How Would You Prove That Abstaining From Blood Is Not Prohibiting Transfusions?

by minimus 53 Replies latest jw friends

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    JeffT,

    I understand your point and I have spoken in this regard with many doctors, some of who have said themselves that IF they can avoide a BT they would.

    I am of mixing feelings about this, not because of the scriptures, the blood issue was a dietary one that is obvious and life is precious to God and a medical procedure that can save a life and its refused, well, someone will have to justify that when the time comes.

    But because life is so sacred I do have concerns about not only how safe BT are, but the after effects and complications and the quality of life after them.

  • isaacaustin
    isaacaustin

    Reniaa said:

    interesting way to twist acts 15 which was the jerusalem elders and appostles deciding what the christians should keep to as christians.

    My reply: This is no twist at all, it is simply an understanding of what was going on. Your answers reflect no understanding of the situation. It was a convening of the apostles, elders and the entire congregation over problems caused by the cong in Jeru.

    Reniaa said: idolatry blood, immorality/fornication things strangled (which retain the blood) this was not about erm not hurting the Jewish christians feelings but what requirements to keep as highly important now they were no longer under the jewish law.

    My reply: Only if you ignore the whole situation going on there a accept the Wt dogma.

    Reniaa said: Unless you guys think immorality/fornication was just nothing so they were now allowed to sleep around commit adultery etc and just make sure they didn't do it near the Jewish christians and hurt their feelings because they were still kinda on strict on immorality.

    My reply: Speaking of relationships that the gentile Christians did not have a problem with but the Jews viewed as incestuous.

    ch 21 makes this plain: As for the Gentiles who have come to believe, we sent them our decision that they abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage." 9

    But your throwing this point in is a red herring anway since the issue is what 'abstain from blood means'. EVEN IF a permament binding ban it is clearly referencing Lev 17 and 18 which are solely speaking of the eating of animal blood.

    Reniaa said: Or idolatry time to get our cupboard Gods out now we are no longer under the jewish laws?

    My reply: off topic to what abstain from blood means.

    Reniaa said: approximately 10 years later this list was reamfirmed in acts 21 as things still to be avoided and applied to ALL.

    My reply: Wrong again Reniaa.

    21

    They have been informed that you are teaching all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to abandon Moses and that you are telling them not to circumcise their children or to observe their customary practices.

    22

    What is to be done? They will surely hear that you have arrived.

    23

    7 So do what we tell you. We have four men who have taken a vow.

    24

    Take these men and purify yourself with them, and pay their expenses 8 that they may have their heads shaved. In this way everyone will know that there is nothing to the reports they have been given about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law.

    25

    As for the Gentiles who have come to believe, we sent them our decision that they abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage." 9

    This is not staing some sort of reaffirmation of binding commands. It is explaining to Paul a past event and the still existing tensions present...now directed very harshly at Paul.

  • minimus
    minimus

    good essay

  • isaacaustin
    isaacaustin

    me? LOL thanks. I was just answering drivel.

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    PSacramento:

    Would you rather be dead, or have

    after effects and complications and the quality of life after them

    ?

    Your medical emergency may happen while you're unconscious. You may want to carry a blood card, stating your wishes. Otherwise, the doctors will assume that you'll accept the risks of blood treatment, rather than allowing you to die, blood-free.

    -LWT

  • minimus
    minimus

    Iwillbedubbednomore is who wrote the essay but Issac, your "essay" was good too.

  • isaacaustin
    isaacaustin

    well thanks minimus. I aprecciate that.

  • IWillBeDubbedNoMore
    IWillBeDubbedNoMore

    Thank you minimus

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    LWT,

    I understand that view and I agree that, in regards to an emergency situation and not having time to check for blood types that using a "universal blood" can lead to some complications, heck sometimes using your correct one can, and I understand that Living with complications is better than dying with none, but my concern is not about emergencies but in regards to wether there are truly better alternatives and why they are not readliy available and whether this is even a "valid" concern.

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt
    but my concern is not about emergencies but in regards to wether there are truly better alternatives and why they are not readliy available and whether this is even a "valid" concern.

    I think that is legitimate. I also think it is sort of a different conversation and that it extends to many treatments/procedures, other than blood.

    In general, I've chosen to allow highly-trained medical professionals to make MOST of these decisions for me. However, if I have questions, I ask them. Also, if I begin to suspect I'm not getting good care, I choose another physician.

    I do not, however, second-guess every little thing.

    -LWT

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit