Why the Watchtower Will Never Change on Blood -(or much else)

by metatron 12 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Pole

  And now, a special note: an additional reason why they will never reform their illogical, death-dealing doctrine about blood transfusion - because killing more duped Witnesses is the safest thing they can do. You see, as long as they hide behind the First Amendment and the general rights afforded to a religion internationally, they're perfectly safe. If they changed, lots of bad things would happen. Authority would be lost. Lawsuits might even spring up. Cash flow would be impeded. They actually need a dead Witness now and then to emphasize the thing and keep it going, so it's still a "religion" issue that can't be touched ( well, except for brave Moscow prosecutors!)

  
  Yes, and actually here is the best part of it:
  They make dubs believes they are martyrs for God when they die for their stupid policies. The same kind of brainwashing was used in the case of the Malawi problem. They first came up with a stupid policy which killed hundreds and hurt thousands and then they made the victims believe that they had suffered for God.
  Pole
• 

  hawkaw

  Well ... there are a couple of points here.

  One they banned and then reversed on organ transplants.

  Two they banned and then reversed on vaccines

  Three they banned all sorts of blood products and now let more than 1/2 of the known blood transfusion therapies.

  I note that they did allow blood transfusions at one time too.

  I note that they have changed using the bible to using the bible and medicine to justify their ban.

  One issue I see all the time is the failure in the media to actually report that JWs do actually accept many blood tranfusion therapies, will accept white blood cell transfers (via breast feeding) and base their doctrine on certain medical as well as bible litature.

  The media always seems to tell us that JWs don't accept blood and then tell us that their doctrine is based on some parts of the bible such as Acts 15.

  Usually the media covers these blood refusal cases, especially when its a JW child. Usually it is the WTS lawyers who actually get the media interested in this stuff (right Shane Brady!). I think if we (and lord knows I have tried a few times) actually get the media convinced that JWs do accept many blood transfusions and base it actually on medical literature, that might get, not only the public but a lot more JWs wondering and maybe forcing the issue a little.

  Just a thought and thus, I urge the pressure to be kept up on these guys as done by AJWRB and other great people on this board.

  hawk
• 

  sir82

  Wasn't there a Time / Newsweek article, or maybe a poll / study, a year or so ago (too lazy to research it)....

  Anyway, the thrust was that, counterintuitively, it was the strictest, hard-line religions that were generally showing the most growth. Religions that were more tolerant of dissenting opinions and lax in the moral requirements of their members were in decline.

  One possible explanation proposed was that the type of people who are drawn to religion need to have decisions made for them. They are paralyzed by too many choices in life, and are far more secure when decsions are made for them, or at least when there are rigid boundary lines within which they can operate.

  When I read that, I recall thinking "if our noble WT leaders read this, well, there goes any hope of softening or reform". And, as Metatron has brought out, there does seem to be more of a hardline approach over the past year or so.