by AwSnap 28 Replies latest watchtower medical
creativhoney
I became a mason after leaving the bog. There are some things that are not written in books,
only pass on by word of mouth..I do not attend the meetings today because the mason
and the JW,s have a lot in common. The words that are in print are true, and if you do not
beleive these words and how we interpret them then you can not be with us..
Yep I raised a similar point with a Ministerial servant, his response was that the hospital would use all the primary 'banned' fractions for transfusion and not just the WTBS permitted fractions. Well, they should seriously consider getting a JW stock of blood for JWs ONLY...sounds crazy. But it's just wrong for the jw's to be able to take blood fractions when they won't donate themselves.
Augh. It's blood, only it's not blood... Sounds as illogical and hypocritical as the WTBTS' constant quoting of the scripture that states, "No one knows the day or the hour; not even the Son, but only the Lord himself..." Rough quote; someone can please give me a bit more accurate wording? But the jist of it was that NO-ONE knew when "Harmageddon" was supposed to come... And the WTBTS boys would FREQUENTLY quote this scripture JUST BEFORE they announced another "Wonderful New Light!" date for Armageddon... 
Even as a twelve-year-old at the assemblies, every time I heard that, I'd shake my head at the blithering idiocy in their hypocrisy...
Zid 
The witness position is that blood , taken from any source should not be used for any purpose at all, but poured out on the ground.(full stop )Lev.17:13 But for hospitals ( blood banks) to obtain blood fractions they have to process donated blood( from any worldly source ) in a laboratory , and extract the necessary fractions, from this previously stored, donated blood, to obtain these fractions that jehovah`s witnesses can receive in clear conscience into their bodies {. And this with the approval of the faithfull and discreet slave,who is directed by holy spirit} THINK ABOUT IT.
smiddy
jam, I cant be with who? all I am saying is that if a secret society exists and thrives on being so secret, that it has killed through the ages allegedly, then how can someone write a book revealing its secrets? - I am not tryiing to be with anyone.. this is a pure and simple logical question, and I wish I was a conspiracy theorist because It could be exciting, but I need more convincing..
...creativehoney...I was a lil confused with jam's post too...
His illustration was that fractions would be like to taking a gun (a thing that kill) and taking it all apart and then reusing the screws, individual components etc.
Let me see..... "Abstain from guns!" Have nothing to do with guns. They are deadly...... ok, on this basis you can't even begin to think of using the screws in a different scenario. Working it through from their logic it's a no-brainer. As far as blood is concerned (and from their logic) it should be poured out on the ground. Likewise, the screws from a gun.
You simply cannot have two different standards of the same rule!
I do wonder at their idiotic reasoning sometimes.
---Not trying to be argumentative, but strictly speaking, there is no such thing as abstinence from an object or thing.
Statements like, "Abstain from phone" or "Abstain from sky" or "Abstain from boat" or "Abstain from gun" are completely nonsensical and actually ungrammatical when invoked as independent constructions.
"Abstain" is a negation of action. When that action is not specifically named, the listener (Or reader) deduces it based on the context.
For example, we would understand both of these statements to mean the same thing:
--Abstain from junk food
--Abstain from eating junk food
...because we automatically associate the verb, Eat with the noun, Food.
Sometimes though, this association is less clear because there are several different actions that could be associated with a single object.
Consider two more examples:
A pregnant women visits her obstetrican. She is told, "Pregnant women should abstain from alcohol."
A man with a skin condition visits his dermatologist. He is told, "Persons with sensitive skin should abstain from alcohol."
Both doctors have told their patients to, "Abstain from alcohol" but they were obviously talking about two different and unrelated actions.
The woman has been told not to Drink alcoholic beverages, but she is still free to apply cosmetics containing alcohol on her skin.
The man has been told not to Apply alcohol to his skin, but he is still free to drink beverages containing alcohol.
An "Abstain from...." phrase negates a very clearly defined action and the context is critical in determining that action.
Some might remember the football star, Walter Peyton and how he died of a liver ailment. In the final months of his life, he was told to "Abstain from meat."
Would he have violated that advice if he had accepted a liver transplant? Is taking in tissue via transplant the same thing as taking in tissue via eating?
Of course not. Only an absolute moron would seriously believe that instructions involving diet would pertain to surgery. The JW's confuse otherwise intelligent people and make them believe that this type of moronic conclusion is reasonable through semantic legerdemain vis a vis the word, "Absain."
@TD
I was only using their terms!
I understand what you're saying...... I always had trouble with JW semantics, but hey, that's another story.
I totally don't understand the comment I received when remarking to a JW about the changes in the blood issue....I was told that the Bible hasn't changed but science has, that's why fractions are allowed. Doesn't make sense, but I suspect that this JW had desperately tried to remember the WT answer for such occasions, lol (let's face it, they don't actually THINK or use logic, just repeat parrot fashion...if they can remember)
