For Neologist, and anyone else affiliated with watchtower.

Neo. Was that what you meant with love to each other, I seems more for me that members are afraid for eachother rather than it,'s love to each other, being trained to be informers and rapport to the elders, like in the former soviet states.

I do hope you believe me in spite of I refer to contents with my own words.

The letter is from Watchtower Brooklyn, dated August 27 1998 where they, in spite of the agreement with Human Rights Watch and the Bulgarian Government, agree upon that no sanction will be taken from the Society if a member choose to receive a blood transfusion, in spite of the agreement but after the approwal, they withhold that one taking a blood transfusion one will be disfellewshipped.

I am not going to stress you take your time but pls ansver one question at at time, i have adressed them with numbers from 1 to .... or you are welcome to start with the explanation of Leviticus 17:15!

I know that to be a crock. Remember, I was once disfellowshipped; I know what I am talking about.

Do you mean that a person who gets DF for taking a blood transfusion or disagree with 1914 or the like, suddently is a crock?

Do you mean that a person who gets DF because he disagree because the Watchtower Society change their doctrines, after he get baptized, becomes a crock?

I like you to read whom Paul really meant we shouldn't even grate in the first to the corinthians 5:11! Was it people, which conscience couldn't accept the Societys changing dosctrines?

The issue was not a question of DF but a question about blood and the Societys sanctions agains them who take a blood transfusion, like the ban against vaccinations and organtransplantations.

Are you agree that all the blood in a self dead animal could be eaten, use the Societys words, to sustain life, because I do not belive a Jew or an Alien would have eaten a carcass in a normal life situation.

I would like to hear your comments to and why you agree with the Societys ban on blood transfusions, when no life is taken, to sustain life, in a distress situation, when it wasn't an unforgivable transgression in the eyes of Jehovah and the Society at that time?

Pay attention. Your paranoid assertion that Witnesses are informers trained to report each other to the elders is a crock. That is the crock I was calling a crock.

You have not shown me any proof of a Witness being disfellowshipped for taking a blood transfusion or expressing disbelief in the importance of 1914. I suspect you will not be able to find one whose hands are otherwise clean.

I get the feeling you are grinding an undeclared axe.

Neo. Since you reject to look at the links I provide you with, and I can't clip and paste, I will hereby kindly ask Teleologist, or anybody else if one possibly could provide Neo with the relevant documentation from Human Rights Watch and the letter from Watchtower August 27, 1998.

The local time here is 02:47 AM and I think it will be relevant to log out.

Bon nuit!

Against my better judgement, I visited the link:

This is a copy of the relevant text from Information note Number 148:

"II. Reports adopted

(i) Reports adopted under Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention (friendly settlement)

(a) One Report was adopted by the plenary Commission under Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, concluding that a friendly settlement had been secured:

- KHRISTIANSKO SDRUZHENIE "SVIDETELI NA IEHOVA" (CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES) v. Bulgaria (Application No. 28626/95)
The case concerned the refusal to re-register the applicant association pursuant to a 1994 law, and the alleged suppression of its activities and those of its members. In settlement, the Government agreed to introduce legislation as soon as possible to provide for civilian service for conscientious objectors, as an alternative to military service, and to register the applicant association as a religion. The applicant undertook with regard to its stance on blood transfusions to draft a statement for inclusion in its statute providing that members should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association."

The relevant text of the Watchtower Society's reported letter of August 27, 1998, appears below.

". . .Of course, if someone as a baptized member of Jehovah's Witnesses engages in conduct that falls outside of those Bible standards, efforts are made, in a kindly manner to help the erring one to recover spiritually. If one refuses such assistance and refuses to uphold Bible standards, including Bible standards regarding the misuse of blood, then this may at times lead to the scriptural action of disfellowshipping."

The website attempts to make hay out of this; but I know of no instance where a member has been disfellowshipped simply for accepting a blood transfusion. However I can certainly conceive of instances whereif a baptized member attempted to preach a doctrine contrary to Bible standards, and persisted in this endeavor, that member would be subject to sanctions.

I don't see this as a change of standards at all.

Neologist wrote:


Taking a blood transfusion has been GROUNDS for disfellowshipping since 1961. It's right up there with fornication, adultery and other gross sins. If you don't believe it then ask one of your elders at your next meeting. Taking a blood transfusion won't get you automatically disfellowshipped but then neither will any sin that I know of. If the elders consider a person to be sincerely repentant they can avoid getting disfellowshipped but taking a blood transfusion is considered a gross sin and is GROUNDS for disfellowshipping. You previously quoted a 1958 Watchtower that said taking a blood transfusion wasn't grounds for disfellowshipping but that changed in 1961. See the January 15, 1961 Watchtower, p. 63
How come you are unware of a policy that has been in effect for 45 years?

Hadn't seen that article before; but you are right. Nevertheless, it varies only in degree from what I had thought. Accepting a transfusion is not an automatic cause for disfellowshipping. But if a member were to insist that whole blood transfusions were OK, it would be the same as if he or she were to argue that fornication was OK.

I had just never imagined a situation where a person would accept repeated blood transfusions in the same way a person would repeatedly commit adultery. Now, after reading the article, I can see where it is possible.

Hasn't changed my stance, though.

Neo. It is as Teo also explain, even and not my goal to change your stand but to have a fair debate related to the Bible and the reality, which you can't have in the congregation or with the Governing Body, hopefully to get people informed about the Watchtowers changing stand in question of the blood doctrine, rather than people sacrifie themselves and mostly their children like those described in Jeremiah 7:31 and Jim Jones followers, only because they believe 100 % at their religious leaders and do not act like the Be-roe'ans. Acts 17:11!

Have you ever thought about what Jesus say in Matthew 7:21and 15:9 and therefor it is very important to find out what Jehovah shows in his creation and what the Bible really tells us, isn't it?

As I wrote before ,if it is a question of belief, feelings or credolousity, rather than facts and the reality, it is impossible to discus the matter, like this example:

"A woman told her husband that she was freezing inside their house. The husband took a very precise temperature measuring equipment and show her that there was 20 degrees celsius. But she replay, I am still freezing"

You mentioned that it must have been for other reason that persons has ben disfellowshipped than taking a blood transfusion as the last change for surviving in distress situation.

To put a stake against your insinuations about others, are you familiar with that the Society has changed their policy, I think after year 2000, that a member of the Society taking a blood transfusion will automatically be disfellowshipped without being in front of a committee and it will be announced from the microphone that X is DF, without any explanation as usual? He has DF himself by showing he disagree with the Societys blood doctrine!

I hope you agree with the fact, that the Society automatically disfellowship a member who take a blood transfusion and not because there necessarily has been or are other things involved in the DF! A DF situation is in every respect the same for at person, relatives and members of the Society!

Now back to basics and the thread:

If a Jew and and Alien was allowed to eat all the blood in a self dead animal, whether it was "served as it was or as a sausage" in a distress situation I would like you to confirm that Jehovah allow people to eat blood for "sustaining" the life!

If you can agree with the Bible in Leviticus 17:15 that it was fully possible to eat blood to "sustain life" and since the Society, for many ears have declared that a blood transfusion was equal to eating blood, pls explain me the difference and why the Society has banned medical use of blood in a distress situation.

If some like to belive that the moon is maked of a green cheese, it's of course their personal choice, but if their belive result in death casualties for one reason or another, even one individual, then it is the the communitys and people responsibility to to stop such an insanity, is it not??? with reference to your own statement that thet we shall love our next. Romans 13:8-10 to complete or fullfill the Christian law.

"And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean.
[16] But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh; then he shall bear his iniquity." (Leviticus 17:15, King James Version)

What is it you would like me to say about this? Does it permit a lack of respect for blood?

distress situation?

Neologist wrote:


One doesn't have to go so far as to insist that whole blood transfusions are OK in order to get disfellowshipped. Merely disagreeing with certain aspects of the Watchtower's blood policy could get one disfellowshipped.

For example. The Watchtower policy for the past 6 years has been that taking transfusions of hemoglobin derived from the donated blood supply is a matter of conscience. Blood is 80% water. Hemoglobin accounts for 75% of the non-water part of blood. Platelets only account for about 5% of the non-water part of blood yet they are forbidden by Watchtower policy.

A JW could be disfellowshipped for using a very small part of blood such as platelets while another JW could use a much larger part of blood such as hemoglobin and remain a respected member of the congregation. What scripturally requires a JW to shun a fellow believer for conscientiously accepting a transfusion of platelets but then requires a JW to respect a fellow believer that conscientiously accepts a transfusion of hemoglobin?

Supporting the Watchtower's blood policy means a JW must teach their Bible students that it is God's will that they let their child die before giving them a transfusion of platelets while informing them it's a matter of conscience whether to transfuse their child with hemoglobin. If the elders find out that you think there is no logical or scriptural basis for this teaching you will be in trouble.

A JW could be disfellowshipped for conscientiously choosing to donate and store their own blood a few weeks prior to an operation while another JW is respected when they have a portion of their blood completely removed from their body, treated chemically or with radiation and has it transfused back into their veins later that day or the next as long as it is part of a "current therapy." What scripturally requires a JW to shun a fellow believer that conscientiously accepts a transfusion of their own blood that has been stored a few weeks but then requires a JW to respect a fellow believer that conscientiously accepts a transfusion of their own blood that has been stored a day or two? If the elders find out that you think there is no logical or scriptural basis for this policy you will be in trouble.

Neo. I can,t recommend you to talk with your elders in the congregation, but you can find it in the literature, that a person who accept a transfusion with 100 % of the, by the Society banned red blodcells, will automatically cut ones of, be DF without a trial, no change for defending yourselves and why, opposite the one who chose to use Hemopure which is 97 % of the banned red blood cells, without the donut, hereto that the blood has been stored for moths or years, coming from killed animals, where the Society without any discussion always has learned that the blood shall be purred out, if you prefer slaughtered cows. Isn't it logical?

I assume that you know the meaning of the word "distress" if not read emergency, like a person in a traffic accident who have a heavy blood loss which can't be stabilized with ringer solution or the like, but only with the oxygen carrying red blood cells and all the situations I refer to was emergency situations, because the Jew or an Alien, I presume, would never, under normal circumstances have eaten a self dead animal, furthermore it was connected with death penalty. Properly was the cleaning process not because of the blood that have been eaten, but merely a question of a healt recommendation in general.

I'll be turning off the email updates, although I will revisit this thread from time to time. The problem I have with your arguments, Talk and Tele, is not in that they contain a mixture of reasonable with unreasonable arguments, it is because in order to accept any of them, I would have to place my own judgement ahead of the Watchtower Society.

You may think me a fool for submitting to their direction, but it has stood me in good stead for many years. In that time, I can honestly say that every unanswered question has eventually been answered, every case of observed misconduct has eventually been redressed. And, believe me when I say that I have seen nearly everything except, strangely enough, congregational action in the case of blood issues.

My own life course has taken me into contact with nearly every element of the criminal world. I have seen murderers become Jehovah's Witnesses. I have known Jehovah's Witnesses who have committed murder and been disfellowshipped, and some who have eventually been reinstated. In all cases it helps to keep in mind that we, as a race, have lost our perfection. The Watchtower Society is not a perfect organization and is made up of imperfect humans. But it is the only organization where you can travel to any place in the world and be accepted as family and know they are teaching and learning the same things.

Many criticize us for the undetermined numbers who supposedly have perished by denial of blood transfusions. How many American Lutherans were killed by German Lutherans in WWI and WWII, or vice versa? How many Rwandan Catholics were killed by other Rwandan Catholics? How many Muslims are now being killed by their Muslim brothers?

How many religious groups can lay claim to heeding these words of Jesus: "I am giving YOU a new commandment, that YOU love one another; just as I have loved YOU, that YOU also love one another. 35 By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves." (John 13:34,35)

Are there other people who may deserve God's blessing and protection? I believe there are. But they must eventually come to terms with the admonition at Revelation 18:4: "Get out of her, my people, if YOU do not want to share with her in her sins, and if YOU do not want to receive part of her plagues."

Neo. If you don't believe me, I can recommend you to visit the Company Biopure homepage which is the manufactor of Hemopure. The Company seems to have very friendly relations with The Watchtower Society and maybe also have invested in, by buying shares to get around their ban on blood. Here is the link. www.biopure.com

Neologist wrote:


Well Neo, I suspected as much. All I can say is I wish you had said this from the beginning. You made it sound all along that your position on blood was based on Scripture but you admit it is really based on what the Watchtower tells you. It's really a shame that you are not allowed to follow your own conscience on a matter of life and death. I guess you don't accept the Scripture about obeying God as ruler rather than men. The really sad thing here isn't just that you are willing to die and let your children die because of following Watchtower policy but that you are going to teach others to do the same. How are you going to feel if someone you teach this doctrine to let's one of their children die because they won't let them have a transfusion of platelets and a year from now Watchtower leaders change their mind and allow the procedure? How are you going to escape being bloodguilty? Something to think about.



Yes, and all this happened because religious persons blindly followed their religious leaders rather than the teachings of the Bible. So how are you different? If you determined that some aspects of the Watchtower's blood policy were not based on Scripture what would you do? You already answered the question. You said you can't place your own judgement ahead of the Watchtower Society. Just like the Lutherans and the Catholics you will do whatever your religious leaders tell you to do even if you think they are wrong.

Neo. I can fully follow you, but one dead is one to much and if you and I or we all together could stop it, this doctrinal insanity, stop the killings in the name of Jehovah, would it be nice that Jehovahs name could be cleaned from or within an Organization who claim to be his servant. The other churches do not claim to be Jehovahs Organization, do they? Ephesians 5:6-20!

It seems for me that the Watchtower Societys Governing body have condemned themselves like David did, and commit bloodguilt by not changing their blood doctrine. You are invited to look under bloodguilt in Aid to Bible understanding, where it comes forth how a person can get into a situation of bloodguilt, among others to support an Organization which has been responsible for many peoples death, and that is what the Societys doctrines had lead to, for more than 70 years.

I am not recommending you to leave the Organization or not, it is totally your on and personal discission, but I agree fully with you that there is many positive sides of the Society. You cann't excuse the death casulaties due to the doctrinesby blaming the Catholics for their crusaders and the protestants for the thirty years war, to justifie one dead to much and because 42 thousands people has been killed, so far, in the US traffic and people are gitting killed wars? The Society has to take its own responsibility, rather than blaming others as they have done from the beginning of their history. Matthew 7:1-5!

I was so optimistical that it was possible to get the Governing Body to listen, at least have at dialogue about the Blood doctrine and the 1914 theory, but so far numbers has been more important and relevant, rather than concern about all those kinds who have died and haven't get a change for taking their position in the eternal battle.

I can warmly recommend you that you read and follow what comes fort in Psalm 146:3-10, it has maked me very strong in my faith, rather than compromising my conscious!

My own interpretation, in case you were wondering:

I believe that any blood from animal slaughtering should be poured out on the ground as in Deuteronomy 12:16: "Only the blood YOU must not eat. On the earth you should pour it out as water."

If shed blood is to be poured out, that would probably include human blood; at least I believe so.

That would mean it would be wrong to donate blood or to use any product derived from donated blood.

Same for accepting blood transfusions, even if from one's own stored blood.

The only exceptions I can see are the possible use of recycled blood at the time of a medical procedure, since it is not poured out.

That's where I am now. I'll let you know if anything changes before I get my plastic knee next month.

In this I am more strict than the Watchtower Society; so I would never try to convince another.