told wife i would take blood, have not carried card for two years....

oompa

went over the whole blood fractions/ham sandwich thingy.....said duh.....do they get it after it is in the dirt first?!?!.....and why can we take fractions but cant give blood?!?!......somewhere she said "god reveals truth gradually"....i said the "principles" were all not to eat blood and just poor it on the ground....so simple yet they become "principles" that GB change after causing death of many.....and if using blood to make fractions and save your life......then i want blood since life is damm sacred!!!........she said she is glad i told her and will let it flow if i need it........oompa

babygirl75

Good for you Oompa!!!

Tired of the Hypocrisy

My wife and I got into it a few weeks back over my son. He has expressed that if he needs blood that we should let him have it. He is 17 and I feel we should respect his wishes and more importantly we have no right to interfere. His mom pitched a fit and even involved her dad who was an elder for many years. He told her that we MUST deny our son the blood and if I don't that he will back my wife and stop me.

Ya right....

Olin Moyles Ghost

Oompa, I hope the conversation with Mrs. Oompa wasn't too intense. Sounds like it went ok.

I remember when the blood fractions doctrine came out. Someone (HLC member if I recall correctly) used the analogy of gravy. If a doctor said you couldn't eat gravy, this doesn't necessarily mean you can't eat the components of gravy (for example, milk and flour...though the sausage grease is probably out of the question!).

The WT policy of banning blood based on Acts 15 seems a bit inconsistent to me. If you talk to a JW, the JW will say that Acts 15 says to ABSTAIN from blood--and this means to COMPLETELY ABSTAIN. But compare the JW position on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 which states: "let the women keep silent in the congregations, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be in subjection, even as the Law says. If, then, they want to learn something, let them question their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in a congregation." (bold type added by me).

As we all know, JW women are allowed to speak in the congregations (they give demonstrations, ministry school parts, and comments from the audience). This directly contradicts Paul's explicit command at 1 Cor. 14. Why don't the JWs interpret this scripture to require women to keep COMPLETELY silent? The WT rationalizes this, saying that Paul really meant that women aren't supposed to teach. But isn't that what "apostates" and "Christendom" do with Acts 15? Don't they say that Paul really meant not to EAT blood?

(By way of concluding, let me make clear that I don't agree with the position that women should be completely silent in church. I think the WT is fairly reasonable about this matter. My reason for using this example is to contrast the Society's reasonableness on one issue (women speaking in church) with its inflexibility on another(blood)--and the disastrous consequences of this inflexibility.)

Tuesday

I've found the most effective thing is to tell the JW to freely research what exactly is in a blood transfusion. They'll find that the majority of blood transfusions are of just the red blood cells. Therefore a regular transfusion is actually of fractions to begin with, so who draws the line of what fractions of blood are small enough that they are a conscience matter?

If I were still a JW I would get a blood transfusion and tell them that I received whole red blood cells, but as anyone with an elementary education in biology would know blood is not comprised of just red blood cells. Therefore I received a fraction of blood and it was indeed up to my conscience.

Case closed.

oompa

Olin, you prob make your wife wear a burkha and stay totally silent!....good analogy on that scripture.....my point is also HOW were they to abstain?.....wtf else could they do with blood but eat it?.......about the only other thing was to use it in false worship.......funny cause the jews used the hell out of blood in pure worship rather than pour it on the ground.

my point being that the only real issue was eating blood as food or part of food, and that was about the only way they COULD abstain from it.........

Is blood more sacred than life itself??????...........that i have never seen directly addressed........if blood and life are sacred, then why not use blood to save lives?...the answer is dubs do now.......with fractions........the argument is soooo skewed........they are using blood to save their lives if they want to rather than wishing it all be poured on the ground........oompa

Olin Moyles Ghost

Oompa...don't get me in trouble with the Mrs.! ;)

Like you said, isn't is strange how the WT views the symbol of life to be more important than the actual life? Makes no sense.

undercover

It's amazing how the blood doctrine makes even a fringe, semi-inactive JW stiffen up and become hardcore and righteous.

I had a similar conversation that had to be ended by my saying that I refused to die for a religious organization. It's my life, I'll make the decision.

AWAKE&WATCHING

When I found out I was in a cult I was still married. I was afraid that my husband would not allow a transfusion if I was unconscious so I took a black sharpie and wrote "I no longer believe it is wrong and I WILL ACCEPT A BLOOD TRANSFUSION" on my blood card. I then dated it and had my mom and daughter sign as witnesses.

I figured if I just threw it away it could be claimed that it was "misplaced" and I wanted it known in no uncertain terms that I would absolutely agree to the transfusion if I was conscious.

isaacaustin

oompa, wife said she would authorize you to have it?

told wife i would take blood, have not carried card for two years....

Share this