JW Science Quote (1-29)

by TD 16 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  TD

  Leec,

  This was actually pretty mild as JW medical misunderstandings go.

  The JW organization at one time claimed that vaccination violated Biblical prohibitions against bestiality based on the mistaken notion that heredity was in the blood.

  The current ban of transfusion medicine was born as a direct result of the mistaken belief that blood itself is the food upon which our bodies are sustained instead of simply the transport medium.

  They claimed that predilections towards murder and other forms of violence could be transmitted by a blood transfusion

  They claimed that organ transplantation constituted cannibalism.

  They claimed that an organ transplant could result in a "Personality transplant" as well.

  If you go even farther back into the 1930's and 1940's it gets even worse.

  I would suspect that most active JW's would say, "Yes that is embarassing, but those views were not really spiritual in nature and don't affect my relationship with Jehovah. Besides, these are imperfect men who weren't inspired."

  I would agree up to the point where innocent people get harmed. When these views cause real, lasting harm I would say that anybody that was a party to teaching those views could potentially bear some responsibility. (Depending upon the extent to which they were themselves hoodwinked) --And that would affect your relationship with God.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Great post TD. Another black eye from the one man writing dept that was Fred Franz.... (for the most part.)

  To me, this illustrates a general behaviorial pattern that the borg continues to display. Instead of integrity to facts, or quoting within the meaning and context of a source material, the Governing Body usually will always (yes, an absolute, always) fram an article and its concepts in a way that is favorable to them.

  Clearly, they don't care that about things like claiming the heart could somehow influence thoughts and emotions. They just allow time to distance themselves from their embarrassing lack of research, knowledge, and care.

  All literature produced by the GB is FUBU. (For Us By Us). This is why new converts are spoonfed selected points of dogma until baptism, at which point, the rest of the embarrassing bullshit is given to them.

  They don't really care about getting it right. They just care about getting it to their flock, regardless of how (in)correct it is.
• 

  leec

  TD: "The current ban of transfusion medicine was born as a direct result of the mistaken belief that blood itself is the food upon which our bodies are sustained instead of simply the transport medium. "

  I didn't know that ... that clears up some confusion I had over a recent discussion on here about that. I guess now it's just hidden behind the vaguery of "partake".
• 

  oompa

  LMAO!...that was one of the best DC's that year in Greensboro....there were two big translucent boxes on stage with a light in each one....one had a pic of a brain on all four sides..and the other had a heart on all four sides....during the talk there were issues discussed and either the heart would light up or the brain would.......geeze.........oompa
• 

  Farkel

  Great post (as always) TD.

  Here's something I wrote recently that is on this same subject, but which deals exclusively with the heart as I saw it in a District Assembly "drama":

  http://freeminds.org/blogs/ma-that-boy-just-ain-t-right/your-beatin-heart-will-tell-on-you.html

  Farkel
• 

  Fatfreek

  Farkel, that's a clever interview. Those of us who witnessed that incredible dramatization of the beating heart would have a hard time these days to convince modern JW's what really happened on stage.

  LeeC: By 1977, The Watchtower was already starting to back away from it (cf. The Watchtower November 1, 1977 p. 659) and by 1986 it had been thoroughly repudiated. (cf. The Watchtower June 1, 1986 p. 15)

  I must've missed something in your 1977 reference as I perceive their understanding then to be the same as that earlier 1971 teaching. However, by your ref 1986 Watchtower, they truly had done their teaching reversal.

  *** w86 6/1 p. 15 par. 2 Determined to Serve Jehovah With a Complete Heart *** Fatfreek editorial license, 2010
  The ancient Egyptians believed that the physical heart was the seat of intelligence and the emotions. They also thought that it had a will of its own. The Babylonians said that the heart housed the intellect as well as love. The Greek philosopher Aristotle taught that it was the seat of the senses and the domain of the soul. Indeed, certain older Watchtower Society publications viewed the physical heart "as the seat of motivation". But as time passed and knowledge increased, these views were discarded. Finally the heart became known for what it is, a pump to circulate the blood throughout the body.

  Sorry, I couldn't resist that bit of editorial license. It struck me as amusing that in this teaching retraction they never made it clear that it was they, The Watchtower Society, who taught such BS in earlier pages of their publications. Nooooo! It was someone else (isn't it always the other guy?) the ancient Egyptians, The Babylonians, and The Greek philosopher Aristotle who were to blame.

  Len
• 

  TD

  Farkel: I love it. I wish I had your gift for humor.

  Fatfreak: The original claim in 1971 was that because it possesed its own neural tissue, the heart actively participated in the decision making process in tandem with the brain. By 1977 this view had already been moderated:

  1971: "We must remember that the heart reasons too...."

  1977: "Though the heart of itself does not think, it can incite thought."

  Some of the other claims from 1971 were repeated, but they were repeated in more generic terms, with words like "View" and "Represent" that could just as easily have described a figurative heart:

  1971: "The heart is a marvlously designed muscular pump, but more significantly, our emotional and motivating capacites are built within it."

  1977: "In view of its propulsive, motivating power, it is appropriately viewed as the seat of motivation..."

  1971: "Now, what are we talking about? Yes, the heart! We are discussing his affections, motives and desires, not just the mental ability to learn about mechanics."

  1977: "From this standpoint, the heart represents a sense of appreciation..."