How Would You Explain The Stupidity Of The Blood Doctrine?

by minimus 29 Replies latest jw friends

  • I quit!
    I quit!
    It seems like the Witnesses are going to be told that they they now CAN take blood---at least some of it!

    I hope someone will be able to post the transcript of this announcement. I would be very interested in seeing it. My opinion for a long time has been that they would like to drop the whole blood issue but aren't sure how they can do it without losing face and members. A lot have died because of it so it would be very difficult for them to just drop the issue. I think what they may have been doing with all the changes are testing the waters to see how witnesses react to any changes. Or maybe they think if they confuse the sheep enough the witness will breath a sigh of relieve when they make it less complicated by doing away with the whole bloody issue (pun intended) Or they could be boiling the frog slowly so the frog has no idea it is being cooked. It seems to be going out of the back door a piece at a time. It would be a much easier step to go from just a few small pieces to no pieces than it would be to get rid of it all at once. They could say something along the lines that it was once necessary but now due to modern medical techniques it is much safer. They could use the example of why the Jews weren't allow to eat pork but now with refigeration and modern processing it has become safe or something along that line.

    I know it is hard to believe that they would at some point get rid of it but 20 years ago who would have believed that the blood policy would become what it has today. Back then it was just a simple no blood in any form under any conditions. Look at how they were able to get rid of the 1914 generation with hardly a peep out of the true believers. But who knows? They are just crazy enough to have entire blood policy just about out the door then release a magazine taking a hard nosed stance in favor of keeping it. We have seen them flip flop many times on other issues.

  • minimus
    minimus

    For any of those who might say, "Hey! Wait a minute! What about what we were told before about Jehovah's view of blood?? Has He changed his mind?"---------The Society will say, "WE never said! Certain overzealous ones did, however!"

  • aniron
    aniron

    I seem to recall a while ago someone compared the JW's teaching on blood fractions as follows:

    You go to buy a car, but you are not allowed to have the car as it is, complete.

    But you can purchase it piece by piece. That way you can say you are not buying a car.

    or similar illustration.

  • minimus
    minimus

    Good illustration!!

  • Tyrion
    Tyrion

    It's not that hard to explain from a neutral point of view. Obviously the GB has realized there is no biblical foundation for the blood policy, but after all the fuss they made about it, all the people that have died over it, the lawsuits, the justifications etc. etc. They simply CAN not admit they were wrong on this even though they'd probably want to. I hope that one of the current GB members becomes an "apostate" sometime, I'd love to read about the heated debates that were going on behind closed doors about the blood issue. Now that we're talking about it anyway, there's one small argument in support of the blood doctrine I can't yet answer to my complete statisfaction. God already said to Noah that he wasn't allowed to eat blood, and as you all know that was before the Mosaic Law. So, even though the Mosaic Law is no longer functional, there's still one text that can be used as an excuse to support the blood doctrine....?

  • leftbelow
    leftbelow

    I might be making this to simplistic but if there is nothing wrong with, water (the major part of blood) and all of these fractions if you took them separate but to take them all together is wrong in God's eye's? They make things so complex I think many may just say it is easier to reject all of them. Reading the new KM insert made my head hurt.

  • blondie
    blondie

    The thing I remember is that JWs don't approach the blood issue logically but emotionally.

    How many JWs can really explain the chronology doctrines such as 607 and 1914? They just believe emotionally.

    They say, "don't confuse me with the facts."

    Blondie

  • garybuss
    garybuss

    To a Witness relative who will refuse blood medical treatment, I ask: "Do you want to be buried or cremated, scattered or saved? Above ground or underground? Marked or unmarked?" because I can tell em for a fact, if they have a serious injury, or get a cancer or a blood disease like leukemia, those are the non-blood choices.


  • Atlantis
    Atlantis

    minimus:

    I like to remind JWs of this example:

    ***************************************************************************************

    Watchtower-1958-August-1-p.478 Questions From Readers ? One of Jehovah’s witnesses who claims to be of the anointed remnant recently went to the hospital and took a blood transfusion, voluntarily. Should she be allowed to partake of the emblems of bread and wine at Memorial time?—R. J., United States. We, of course, regret with you that this sister who professes to be one of the anointed remnant took a blood transfusion voluntarily during her stay in the hospital. We believe that she did the wrong thing contrary to the will of God. However, congregations have never been instructed to disfellowship those who voluntarily take blood transfusions or approve them. We let the judgment of such violators of God’s law concerning the sacredness of blood remain with Jehovah, the Supreme Judge. The only thing that can be done in the cases of individuals like this is to viewthem as immature and therefore not capable of taking on certain responsibilities, hence refusing to make certain assignments of service to such ones. Since an individual is not disfellowshiped because of having voluntarily taken a blood transfusion or having approved of a dear one’s accepting a blood transfusion, you have no right to bar this sister from the celebration of the Lord’s Evening Meal. As an anointed member of Christ’s body she is under orders and command by Christ Jesus to partake. Whether she is unfaithful as to what she professes to be by virtue of taking the emblems of the Lord’s Evening Meal is something for Jehovah God to determine himself. His judgment begins at the house of God. It is not for you or anyone serving the Memorial emblems to act as the judge, but to allow the emblems to go to anyone in the audience as these are passed along in the normal manner of letting each one have the opportunity to partake. http://www.wirefiles.com/show.php/7054_blood10001.jpg Cheers! Atlantis-

  • YoursChelbie
    YoursChelbie

    Jews who ate blood were not killed, simply given a reprimand.

    Also they were allowed to sell unbled animals to Gentiles.

    These issues are discussed here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/104153/1.ashx

    YC

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit