by Chris Tann 24 Replies latest watchtower bible
Chris Tann, you made some very good comments and deductions.
Just to add to the reasoning, Jesus' statement at John 15:13 IMO also impacts the medical use of blood:
How could it be 'the greatest love' to 'surrender your life' (symbolized by blood) to save someone else, but evil to give a small part of your life to save them?
The Watchtower Society's policy it continues to wickedly impose on it's members is completely unscriptural, period.
The whole point in scripture is because the blood represents the soul, the life of the creature that has been taken.
Every reference to prohibiting blood in scripture involves the death of a soul! This crucial contextual element is completely overlooked by the Society.
Blood transfusions do not involve the death of a soul whatsoever. They are in fact life-giving.
Not only that, the JW's stance is completely contrary to the principles Jesus clearly laid down that when it comes to fanatical adherence to the letter of the law, God wants mercy not sacrifice. Have they never read Jesus' illustration of the sheep stuck in the well, or the man with the withered hand cured, or the disciples plucking grain on the Sabbath?
Even in the Hebrew scriptures, Jehovah says human sacrifice is never something that he requires, which is effectively what the JW's blood policy demands.
Jesus Christ would never have used the symbol of drinking his blood if blood transfusions for saving lives was wrong in God's eyes.
Hi Chris. Please see this thread for a biblical discussion of the Law on blood...
Ray Franz, in speaking about the blood doctrine I believe, pointed out how apostate "legalism" leads to a "morass of inconsistencies".
Now it is OK to take parts of donated blood, but not OK to donate blood?!
Thanks C o f t y. Nice research. Two questions though. How do we know for sure that if an Israelite found a dead animal he didn't have to bleed it. I know the text doesn't say he must bleed it , but could that just be because the preceding verses already stated one must bleed an animal first and therefore bleeding is implied? Also, why is it impossible to bleed an animal already dead? Thanks.
A few years back, when my kids started at a new daycare, the sitter told me that my wife had mentioned our JW background. Then she asked what our stance was on blood if an emergency occurred.
I thought about it for a few seconds (I'd already let my blood card expire a couple of years prior), and finally said, "tell the paramedics to do whatever they have to do."
I knew right then that I'd crossed a little milestone.
God shouldn't have made med-rare filet mignon taste so damn good. My version of paradise when i believed in it, would have been eating bloody steak everyday with sauté onions, mushrooms cooked in wine and garlic butter.
No Witness needs to worry about blood for their child anymore.
The Society has quietly changed that. There is a form now for parents that basically says they dont want blood for religious reasons but will leave it in the Dr's. hands.
This originated in Canada. An ethics committee which included Br's from the Canadian branch worked on the form. Canadian newspapers carried the story.
I first learned of this because of a baby in a local hall needing a complex surgery.
We had a thread here somewhere that mentioned the name of the form. Sorry I cant remember it.
they dont want blood for religious reasons but will leave it in the Dr's. hands.
The Hospital Liaison Committees give the same advice to parents here in the US -- state your religious point of view, but let the doctors and the courts use their discretion. In the US, hospitals for children have a "hot line" to a judge who will take temporary custody of the child and allow the medical team total discretionary power for the medical care of the child. They advise the parent that this absolves them of any guilt because they have done all within their power. The End.
Doc
Excellent point HMO
