by UnDisfellowshipped 102 Replies latest watchtower bible
When did Blood sustain life? Don't the WT teach Jehovah sustains life?
How come it is okay for baptized children to have whole blood with a court order?
It is more we want you to do what ever you want, but just hope you don't get DF'ed at your hall. It is oral sex logic appplied to blood.
I think they are dodging legal resposibility and bad press yet trying to project guilt on those that want to live. They jws know would take blood all day if it was a total conscience matter.
Furthermore, since God did not require such reactions, would it be best for Jews to send a multitude of questions to a council of Rabbis to get a ruling on each one? Though that custom developed in Judaism, we can be happy that Jehovah did not direct true worshipers to pursue decisions about blood in that way. God offered basic guidance on slaughtering clean animals and draining their blood, but he did not go beyond that. -- John 8:32.
This is extremely controlling reasoning. The WT vilifies the Rabbis constantly in their publications; they are suggesting here that rules on blood are like rules from Rabbis. Does Jehovah direct "un-true" worshipers to question the WT nonsense? They are trying to make their blood rules appear "basic" and if you don't understand them your stupid, unfaithful, and disloyal if you dear question them.
Keep it up big boys, just baffle them with (bs) many words.
HCM
The Bible mentions that some have 'consciences that are weak,' implying that others' consciences are strong.
Translation: If you accept blood fractions, you're obviously weak, if you let yourself die, then you're stong.
God offered basic guidance on slaughtering clean animals and draining their blood, but he did not go beyond that. -- John 8:32.
So then why is the Governing Body constantly "going beyond that"?? That entire article was about as clear and understandable as Babylon the Great Has Fallen! While I would certainly prefer to avoid ever taking a blood transfusion, I have no objection at all to having my own blood stored and used for an operation.
I liked Gumby's point: They want you to die to show how much you appreciate the gift of life. Yep, makes perfect sense to me.
I asked a Jew what their stand on blood transfusions were. He said that, while Jews may not view taking a blood transfusion as desirable, there's such a thing as "saving the soul", and with that in mind, yes they do accept blood transfusions.
Damn.... it sounds like the Hard-Liners are gaining control of the org again. For a few years it looked like a more liberal group was starting to take over.
As to taking in blood fractions, some have thought, 'This is a matter of conscience, so it doesn't make any difference.' That is faulty reasoning. The fact that something is a matter of conscience does not mean that it is inconsequential. It can be very serious. One reason is that it can affect individuals whose conscience differs from ours. We see that from Paul's advice about meat that might have been presented to an idol and was later sold in a market. A Christian ought to be concerned about not 'wounding consciences that are weak.' If he stumbles others, he could 'ruin his brother for whose sake Christ died' and be sinning against Christ. Hence, while issues about blood fractions are for personal decision, those decisions should be taken very seriously.
My first thought when reading the above:
So I should maybe avoid fractions even if it means "stumbling" someone? Meaning that it's better that I die than someone be "stumbled"? F**k that s**t.
so they are saying: "There isn't anything really wrong with it... but because you might upset someone you should go ahead and die."
JWs upset and stumble people each & every time they knock on a door ! What do you say to the lord of the watchtower who makes it mandatory to go out and stumble people?
They stumble millions with their shit and lying and judgments. They stumble people who didn't even know what stumbling was. Their trickery and deception is reprehensible.
Innocent people/children are dying because someone else is making a manipulated decision on their behalf, yet they have the nerve to be against murder and abortion.
I'M freaking stumbling - just by reading a magazine, am I to believe that a god of love - that IS love (so says the bible-based letter to the Corinthians) would make oxygen carrying cells the forbidden fruit.
Who is accountable for that?
As to taking in blood fractions, some have thought, 'This is a matter of conscience, so it doesn't make any difference.' That is faulty reasoning. The fact that something is a matter of conscience does not mean that it is inconsequential. It can be very serious. One reason is that it can affect individuals whose conscience differs from ours. We see that from Paul's advice about meat that might have been presented to an idol and was later sold in a market. A Christian ought to be concerned about not 'wounding consciences that are weak.' If he stumbles others, he could 'ruin his brother for whose sake Christ died' and be sinning against Christ. Hence, while issues about blood fractions are for personal decision, those decisions should be taken very seriously.
My first thought when reading the above:So I should maybe avoid fractions even if it means "stumbling" someone? Meaning that it's better that I die than someone be "stumbled"? F**k that s**t.
I discussed this with my (elder) brother. He doesn't understand it as 'dying rather than stumbling' but that such decisions are private, and should someone decide to take fractions they wouldn't broadcast it. Bit like the oral sex thing really.
I discussed this with my (elder) brother. He doesn't understand it as 'dying rather than stumbling' but that such decisions are private, and should someone decide to take fractions they wouldn't broadcast it. Bit like the oral sex thing really.
You could ask your brother this: Then why go to the trouble of printing all of that about stumbing others? If it's okay to take fractions and you're not going to broadcast it to the congregation then what's the point of making a big deal about stumbing others by taking fractions? It makes no sense whatsoever.
What it boils down to is controlling the flock. They're gonna leave a legal loophole to use in courts and such, but to the R&F they'll make them feel guilty for even considering it. Later, when someone dies, the WTS can say, "hey, we told em it was okay to use fractions but they chose not to."
Interesting, scotsman. So, a Witness can take blood fractions, on the sly, feel guilty about it the rest of their lives, and that would be OK. Just as long as they don't "stumble" anybody. Concience decision is no decision at all. In my opinion, this policy cheapens life. There is no sacredness for the god-created person, here. Individuals are expendible, to protect this "sacred" policy.
Why, oh why, would they chose to harden their stand? Their unique policy on blood does set them apart. This aids in PR in a twisted way. "Oh, yes, those are Jehovah's Witnesses. They don't take blood." Also, the JW stance on blood is a simple way to be a martyr in these modern times.
Wanna start a writing campaign to Bethel, asking these Pharisees to clarify matters, please? It obviously bugs them, otherwise they wouldn't have mentioned it. Of course they can't get any clearer, Legal won't let them.
