jw-media's take on blood: huh?

by arko_n9ne 11 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  arko_n9ne

  hello everyone. this is my first post here, and I don't know if this has been talked about yet. But today I was on the jw-media site to see what it was about. I was curious how they handled their stance on blood and it was a bit of an annoying read.

  from the site (http://www.jw-media.org/aboutjw/article01.htm#accept):

  "Jehovah’s Witnesses request nonblood alternatives, which are widely used and accepted by the medical community. We do this because of the Bible’s command to “keep abstaining from . . . blood.” ( Acts 15:29 ; see also Genesis 9:3, 4 ; Leviticus 7:26, 27 ; 17:1, 2 , 10-12 ; Deuteronomy 12:23-25 .) While we refuse blood for religious rather than medical reasons, many have acknowledged that this refusal has helped the Witnesses to avoid contracting many costly and fatal diseases such as AIDS and hepatitis."

  They also cite Acts 15:20, 21:25

  My issues are threefold. First, none of their citations talk about blood transfusions. Mainly because the bible didn't talk about this modern concept. You would think that to be enough since this same article says they can use "blood fractions" because the bible has no stance on it. So if I understand correctly, the use numerous citations (all about eating or drinking blood) to defend their stance on not accepting transfusions.

  My fiance's brother, who is a 20+ year Witness explained that when you are given a glucose IV, your body eats the fluid to keep you alive. So blood in an IV is the same.
  I explained to him that the body cannot eat blood intravenously. The blood cells, red or white, cannot be broken down and used in the blood like glucose and vitamins. Even when you drink blood, it can make you sick because the body cannot use the blood as food. So an intravenous blood transfusion is in no way "eating" in the highly proven, Jehovah created world of science.

  He replied, and I'm not making this up: "Yes, it is." He then went on to use as an excuse, point number two of my issues.

  Blood transfusions WILL give you a disease. I've read all the literature the Watchtower offers on blood disease through transfusions. They offer statistics and the likelihood of getting them but fail to ever off a ratio or odds at comparison with never getting sick. I guess it's how it works with them. Make up an excuse that God said no, and when you prove He said no such things, you fear-bomb everyone you talk to.

  Point three, and I'll wrap this up:
  "keep abstaining from...blood" when you look at the actual scripture, doesn't this Watchtower paraphrase seem misleading?

  Acts 15:20 Instead, we should write and tell them to abstain from eating food offered to idols, from sexual immorality, from eating the meat of strangled animals, and from consuming blood.

  Look at how much of Jehovah's Word was ignored in the attempt to garner an idea that blood should be avoided at all costs. It was Jewish law to refrain from eating blood because blood was the life source to them. The bible could in no way speak of a procedure that didnt exist until 1600 years after the death of Christ.

  Thank you for reading. I'd love to hear your thoughts and opinions on this issue.
• 

  sir82

  He replied, and I'm not making this up: "Yes, it is."

  JWs are trained, virtually weekly, to not think and blindly accept whatever the Governing Body tells them to believe.

  The Governing Body has written many times that accepting a blood transfusion is exactly the same as eating blood. Thus, for the typical JW, that is absolute truth, as immutable as any law of physics. You can cite as many scientific papers as you like, but in the mind of a typical JW, all that is "worldly" knowledge, not "spirit-directed" knowledge coming right from God himself.

  If "worldly" knowledge conflicts with the Governing Body's viewpoint of Biblical matters, then that "worldly" knowledge is utterly and absolutely false, facts be damned.
• 

  arko_n9ne

  @Sir82 You know, for a long time, I tried to grasp why someone could let themselves ignore facts that clearly showed them they were living in the wrong direction. I was like "I can change their mind" and fought hard. I'd never heard of cognitive dissonance before.

  I got a copy of Shepherd the Flock, the 2010 Elder Manual and the 1991 Pay Attention to Yourselves and the Flock. I'd shown my fiance's brother that they have shifty practices. That in Shepherd the Flock, out of 12 Chapters, 10 were about disfellowshipping. That in Pay Attention, Elders are told that if a publisher needs spiritual correction or guidance, have them read Watchtower literature or encourage them to spend more time on service. That there is no mention of directing them to the bible.

  I pointed out to him that in their study version of the Watchtower Magazine (showed him with his own copy), it refers to the bible as a reference bible. I brought up the story of the True Faith Jehovah's Witnesses and showed him in his copy of the Yearbook that in reference to the 1962 change in doctrine back to their 1929 belief of who the Superior Authorities were, they credited the New World Translation for helping them see the light brighter. Even though Rutherford, the writer of the 1929 belief used the KJV Bible to come to his conclusion.

  I showed him the Watchtower's own writings saying that "even if a prophet is right most of the time, if he is wrong once, he isn't a prophet of Jehovah." And then directed him to the article "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" and 1914, 1918, 1925, and 1975. Also Beth Sarim's failure.

  He acted like he didn't know about any of it.

  A few days later, I joked about wanting to start a cult. He said "this isnt the time to do it. people are leaving religions, disillusioned." I told him it sounded like the perfect time and mentioned that the Watchtower had a good turnover rate. His response:

  "That wouldn't work. Most people who leave the Organization don't go anywhere else because they know we're the Truth. So they stay away from other churches. Most of them come back and the ones who don't are embarrassed because they made the wrong decision and are too prideful to come back."

  This man-child learned nothing. Seeing the proof of his error written under the Watchtower Copyright did nothing to free him. And I learned it's because he didn't want to. He spent most of his life in what he considers to be the Truth, and he doesn't have the stones to admit he wasted is time. He's rather be wrong than free.
• 

  NewChapter

  Is there any seed to the blood teaching? What I mean is, we can trace 1914 back to Russell's fascination with pyramidology (or whatever you call it). When they realized they couldn't use that to support their teaching that they are god's chosen people who hold the bible as the final authority, they scrambled to find some scriptural validation for 1914---and we got that zany but fun reasoning from Daniel.

  With the blood---what originally led them to the belief? Did it start with a misunderstanding of scripture, or is there something more to it?

  NC
• 

  outsmartthesystem

  "I showed him the Watchtower's own writings saying that "even if a prophet is right most of the time, if he is wrong once, he isn't a prophet of Jehovah."

  Arko - Do you have the publication this quote was taken from?
• 

  ScenicViewer

  ..."Millions Now Living Will Never Die"...1914, 1918, 1925, and 1975...Beth Sarim's failure.

  He acted like he didn't know about any of it.

  He most likely didn't. Most Jehovah's Witnesses don't have a clue about the true history of their organization.

  The WTS has a way of making predictions that turn out to be false, then quickly burying their past failures in evasive language, like 'that's what some overzealous ones thought,' or 'those were just misunderstandings.' Then they move on, misleading the next generation of their followers.

  I showed him the Watchtower's own writings saying that "even if a prophet is right most of the time, if he is wrong once, he isn't a prophet of Jehovah."

  I too would love to have the reference to that.
• 

  The Quiet One

  Here's a thought: What would the words in Acts regarding abstaining from blood have meant to the Christians in those days? They didn't know about blood transfusions and they would never have even considered eating/drinking the blood of fellow humans, so consideration of whether only animal blood was forbidden is pointless. As you said, all blood was viewed as sacred. The command, to them, was clearly telling them not to take in blood.. via the only method they knew. Their was no need to say anything else to them, the principle was clear. Whether its unreasonable to apply such a Biblical principle in todays modern world, and whether the command applies based on a technicality of digesting/not digesting.. I'll leave that to you to decide.
• 

  wolfman85

  First, many of us aren't israelites, second, Acts 15:29 was a recomendation for 3 congregations in Asia, so it doesn't apply to us, and third, the ban was to eat.
• 

  wha happened?

  I'm sure if u used his great point "Yes it is" we would call u down on it.

  I have a JW friend that is just as brain dead. I feel your pain
• 

  serenitynow!

  explained that when you are given a glucose IV, your body eats the fluid to keep you alive. So blood in an IV is the same.

  *Sigh* Does someone have a good "facepalm" smiley?