The Watchtower are Right About Blood... (page 47)

Fairlane

@cofty..thoroughly and sensibly researched top marks. I applaude you. @ fishy if you ever come to realise the jws stance on the 'blood' doctrine has been wrong, which judging by the governing bodies own admission per watchtower feb 2017 ie not infallible, not inspired and capable of error of scriptural understanding, I'd say you owe cofty a gratitude......too many adherents to this misjudgement of scripure lost family and loved ones needlessly. This organization has blood on its hands.

TD

The very first negative reference to transfusion was in 1944:

(I thought Cofty might find this quote especially interesting.)

cofty

Thank you TD very interesting.

They actually recognised that eating the body of an animal found dead was no more of an issue than touching the carcass. Were they stupid or wicked?

I think OC was right that they just wanted more reasons to be different regardless of who paid the price.

OrphanCrow

TD, was that quote from the December 1944 WT?

It was in the July 45 WT that they became even more specific, wasn't it?

Regardless, their blood transfusion ban occurred at a critical time in blood transfusion history. The advances that happened in blood transfusion technology during the war were noteworthy - Cohn had just discovered blood fractionation and blood banking had become well established. Instead of moving forward with medical science, the WT dug their heels in and moved in the opposite direction.

TD

TD, was that quote from the December 1944 WT?

Yes. December 1, 1944 page 362

It was in the July 45 WT that they became even more specific, wasn't it?

Transfusion was mentioned again in the July 1, 1945 issue of The Watchtower on page 200, but the quote is even more tangential than this one. (I don't have a scan with me, but I could do that when I get home if anyone is truly interested.)

A considerably more pointed statement was made in December of 1949:

This apparently precipitated a flood of letters from within the JW community and it became necessary to address the major points of dissent. The link between the eating of blood and the transfusion of blood was finally stated openly in the July 1, 1951 issue of The Watchtower on page 415:

Fisherman

is really staggering to think that if a group of humble men had taken a few days to properly research this issue an awful lot of unnecessary death would have been avoided. cofty

You have not shown that blood is not sacred to God. You have only shown in your argument that blood from a creature that is not slaughtered for food should not be -based on your argument.

As TD and I discussed, pumping three quarters of a gallon -more or less- of blood into your body is not abstaining from blood within any definition of the word abstain used in the book of Acts penned by the "beloved physician," Luke. And as Richard Oliver pointed out, even the conversation of drinking the blood of Jesus was shocking to the Apostles prior to the Actian decree. The Bible does not say that God allows the using of blood from living creatures ( or found dead ones ) to pump into the body of a worshipper of Jehovah. That is your conclusion.

dubstepped

Fisherman, why do you come here?

TD

Nonsense, Fisherman.

What you are suggesting is ungrammatical, but even were that not the case, you need look no farther than the Decree itself for disconfirmation.

Remember that the Decree contains three other dependent clauses, one of which is, "things sacrificed to idols."

The draconian restriction you are pleading for vis-à-vis blood won't work in this case for obvious reasons and you can't very well change your definition in mid-sentence.

Fisherman

dub, you are free to attempt to confute what I say. You have never tried to to do that on any thread. You can post whatever you like but if you direct a post at me, you are wasting my time and distracting others from the discussion unless what you say adresses the subject matter. Can't you realize that. Yelling at your opponent at chess does not invalidate his position, dont you realize that. And a debate is not a highschool football game with chererleaders. I have tried not to disrespect you. I feel hurt because you were a fellow. If you have something to say about the topic that you want me to respond to, I will do my best to give you a reply. But you need to learn that by sticking your head in the sand does not invalidate my position. It is about the topic, not about the advocate. Think about it.

Fisherman

Nonsense TD

TD, explain.

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

Share this