BRAINWASHING ON BLOOD ISSUE FROM SUNDAY'S WT

by tresbella 18 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  tresbella

  Its funny how when you are someone who has grown up a JW you take everything you read in the WT and Awakes as fact. You are never taught to discern or analyze what you read. And when the Society speaks of 'doing research is always in the bond volumes or other lit. Never in "wordly publications. Anyway, at my sunday meeting the June 15 wt article: Rightly Value Your Gift of Life was being studied ( a 2 part series leading up to the society's new issue on blood transfusions involving blood fractions and plasma) and its amazing how my keen eye found such inconsitincies in the article:

  (p.17) "Some churches emphasize Jesus' death, their adherents saying things such as "Jesus died for me." (a sister commented on how that statement is innapproriate to say; who knew? ) Consider how some Bible translations render Ephesians 1:7: "It is in him and through his death we have deliverance; that is; putting away our offences (american Bible) "By the death of Christ we are set free, and our sins are forgiven." (today's english version) and etc.

  "Really if you had to depend on such translations you might overlook a very important point, and this could limit your understanding of the Bible's message. SUch renderings obscure the fact that the original text of Ephesians 1:7 contains a Greek Word that means "blood." (NO FOOTNOTE IS INDICATED; NO SOURCE TO THIS "ORIGIANL 'GREEK TEXT.') Thus many Bible such as the NWT, comes closer to the original: "By means of him we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one, yes the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his undeserved kindness."

  Why isn't there any quote from these supposed original greek texts?There were 4 different quotes printed from other Bible translations to refute there statements with Jesus' death being used but all of a sudden the Wt pulls up there translation without any backing for it?

  OH! And here is the best one! (p.21)

  " Some may imagine that the governing body simply meant the Christians were not to eat or drink blood directly nor to eat unbled meat or food mixed with blood. Granted, that was the first import of God's command to Noah... However, the early Christians knew that more was involved. (NO SCRIPTURE TO JUSTIFY THIS STATEMENT) Sometimes, blood was taken in for medical reasons. Tertuliiam (who the heck is this guy; nowhere is he stated in any other paragraph! this drove me crazy) Tertuliiam noted that in an effort to cure epilepsy , some pagans consumed fresh blood. And there have been other uses of blood to treat disease or supposdly improve their health. Hence, for Christians, shunning blood included not taking it in for "medical" reasons. They maintained that stand even if put their life at risk. (HAS ANYONE HERE EVER HEARD OF A BIBLE ACCOUNT OF SOMEONE WHO HAD TO SHUN THE "PAGAN RITUALS" OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO TOOK IN BLOOD IN ORDER TO CURE A DIESEASE?)

  Whoa! I mean this one little paragraph is what can determine the life or death of all JW's and yet there is not ONE scripture to back up a single statment made. I still do not know who the heck this Tertuliam guy is and why was he is even mentioned without any type of footnote or source as to who he was. Number 2: Blood being taken in by the pagans for medical reasons most likely meant they consumed it by drinking it since obvioulsy, blood tranfusions did not exsist during those times. And we all know drinking blood is not that same as taking it in. Hence, the paragraph says that there may have been other uses of blood to treat diesease or supposdly improve health. Yeah and there may have been acorbats during those times too, who knows. Again, putting the thought into one's mind that just b/c pagans may have 'consumed blood for medical reasons IN A COMPLEYTLY DIFFERENT METHOD THEN THEY DO NOW that we "as christins" should not. Tell me if i"m wrong on this.
• 

  jaredg

  you are right....the doctrine on blood transfusion does not have sound backing and is wicked!!
• 

  blondie

  tresbella, I will be expanding on who Tertullian is and his position on other issues near and dear to the WTS in next week's WT Review.

  Blondie
• 

  Leolaia

  Tertullian (note the spelling) was an early church father from Carthage who flourished c. AD 200. He was, among other things, one of the first to clearly teach a Trinity doctrine (i.e. an "economical" Trinity theory, quite different from the Nicene "ontological" Trinity).

  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm
• 

  Elsewhere

  Interesting...

  It is ok to break the Sabbath, which is punishable by death, if one is saving a life... but it is not ok to use the "symbol" of life to save a life? Which is more important, the symbol or that which it represents? Even a fool knows that life is more important than that which symbolizes life.
  

  Matthew 12:11-12, NIV. "He said to them, If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
• 

  waiting

  There's been some GREAT research done on the lack of evidence (even lies) for the JW Blood Doctrine.

  BLONDIE! What the heck is the name of the Canadian poster who's so brilliant at research & works for the Canadian Gov't? Duhhhhhhhhhhhh.

  Anyway, THAT poster, along with Maximus (who's also brilliant) did wonderful research to prove that the JW Blood Doctrine is *smoke & mirrors* - and jw's are willing to die so that the WTBTS will be able to point to those dead JW's and say "See? We ARE different."

  And, of course, there's Blondie here, who's also brilliant.

  I'm just the reader.

  waiting
• 

  jgnat

  Waiting, you MUST be referring to Hawkaw. Here are some of his threads on Blood:

  Alert on Blood Refusal - Shunned Father http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/30210/1.ashx

  Jehovah approves of Blood and Gives Pictures http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/20949/1.ashx

  Cow?s Blood Substitute http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/19675/1.ashx
• 

  cyber-sista

  So, from my understanding right now it is a matter of conscience for Witnesses to take every individual component of blood, as long as it has all been separated and then remixed?. Kind of like it would be OK for someone who wasn't suppose to eat apricots, but OK for them to eat dried apricots as long as they added the water and rehydrated them after they had already been dried. I think this whole new light on blood should be a real eye opener for any "thinking" JWs out there. They are so obviously trying to weasel their way around this one. They are twisting the doctrine around to make it more of a "conscience" issue in the future, because they can't just come out and say it's OK to take blood now, after so many have died from their previous rules and they know that would cause them a lot of problems and many more disillusioned members. Their solution for disillusioned members is to disfellowship them and tag them as apostate. This organization is criminal.
• 

  willyloman

  cyber-sista, you have nailed their dilemma perfectly!

  In my "former life" (as a dub) I was "immersed" in this blood thing, due to both my secular and congregational positions (to say more would "out" me and I'm not there yet). I can assure you that at the HLC level and inside the emergency rooms of those dub-sanctioned "transfusion free" hospitals that are sprouting up, there is firmly in place a "wink-wink" policy. How it works: the "bloodless surgery" coordinator, in many cases a JW elder who got the job by virtue of his former positon on the area HLC (in one case, it's a sister who was an RN at Bethel), serves as liaison between doctor and patient. The convo might go like this:

  "So, brother Barely-hanging-on-to-life, do you have a durable power of attorney?" (The brother already knows 99% don't have one).

  "No, I meant to fill it out, but...."

  "Okay, well, I notice this medical directive in your wallet is dated 1987. Do you have anything more current?" (He knows the answer to this, too).

  "Uh, no, that's it, but those are my wishes, right there."

  "All right, but, let me ask you, are there any alternatives you will accept?" (Rattles off a long list, cell salvage, epo, fractions, etc. and mentions that the WTS says use of these is "up to your conscience").

  "Whatever 'Mother' allows, just save my life, okay?" (Almost every single one says this).

  "Okee-dokee." (Goes off and tells surgeon consent is given to use the full battery of alternative medical management tools, which in vast majority of cases renders traditional whole blood transfusion irrelevant).
• 

  Sweetp0985

  Actually IMHO from reading CoC(not finished yet) they probably have been realized the error of starting this doctrine but as Ray Franz noted for the sake of the numerous people that have died already because of this policy they don't see the need of stopping this practice for it will make it seem as all the ones that have died already, died for no reason. But yet you will let others continue to die to save face. How come when the borg was first started they were getting transfusions and the like but then said ok let's stop doing that. Then so many were dying (loss of income for WTS) they said ok, let them use other solutions to take the place of blood....Now they allow the use of parts of blood but call me stupid sue if its a part of blood, doesn't it come from BLOOD. Excuse my example for any that may be offended but that's like telling a muslim you can eat a pulled pork sandwich because it's such a small portion of pork, Ummmm it's still pork. My bad I forgot most JW's still deep in the borg don't think in that way. I think I read somewhere else too that a blood substitute that's now allowed comes from cow's blood. Maybe they're thinking because it from a cow its lesser than human blood.

  blood = blood = blood parts = blood = cow's blood = blood = blood

  Sooner are later they are gonna have no other choice but to admit they were wrong and start allowing blood transfusions, but maybe they're hoping those 8000 still partaking at the memorial will be gone to the "upper room" by then so they won't have to change the policy. Or they keep changing it little by little and then when they finally can't change it anymore, they will say Jehovah has given them new light on the matter and he didn't mean they couldn't have a transfusion he just meant don't eat it or drink it. Only time will tell.