What's Sacred, what's not? (page 2)

jelly

Hello claudia, frenchy, bod. this is a reply to the 'why does the society sanction the use blood parts?' . There is a watchtower article that addresses this but I dont have it handy at the moment but the point was this. In ancient isreal the isrealites had to bleed animals before the ate them, but even after bleeding the animals they were not required to 'wring out the meat' so to speak, indeed how could you. the point is this that even though the animals were bleed some small amounts of blood still existed in the meat, and it was okay to eat. So the society reasons that a small amount of blood is ok. Another line of reasoning is that some (maybe even all) compenents of blood are transfered between a mother and her unborn baby, the society reasons that Jehovah would not break his own law so if it is legal for a baby and mother to swap certain types of blood components it must be legal for everybody. sorry for spelling.

jelly

Hello Bod, this is in reply to was there ever a ban on higher education. I guess that means on what you consider as a ban, for me the only way to ban something was to make it a disfellowshipping offense, which higher education never was, how could it be its not a sin. The society did view it however as a waste of time and restrictions were put on people that went to college (in some congragations). So i guess its just what you consider a ban to be.

Frenchy

Hello, Jelly. Yes, those are the published reasons for the stand on blood fractions. Now, do they hold water for you?

jelly

Frenchy, I am basically fine with the societies stand on blood parts it makes sense to me. If the society made blood transfusions a complete conscious decision I would be okay with that also. As always I will wait on jehovah.

Bodhisattva

Jelly, I certainly take your point that there was not an explicit ban on college, but as was well attested in the other thread, it was implied that it would be wrong. More below on what that meant to me.

First let's take your argument that it was not a disfellowshipping offense to the extreme: Accepting a blood transfusion - whole blood, platelets, RBCs, WBCs, or plasma - is NOT a disfellowshipping offense. But would you say that there is not a ban on blood transfusions? Would you say to your brothers and sisters that under certain circumstances, you would accept a blood transfusion to save your life? If so, that is the disfellowshipping offense, espousing blood transfusion. Taking blood is not a disfellowshipping offense, unless you fail to be sorry that you did.

Now if what is not a disfellowshipping offense is allowable, that means one thing in society at large, where people freely exercise their option to do whatever is lawful with impunity. It is like the many mainline churches that are involved in charitable activities, but in which no one is guilted or forced into giving of their time or their money, but only as they feel like doing. But what of our fellowship? Were we told to go ahead with higher education, or anything else, if it seemed right to us personally? Or were we taught - are we taught - that the organization is like a automobile that we should be safely inside of, not "on the running boards," where we could ever so easily fall off?

I am currently facing the decision of whether to offload some of my congregational responsibilities in order to make my life easier while I'm attending college. I know that the brothers will advise me not to step back - this is not the time to slow up - and that they would recommend avoiding anything that begins to conflict with meetings and personal study. At the same time I know that my boss, who is encouraging me to do all I can in my secular education, has my best interests in mind. I know now that the same was true of all the teachers who encourages me to reconsider my decision years ago not to go to college, though at the time I hated them for "persecuting" me! But by far the biggest obstacle sits in this chair with me; I have always pushed forward toward greater responsibilities and privileges, adding duty upon duty, stubbornly declining to pull back from one thing if I thought I could simultaneously juggle another two. This is not how my family is, this industriousness to the point of self-destruction. Nonetheless I was raised this way - by the organization. I always scoffed - didn't we all - at those who decided not to do what they didn't have to do: Join the school, get baptized young, auxillary pioneer. Now when it is reasonable and in my best interests to step back from just a few duties that many brothers never have, I resist it and do so at my own peril. And that is the most effective control of all, more than men should have.

That is why any restriction, ban, or even denunciation should be carefully examined as to whether it comes from men or from God, and whether it makes sense and can be defended with reason. I would have a hard time defending the components we take to someone at the door. Actually, since I know that many owe their lives and health to these components, I would have a hard time defending why we don't take certain other "major" components, since we now know that they too pass through the placental barrier during the reproductive process God ordained, and that they to would be among the "small amount of blood" left over in the flesh of animals used for food. As you said in your second response on this second page of the topic, you're okay with whatever the Society says. So too 6 million souls, and so what the Society says should be examined just as much as the words of the Apostles, to verify whether these things are really so like the Boreans. I wasn't very good at reasoning and explaining why we don't go to college and why we don't accept alternative service either, back when we didn't.

Your brother,
Bodhisattva

Frenchy

I find myself agreeing with Bod. I, too was discouraged by the Society which (then and now) presented itself as the undisputable voice of God from attending higher education. It is too late for me now because I'm too old to go to college. Making a living for my family was very difficult because of my limited education. I can't see how that brought me any closer to Jehovah. Well, that has pretty much (not entirely, though) gone out of the window. Many witnesses were told that vaccinations were wrong and although that was before my time, I'm sure that many suffered as a result of that unreasonable 'divine light'. Fortunately that has gone by the wayside as well the prohibition on transplants (more 'divine light' now dispersed). I expect that one day the transfusion thing will go the same way that the little pyramids the witnesses wore in the thirties went. BUT how many people will die for someone's opinion?

Jelly, you said that you are content to wait on Jehovah. That is an admirable attitude. But please ask yourself: "Am I waiting on Jehovah or on the Society?" Let us please never confuse the two. 'Jehovah is one Jehovah' and he alone is God. He never errs and his light never gets brighter because it's never dim.

I await your replies.

Frenchy

Is there anyone else out there who is not entirely comfortable with our stand on blood?

Is there anyone that IS comfortable with it and would like to share their thoughts with us?

No arguments, no abuse, just honest opinions.

What's Sacred, what's not?

Share this