The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty 556 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Oubliette

  Cofty and Faye, you both raise very important points.

  It's interesting that there are a wide variety of "First Issues" that get those of us that have awaken to begin questioning JW doctrine.

  The blood doctrine wasn't a big issue for me as it was for you. I do remember having a huge--make that HUGE--argument with my now ex-wife about it.

  When the WTBTS society changed its policy to allowing fractions I was immediately on board, knowing full well that whole blood transfusions are almost never used.

  She stubbornly insisted that she would "never take any blood products" and that was that. She filled out her Advance Medical Directive (No Blood Card) accordingly. I said, "Fine, if you're in a medical situation that requires blood to save your life, you will die and the children and I will miss you. But if we are in such a situation we will accept whatever it takes to save our lives."

  Returning to my initial point of this post, it would be great if somehow we could know just what would be the one issue that would get any particular JW to start questioning. (For me it was the UN/NGO scandal).

  The problem is this: even when a JW is ready to begin questioning, they will rarely, if ever, voice any clues to another person due to the intense indoctrination which keeps so many captive.

  And frankly, even if they did, those of us here are so far out we'd be the last to know it.

  We do know, however, that many such "Ready To Awaken" JWs lurk here all of the time. So it's good that we discuss a number of different topics and issues. It's also important to keep in mind that, although the majority of our discussions are among those of use either well-out of the religion or at least receptive to entertaining dissenting thoughts--there are newbies lurking in the background.

  If we keep these points in mind our posts can be thoughtful and powerful not just for those of us participating in any given discussion or debate, but also for those observing from the sidelines.

  Oubliette
• 

  FayeDunaway

  Yes, very good points to remember oubli.
• 

  notsurewheretogo

  I've just read the OP and all comments...Cofty's OP is spot on to try and reason with a still-in dub on their own terms...

  This method may work but only as many have mentioned that the dub has a measure of doubt that they have "the truth".

  What others have alluded to is the question whether this subject will actually speed up or start the "awake" process that we all have gone through.

  And there is no right answer to that, some may...some may not...but the point is Cofty's OP cannot hurt because even if the dub defends the WT on this subject and refutes in his mind the argument it WILL be a building block for another doubt and when added up will help the person wake up.

  This was my journey, not really one thing that woke me up but continual reading on sites like these that, when added up, I knew it was not "the truth".

  Thus whilst Cofty's reasoning may not start the awake process with someone it will be a building block to it if they continue to research or query things...
• 

  Fisherman

  From a medical position JWS feel blood treatment is too risky and more of a risk than non blood even in the face of death: 'Marvin Shilmer I strongly disagree with that sentiment.'

  What I meant to say was non blood treatment, obviously, if the only option offered is blood in face of imminent death, then logically, blood is medically less risky than certain death. When faced with imminent death instead of blood, from a medical position, JW realizes that he may die if he does not accept blood, he clearly understands that accepting blood is less of a risk than risking death with no blood.

  If a doctor was to explain to a JW that a blood transfusion was less risky than non blood treatment, he would understand that too, and would believe that based on medical advice, non blood (treatment) is more risky. The logical choice of course (if he was taking a big chance with NBT) is blood , but JW would choose NB (we are only considering medical position not religious) because he does not want the risk of infection or medical problems from BT. Before the shocking news announcements of the 1980's unveiling the HIV infected blood supply, JWs had heard all that medical logic about blood transfusions from doctors before, back then. Today, JW think, "what can be lurking in the blood supply now, maybe nothing, but they do not want to take the chance." "Back then, they said that a BT was safe, same thing they say today, but who knows for sure." " It is a risk."-JW do not want it. That is how they feel.

  MEDICAL NEWS AND JW BELOW
  

  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/crihem/2014/141260/
  
• 

  Fisherman

  ”eiver min hachai” means a limb torn from a living animal. Based on Jewish interpretation of Gen 9:4 it is prohibited because Jews believe that when a limb is severed from a living animal, it still contains the animal’s life force according to their interpretation of Gen:4. According to Jewish law, if an animal is assaulted, it must be killed before it can be eaten and that is also why if a bull is castrated, its testicles cannot be eaten even though bulls are kosher animals, anything torn from a living animal should not be eaten according Jewish dietary laws.
  

  The Bible prohibits eating "any blood". If you think that eating any blood from anything living is allowed in Bible, show scripture and verse where you feel it is supported.
  
• 

  cofty

  Fisherman - This thread has absolutely nothing to do with the medical risks of blood transfusions.

  Neither do JWs feel constrained by Jewish dietary laws.

  Do you have any observations on the OP?
• 

  Fisherman

  Gen 9:4 Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat. That law did not allow Noah to eat living animals If the reason for the injunction is the blood, how could the blood from a living animal be eaten at all without violating that law?
• 

  cofty

  Fisherman - Thanks for the question. I am on my way out for the day but I will reply this evening.
• 

  Fisherman

  This thread has absolutely nothing to do with the medical risks of blood transfusions.

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood

  I was responding to your subject. Although you only addressed the religious WT position in your opening post. I did not know that you did not want to discuss the medical part.
  

  Neither do JWs feel constrained by Jewish dietary laws.

  -Except for blood and cruelty to animals- Anyway, I did try to erase all that dietary Jewish information but the web did not allow me to change it because you posted about it before I tried to change the information.

  What do you mean by OP?
  
• 

  Fisherman

  In both cases blood was only sacred once a life had been taken.

  Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.-Gen 9:4 This is what Marvin S. was referring to ("Noachide" ) when you asked, How so? My post about Jewish dietary law which I was not able to delete was meant to explain Marvin Shilmer's post, that he expressed from a Jewish point of view challenging your position that blood is only sacred only after an animal is killed. The above scripture contradicts you.