Blood Transfusions & Flood, Questions from Bible student only

by Marbles 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Fisherman
    Christians acquired Jewish scripture to begin with

    To begin with, Paul and other Jews that became Christians had access to the OT text in scrolls at the time.

  • joey jojo
    joey jojo

    This world, and everything in it, only begins to make sense when you have the courage to accept that God does not exist.

  • Vidiot
    waton - "...they are led carefully into the trap of controlled thinking..."

    Not to mention that the Org does a first-rate job of making you feel like a complete moron if you don't come to the conclusion they want you to.

    waton - "It is a circular argument to try to will the truth onto a matter by the delusion of so many..."


    If they believe it hard enough, it'll become real.

    Textbook magical thinking.

  • TD

    This is a little tangential to your questions, but it does relate somewhat:

    The JW's original objection to transfusion was based on a misconception about what blood did in the body. Prior to the early 20th century it was thought that blood was simply the digested food we had eaten.

    Note, for example how H.G. Wells, in his 1898 novel, War of the Worlds speculates about the physiology of a more advanced race:

    "Entrails they had none. They did not eat, much less digest. Instead, they took the fresh, living blood of other creatures and injected it into their veins…..The physiological advantages of the practice of injection are undeniable, if one thinks of the tremendous waste of human time and energy occasioned by eating and the digestive process. Our bodies are half made up of glands and tubes and organs, occupied in turning heterogeneous food into blood."

    For reasons I don't really understand, JW leaders and policy makers still held this view in the 1940's and 50's when their objection to transfusion crystallized. You can clearly see it in explanations from that time period:

    By the 1960's this argument had become untenable, but instead of scrapping the teaching, they came up with other arguments to support it. None of them (the arguments, not the people) have been terribly honest.

Share this