Blood issue, I finally got it (page 2)

M.J.

From JWfacts' site:

Watchtower 2000 October 15 p.31
“Occasionally, a doctor will urge a patient to deposit his own blood weeks before surgery (preoperative autologous blood donation, or PAD) so that if the need arises, he could transfuse the patient with his own stored blood. However, such collecting, storing, and transfusing of blood directly contradicts what is said in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Blood is not to be stored; it is to be poured out—returned to God, as it were. Granted, the Mosaic Law is not in force now. Nevertheless, Jehovah’s Witnesses respect the principles God included in it, and they are determined to ‘abstain from blood.’ Hence, we do not donate blood, nor do we store for transfusion our blood that should be ‘poured out.’ That practice conflicts with God’s law.”

It occurred to me that "respecting the principles" of the law in this case actually amounts to following it to the letter!

One could say that about any of the Mosaic laws. For example, with this reasoning they could say that one should refrain from eating fat due to the principle behind Lev 7:23.

garybuss

Principle
prin'ci'ple (pr-se-pel) noun
Abbr. prin.
1. A basic truth, law, or assumption:

*************

A principle IS a LAW:-)

OnTheWayOut

Yes M.J.

This is an example of circular reasoning in the WTS (although they try to keep their reasoning points separated so that nobody puts them together.)

1. Jehovah gave the command to Noah- predates the Law.
2. Jesus fulfilled the Law, ended it.
3. The Apostles said to abstain from blood.
4. We revert to the command to Noah. We need to understand what it means.
5. We examine the Law to understand the command to Noah and the Apostles' command.
6. In the case of fractions, medicines (new light) we justify our position by saying
We are not violating God's command to pour it on the ground because
Jesus fulfilled the Law, we are not under compulsion to pour it out-
7. The important thing is that we respect God's view of blood. We do this by jumping back to # 3

Of course, they have misrepresented #1, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7 but it is so buried in there that the
rank and file cannot pick out what is wrong with JW reasoning.

troubled mind

Really researching the blood issue is what finally "broke the camels back " for me . About this time last year I started delving into why would the Society now allow it to be a conscience matter to accept so many different Blood fractions . There was no logic in breaking down blood if in deed it was something so holy to Jehovah. Skyman wrote a very well thought out explaination ( which may now be the one you posted from Jwfacts ) . That letter turned the light bulb on for me . From there I just couldn't let go of how many other things have I been duped into believing as "truth" . I am cautiously going to use this line of thinking with my older witness children to help them see the light is truely getting brighter ! Next month in line with the information in the Nov. KM will be a good time to bring up the blood issue with them .

skyking

There were two different laws on blood the one given to all mankind and that given to the Nation of Israel.

At Duet. 14:21 it states "You must not eat any body [already] dead. To the alien resident you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner." There in Israel’s mist was the man of the nations,

this foreigner represented the rest of mankind that Jehovah gave the command to at Gen: 9:4.

at Lev. 17:15 read "As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or a alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until evening; and he must be clean." Here God say’s even the NATIVE could eat an animal that he personally did not kill and he knew that this animal had not been bled, and not be in violation of god’s law on blood. {A native, is a person that was clearly under the Mosaic Law and bound by it} How can this be?

Here it states a native{person under the Mosaic Law} could eat an animal not bled and not be put to death. Why? His only sin is one of touching a dead animal and then he became unclean. He did not violate God’s law on blood here or Jehovah would have put the sinner to death. His only sin here was one of touching a dead animal. {The Law’s requirement for touching a dead animal is he became unclean by the act of touching a dead body}. Since he touched a dead body he was unclean until evening and he had to wash in water. At Lev. 17:15 Think about this example, Jehovah gave Israel away out of death. If there was a famine in the land or drought… and one happened upon a dead animal, the eating of that animal could literally have meant saving the life of that person and his family.

skyking

What I posted above made me stop and realizes that the DUBS were partly correct. Yes for the Nation of Israel under normal times it was wrong to eat blood but if ones life was at stake then you eat the dead animal to save your life. But this stupid law was only for the Nation because you could sell a unbled animal to a non-Israelite.

My baby daughter needed a transfusion and the State of Washington took legal action against me and State Law allowed this for protection of a minor. Thank God for the State because my girl is now 12years old and happy. I would have let her die when I was a Drone.

greendawn

Donated blood is offered voluntarily and without any harm to the donor, certainly their lives remain with them and do not return to the Creator unlike what happens to a killed animal. It does not involve the loss of life but rather saving lives.

TD

"However, such collecting, storing, and transfusing of blood directly contradicts what is said in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Blood is not to be stored; it is to be poured out—returned to God, as it were."

I love how the JW's do this. It's such a blatant, twisted misapplication of the Law.

Ask a JW this: What, specifically is the receptacle from which the blood is poured out from?

The Deuteronomic requirement was that the blood of animals killed for food must first be poured out before you ate the flesh

Lev 17: 13 “‘As for any man of the sons of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust.
Deu 12:16: "Only whenever your soul craves it you may slaughter, and you must eat meat according to the blessing of Jehovah your God that he has given you, inside all your gates. The unclean one and the clean one may eat it, like the gazelle and like the stag. 16 Only the blood YOU must not eat. On the earth you should pour it out as water.
Deu 15:23: "Inside your gates you should eat it, the unclean one and the clean one together, like the gazelle and like the stag. 23 Only its blood you must not eat. Upon the earth you should pour it out as water. "

Therefore the only legitimate answer to the above question is, "The animal carcass you intend to eat." Consequently, this requirement had abolutely nothing to do with the storage of blood. (Unless or course, "storing" it inside the body is wrong.)

The JW's have subtley reworded the requirement from this:

Blood must be removed from the body by being poured out

Into this:

Blood removed from the body must be poured out

However this injects an extra step in the process of butchering an animal for food. Blood is not first removed, and then poured out --You stand back as the blood drains.

OnTheWayOut

Skyking,
I am happy to hear that the beaurocracy got in the way of your religious freedom- applying the law correctly that your
daughter did not grow up to fully understand the issue and make her own decision.

I am happy to hear this.

I am sad when I think of us adults who did not fully understand the issue, causing us to either make the wrong
decision, or hope it never comes up.

I am glad it never came up for me, I still may have to face it later, but I will be ready.

Blood issue, I finally got it

Share this