So...why is taking blood essentially viewed as unforgivable by the WT?

by sd-7 42 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  sd-7

  Been hearing about this 'Grey's Anatomy' episode, and while I didn't see it, it brought up a question I wanted to throw out there, albeit a long-winded one, as is my usual nature.

  The fact that people would rather die than take blood, as if...if they take it, they're doomed for sure to not make the new system--it doesn't make sense to me. People both in the organization and the Bible stories are forgiven for heinous crimes, murder, adultery, child sacrifice, everything up to and including denying Jesus altogether. (Let's not forget child molestation and rape, apparently...) So why does it seem like this one act is presented to JWs as one that's never to be forgiven?

  The Society recently said in an article, "If we die, we cannot serve [Jehovah] at all." Yet, if a person made this supposedly serious sin, repented, and spent years or even decades continuing to serve God, wouldn't that be better than dying with one less sin on your conscience? Or will the blood transfusion turn you into a raving, idolatrous fornicator who snorts coke while watching child porn and stabbing your wife in the face? Too graphic? I'm just trying to understand, is all.

  I don't know if JWs ever really ponder the concept of Jesus' sacrifice. It's mentioned somewhere along the way, but...think about it. If Jesus' blood is supposed to forgive the sins of the entire world (got to be hundreds of trillions of them going on every day), how is it that one person taking blood would somehow be the last straw? Particularly glaring is the fact that Acts 15:28, 29 doesn't even mention any kind of penalty for actually, literally eating blood. Paul doesn't mention it in any of his letters to the congregations as drawing some kind of penalty of expulsion. Nor do Peter, John, James, or Jude. I'm guessing they weren't all that worried about people eating blood.

  The Society is always an expert at creating guilty feelings where none really need to exist, and the blood rule is no exception. Or wait...let me...Revelation, you say? There's something in there? "Outside are the dogs, and those eating blood, and--" What's that? That's not in there? Maybe 1 Corinthians 5, "Quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother who eats blood--" What? I'm reading it wrong? Galatians 5, the works of the flesh, it's got to be in there! "Fornication, uncleanness, loose [ahem--brazen!] conduct, eating blood--" What? Not right, my Bible's wrong? I need a new Bible...or maybe it fits under 'uncleanness', except that uncleanness of the sort that eating blood would give you in those times wasn't exactly binding on a Christian, was it?

  Hmm. Of course I know my logic here doesn't even matter. The reasons don't matter to a JW, what matters is that the Society said so.

  Sadly, it seems that the life of a JW is an endlessly losing, rigged game of 'Simon Says'.

  --sd-7
• 

  snowbird

  The Society says so.

  For some, that is all that needs to said.

  Sad and scary, isn't it?
• 

  TD

  Sad and scary, isn't it?

  Yep...
• 

  Tater-T

  it's their version of a suicide bomb... IMO..
• 

  lovelylil

  Like most of the cults of christianity, the WT is a Mosaic Law Cult. If the WT truly taught the teachings of Christ and the early Christians, then their followers would realize they are "free in Christ" and the WT would have no power over them.

  In order to keep their followers in line, they must keep them under the law instead of in Christ. Now they will tell you in theory you are not under law but they prove by their actions and teachings that you really ARE under the law.

  The blood issue is a case in point.

  Jews were forbidden to eat the blood of lower animals. Where were they told this? In the laws given to Moses hence the Mosaic law.

  What was the punishment for breaking one of the laws? That the Jews would be cut off from their people. in that day you could literally be put to death. Since the WT cannot kill you for breaking this law, they have you shunned as if you are dead. That is their way of cutting you off from your people. (Read Leviticus 17:14).

  Its pretty simple really.

  We were all under a Mosaic Law Cult!
• 

  garyneal

  Brother Hero told me that because it was mention in Acts then it carried more weight than, say, lying. The last time I checked the Bible there was only one unforgivable sin, and it was not a blood transfusion.
• 

  return of parakeet

  Years ago, I remember someone posting a quote from a die-hard dub to the effect that he would push a peanut down the road with his nose if the Watchtower told him to do it. And it was said -- yecchh! -- with pride. Reason and logic have nothing to do with what dubs believe or why.

  Maybe someone else knows the source of that story?
• 

  prologos

  well, they are pushing their noses into all the doors on the road, and they are doing it for peanuts, because the wt tells them so. enjoy the day of rest.
• 

  wolfman85

  Because they are worse than the Pharisees of Jesus' day and still have not understood the words of Jesus in Matthew 12:1-7, especially verse 7(KJV)

  Mat 12:1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat.
  Mat 12:2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
  Mat 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
  Mat 12:4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
  Mat 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
  Mat 12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
  Mat 12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
• 

  TD

  In the interests of fairness, their were two competing factions of Phariseeism at the time, which is why many of Jesus' early followers were Pharisees themselves. But even the conservative faction would not have had a problem with transfusion.