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

by Terry 80 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  TD

  Warren,

  Are you saying that the WTS no longer claims that taking a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood?

  The last time they claimed the two were exactly the same was in the late 60's. From that point forward, this was reduced to only a claim of similarity. And even this claim was made indirectly via false analogies (Comparing blood to other substances like alcohol) and outright equivocation. (Refering to the both the eating of blood and the transfusion of blood as "Taking in blood.")

  At the same time, the "Abstain" argument came to the forefront (e.g. Accepting a transfusion is not "Abstaining from blood.")

  Here are some fairly recent examples:

  "Because we listen to God when he says to ‘abstain from blood,’ we do not allow blood to be transfused into our bodies." [W97 1/15 p. 21]

  "Jehovah’s Witnesses take seriously the Bible’s command to ‘abstain from blood’ and therefore refuse blood transfusions." [W90 5/15 p. 23]

  "Jehovah’s Witnesses decline blood transfusions for religious reasons. ‘Abstain from blood,’ the Bible commands [W80 10/15 p. 21]

  (NWT's prior to 1971 didn't even render Acts 15:29 with the word "Abstain," they captured the infinitive a little better (IMHO) through the rendering, "To be keeping yourselves free from..."

  In the second edition of Jehovah's Witnesses Defended, Greg Stafford acknowledged the grammatical problem with the "Abstain" argument. Intelligent JW's today, usually invoke the "Use" argument (e.g. Man is not permitted to "Use" blood.) and the JW parent organization seems to be following suit.
• 

  TD

  This reinforces the argument that "blood" refers to the act of shedding blood through murder (or improper disposal of animals for food.)

  Well grammatically it makes more sense at any rate. "Abstain from murder" can easily be stated as a finite negative -- "Do not murder."
• 

  Hondo

  Jehovah makes it clear in leviticus and in acts 15; 28-29 how black and white. do you want it, if it was any clearer it would anger you that he thinks your dumb and it needs to be written word for word. like a childrens book.israelites were thousends of years ahead in their hygiene conditions because god knew that, if people had to drop a dump in the middle of the camp near food things like e coli would kill an unvaccinated population, cholora to! just to name a few of the possibilities. god had standards of cleaness... and washing your hands! how clever! except it isnt its just blatenly sensible!!!

  blood carries thousends of diseases, and impurities. its a human fluid and its droplet and what do most severe viruses and diseases come in? DROPLET! and what the quickest way to infect? IV! so you see god was making it very clear that it was unclean. let alone that it represents life. because you just cant live without it can you? the answer is NO! two very good reasons why you should listen to god. youl piss him off and youl get ill most likely.

  Superhooper, what the heck are you talking about!!!. It seems you think that every blood transfusion results in something bad, death or otherwise, happening to the blood recipient. Sheeesh, where do you get your info. I am alive today because of a blood transfusion (several pints). My sister works at a large hospitial in Oregon. I asked her what percentage of people died or were otherwise incapacitated because of a blood transfusion. Her answer was 0% percent, at least at her hospital. Granted there are some problems with tainted blood from time to time, but you make it sound like all blood is tainted. Get a life man! There are millions alive today because of the miracle of blood transfusiuon. The JWs are totally wacked out by mis-interpreting the bible in the way they do. Philosophical thoughts and ideas aside, JWs endorse suicide by ebcouraging people to kill themselves by refusing a life saving blood transfusion. You really need to think about your position on this, I mean really think. You are way off base.
• 

  james_woods

  I must say that I generally agree with Terry on his original thread point:

  "Blood" really has a biblical context of representing "Life"...therefore, causing the loss of life to "abstain from blood transfusion" is silly. Also, morally corrupt if you understand the reason for the life metaphore.

  However, I am not so sure that we can make the blanket argument that the scripture above just meant "abstain from murder". Notice that the immediate preceeding and the immediate following have a definate dietary context. Of course, you could also make the argument that "abstain from fornication" would not have a dietary context. On the other hand, isn't there annother reference that says, whatever you find in the meat market, eat it?

  <<< I am sure that since this is serious religious thread, no one will point out the various obvious puns that could be drawn >>>

  Also, it is not without amusement that I remember the NWT take on "do well" - it was written as approx. "good health to you!". Much was made of this in the old days - "see, this was given to us JW Christians because blood transfusions are unhealthy". Right along the line of SuperHooper's blood transfusion danger fixation.

  Be that at is may - it is still pretty unbelievable that a religion would let an injured child die over such theological semantics.

  James
• 

  Warren

  Leolaia: Since there is no "bloodshed," the rationale of pouring the blood out as compensation for killing one of God's creatures is not in view.

  Good point. At no time was Noah prohibited from eating animals that died of themselves and therefore couldn't be drained of blood. Since no human killed them, their blood didn't need to be poured out to show respect for the taking of life. Further backing this up is the fact that Jehovah himself provided the unbled flesh of unslaughtered animals specifically for purposes of eating. God allowed the Israelites to provide "alien residents" and "foreigners" with unbled meat for food as long as the animal was not killed by humans but had been found dead. These animals had died of themselves, probably due to age, disease or accident -- Deut. 14:21

  Because "alien residents" and "foreigners" were bound by the Noachian Law, God's provision of giving or selling them unbled animals to eat could not have violated the Noachian Law. Jehovah wouldn't encourage people to violate his law. It is therefore logical to conclude that the Noachian Law applied only to the blood of animals killed for food.
• 

  mcsemike

  To Terry: (My favorite composer!) I liked the point about the animals eating meat. Nature is satuated (no pun intended) with animals that not only eat blood, but both crave it or actually need it, sometimes eating ONLY blood. (Mosquitoes seem to be in this group.) Lions with claws and fangs, snakes specifically made to hunt mammals (blood), chetahs that outrun anything and instinctive "know" how to give a killing bite to the throat, bears, sharks, etc. I could go on for days. Animals didn't sin. Therefore whatever shape or form an animal is NOW in is how it supposedly was CREATED. That means that God made animals to behave and eat what they do now, way back in Eden. And he said his work was "Good". So, Super, how to you explain the fact that if blood is so sacred to God, he created so many animals that wantonly spray it all over the place when they kill, licking their faces, lapping it up, etc. Just watch any good nature show on TV. Animals preying on other animals and eating their blood demolishes any concept of blood being sacred, especially now. Maybe during the Mosaic Law times, you might have some argument. But that is now over and has been for 2,000 years.

  I NOW REST MY CASE. YOU'VE BEEN ANSWERED BY MANY OF THE SHARPEST MINDS I KNOW CONCERNING THIS RELIGION (CULT, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT) AND ITS LUNATIC POLICIES. IF YOU CAN'T SEE THE REAL "TRUTH" AFTER ALL THIS INFORMATION, IT'S NOT BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ENOUGH. IT'S BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO. (I still suspect that you're a JW troll who jus wasted the time of a few dozen people. But at least this info is up for the world to see and we all sharpened our skills and learned things from each other. Thanks again to all, you taught me a lot.)
• 

  DannyHaszard

  Why Jehovah's Witnesses reject blood transfusions.
  
  Jehovah's Witnesses have a non negotiable doctrine of their belief system to reject blood products.
  
  The origin of this dogma comes from their founding father Joseph Rutherford in the early 20th century.The consumption (eating) of blood was strictly forbidden under old testament law.
  
  The Watchtower leadership of Jehovah's Witnesses saw fit to extend this prohibition over to their belief system.
  
  They thought that the "end of the world" was coming back then (ca.1940) so there would never be much causality.
  
  It is well into the 21st century,with the "end of the world" on hold,the Watchtower leaders have blood on their hands,with the deaths of innocent minor children.How would they account for this body count, if they repealed the 'no blood ban' now? Many children have died since rejecting life saving blood transfusions. Why do they maintain adherence to this archaic creed at all cost?
  
  UPDATE:The absurdity of the Watchtower rulings now allow any of the COMPONENTS of blood to be transfused, but not whole blood, and yet people are dying and lives and families are being ruined over a few old men in Brooklyn New York USA who are always changing their minds on this matter.
  
  Some educational links provided below:
  
  http://www.ajwrb.org/ Jehovah Witness blood policy reform site
  
  http://www.towertotruth.net/Articles/blood_transfusions.htm dissident site
  
  ( Jehovah's Witnesses do use many products that are derived from blood banks {so called blood 'fractions'} but they themselves won't donate a drop)
• 

  M.J.

  The fact that JWs eat blood (yes, they eat blood all right), since something like 50% of the blood stays in the flesh of an animal even when its bled properly, has to mean that it's NOT the blood ITSELF that's the issue, but the fact that proper respect was shown for the life of the animal that was slaughtered by the draining of its blood.

  So therefore, the issue here is not specifically consumption of blood, but the greater issue of respect for the sanctity of life.

  In the same way, one of the other prohibitions of Acts 15:29, the eating of meat sacrificed to idols, is not about the meat itself (for Paul says go ahead and do it as long as you realize an idol is nothing), but the greater issue of idolatry...which is a view that the WTS actually endorses.
• 

  Angelica

  "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. "

  The above quote from a poster on this thread would be my thinking as well. However, just last evening, I had a fascinating conversation with a young elder who is also a good friend. I believe that he may be on the brink of "eldership" as he is quite assuredly "out of the box". I initiated a conversation about blood, knowing his viewpoint. When I stated that the minute he accepted a blood transfusion, he would be on the track to "dfing". He said, not so, that no one is df'd for accepting blood. He also claimed that the org will never publicly state that. He did say that the elder book says says it is a personal decision. Hmmmmm... I am baffled. My comment was that it will never be made as a public comment because there will be a mass exodus from the org due to all the lives sacrificed by refusing blood over the years.

  What DOES the elder book say?
• 

  JH

  (Jehovah's Witnesses do use many products that are derived from blood banks {so called blood 'fractions'} but they themselves won't donate a drop)

  Damn Hypocrites !!!