Blood Transfusions 101 for JW's
The WT can very easily turn over the blood issues into a "new light" thing and revoke the ban, just like they did with organ transplants and with blood fractions.
There would be very little back lash internally.
I would have to disagree with that assumption, for it is very well known within the long term members
how many lives were inappropriately lost due to this policy, some high ranking members
have actually lost family members due to this policy. Adding to this is the possible financial legal costs
that could be levied against the WTS. brought into the courts.
You can best assume that the WTS lawyers have had much to say regarding a potential policy reversal.
Twinkle toes: was willing to break gods law not only to save a life but to improve ones health (ie. a blind or lame man).
When it hit me that Jesus example should also be applied to blood transfusions. The "LAWS" were mute when the health or life of a person was at stake. No law is more important than showing love to your fellow man (other than loving god). To me that is clear.
Jewish law states that you are to choose life. And as far as I know and have been taught by my rabbi, you will never break God's law concerning the sabbath when you help your fellow man. The sabbath was intended to improve life for the Israelites on a physical, mental and spiritual level. The sabbath laws were never intended to stifle good works or prevent you from helping your fellow man.
I am not sure about that, the rank and file would probably received it willingly and I have no idea how any court in the land can prove that the WT FORCED anyone NOT to have a blood transfusion.
Proving coersion is not an easy thing to say the very least.
Of course it would have to be worded properly, something like, " The FDS has learned from Jehovah that, finally modern medicine has caught up with our Lord;s word and now that itis so much safer for those in need of an EMERGENCY BT, they cna choose to have one...blah, blah, blah...Jehova has given the right food at the right time, blah, blah, the FDS , blah, blah..."
Of course when emergency BT are accepted and have become "mainstay", the rest will just slide right in uner the radar.
Jesus gave all JW's a "get out of jail" trump card when he said, as Lord of the Sabbath, that a person could violate the do-no-work Sabbath laws to rescue an animal that had fallen into a pit on the Sabbath- is not a human life worth more than the life of an animal? That example alone should suffice to allow a JW's conscience to accept a blood transfusion in matters of life and death. How is it that the JW's who claim to be so versed in the Bible have never been able to make that simple connection?
I hope everyone cuts and pastes my 101 example and uses it whenever possible. Like posting a comment on a KH quickbuild or WT convention newspaper story- Please slip this in the comments and show the world how dangerous to human life JW's are when it comes to blood transfusions.
As you know, they are well versed in their LITERATURE, not the bible, not even their own bible.
And that is really the problem.
How is it that the JW's who claim to be so versed in the Bible have never been able to make that simple connection?
The answer to that is simple, once a group of men make pompous and arrogant proclamations that they alone are god's
only chosen organization to dispel bible truths, fumbling mayhem is surely to be expected.
For most part the leaders of the WTS have never really been true bible scholars or have been trained as such,
other than their bogus Gilead school, which is just set up to propagate the WTS. teachings alone.
Bible knowledge was seemingly moderate but the power and arrogance was accurately high.
I was swayed by this reasoning when I read it on hear :
Gen 9 says " Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Only flesh with its soul,its blood,you must not eat...Your blood of your souls shall I ask back. From the hand of every living creature shall I ask it back"
Whose blood was asked back? The blood of the creature killed for food, as respect for taking its life.
Whose life is taken in a medical transfusion of donated blood ? Nobody's....so no problem
The ancients didn't know much of the organs and their purpose within the human body, most likely it was thought that it
was the blood loss alone that killed animals and men, so hence the importance to them concerning blood.
Just a guess.
There's also a scripture - I can't remember where now - that talks about how honorable it is for a man to lay down his soul for a brother. If the blood is the soul, that to be would show support very literally for blood donation.
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
LOL. It doesn't say "Transfusion" either.
Actually, JW's who invoke this phrase in support of the transfusion medicine taboo are committing a grammatical error.
In both English and Greek, the phrase is incomplete.
In English, "Abstan" is intransitive and "Blood" cannot be it's direct object.
For example, if I were to say, "Abstain from hard liquor" you would understand me to be telling you not to DRINK it.
The source for the verb DRINK is the context of the statement.
If I were to say, "Abstain from junk food" you would understand me to be telling you not to EAT it.
The source for the verb EAT is the context of the statment.
"Abstain" negates ACTION even when that action is unstated. There is no such thing as negation of a noun.
For example, what would it mean if I were to say, "Abstain from crankshaft" or "Abstain from telephone" or "Abstain from sky?" When an ACTION cannot be derived from the context, "Abstain from" phrases are gibberish.
IN CONTEXT, the phrase "keep abstaining....from blood" is a reference to EATING IT because the eating of blood as forbidden in the Mosaic Law is the backdrop against which the statement was made.
JW's who invoke a partial predicate apart from the context which completes it are simply ignorant.