A Twist ending to the BLOOD policy of Jehovah's Witnesses

by Terry 22 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Terry

  The Seven Laws of Noah are:

  1. Belief in a Supreme Being and the prohibition of worshipping any other beings. 2. Respect G-d and Do Not Blaspheme His Name. 3. Respect Human Life and Do Not Murder 4. Respect the Family and Do Not Commit Immoral Sexual Acts such as adultery, homosexuality, and incest 5. Respect Others' Rights and Do Not Steal 6. Create a Judicial System which will uphold the other six Laws and Pursue Justice. 7. Respect all Creatures and Do Not Eat the Flesh of a Living Animal. ( meaning the removal of flesh from a live animal)

  The Jews considered all mankind to have come from Noah and his family.

  Jews considered themselves under a special relationship to God by reason of special laws given through Moses.

  The Moses laws were only binding on Jews while the Noah Laws were binding on Gentiles

  ALL SUCH LAWS which came from God were for the BENEFIT of humans.

  Humans were not to serve the LAW, but, the LAW was to serve humanity.

  How?

  The LAWS from God (whether the Noah Laws for Gentiles or the Moses Laws for Jews only) were practical and commonsense and reflected a better way of living.

  Godly laws allowed favor from God himself and prevented unnecessary conflict between humans.

  in the 1st Century C.E., the two groups of humanity stood face to face: the covenant JEWS and the Noahide GENTILES.

  They were about to join hands for the first time by being grafted together under a belief in Jesus as the redeemer of BOTH groups.This raised a conflict which needed to be settled.

  The conflict was this:

  Jews have special laws which the Gentiles do not. SHOULD THE GENTILES PRACTICE JEWISH LAW ? Or, was the alternative permissable from Jehovah's viewpoint: WERE THE GENTILES acceptable inside the JEWISH system without adopting JEWISH LAW too?This argument continued with many opinions back and forth.

  Some Christian writers particularly those affiliated with Primitive Apostolic Christianity see the verses in Acts 15:19-21 as a directive from the first Council of Jerusalem to observe the basic understanding of the Noahide Laws in order to be considered righteous Gentiles, and not be required to live completely as Jews. According to Acts 15, the Council of Jerusalem determined that circumcision was not required of new converts, only avoidance of "pollution of idols, fornication, things strangled, and blood" (KJV, Acts 15:20). The basis for these prohibitions as found in Acts 15:21 states only: "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day". The evidence of these Noachian inclusions to primitive Christian observance were in addition to the moral Ten Commandments given to Moses at Sinai, which covers the most essential requirements of the Noachian covenant. The additions of the four cited above were to complete the requirements of the new Gentile converts to primitive Christianity.

  Stop!

  What did the COUNCIL of JERUSALEM admonish?

  1.Avoidance of "pollution of idols".

  See Noahide Law above #1

  Avoidance of "things strangled". See Noahide Law above #7

  Avoidance of "blood". See Noahide Law above #3 (Note: BLOOD=bloodshed=Murder)

  No cirucmcision required,

  no keeping of the Sabbath, etc.

  The Watchtower Society has ripped away the context of the Jerusalem Council's edict and made a misrepresentation of it as pertains to BLOOD.

  As we see above, the "blood" pertains to the Noahide injunction against bloodshed or murder.

  The Watchtower Society hijacks the context from bloodshed and astonishingly turns it into bloodshed by creating a false policy

  Avoiding blood becomes something entirely artificial under the Watchtower's twisted reasoning.

  How?

  The Watchtower has concocted a TWIST ENDING!

  BLOOD ITSELF becomes the issue and not the shedding of man's blood in murder!

  A weird twist turns people into thinking they have to allow their loved ones to DIE rather than use blood TO SAVE their lives!!

  This is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the intention of the Noahide Laws or the pronouncement from the Council in Jerusalem!

  Saving Life vs destroying life intentionally is a serious dichotomy.

  The Watchtower Society demonstrates no understanding of God's laws or their intended benefit to mankind with their blood policy and FALSE REPRESENTATION of the issue of blood

  .This clearly identifies their "faithful and discreet slave" as bloodguilty by intention.

  Twisting God's word to their own destruction and the deliberate hijacking of scripture is an abominable blasphemy.

  Make a copy of the above Nohide Laws and have it handy by your door next time the Witnesses call.Ask them to explain why the Jerusalem Council used the words it did if it DID NOT intend to prohibit murder (bloodshed).

  Watch them squirm.
• 

  Terry

  There are various versions of the Noahide laws. But, there are different versions of the ten commandments as well.

  The main thrust of my post is specific to the misrepresentation of the pronouncement in Jerusalem which is used as a proof text by the Watchtower.It would be an honest representation to discuss the Noahide Laws which the Watchtower never mentions.

  (All quotes: Wikipedia)

  Judaism holds that gentiles (goyim "non-Jews [literally 'Nations']") are not obligated to adhere to all the laws of the Torah (indeed, they are forbidden to fulfill some laws, such as the keeping of the Sabbath in the exact same manner as Israel). Rabbinic Judaism and its modern-day descendants discourage proselytization. The Noahide Laws are regarded as the way through which non-Jews can have a direct and meaningful relationship with God or at least comply with the minimal requisites of civilization and of divine law.A non-Jew who keeps the Noahide Law in all its details is said to attain the same spiritual and moral level as Israel's own Kohen Gadol (high priest) (Talmud, Bava Kamma 38a). Maimonides states in his work Mishneh Torah (The laws of kings and their rulership 8:11) that a Ger Toshav who is precise in the observance of these Seven Noahide commandments is considered to be a Righteous Gentile and has earned a place in the world to come.

  Christian adherence

  The evidence of these Noachian inclusions to primitive Christian observance were in addition to the moral Ten Commandments given to Moses at Sinai, which covers the most essential requirements of the Noachian covenant. The additions of the four cited above were to complete the requirements of the new Gentile converts to primitive Christianity.Several Christian congregations have abandoned traditional Christianity (rejecting the Nicene Creed) and adopted the First Covenant or Noahism in recent years. In the United States a few organized movements of non-Jews (primarily of Christian origin) have either chosen to reject mainstream religious affiliation and live by the Apostolic Decree, which they view as the original Christian observance of Noahide Laws, or, under the influence of Orthodox Judaism, adhere to the Talmud's listing of the Laws (without converting to Judaism).

  Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century, in Contra Faustum 32.13[4] noted: "The observance of pouring out the blood which was enjoined in ancient times upon Noah himself after the deluge, the meaning of which we have already explained, is thought by many to be what is meant in the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Gentiles were required to abstain from fornication, and from things sacrificed, and from blood, that is, from flesh of which the blood has not been poured out. Others give a different meaning to the words, and think that to abstain from blood means not to be polluted with the crime of murder.
• 

  ldrnomo

  How long will the WTS continue to hold on to their death dealing interpretation of these scriptures in the bible? The longer they do, more people will die because of their stubbornness on this issue. The best way out of it for them is to make the taking of blood transfusions a conscience matter. Will they ever do that? I hope so.

  LD
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  It's too late for JW's. Were they ever to disavow the blood doctrine, they would open themselves up to lawsuits galore. They would shut down.

  LD, I think you are right, but its going to take a gradual doctrine shift that will take decades.
• 

  thetrueone

  The best way out of it for them is to make the taking of blood transfusions a conscience matter. Will they ever do that? I hope so.

  The chances for that to happen are all but slim, since the inception of this doctrine there have been thousands of people that have

  died who were devout JWS, to reverse this now would only open the door to too many problems, one being of course that the

  proclamation by the WTS. that its the only organization chosen and guided by god's spirit would fracture apart, causing all

  kinds of problems within the body of members. Secondly this would set up all sorts of legal liability issues that the organization

  would surely have to face in the courts, since there have been many law suits brought to the courts in the past, there would be many

  people who would try and sue the organization for personal damages for losing loved ones such as family members.

  Frankly I think if the organization were to to reverse the blood policy now it would essential be the final death throw on this organization,

  the body of JWS that have been associated with it for decades know very well of how many of their flock have died

  because of this certain policy. Religious organizations like this operate on creating belief in the organization itself, therefore change

  and reversion of doctrines is very problematic to pursue.

  The legal department of the WTS operates in a very invisible way, it is though absolutely a part of the working direction and operation of this

  religion, an unrealized acknowledgment by its devout members.
• 

  agonus

  You're all right. The only conceivable reason for the continuance of the blood policy has to be fear of lawsuits. What other motivation could there possibly be?
• 

  moshe

  -It's too late for JW's. Were they ever to disavow the blood doctrine

  Deep down inside the JW subconscious is the knowledge that JW's have died from refusing blood transfusions. They were upholding the WT no-blood dogma and should the WT cancel their prohibition on blood transfusions that would be tantamount to convicting the WT org. of bloodguilt from the deaths of these JW's. If the WT is bloodguilty, then it follows that they must pay the price for their bloodguilt and it also means the WT org could not be G-d's chose organization on Earth, either. Like a row of tumbling dominos, the WT org now becomes the disgusting thing, the evil abomination, that JW's have been warning the world to get away from and to stay out of. That is enough to make a thinking JW become sick and throw up in his field service bag.
• 

  FuzzyPaul

  Terry, great post. The WT hates people who can think, read, and write for themselves. It is not a sin to read truth at its source.

  thetrueone said,

  Religious organizations like this operate on creating belief in the organization itself, therefore change and reversion of doctrines is very problematic to pursue.

  ABSOLUTELY TRUE. The Watchtower even calls itself "The Truth" as a sort of synonym!

  Very few JWs would give a blood donation but they are being allowed to accept six fractions of whole blood. They take, but won't give. The blood fraction acceptance is likely to gradually dispell the myth that they knew what they were doing in the first place. The legal department is breathing easier when a JW can get blood cells in isotonic salt water.

  I think they now allow platelets which I think hemophiliacs need. They didn't use to. How many died or became Protestants? They would rather one dies than become a healthy, happy Protestant. When I stopped being a JW and freely attended various Protestant Churches, the thought control continued for some time with the blood issue and a few other notions. The immense pile of "proof" they use for creating a bullet proof doctrine has to be dismantled brick-by-brick. It has been a long time, but I found that they used plenty of creative statistics, rewritten quotes, persons misrepresented as being experts, and as Terry showed - NO REAL RESEARCH.

  Terry, do you have a source for synopsis of Maimonides or the others, or do you actually read that much? I came across some Jewish authors that make me interested in reading more by Maimonides and others of the Jewish Sages. Is that a "XJW University" shirt?

  Regards,

  Paul
• 

  jwfacts

  Good points Terry.

  It's too late for JW's. Were they ever to disavow the blood doctrine, they would open themselves up to lawsuits galore. They would shut down.

  LD, I think you are right, but its going to take a gradual doctrine shift that will take decades.

  I cannot see the WTS changing it's policy. They have opened the definition to allow a large portion of transfusions already, and I imagine they will now hang on and hope for the eventuation of a more effective non-blood substitute to be developed. With the development substitutes such as Hemopure I am sure the lawyers are hopeful that it is only a matter of time before the use of human blood transfusions are a thing of the past.
• 

  Terry

  Terry, do you have a source for synopsis of Maimonides or the others, or do you actually read that much? I came across some Jewish authors that make me interested in reading more by Maimonides and others of the Jewish Sages. Is that a "XJW University" shirt?

  I work in a Half Price Books store in the Religion and Philosophy section. I have Judaism in there, too.

  There are books I'd never find at the Fort Worth Public Library and certainly could not afford to buy for myself.

  If you google the Laws of the Sons of Noah you'll find many links that are most interesting. Although there are those who like

  to make fun of Wikipedia, I start there for ideas and then follow up with reading the books from the section where I work.

  I never would have discovered the Laws of the Sons of Noah had I not had a conversation with a Rabbi at the local Starbucks. I was telling him about what I formerly believed as a Jehovah's Witness and he started asking questions. He was amazed at the way the Watchtower misinterpreted the reason for God's laws and provisions.

  "They don't worship a God who loves people, do they?" he asked me with a very sad expression on his face.

  I told him that I never really thought about it like that--but, I guessed he was right.