by moshe 47 Replies latest watchtower medical
Blood transfusions 101 for JW's-
A blood transfusion will not save the life of a starving man = a blood transfusion is not food = a blood transfusion does not violate the OT law given by God to the Jews to, "not eat blood" and that was later reiterated by the Jewish Christians to the Gentile Christians = the Watchtower no-blood transfusion doctrine is a manmade abomination that kills innocent people = The WatchTower Society is guilty of promoting manslaughter.
=all members of the Watchtower Society(including me when in it) are bloodguilty
Blood will only work as food if you eat it through your mouth.
There is no direct scriptual reason that outlaws blood transfusions.
It became a mistaken equation the GB made up one day.
Those non-medical morons, eroneously thought, "Hey blood transfusions are the same as eating blood! We MUST make them wrong! It will be a test to see if they really are willing to die for us, the GB. And will the faithful imitate Abraham's example and sacrifice their own children"
Unfortunenutly, in this case, no Angels appear to stop JW parents from sacrificing their children. They 'proudly' let them die.
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood" (Leviticus 17:11) and "...it is the life of all flesh;the blood of it is for the life thereof: ..." (Leviticus 17:14)
I have never understood how the blood policy from the WTS is supported by these scriptures.
So simple.
So basic.
So true.
And yet so misunderstood.
I've researched the Bible on the whole issue of blood. One thing I will say is that the Internet makes an excellent concordance for looking up where the word blood is found in the bible. I will publish my results on this thread.
How would you argue with a JW on the bit that said "abstain from blood" in the NT? that doesn't mention eating so is harder to argue against
zombie dub, Acts 15 mentions the guideline that one living among the Jews as a proselyte was to abide by in the days of the nation of Israel- Leviticus 17-18. And The context of Leviticus 17-18 where it is originally mentioned obviously are speaking of dietary restrictions, nothing more.
zombie dub:
To put it in a way that a JW elder put it to me, "We must take the whole Bible into account." If you take the whole Bible into account, then it clearly speaks of eating blood, not infusing it into your viens.
You can also point out that even the WT says that a blood transfusion is not eating blood but it is simply more like an organ transplant. They allow organ transplants, case closed.
The whole blood is diseased thing that the push is simply a smoke screen. I can get a disease accepting blood fractions (which they allow) and other medicines based off of body fluids of humans and animals. The other smoke screen, the whole we should not accept blood because it can go bad, does not hold much water when you take into account the fact that other medicines can also go bad.
Just smoke and mirrors aimed at keeping the dubs in-line and protecting the WTS from bearing any liability for their blood guilt.
I find it odd that JWs will argue about blood on medicals grounds.
That it is dangerous "medically" to have blood.
As stated all medical procedures , even minor ones carry a risk.
To give blood to save a life, is in line with what God expects, "I want mercy not sacrifice."
To die refusing blood or letting someone else die, bcause "your God" says so, is human sacrifice.
It benefits no one, but brings great sorrow.
How would you argue with a JW on the bit that said "abstain from blood" in the NT? that doesn't mention eating so is harder to argue against
Here's how I do it....
"Ok then. Tell you what... you drain every single last drop of blood from your body RIGHT NOW. That is the ultimate in abstaining from blood as defined by the WTS."
