The Blood doctrine - A Medical or Scriptural issue? (page 3)

belbab

Here is the web site I referred to in my previous post.

http://gwest59.tripod.com/ChristIsLord/id26.html

Read this and have in mind their teachings on blood prohibition as you read.

Belbab

skyman

Shadow Thanks for bring in this information

(Leviticus 11:39-40) 39 “‘Now in case any beast that is YOURS for food should die, he who touches its dead body will be unclean until the evening. 40 And he who eats any of its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the evening; and he who carries off its dead body will wash his garments, and he must be unclean until the eveningI wi I will

I will add this into my Blood research. I do not know how I messed this \\\\ Thanks

The WTS’ Blood Doctrine allows Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept autologous transfusion of whole blood and/or any constituent of whole blood (including erythrocytes, leukocytes, platelets or plasma) so long as the removal of the blood from the circulatory system and its later transfusion is part of what the WTS terms a “current therapy”.

Since nowhere does the WTS define the parameters of “current therapy” then it is up the patient and treating clinician to make use of the term. Hence it is false for anyone to say that the WTS’ Blood Doctrine forbids autologous transfusions because the WTS’ Blood Doctrine only forbids autologous blood transfusion if the blood is transfused in some way other than in a “current therapy”.

Jehovah’s Witnesses have undergone therapies where some of their blood was removed and sent to a laboratory for treatment and later the next day this blood was transfused into the patient. This is an autologous transfusion of blood and it is not in violation of the WTS’ Blood Doctrine because the patient can rationalize it as a “current therapy” and, of course, the clinician goes along with the terminology for sake of his or her JW patient.

This summary underscores a major theological change in the WTS’ Blood Doctrine that occurred in year 2000 yet continues to fly under the proverbial radar screen. I still do not understand why more researchers have not caught on to this change and highlighted it. The change is this: Prior to 2000 the WTS taught that blood removed from a person’s circulatory system had to be disposed of. In the year 2000 the WTS jettisoned this doctrinal tenet, which allowed for what I described above and more. You can read about it in the October 15, 2000 Questions From Readers article in The Watchtower.

Marvin Shilmer

Ned

I agree, hemoglobin is 97% of the red blood cell, and the red blood cell has no chromosones, etc.

Since blood is compared to wine, I will give my analogy. It's like saying, "See that glass of wine (RBC) over there? You can drink the wine, but not eat the glass." Either way, you get what you needed, oxygen for your body (or "tipsy" as my wife says).

shadow

As Marvin stated, this change is not understood too well, even by HLC members as evident by the discussion in the thread noted below. http://www.noblood.org/forum/showthread.php?threadid=2662 Another thread discussed transporting blood to another location before reinfusion. http://www.noblood.org/forum/showthread.php?t=697&highlight=irradiation This site provides a fascinating and troubling look inside the secret world of HLC's. skyman, WT prefers Lev 17:15 over Lev 11. They must believe it is more useful to support their contention that these scriptures refer to accidentally eating an animal found dead. Another WT curiosity states that the Bible does not forbid cannibalism in their article reversing the organ transplant ban. The hard part is that the human you eat would have to be properly bled.

stillAwitness

The WT are the modern-day Pharisees of Jesus' Day

Twisting the law, burdening the people with needless rules and regulations.

One thing about history is that it always repeats itself.

Mysterious

They always like to invoke the scientific or the medical in an attempt to somehow show that following god's direction always works out for the best in the end and that if man is saying something it is just because science is not advanced enough to prove them right yet.

Ingenuous

As Marvin stated, this change is not understood too well, even by HLC members as evident by the discussion in the thread noted below.

http://www.noblood.org/forum/showthread.php?threadid=2662

I had no idea.

My aunt is dying of cancer and was offered this type of treatment. She turned it down because she thought it violated the Society's rules.

I just gave her son a copy of the relevant section of the October 15, 2000 QFR.

Jourles

On average, how many JW's do you know of will discuss the blood doctrine and how it related to dietary laws? In all of my discussions, if dietary restrictions were brought up and the bible was used to back this up, the jw would simply leave, change the subject, or try and veer the subject back to, "but we don't accept blood at all." It's very frustrating. I have found it extemely difficult to even use the bible when arguing the blood doctrine. Due to the fact that the WTS does not address it in the literature as an alternate theory(a theory which does not back up their dogma!), your average witness will have no idea how to handle this information since momma has never spoken about it.

This is why I have found, at least in my case, that arguing the medical facts tends to draw the witness in a little more. Rather than having them research 3rd party religious material(how else will they learn about dietary laws? in non-WTS publications of course), it seems much easier to point them to medical journals, websites, and books where they feel less threatened. Medical facts typically cannot be argued with. We know the composition of an RBC. There is not an alternative viewpoint on how a RBC operates. With the WTS's view on blood, we all know that your typical witness will swallow whatever they feed them. To offer them a variation of the same food will generally make them throw up. A witness cannot handle these alternative viewpoints. It goes against what they have been taught from momma.

But if you were to point them to non-threatening medical facts, this lets them come to their own conclusion. Sure, a witness will not immediately say "WTF" once they read about the contradictions of the WTS's view on blood when compared to the facts, but it will help plant that little seed of truth which will grow over time. This is what happened to me.

Marvin Shilmer

Ingenuous writes:

“My aunt is dying of cancer and was offered this type of treatment. She turned it down because she thought it violated the Society's rules.”

Situations such as this are too common and the WTS know it. Whenever I hear of them occurring it just makes me mad as hell at the WTS to a point where I have to practically hold my breath to keep composure sufficient to continue objective research and presentations on the subject.

The discussion at noblood.org well illustrates the severe lack of understanding of life and death details of the WTS’ Blood Doctrine. An objective reader need not wonder whether rank and file Jehovah’s Witnesses understand this murderous Doctrine after reviewing the confusion existing among supposed professionals in the field among Jehovah’s Witnesses. My own experience is that without exception not a single local elder can explain the details of this Doctrine. The lack in understanding is to a point where these elders will, to the person, come to me asking what the WTS allows or disallows so they can fill out their DPA accordingly. Recently an elder made this request of me: “Can you just tell me what to choose on this form? I want to accept anything the Society says I can accept.” If it were not for my ability to contain personal rage I’d have exploded then and there, at the WTS. I contained myself for several reasons, including that this elder would not have completely understood my outburst.

What the WTS is doing is plain old murder by religious decree. It is not glamorous, it is not sophisticated, it is not science, it is not logical, it is not moral. It is a practice that is as old as the hills, it is ugly, it is selfish greed, it is protectionism at its worst, and it is immoral.

Marvin Shilmer

The Blood doctrine - A Medical or Scriptural issue?

Share this