Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine (page 31)

jgnat

dear djeggnog:

I see you bypassed my parsing of your hypothetical, so I'll declare that a slam-dunk. You are wrong about the rights of parents over the state when a child's life is at risk. Judges regularly intervene to allow blood transfusions in these cases. This also disproves your claim that blood transfusions are too risky a medical treatment.

You've restated my position, bypassing an important component. The Watchtower Society, if it restricted it's information dissemination to it's members to biblical admonition alone, would be more ethical than their foray in to medicine, exaggerating the risk of transfusion, and diminishing the risk of alternatives. This leaves the average Jehovah's Witness dangerously misinformed.

Perhaps you have been too busy to read all replies, but I did respond to your comment on blood fractions. I said that if we did it would have to include a discussion of the spiritual authority of the Governing Body, which I would be happy to do on a separate thread. Are you up for it?

I am astounded by your claim that Jehovah's Witnesses, by personal bible study alone, would unitedly come to the same conclusion about "abstain...from blood" and unitedly come to the same conscience decision. Why then, so many study materials, produced by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, to supplement the information available to Jehovah's Witnesses in their decision making?

If the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society published new material that distinguished blood transfusions from the ancient dietary restrictions, and stated that blood transfusions are a life-saving measure and not a "spiritual rape", not a sin, and no eternal consequence is attached, that Jehovah's Witnesses would continue to refuse blood transfusions because of their independent bible study?

I ignore all your statements regarding motive, as you provide no evidence. It is your opinion, which is suspect. You have admitted that you do not consider any other perspective other than the "right" one, and that you know you are always right.

Side note:

I am sorry if it was unclear to you. When I refer to "the society" or "the Society" I am referring to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. If I say "society" I am referring to everyone. I'll capitalize "the Society" to be more clear in the future.

dgp

This thread is really educative in this sense. We have here a person who is using his or her knowledge of "the debate format" to defend the undefensible. So the person has to become very good ar argumenting, dismissing (or ignoring) uncomfortable questions, riding a high horse, et cetera, but he or she is not that good at seeing the truth. Like a lawyer who knew his client actually killed the old lady, but needs to find a way to have the client acquitted.

One has the feeling that if the Zoociety held that 2 + 2 = 5, he'd find ingenious ways to "prove" it.

Interesting, but sad.

As good ol' Mark Twain is supposed to have said, " Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."

Mary

jgnat said: I am astounded by your claim that Jehovah's Witnesses, by personal bible study alone, would unitedly come to the same conclusion about "abstain...from blood" and unitedly come to the same conscience decision.

Especially in light of the fact that even the Organization itself teaches just the opposite:

"...Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the scripture studies aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years-if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness."----September 15, 1910 Watchtower, p. 298

OUTLAW

DjEggNogg

I have never once needed to contact the Watchtower Educational Center in Patterson, NY, or the Hospital Information Services,

which is still located at 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, NY, because, like me, these folks are Jehovah's Witnesses,

but I'll leave it to you to guess the number of times I've been contacted by either.

Not needing to contact the WBT$ because your a JW..Is an incredibly Stupid thing to say..

Why would the WBT$ contact someone like you?..They don`t have time for Real JW`s..

You've already established your not a JW....You don`t speak the WBT$/JW Cult Language properly..

JW`s talk like JW`s..Pretending to be one won`t fly now..

....................... ...OUTLAW

Earnest

I have followed this thread with some interest as, like djeggnog, I am one of Jehovah's witnesses. However, in previous discussions on abstention from blood I have had on this forum, I reached the conclusion that the scriptures on this subject are open to interpretation. They may be interpreted as applying to blood transfusions but, quite clearly, they are also interpreted otherwise. And I think that Jehovah's Witnesses recognise this as they treat it differently to fornication or idolatry.

If someone was involved in fornication or idolatry and they were unrepentant they would be disfellowshipped. If someone has a blood transfusion they are viewed as having disassociated themselves from Jehovah's Witnesses by their actions. Why the difference? While I appreciate the more sceptical on this forum will mutter about Bulgaria, I would suggest that the difference is that this interpretation is a matter of doctrine, it is "present truth", and it is possible that this understanding will change in the future. I am not saying it will, only that it is possible. As that is the case the acceptance of a blood transfusion is wrong because it is an interpretation currently believed by Jehovah's Witnesses, not because it is an absolute prohibition like fornication or idolatry. For this reason I think djeggnog is incorrect to maintain that all of Jehovah's witnesses would interpret these scriptures as including blood transfusion if they were free to do so.

cofty

Earnest as a JW what are your thoughts on the biblical reasoning in the first post at the top of this page?

Tuesday

I have followed this thread with some interest as, like djeggnog, I am one of Jehovah's witnesses. However, in previous discussions on abstention from blood I have had on this forum, I reached the conclusion that the scriptures on this subject are open to interpretation. They may be interpreted as applying to blood transfusions but, quite clearly, they are also interpreted otherwise. And I think that Jehovah's Witnesses recognise this as they treat it differently to fornication or idolatry.

If someone was involved in fornication or idolatry and they were unrepentant they would be disfellowshipped. If someone has a blood transfusion they are viewed as having disassociated themselves from Jehovah's Witnesses by their actions. Why the difference? While I appreciate the more sceptical on this forum will mutter about Bulgaria, I would suggest that the difference is that this interpretation is a matter of doctrine, it is "present truth", and it is possible that this understanding will change in the future. I am not saying it will, only that it is possible. As that is the case the acceptance of a blood transfusion is wrong because it is an interpretation currently believed by Jehovah's Witnesses, not because it is an absolute prohibition like fornication or idolatry. For this reason I think djeggnog is incorrect to maintain that all of Jehovah's witnesses would interpret these scriptures as including blood transfusion if they were free to do so.

I would say you have a reasonable interpretation for sure. The question lies though as you might have seen we're literally talking a cell membrane. A cell membrane lies between you voluntarily disassociating yourself and receiving no consequence whatsoever. That seems a bit odd to me, very pharasitical. I would hold more respect for the JW that says "The scriptures say to abstain from blood so I do not receive any form of blood" than for the JW that will add all sorts of addendums to the law (wash up to that elbow).

sizemik

Earnest . . . thank you for your input.

I would suggest that the difference is that this interpretation is a matter of doctrine, it is "present truth", and it is possible that this understanding will change in the future.

I agree entirely, however I would suggest that the carefully timed changes will continue. What we are all witnessing is a "strategic withdrawal" from an indefensible doctrinal error . . . for the sole reason of avoiding negative publicity and lawsuits.

I, like cofty, would be very interested in a response to the scriptural points outlined at the top of this page. I believe it identifies the fundamental flaw in the doctrine . . . a flaw at base level . . . of which the WT Society is very much aware.

Luvonyall - MS

Listener

A very interesting point Earnest and a distinction has to be drawn between practising a religion and God's law.

Mary

egghead said: this prejudice that many people have as to our religious refusal to accept blood transfusions starts with the doctors that make some outrageous statements to the public as to how horrible Jehovah's Witnesses are as parents to allow their children to die for religious reasons "when a blood transfusion could have saved their lives" is religious persecution being brought to bear against us because we regard blood as sacred and these folks that bash us do not and hardly believe in God.

I imagine the pagans who sacrificed their children to Molech used the same useless argument.

Inviting djeggnog to discuss the blood doctrine

Share this