Probably the Biggest Con in the World

by dutyfree 11 Replies latest jw friends

  • dutyfree
    dutyfree

    I have a question:

    Why is it that since the inception of this bizarre religion, there was no problem with blood transfusions during Russell's reign, no problems during Rutherford's term and then out of the blue... NO BLOOD!

    As my JW tenant said to me the other day, '...you cannot mis-interpret that line in the bible (referring to the passage which says, '...you should abstain from blood...').

    If that is the case, why did it take over 60 years for the JWs to realize that there was a problem after all, and thus issuing a total ban?

    Of course, we all know that Rutherford (President #2) was the biggest Conman in recent times: a cigar-smoking, notorious alcoholic and adulterer who didn't give a damn about his 'flock' so long as he was safe but, that's besides the point!

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    : Why is it that since the inception of this bizarre religion, there was no problem with blood transfusions during Russell's reign,

    Um, 'cause they didn't do them back then?

    : no problems during Rutherford's term

    Um, 'cause they didn't do them back then, or they were rare and experimental and not a part of normal medicine?

    : and then out of the blue...NO BLOOD!

    Cults are like that.

    : Of course, we all know that Rutherford (President #2) was the biggest Conman in recent times: a cigar-smoking, notorious alcoholic and adulterer who didn't give a damn about his 'flock' so long as he was safe but, that's besides the point!

    Blood transfusions were forbidden starting in 1961, nearly twenty years after Rutherford died.

    You can blame Fred Franz and Nathan Knorr, but Rutherford didn't make blood transfusions a disfellowshiping offense. They did.

    Farkel

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    Hmm, well, back in my sin-sodden youth, you couldn't get the big heave-ho for accepting a blood transfusion, you were just regarded as an "immature person".

    Mind you, you wouldn't have been DF'd for:

    1 Non ejaculatory sexual intercourse.

    2 Mutual masturbation.

    3 Buggery. That,s right! See CoC, where a sister was forbidden to divorce her husband even though he had anal sex with a prostitute, only full penile/vaginal sex was a then Df'able offence.

    No wonder there are so many messed up people in the WTBTS!

    Englishman.

  • seven006
    seven006

    It's a recorded historical fact that ancient Egyptians performed blood transfusions thousands of years before the Judged lit his first stogie. I have never seen in the bible story book where the practice of blood transfusions was ever recorded, unless you count the one that god gave the Nile river.

    Since there were a boat load of Jews slaving away in jolly old Egypt you would think there would have been that rule on at least one of the old stone tablets if it was so damn important. I guess those poor impoverished slaves were too busy pulling enough gold out of their butt banks to build that golden calf they just forgot to mention the blood thing.

    I do however think that it could have been just an oversight on their part. I know it had to be implied, some where, some time. History doesn't get everything right. They still can't find any evidence of a few hundred thousand people roaming around the wilderness for forty years either. Probably the biggest Disneyland for archeologist in the world and not one little speck of evidence. Stupid archeologist, don't they know noth'n!

    Dave

  • Stephanus
    Stephanus

    Actually the archaeologists in Southern Israel have no problem with the Biblical view; every site which the Bible mentions as being an Israelite campsite shows evidence of a large encampment of Middle Bronze I people, a group which shows a large amount of Egyptian (Middle Kingdom) influence, who eventually sacked and settled most of what is now Palestine. The MBIers tended to live in tents even on the cities they had conquered; MBIIers tended to build large cities like those which are recorded as being those of the kings of Judah and Israel. The trouble is that the MBIIers are too early to be the Israelites according to current dating practice (all dates ultimately derive from Egypt) The trouble with dating using Egypt is that Egyptian dates aren't too reliable and getting less so all the time. For example it has been discovered that the cattle muster in the Middle Kingdom was actually annual rather than biannual as was originally believed. This would effectively halve the length of the Middle Kingdom period of Egypt. In Middle Kingdom Egypt, there were huge settlements of semitic labourers working on various building projects; they simply vanished. The evidence for the Exodus is actually there, if you look.

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    Seven006,

    : Since there were a boat load of Jews slaving away in jolly old Egypt you would think there would have been that rule on at least one of the old stone tablets if it was so damn important.

    As I understand it, there's no evidence for them-there Jews being slaves in Egypt as depicted in that docu-drama known as the "Bible."
    Farkel

  • slipnslidemaster
    slipnslidemaster

    I thought that I read here on the board that either Nathan Knorr or Freddie Franz had an extreme aversion to germs and contamination to the extreme (OCD)?

    Slipnslidemaster: Doin' the humpty hump...just doin' the humpty hump...

  • You Know
    You Know

    Blood transfusions didn't become popular until World War Two. It wasn't possible before then because refrigeration wasn't widely available. / You Know

  • seven006
    seven006

    Its obvious that you know little more about history than what is printed in the JW coloring books.

    Blood transfusions were performed on a regular basis in ancient Egypt.
    You do not need refrigeration to keep the blood preserved if you are
    doing a direct body to body transfusion, much as they did in world W.W.II.

    Instruments have been found that were used in these ancient medical practice much like the instruments used in infusing embalming fluid to preserve their well known mummies. You have heard of mummy's haven't ya?

    The difference between how they did it then, and now is, today they match blood types where back then did not. The practice of transfusing
    blood was lost for many centuries just as the practice of leeching was.

    Leeching has come back in a big way in medical practices today along with the use of dead tissue eating maggots.

    Speaking of dead tissue eating maggots......Damn, I have to get back to work, talk to ya later dude.

    dave

  • You Know
    You Know

    Lookey here demon boy. I didn't say transfusions were invented during WWII, I said that's when they became popular because it wasn't possible to do it on an industrial scale without refridgeration. / You Know

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit