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

by Terry 80 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  james_woods

  Point well taken, and it is a good one, Terry.

  The primary meaning must be respect for life and the immorality of murder. (even murder by forbidding medical treatment).

  However, I think there is a sort of religious symbolism here as well - even if only for jews -

  Would you care to comment on Paul's advice - "whatever you find in a meat market, eat...etc. Only abstain from blood..."

  Or, from Jesus - "unless you drink my blood..."

  What I am getting from your excellent thread is that when you reach a point to cause a death from these rules, you are in fact placing blood guilt upon yourself. So, maybe WT should be more careful in what it prints...

  James
• 

  Terry

  Would you care to comment on Paul's advice - "whatever you find in a meat market, eat...etc. Only abstain from blood..."

  Or, from Jesus - "unless you drink my blood..."

  What I am getting from your excellent thread is that when you reach a point to cause a death from these rules, you are in fact placing blood guilt upon yourself. So, maybe WT should be more careful in what it prints...

  Do I sniff a New World Translation here? The "abstain" is a Watchtower buzzword carefully selected to prop up their analogy with alcohol consumption.

  The Jewish theory (explicit in their legal reasoning) is that the life is IN THE BLOOD and that the life belongs to Jehovah.

  A quick and relatively painless death for an animal was to cut its throat and eliminate bloodflow to its brain (to avoid suffering).

  A slow and torturous (brutal) death was strangling it. Why? The animal would struggle to stay alive and be thrown into a terrible panic.

  The humane treatment of animals was demonstrating a respect for the life and, if you will; the FEELINGS of said animal.

  By not inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering the Jews hoped to demonstrate to God the same kind of treament they would expect from Him.

  "See how careful we are?" They seem to be saying. "We're tender-hearted even though we are more powerful than the animal we kill---show the same mercy to us"

  Jesus did not give his actual blood in a cup to anybody. He offered his lifeforce. He equated his life with sacrifice. To bond with him it was necessary to recognize the sacrificial nature of so choosing.

  It was a freakin' metaphor!

  http://jdstone.org/cr/files/noachidelaws.html

  The Watchtower Society is at great pains to link the liquid substance of BLOOD with a floating context by tearing it away from the actual time and place and circumstance of the pronouncement about the Gentiles vis a vis Christians.

  Why? Because, they wish to make a totem out of blood itself to manipulate behavior on the part of JW's and hold this sacrificial behavior up to the world as a proof that Jehovah's Witnesses are willing martyrs and consequently BETTER CHRISTIANS.

  This turns the issue and context of blood on its head by causing unnecessary DEATH when it was only meant to demonstrate a respect for LIFE.
• 

  Khufu

  Plain good sense should dictate that life is more precious/sacred than blood. The reality is above its symbol of course.

  I marvel that I took me years as a witness before I realized that simple truth. It shows to what extend I had surrendered my thinking abilities to the WTS. And so have millions of others!

  Yes, Terry, what sort of respect for life is shown by the WTS in this issue? Their point is that life is of no importance when it comes to obeying God. But God's commandment is precisely that we should respect life... So much confusing!

  I like the way you summarize the command on blood. I suggest: "Don't be bloodthirsty."
• 

  Warren

  Hi Superhooper,

  I have a question for you. There is a pint of blood sitting on the table. You are told to abstain from it.

  You then proceed to take it and put it into a machine that fractionates it into several different components. You then proceed to inject each of these components into your veins one at a time until the entire volume is gone. Have you abstained from the blood as you were told?

  When JW's get through taking all the approved fractions from a pint of blood do you know what it left? Nothing! So it simply isn't true that JW's abstain from blood. Another point I would like to make is that the diseases that can be transmitted via blood transfusions can also be transmitted through the blood fractions that JW's are allowed to take. Thus, it isn't true that the Watchtower Society's blood policy protects JW's from diseases found in blood. In fact, many JW hemophiliacs have died from Aids that they got from taking the Watchtower approved blood fraction known as clotting factor VIII. By the way, each batch of factor VIII is made from plasma that is pooled from as many as 2,500 blood donors. Although JW's can take from the donated blood supply they are forbidden from contributing to it.

  JW's are allowed to have the blood that comes out of them during an operation sucked up and transfused back into them via a cell saver machine.Why isn't this considered eating blood? Also, it might interest you to know that the Watchtower Society approves of procedure wherein a pint of blood in removed, sent to a lab to be treated chemically or with radiation and then transfused back into the patient. This can take up to a day or two and is acceptable as long as it is considered part of an ongoing treatment. Why isn't this considered eating blood? Even though JW's can have a portion of their blood removed for a day or two and put back into them, they are forbidden from depositing their blood to be used for an operation a fews weeks later. Evidently it's okay to eat blood that is a day or two old but not a few weeks old. I wonder what the scriptural basis is for this policy?

  Of course, taking a blood transfusion is not the same as eating blood. Blood was created to flow through our veins doing what blood does. God didn't intend for blood to be consummed as food, however, when blood is transfused, the host's body doesn't consume it as food. Transfused blood carries on the exact same function in the new host that it did in the donor's veins. So what exactly is objectionable here? What is wrong with blood functioning as blood was intended to function?

  "Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden." w58 9/15 575

  Warren
• 

  Warren

  Khufu: "I marvel that it took me years as a witness before I realized that simple truth. It shows to what extend I had surrendered my thinking abilities to the WTS."

  Same here. I still can't believe that for 30 years I was deceived into accepting that a blood transfusion was the same as eating blood. I saw the light when my doctor pointed out an obvious fact. He told me that if the human body treated blood like food then we would all be dead because our bodies would quickly consume all the blood flowing through our veins. So simple. Why didn't I see that before?

  My doctor also told me that if transfusing blood were the same as eating blood then a starving person’s life could be saved with blood transfusions. But, guess what? If all you give a starving person is blood transfusions he will die of starvation. Conversely

  , a person that lost a lot of blood could not replace that blood by eating it. Eaten blood would be digested as food and would never reach the blood stream in the form of blood.
• 

  Rabbit

  Superhooper

  im tired of repeating myself i just feel that some of your arguments are attacking witnesess rather than the subject.

  if a person dies for there faith, it can make them the happiest person in the world and make them feel at ease.

  And I get tired of repeating how my mother suffocated slowly to death ...because of a piece of paper she signed refusing blood. She didn't even know she could have taken hemoglobin. The HLC elders either didn't or lied to my non-jub Dad. So...was she a 'Christian' martyr or was it 'Christian' suicide ? I think since she was led by the WTS into her death, after all, it IS their teachings...it was negligent homocide.

  Have you watched a parent or loved one slowly smother to death ? I have. It was the last 'straw on my JW back' that made me realize what a dangerous religion this is. As a nurse you will likely encounter a death like this, perhaps from a JW. Think very carefully then, about how "happy" the person looks. Look at the families...are they "happy" ?

  My Mom looked terrified...
• 

  Rabbit

  Terry

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

  Well, we can swallow it it fractions, can't we ?

  (gallows humor, huh ?)

  Rabbit
• 

  Quentin

  It's hard to watch a parent, or any loved one die...I stood in a cold hospital room and watched as my jw father drew his last breaths...you know why? Because the life saving heart surgery he needed would have required the use of blood...I'll tell you something else...the only people in that room, besides hospital staff, were his two DAd sons...there wasen't a j to be found...the witnesses jackasses had done their duty...hung around long enough to be sure he didn't get weak and go for the medical treatment. Then they were off somewhere patting their backs and crowing how they had won one for the big gipper in the sky...

  So don't point your finger...many of us have lived it my friend...maybe you have, don't know...but until you go through it, perhaps with your jw father, don't be so quick to judge the feelings of others...this religion kills people, among other things...one other thing...everything you had to say was right out of the wt...same old wore out point of view...not a thing in the world wrong with blood transfusions...like any other medical treatment it's a risk you take, nothing more, nothing less...

  Great thread Terry...some good points to reflect on...oh, and welcome to the board superhooper...
• 

  searcher

  Superhooper said,

  oh and witnesses are not a cult. thats your opinion. organised religion.- thats a fact

  Judge Rutherford said,

  Beware of organised religion, it is a snare and a racket
• 

  Tigerman

  I'm alive today because I had a blood transfusion 26 years ago. My brother lived for 19 years after he was

  horribly mangled by a mortor from the Viet Cong.

  It's obvious you live in a world of words, not deeds.