Jehovah's Witnesses member dies after refusing blood transfusion

She willfully took her baby's mother.

 

The entire JW doctrine is senseless and deadly.

The Bible says nothing about blood transfusions. They didn't exist when the Old Testament and Acts were written. The Bible passages in question (kosher law) have to do with diet. Neither the Kosher Jews nor other groups oppose blood transfusions because they don't try to put a spin on something that isn't there.

If the Watchtower sect leaders had not issued this prohibition, no Jehovah's Witness would oppose them on Biblical grounds.
To bolster their dogma they have bragged in their own publications (that they bring to your door) how thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses have "kept their integrity to Jehovah" and DIED by the THOUSANDS for refusing blood.

Yes,thousands of devout obedient Jehovah's Witnesses have DIED for this no blood stance.

 

Strange how believing in God often leads to unnatural death...

 

Ok, I'll put it differently*; a lot of other adherents to so-called "orthodox Christianity" have no problem pointing a machine gun at other human beings and mowing them down, whilst collecting a military paycheck. Nor will their church leadership kick them out for doing so, either. Jehovah's Witnesses, have membership standards: serving in the military or participating in a war will get you expelled. So why all the condemnation of us a some sort of sick cult? How many lives have been saved by the doctrine of JWs?

For one moment, think about it logically. It's like someone pricking your finger with a needle, and another person stabbing you with a sword: which one should you be angrier at? The JW who herself dies by way of a personal decision, or a "Christian" who professes to follow Christ but kills people? Deaths in warfare which are enabled by churches looking the other way, or even encouraging it, far, FAR surpass deaths from refusals of transfusions. We have some "orthodox" or "mainstream Christian" churches telling people that God is on their side in war, go fight and kill while we pray for you. And yet one woman dies and folks here are jumping up condemning this "sick cult," whose members have all renounced war? That was the point I was making, not "obfuscating" anything, just putting things in perspective.

The fact is, no one is forced to be a Jehovah's Witness. (It's pointless to claim to worship Jehovah God if it's not from the heart, so the cult argument is ridiculous. some here are throwing around the word "cult" without checking the definition, even using "cult" and "sect" interchangeably) This sister made an informed decision as an adult. If you tell a doctor, "I don't ever want to be put on life support machines, just pull the plug," should the doctor override your wishes? No -- it's your body and your right to refuse treatment. Some people hold beliefs that they would die for: some believe that if there's any shred of hope, their families should keep 'em plugged in, some believe that being on life support with no guarantee you'll ever wake up again is equivalent to death (depending on the situation, of course). WHY you believe either one shouldn't determine your right to make that choice.

>sigh< If you're interested in insulting us because of our religion and making witty jokes about the deceased, hey, go right ahead. Sorry to have interrupted your creative process.

If you're interested in a rational explanation of the doctrine, please visit the official site I posted above before the mods decide to erase that too, or ask the next Witness who shows up at your genkan to explain it.

Arigats.
(*note- My first posting was very quickly edited for some reason, and crisscross won't reply to my e-mail as to why. It could be that mentioning a scene from the Bible regarding Jesus is not allowed (didn't see that anywhere in the rules, though). Or it could be because I compared JWs to other religions (the idea that insults can remain but comparisons are censored doesn't seem right, either). )

 

A key difference between a "mainstream" religion, and a cult like Jehovah's Witnesses is that cults don't tolerate dissent.

Jehovah's Witnesses are silent when asked to prove their bogus CORE doctrine:That JESUS HAS ALREADY HAD HIS SECOND COMING IN 1914 and is working only through their organization.
1914 (from Adventist William Miller) is to a JW what Mary and/or the Trinity is to Catholics or what Joseph Smith and the golden plates are to Mormons.

1914 is the Watchtower's #1 foundation dogma and it is false,and so is all the rest of it,that only 144,000 go to heaven,the blood transfusion ban and the "commandment" to go door to door.

Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs and who are they?

The Watchtower is big money,being one of the top 40 New York City Corporations making nearly one billion dollars a year. That's just from one of their many corporations.

If you have been witnessed to by Jehovah's Witnesses and you reject their message, you will likely die shortly at Armageddon with all the other non-Witnesses, since theirs is the only true religion, and (if they can live up to all the rules) they are the only ones to inhabit this new earth. If you believe Witnesses seem rigid now, any non-conformist during the future cleansed earth will be directly destroyed by Jehovah.

Even now a Witness will be disfellowshipped for any one of many gaffs, such as smoking, taking a blood transfusion, or even voting.
To even vocally question the teachings of the Watchtower will result in complete cutting off, with family and friends usually being forbidden to talk to them. The Watchtower is a truly Orwellian world.

My hope is that there will be a day in each of their lives when the Watchtower magazine is no longer needed, and they can go to college, vote for office, and contribute money and time to other, more vital causes in their community. More than likely they will then cease to be persecuted, except in a few societies more authoritarian than their own.

Sincerely,
Danny Haszard
References:
http://www.freeminds.org (Watchtower watchers dissident site)
http://www.silentlambs.org (latest news on the pedophile child abuse lawsuits against the Watchtower)

 

I delivered two JW babies by C-section, refusing blood each time. Sometimes, I had to fight doctors and anesthesiologists over it, but I held fast. I denied my children blood through emergency surgeries.

Imagine my disgust on realizing the fallacies and inconsistencies in the JW blood doctrines. Imagine my disgust on learning that this is a mind-control cult that would rather have the publicity of their members dying for a "principle" even when they've realized for years that the principle isn't as clearly spelled out in the Bible as they would have us believe. For every scripture that shows that taking blood is wrong, there's one that shows that it's no big deal. And for the JW "no blood" stance, realize that 50 years ago, they wouldn't allow any blood -- now they allow "fractions" that amount to 100% of the whole! Look at the pie chart at this site:www.ajwrb.org
I was lucky. I lived. My children made it. And we are all out of the cult now. But lots of people die.

 

They are a cult and I do not consider their religion Christian. They follow the teachings of a man not Jesus Christ. They have a corrupt version of the scriptures.

 

Are you talking about Jehovahs witnesses, Mormons, or Catholics?

 

If the belief of JW's is such a terrible thing why have the medical field in general started to support their stand by such articles.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/
treating-patients-like-jehovahs-witnesses-could-save-lives-expert/
2007/05/27/1180205077463.html

I can appreciate the feelings of those who are naturally upset when reading about this kind of sad news but calling it the result of Mind control and child sacrifice is no doubt the reaction of those who have an axe to grind. Negative criticism(gut reaction) is easy to produce. Informed comments based on research are harder to come by.
Like I said in a previous post there is always two sides to a story. Let's be fair minded in such cases.

 

The Age article (above www.theage.com.au/news/national/ )
cited by Watchtower Jehovah's Witnesses apologist has been twisted for their propaganda.
It in fact states that 25% of blood transfusions are unnecessary no wonder there.So,this means that 75% are potential lifesaving.

Know this,the reason that JW refuse blood is because of their spin on the 3000 year old Biblical old testament,modern medicine will eventually make blood donations and transfusions a thing of the past.When this technology happens it won't vindicate the Jehovah's Witnesses and all the deaths that have occured so far.

 

Dr. Speiss' claim is that synthetic blood is better for patients than real blood.

He is not validating the JW's lunacy.

Certainly you're not suggesting that the JW came up with this nonsense in 1945 "based on synthetic blood research" . . .

I'd still like to know why it took their god so long to tell them about this.

After all, blood transfusions have been around longer than the JW.

 

and didn't force her beliefs on anyone else. That's true respect right there. What happens all too much in the US is that people will become blaspheming bilboards of dogma and protest outside buildings and in public squares proclaiming all others who do what they don't are wrong.

I'm glad that she thought she died with respect doing what she thought was right. Who wouldn't want a martyr's death. I just hope noone protests my wife having a C-section saying that if she accepted a blood tranfusion then she would go to hell or worse.

Religion is sometimes a harsh mistress, but to each their own I say as long as it stays that way.

 

Some posters seem to think that we should respect this woman and that she is beyond reproach because she was following her religious beliefs, as if this makes any action right, however crazy. JW followers are just as keen to prevent their own children receiving blood transfusions (if they are allowed to have any say in the matter), so it is not all about personal choice.

As for the validity of their beliefs, if you follow a sect that has confidently predicted the end of the world in 1914, 1918, 1925, 1975, and 1989, don't you think that by now the penny would have dropped?

 

It is my understanding that the religion in question is only about two hundred years old and not 2000 years old. So to have the understanding of blood transfusion and life saving efforts applied (or not applied) is completely within their religion's current beliefs and not some triple interpretation of an ancient religion.

Now that being said, I completely disagree with her and her family's non-efforts to take to task a simple life-saving/extending procedure which has been repeatedly validated throughout the world since implementation.

Therefore, it is very sad to have such a simple procedure, which we in the 21st century normally accept, be disregarded, JUST TO MAKE A POINT (about the interpretation of only two hundred year writing of the LDS).

May she and her child rest in peace.

 

Hit yourselves in the head with a hammer on Easter and see who survives ?
Sorry, but I can't call this derailed sect a religion.
Could someone tell those brain washed people not to show up at my doorsteps uninvited ? Same is true for the less radical Mormons and any other freely invented "religion".
Unbelievable what one can make people believe !