• Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah, but then they would come up with some internal blessing requirement for donated blood to ensure it stays in network.

  • Mrkawfee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I believe!!! That Satan has a hold of you. I believe! That the Lord God has sent me here! And I believe that in 1978 God changed his mind about black people!!

  • GiveOver@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Prayers for those who died of blood loss 2 hours before God pushed the “allow transfusions” hotfix ☹️ 🙏

    • Lyrl@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Hospitals in areas with large JW populations have opaque IV bags available, and at patient’s request will lie to visitors about what is in it. Members have been “following their conscience” for decades, and I suspect this change is more about not ostrasizing those members than actually changing behavior.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Aaahhh, so god visited somebody to give this great news? We love in the times where there are cameras everywhere, so where is the video of this momentous event?

  • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Whenever I see stupid shit like JW refusing blood, i’m reminded of the parable of the man in the flood, who keeps getting rescuers coming to him time and time again, only to refuse it all with the declaration that god would save them… and then they finally die in the flood, and they angerly accost got about why god didnt save him, and god is all like “Fuck you, You fucking idiot. You refused every rescue that came your way. This is your fault for being stupid”

    • boonhet@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’ve seen it in the form of a comic or a short story and God literally said “who do you think sent the rescuers” which if you believe in God is kinda how it’s supposed to work I believe, rather than God straight up lifting you out if the water

    • elucubra@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Well, sadly most user manuals for religions, are filled with stupid shit, with the odd exception like “Love thy neighbor” (which apparently has the corollary “but fuck anyone far away enough to not be your neighbor”).

  • Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Christians don’t even make themselves eunuchs any more!

    What next? Women having the authority to teach? Madness! I miss traditional Christian values.

  • Furbag@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    So… which higher up at the JW organization needed a life saving transfusion? No way they changed their minds on this unprompted.

    • Berlinblades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The hierarchical structure of this organisation is absolutely vile.

      Also,the ones out witnessing at the train Station or going door to door are usually at the bottom of the hierarchy,so I for one am always politenl to them,even if i dont engage. It’s not nice to mess with them or slam the door or whatever.

  • ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Despite the adjustment, the organisation was firm that its longstanding prohibition on whole-blood transfusions has not changed. It anchored the continued ban on its reading of biblical instructions to “abstain from blood,” signalling that the shift applies only to the four major components, not to transfusions in their entirety.

    People died because of this and now they just go “we looked at the rules again and we think they actually mean something else”. What the fuck is this? The Supreme Court?

    • Supervisor194@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s stupid. All they had to do was prohibit eating of blood 70 years ago and nobody would have blinked an eye, because that’s exactly what the verse meant in its entirety. The whole blood loophole they’ve done here to save face is meaningless, since whole blood is almost never used except in severe trauma and even then you can use fractions and have a pretty good chance of recovering. A whole lot of people had to die to get here. It sucks.

      • starik@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        You forget that God knows all and can see future technology. We’re still waiting for the passage “Thou shalt not step into thy transporter, for it causeth loss of thy soul” to become relevant.

  • Quicky@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    An old JW boss of mine almost lost his wife during the birth of his first child when she was badly haemorrhaging at home.

    I tried asking him about it (a few years after the event) and he was obviously defensive, but the gist was that they wouldn’t have taken a transfusion, and that he would have accepted losing her.

    I’m not convinced - I think the decision was more dictated by her than him - but that would have been the end result.

    Absolute madness

    • Wataba@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Controlling men like that need to have a life changing surgery of their own before they harm more women like that.

      I prescribe a sharp metal pick and a hammer personally.

      • riot@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think the decision was more dictated by her than him

        I think the point is that he was never part of the decision.

      • Quicky@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think you missed the point of this. I believe it was her influence more than his, based on other factors I’m aware of.

        United you’re referring to the writers of the church doctrine as the controlling men.

        • papalonian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m not convinced - I think the decision was more dictated by her than him - but that would have been the end result.

          I missed the point as well, I took this to mean, “he wanted her to give birth without a transfusion, but I’m not convinced [it would’ve actually happened] - I think the decision [to have a transfusion or not] was more dictated by her [and she would’ve got one]”

      • Okokimup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The controlling men in this scenario are the 8 bastards in Brooklyn known as The Governing Body who make up these rules and dictate whether a person will lose their entire family and or social/support network for failing to obey them.

  • heliotrope@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Christianity also updates its Ts&Cs on occasion, like in 2007 when Pope John Paul II had a document commisioned, the publication of which was also authorised by Pope Benedict XVI, that basically said unbaptised children now go to heaven instead of limbo.