The latest on blood (page 4)

Pistoff

I wonder if we will ever see the word derivatives used in printed material for the rank and file.

That will spawn some cognitive dissonance for sure.

Where is the dividing line between derivatives, 'components' and 'fractions'?

The more they talk about it, the worse it gets.

I agree with 'Lee Elder' who said long ago that the WT no long believes in the blood policy, but the rank and file have not caught up.

Bobcat

Kurt Bethel asked:

What is the scripture that supports the idea that fractions are acceptable?

I would like to see that too. I posted above some scriptures that, to me, prohibit such an idea. (i.e. if you accept the idea that blood is Biblically banned for medicine.

To me, they painted themselves into a corner.

Take Care

wasblind

Kurt Bethel asked:

What is the scripture that supports the idea that fractions are acceptable?

On page 75 in the Reasoning Book, the WTS compare the prohibition of the forbidden fruit the same as

the prohition of blood back in Noah's day

So in Essence, they are allowing a fraction of what they consider an all out sin

which they say is equal to eating a fraction of the forbidden fruit , fornication

and idolitry

as I stated before it does not make sense to disfellowship a person for fornication

especially if they break it down into fractions, a little piece here, and a little piece there

wasblind

Can't those nit wits see it the same thing ????????

TD

Can't those nit wits see it the same thing ?????

I don't think they're stupid. --Just coldly pragmatic. That's what makes the teaching despicable on so many levels. If there is a hell, the Devil has a whole amusement park waiting for the architects of this teaching.

wasblind

" If there is a hell, the Devil has a whole amusement park waiting for the architects of this teaching."

LOL @ TD Never in my life have I been tickled in such a sophisticated manner

Bobcat

Can't those nit wits see it the same thing ?????

I don't think they're stupid. --Just coldly pragmatic.

I agree. The fraction thing is an attempt to slowly work themselves out of the bind they put themselves in when they instituted the blood policy in the first place.

They should have listened to CT Russell. I think it was him who originally said that a religion should stay away from regulating medicinal blood use. I also have heard (here probably) that the motive for the current blood doctrine was more with the idea of creating a distinction between the Society and other churches rather than any Biblical reasons.

So, if true, they put the friends at risk unnecessarily to begin with. Now, although seeing the problem with the doctrine, they continue to risk the friends lives in order to protect themselves. Just coming out and saying they were wrong would open themselves to legal problems. So they continue to risk others lives to protect themselves.

(John 10:12, 13) . . .The hired man, who is no shepherd and to whom the sheep do not belong as his own, beholds the wolf coming and abandons the sheep and flees-and the wolf snatches them and scatters them- 13 because he is a hired man and does not care for the sheep.

blondie

It makes me remember the analogies the speakers would use:

1) how much poison would you accept in your water

2) how much cow dung would you accept in your water

and other versions

So how much blood would you accept in your water?

I like the cake analogy, can't eat cake per doctor

But you eat separately at different times

flour

eggs

milk

butter

flavoring

And it is different?

Bobcat

TD:

Thanks for the chronology on WT blood changes.

The latest on blood

Share this