markwetherill - “If the blood doctrine was removed, that'd be one less thing for JWs to feel smug and superior about.”
Honestly?
I don’t think there are all that many rank-and-filers who feel particularly smug about it.
Would there, or would there not be, lawsuits if they took away the blood transfusion ban?
by VerdadTJ2 25 Replies latest jw friends
-
Vidiot
-
DesirousOfChange
When AIDS was new, I think many JWs were "smug" (if that's the right word) about how their "spirit directed" policy against blood transfusions had "protected" them from contracting this deadly disease by abstaining from blood.
Today, I think most JWs are more aware of the deaths from refusal of blood transfusions than any "benefits". The evidence of this, IMO, is that nearly ALL of the JWs I assisted with their "blood card/documents" agreed to accept any of the "blood fractions" that WTS permitted per their "conscience".
When WTS/GB saw the New Light on JWs accepting "blood fractions" (or EPO or any product previously prohibited) then SHAZAM! they ALL HAD A SUDDEN REVERSAL OF THEIR PERSONAL CONSCIENCE.
Likewise, if WTS/GB saw New Light and determined that transfusions would be a "personal conscientious decision" that would NOT bring them negative consequences, the VAST MAJORITY would "change their contentious position" on accepting them in an emergency.
-
Vidiot
Might be some pretty angry nonJWs with dead JW family members, though.
-
Diogenesister
No.
they should....but if they could, I think it likely would have already happenend when they changed the rule on the organ transplant ban (Although admitedly affecting less people nevertheless I think we would have seen at least one lawsuit).
-
Diogenesister
FAThat link you posted to the David Harris article took my breath away. Terrifying. The nurse who unclamps the tube and lets the skid road dude's blood run into the trash can - until his neighbour spots what she has done....horrific!! Some wouldn't believe it, it's so frightful. I would - I'm a nurse. whilst the old saying "never attribute to malice what one can more easily attribute to incompetence" holds true, I have indeed witnessed such cruel, judgemental, sociopathic and god complex behaviour in medical staff......and it makes my blood run cold to read about it.
That aside, on the concept of selling ones blood, whilst American style medical care can be the best in the world, i will never believe that for most people, social medicine is the only humane system there is.
-
Rattigan350
They have the no blood transfusion rule because they have, going back to Knorr and Franz, this philosophy that they need to obey God's rules to please God.
In other words, they are pharisees in that they want to say that we are better than everyone else because we obey these rules. That's what everything is about, getting God's approval because JWs are better than everyone else.
And they feel that we have to do everything to get that approval to get life.
But they don't consider the question of How can it be a law if there are not consequences for breaking it?
People who take blood or give it continue living and then die like everyone else. So they say they won't get a resurrection. The dead are conscious of nothing, so they dead don't worry about not getting a resurrection. But yet is that something that will land someone in Gehenna? No. Because idolatry and fornication won't either.