Blood Refusal Tragedy Sparks National Outrage

by cookiemaster 37 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Truthexplorer
    vanderhoven - I think you may be right.
  • Vidiot

    cookiemaster - "It was one of the conditions for the religion to become legal in the country. You can find proof of that and the whole story in JW Facts. So, they have declared this publicly before almost 20 years ago. Of course, JWs in Bulgaria know it isn't true, as anyone having a transfusion will suffer the known consequences..."

    That was when the WTS tweaked the rules (globally, I might add)... accepting a transfusion became an automatic dissassociating act (which has now been expanded to include celebrating Christmas, "whistleblowing", and a few other things).

    cookiemaster - "...I wonder how long before they'll drop this evil doctrine."

    My money's on never.

    At this point, the more they're pushed to reform (particularly by "Satan's World"), the deeper they'll dig in their heels.

  • Anakin
    It's very sad, what happened, but the interview with the WT rapresentatives, revealed that they are so quickly, in defending, and explaining their policies, to the public, these days..but I don't think the most people, will accept their arguments, with open arms.. People are not so stupid these days, they realize they are defending an institution, like al religion organisations to ..
  • BluesBrother

    A tragedy indeed. What possess these otherwise good people?...

    But what would I have done in the past?

    I do support a patients right to choose however, the fault lies with those who teach them that it is a sin

    We have to remember that to a Witness trained mind, taking blood is as medieval as putting shit in your veins!


  • Crazyguy
    To all who may still except this doctrine, in human breast milk, in just one drop there is approximately 1 million live white blood cells. So God doesn't want humans to eat blood ,really? Then why does he put it in milk?
  • alcyone

    The whole "we are not DF'ing those who receive blood transfusion" thing is really disgusting. When journalists are asking how the org handles members who take a transfusion, they are not interested in the cult's internal terminology: DF vs DA. They want to know if there are any threats to those who decide to take it. And if a JW representative says they are not DF'd he is deliberately lying.

    On the other hand the brochure "branch correspondence guidelines" (from says:

    A baptized person who willfully
    and unrepentantly takes a blood trans-
    fusion thereby chooses to reject the
    Scriptural sanctity of blood and violates
    God’s law. Three elders (not a judicial
    committee) should meet with him. If
    a blood transfusion has been accept-
    ed without repentance, the congregation
    will consider that the person has disas-
    sociated himself. It would then be an-
    nounced: “[Name of individual] is no
    longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

    it is a pity journalists do not use this when confronting WTS representatives.

  • cookiemaster
    You guys make a lot of great points. Actually, in one of the first news reports that I've seen, they show a quote from the Romanian version of which clearly shows that JWs see blood transfusions as an extremely serious sin against God. The journalists point out to this indoctrination and "the people's attorney" for that city (something like an American district attorney) gives an interview saying that he believes this JW doctrine goes against basic human rights and that doctors should have full authority in these kinds of situations to do what is best for the patient, which is why a criminal investigation has been launched which could potentially target the borg.
  • Vidiot

    cookiemaster - "...a criminal investigation has been launched which could potentially target the borg."

    But... but... but...


    ...isn't "Babylon the Great" supposed to be attacked first? :frowning:

Share this