The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty 556 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    Ultimately, all the arguments are moot.

    I don't think the WTS can never truly budge on their stance because to do so would be tacitly admitting they were mistaken to enforce it in the first place. That was fine with the type/antitype thing; nobody's lives were impacted significantly by that aspect of WT theology.

    The blood prohibition, on the other hand, has been directly responsible for literally thousands of Witness deaths; to reverse that position would mean that all those people died needlessly, and what's more, that it's the WTS's fault.

    The WTS will never dare admit that.

  • defender of truth
    defender of truth
    to reverse that position would mean that all those people died needlessly, and what's more, that it's the WTS's fault. The WTS will never dare admit that.

    I wonder if they could change their position on blood one day, with a quiet little Questions From Readers article that makes it appear to be a conscience matter. The hardliners could still keep there views on blood transfusions, no matter how illogical, and others could receive lifesaving treatment for them and their children, without fear of judgement or shunning.

    Remember, people died due to the Watchtowers position on organ transplants.. Yet they went from referring to it as cannibalism, to it being a conscience matter they would not comment on.

    Eventually, the subject of transplant was raised by Dads doctor, and mom scrambled to research the subject in the WTBTS publications. She found there, that it was not acceptable for a Jehovahs Witness to have organ transplants, in fact, it was the equivalent of cannibalism and against Gods Law. Not wanting to displease Jehovah, that was all my parents had to hear. It was an agonizing decision, and one based completely on the information they found in the pages of Watchtower literature. My fathers doctor pleaded with them to reconsider, but they didnt waiver.

    ...Their sole motivation for reaching this decision was to please Jehovah. They believed and trusted the Watchtower when it said that transplants were cannibalism. Two years after Dads death the WTBTS changed their position. I remember reading the change under "questions from the readers". I remember the sick feeling in the pit of my stomach as I read those words and tried to understand.

    www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/experiences/coffeeblack.php

    Now take a look at the change..

    Unacceptable
    Watchtower 1967 November 15 pp.702-704
    "Sustaining one's life by means of the body or part of the body of another human... would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. ... It is not our place to decide whether such operations are advisable from a scientific or medical standpoint. ... Christians who have been enlightened by God's Word do not need to make these decisions based simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction, trusting him and putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him."

    Watchtower 1975 September 1 p.519
    "A peculiar factor sometimes noted is a so-called 'personality transplant.' That is, the recipient in some cases has seemed to adopt certain personality factors of the person from whom the organ came."

    Acceptable

    Watchtower 1980 March 15 p.31

    "There is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue . It is a matter for personal decision "

    www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/transplants.php

    To me, one thing is certain. Without the masses of average JW's (who have very little biblical education outside of the pages of a watchtower) being given the chance to see that the current stance on lifesaving blood transfusions is not the irrefutable, black+white certainty they have been indoctrinated into believing it to be, people are going to continue to die needlessly, without the necessary tools to free themselves from indoctrination.. Before it is too late.

    Threads like this one of Cofty's can provide those tools, to help people gain the freedom they need to make a life-or-death decision one day.

    All arguments are NOT moot.

    If even one person reads these points and reconsiders the Watchtower's current position on blood, maybe even waking up from the critical thinking involved in working through the points raised here.. It was all worthwhile.

    Every life is precious.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Thank you.

    I was able to test this out a little bit by going undercover on a pro-JW forum recently.

    As a result I am more confident in this line of argument than before but I am going to rewrite it when I get time because I can now see ways to strengthen it.

  • Ruby456
    Ruby456

    this subject is a tough one cofty and kudos for trying to tackle it.

    In playing devil's advocate, I'm not sure your distinction between a dead animal's blood and a live animal's blood is uncontroversial because a JW might argue that there are intrinsic as well as extrinsic factors that weigh in on making the taking of blood taboo for them. for example blood that is not circulating in a dead animal is not intimately linked to life in that electrochemical and electrohormonal equilibriums are not taking place any more once the animal has died, nor are gaseous exchanges in the lungs taking place anymore. The pulse of like has gone therefore it is okay to eat provided that what it once represented is observed albeit to a lesser degree. I have come up against this argument and used it myself when I was active.

    edit: I think there is a way to get round this and thats why I am offering the above

  • cofty
    cofty

    In fact JWs are unanimously outraged at the thought of deliberately eating an unbled dead animal under any circumstances. This is the key.

  • Ruby456
    Ruby456

    well yes - the taboo, the prohibition aspect is what makes the most demands on Jehovahs witnesses. So I agree that if you take this line

    In the case of a transfusion no life has been taken and therefore the blood is not sacred. It can be used to sustain life, just as the Israelite could eat the unbled meat of an animal found "already dead".

    together with the leviticus 11:37&38 verses your argument is very strong and it has great potential for taking blood transfusions into a more grey area than the taboo areas that it occupies at the moment for JWs. You will have problems if you discuss intrinsic and extrinsic significance as that is more likely to take their mindset back to prohibition and taboo.

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    Watchtower's blood taboo stands or falls based on one thing: What is was required of the biblical Noah.

    Humans in Noah's time had health needs like everyone else among ancients. The use of blood transplantation for medicinal remedy was widely practiced from antiquity. Hence if God did not want Noah to use blood for this purpose there was reason to tell Noah that as a matter of biblical record. But there is no biblical record of any such a thing. Based on the biblical record Noah was free to transplant blood (even from slaughtered animals!) for medicinal remedy.


    - Ancient Blood Transplantation, and Noah

    Watchtower's blood taboo could not be more wrong.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    Pretty sure the chances of getting WTS to budge on this are pretty low. Don't get me wrong; your arguments and logic are all compelling and reasonable, but paradoxically, that may actually reinforce the problem.

    In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the better your arguments are, the more staunchly the WTS will dig in its heels, simply because...

    a) ...the arguments are coming from XJWs (a.k.a. "apostates"), which, in their eyes, automatically disqualifies them, and...

    b) ...the WTS, being an authoritarian hierarchy, would rather piss acid than be seen - either internally or otherwise - capitulating to their opponents, "apostates" or otherwise.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Vidiot - My intention was never to convince the cult leaders to change their teachings.

    I am simply providing a biblical explanation of the topic in the hope that somewhere an individual JW might think twice before sacrificing their child.

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    Check.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit