by NVR2L8 15 Replies latest watchtower bible
B of C, my Uberdub older sister said exactly that "Nobody who reads the Bible on their own comes to the same conclusions as the F.Slave "
I said "Doesn't that tell you something?" but of course it didn't, she starts from the premise that she has the truth (as supplied currently by the WT, it may change next week of course), so everybody else is wrong.
Sorry, fatfingerdoublepost. Why can't you cancel one yourself on here ?
As with most WT related questions, the answer to the topic line question is, "Because the GB says so."
But why the distinction? I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with the GB seeing the agent of death as the criminal in the case of a deadly assault but as Jehovah in the case of any other kind of death. In other words, the GB would see self-defense as okay to stop a criminal but taking blood as a rebellion against Jehovah's right to decide whether or not you will live or die of any other sort of cause.
Then again, the distinction may be based on nothing more significant than the mood Joseph Rutherford or Fred Franz were in the day the particular WT articles were published.
Somehow the GB considers it one of the highest proofs of loyalty and endurance if you choose to die or let a loved one die rather than take a blood transfusion. In the twisted WT works salvation system, what better way to guarantee resurrection than to die because you obeyed the faithful and discreet slave to the point of death by refusing blood? (Remember the notorious cover of deceased children who "put God first" by dying because their parents refused to let them take blood?)
Of course, if you do pass the "no blood" loyalty test with flying colors and survive the health crisis anyway, you can lose all your WT credits the next month by slacking off in field service or wearing clothing the elders don't approve of. In the GB's view, you would have been better off dead.
I never supported the evil empire's stance on self-defense. I remember one ridiculous article written stated that true christians should avoid violent encounters at all costs. It stated you should attempt to runaway. Then they painted themselves in a corner by writing something like "and if you can't runaway you should do something else." WHAT? Something else? Do you mean like click your heals 3 times and say,"There's no place like home"?
The commandment "Thou shall not kill" is also translated "Thou shall not murder". There's a big difference! Murder is the unlawful killing of a human by another. If killing were wrong then why did the Mosaic law tell the Israelites in Exodus 22: 2
"If a thief should be found in the act of breaking in and he does get struck and die, there is no bloodguilt for him."
This just brings up one of the many logic fails of the evil empire. The above law is from Jehovah and his law is perfect. He never changes his mind or his stance.
The bottomline is this: If you use force/violence to defend yourself or someone else and it is an appropriate level of force, you have violated no scripture.
One stupid rule leads to other stupid rules to cover the original stupid rule. Here blood is life to them so it's ok to give a life, not to use the life of someone else. So........
I remember reading a WT about capital punishment. That Ceaser had a right to those laws, so then why sue a hospital when Ceaser intervened to benifit a life, rather than taking one?
Whether it's the blood doctrine, self defense or any other life threatening situation, if you rely on a group of uneducated men's intrepretation of ancient manuscripts as having the last say in how you will address the matter, well, you're pretty much fucked.
