by Waymores Ghost 22 Replies latest watchtower medical
This may sound somewhat cynical, but I think the Society has held to it's position on blood in order to create a never-ending supply of martyrs. Martyrs are needed for the Society to hold up as shining examples of faith and devotion. This sense of self-sacrifice helps them tow the line with regards to all of their insane rules.
Wg
They would never admit to such a thing, but it is terribly convienient for them to have fodder available for convention talks and Awake covers..
Sincerely,
District Overbeer
YES -- and also since the blood issue has cost lives it would be nearly impossible without being sued out of existence to change their minds get new light at this stage
While I do think there is sufficient scripture on life and blood to make the taking of blood a matter of conscience, and I will not take blood myself for both moral and scriptural reasons, the WTS has a history of confrontation which has often resulted in harm or imprisonment of its members.
One has only to read the literature which resulted in the trial and imprisonment of Rutherford and his team to appreciate that in a time of war it was very provocative. Or consider the doctrine that saluting the flag was an act of worship which was promulgated at a time when nationalism was on the rise. Or what about the policy to refuse to pay fines and insist on imprisonment on the neutrality / alternative service issue. All of these resulted in martyrs for the cause, which strengthened the determination of those suffering ("counting it all joy, my brothers, to suffer...") and united the brotherhood.
Of course, the early Christians had similar issues involving incense and the emperor with similar results. But in view of Rutherford's very provocative nature I think it quite possible that many doctrines developed during his lifetime had half an eye on the newspaper headlines. The prohibition on blood is just part of that legacy.
Earnest
Pride and being sued. Much of what is allowed for blood fractions has been based on what occurs between mother and unborn baby. Recent medical advances now conclude that all parts of blood can flow from baby to mom. Thats why in rare cases moms have to be given anti-rejection drugs if blood types don't match. The Watchtower will find it very hard to keep its head buried in the sand on this dark age doctrine.
WTS has a history of confrontation which has often resulted in harm or imprisonment of its members.
Could not help but think of the longsuffering flock in Malawi. Ray Franz revealed that all the while they were suffering torture and rape for their stand, the brothers in Mexico were allowed to do a deal with the authorities that had similar overtones and allowed them exemption
That issue was big all around the world. Those Malawi brothers certainly suffered as heroes for their faith
I think the WBTS has been commited on the blood issue for too long, and through too much. I do notthink that they could change this for any reasons-good or bad, doctrinal or practical.
I think that if they did change this, they would cause alot of their members to 'wake up'. It would be too great a shock to their belief systems.
New light will be a dimbulb for these victims of the Watchtower's Lethal Policy:
http://www.ajwrb.org/victims/index.shtml
Praytell, HOW will they "wake up" in time to WITNESS THE IMPENDING NEW LIGHT?
If this lethal policy was COMPLETELY reversed, as in...ABOLISHED...all hell WILL break loose by loved ones who watched their family members DIE and DIED BY WATCHTOWERS LETHAL POLICY WHICH IS NOW (if it were to occur) IS 'FOOD IN DUE SEASON'.
How can anyone expect to 'swallow' that chunk down and not die by 'it's' poison?
sKally
Why do you think that Jehovah would warn moses to abstain from blood? There is a reason. Look at all the diseases that have come from blood transfusions. millions of people get hepatis C and HIV every year because they take in blood. How do you think that HIV was mostly transfused in the 70's and 80's. No matter how advanced our technology gets the mystery of the blood always seems to be one step ahead of mankind. Even to this day blood transfusions are not %100 safe. It has also been proven that people who go through surgery and do not take blood actually have a faster recovery than those who do take blood. Why do you think that is? Well when you take somebody's blood your body naturally rejects it and has to fight off all the foreigne substances that are new. Also most blood transfusions are unnecessary.
So take the chance if you want to, but I will listen to Jehovah rather than jumping into something that we know nothing about. What is the next disease that will come from blood transfusions? These diseases are mutating at a rate that we cannot keep up with. Does anybody recall when the pope was shot? He had a blood transfusion and had to come back to the hospital because he recieved contaminated blood. There is more meaning to what Jehovah said than just the literal translation that you see and it makes so much sense. It just requires a little research and common sense.
tabarugonzo , every word you have written is rubbish. I give blood (and would take blood if I needed to) and have family working for the Blood Transfusion Service.
Aids was not widely passed by blood transfusion in the 80's, it was mainly passed by unsafe sex. Today all blood donors are screened for HIV, hepatitus and several other STD's. Your ignorance is exactly the small minded paranoia the witnesses bank on to keep their flock
