Jehovah's Witness lifts ban on blood transfusions

Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi commended Jehovah’s Witnesses for what he described as a “giant leap”, saying the decision lifted a substantial burden from healthcare workers who had sometimes been forced to approach the courts to save children whose parents objected to transfusions on religious grounds.
Click to expand...

**** off Aaron! And then find a cliff and **** off some more!

There is ****all commendable about religiots being dragged kicking and screaming into reality
 
ShaunSA said:
**** off Aaron! And then find a cliff and **** off some more!

There is ****all commendable about religiots being dragged kicking and screaming into reality
Click to expand...
They made the decision all on their own. I wouldn't be surprised to find out one of the church chiefs needs blood transfusion one way or the other.
 
ShaunSA said:
**** off Aaron! And then find a cliff and **** off some more!

There is ****all commendable about religiots being dragged kicking and screaming into reality
Click to expand...

Aaron is an egit, as per the statement from the church it's still the parents' decision.
 
I did not know they had this rule.

I want to know how they came to such a conclusion when they read the bible.
 
WanderingMind said:
I did not know they had this rule.

I want to know how they came to such a conclusion when they read the bible.
Click to expand...

It's explained with biblical references in this article. Just a word of caution - the site requests your location. Best to decline, unless you want a knock on the door. 😳

witness.co.za

Jehovah’s Witnesses make historic shift on blood transfusions | The Witness

The organisation said decisions involving the four main blood components are now matters of individual conscience.
witness.co.za witness.co.za
 
One aspect of this that's also interesting is their stance on blood was one of the big reasons that they were perceived as a fringe cultish religion, people have apparently died as a result of their prior stance on blood, this move makes them much more mainstream and I suppose more palatable. They still have plenty of weird and wonderful interpretations of the bible but which church doesn't, not many other churches go door to door proselytising but there are a few. I suppose their last bastion of weirdness is their policy of shunning/cutting people off but apparently that has also got a bit milder. I wonder if they are facing significant decline and decided to make changes to attract more sheeple?
 
images
 
My neighbour is an elder in the local JW temple.
Fortunately he has given up on converting me.
He himself needed a bypass operation some years back and was lucky that blood substitute worked for him
Asked why he could not use real blood, his answer was "it is God's way" but refused to be drawn on the logic. He said it is a basic lesson of JW Theology not to question their fundamental beliefs
I must ask him about this reversal in doctrine. I think he will be embarassed

Diep River temple. Chock a block on worship days

1791096284533.png
 
chrisc said:
Asked why he could not use real blood, his answer was "it is God's way" but refused to be drawn on the logic. He said it is a basic lesson of JW Theology not to question their fundamental beliefs
I must ask him about this reversal in doctrine. I think he will be embarassed
Click to expand...

Some comments I came across;

If a supposedly fundamental religious rule can be moved from “God's requirement” to “your personal conscience” by a change in interpretation, what does that tell us about the status of other rules that Witnesses are currently told must not be questioned?

That, I suspect, is going to be a much more uncomfortable question for some Witnesses than the transfusion change itself.
Click to expand...

Whatever one thinks of the theology or the organisation's handling of the issue, if this change means fewer people feel compelled to refuse potentially beneficial medical treatment, that's a genuinely positive human outcome. You don't have to resolve the wider doctrinal questions before acknowledging that.
Click to expand...
 
chrisc said:
My neighbour is an elder in the local JW temple.
Fortunately he has given up on converting me.
He himself needed a bypass operation some years back and was lucky that blood substitute worked for him
Asked why he could not use real blood, his answer was "it is God's way" but refused to be drawn on the logic. He said it is a basic lesson of JW Theology not to question their fundamental beliefs
I must ask him about this reversal in doctrine. I think he will be embarassed
Click to expand...
Why would he be embarassed?

In saying it's not up to him to question doctrine, he has given himself the perfect out.

If you ask him about this reversal in doctrine, he will probably say: 'it is a basic lesson of JW Theology not to question their fundamental beliefs'.

Nobody said the supreme body of JWs, or whatever, couldn't change their doctrine.
 
The real insanity is the act of relinquishing decision-making responsibility, as an individual adult....

.... whether it is relinquished to a religious committee/leader or to someone calling himself 'the science'(otherwise known as 'St Fauci') or to the State...

It's the same thing.

🤷‍♂️
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X