THE NEWS IS BIGGER THAN DATELINE, BBC, CBC, ETC.

by AndersonsInfo 1093 Replies latest watchtower scandals

Enigma One

Abaddon, my Cheerio's were quite urine free this morning and only contained slightly chilled bovine lactate.

My posts are merely to point out a couple of things. One is to point out the instances where "hype" was added to. The 2nd is to defend those being crucified for not seeing this as "big news" and feeling a bit mislead by the hype. A JWD Public Defender of the Masses. LOL. Merely that. Don't tell me a turd is a diamond and get mad at me for seeing it as it truly is, and I won't blow smoke up your arse. Fair?

So I'll quit being a "wet blanket" on the orgy of mental musings ya'll want to indulge in, and take my leave for awhile until the board resumes a more "normal" state of being. I get it. I'll be on my way.

Jourles - "I have no control how other people will take my comments into consideration." I'll scream "FIRE" in a crowded theater and blame the stampede on the cattle's lack of understanding my sarcasm.

Here's 3 of your previous posts on this thread:

"I'm bursting here. must........not.........post...........the.............news"

"Let's just say that many here have already touched on the subject. Yes, it is significant."

"I have a feeling JR Brown will be saying, "No Comment" quite frequently in the coming weeks. If the WTS is reading this(they probably are), they are already crapping themselves wondering what to do."

These comments on a thread saying "The news is bigger than dateline, BBC, CBC, Etc".

Let your words speak for themselves, and let each judge the merits.
AuldSoul

EnigmaOne,
I'll grant that your analogy of screaming fire in a crowded theater has validity if (1) you can explain to me how you yourself or anyone else was harmed by the announcement and (2) you can prove there wasn't a "fire".
Since I trust you will fail miserably on both scores, I will be looking forward to your return once you find a way to be more appreciative for what is being attempted by someone, somewhere that you wouldn't even attempt.
AuldSoul
Maryjane

I'm still pondering the news and in the great JW tradition I'd like to offer an illustration:
If you set your freezer thermostat to 33-degrees farenheit eventually any ice in it will melt. Only a small, 1-degree change, but enough to turn hard ice to water. The ice will not melt instantly ...it is a slow thawing process. Maybe this perceptively "small" news will turn out to be pivitol after all.
DevonMcBride

What's more important saving someone's life or taking down the Watchtower? I'm sorry to say it's not likely your JW family members will leave the Society over this nor will it cause WT to topple. But it could save their life if our voices and actions force the Society to change their policy. It's our responsibility to get this information out to organizations, individuals, and media. Not to cause mass exodus, not to destroy WT, but to save hundreds of lives around the world including your friends and relatives who are still in and may be faced with this life-saving issue.
Everyday the Watchtower continues to have a ban on blood transfusions, Jehovah's Witnesses around the world are at risk of dying. The Society will not change this policy unless they are forced to. Until this news broke, we had NOTHING that could force this change. However big or small you may think this news is, it's at least SOMETHING we can try to use.
Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. But isn't it worth a try?
Jourles

"I'm bursting here. must........not.........post...........the.............news"
This was a comment made after I found out that I was correct in guessing that the news was based on blood. Let's say that you knew who the winner of Survivor was(had inside information), but the producers asked that you keep it to yourself since no one else knew who actually won or under what circumstances they won the game. If you were a huge fan of Survivor and posted thousands of times on Survivor boards, wouldn't you be dying to reveal who the winner was to all of your online friends? If all you had was a name, some people might drop little hints here and there to help people clue in - without ever coming out and flatly saying so and so won. A couple of people here asked me not to give out too much information. The problem was, I only knew the gist of the news -- I had no idea it would be as soft as it is(IMO).

"Let's just say that many here have already touched on the subject. Yes, it is significant."
Here was one of my little hints. Blood was touched on. And yes, the blood doctrine is very significant to me. Notice that in the quote? "...touched on the subject. Yes, it is significant." The subject happened to be based on blood.
I'll scream "FIRE" in a crowded theater and blame the stampede on the cattle's lack of understanding my sarcasm.
I had to save this one for last. How you correlate my anticipation for this news being based on blood and comparing it to screaming Fire! in a theater is beyond me. Did my anticipation and guesswork cause any physical harm or mental distress? I'll let the board decide if I am guilty of such hurtful remarks. But then again, why should I even have to defend my own opinion? It's just that. MY OPINION. I'm not the one making people follow what I say. There are no repurcussions for not agreeing with me. If you do not agree with my stance and actions, that's your prerogative.
At least I can say that I caused some grief to the WTS in the past/current. My contributions to the exjw community may not be large, but I do what I can to help in anyway possible - a pawn if you will. Being df'd for apostacy is probably the greatest label the WTS could have ever given me. In fact, I feel that it is a diploma of sorts which shows that I have finally advanced far enough in my understanding, a diploma which states that I am a formidable opponent of the WTS. This is what matters to me. I could care less how other people would view it.
I really cannot believe that some of us who take sides on this matter are being forced to defend our actions. There should be no sides. This essay may help others in their fight against the WTS. Personally, it does not help me that much. But others may find it very necessary to continue on.
Has it really come to this? Having to defend ourselves due to some news not meeting our expectations? That is why I prefer to argue facts and not emotional issues, as this has turned out to be.
Chia

That sounds like a reasonable assessment, Jourles. I respect your opinion. As for me, I'm taking a "wait and see" attitude. It hasn't hit me over the head like a ton of bricks, but it may just get something going.
serendipity

Hi Jeda,
Welcome to the forum!

SWALKER

Skeeter1...I feel that I have to address your repeated threads where I think YOU misrepresent the information found in the Blood Booklet. I think the WTS has their A$$ totally covered by the MANY statements they make that this is a Biblical issue, but then add medical info to it. Here's what I found when I looked at it without rose-colored glasses on:

How Can Blood Save Your Life?

Blood—Vital For Life

How can blood save your life? This no doubt is of interest to you because blood is linked to your life. Blood carries oxygen through your body, removes carbon dioxide, helps you adapt to temperature changes, and aids in your fight against disease.

People who believe in such a Life-Giver trust that his directions are for our lasting good. A Hebrew prophet described him as "the One teaching you to benefit yourself, the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk."

That assurance, at Isaiah 48:17 , is part of the Bible, a book respected for ethical values that can benefit all of us. What does it say about human use of blood? Does it show how lives can be saved with blood? Actually, the Bible shows clearly that blood is more than a complex biologic fluid. It mentions blood over 400 times, and some of these references involve the saving of life.

In one early reference, the Creator declared: "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. . . . But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." He added: "For your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting," and he then condemned murder. ( Genesis 9:3-6 , New International Version) He said that to Noah, a common ancestor highly esteemed by Jews, Muslims, and Christians. All humanity was thus notified that in the Creator's view, blood stands for life. This was more than a dietary regulation. Clearly a moral principle was involved. Human blood has great significance and should not be misused. The Creator later added details from which we can easily see the moral issues that he links to lifeblood.

"The precepts hereby set down in a precise and methodical manner [in Acts 15 ] are qualified as indispensable, giving the strongest proof that in the apostles' minds this was not a temporary arrangement, or a provisional measure."—Professor Édouard Reuss, University of Strasbourg.

He again referred to blood when he gave the Law code to ancient Israel. While many people respect the wisdom and ethics in that code, few are aware of its serious laws on blood. For instance: "If anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who reside among them partakes of any blood, I will set My face against the person who partakes of the blood, and I will cut him off from among his kin. For the life of the flesh is in the blood." ( Leviticus 17:10, 11 , Tanakh) God then explained what a hunter was to do with a dead animal: "He shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. . . . You shall not partake of the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Anyone who partakes of it shall be cut off."— Leviticus 17:13, 14 , Ta.

Scientists now know that the Jewish Law code promoted good health. It required, for example, that excrement be deposited outside the camp and covered and that people not eat meat that carried a high risk of disease. ( Leviticus 11:4-8 , 13 ; 17:15 ; Deuteronomy 23:12, 13 ) While the law about blood had health aspects, much more was involved. Blood had a symbolic meaning. It stood for life provided by the Creator. By treating blood as special, the people showed dependence on him for life. Yes, the chief reason why they were not to take in blood was, not that it was unhealthy, but that it had special meaning to God.

At a historic council, the Christian governing body confirmed that God's law on blood is still binding

The Law repeatedly stated the Creator's ban on taking in blood to sustain life. "You must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water. Do not eat it, so that it may go well with you and your children after you, because you will be doing what is right."— Deuteronomy 12:23-25 , NIV; 15:23 ; Leviticus 7:26, 27 ; Ezekiel 33:25 .#

Contrary to how some today reason, God's law on blood was not to be ignored just because an emergency arose. During a wartime crisis, some Israelite soldiers killed animals and "fell to eating along with the blood." In view of the emergency, was it permissible for them to sustain their lives with blood? No. Their commander pointed out that their course was still a grave wrong. ( 1 Samuel 14:31-35 ) Hence, precious as life is, our Life-Giver never said that his standards could be ignored in an emergency.

BLOOD AND TRUE CHRISTIANS

Where does Christianity stand on the question of saving human life with blood?

Jesus was a man of integrity, which is why he is so highly regarded. He knew that the Creator said that taking in blood was wrong and that this law was binding. Hence, there is good reason to believe that Jesus would uphold the law about blood even if he was under pressure to do otherwise. Jesus "did no wrong, [and] no treachery was found on his lips." ( 1 Peter 2:22 , Knox) He thus set a pattern for his followers, including a pattern of respect for life and blood. (We will later consider how Jesus' own blood is involved in this vital matter affecting your life.)

Note what happened when, years after Jesus' death, a question arose about whether someone becoming a Christian had to keep all of Israel's laws. This was discussed at a council of the Christian governing body, which included the apostles. Jesus' half brother James referred to writings containing the commands about blood stated to Noah and to the nation of Israel. Would such be binding on Christians?— Acts 15:1-21 .

That council sent their decision to all congregations: Christians need not keep the code given to Moses, but it is "necessary" for them to "keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [unbled meat] and from fornication." ( Acts 15:22-29 ) The apostles were not presenting a mere ritual or dietary ordinance. The decree set out fundamental ethical norms, which early Christians complied with. About a decade later they acknowledged that they should still "keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood . . . and from fornication."— Acts 21:25 .

You know that millions of people attend churches. Most of them would probably agree that Christian ethics involve not giving worship to idols and not sharing in gross immorality. However, it is worth our noting that the apostles put avoiding blood on the same high moral level as avoiding those wrongs. Their decree concluded: "If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!"— Acts 15:29 .

The apostolic decree was long understood as binding. Eusebius tells of a young woman near the end of the second century who, before dying under torture, made the point that Christians "are not allowed to eat the blood even of irrational animals." She was not exercising a right to die. She wanted to live, but she would not compromise her principles. Do you not respect those who put principle above personal gain?

Scientist Joseph Priestley concluded: "The prohibition to eat blood, given to Noah, seems to be obligatory on all his posterity . . . If we interpret [the] prohibition of the apostles by the practice of the primitive Christians, who can hardly be supposed not to have rightly understood the nature and extent of it, we cannot but conclude, that it was intended to be absolute and perpetual; for blood was not eaten by any Christians for many centuries."

WHAT OF USING BLOOD AS MEDICINE?

Would the Biblical prohibition on blood cover medical uses, such as transfusions, which certainly were not known in the days of Noah, Moses, or the apostles?

While modern therapy employing blood did not exist back then, medicinal use of blood is not modern. For some 2,000 years, in Egypt and elsewhere, human "blood was regarded as the sovereign remedy for leprosy." A physician revealed the therapy given to King Esar-haddon's son when the nation of Assyria was on the leading edge of technology: "[The prince] is doing much better; the king, my lord, can be happy. Starting with the 22nd day I give (him) blood to drink, he will drink (it) for 3 days. For 3 more days I shall give (him blood) for internal application." Esar-haddon had dealings with the Israelites. Yet, because the Israelites had God's Law, they would never drink blood as medicine.

Was blood used as medicine in Roman times? The naturalist Pliny (a contemporary of the apostles) and the second-century physician Aretaeus report that human blood was a treatment for epilepsy. Tertullian later wrote: "Consider those who with greedy thirst, at a show in the arena, take the fresh blood of wicked criminals . . . and carry it off to heal their epilepsy." He contrasted them with Christians, who "do not even have the blood of animals at [their] meals . . . At the trials of Christians you offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that [it] is unlawful for them." So, early Christians would risk death rather than take in blood.

"Blood in its more everyday form did not . . . go out of fashion as an ingredient in medicine and magic," reports the book Flesh and Blood. "In 1483, for example, Louis XI of France was dying. 'Every day he grew worse, and the medicines profited him nothing, though of a strange character; for he vehemently hoped to recover by the human blood which he took and swallowed from certain children.'"

"God and men view things in very different lights. What appears important in our eye is very often of no account in the estimation of infinite wisdom; and what appears trifling to us is often of very great importance with God. It was so from the beginning."—An Enquiry Into the Lawfulness of Eating Blood, Alexander Pirie, 1787.

What of transfusing blood? Experiments with this began near the start of the 16th century. Thomas Bartholin (1616-80), professor of anatomy at the University of Copenhagen, objected: 'Those who drag in the use of human blood for internal remedies of diseases appear to misuse it and to sin gravely. Cannibals are condemned. Why do we not abhor those who stain their gullet with human blood? Similar is the receiving of alien blood from a cut vein, either through the mouth or by instruments of transfusion. The authors of this operation are held in terror by the divine law, by which the eating of blood is prohibited.'

Hence, thinking people in past centuries realized that the Biblical law applied to taking blood into the veins just as it did to taking it into the mouth. Bartholin concluded: "Either manner of taking [blood] accords with one and the same purpose, that by this blood a sick body be nourished or restored."

This overview may help you to understand the nonnegotiable religious stand that Jehovah's Witnesses take. They highly value life, and they seek good medical care. But they are determined not to violate God's standard, which has been consistent: Those who respect life as a gift from the Creator do not try to sustain life by taking in blood.

Still, for years claims have been made that blood saves lives. Doctors can relate cases in which someone had acute blood loss but was transfused and then improved rapidly. So you may wonder, 'How wise or unwise is this medically?' Medical evidence is offered to support blood therapy. Thus, you owe it to yourself to get the facts in order to make an informed choice about blood.

* Paul, at Acts 17:25 , 28 , New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

# Similar prohibitions were later written in the Qur´an.

Picture Credits:
1. A Chart of Veins and William Harvey: Reproduced from Medicine and the Artist (Ars Medica) by permission of the Philadelphia Museum of Art/Carl Zigrosser/Dover Publications, Inc.
2. Martin Luther: Woodcut by Lucas Cranach

Published in 1990

How did you miss all the Biblical references and the statements that it is a RELIGIOUS stand they use on not taking blood. As much as I would like to see it be a conscious matter...I don't see any way that this can be used in the way the essay is suggesting. By your taking exerpts and using them to put across your viewpoint...how are you any different? I am not attacking you, only pointing out what I said in another thread...everyone does this to prove their point. I don't see any reason for the WTS to take this down off the net. I would love to be proved wrong!!!

Swalker

AuldSoul

SWALKER,
No one disputes that the stand is a religious stand. Her paper, which I am not sure you have read, admits that at the outset. However, it narrows the legal focus to one of misrepresentations of medical facts IN SUPPORT of that stand. That is what you have failed to pick up on, despite its being stated repeatedly.
In cases where an unbelieving mate has lost their JW spouse, the mate may have upheld the stand on blood but may not have done so out of regard for, or confidence in, the religious stand on blood. In cases where a Jehovah's Witness did not know they were lie to about the risks until AFTER a tragedy associated to it has occurred, they may properly claim that had the support from the medical facts not been a factor in the indoctrination they may have decided differently, or even would have decided differently.
Hopefully, that clears up what is being discussed. You can try to push the issue as being purely religious until you are blue in the face, precedent already allows for dividing what is said as religious doctrine from what is said as secular fact in cases of compelling state interest.
It isn't a matter of whether it is ALSO religious, it is a matter of whether secular facts were misrepresented to BOLSTER a religious belief. That has already been tested successfully.
Still, for years claims have been made that blood saves lives. Doctors can relate cases in which someone had acute blood loss but was transfused and then improved rapidly. So you may wonder, 'How wise or unwise is this medically?' Medical evidence is offered to support blood therapy. Thus, you owe it to yourself to get the facts in order to make an informed choice about blood.
They present themselves as an alternate source of medical information from which to make an informed choice. They overstepped the protections afforded to religious doctrine when they crossed this line. If anything over this line is misrepresented, they can be sued for it.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
Big Tex

I feel that I have to address your repeated threads where I think YOU misrepresent the information found in the Blood Booklet. I think the WTS has their A$$ totally covered by the MANY statements they make that this is a Biblical issue, but then add medical info to it.

With all due respect SWalker, the Society are the ones who misrepresent facts. The Blood booklet is rife with quotes taken out of context and misapplied in ways they were not originally intended.
For example, the Society quotes Jason Priestley:
Scientist Joseph Priestley concluded: ‘The prohibition to eat blood, given to Noah, seems to be obligatory on all his posterity . . . If we interpret [the] blood prohibition of the apostles by the practice of the primitive Christians, who can hardly be supposed not to have rightly understood the nature and extent of it, we cannot but conclude, that it was intended to be absolute and perpetual; for blood was not eaten by any Christians for many centuries.’

As the article points out, this quote came from a religious work of his entitled, “The Theological and Miscellaneous Works of Joseph Priestley.” He began this book with this quote:
"The question concerning the lawfulness of eating blood, ought to have been considered under the head of precepts that are not of a moral nature; but, as it is a subject of much less importance than the rest, and of a more doubtful nature, I have thought proper to reserve the discussion of it to this Appendix, in which I shall endeavor to do justice to the arguments on both sides."
In other writings he argued there was nothing wrong with Christians eating blood. The Society completely distorts and misrepresents his work by making him appear to advocate an absolute prohibition when in fact he was not committed either way and actually did not think the issue important enough to even discuss in the work the Society quotes.
The Society does this again when they quote Eusebius and Tertullian. Quotes are lifted out of context to make both writers appear to say what in fact they did not. This is misrepresentation.
As for the medical, it is more of the same (I can provide several examples if you wish).
Realize that since the Society allows blood fractions, use of hemodilution machines and the use of therapy transfusions of blood (so long as the blood is current and not stored), they cannot say there is an absolute prohibition on blood. They do not 'abstain' from blood. This is another misrepresentation.

THE NEWS IS BIGGER THAN DATELINE, BBC, CBC, ETC.

Share this