The latest change of doctrine regarding blood fractions strikes me as a transition to permitting full blood transfusions. A step that, if it takes place, may bring huge legal ramifications. Imagine all the relatives of unfortunate people who rejected a blood transfusion and died as a result. They may come back against the WT for not changing the doctrine soon enough. I feel that the wrong headed doctrine is not changed because the mighty dollar precludes a sensible decision.
So...why is taking blood essentially viewed as unforgivable by the WT?
by sd-7 42 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
sd-7
I also meant to add to my original post--and I may be totally off-base here--that in Acts 15, the original reason the apostles and older men in Jerusalem had their meeting was to decide the issue of circumcision. Circumcision, and I suppose by extension, whether or not the Gentile Christians would be required to observe the Jewish Law requirements in general in order to become Christians. The fact that this eating of blood never comes up again in any of the rest of the Bible suggests that it probably wasn't a big deal/controversy/struggle. Circumcision, on the other hand, does come up again and again, since that was the big deal.
I was wondering if perhaps the assembly gathered in Acts 15 made their decision to 'abstain from blood', not so much because it was relevant to Christianity, but just to avoid offending the more conservative Jews that they wanted to preach to. Consider Paul's discussion of how he wouldn't eat meat at all if it was going to stumble his brother, though of course eating meat wasn't wrong at all, wherever it came from. Was that 1 Corinthians 8?
It's just a thought of mine. I may be wrong. Just wanted to get some thoughts on that.
--sd-7
-
TD
It's just a thought of mine. I may be wrong. Just wanted to get some thoughts on that.
I think it's hard to read Acts 21 and come to any other conclusion. Paul is advised to do things to appease the Jewish Christians and the Decree is mentioned in the exact same breath:
Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.What shall we do?.....
....Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.
-
sd-7
Thanks, TD. Good supporting verses, there. Acts 21:20-28 in particular highlight the mood of the Jews regarding Christianity.
--sd-7
-
Teleologist
Blondie wrote: Between 1967 and 1980, jws would not have an organ transplant,, it was cannibalism.
Yes, and now the Watchtower Society views blood as an organ and a blood transfusion as an organ transplant but still argues that having a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood even though they don't claim that having a kidney transplant is the same as eating a kidney.
-
jhine
Two things , on the Free Minds new post it is said that a far as they , Free Minds know , there has been no dislellowshipping for a couple of years now for taking a blood transfusion so it looks like the WAtchtower is somewhat turning a blind eye ,(please check out Free Minds on this subject ) . Also if the original statement about blood concerned eating it then why don't JW's only eat kosher meat with the blood drained ? I asked that on another post and someone said that it is not exactly whole blood that comes from meat when it is cooked , but the GB does not seemed to be interested in finding out what parts of blood are in the non kosher meat that their members are eating . Surely as the original rules did only pertain to eating blood then more care should be taken in that dining ?
-
BluesBrother
It is not "unforgivable" - if a dub were to accept blood , get d/f'd then come back in a year or so - saying how sorry he was - he would probably be reinstated. It would be harder for an "apostate" to get back - if he wanted to
-
darth frosty
I always wondered about that myself.
The so called 'command' was to abstain from blood and things sacrificed to idols and fornication! As we know people fornicate all the time but it was not the life and death consequence that blood transfusions took on?!?
-
Emery
what separates it from lying, fornication, stealing, adultery, drunkeness, etc? -- Nothing
-
problemaddict
The issue is not wether they are turning a blind eye to it or not. The issue is that they still teach it is a fundamental question of loyalty to none other than Jehovah himself that you refuse any non approved use of blood.
Interestingly enough, you can more easily now be disfellowshipped for questioning the doctrine of forbiddance of blood, moreso than you can actually taking the stuff.
You just can't make this stuff up.