Posted by WorldlyWitness [WW] on November 23, 1999 at 19:05:44 {KNpNN6QGfwTmM4Bt2duQm1EPSMpKF.}:
In Reply to: **Blood Transfusion posted by Friend on November 23, 1999 at 16:16:43:
Hi Friend,
>I would appreciate more about what you perceive as torturous argumentation.
The whole treatise is tortuous but just what the Society will eventually do. Try this out:
>4. Based upon continuous consideration of scriptures as they relate to blood and giving attention toward medical discoveries
our understanding today of blood is far greater than what it was just a few years ago.
When Freddy penned the 1961 ban it was already known that a 'blood transfusion' was not the same as 'eating blood'. He based his assumptions on a medical view that was a century out of date....
>As our knowledge increased of different
techniques for handling blood or using blood we have made adjustments to our understanding and subsequent actions regarding use or handling of blood. Quite often the pages of The Watchtower have commented even on what different
consciences of Jehovah’s Witnesses would allow in this respect.
The 'different consciences' is a weasel phrase which tries to hide "the view of the Society" and is a classic example of how deceptive the WTS really is. It blames the average pub, i.e. "you asked for it, we gave it to you."
>Those admissions reflected growth in our understanding of blood as a substance, how it works within our own bodies and more importantly how we reasonably apply God’s word concerning it. (For examples see “Questions From Readers” of The Watchtower of October 1, 1994; and “Questions From Readers” of The Watchtower of March 1, 1989)
Someone noticed how off base the org was, so they started looking for ways to change the ban gradually instead of admitting 'God's Channell' was wrong.
More of the same. Surely you can see that AF suggests they just own up to being wrong like any honorable individual would do.
WW