion is compelling.
Thanks.
Marvin Shilmer
I'm Still Torn About the Blood Issue
by palmtree67 74 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
sweet pea
An excellent thread on this subject. Thanks everyone for your input.
When you leave the org I think there is always this small place in your sub-conscious, regardless of what research you have done to the contrary, that tells you that somehow the organisation did get something right about the dangers of using blood.
They did but they screwed up the rest.
And for that they are bloodguilty.
-
Heaven
TD said: It only upsets them to point out that technically they have accepted fractions at a number of points in their life without even realizing it.
Yes, I agree. I have experienced this quite a bit in my lifetime when you point out obvious truths they don't like. I must tread very carefully when dealing with my father. The funny thing is that he was baptized 23 years ago. It seems to me that there is much confusion among the JW community regarding the blood issue and so the older ones just go with what they believe to be the original truth -- no blood. It is a real travesty what mind-control does to people. When you need to think for yourself, you cannot.
-
moshe
Go talk to a Rabbi and find out why Jews don't have any problem accepting a blood transfusion- and these are Jews who won't even push a baby carriage on the Sabbath or push an elevator button. Yet, these very observant Jews do not equate a blood transfusion with eating blood. Pouring out a persons blood in the Hebrew scriptures meant a person's death. Nobody dies in donating blood- see the difference? Also, a blood transfusion will not save the life of a starving man- blood is food only if it is eaten. The WT has spent many decades crafting it's strawman arguments to support it's unique no-blood transfusion dogma. Let me ask you this. Would you feel differently about a blood transfusion, if you found out that 50% of the Governing Body members wanted to change the WT doctrines on blood transfusions, but they did not have the 2/3 majority needed to make the change? Imagine if 50% of the GB wanted to change the rules and when you call the service desk at Bethel they won't tell you how the GB last voted on this issue. Too bad you can't see the minutes of their meetings.
-
-
PSacramento
At best the blood issue should be left to a person's consciene.
Fact is, we can state 100's of cases in which a blood transfusion caused complications and even death.
There are also MILLIONS of cases where it saved lives.
That is why it must be up to the individual to exert their RIGHT to choose.
To use a twisted interpretation of a dietary restriction to keep a viable medical prodecure from people that need it is just disgusting.
-
Cold Steel
Having worked for NIH and getting to know the blood people over there very well, I can tell you people are saved every day by blood transfusions and blood components. I'd have no problems taking blood for surgery or the components, though like everything there is a risk. If you accept a transplant of anything, you run the risk of biological incompatibilities and virul transmission. The Lord, in his wisdom, commanded man that he should not drink the blood of man or beast. I don't eat blood pies and even cringe at blood oranges! The consumption of blood food products is an abomination to me and most Christians (and Jews), but the use of blood in medicine is totally different. People die with flu shots, and they can have complications from dental procedures. That's the nature of man. God has never condemned the use of blood in medical procedures and the Watchtower Society is just plain wrong in its interpretations that such use is "eating" blood. It's a case of teaching as doctrine the precepts of men and they lack any moral or ecclesiastical authority to speak for God, unless, of course, they've actually spoken to Him.
-
steve2
Go to your local hospital's emergency department and see the daily caseload, consisting of people who have been badly mangled in all sorts of tragic accidents and whose blood loss is so severe that their best - no, their only - chance of survival is an immediate series of blood transfusions. Then still tell me you still feel torn. You won't.
-
Doug Mason
Throughout the Bible, "blood" symbolises DEATH, NOT LIFE. The WTS's position demands that it symbolises life, and they explicitly state so.
When my wife received a blood transfusion, the red corpuscles in the bag did not symbolise that the previous owner was dead. The Scriptural meaning given to blood bears no resemblance at all to the presence of blood in a medical procedure (not that whole blood is used, anyway).
In the Bible, the offering of blood at the altar showed that the offering was from a beast that was truly dead. Also, the Jews were not permitted to follow the practice of their neighbours, who would tear flesh from a living animal and eat it while it was still quivering with life; the blood had to be drained from the animal, with the absence of blood showing that the beast was truly dead.
They were, of course, not interested in blood fractions; goodness, what would those people have known about such things!
In its 1977 booklet, "Questions on Blood", the WTS dishonestly misquoted and misrepresented the authorities it cited. So when I say that "blood is on their hands", that statement is in complete harmony with the meaning that Scripture gives to blood.
Please read this booklet while it is still available on the www:
http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/The_Meaning_of__Blood_.pdf
I have a few other items at my site for the next 3 weeks that some might be interested in: http://au.geocities.com/doug_mason1940/blood.html
Doug
-
Marvin Shilmer
Doug,
Thanks for the links.
Three weeks? Are you taking your stuff off line?
Marvin Shilmer