In the world of religion, everybody has their own beliefs, and they are entitled to have them. The beliefs of people cover such a diverse range that it is impossible to categorise them all. There are as many differing beliefs as there are people, and quite probably no two are quite alike.

However it is blatantly obvious to anybody with half a brain that such a diversity of beliefs which at times can be in total opposition to each other cannot all be correct.

I don’t have a problem with differing beliefs as long as it is understood that what we are dealing with is just that – a belief or a set of beliefs. If some wish to believe that the moon is made of green cheese – hey – feel free - it is no skin off my nose.

When the next step is taken and a single belief or set of beliefs is presented as “a truth” or “the truth” then I do have a problem because then the troubles begin.

Why?

Because if one belief or set of beliefs is presented as “the truth”, then it is evident that those who present it are claiming that all other beliefs that oppose or differ to it are either lies, falsehoods or errors.

People have a great tendency to do this. An idea hits them, their idea seems to make sense, the more they think about it the more it makes sense and before you know it they are believing their new found idea. So far not a problem. But then, suddenly, as if by magic, they are claiming it to be “the truth”. Now there is a problem, and it happens over and over again.

Out they go, preaching their “truth”, proselytising as fast as they can, spreading the word until the body of believers has grown into a congregation, a church, an organisation, an army.

Very often these so called “truths”, “new truths”, “present truths” or whatever they like to call them can be shown to be erroneous, or have serious problems, but here arises the second phenomena of the human brain.

As I have mentioned somewhere before in another document this is the crazy situation of “Doublethink”, a phrase coined by George Orwell in his novel “1984”

Doublethink – "To hold simultaneously two opinions which cancel out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them."

When problems with the “new truth” are pointed out, the believer either just pushes the problem out of the way and pretends that it doesn’t exist, or they twist it so that it sort of fits into position, or they say something like – “Well we haven’t got all of the answers yet, but we are getting there”. In extreme circumstances if they are powerful enough, dedicated enough and fanatical enough confrontations with the adherents of the so called “truth” can turn into war.

People who are either sad, lonely, searching, wanting to belong or under various other emotional stresses are ripe and ready targets for the “new truth”. There is something within human nature that makes us want to “belong”. And if it can “belong” to a group which has a special truth which makes it stand out from the others then all the better. It gives the person a fellowship of like minds which in turn gives them confidence and a sense of security. It is all very hypnotic, alluring and comforting. If they are hooked and the barbs go in deep, it may be many years before they can extricate themselves and many of them never do.

Many Cults within Christianity place a total and absolute ban on their adherants from reading other material or information other than that which is provided for them by the leaders of the cult. This form of control is absolute and final.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses do this, so do the Plymouth Brethren. According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses cult its members are not permitted to read any other religious material other than that which is produced by the Watchtower society which is their own press. Neither are they allowed to view or set up web pages of a religious nature. The same goes for the Plymouth Brethren (closed). Even being found with a computer with internet access is an offence dealt with by excommunication, and thus those who control the organisation cover every means possible to block their adherants from reading, seeing or being troubled by anything which may expose the organisation for what it actually is – a mind controlling force of enormous efficiency and power.

As they stand in their current state, in my opinion, both of these organisations should be outlawed, and they are not the only ones.

If they were outlawed both of these organisations would immediately consider themselves to be persecuted and demand freedom of speech and freedom of belief, when the very real truth of the matter as it currently stands is that it is they who are doing the denying of freedom of speech and freedom of belief to those who find themselves under their control.

And neither is it enough to simply shrug your shoulders and say that it is up to the members to choose for themselves, they have a mind to think with and a freedom of choice. No they do not. They have been so tutored and brainwashed that all freedom of choice has been wiped from them. They have been mentally enslaved. The leaders of the organisations can appear on TV as many times as they want with their jaws dropping open in mock horror as they exclaim “But we hold nobody prisoner”, anybody who wants to leave is free to do so”.

No they are not. The psychological manipulation and the brainwashing techniques that their adherents have been subjected to has virtually removed all freedom to be anything but a psychological prisoner within the cult.

Many of my readers will perhaps be aware for example that the body of believers known as Jehovah’s Witnesses continually refuse to accept a blood transfusion in the case of a medical emergency and they frequently die for their beliefs.

Do you know why?

It is very simple and can be explained in a few short paragraphs.

There are two main texts which they extract from the Bible to uphold their belief that blood transfusions are wrong and not to be accepted. Firstly in the Book of Genesis, after Noah and his children disembarked from the ark, the Bible records God saying to Noah

“Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. Genesis 9:3-4

And secondly in the Book of Acts

“For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” Acts 15:28-29

So the first text from Genesis – supposedly where God gave the “OK” to Noah to eat the flesh of animals as well as veggies as long as the blood was not eaten, and the second text from Acts which was again an instruction on what not to eat – not to eat meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled,

What on earth you may ask has either of these texts got to do with blood transfusions?

Lets find out what the Jehovah’s Witness’s say about it by a direct quote from the web-site – www.e-watchman.com, a Jehovah’s Witness Web-site which explains how they interpret these texts. And I quote -

“The command that Jehovah gave Noah concerning blood is binding upon all of Noah's descendants, in other words all of mankind.

However, the Law of Moses was only binding upon the Jews. The Law of Moses also contained specific laws concerning blood and concerning the Sabbath. However, the death of Christ brought an end to the Law covenant. Many of the apostle Paul's letters deal with the issue of whether Christians should keep the Law and the Sabbath. Paul showed that Christians were not required to observe the Sabbath.

But, in the 15th chapter of Acts the older men of the congregation held a counsel to discuss the issue, and they ruled that certain features of the Law were still binding; namely, avoiding fornication, idolatry, and abstaining from blood.

Nowhere did the Jerusalem counsel advise that Christians should observe the weekly Sabbath. So, our endeavouring to abstain from blood is based not, upon the Jewish Law, but upon the law God gave to Noah, and also the apostolic command to abstain from blood.“

End of quote

So – they take two texts both of which were directly referring to the non eating of blood and make the giant leap by playing on the word “abstinence” to make it mean that neither should blood be accepted as a blood transfusion in a medical emergency.

Is this a Bible truth? Should it be classed as a Bible truth? Can it be classed as a Bible truth?

No it cannot. It can be classed as a belief, but not “a Bible truth”! To be classed as a Bible truth it would have to be spotlessly without possibility of being brought into question, and it is blatantly obvious that this can be questioned because in both instances it is evident that the texts are referring to “eating” blood.

The council of elders in the Church at Jerusalem were Jewish! They had been brought up with the Jewish beliefs of “not eating blood” as well as many other unique Jewish beliefs and traditions, and in their opinion at the time they considered it needful to pass this tradition on.

Now, the JW’s can say that eating blood is the same as receiving blood into your body via a transfusion during a medical emergency until they are blue in the face and the moon turns to green cheese, but the very fact that both of the texts quoted DO NOT refer to blood transfusions, but the eating of blood means that the belief cannot be classed as a “Bible truth” because there is question and doubt concerning its validity.

They can believe it. Of course they can. They can die for their belief if they wish. But they cannot claim it to be a Bible truth. Even Judaism which still adheres to blood free “kosher” foods does not subscribe to the idea that blood transfusions are a matter outlawed by the Bible.

The above is a picture of the type of card carried by many Jehovas Witness’s.

OK you say, that is their choice. If they want to believe that receiving blood is the same as eating blood and choose to die on the operating table because they won’t accept it they have the right to do so.

Indeed they do. I couldn’t agree more. I am all for individual freedom and rights. But it doesn’t end there I am afraid. There is their children and those who are in their paternal care to be considered.

Here is the cover of an issue of "Awake" the official Jehovas Witness publication published by The Watchtower Press. This issue - dated May 22nd 1994. The inside story is all about 26 children who died supporting the "no blood" belief and policy of the organisation.

Now the problem of “what is truth” has escalated somewhat, because these children died as a direct result of their parents teaching and brainwashing them. The crazy questionable belief totally over rode the sanctity of life.

So you see – the question of “beliefs” and “truth” and what is portrayed as truth can go deep.