Nickolas: My DA letter was devoted almost entirely to the topic of blood.
The latest Watchtower position on Blood - comments welcome
by Nickolas 56 Replies latest members private
-
-
Mary
The fundamental answer is that Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept blood. We firmly believe that God's law on blood is not open to reform to fit shifting opinions.
Except of course, when the shifting opinions come from the Governing Body. Then it's all "new light" and eagerly lapped up by the R&F as coming from Jehovah Himself.
Still, new issues arise because blood can now be processed into four primary components and fractions of those components.
This is not a "new issue" as blood can and has been separated for decades. I believe on the "No Blood" card from back in the 1960s or 70s, it states on there that they will not accept "fractions" and now you can. How exactly is this not a "shifting opinion"? And even if it were, how does that play into their view of what the bible says? What earthly difference does it make if it can be taken in 'fractions' or not if the bible says not to eat blood? Shouldn't that just mean all blood, no matter how minute?
In deciding whether to accept such, a Christian should look beyond possible medical benefits and risks. His concern should be what the Bible says and the potential effect on his relationship with Almighty God.
Yes, lets take a look at what the bible actually says about it. First of all, the command not to eat blood was not 'binding on all mankind', since Jehovah allowed the Israelites to sell unbled meat to foreigners:
"...YOU must not eat any body [already] dead. To the alien resident who is inside your gates you may give it, and he must eat it; or there may be a selling of it to a foreigner, because you are a holy people to Jehovah your God..."---Deut. 14:21
Second of all, the WTS's idea that this ban applied "even if an emergency arose" does not jive with other situations in the bible that involved life and death situations. When King David and his hungry followers, (when they were fleeing King Saul's armies), were given the showbread that was normally to be eaten only by priests, there is no record that Jehovah thought they should be punished for breaking this law and in fact, Jesus used it as an example that Jehovah shows mercy in extenuating circumstances (Mark 2:25, 26). He also pointed out that even the priests serving in the temple of God labored on the Sabbath by conducting worship services and performing sacrifices, all without fear of being ‘punished' (Matthew 12:5). It is also confirmed in the Watchtower that acts of mercy outweighed The Law:
" In these verses and in the ones following Jesus was calling attention to acts of mercy on the Sabbath day, that it was perfectly legitimate to render a show of mercy to one who is in need even though it was the Sabbath, and that there is, in effect, no violation of the Sabbath by such course of action. He had no rebuke for David's course."----Watchtower 1952, p. 575 Questions From Readers
If Jehovah allowed the ‘bending of the rules' because men were ravenously hungry, would He not do the same thing when a human life is in jeopardy? Are we really being asked to believe that Jehovah would rather see someone die when an ‘act of mercy'(such as a blood transfusion) would save their life? What would Jesus do? Mark 3:1-6 answers this question:
". . .Once again he entered into a synagogue, and a man was there with a driedup hand. So they were watching him closely to see whether he would cure the man on the Sabbath, in order that they might accuse him. And he said to the man with the withered hand: "Get up [and come] to the center." Next he said to them: "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do a good deed or to do a bad deed, to save or to kill a soul?" But they kept silent. And after looking around upon them with indignation, being thoroughly grieved at the insensibility of their hearts, he said to the man: "Stretch out your hand." And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored."
In both examples, the spirit and intent of the law were not broken, and both instances were specifically allowed by God for the greater good (the value of human life). Jesus emphasized that God's law allowed for mercy, and the Pharisees were wrong in putting their harsh interpretation of the Law above everything else, including mercy. Clearly Jesus valued human life above the Law (Matthew 12:10-12) and the Watchtower admits that in life and death situations even the Pharisees would ‘bend the rules' and help someone if the needed it on the Sabbath:
".....The Pharisees might come to the aid of a stranded or injured domestic animal (a financial investment) on the Sabbath but never to a man or a woman-not unless it was a matter of life and death."----Watchtower, October 15, 1997 page 30
Yet today, the Governing Body members are not willing to allow a brother or sister to take a blood transfusion even if it means their death. The fact that even the Pharisees made allowances if it would save a life and the Governing Body members will not, shows that they are not following either Jehovah's or Jesus' example of mercy.
Why was blood viewed as ‘sacred'? Because in bible times, the animals' blood was to be offered in sacrifice by pouring it to the ground, to atone for
taking the life of the animal:"For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life. Therefore I say to the Israelites, 'None of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood'---Leviticus 17:10-12
That is why blood was not to be eaten, as it was reserved for atonement. It is irrelevant to transfusions. Blood donors are not slaughtered in order to
obtain their blood. There is no life to atone for. Ironically, the Watchtower uses this same argument when they decided to change their policy on
organ transplants:"...Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. . . . Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs... It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the "donor" is not killed to supply food..."-----Watchtower, March 15, 1980, p. 31.
As well, blood represented the life that had been taken-it was not more valuable than the life itself. The Organization says that God prohibits eating blood because it symbolizes life. It is true that the bible links blood with symbolizing life, but it is utterly absurd to suggest that a symbol could be of greater value than the reality it symbolizes. What does a man (or woman) value more: their wedding ring or the marriage that it symbolizes? The ring merely represents the marriage----it is not the marriage itself.
In the September 15, 1958 Watchtower on page 575, it says:
"Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden."
If that is truly the case then they need to take a course in Nutrition 101 because there is absolutely no nutritional benefit from a blood transfusion. You can give a starving man blood transfusions until the cows come home----it will not save his life. Or, you could feed someone who is hemorrhaging internally blood through the mouth----it will not save them. No doctor would ever prescribe blood transfusions to treat malnutrition. When you eat something, it is taken into the stomach where it is digested and broken down into nutrients, which are then passed through the intestines into the blood vessels, where the blood carries them to the body for nourishment. This is accomplished by the digestive system.
During a transfusion, the blood that is transfused travels through the blood stream, then goes to the intestines where it picks up the digested food passed through the intestines and carrying that food throughout the rest of the body. This is the circulatory system. The transfused blood is not food itself but the carrier of food. The food is broken down into its component parts whereas the blood remains whole. This is the medical definition proving that eating blood (such as blood pudding or blood sausage) through the mouth is a completely different procedure than a blood transfusion.
There are also some very hypocritical aspects to their ban on blood transfusions. In addition to banning plasma (while allowing JWs to accept all the solids that make up the plasma) another banned item is Leukocytes, or "white blood cells." As of 1980, Witnesses are now allowed to accept organ transplants, which of course, involves blood. What most Witnesses don't realize, is that by accepting an organ transplant, they actually are receiving more leukocytes into their body (from the donor), than what they would if they took a blood transfusion.
Another example of the inconsistency of the Watchtower's policy on blood, involves albumin. Albumin is now "allowed" and most Witnesses would be under the assumption that it is only a ‘fraction' and not ‘whole blood'. Albumin is used for severe bleeding and for burn victims. There are about 50 grams of albumin in one liter of blood. To get 600 grams of albumin, you would need 12 liters of blood. Hardly a small amount, yet the Watchtower Society sees no problem with forbidding plasma to ‘Brother A' who's bleeding internally, while at the same time, allowing ‘Brother B' to accept albumin if they were suffering from third degree burns on 50% of his body, even though accepting the albumin would involve a much larger volume of blood than what Brother A needed.
Another ridiculous law they enforce is the ban on autologous blood donation (storing your own blood for an upcoming operation). They forbid this procedure by pointing to the scripture where Jehovah told the Israelites to ‘pour out' the blood from the slain animal.43 But as we have already seen, pouring
out the blood from a dead animal was for atonement for the life that had just been taken----it has nothing to do with accepting the blood of a live human and it certainly has nothing to do with storing your own blood. Forbidding someone to use their own blood that is temporarily stored, is astounding in light of the fact that they now allow you to accept blood ‘fractions' taken from another person's blood that had (obviously) been stored in a medical facility.Not only is this hypocritical to the extreme, but it's self-defeating. Autologous Blood donation is recommended by the American Medical Association's Council on Scientific Affairs, and described as the safest blood product by Blood banks themselves. In essence, they are saying that it's a "conscience matter" to accept blood fractions from a donor, but it is a disfellowshipping offense to use your own blood. To any thinking person, this simply makes no sense. What is incredible, is that the Society admits that blood fractions come from donated blood:
".... many fractions are derived from blood that has been donated for medical purposes. Each Christian should make a conscientious decision as to whether he or she will accept or will reject the medical use of these substances...." Kingdom Ministry, November 2006 p. 3
While it does not use the words "stored blood", that is exactly where the fractions come from. Yet in the same article, it re-emphasizes the doctrine that Witnesses "...do not donate or store their own blood for transfusion..."
Another point to consider is that the Watch Tower Society has at times acknowledged, a blood transfusion is not intravenous feeding; it is actually a transplantation (of a fluid tissue), not an infusion of a nutrient:
"...Dr. Ciril Godec, chairman of urology at Long Island College Hospital, in Brooklyn, New York. He wrote: "Today blood would probably not be approved as a medication, since it would not fulfill safety criteria of the Food and Drug Administration. Blood is an organ of the body, and blood transfusion is nothing less than an organ transplant...."--- Awake! August 22, 1999 p. 31 Are Blood Transfusions Really Necessary?
Since they now allow organ transplants, why is there still the ban on blood transfusions if they are, in fact an 'organ transplant'?
Hope this helps.
-
Dogpatch
If any of you do have personal stories or new information involving blood, send them over to [email protected]. Or I can forward them, send to [email protected].
Randy
-
Nickolas
Please pardon my wordly bluntness, Mary, but as I was reading your post I said to myself "Holy shit, this is powerful stuff."
I'm getting great arguments from both the secular and biblical perspectives. Fabulous.
-
Nickolas
Another holy shit. leavingwt, did you actually send this letter? What happened?
-
PSacramento
Nickolas,
The blood issue is what made me evaluate the JW's but this here was the nail on the coffin for me about them and the blood ban:
-
TD
When I was being indoctrinated in 1974-76 I remember that neither whole blood nor fractions of whole blood could be taken by a Jehovah's Witness but now some are being allowed. Do I have that right?
Nick,
The allowance of fractions began in 1958 when they ruled that post-exposure vaccines like the diphtheria antitoxin were permissible. (Post-exposure vaccines contain gamma-globulin) There was some waffling on this in the early 60's, but it's hard to tell if that was simply the ignorance of a Watchtower writer or whether it was official policy. I've collected some private letters from this period that seem to indicate the former.
A few comments on the cut-and-paste:
Later, at a meeting in Jerusalem, the apostles and older men decreed that we must ‘abstain from blood.’ Doing so is as vital as abstaining from sexual immorality and idolatry.—Acts 15:28, 29.
--An interesting and dishonest piece of semantic legerdemain here. It revolves around a point of grammar that we don't usually think about.
Complete thoughts require a transfer of action between the subject and the object in a sentence. The word, "Abstain" belongs to a class of verbs that do not make this transfer. They're called, "Intransitive verbs."
Here's how it works in speech. When the word, "Abstain" is used in connection with a "thing," a finite verb is required to transfer the action and complete the thought.
For example, if I were to say, "Abstain from junk food" you would understand this to mean, "Abstain from eating junk food" Expressed as a finite negative, it would be, "Do not eat junk food"
Although the verb, "Eat" was not specifically stated, it was implicitly understood from the nature of the thing. With that in mind, you can see how this works in the examples below:
Abstain from liquor
Abstain from tobacco
Abstain from sex
Abstain from dairy products
Abstain from grammatical errors
Though not specifically stated, a finite act is implicitly understood in each case.
However not all nouns have actions you would automatically associate with them. When you cannot infer an action from the noun, "Abstain from" phrases become gibberish:
Abstain from sky
Abstain from boat
Abstain from Watchtower
Abstain from crankshaft
Abstain from shrubbery
Bottom line: There is no abstinence from a "thing." We abstain from acts done in connection with things. Abstinence always involves negation of an act.
Sometimes people want to argue with this, but there's a very easy way to put it to the test. Challenge them to express the abstention as a finite negative (i.e. A "Do not") without inserting an additional verb. We can use the fourth abstention in the Apostolic Decree as an example. You can easily state what it means to "Keep abstaining...from fornication" as a finite negative, because "Fornication" is the name of the finite act of illicit sex:
"Do not fornicate."
"Blood" however is not the name of an act. "Do not blood" would be nonsensical. In the context of the Decree, the phrase is clearly a reference to the eating of blood as forbidden in the Law and we would therefore understand it to mean, "Abstain from eating blood."
You can see this principle at work in the way the JW writer has phrased his sentence:
Doing so is as vital as abstaining from sexual immorality and idolatry.—Acts 15:28, 29.
Does the Decree actually say to "Abstain from idolatry?" No it doesn't. It says to "Keep abstaining...from things sacrificed to idols." Jehovah's Witnesses understand that to mean, "Do not eat the idol sacrifice as part of an idolatrous ritual."
On one hand, you can see that the writer understands the grammatical necessity of referencing the proscribed action when paraphrasing the Decree (e.g. "Things sacrificed to idols" becomes "Idolatry") but on the other hand you can see that the writer is deliberately pretending that this is not also true with "Blood."
The reason for the double standard is obvious. The writer is trying to sidestep his moral obligation of demonstrating either a physical or moral equivalency between the eating of blood and the transfusion of blood by pretending that transfusion is directly forbidden in the Bible.
Today, most transfusions are not of whole blood but of one of its primary components: (1) red cells; (2) white cells; (3) platelets; (4) plasma (serum), the fluid part.
Another oddity. Systems of catagorization exist solely for the convenience of the person drawing them up and as such they're a matter of perception. Jehovah's Witnesses have simply co-opted blood banking terminology which is reflective only of the way blood is packaged and sold to hospitals. The writers try to pretend that it is a universal convention that God himself would ostensibly agree with, but that's untrue. College level medical textbooks often catagorize blood as simply "Cellular" and "Liquid" components.
Significantly, keeping to this Bible-based position has protected them from many risks, including such diseases as hepatitis and AIDS that can be contracted from blood.
Witness writers love to extol the protective power of the transfusion medicine taboo, but they conveniently forget that well over 90% of HIV infections transmitted through blood came through fractions which are allowed to JW's --Specifically the pooled clotting factors given to hemophiliacs. There's a good discussion of this in the book, Blood --An Epic History Of Medicine and Commerce by Douglas Starr
Some would refuse anything derived from blood (even fractions intended to provide temporary passive immunity). That is how they understand God’s command to ‘abstain from blood.’
I'm not sure this is even possible in modern society. Several of the injections in the battery of immunizations that all children must have to attend school in developed countries contain human albumin and/or bovine serum.
Some Christians may conclude that since blood fractions can pass to another person in this natural setting, they could accept a blood fraction derived from blood plasma or cells.
Another interesting piece of reasoning. Sounds like a typical argument of convenience. Dr. Diane W. Bianchi demonstrated more than ten years ago that fetal blood cells of all types cross into the maternal blood stream and that certain precursor cells can persist more than forty years after a woman's last pregnancy.
-
Nickolas
Ok. Enough. I am overwhelmed. Now I have a devastating semantic argument, too. Thank you. I started this thread this morning looking for some ammunition and have come away with an entire howitzer. I will need to be very circumspect lest I kill the conversation as it is only beginning.
I cannot thank you all enough.
Nick
-
leavingwt
Another holy shit. leavingwt, did you actually send this letter? What happened?
Yes, I did. It went out to my "friends" and family a few days before it reached the Presiding Overseer via certified mail.
As far as what happened, it marked the END of my days as a JW. I'm uncertain if anyone actually read it. One ex-elder admitted to me that he was "afraid" to read it.
The elders have honored my request. I never heard a peep from any of them, nor have they stepped foot onto my property.
-
Nickolas
Yes, I did. It went out to my "friends" and family a few days before it reached the Presiding Overseer via certified mail.
It is very beautifully written. Truly.
