Organ Transplants Bad->Good / Blood Transfusions Bad->Good ?

by still_in74 31 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  still_in74

  could never understand that either, until I realized it is a different society today than it was in the early 80's. Plus, the j.w.'s in those days...maybe also today? wouldn't sue the Watchtower Society, because even though they lost a loved one to the ridiculous practice of refusing organ transplants, would never THINK of sueing "God's Channel of Communication."

  its amazing isnt it? when you read all those articles about not suing our brothers, who is the WTS really protecting? Us? I think not!
• 

  leavingwt

  its amazing isnt it? when you read all those articles about not suing our brothers, who is the WTS really protecting? Us? I think not!

  With ANY organization, follow the $$$. Maintain a healthy dose of skepticism. If you prove that they're NOT out to screw you, THEN you can be pleasantly surprised.

  I realize that's awfully cynical, but heck, I'm an ex cult member. Whadda ya expect?
• 

  undercover

  Note thought, my "concoction" is almost word for word from the March 15, 1980 article on organ transplants quoted above. my substitutions are italicized and they are minimal.....

  Yea, I gathered it was a rewrite with the key words changed. "concoction" may not have been the best word to use, but it was the best I could come up with at the moment.

  Isn't it interesting how they change their logic from one subject to another? They'll use a logical argument to support one doctrine, but if you use that same logic for another one, it doesn't add up the same.

  It's like the birthday/pinata thing. For years and years both birthdays and pinatas are bad. Then pinatas were okay because as their logical argument points out...it's not what pinatas used to mean but that it's now become a fun thing to do with no pagan or religious influence. You can take that same exact article and substitue 'pinata' withh 'birthday' and come up with a logical argument why birthdays should be okay to celebrate, but yet birtdays are still verboten.
• 

  sir82

  Re: Birthdays:

  I recall someone on this site, many years ago, presented a line of reasoning (tongue in cheek of course) on why the Society should ban cosmetics for women. I don't recall the details, but the reasons for doing so would exactly parallel the reasons given for not celebrating birthdays:

  -- The only mention of cosmetics in the Bible are related to wickedness (Jezebel, prostitutes)

  -- Draws attention to the individual, not to God

  There were 2 or 3 other points - but it fit perfectly!
• 

  slimboyfat

  If no one was ever disfellowshipped for organ transplantation doesn't that detract from the argument somewhat?
• 

  leavingwt

  If no one was ever disfellowshipped for organ transplantation doesn't that detract from the argument somewhat?

  Somewhat, yes. I want to know if anyone died. The Society brags about the folks that die by refusing blood. Their hailed as "loyal unto death" and such. (It reminds me of the suicide bomber culture of death, with its proud parents, etc.) I've seen no article praising the dead folks that refused organs.

  Only if organ transplants were a common, life-saving procedure in hospitals at the time the ban was in effect, can we say that the ban on organ transplants was as egregious/immoral/disgusting as the current ban on blood. Right?

  -LWT
• 

  civicsi00

  I have been researching this topic recently because of my father-in-law. He has started to tell one of the elders off that the Society has really screwed up the blood doctrine.

  In my research, I've learned that:

  -The Society admits that when the bible mentions blood, it is only in connection with taking it in as food.

  -The Society has also admitted that blood transfusions are tissue transplants.

  -Then the Society has admitted that they cannot be the judge of anyone who accepts a tissue transplant.

  The only two things I see that hold the Society back from permitting blood transfusions completely, without disfellowshipping, are:

  -They are still very adamant about teaching that blood transfusions are a nutrient (by using false analogies) and therefore should be rejected. (This is completely untrue, proven by modern medical knowledge, hence why they quote 17th century medical science when it comes to this.)

  -That it is a violation of God's law if someone sustains their life off of blood. (This is something that is NOT taught in the bible. It is a completely man-made rule.)
• 

  slimboyfat

  The worst thing about the blood doctrine as it stands in my opinion is that Jehovah's Witnesses will accept blood fractions but they will still not donate blood. That is just pathetic no matter what way you look at it.

  It also typifies their total lack of sense of community spirit within the communities in which they live. It is a "dying system" after all... unless they can use your blood fraction, then it's a case of, "that'll do nicely thank you very much, but don't expect me to betray my conscience and return the favour".
• 

  dismayed

  I think they will permit all fractions even the "major" ones within 10 years. Then in about another 20 years they will drop it altogether.

  the light gets brighter....
• 

  leavingwt

  The worst thing about the blood doctrine as it stands in my opinion is that Jehovah's Witnesses will accept blood fractions but they will still not donate blood.

  I feel the worst thing is the dead children. This is not an abstract issue, it's a real issue. The lack of JW blood donors will not prevent anyone from getting a life-saving transfusion.

  -LWT