I called a KH this morning a little past 9 AM and talked to a sister. I told her I had moved into town and had studied a few years ago, but they wouldn't let me get baptised because I didn't accept the WT teachings about blood transfusions.
She was all excited, because they had a meeting about blood just this past week about that and she could answer my questions. Well, in short order she got flustered trying to explain why fractions were OK but whole blood was not. "It's complicated", she said- "we have a video that explains it better".
I then asked her if eating blood what what was prohibited and she agreed that was the issue.
What about Orthodox Jews who still keep the kosher dietary laws on bleeding all blood from their meat- they all agree that a blood transfusion is not the same as eating blood, - I asked her. "Orthodox Jewish doctors see no problem with blood transfusions, you would think they would know about that sort of thing, if it was forbidden by the Jews", I told her.
That was all news to her, she had never heard about that stuff. I then asked her If she was in a coma and could not eat, would a transfusion of glucose keep her alive? "yes" ,she admitted," that's what would happen."
What if they got a blood transfusion instead- would that be food for the body?" , I asked. Now she was starting to squirm and after a pause she admitted to me that a blood transfusion would not keep a starving person alive. Now I delivered the coup de gras, " So then a blood transfusion is not the same as eating blood, and could not possibly be a violation of God's laws against eating blood!"
The poor sister was at a loss for words and was saying how she had never thought about that or seen anything in the WT about how Jews accept blood transfusions or how a blood transfusion can't save the life of a starving man. I rang off telling her , that if JW's ever change their ban on blood transfusions, I might start my study back up, but I couldn't be a part of a religion that has received bloodguilt for the innocent deaths of people caused by their unscriptual rules on blood transfusions. "Jehovah has to punish those responsible for bloodguilt, you know", I told her. With that unsettling comment, I said goodbye.
I wonder , If she was brave enough to talk about this conversation in the car group as they drove off to the territory? At least she was able to start her time at 9AM, so it wasn't a total loss for her.
WT blood rules causes needless deaths=bloodguilt=punishment from Jehovah
Love it!! You are getting them to THINK...It must feel very strange for them.
I wonder how long till congs are *warned* against answering the KH phones??
Thank you for that great line of reasoning. The 'starving man' illustration is very much to the point and something any dub should be able to get their minds around.
I will use that for sure with some of my jw realtives that might listen. I believe it will be a good 'seed planting' thought.
I like that illustration too Moshe.
Gonna use it when the time is right
Maybe somebody in Bethel has already read this " line of reasoning" and is trying to forget it. It's too simple to ignore or argue against. The JW's who I have used this onin person looked like a ton of bricks had just fallen on their head.- they stopped trying to defend their WT blood transfusion dogma and were ready to get away from me immediately.
nice work Moshe; it like taking candy from a baby. and watching them cry in the baby carriage till MOMMY. shoves baby bottle (wt reasoning) in their mouth to shut them up. john
I always thought that it was interesting how the Jewish laws regarding Shabbat (Sabbath) could be suspended in life-or-death situations. Not only is it ok to "work" to save someone's life on Shabbat, it is a mitzvah (holy obligation) to do so.
It just goes to show how JWs - in striving to keep to the letter of their "law" overlook the spirit of the law. The easy way to figure out what the "spirit of the law" would be is to ask the question "What would be the most loving thing to do?" rather than "What do the Society's™ Publications™ have to say about it?"
Jewish laws regarding Shabbat (Sabbath) could be suspended in life-or-death situations. Not only is it ok to "work" to save someone's life on Shabbat, it is a mitzvah (holy obligation) to do so.-
Exactly, Scully!! Why do you think the Arabs attacked Israel on Yom Kippur? Didn't work, the Rabbi's suspended the no work/fasting for soldiers so they could fight a war. Even Jesus said it was OK to rescue (do work) an animal from a pit on the sabbath- are not humans more valuable? Just goes to show you how even in a life and death teaching, JW's do no indepedent study on the issues. No WT leader has ever interviewed a Jewish Rabbi to see why they are OK with blood transfusions.and- Why Jewish doctors see no conflicts with blood transfusions and the OT dietary prohibitions against eating blood.
Scully....I had a conversation with my bf (he's Jewish) last week, and he told me exactly the same thing. And I've posted several times here about the rabbinical concept of jurisprudence, which suspended lesser commandments in favor of respecting the overall principle of the Torah, "You must love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18). If you read that verse, you would also see that in order to truly love your neighbor, one of the things you must do is "not endanger your neighbor's life" (19:16). That is the rationale behind the rabbinical halacha that relaxes the demands of other lesser commandments if life is at stake. And that is the logic behind Jesus' seeming violation of individual commandments, he points out that his actions are intended to protect life from harm (see Mark 2:23-27, 3:2-4). Now compare the attitude of Jesus and Jewish rabbis to that of the Watchtower Society. The "law" on blood is extended to blood transfusions in classic halachic fashion, to protect this "law" from being violated ... or even giving the impression that it is violated. But there is absolutely no concept of jurisprudence, e.g. the principle exemplified by Jesus that safeguarding life overrides the everyday stipulations of a commandment. Rather, the Society says that the "law" must be kept at all costs....one must die for the sake of the commandment, if it comes to that. There is no question that the Jesus of the synoptics would have condemned this as violating the most important law of all ... love for neighbor.
Last sunday my grampa gave a no-blood talk, and I wanted to talk to him about a few points. He claimed that:
- Eating or drinking blood is the same as having a transfusion
- Allowing a doctor to transfuse blood meant that he could be careless or sloppy in his work.
- If you love God, you won't take blood. No mention was made of the fractionation "new light." Even if you took blood to save a life, that person would be dead eternally in God's eyes.
And my grampa is widely respected. No wonder the blood issue is confusing. I didn't end up talking to him...I mean, you can't embarrass blood, right? Right.