Posted by Cygnus [Cygnus] on November 22, 1999 at 15:03:37 {k/.KBikg62xIIZ2NrMC6L4bdfUTIaI}:
In Reply to: Blood Transfusion posted by Friend on November 22, 1999 at 12:33:38:
Hi Friend
Nice piece. May I just offer this comment... you wrote:
: Like their master Jesus, Christians are concerned with present conditions of life and present life, but not at the expense of future life promised.
That to me seems quite selfish and contradictory. Say (speaking about current WTS custom) a parent refuses to allow her 2-year old child a necessary blood transfusion. The child certainly doesn't understand the situation, and so seemingly wouldn't be held responsible or accountable. The mother accepts such responsibility before God. Does the mother refuse the transfusion:
(i) because the child's promised future life (ostensibly, post-Armageddon) is at risk?
(ii) because the mother's promised future life is at risk (for making the decision of no blood)?
If the mother says "no blood" and the child subsequently dies, it seems that she was acting very selfishly.
Perhaps that scenario doesn't exist with any regularity, but I think it does point out a problem with attempts at justifying (or apologizing for) failed WTS policy because "Christians have such noble intentions."
Also (and not incidental to the Blood Issue), it seems that Jesus once said (paraphrasing here), "No one has greater love than he who is willing to lay down his life (or, give up his soul) for his friends." According to the Witnesses, a person's soul represents his life in the present (being alive), and any prospective possibilities (Cp. Matt 10:28). So it could be construed that Jesus was saying that giving up even one's own life prospects for one's friends is commendable.
Jesus (the alleged Master) didn't do that. He got his life back (so we're told).
Your
Cygnus
:-)