by Witness 007 116 Replies latest jw experiences
Like it or not, I think it is understandable that most JW's accept the blood prohibition as abstaining from blood is scriptural. Whether or not a transfusion should be included in that abstinence is a completely different matter.
Mass suicide ... I just don't see that as having even vague Bible backing.
Some background reading for everybody:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Basically, people tend to do as they are ordered. History bears this out, Japanese Kamikazes, Pickett's Charge, the Holocaust (what got Milgram started on his work) are good examples and their are many more.
I don't think JW's have a corner on the market for this.
Everybody realizes that we are only talking hypothetically here, correct?
If the CO's keep giving this talk and telling the flock to "obey even if you don't understand", then perhaps a great many people would do exactly as directed.
Forgot to mention this - when parents will let their baby lay there and die before giving them blood because the WT magazine says so, there's no limit to what they might do if the ORG says do it. Sickening!
Simple answer to this lame question, No. There is not evidence that JWs would resort to personal violence in obedience to the Watchtower. Using limited examples from crack-pot cults is the worst kind of "support" seeking for your loaded hypothesis.
Why not broaden this biased question to include fervent believers of any persuasion. Remember, the idea of following one's faith to the death is not unique to so-called cults. It's a chamioned theme of very old writings such as those that are tidily bound together in "Holy Scripture". The story of Abraham tells us how far he was prepared to go.
They already do. They refuse blood transfusions when needed, for themselves and for their children. So they don't have mass suicides like Jonestown, Waco, Heaven's Gate or the Solar Temple... but I bet the body count for JWs dying for lack of a blood transfusion is higher than all these "cult-driven mass suicides" combined.
Were it not for the WTS doctrine regarding blood transfusions, nobody in their right mind would refuse a blood transfusion if their life depended on it, and that includes JWs. There's no way the WTS can escape culpability in this matter - they have taught that doctrine for almost 60 years. They declare that a JW who accepts a blood transfusion voluntarily is No Longer One Of Jehovah's Witnesses™. You can't convince me that refusal of blood transfusions isn't an integral part of the JW belief system, that all these people independently and without being influenced, coached or coerced read the bible and decided that the passages they use to justify their dogma meant that they ought not accept blood transfusions.
There is not evidence that JWs would resort to personal violence in obedience to the Watchtower.
Disagree strongly. The blood doctrine, applied to your own child, is as extreme as personal violence can possibly get.
As other posters have pointed out, it would be ridiculous to assume JWs would resort to suicide instantly if ordered - but if indoctrinated over the years, the evidence speaks strongly that many would follow what they were being told.
Another point may need to be made again - this is a purely hypothetical thought excercise - I don't think anybody is suggesting that JW leadership would actually try to pull off a Jim Jones style massacre.
They already do.
Agreed. They 'kill' their children (by refusing to give them available, lifesaving medical treatment) -- and then brag about it. See below.
Once again, that bat-shit-crazy magazine cover really says it all.
Not just the fact that these kids actually died, but the fact that they printed it with pride - really says it all.
JWs really do need to think more about whether or not they are in a worldwide Jonestown.
