by Dogpatch 22 Replies latest jw friends
Xandit, now there's the word "sophistry". There has been a huge amount of sophistry going on for over a 120 years now. Why you remain part of it is a mystery to me.
You know, the Catholics have made some changes in the last 100 years, but it is still pretty much the same. The Witness religion, on the other hand, has changed beyond recognition.
Xandit, It's true, I am out of touch. But when I DA'ed myself this procedure was forbidden. Policy HAS changed yet again. I'm not making this stuff up.
1. I'm glad the child lived - no need for another victim to give to God.
2. Frenchy brought up a good point on the recycling of one's own blood. The machine must be started and the blood from your own body must leave, make the cycle and return. There is a time fraction when the cycle has not been completed. At that time - the blood is totally out of your body.
3. It's interesting that normie has just posted about a telephone call-in interview with a disc jockey and and a jw - who was defending the blood issue. Then the question of transplants came up - jw said they drained the transplant organs of blood - after which a nurse called up and said that's not true - especially in liver transplants. There is more blood in the liver than any other organ.
4. So, even if the baby was going to be permitted to die if a bloodless surgery couldn't be found - the baby in actuality took in another person's blood through the transplant. Doesn't the WTBTS teach that no matter how the blood gets into our body - it's wrong? Or is that former light now?
I agree with some others - it gets so confusing to tell former light, old light, new light - can future light be far off? I think the reason for the confusion is that the blood policy cannot be discussed logically, step-by-step. Because after a couple of steps, the illogic of the blood policy is totally light consuming. And then the persons who follow are blinded by the light and must follow on blind faith and emotion.
I'm glad it worked out for the baby and his parents. I can't imagine the agony of losing a child and then find next year it wasn't necessary. Or finally figure out that your child took blood through the organ, just not through the vein - and why is one not allowed and the other is?
waiting
larc I wouldn't say changed beyond recognition. Fundamental doctrines like trinity, soul, hell, etc. haven't changed.
I've talked to quite a few HLC and PVT people about the blood issue and they pretty much agree that the subject as become so complex and confusing that rank and file members don't have a clue. Not their fault, it's just confusing and inconsistent.
Xandit,
Why is it confusing? In the bible it says to abstain from blood, right? So what is so confusing about that?
Oh it is confusing that the society "allows" it's members to pick and choose what part of the blood they are supposed to abstain from?
wendy
You are quite correct mommy, that's not confusing at all.
Xandit,
If it is clear cut in the bible, why does the wtbts allow this to go on? If this is the "true" religion, shouldn't they enforce this doctrine, as stated by the bible? There are rules in this org and clear penalties if not abided by...am I right? So are the rules coming from God? If so there would be NO confusion on this topic.
I would enjoy your reply.
wendy
If abstain means 'abstain' then that's the way it should be, 100% avoidance. If it doesn't mean 'abstain' and we've probably all heard the arguments, then it should be a matter of conscience. That's my opinion for what it's worth. The present situation is insupportable and untenable, consequently, it will be changed. It's being changed now, too slowly in my opinion but it is changing. The hemoglobin thing was enormous.
Zandit,
This is in response to your previous message stating "You guys are out of touch. The use of recycled blood has been acceptable for years. "
Yes and now I understand that partial blood transfusions are now acceptable too based on the WTS scripture interpretation. My question is: What happens to those who have a full transfusion – do they face a committee of elders, face being df’d? Why? Because maybe their interpretation of the bible is different from the WTS’s interpretation?
Doesn’t the bible state that the head of the household is responsible for the family and the decisions being made? (i.e., JWs believe that all non-jw children will be destroyed at the big A because of the beliefs the parents chose for them).
Based on that, are the parents of the children who died BEFORE the “new light” responsible for their children’s lives lost because of their beliefs? Who will answer for those poor lives lost when the time comes?
According to JWs, non-JWs will have to answer to God/Jah for misleading their children and face being destroyed at the big 'A'. What about JWs? Are JWs excluded from answering to God for misleading their children, particularyly the parents of the ones who lost their life because of it? Why do non-jws have to answer to God for misleading their children when JWs don’t?? I don’t get it.
Should the GB go before a committee of elders for mis-interpreting the bible, misleading the flock and the lives lost because of it? Why are they above everyone else? If someone is df’d for receiving a full blood transfusion because they interpret the “abstain from blood” scripture differently, then why is the GB above having to go before a "judicial committee" for misinterpreting the bible??
This is precisely the reason why I now try to be very careful and research EVERYTHING thoroughly before I make a drastic belief decision. I personally would HATE to have to answer to God/Jehovah for the life of my child lost because I put my trust in man without researching myself. I would hate to find myself pointing my finger at someone else because of my naiveté.
Maybe this “new light” is flying well with current JWs, but I wonder what God/Jehovah thinks of that…
“If abstain means 'abstain' “
There seems to be some question with the “if” as if “abstain” might mean something different. I guess we will wait and see what the WTS’s interpretation of the meaning of abstain is. It seems to me that pretty soon the JWs are going to have to have their own dictionary – a “new light” dictionary.
(to those of you that have so kindly welcomed me to the forum, thank you for your kind words and making me feel welcome!)
Monica
