Progress made with dad... but he still believes in the blood doctrine

ILoveTTATT

So...

MY spiritual journey has led me to agnosticism, I really have a hard time believing that the Bible, with so many contradictions and errors, and worse, with so many people trying to change its contents and who have actually achieved it, can be God's Word.

I personally believe that I should just "do what I do" and live by the motto "YOLO" (kidding)...

No but really, I believe that I should just try to use my common sense to determine if something is right or if it is wrong. With that, many things are simplified. Opening the door for someone that walks by? GOOD Murder? Theft? BAD... I mean, HELLO!! Doesn't take many brain cells to figure those things out!!

Anyways, enough of a rant...

Yesterday I had time with my dad, my mom was away, and so I wanted to have a "Family TTATT study" ;)

I started with inviting him to watch "Worlds Apart"... but he said he didn't like the movie 10 minutes in, it made him feel uncomfortable.

So I said, OK, let me show you some stuff. So I asked him, "Dad, do you think it is OK to be "united in error" or should we seek out the TRUTH?"

He said, "of course, seek for the truth!"...

Then I said, "But what REALLY happens with the JW's?"

He said, "We are united in error"...

Me: So, remember what we talked about the other day? When did we teach that the "Last Days" had started back in the 1920's?

Dad: 1800's?

Me: 1799 to be exact.

Dad: Can you show me where we said that?

Me: Sure. Here in the book "Harp of God", which was published in Spanish in 1930, we will see this.

Dad: Ok

Me: (Show him the book, start reading)

Dad: Wow, so Napoleonic Wars proved the beginning of the Last Days?

Me: Yep, and see all the inventions that "proved" the Last Days. Also look at the stuff that "proved" Jesus's Presence in 1874. Also notice that the Kingdom was said to be established in 1878.

Dad: (Chuckles in disbelief when reading, chuckles at how stupid it seemed)

Me: So, what were we preaching in 1927? "Truth," or "Error"?

Dad: Error.

Me: So, if I had been there at that time, and didn't agree with the doctrine and got kicked out, do you think that would have been fair?

Dad: No, it wouldn't have been.

Me: (Proceeded to explain Russell, Rutherford, and how Rutherford totally changed most of the doctrines in the 1920's... talked for a very long time. Dad knows about vaccination, the organ transplants, etc...)

Anyways... long story short, on many things I can convince my dad that the JW's at least WERE wrong. I got worried and said, hey, why don't you just rip your blood card? What if you get into an accident in the next couple of days and you need something?

He got real uneasy, and said... no...

"Dad, really?? They got it wrong with the vaccinations, they got it wrong with the organ transplants, and they've got it wrong with the blood!! Remember, they really allow 98% of it! Can't you at least put in there that you accept all fractions?"

Dad: No.

So I guess our next TTATT family study will be why JW's got it wrong on blood, Biblically, and why JW's got it wrong on disfellowshipping, Biblically.

I will need to do some research!!

ILTTATT

blondie

I find that talking with ex-jws/jws that stick with the blood doctrine to find out why....most choose the "health" angle, good health to you in Acts 15. I like to ask what happens if BTs become totally safe as far as health/medical issues, would they accept one then. Is that really why the WTS says jws should not take blood transfusions? Or is it because the life is in the blood and it belongs to God.....that's why the Law had the jews pour it out; not use expired blood today in hemoglobin based products which are allowed by the WTS...how is that possible if it should be poured out?

This reason fades away in the minds of jws just like thinking that not smoking began as a health issue when it was considered spiritism by the WTS.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/131371/1/smoking-is-spiritism

gma-tired2

Be patient I walked away from JWs 25 years ago and I only started to doubt the blood ban in the last 2 years. It often takes a family crisis to rethink your beliefs that are so deeply ingrained in your thinking.

tornapart

I've talked over the blood issue with my hubby. First of all dealing with the fractions. Why can we have fractions but not the main component... for instance leukocytes are found in breast milk and plasma is 55% of blood and 92% of plasma is water! Haemoglobin is now allowed yet it makes up 97% of the red blood cells dry content. Where is the sense?

Then I went to the account in Genesis 9 of the law given to Noah. It clearly states that if a man sheds another man's blood his own shall be asked back. However God was giving man animals to eat so he was permitted to kill them for food. Of course the case of a life for a life couldn't cover an animal's loss of life so instead he gave the command to pour the blood on the ground, recognising the life came from God and is being given back to God. In the case of giving blood for a blood transfusion or accepting a blood transfusion.. no life is lost! The scripture has been badly twisted.

It hasn't stopped him carrying his blood card everywhere but he could see the twisted understanding.

jgnat

Great advice everybody. Keep in mind that you are fighting an ingrained "eww factor" on blood. Even if you prove it scripturally unsound, you will also likely have to prove that it is safe and even life-saving.

So I would say the first job is to tackle the scripturally unsound part. Ask you father if he is willing to die for this doctrine? This is glossed over by the society and I consider it an ethical failure on the part of the WTS. Witnesses need to know that this belief can kill them.

I would use the scripture where Jesus asked if it was lawful to rescue an animal from the ditch on the Sabbath? Reverence for life and the prevention of suffering overrides any other sacred prohibition. This is because we carry God's breath of life in us, and we are not to disdain this beautiful thing.

All of TD's discussions on this topic are excellent. Blood transfusions saved his daughter's life when nothing else would do.

TD

So I guess our next TTATT family study will be why JW's got it wrong on blood, Biblically, and why JW's got it wrong on disfellowshipping, Biblically.

The blood doctrine has evolved beyond the fundamental mistake they made, but here it is in all its glory:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/188572/1/JW-Science-Quote-2-5#.UmfwdFMUaFw

adamah

Tornapart said-

Then I went to the account in Genesis 9 of the law given to Noah. It clearly states that if a man sheds another man's blood his own shall be asked back. However God was giving man animals to eat so he was permitted to kill them for food. Of course the case of a life for a life couldn't cover an animal's loss of life so instead he gave the command to pour the blood on the ground, recognising the life came from God and is being given back to God. In the case of giving blood for a blood transfusion or accepting a blood transfusion.. no life is lost! The scripture has been badly twisted.

Yeah, the GB's scripture-twisting of Genesis 9 is the subject of the article on wrote on my blog:

http://awgue.weebly.com/does-jehovahs-witnesses-blood-policy-reflect-they-understand-noahs-flood.html

If a JW hasn't compared their Bible translation to the others to see the basis of the error, they're needlessly throwing away their lives. It's powerful to 1) understand where the mistranslation stems from, and more importantly how misunderstanding the story of the Flood account allows it to happen.

Adam

ABibleStudent

Hi ILoveTTATT, Help your father to critically think for himself.

How about asking your Dad, "How many WTBTS doctrines do you feel are in error? Why? Isn't the Blood Doctrine based on Acts 15:29 and interpretations of the OT? According to the Bible were the Jews God's choosen people in the OT? Before Jesus Christ, shouldn't the Jews understand what God wanted in the Bible? Are you willing to research why Jews accept blood transfustions today? Do you want me to help show you how to search the internet for information?"

Peace be with you and everyone, who you love,

Robert

ILoveTTATT

Thanks everyone!

@jgnat: You hit the nail! My dad won't even eat a medium-well steak.... for him it HAS to be well done... So he has the culture AND the religion to deal with...

notjustyet

Here is an excerpt from leavingwt DA letter found here at jwfacts.com

http://www.jwfacts.com/pdf/leavingwt-da-letter.pdf

The Bible is silent on the topic of blood transfusions. However, I am deeply interested in how God feels about the matter . The following illustration has been helpful to me: If you were robbed and a thief demanded your wedding ring, would you refuse to give it to him if he threatened to kill your spouse? Would you reason: "This ring represents my marriage to my spouse and that's more important than my spouse’s life"? Such reasoning is seriously flawed yet this is the exact reasoning used by Watchtower to support its ban on certain types of blood transfusions. Yes, blood is a symbol of life, but life itself is certainly more valuable than the symbol!

To me that pretty much nails it down to show how silly it is to refuse blood, the symbol, that would save the thing it is symbolizing.

NJY

Progress made with dad... but he still believes in the blood doctrine

Share this