Elders answer questions about the changes of the blood ban

by opusdei1972 51 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • Vidiot

    BU2B - "I think the GB 2.0 would like to scrap the blood ban, however they have way to much invested to just walk away. Tens of thousands at least have died from this... To just give new light saying its now ok would be earth shattering and wake the most people up since 1975."


    They're trying to quietly sneak it out whilst hoping nobody notices until long after it's gone.

    'Course, that's somewhat difficult when that damnable XJW community keeps bringing the subject up...

  • AndDontCallMeShirley

    It'd be interesting to hear the elder's explanation as to why, prior to the 1960's (?) organ transplants were banned but blood transfusions were not. Then the flip-flop: organ transplants were allowed and blood transfusions were banned.


    And about those who died for those changes, they said that Jehovah let his people die in His Holy Wars (during the days of the ancient Israel), so we shouldn't be surprised for that.

    Jehovahâ„¢....such a warm, fuzzy god.

  • Oubliette

    snare&racket, perhaps you can clarify. I am under the impression that doctors almost never transfuse "whole blood" just as it comes from the donor, but this due to the processing for medical use most blood used in transfusions can technically be considered to be "fractions."

    In this way, the WTBTS has found a loophole. My understanding is that the issue was really brought to a head by the Bulgarian government and the WT made the "fractions are acceptable" compromise as a result.

    Randy Watters has repeatedly stated that no one has been DF'd for accepting a blood transfusion for many years and this is the reason why.

    I have to admit, I'm a little fuzzy on the details because the WTBTS has deliberately obfuscated the issue for all of the reasons stated above.

  • Billy the Ex-Bethelite
    Billy the Ex-Bethelite

    "She should of asked them then what was the point in Jesus sacrifice and all his teachings if we still have to live under the mosaic law???"

    Their answer will be that the blood ban is enforced because it predates the Mosaic Law to the command to Noah to not eat blood. Again that theology is a mess because the context clearly shows that the prohibition is against eating the blood of dead animals. Since they can eat all the meat they want, this wasn't a life-saving issue. Blood transfusions are from live donors and can be a life-saving issue. It's certainly not a case where the recipient would eat the human donor's flesh for dinner and pour out their blood. Transfusion is not the same as eating.

    Their next answer would be to go to Acts and quote "abstain from blood" and say that even after the sacrifice of Jesus, true christians would sooner die than have anything to do with blood. That's not true since there are no other verses in the NT suggesting that. And as far as that instruction by the "first century governing body," very soon afterward, Paul completely discredited it. In fact, that whole meeting was about circumcision and concluded that it wasn't required of christians. Yet what was one of the first things that Paul did afterward? He circumcised Timothy, directly contrary to that decision.

    Also listed in that command was to abstain "from things sacrificed to idols." In fact, it was listed first, before blood. That decision was issued in 49CE. In 55CE, Paul wrote 1 Cor 10:25-30 saying that food sacrificed to idols was a conscience matter. When you buy meat or are a guest, don't even ask. Only if someone makes the point of saying that this is an idolatrous sacrificial offering, then don't eat. So if Paul switched the command to abstain from such food to a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, where does that leave the command to abstain from blood. Wouldn't it also be "don't ask, don't tell"? I would conclude that it's wise to accept the best treatment option available, but refuse the blood if they say something like, "this blood came from a pig that we slaughtered, and we're giving it to you so you disobey the command JoeHoover gave to floodboy Noah."

  • AndDontCallMeShirley

    Acts says to "abstain from blood", yet WT has concluded fractions of blood are acceptable.

    Acts also says to "abstain from fornication". So how come fractions of fornication are not acceptable?

  • 3rdgen

    ADCMS, it would be fun to speculate which fornication fraction is forgivable wouldn't it?

  • TTATTelder

    For those interested - There is some very interesting commentary on the JW blood issue on the Beroean Pickets website.

    Here is the address:


    The 3 article series was insightful in my opinion.


  • zed is dead
    zed is dead

    I view JW's as leeches, they will suck the blood of worldly people, but will not contribute. They are like f**king mosquitos.



  • AndDontCallMeShirley

    @ 3rdgen: ADCMS, it would be fun to speculate which fornication fraction is forgivable wouldn't it?


    Why speculate? I suggest a full-on experiment. LOL.

  • Oubliette

    3/4 is a fraction. So is 7/8.

    "Brother elder, I only put 99/100ths of my penis in her [ FILL IN THE APPROPRIATE BODY CAVITY HERE ], therefore, technically, I did NOT commit fornication. It was only fractionication!"

Share this