BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS Twisting a life-affirming law into death

by Terry 80 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  elliej

  i dont like smokers, well there habit but im not going to attack them and say they are killing there children through passive smoke. although by the sounds of it you might! :-)

  I, for one, do not have a problem telling smokers that their second hand smoke is killing their children or mine or anyone elses. It does.

  Do you have a problem with a person storing their own blood before a procedure? I am hardly going to give myself something I don't already have. What if my child is in an accident, can I give her my own blood? She got plenty of it when she was nursing. Your rationale ( or, rather, The Society's) against any use of blood does not apply to every situation. If you educate yourself and decide that it is safer for you to abstain, then by all means, do it. But everyone should have the option of making an EDUCATED decision on their own without the fear of sanction from a publishing company.
• 

  under_believer

  i dont like smokers, well there habit but im not going to attack them and say they are killing there children through passive smoke

  You don't have to say it: Science has already proved it. See how that works? There is this amazing method, called the scientific method, that can help us to answer questions like that. That way we can rely on facts and proof, rather than our opinions or biases.
• 

  james_woods

  Maybe we should not forget about first poster (Terry, wasn't it?) and these points made:

  *** It is a blatant and deliberate publicity stunt which takes the rather simple prohibitions of the Laws of Noah for Gentiles on murder

  (abstain from blood=do not murder)

  in order to paint Jehovah's Witnesses as Super Christian Martyrs. We can thank the contrarian tastes of Judge Rutherford and the macheivellian mind of Fred Franz for the resulting doctrine. ***

  Nobody in the bible days could have had a clue that this would ever get applied to something called a "blood transfusion".

  I remember reading that those ice hockey players stuck in the Andes plane crash were absolved of sin by the Catholic Church (even though of course cannabilism is about as horrible as anything I can imagine) because they were in a survival situation. I suppose it was probably pointless whether they drained the blood or not in that case.

  Perhaps what we are all really looking for here, (and I hope especially our new observer) is a little common sense and reasonableness on this subject. And, I agree with Terry - this must have been done out of some machievellian orneryness rather than real principles (religious or medical). Otherwise, it would not have gotten changed around for the fractions so easily.

  James
• 

  Terry

  Perhaps what we are all really looking for here, (and I hope especially our new observer) is a little common sense and reasonableness on this subject. And, I agree with Terry - this must have been done out of some machievellian orneryness rather than real principles (religious or medical). Otherwise, it would not have gotten changed around for the fractions so easily.

  It is beyond bizarre that any of us could have ever swallowed this blood policy whole.

  The scientific advances of transfusions were not only unknown, but, inconceivable to First Century Christians.

  But, bought it we did. It shows that anything can be believed and died for with alarming ease.
• 

  Ubgood

  Good comments from everyone especially James , one thing I'd like to add to this discussion is why did the jw's not realize that this particular law regarding blood to the people at that time was perhaps appropriate for the social behavior of the people, given for what ever reason. One can only guess what they were doing with it and leave it at that. Lets still assume then that blood to god is still sacred and carries the sanctity of life within it,........... ok. Now if we read throughout the bibles history that the sanctity of life is apparently and is still very important " thou shall not kill " for one and there many others as you know. Then we get to Jesus' time and he instructs his followers " ABOVE ALL OTHER LAWS YOU MUST LOVE ONE AND OTHER ". And he went about healing the sick on his travels, as an example. Now here we are in modern times and it is found through scientific experimentation that the infusion of blood to some one that is sick or even dying can bring their health back and even in some cases save their lives. There are statistics from all over the world that can prove this and millions of people have benefited from this medical procedure for decades. You well never find that statement published on the front of a watch tower magazine I'm sure! It is my view point that sacred sanctity of blood by god if that is the case, can still be held in tack, during a blood transfusion. The will of the people performing this act should be applauded and may even be scripturally supported given the example of Jesus in his works and words. If we were to use blood lets say to make house paint or dye are cloths or to paint are toe nails, well then maybe the argument should fall to the other side, but lets get some rational thinking going here. The jw's will never ever recant this policy on blood, too many people have died to date, to make any changes at this state of the game. They know any changes could and would fracture their power base to crumbles. Don't ever expect new light to appear on this subject matter because it never will. Someone's child is going to die. someone's mother, someone's father and all humanity will cry because of it............I lost my brother ten years ago and I'm still crying....................
• 

  Hellrider

  Jehovah makes it clear in leviticus and in acts 15; 28-29 how black and white.

  You`re wrong. I can see that the jws have taught you to rip passages out of context. This is one of the first steps of becoming a Jehovahs witness. I can do that too, anyone can, it`s easy, and of course, it`s an easy way to make it appear that one has a clue about what one is talking about. But: There is another way to read the Bible. In context! This is of course much more difficult, because it requires actual knowledge about the Bible. About the law on blood: This law is, like Terry said, partly about abstaining from murder. But there is more to it than that: It is also about abstaining from drinking blood and bathing in blood (!!!). At this time in history, several of the surrounding nations of Israel had some...barbaric traditions..at festivals, blood would be passed around and everyone would have a zip, etc. The greek had it too.You know the deal (that is, if you know anything about ancient history). It is within this context that the law on blood has to be read. Either way: Jesus makes it perfectly clear that The Law (the jewish religious law) can be broken if someone is in danger of dying:

  Matthew 12: 9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"

  11 He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."

  13 Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus 9 Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"

  ...The law on blood is just that: Law! Just like resting on the Sabbath, obey the dietary rules, etc. But the Law was made for the man, not the man for the Law. And every commandment of the Law must step aside, when someones life is in danger. Because Jesus said so. That is the Law.

  You should stick around this site, maybe you`ll learn something. The JWs have a lot of amateurish interpretations of the Bible. That makes them a danger to their children. I should know, I was raised in the jws.
• 

  aniron

  Maybe "Superhooper" should check out this site.

  http://www.ajwrb.org/index.shtml
• 

  vitty

  Actually, JWs DONT abstain from blood.........................just bits of it

  Through the years their policies have changed so much that they are now definitely straining the knat. AS the medical world finds new way to help ppl the WT have had to change, so that now it is, if it was not such a dangerous policy, would be laughable

  There is a website run by the HLC ( active elders) that really go into what the WT stand is.......................

  I believe strongly that the WT wants to drop this ridiculous rule but cant because of all the possible court cases.

  Oh and by the way welcome
• 

  james_woods

  Vitty tells it like it is! -

  *** I believe strongly that the WT wants to drop this ridiculous rule but cant because of all the possible court cases. ***

  It is the only way that their waffling on the fractions, the hospital committee, and the talmudic "conscience" rules make any sense.

  Wonder if they have some younger progressive thinkers around who would also like to get away from the false prophesies as well? Could that be part of what is driving the change in the "generations" and the new light on "conscience objector service" by your own conscience?

  Great thread here - sure hope it is of some help to Terry and SuperHooper...they sound like people who have been touched by this policy more than the rest of us will ever know.

  James
• 

  Terry

  
  
  This discussion has avoided the important point: "abstain from blood = do not murder".
  

  
  
  I'll keep repeating this until the light bulb goes off and a "eureka!" moment happens for you like it did for me.
  

  
  
  Here is the time line:
  

  
  
  After the flood Noah was given the Noahide Laws for ALL MANKIND (not specific to Jews).
  

  
  
  (In other words, these were behaviors binding on what would eventually become "Gentiles".)
  

  
  
  A special covenant was eventually given to Jews ONLY. These were the ritual sacrifices, etc.
  

  
  
  Fast forward.........
  

  
  
  Jesus comes, preaches, dies, resurrects and preaching begins to GENTILES for the FIRST TIME.
  

  
  
  Controversy: Do Gentiles have to BECOME JEWS to be acceptable to God and enter his NEW covenant?
  

  
  
  The answer presents us with the logical reply. In effect it is this:
  

  
  
  Naw, Gentiles are still under the Noahide Laws. We favor adding no FURTHER burden.
  

  
  
  Okay?
  

  
  
  So, what were these Nohide Laws in the first place. Here they are:
  

  
  

  1. Avodah zarah - No false worship (Idolatry)
  
  
  2. 
     
  3. Shefichat damim - Do not shed blood
  
  
  4. Gezel - Do not steal (or kidnap).
  
  
  5. Gilui arayot - Do not be sexually immoral (forbidden sexual acts are traditionally interpreted to include incest, bestiality, male homosexual sex acts, i.e. sodomy, and adultery.)
  
  
  6. Birkat Hashem - Do not "bless God" euphemistically referring to blasphemy.
  
  
  7. Ever min ha-chai - Do not eat any flesh that was torn from the body of a living animal (given to Noah and traditionally interpreted as a prohibition of cruelty towards animals)
  
  
  8. Dinim - Set up a system of honest, effective courts, police and laws.

  
  
  

  
  
  Ask yourself the question: Which of the above refers to "things strangled" and which applies to "blood"? This will give you the context and meaning of the reply which forms the basis of God's intended "blood policy".
  

  
  
  Abstain from blood is simply another wording for "do not murder" "do not shed blood in murder" "thous shall not kill" etc.