by krzysiek 35 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Yes it has caused loss of life --but in defence of witnesses - some advances in medical procedures and in other areas have been made because of their stand.
i am sure that some of the research done by the boys in Nazi germany contributed to the pool of medical knowledge as well-
A friend who is a JW was telling me about a video she just got re: transfusions. She had to watch it in order to be ready for questions at the regular Thursday-night meeting last night. And I also thought Thursday was their "Theocratic Warfare Ministry" school night. Odd choice, IMO.
I wonder what it was about as she hasn't graced me with a recap of the video or the meeting (but which I expect soon...). Maybe more changes coming?
Robert
The Bible is clear on Jehovah's thoughts on abstaining from blood. The blood issue and the stand Jehovah's Witnesses take on blood transfussions is a major reason why many do not accept our message and it's also a constant critisism we receive. As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I take Jehovah's law serious. Abstaining from blood could be a death or life issue, but when it comes down to it, I ask myself, "will I be faithful to Jehovah only when there is no danger of dying?". That would not be loyalty, but cowardice. As a witness, I have a firm belief in the resurrection. That belief is something that critics do not appreciate as they have no faith or deliberately overlook this wonderful promise by our creator. As witnesses of Jehovah, we should be willing to be loyal in the good times and bad times. That's the bottom line.
What is not clear is the WTS thoughts on blood. While the Bible says all blood must be poured out, now it can be saved and broken down into fractions and each JW can choose to take those into their body. For example, hemoglobin-based products are made from stored blood, fractionated into hemoglobin. I called the HLC and they said it was a conscience matter to take those products. When I asked if they knew they were made with stored blood, they said "we can only advise on the scriptures, you must contact a physician on that."
Yah, right.
Hi SOJ.
Blondie
Sword of Jah writes:
The Bible is clear on Jehovah's thoughts on abstaining from blood. The blood issue and the stand Jehovah's Witnesses take on blood transfussions is a major reason why many do not accept our message and it's also a constant critisism we receive. As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I take Jehovah's law serious. Abstaining from blood could be a death or life issue, but when it comes down to it, I ask myself, "will I be faithful to Jehovah only when there is no danger of dying?". That would not be loyalty, but cowardice. As a witness, I have a firm belief in the resurrection. That belief is something that critics do not appreciate as they have no faith or deliberately overlook this wonderful promise by our creator. As witnesses of Jehovah, we should be willing to be loyal in the good times and bad times. That's the bottom line.
Jehovah's law is also clear that fat is not to be eaten either: "It is a statute to time indefinite for YOUR generations, in all YOUR dwelling places: YOU must not eat any fat or any blood at all." - Leviticus 3:17.
Why is it that no JW has EVER been disfellowshipped, declared disassociated, or received public reproof for eating fat? Love, Scully
"You shall not eat anything that dies of itself; you may give it to the alien who is within your towns, that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a people holy to Jehovah your God. - Duet 14:21
Notice that foreigners can eat blood. The society considers only the annointed to be spiritual Israelites. So, therefore, only the annointed should be prohibited from eating blood.
Also note that the Bible condemns "things sacrificed to idols" in the same sentence as blood. Yet, in 1 Cor 8:4, Paul overrides the statement about idols. Why will you be willing to die for one phrase in a sentence, but not the other?
blondie: what you say is true and when it comes down to fractions of fractions of blood cells, the Bible is not clear, so it's up to each Witness to decide based on their own conscience.
scully: your question is simple to answer: because the law on abstaining from blood was reissued during the 1st century by the apostles in Jerusalem, fat was not mentioned in their letter to the congregations.
runningman: although you quote correctly from the Mosaic Law, you are overlooking that the apostles in the 1st century gave the law of abstaining from blood to all Christians.
SOJ, what is clear is that blood must be stored in order to make the products. The Bible says blood must be poured out and not stored. Thus products made from stored blood are forbidden by the Bible (but allowed by the WTS).
Blondie
Blood transfusions are not eating blood, period. It does not enter the digestive tract. It does not violate what the Law said.
James was simply summarizing part of the Law called the "Law of the Alien Resident" (Leviticus) - which fit the situation of Gentiles
within Jewish congregations perfectly. That's why the brothers - formerly Pharisees- shut up about it. Paul made clear that
eating meats sacrificed to idols was a matter of conscience - so was eating blood.
Here's the Watchtower's perversion of morality in a nutshell:
Why is blood sacred?
Because it is a symbol of life
So, why should a symbol of life be more important than life? Is a wedding ring more important than a marriage?
It is perversion to deny blood transfusions to save life - the purpose of blood is life, THAT'S WHY it's sacred!
Here's the "morality" of elderly Theocrats: The Japanese couldn't retreat (WW2) from conquered lands because it would
mean admitting that they were wrong. The US wasted lives in Vietnam for the same reason. The Watchtower is no
different from 'worldly' corrupt leaders.
metatron
And SOJ?
runningman: although you quote correctly from the Mosaic Law, you are overlooking that the apostles in the 1st century gave the law of abstaining from blood to all Christians.
I thought the official Society stance was that the letters in the New Testament were written to Spiritual Israel, hence why all first Century Christians (all considered 'anointed' and members of the 144,000) were to "abstain from blood, things sacrificed to idols, etc.", and only THEY are direct beneficiaries of Christ's mediatorship and also to be deemed Jah's adoptive sons? So wouldn't running man be correct to ask if the "great crowd" in these last days are really subject to the 1st Century council's edict at Acts 15:28, 29? I sincerely don't think it proper for us to pick and choose which verses apply only to Spiritual Israel and which to all Christians, do you?
outnfree
