by cofty 556 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
there should not be any symbolic value to God in blood taken from a creature not slaughtered cofty
No you havent. But to be fair. You have made your point in your argument that there should not be any symbolic value to God in blood taken from a creature not slaughtered -as you argue. fisherman
Therefore blood transfusions are not against god's law. Therefore thousands have died for a theological blunder. Therefore the Watchtower are not led by the holy spirit. cofty
You conclude too much.
You conclude too much.
Fisherman at the end of the day you have to reach a conclusion. The difference is that Cofty's conclusion harmonizes beautifully with scripture and with loving principles you would expect a God of love to apply. The conclusion that you choose to blindly follow leaves God looking like a fool who hasn't got a clue as to what he is doing or why he is doing it.
Your conclusion also tragically results in a mountain of dead corpses. Jehovah claims to be a God of the living, not of the dead.
Cofty's conclusion is logical, Fisherman.
You MUST know this!
The WT is bloodguilty due to its discouragement of blood transfusions for its members.
I am exploring a hunch of mine as to how this no-blood nonsense came about in the first place.
I believe it has something to do with Charles Drew, blood banks, and the fear of White people that somehow the blood of Black people would "contaminate" them.
This came about during the pre and post-WWII years - the same time frame as WT's development of its no-blood stance.
Sylvia
Fisherman concludes too little. Robots that are indoctrinated often lack the ability to think or reason, but rather let the governing body do so for them, the hallmark of any cult victim.
Do you want to have a spelling bee or a name calling contest on this thread and forget about the topic being discussed?
Stavro, do you want to have a spelling bee or a name calling contest on this thread?
Don't bother me with the topic cofty, I am busy responding to nonsense coming from dub and stavro.
Fisherman I do sympathize with the fact that you are a victim of the environment you grew up in. Your mind has been formatted to think in a vary particular way. But now you can choose to either remain to be a victim or you can attempt to break out of the mould which created you.
I do apologize if you feel I am calling you names, but at the same time, if by me pointing out how you are publicly revealing your inability to grasp the subject, a single life can be saved, then it is my duty to do so.
I have no such sympathy. Fishy has been here 13 years and still comes just to stir things up. He deserves no sympathy. At a point it's willful ignorance based in obstinance and arrogance, or just plain evil.
It is really staggering to think that if a group of humble men had taken a few days to properly research this issue an awful lot of unnecessary death would have been avoided.
Who is responsible? Knor? Franz? I suppose once there has been a death over this stance back in the 40s there was no going back.
It is wicked!
I remember the first time I realized the context of the verses in Acts and how my mind was blown. In all my years that had never been mentioned, and I shredded my suicide cards as did my wife not long thereafter.
cofty: Who is responsible? Knor? Franz?
Both of them.
Knorr and Franz both held the reins to power in 1945 when they added blood transfusions to their restrictions on blood consumption.
The blood taboo could have relaxed in the next few years, and it did somewhat. There were signs that the blood phobia craze could fizzle. JWs didn't always comply and they faced loss after loss in the courts. But what happened?
In 1961, Knorr and Franz, the power duo, came down hard on the JWs and made taking a blood transfusion a disfellowshipping offense. At the exact same time that medical science, using blood transfusion technology, had developed a way to create a bloodless surgical field.
It was Knorr and Franz who fed the flames of Armageddon in the years following that, using the blood prohibition - the ban against sharing blood - as a sign of separateness from "the world". A way of "taking a stand". And more people died.
And then, when the '75 flames died down, what did Knorr/Franz do? They gave authority and birth to the "Hospital Information Services". That is their legacy. The HLC, the blood squad, comes from Knorr and Franz. From both of them.
And more people die. Every day.
Because of Knorr and Franz. And their bloodless legacy.
*good thread, cofty. It makes people think.
Thank you for the background Orphan Crow.
Such a needless waste of life based on nothing but pride and arrogance. This is what happens when one or two autocrats are allowed to dominate the lives of millions. This is what puts the religion right on the cult spectrum in my opinion. If there was genuine freedom of thought it would be easy to convince JWs to rethink this issue, or at least to give them pause before sacrificing their child.
I began to research blood as a loyal JW although I had began to have doubts triggered by the '95 Watchtower about the "generation". I read everything I could starting with the little blood booklet. There was a brief comment something like "a measure of guilt resulted from eating the blood of an animal found already dead (Lev.11:38,39)" That was a red light!
I got the concordance out and surveyed every reference to blood in the bible. Within a few hours I had worked out the solution. When I found the Q from R that said it was about accidentally eating blood I knew I was being lied to. I told the other elders I would not be renewing my blood card. That was the beginning of the end.
