The Real Reason Jehovah's Witnesses Refuse Blood Transfusions

by Cameron 22 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Cameron

  The Real Reason Why Jehovah’s Witnesses Refuse Blood Transfusions

  Jehovah’s Witnesses say that their refusal to accept blood transfusions is based on what the Bible says about blood. They refer to Acts 15:20 where it says, "abstain from blood," and reason that transfusing blood is not abstaining from blood.

  But what the Bible says about blood is not the real reason why they refuse blood transfusions. The real reason only shows up when looking at what Jehovah’s Witnesses always do when the Watchtower Society stops teaching something. For example…

  For decades they believed that it was "the Creator’s promise" in the Bible that the New World will be here before the generation of 1914 passes away. They said they believed this because of what Jesus said at Matthew 24:34 about "this generation will not pass away until all these things (including the new world) occur." But in November of 1995 the Watchtower Society stopped teaching such a thing. What did Jehovah’s Witnesses then do?

  If the real reason they believed that teaching was because it was really based on the Bible, then even though the Society stopped teaching it Witnesses should have continued to believe it anyway. But they didn’t. They all stopped believing it the moment the Society stopped teaching it. What does this show?

  It shows that the real reason why they believed that teaching was because that’s what the Watchtower Society was teaching. They started believing it when the Society started teaching it and they stopped believing it when the Society stopped teaching it. Therefore what the Bible says at Matthew 24:34 is not the real reason they believed it.

  Again, this is what Jehovah’s Witnesses always do when the Society starts and stops teaching something. While they are teaching it is called "a true teaching of the Bible." When they stop teaching it is called "old light." This is the way it has always worked with this religion.

  Is there any reason to believe that it is any different with the Society’s current teaching about blood transfusions? Do Witnesses believe that transfusions are against God’s Law because of what it says at Acts 15:20, or because this is what the Watchtower Society happens to be teaching at the present time? Here too the real reason will only show up if the Society ever changes what it teachers about blood transfusions.

  Why are they so willing to change what they believe whenever the Watchtower Society changes what teaches? I feel Ray Franz has the answer to this question on page 296 of his "Crisis of Conscience" where he said…

  "I believe that (all Witnesses) are, in effect, the captives of a concept.

  The concept or mental image they have of ‘the organization’ seems almost to take on a personality of its own, so that the concept itself controls them, moves them, or restrains them, by molding their thinking, their attitudes, their judgments…The …concept of ‘the organization’… becomes, in fact, the dominant, controlling force."

  That’s where the title of the book "Captives of a Concept" came from..

  Don at

  www.CaptivesOfaConcept.com
• 

  moomanchu

  While they are teaching it is called "a true teaching of the Bible." When they stop teaching it is called "old light."

  The fully brainwashed JW does not question any teaching from the WT.

  It was done for a reason at that time.
• 

  garybuss

  Hi Don,
  
  Yup! Ya got it right on. I have lunch with friends at a neighborhood pub every week and I watch the music change in the Juke Box over the years. The box plays whatever record (now CD's) is in slot B3. Slot B3 stays the same, but the selection changes. That's the way the Watch Tower is. Nothing has changed, we always play B3.
  
  The Witnesses are really robotic, they aren't aware of the human creation and behind the scenes manipulations that make the show go on . . . kinda like a kid at Disneyland. It all just happened and it's REAL. Yeah . . . right! :-)
  
  Hope all is well.
  
  
• 

  lovelylil

  Don,

  Loved your post and loved your book even more! Lilly
• 

  IW

  Don,

  Are you saying that if the Watchtower came out tomorrow with a letter to all the congregations telling them they could now take blood transfusions JWs would turn around and line up for them? Would you when you were a Witness? Interesting.

  IW
• 

  Blueblades

  Don, The rank and file always respond when explaining doctrine or teaching by saying, "The SLAVE" teaches such and such,i.e, the slave in the Watchtower page 10, paragraph 10 teaches this about that. Then, they say, the slave got new light on that teaching, here is what they teach now.

  As far as "BLOOD" the rank and file and the elders are toally confused as to what the slave is teaching on this doctrine. They respond by saying, read the Watchtower, which no one understands what the differences are when it comes to blood fractions.

  You are so right and your 'captives of a concept,' which I have read and shared with others is 'SPOT ON'.

  Blueblades
• 

  garybuss

  I know a Witness woman who was a type one diabetic with kidney failure who received a kidney transplant in 1980 almost as soon as the ink was dry on the change article. I believe she was a captive to a concept, just like my first wife was when she chose to refuse blood medical treatment and die. I know for a fact if the Society had said it was okay, she would have accepted chemo and blood treatment.
  
  
• 

  jgnat

  Are you saying that if the Watchtower came out tomorrow with a letter to all the congregations telling them they could now take blood transfusions JWs would turn around and line up for them? Would you when you were a Witness? Interesting.

  What if the WTBTS first broached a change in policy in a "Questions from Readers", making it a conscience matter, followed up by a talk at a convention, followed by a WT article the following year? The WTBTS has a three-year cycle for policy change. They don't POP it on the congregation, they slip it in.

  The generation change in, what, ...1995...slipped through with nary a whimper. The JW's who noticed, many of them are now here.
• 

  vitty

  Now there is the dilema, im going to start asking my family "If the WT says its ok to have a blood tranfusion, would you have one? "

  If they said No, you would ask why they were going against new light. If they said yes, ask them do they obey the WT or the bible.?
• 

  Cameron

  IW,

  You asked...

  Are you saying that if the Watchtower came out tomorrow with a letter to all the congregations telling them they could now take blood transfusions JWs would turn around and line up for them?

  I feel that if "God's organization" ever comes out with "new light" on blood transfusions that leaves this matter up to individual conscience, then in order to "keep up with Jehovah's organization" Witnesses know they would be "required" to now look at it the same way. I can picture Witnesses still avoiding blood transfusions for medical reasons, but they would no longer have to refuse blood for Scriptural reasons.

  You also asked...

  Would you when you were a Witness?

  I think you are asking what I would have done if the Governing Body had come out with such a letter when I was still a Witness - when I still believed that the Society was God's organization.

  I would have stopped believing that blood transfusions were a violation of the Law of God. But I would have been one of the ones who would have still searched to find a doctor who would be willing to do what needed to be done without using blood if at all possible for medical reasons.

  Don