by sizemik 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
The WTS needs to re-instate their ban on organ transplants . . . otherwise their stand on blood is 100% hypocritical, and they are merely sanctioning cannabalism.
This is an aspect of Watchtower doctrine it refuses to respond to in straightforward terms, and for the very reason you cite.
Watchtower's Governing Body has not believed in its blood doctrine for decades. Problem is, it has yet to find a way out from under it that would not result in a massive exodus of adherents.
Marvin Shilmer
True, Marvin, and their other fear is if they simply dropped the totally discredited doctrine, they would be sued for millions by the families who have lost loved ones because of it.
Their very slow reversal out of it is designed to stop this, especially as for years they have lyingly claimed that each JW makes his decision on his own.
They care more for their profits, donated by the same families who have been made bereft, than they do for truth.
They also argue that the Bible says to ABSTAIN from blood. The alcohol argument is applied by asking " If a doctor told you to ABSTAIN from alcohol, would it be OK to infuse it into ones veins ? "
I wonder if the word ABSTAIN is a word that they entered into the New World Translation. I never checked to see what other Bibles say.
-
... their other fear is if they simply dropped the totally discredited doctrine, they would be sued for millions by the families who have lost loved ones because of it.
I have heard this for years, and to this day I have yet to see a single plausible legal theory put forth creating the alleged liability. For those who think this liability exists, what is the legal theory for your view?
Marvin Shilmer
I don't think a Dr would tell me to abstain from an organ transplant if I needed one
I have heard this for years, and to this day I have yet to see a single plausible legal theory put forth creating the alleged liability. For those who think this liability exists, what is the legal theory for your view?
Thats a interesting question that piqued my own curiosity as well.
Could the organization be held libel for supporting the self inflicting form of suicide by encouraging the person to refuse a BT,
adding more libel imposed toward the organization when the doctrine was removed ?
Or would this situation go under the freedom of religion guidelines, since its the individual who's made the decision to forgo a BT
inducing their own deaths ?
Enven if a religion comes out and admits it made a mistake are they still legally libel for the doctrines they created and the effects
those doctrines had upon the general public ?
Jesus was supposed to usher in a new covenant. I don't see how the restriction on blood in fragmentary verses in the OT applies after Jesus. Paul overturned kosher dietary law.
How do the elders find out that you received a transfusion? It must be by confession.
Animal sacrifice is no longer done in most of the world. It is not a feature of Western Culture. The Temple cult is done.
Their reasoning is tortured. Religions are not liable for their teachings b/c they are religions. The government generally will not intervene in doctrine because of the Establishment Clause. The blood doctrine prob. scares away most potential converts.
How do the elders find out that you received a transfusion? It must be by confession.
In circumstances were there is a question of a BT or possible fractions of blood in a medical emergency
there are special trained JWS who will come to the hospital to explain to the doctors in charge and perhaps even the JW themselves.
More than likely an elder of whom the congregation is from would most likely be made aware of the situation.
It used to be a situation that if the JWS did take a whole blood transfusion that individual would under a elder judicial meeting to
review that person's standing and most likely would be disfellowshipped.
Religions are not liable for their teachings b/c they are religions.
What if a religion started a doctrine that promoted their devoted believing adherents to commit suicide as to offer their life toward a god
they supposedly worshiped, would a government let that happen without any impediment ?
I agree that lawsuits over damage caused by the blood doctrine is a long shot at best. The applicant would need to establish extreme duress. You end up going down the "mind control" and strict enforcement road, which is awfully messy. Instances where HLC's have imposed themselves, esp if they have dealt with medics directly might get some traction.
Nevertheless, a sudden discarding of the doctrine would have people queueing up to try anyway . . . the outrage would create a crisis for their precious image . . . and recruitment and retention would get hit hard . . . bad for business. Small steps over time is the strategy . . . they can almost claim "we've always maintained it to be a conscience matter for the individual" already. Time will only aid their strategy.
The incongruity between the blood and organ transplant doctrines is created by their own reasoning . . . and is pretty obvious really, if you know their history. I agree with Marvin et al . . . they've known about it for years, and the strategy has been in place since the early 90's.
The truth is . . . they've callously perpetrated the doctrine for totally selfish reasons, not believing it themselves, causing huge loss of life. It's still going on today. It's actions like that which make me question my abhorrence of the death penalty. It's pre-meditated mass-murder.
That a blood transfusion is more accurately likened to an organ transplant is the issue of hemolytic transfusion reaction. Essentially the patient's immune system can turn on and destroy the new red blood cells.
I wonder if this same reaction could be observed if alcohol were injected directly into a person's veins.
