Posted by AF on March 17, 1999 at 05:58:18 {MW4z4H0.5soKM}:
In Reply to: Medical's view of Blood? posted by MK on March 16, 1999 at 15:41:22:
You're entirely missing the point of discussing the blood transfusion issue on this board. No one thinks that transfusions are completely safe, or 100% effective. No one is arguing about or particularly concerned with the medical aspects. The Society has done an extensive job of making people aware of the risks.
The point of discussion here is not whether you personally ought to accept or refuse a transfusion; what you do is entirely your business and your own consciencious decision.
The point is whether the Watchtower Society should disfellowship JWs for making what ought to be their own consciencious decisions. Should WTS leaders determine the consciences of others, especially when the claimed basis for their beliefs -- the Bible -- says nothing about it?
Now, one could take the position that religious leaders can set any policies they want, and make acceptance of them part of the conditions of remaining a member of that religion. They might set a policy that members should insert their left pinky up their nose when preaching door to door, and make acceptance of that part of the conditions of being a member, and disfellowship members who fail to follow it. Anyone who understood the rule and joined up would be honor bound to follow it. However, that would not make the policy scriptural, it would not make violation of the policy a sin against God, and it could not properly apply to people who joined up before the policy was in effect. It would certainly be wrong to disfellowship on a scriptural basis those dissenting members who joined up before the policy went into effect.
I hope this gives you some understanding of the real blood transfusion issue, and that you'll stop thinking in terms of Watchtower straw men.
AF