First exchange in years about JW religion with my wife...

by NVR2L8 31 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • Consciousguy

    The power is really huge. I hope there is something we can do to destroy this thing. But they have that power because our loved ones will choose them over us any day any time. Sad

  • NVR2L8


    Thanks for your comment. I like my position as an inactive JW because most of my close family are very involved in the cult and I can still have some kind of relationship with them. If you read my story you will find out that I bought a house where I can have my unbaptized son, his JW wife and grandchildren under my roof so I can technically interact with them if one day I am banished by the group. I already told the elders to leave me alone when they came to my house unannounced 2 years after I stopped going to the meetings. So I refrain from telling them off for these reasons and I want to leave on my own terms.

  • NVR2L8
    NVR2L8 my wife you missed the I'll try this: doctor says to abstain from ethanol...meaning you can't drink it nor inject it in your body...does it mean you can't fuel your car with gasoline containing ethanol? In theory with JW you wouldn't be allowed to like you shouldn't use plywood bonded with glue containing animal blood.

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    Maybe she needs to stop drinking milk too?

  • FayeDunaway

    Terry the point behind your argument is so simple and one I am astonished that millions of witnesses don't think of for themselves: How can life itself be less sacred than the SYMBOL of life? You respect blood because it is the symbol of sacred life. If blood can be used to preserve life, that is showing it the most respect you can show it.

    And if you let someone die because you didn't use blood to save them, you are freaking bloodguilty! WTBTS, you are bloodguilty.You can never see the forest for the trees, can you?

  • TD

    On one hand your wife missed the point, but in so doing she pretty much made it for you...

    Acts 15:29 is not a reference to human blood and is certainly not a reference to your own blood. Yet JW's maintain that by extension, it applies to every sort of blood in every possible context, so she can't very well cry foul over your generalization in defense of a teaching that generalizes in essentially the same way.

  • baker

    I always thought that a blood transfusion was not eating the blood but an organ transplant. The blood is recirculated into your veins and not consumed as you would if you were eating it.

  • blondie

    Isn't the alcohol the WTS mentions is drinking alcohol which does go into your bloodstream....that's why it can be tested for alcohol content for DWI measurements.

    She sounds like the kind of jws that shout out "no blood, no blood" because they are afraid the WTS change from the past might be wrong.

  • DesirousOfChange

    In the future you might tell her this is one of the issues that you are trying to resolve and "sincerely" ask her to help you reason through it.

    If we are to "abstain" from blood, why are "fractions" a matter of conscience? Shouldn't we abstain from all blood? Where or who determines what qualifies as a "fraction"? The scriptural references please?

    If our conscience allows us to accept blood "fractions", is it a matter of conscience whether to donate blood for "fractions" to be available?

    If blood is commanded to be "poured out" so as to be returned to Jehovah, then why is giving up blood to be used for medical testing purposes not in violation of that command? If just a "little" is OK (as taken for testing), then just "how much" is "too much"? Why wouldn't the Bible principle of "He who is faithful in little......" apply here?

    What scriptures come to her that would help answering your questions? Then shut up. Seeds planted.


  • NVR2L8


    That's exactly what I said but instead of understanding that you no longer can claim that you are abstaining from blood if you accept fractions, she said that she will not accept fractions problem solved. So instead of questioning the change in policy she instead avoids any form of critical thinking by sticking to the strictest application of the JW rule.

Share this