My first post was a few days ago now, and finally my heart has stopped pounding whenever I log on.. :-)
So, I have been in the truth all my life, 3rd generation witness, never left, never been in trouble, pioneered for years, and am a respected member of my congregation. At the moment. ;-)
So a couple of people asked what my doubts are with regard to the witnesses, and the information I've found represents months and months of study. This is not a conclusion I have come to lightly.. along the way I have met regularly with the elders here to see whether there is anything I'm missing in my research, but you know - I'm beginning to realise that I have been given a functioning brain and heart for a reason, and maybe I need to start listening to those things for once in my life!
I haven't had a chance to outline my research in a logical way yet, so I figure by writing on this board I can kill a couple of birds. :-) So to speak.
SO - My first problem with the witnesses is also the issue I am most convinced of. That is the refusal of blood transfusions. I'm sure a lot of what I say here are points that others have already discovered or realised.. so bear with me. :-)
A few years ago I was faced with making a conscience decision about a blood fraction. This is where I initially encountered some confusion. I went away and poured over the WT's information, and came away with two conclusions.
1. The same blood fractions can pass naturally between mother and child during pregnancy. AND
2. The refusal of this fraction could result in the death of any future child I may have, and I could not justify refusing something that was ultimately a "conscience" product when that may infringe on the sanctity of life.
So I decided to go ahead with the treatment. BUT. I had some nagging doubts at this point. These were
A. As witnesses, part of our belief is that we are to pour out the blood on the ground - and to create this fractions, this doesn't happen. The blood is collected, stored and processed. And also, to me, blood is blood. Are we abstaining or not?
B. I found out since that whole blood also passes from mother to child, so this negates the initial reasoning I was led to by the WT articles I read.
C. When I thought about point 2 (above) I had this little voice that kept telling me that this same principle could, in effect, be applied to whole blood. Could I refuse a transfusion and allow a death if God's law clearly states that life is sacred? Wouldn't that then be breaking two laws?
To elaborate on that - I remember a conversation I had with a brother a year or so ago, and he was saying how he'd cut his finger and put it in his mouth. And a sister had told him it was wrong. He made the point that the witnesses often misunderstand the law about blood. Blood is a representation of life. It was the LIFE that was the big deal, not the actual blood. The laws about pouring out blood and not eating it was to remind people that life is sacred. To take a SYMBOL of life and make it even more important than what the symbol MEANS - just to me is not logical. It doesn't ring true.
To back up this point, I remember a person raising something at my pioneer school. They said when we eat meat, even after we pour out the blood - there is still some residue of blood left in the meat. (And I found that this point is backed up in the WT51 7/1) I remember the CO saying that our requirement is not to be particular over whether there is still some blood, but that by pouring out the blood we've fulfilled God's requirement of showing sacredness of life. This to me is further proof that the actual blood itself is not the issue - the issue is LIFE.
Another point. Each time blood is talked about in the Bible, it is in relation to a life taken. I mean, isn't that the whole point? A life is taken and it's "lifeblood" is given back to God. But with a blood donor, there's no life taken, so this principle is pointless. I have looked this up on the CD-ROM, and the same article mentioned above (WT51 7/1 p414) brings out the example of David in 1 Chron 11:17-19. This was basically a story about how David wanted some water. Three guys risked their lives trying to get it, but when they brought it back, David wouldn't drink it. He felt if he did he would be bloodguilty. So he compared it to blood and poured it out. This account is used to prove that it doesn't matter whether the blood donor is still alive or not (because the men were still alive). In my humble opinion, this argument is severely flawed on so many levels. It's not that complicated! This wasn't actual blood he was refusing to take, it was water! And the reason? Because the men might have died. The principle to this story is not about blood, it is about the sacredness of life. I'm afraid for the life of me I cannot see how this story relates to blood transfusions.
The other problem I have is with the change in thought on some blood fractions. My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that for years, witnesses did not have immunisation, and other blood fractions. And I have heard (and would presume) that this resulted in deaths. There is a feeling amongst witnesses that even if we now know this wasn't technically correct, the important thing was that they had still made a stand for Jehovah, and that this life is fleeting and imperfect, and that they will be resurrected to a superior perfect life. But what this argument fails to take into account is that God has made it clear in the Bible that ANY life is considered as sacred, regardless of whether that life be imperfect or temporary. In the old law, if I life was taken, there were serious consequences, and bloodguilt attached. We hear so often about the bloodguilt of Christendom for the deaths during the Dark Ages, and my thought is: What of the deaths that did result from the laws placed upon Jehovah's Witnesses, which we have now seen were incorrectly imposed? New light and understanding I guess I can perhaps understand... but we are now talking about a erroneous understanding that has led to the death of innocent people. I'm just not sure I can see how God would be a part of that.
If anyone can see a flaw in my logic, please tell me... I'm really interested in hearing other ideas on this...
These are all just my own thoughts, I don't want to impose any of these views upon anyone else, but this has been bubbling around inside me - and with noone willing to listen my only outlet is here! Hope that's okay! :-)
xxxx
PS I'm not on IE so I'm using html... hope it worked okay!