DAMNED CONSCIENCE:JW Hypocrites Who Take Blood Products

by steve2 35 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  toreador

  Hello Steve2,

  You wrote:

  could I assume that the Watchtower itself has not published its views in any of its publications ;of donating blood ;under restricted conditions being a conscience matter?

  To my knowledge the WTS has not written anything of the sort that the rank and file JW would have access to. Even the dumbest JW would realize the stupidity of the doctrinal claim they make that JW's abstain "FROM" blood. How do you abstain FROM something whilst using FROM the same substance at the same time.

  I doubt if even many CO's have given it much thought. The one I had a run in with certainly didnt. They (the elder and co) were more interested in if "I believed that the faithful slave was God's representative on earth" than answering any questions I had at the time about blood.

  Tor
• 

  M.J.

  good point about throwing the "pouring blood out on the ground" argument out the window. If they had to own up to this position, then how can they still maintain their prohibition on storing your own blood?
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hello, Steve2

  You write:

  “Marvin, from the information that you provide - obtained via phone calls - could I assume that the Watchtower itself has not published its views in any of its publications of donating blood under restricted conditions being a conscience matter?”

  Not only can you assume it, for a fact the WTS has not published its policy of allowing JWs to donated blood so long as that blood will only be used in the same fractionated forms that JWs accept without religious repercussion from the WTS. In fact, contrarily the latest published policy the WTS has seen fit to provide to JWs says this:

  “Hence, we do not donate blood, nor do we store for transfusion our blood that should be ‘poured out.’ That practice conflicts with God’s law.”—Questions From Readers, The Watchtower 10/15/2000 page 31

  Please keep in mind that the WTS policy we are talking about is not just a matter of voice confirmation. Whether the WTS likes it now or not, it did confirm this policy in writing by means of private correspondence in the Roche letter.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  toreador

  
  Hello Marvin,

  What I wonder is how can the Governing Body of JW's sleep at night knowing they have a two conflicting doctrines at the same time? Or are they so old they dont realize it?

  Tor
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hello, toreader

  You write:

  “What I wonder is how can the Governing Body of JW's sleep at night know they have a two conflicting doctrines at the same time? Or are they so old they dont realize it?”

  Some of them do not sleep well at night, for the very reason of their hypocrisy and dastardly conduct. Others relish in their devious ways; they think they’re clever. It’s sickening.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  jgnat

  I'd think the requirement to hold two conflicting beliefs at the same time would be a membership requirement. My hubby can't do it. "Worldly people are buzzard meat." "DON'T THELL THEM THAT, STUPID." He's always getting in trouble with the elders for taking their instructions literally.
• 

  Calliope

  in WTS fashion:

  "Gary*, a long-standing and well-respected member of the association of Jehovah's Witnesses, said in part "it is okay to ...[use or partake}... of blood'".

  *some names may have been changed.
• 

  montana96

  I agree and this was one of my biggest problems with the blood issue. Someone has to donate blood in the first place to make these other products, so why cant jw donate blood?

  I have had many discussions with my jw elder dad who firmly believes that because the blood is broken down with various other products it really is no longer blood!

  But someone still has to donate and to push the issue with jw makes them feel very uncomfortable because they honestly cant answer it as the society cant answer it properly either, they are all very confused as to what is a conscience matter and what isnt. My father-in-law died because he refused blood, but its interesting to read about the products he would be allowed to have today that he would have been di

  sfellowshipped for having years earlier. But as the family say"he still died faithful". Mercedesx
• 

  steve2

  Someone has to donate blood in the first place to make these other products, so why cant jw donate blood?

  This nicely puts the issue in a nutshell. Could we ever expect the Watchtower to take the same sensible view? No because it would call into question the literal interpretation of abstaining from blood

  From a consistency point of view, if the JWs were faithfully following their literal interpretation of scripture in the first place, they would not even accept blood components because, according to their own belief: Once the blood leaves the body it has to be poured out and returned to Jehovah.

  The act of first donating the blood for the purposeful breaking of it down for "acceptable" components is violating that literal interpretation. The Watchtower gets around this conumdrum by saying it's a conscience issue. And JWs who take the blood products are, by doctrinal definition, hypocrites - although probably doing the best they can within the constraints of the nonsensical literal blood doctrine.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Hello, Steve

  You write:

  "…according to their own belief: Once the blood leaves the body it has to be poured out and returned to Jehovah."

  This is precisely where the WTS has shown its more dishonest side in the last few years, that is, when it comes its blood doctrine. Why is this the case? Compare the following two statements from the WTS:

  Statement 1 from 1997:

  "Such commercialization of placental blood is hardly tempting for true Christians, who guide their thinking by God’s perfect law. Our Creator views blood as sacred, representing God-given life. The only use of blood that he authorized was on the altar, in connection with sacrifices. (Leviticus 17:10-12; compare Romans 3:25; 5:8; Ephesians 1:7.) Otherwise, blood removed from a creature was to be poured out on the ground, disposed of." --Questions From Readers, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc., The Watchtower, 1997 2/1: 29

  Statement 2 from 2000:

  "Or the goal may be to isolate some of a blood component and apply that elsewhere on the body. There are also tests in which a quantity of blood is withdrawn in order to tag it or to mix it with medicine, whereupon it is put back into the patient."--Questions From Readers, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc., The Watchtower, 2000 10/15: 31

  Without explanation, in October 2000 the WTS ceased applying the tenet that "blood removed from a creature was to be poured out on the ground, disposed of." Yet, nowhere has the WTS came out and stated this in terms that would lead an average reader to this unavoidable conclusion. So, on one hand the WTS states (repeatedly over the years!) in dogmatic language that blood removed from the body has to be disposed of, yet when the WTS drops this dogmatic tenet it fails to use equally explicit language to inform its adherents. Given the gravity of the WTS' blood policy, I believe this one instance well reveals the extent of rot within the governing body at WTS headquarters. These men are not to be trusted!

  Marvin Shilmer