Please Help Me Help My Mom To See The Stupidity Of The Blood Doctrine

by minimus 35 Replies latest jw friends

  • whyizit

    I recently went through this same thing with my JW-wanna-be buddy.

    She pointed to Acts 15 also. Here is a condensed response that I gave her:

    Based on the context of Acts 15 (specifically Acts 15:9-11), isn't it made clear that salvation is entirely based on "faith" through "the grace of the Lord Jesus"? Is salvation by any other way, or the loss of salvation, mentioned anywhere in Acts 15? Doesn't Acts 15 deal with the issues of fellowship between the Jews and the Gentiles? Where in Acts 15 does it imply the loss of salvation due to how you respond to the blood instruction? How do you come to that conclusion from these verses?

    In Deut. 14:21, Jehovah clearly forbids Israel to eat a body that is already dead, yet in Lev. 17:15, He instructs them on what procedures to take if they DO eat something dead. Doesn't it makes sense from this, that Jehovah has a higher regard for human life, than blood instruction? He made allowances so that in time of famine, they could choose life, rather than die of starvation, because they could not properly bleed their meat.

    After I asked this, the subject was dropped and no reply. I let it go. The seed is planted. No response is a good sign, as I have found. The blood doctrine was the thing that put my red flags up. That was when I found the WTS to be something other than what it tries to portray itself as. Where is the love in DF people on their death beds, because they choose to have a blood transfusion? Convincing a parent that they must let their child die. That is sacrificing a human life, and God is quite clear on that throughout the Bible. He finds that detestable.

    I also pointed out many things in the "Can Blood Save Your Life?" publication. I know it made her think. She asked her JW gurus, and they had no idea how to respond. I just thank God for the opportunity to give them all some food for thought. I hope He leads them all out of the WTS and into the arms of Christ!

  • Odrade

    IMO, when talking to anyone about the blood question, you need to determine how much of their belief is reinforced by fear about blood being a viable medical practice, with less risks than rejecting treatment based on non-acceptance of blood. Doctrines are very easy to accept if you scare the crap out of someone before you tell them what to believe. If they believe that it is inevitable they will get a horrible disease or fungus and die FROM THE BLOOD, all of a sudden they become very motivated to stick to the doctrine. They are not sticking to doctrine for the sake of faith or loyalty, but because they are terrified of being assaulted with deadly blood products.
    Helping them see how distorted are the WTS medical claims about blood therapies, can sometimes open their eyes to the doctrinal deceptions too. Remember Louderback's essay? There were quite a few people who were disappointed that it wasn't something bigger, but if you go back and take a look at her expose of all the medical misrepresentation the WTS is guilty of, it might help you formulate a plan. Quit trying to explain Acts 15, and start showing her how she has been lied to. Once she understands the medical efficacy of blood therapies in certain situation, she may be less reluctant to examine her acceptance of the WTS' interpretation of Acts 15.

  • minimus

    My mother will respond to scriptural proof more than anything else. She's been brainwashed with Acts 15. I think I'm gonna get her some low fat blood laden chocolate ice cream and a rare roast beef sandwich.

  • hubert

    Min, when she is eating the rare roast beef sandwich, ask her this question, which someone posted recently.

    How does the Watchtower decide which parts of blood God permits????


  • minimus

    Hubert, I'll do this only if I can be watching her eat the bloody thing.

  • TD
    She's been brainwashed with Acts 15.

    The first abstention - "Things sacrificed to idols" was a prohibtion against the specific act of eating the idol sacrifice as an act of worship. It's clear from Paul's letters that eating things sacrificed to idols was permissible in other contexts. (1 Cor 8)

    JW publications, in fact, often paraphrase, "Keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols" as "Abstain from idolatry."

    Exactly why would the abstention from blood be treated any differently?

    In other words, it can be viewed as a prohibtion against the specific act of eating blood if that makes the JW happy, but it would not prohibit using blood in other contexts.

Share this