How Many Witnesses Would Really Take Blood?
For the last 10 years I was in, I didn't agree with the blood doctrine, hence, I would have taken blood -> if I had indeed been conscious! The reason for this is that, for several years, I was still carrying my no-blood card.
Every once in a while some brother would basically inquire about that card and I would be able to show it. At that time, I considered that carrying it implied accepting a risk that would be significantly less than doing extreme sports, unprotected sex, using drugs or cigarettes.
Than, I started "loosing" that card all the time.
Still, I thought it be interesting to share that at one time, I was carrying the card, fully aware that the rule was illogical and non-scriptural.
14 years later and this moron hasn't figured out that we aren't Jehovah's Witnesses and that we don't care what his inane religious delusion teaches. It's absolutely mind boggling. He HAS to be sitting in his office in Warwick counting his time. One person getting owned over and over again around the same tireless arguments by the next generation of posters. It is amazing to watch. On one hand he says that all that matters is the Bible but then his cherished Governing Body goes beyond scripture to allow blood fractions and that's okay even though it's condemned in scripture to go beyond what is written. He vascillates hither and thither based on the flavor of the week as a slave to men. It is so heartbreakingly sad that one man can be that tortured and then comes here to embarrass himself. Nobody to love, nobody to be loved by, just a lonely deluded person that doesn't belong trying to be relevant in some way. How does the organization justify putting you up to this Fisherman?
I think privately that some would accept blood. I always felt that you being in the hospital is a private affair (unless you wanted an audience of judgmental busybodies).
I had mixed emotions about carrying that blood card when I was in.
Maybe because I wasn't raised a JW that this intrusiveness never seemed right or normal to me!
Getting back to the base scripture, there are 3 points of argument 1. Blood is being used medicinally to save a human life. 2. Blood is being used from a donor and not at the expense of someone that was killed. 3. A blood transfusion is not food to be eaten.
I would add a few more to this list:
4. The "base scripture" does not cover autologous transfusion even in JW treatments of the subject
5. The "base scripture" does not carry the force of command in and of itself. JW literature does not always discuss the subject at this depth, but when it does, the "base scripture" acquires the force of command via concatenation with Noachian Covenant.
6. The "base scripture" is not interpreted consistently even in JW treatments of the subject.