EXTREME HYPOCRISY in this Sunday's study article!!!

by Divergent 28 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Divergent
    Divergent

    Wow, what a disturbing study article this was! This was by far the most difficult study that I ever had to sit through. Just take a look at what the article has to say about how blood should be viewed according to our conscience:

    6 The Bible encourages us to avoid harmful practices and to be moderate in habits, such as in eating and drinking. (Prov. 23:20; 2 Cor. 7:1) As we apply Bible principles, we will be safeguarding our health to a degree, even if advancing age and infirmity may still affect us. In some lands, both conventional medicine and a range of alternative therapies are available. Branch offices regularly receive letters from brothers and sisters who are considering one form of treatment or another. Many ask, “Can a servant of Jehovah accept such treatment?”
    7 Neither a branch office nor the local congregation elders are authorized to make health-care decisions for a Witness, even if he asks what to do. (Gal. 6:5) They can, of course, call attention to what Jehovah has said that may have a bearing on the decision. For example, a Christian needs to remember the Biblical command “to keep abstaining from. . . blood.” (Acts 15:29) That would clearly rule out medical treatments that involve taking in whole blood or any of its four major components. This knowledge could even influence a Christian’s conscience when he makes a personal decision regarding minor fractions derived from one of those four components. But what other Bible advice can guide us when we are contemplating medical treatment?
    The article clearly states that blood fractions are a personal decision. HOWEVER, what was the stand on this issue PRIOR to the year 2000? We all know that taking in blood fractions was only allowed to be a conscience issue since the June 15, 2000 issue of the WT was published! It was never an option prior to that!!!
    9 A Christian who is reasonable does not impose his views on others.

    Questions: Didn't the organization IMPOSE its views on others on the issue of blood fractions prior to the year 2000? Isn't the organization continuing to IMPOSE its views on others even today regarding blood transfusions???

    10 If we cannot understand the conscientious decision of a fellow believer on some personal matter, we should not quickly judge him or feel that we ought to pressure him to change his mind. Perhaps his conscience is still “weak” and in need of more training or is too sensitive on certain issues. (1 Cor. 8:11, 12) On the other hand, it may be that we need to examine our own conscience, which may need further training in line with divine principles. On matters like health care, each of us should be willing to make a personal decision and accept the responsibility that comes with it.

    So on matters like health care, we should not be quick to judge others. It could be our own conscience that needs fine tuning. Therefore, it should be a personal decision. Agreed!

    Questions: If each of us should make a personal decision on health care, shouldn't this apply to blood transfusions as well? Why are there unwanted consequences (judicial committees, disfellowshipping, shunning, etc.) forced upon us by the organization if we follow our conscience when it comes to health care & medical decisions? When it comes to Christians whose consciences permit them to take blood transfusions, is their personal decision respected OR judged? Is it not the stand at this very moment that unloving action is taken upon JW's whose consciences permit them to take blood transfusions as it is said that they have voluntarily disassociated themselves by means of their actions???

  • Zoos
    Zoos

    I don't know that they had fractions earlier than 2000, did they?

    The new policy was in response to new technology... if I am remembering correctly.

  • cofty
    cofty
    That would clearly rule out medical treatments that involve taking in whole blood or any of its four major components. This knowledge could even influence a Christian’s conscience when he makes a personal decision regarding minor fractions derived from one of those four components.

    This confirms that Paul Gillies is a liar when he makes statements to the media after a JW has died in the UK and says that decisions about blood are a matter for individual conscience.

  • freddo
    freddo

    Oh yeah.

    Putting aside the point about blood being used to save life being the same as eating it or drinking it, just where in scripture is there anything about the "four major components"?

    Pharisees of the highest order!

  • Divergent
    Divergent
    I don't know that they had fractions earlier than 2000, did they?

    Yes, they did. Fractions have been available for a long time before then

  • goingthruthemotions
    goingthruthemotions
    yep, it's a cult
  • The Searcher
    The Searcher
    ZOOS -

    w58 9/15 p. 575 Questions From Readers

    "The injection of antibodies into the blood in a vehicle of blood serum or the use of blood fractions to create such antibodies is not the same as taking blood, either by mouth or by transfusion, as a nutrient to build up the body’s vital forces."

  • Divergent
    Divergent

    Yes, Searcher... they did actually say that

    HOWEVER, they backtracked on this a few years later!

    The Watchtower of Feb. 15, 1963 (p. 124) told JWs that they could not receive anything derived from blood in medical treatment:

    "It is not just blood, but anything that is derived from blood and used to sustain life or strengthen one that comes under this principle."
  • DATA-DOG
    DATA-DOG

    Divergent,

    You don't understand. There are times when it may seem like the WTBTS has changed its stance, and then flip-flopped, but that is not actually the case.

    I hope this goes up on JWFacts.com.

    DD

  • westiebilly11
    westiebilly11
    they're covering their asses from liability for deaths etc. sneaky.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit