"Are the Jehovah’s Witnesses onto something?" - re: blood transfusions - Montreal Gazette

by Incognito 15 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  problemaddict

  This is where my former faith really pisses me off. Its like they want to take a measure of credit for something like this when it is written. Statements such as "how could JW's have foreseen that we would be improving not only our health but also contributing to the worlds knowledge of this vital component of our health without Jehovah's blessing"......begin to show up in my in box.

  How about a parallel such as the discovery of penecillin.......an accident. You don't take the stand for medical reasons, so why tout medical reasons as a reason you think you have God's blessing? In addition, this takes away from the many decades where the research and knowledge still weren't there, and people just straight died. Even now there are situations where people die, and there is nothing that can be done without blood.

  Is it really so incredible to essentially say, that liquid stuff inside of you is best kept inside of you without putting someone elses goo in you if we can at all help it? This is the medical innovation JW's feel is their gift to the world?

  This is by far the most angering and assinine doctrine it the bunch. It is indefensable from a logical standpoint, and yet it is held onto like nothing else (maybe birthdays......equally illogical). I just don't get it.

  edited for spelling
• 

  Crazyguy

  The JW's are so brainwashed that the last elder i talked to about this and my really having a problem with the blood doctrine said that he did'nt think blood transfusions saved any lives. Thats right these guys are so brainwashed that they believe that no blood tranfusion works to save a life even when suffering major blood loss like in a car accident.

  I do agree that anything done in the medical field must be questioned by the paitent because western medicine is quick to over use and over prescibe but we should all be realistic when reading a artichle like this and not give credit where credit is not do, esspecially where there is no evidence that the JW's had any scriptural reason to all of a sudden start not allowing blood transfucions in 1945 when it was ok for years.
• 

  prologos

  All "SCRIPTURAL" reasons have to be open to question, as we here now know, because what the scriptures are based* on and where they came from. So:

  on Blood Transfusions:

  being practical, when you are bleeding to death. it is vital do accept it. It would be folly to reject it,

  criminal to refuse it for your under age children. but:

  Just because the blood count is at 90% or might conceivably fall to that level ???,

  The risks are not worth the benefits. and there are risks.

  as the article point out.

  * the talking snake and spin on that.
• 

  BluesBrother

  My dub family would love this! However, the key word in the title is "sometimes" - the dubs read that as "always"

  Many of us would choose bloodless surgery as an option, in a non emergency situation, but faced with a catestrophic blood loss? That is a different story.
• 

  eyeuse2badub

  Since the only suitable use of blood is in sacrifice according to the WTBTS, how about medical blood tests? I know that the org has commented on this subject and made it a 'matter it a matter of conscience', but really think about it. Do you know what happens to that collected blood after testing? Why get a blood test in the first place? Isn't the purpose to help us remain healthy or prolong our life? But if we are misusing blood to remain healthy or prolong our life, are we subject to being DF,ed? Of course not because the GB says it's a matter of conscience. Reasonably, when we get a medical blood tes,t and find out that we have some sort of problem or ailment,, desease, or other medical issue, we proceed to get it taken care of so as to prolong our life. Life of humans is most important to Jehovah. Isn't that why he has us so busy preaching? What would you do if your blood test indicated tha you needed a blood transfusion? O well no need to prolong our life any longer if we need a blood transfusion.

  O wait, we only need blood FRACTIONS to preserve our life. Now that's different (conscience matter). Where can we get the needed blood FRACTIONS from? From blood doners? O wait, blood doners are violating Jehovah's law on blood sanctity. We can't possibly accept anything from such wonton violators for Jehovah's law, can we? (conscience bothering you yet?)

  So we can have our blood withdrawn for testing. In many cases large quantities are withdrawn. We can accept blood fractions (just a minor violation of Jehovah's law regarding the sanctity of blood) that could very well prolong OUR life. It'sperfectly okay (conscience permitting) to get these FRACTIONS from OTHER people (who have horribly violated Jehovah's law). It must be that one of the almighty GB members has needed blood FRACTIONS to perserve HIS life or one of HIS loved ones is all I can figure. Do you think that GB members ever have medical blood testing? Do they make sure that THEIR blood is 'poured out on the ground" after it is used for what they have told us actually constitutes a "non suitable use of blood according to the Bible"?
• 

  Phizzy

  To risk ones life, or worse, the life of a child, based on a faulty interpretation of some words written 1900 plus years ago, words that have no provenance, nothing to prove they were actually uttered, is just plain morally wrong.

  To try to bolster the wrong interpretation by quoting similarly doubtful words from the O.T written a thousand years before that, is just lunacy.

  The JW's have never been "on to something", all their unique doctrines are scripturally unsupportable.