by Friend 25 Replies latest watchtower bible
To All
I think each of you will enjoy considering the link below that contains an article titled Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Apostolic Decree to "Abstain From Blood." Authors are anonymous.
Here is the link:
[url= http://www.jwbloodreview.org/]Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Apostolic Decree to "Abstain From Blood."[/url]
Friend
Friend,
Thank you for the link. I enjoyed the article especially the Conclusion. The question they posed
concerning the nearest thing mentioned in scripture to accepting a modern day medical transfusion of blood and was it abhorred?was one I hadn't thought much about before. I wish the
authors would have provided some background about
themselves. Thanks again.
7
SevenofNine
I enjoyed the article especially the Conclusion. The question they posed concerning the nearest thing mentioned in scripture to accepting a modern day medical transfusion of blood and was it abhorred? was one I hadn't thought much about before.
Yes, I agree that that is an interesting question and one the Society’s past discussions have almost completely avoided. One such instance of attention is presented with so much fallacy that it hardly deserves attention. If you want to consider it the article is Questions from Readers, in The Watchtower of July 1, 1951. I do not know of any other instance where the Society has attempted any serious discussion of that perspective—not that the one mentioned should be taken seriously.
Along that line one problem with the Society’s present teachings has to do with equating blood with life. The question becomes, which is more important or more sacred to God, blood or life, if either? In the past the Society’s teachings have basically said that blood should be treated just as sacred as life, that that is how God wants it treated. Since it is taught the two should be treated equally, then if we can accept someone else’s donation of life to us then why can we not also accept their donation of blood to us to the same end?
The validity of that question is underscored when placing the same context around the idea of “abstain from blood.” Should we teach that Christians must “abstain from life”? I think the answer to that question is, “Yes” in that we should abstain from taking life, as in murder for instance. But if that is the application—which it is the only possible one—then it means that “abstain from life” means abstaining from taking life rather than abstaining from accepting life that someone else’s sacrifice might afford us. Abstaining from life that was provided by a sacrificial donation would go contrary to Jesus’ teachings. Therefore, the expression “abstain from blood” must likewise connote that we abstain from taking blood by taking life. If “abstain from blood” were an absolute decree then it would mean that we could not continue living because we have blood in our veins, which we would have to abstain from. Clearly the notion “abstain from blood” must be viewed in some sort of context so that we know what blood should be abstained from just as we would have to know what life to abstain from.
Since the Society teaches that the Decree was based upon standards in place prior to the Mosaic Law then the question must be asked, was Noah required to abstain from blood entirely or just eating blood from animals killed from food. For instance, was Noah prohibited from using blood for its pigmentation properties, maybe for artwork? Was Noah prohibited from feeding such blood to animals? Was Noah prohibited from using blood as some sort of crude lubricant? The answer to all the above has to be, “No. As far as we can tell Noah was not prohibited from using blood with the one exception of eating blood from animals that he killed for food.” For all we know Noah used blood to decorate his party hats! All of the above only demonstrates that God was not instituting any sacred views of blood itself but rather for life. Life is what God wanted man to hold sacred and he imposed a prohibition that would remind him of that sacredness every single time a life was taken for a meal, which in some cases would be daily.
Therefore, since the Society teaches that “abstain from blood” places upon us the same standards applied to Noah, then we can only conclude that, like Noah, we are not required to entirely abstain from blood.
It would be pure fantasy to argue that Christians would have definitely rejected the notion of accepting blood transfusions of blood freely donated because they had no idea that such a thing could ever be possible, therefore it could not have even crossed their minds. Quite beside the point the Society has oftentimes brought up the historical record that Christians refused on pain of death to drink the blood of killed gladiators. That situation certainly does not fit the description of donated blood, that is unless someone can prove that gladiators wanted to die so that their blood could be drunk. I hardly think that such evidence exists, at least I have never seen it.
What are your thoughts on the issues above?
Friend
What are your thoughts on the issues above?
I have read your post over so many times in the past several hours that I nearly have it memorized. I've always felt in my heart that what you have presented above was the real truth
about blood. I was counseled as was everyone that the acceptance of blood in an effort to preserve my present life was in direct violation of God's Law and would lead to the loss of my eternal life.
I rejected sound medical advice and refused blood treatments for a chronic medical condition-not anymore. The Society is in error and it's time for them to make it right. Why can't they see things like you have presented here? It's all so clear-at least to me.
The tornado early warning siren is sounding full blast right where I live and it's black as midnight. I'm shutting down and heading for shelter. I hope to continue this discussion later and respond to your questions-if I'm not blown to Kansas. Thank you friend for this post.((hugs))to
you.
7
I enjoyed the article too Friend, as well as your comments.
What disturbs me is with regard to the blood issue (as well as the 607/587 issue) is that the Society has been so dogmatically insistent on the fundamentals on these issues for so long. To bring teachings in line with the facts and truth seem to be impossible without having devestating effects on the Organization.
It seems that to hold onto these present understandings in the face of overwhelming evidence is hardly honest. Yet to make the needed changes will not be without heavy consequence either.
How it all plays out will be rather interesting. I only hope that more like Seven who may face challenges with regard to this issue will be able to make their own conscientious decisions by having all the facts available.
Path
SevenofNine
I hope to continue this discussion later….
I will gladly pursue this discussion to whatever extent you or others wish to take it.
Pathofthorns
What disturbs me is with regard to the blood issue (as well as the 607/587 issue) is that the Society has been so dogmatically insistent on the fundamentals on these issues for so long. To bring teachings in line with the facts and truth seem to be impossible without having devastating effects on the Organization.
It may seem impossible, but it will happen, one day.
The Society has been known to do a few about faces, even on "fundamental" issues. Remember how fundamental the 1914 generation teaching was? It was so fundamental that it was regularly featured in the masthead of Awake! for decades, but is was changed.
Most likely you are correct that potentially dire consequences are in store for the Society when they finally correct their grievously wrong teachings on blood, but it must occur because greater consequences are likely if they do nothing.
Of course, adverse consequences for the Society need not mean dreadful effects for people. I think much will depend upon how they handle the change, when it comes. Frankly, it is understandable to me that the Society blundered in its stand regarding blood transfusions in the early days. But now they should realize that error and get on with correction before they are the last to realize that error. The information age will make clear thinking on that and other issues more and more available to the point that it will become impossible to contain genuine and valid criticisms.
Friend
That is exactly what I was thinking will happen as well. IMO the only way they may be able to pull it off is to offer a complete and honest apology, and re-think the whole "divine channel" thing.
Perhaps if they were simply a Bible Society offering guidance to people and highlighting the basic fundamentals of Christian teaching and living so as to have a genuine impact on people's lives would be best.
They will always have a solid core, as we have been taught to hate all other religions and not examine them in detail, most believe Jehovah as a separate entity from Christ, and most still want to believe in a physical paradise. It will be on these beliefs they will survive on, and what was once so radically different and controversial, which also made us so unique, will have to be discarded.
The changes will be painful as likely hundreds of thousands will leave, perhaps millions. With the passage of time, those who remain will have children which will be indoctrinated in the newly refined teachings, and these ones will carry on in the softer, more generic and more mainstream Jehovah's Witnesses.
Path
Hey Friend & Path,
The Society has been known to do a few about faces, even on "fundamental" issues. Remember how fundamental the 1914 generation teaching was? It was so fundamental that it was regularly featured in the masthead of Awake! for decades, but is was changed.
As one of the rank and file, I asked the question on what was the "new light understanding of the 1914 doctrine - now" to several witnesses recently who were in my store. We knew each other well, and could speak freely.
They could not accurately explain it to me. These were long time witnesses, one a pioneer. "I just understand we might be here for a while longer." "Can't explain it from the Bible." "Whatever the Society says is good enough for me."
Perhaps the Society did change it's teaching - but a lot in our neck of the woods don't know how to explain the new light to others. I said to them "what makes this new teaching any different than a lot of other fundamental churches?" They just shrugged.
The Society may have done an about-face on this 1914 issue - but a lot of rank & file are still confused. Perhaps that's the honest understanding of this teaching - confusion.
They will always have a solid core, as we have been taught to hate all other religions and not examine them in detail
I think that's more of a problem than just a "core teaching." That is mind-control, a basic problem with the Society.
With the passage of time, those who remain will have children which will be indoctrinated in the newly refined teachings
Our children are leaving in droves. When our children are baptised as little ones, they tend to leave as teenagers and/or young adults. The Society's main answer to teenagers and young adults was to "reach out" and "pioneer" for the world was ending fast.
A whole new message might be necessary by the Society - but then they would look & sound like the churches that they have always condemned. And I don't think you'll get many people out in field service on a regular basis without them thinking they are saving their own lives at Armagaddon, and helping strangers do the same.
>The Society may have done an about-face on this 1914 issue - but a lot of rank & file are still confused. Perhaps that's the honest understanding of this teaching - confusion.
The honest understanding is that they haven't tried to inform their memebers properly...TOO GUTLESS it seems.I asked this question on h20 a while back since i have friend thats been taught the old light concerning "this generation"...i couldn't understand why it was still being taught, quite amazing.Basically it was said to me that it wasn't anything unusual, the GB is trying to be slippery...the rank and file are confused because the GB are wishy whashy gutless types!
Well Zep,
Mr. AF, over at h20, called the R&F "stupid sheep." Perhaps the reason the R&F are confused is that we're stupid?
I don't think there is a reasonable way to explain the new or old light on 1914 - and the further I step back, the hazier this new light is getting.
waiting
