@cofty:
DJ, I would like to take you up on two points where I think you are being disingenuous.
Ok.
Firstly the way you play down the significance of blood factions, in particular haemoglobin. In no way could this component of blood be described as simply a "useful nutrient".
I am not done that which you accuse me here of doing; I've played nothing down. In my opening salvo, I provided a basic description of whole blood, its components, and, for each of these, I went on to provide a few straightforward examples that would be easy for most of you here to do a little research on your own to see whether or not what I said here was really the case. I wasn't being disingenuous, but your opinion is what it is. It's clear to me at the outset here that you have an agenda and so do I, but lying isn't mine. You say it was disingenuous on my part to have described "this component of blood" as a "useful nutrient," but I did notice a typo in what I wrote, that I correct here by removing the word "which" indicated by the ellipses (shown in brackets); I also add a comma (also shown in brackets):
Today, however[,] these four (4) above-mentioned components are now being processed in such a way that useful nutrients, called "fractions," [...] are being used by doctors to treat patients for many illnesses.
In my post, I listed plasma, white cells, red cells and platelets -- these four -- as "primary blood components," but I really didn't refer to any of these blood components as a "useful nutrient." You decided that were going to attack my statement, so you made this up. You decided that you were going to put a spin on my words. You're careless with words, you played fast and loose with my words, and what it amazing is that you actually thought it would escape the scrutiny of others that would read your post were you to accuse me of being disingenuous in what I wrote to deflect from what it was you were doing, when in reality it was you that was lying. Yes, it's true that in my post I make reference to "useful nutrients, called 'fractions,'" but what is a fraction? You go on to mention "haemoglobin" ("hemoglobin" here in the States), a protein found in red blood cells:
The primary life-sustaining function of blood is its ability carry oxygen around the body. This is performed by the heme molecule in the haemoglobin which binds the oxygen molecule and is incidentally what gives blood its red colour. It is the presence of this molecule that forensic scientists test for in order to detect the blood at a crime scene. The other tasks that blood performs are secondary to the vital job of supplying blood to our cells that is the function of haemoglobin.
Blood isn't supplied to our cells; what our cells need is oxygen, and it is the protein hemoglobin in this component of blood -- the red blood cell -- that provides the oxygen (O 2 ) from our lungs to the tissues of our body to keep us alive. There is no "heme molecule," for there are four individual heme groups that each contain an iron atom that can bind to an oxygen molecule, that is to say, there are four subunits that form the homoglobin protein, not just one. That's the first thing I wanted to say. There are some 35 trillion corpuscles in the human body at any given time, and the red pigment in hemoglobin, not some "heme molecule," that is responsible for blood's red color.
Now were we to do a Watchtower article on this, I'm sure you'd come away from it believing what I have here quoted you as saying the same thing that you read in such an article, which would not be the case. This is exactly why Jehovah's Witnesses are criticized by some that wonder how we were able to come to the conclusion that when the holy spirit said that we are to "abstain ... from blood" at Acts 15:20 that it is there making reference to whole blood, that it is there referring to our taking into our bodies, either orally or intravenously, all four components of blood.
But does Acts 15:20 have application to fractions? Is Acts 15:20 referring to the constituent parts derived from any of these four blood components? How do we answer this? Not necessarily. Our answer: You have to decide for yourself whether you think the prohibition on blood at Acts 15:20 has application to blood fractions. If that is what you decide, if this is what you think to be the case, that's fine; if you do not think this to be the case, then this would be your decision to make. This is the point to be made.
It does seem odd to me that you thought you should give me a lesson on proteins and that you would specifically single out the hemoglobin protein, a gene type that we inherited from our parents, one from each of them. I was talking about blood fractions, but it would seem that you want to have a go with me (as the British might say) in a discussion that centers around the DNA molecule; you want to talk about proteins and genes, so I'll digress here and flesh some of this out a bit with you, humor you, see where all of this goes.
DNA is one long molecule that spirals around in a double helix, a kind of double-stranded code, which contains all of the information needed to make living things grow and develop into what it will be at maturity. It has been said that no one's perfect, and this is true, no human being is, but DNA is a perfect system for storing vast amounts of information that is necessary in order to build all creatures, whether that creature be a flower, a dog or a cat, a cow or a human being.
Many genes get translated into proteins, and these proteins make the "stuff" of our bodies, and by this I mean that one protein makes hair, another protein makes cartilage, another protein makes muscle. You mentioned hemoglobin, so I'm going to flesh this one out a bit, so that we can easily refer to what it was I said should you want to go even more in depth with me to discuss hemoglobin should you decide that you want to fashion a reply to my post here, @cofty.
It is a gene that determines whether our eyes are blue or not, that gives us freckles or dimples. When a baby is conceived, the fertilized egg receives half its DNA from its mother and half from its father, creating new combinations, so that we might look somewhat like our parents, but also different from our parents. There is something known as "hemoglobin C" that a child might receive from one of its parents, and that child that inherits the hemoglobin C gene will be totally fine as long as it doesn't inherit another hemoglobin C gene or a hemoglobin S gene. There was once a time -- actually there are still a few people in human society that understands the science, but chooses to believe this myth to be true -- that miscegenation to have a scientific foundation, which led to the dogma about not mixing the races, specifically blacks with whites, because such a mixture can lead to offspring having mutations that affect the health of the children that are produced from such unions.
Today we know that there is a 100% chance that the child that inherits the hemoglobin C trait from one parent and the hemoglobin S trait from another parent (together hemoglobin SC) will develop one form of sickle cell disease and that there is also a 100% chance that the child that inherits the hemoglobin S trait from both parents (hemoglobin SS) will develop another form of sickle cell disease. We also know that there is a 100% chance that whereas the child that inherits normal hemoglobin A from one parent, but the hemoglobin C trait from the other parent (hemoglobin AC) will be just as fine health-wise as the child that inherits hemoglobin A from both of its parents (hemoglobin AA), again exposing such racist views as to the so-called "interbreeding" of whites and blacks as being what it is, a myth.
I'm sure it must be clear to you by now that I could go on and on about such things, and actually have something compelling to say, whereas you thought it might be illuminating to point out to me how hemoglobin binds the oxygen molecule, that homoglobin is what gives blood its characteristic red color, how forensic scientists can perform tests for the presence of hemoglobin at a crime scene. I don't know if you have ever watched any of the CSI episodes on tv, but these folks do some pretty amazing things to confirm what may appear to be blood, and, if so, determine whether the blood came from a human being.
Maybe you listened to the testimony of Dennis Fung during the OJ Simpson criminal trial, and heard him describe how he swabbed a bloodstain with a cotton swab, sprayed it with some ethanol and a phenolphthalein indicator that reacts to the hemoglobin found in blood to see if the color of the stain changed, and if it didn't change, how he went on to add a little peroxide to see if the color of the stain should immediately change to pink denoting the presence of blood. Maybe you heard him mention luminol tests he conducted in the bathtubs, showers and sinks in Simpson's Rockingham estate in order to determine if an attempt to wash away any blood in them might have been made, a process that relies on the iron in hemoglobin as a catalyst for the luminol chemiluminescence reaction causing a bluish-green glow that last for about 30 seconds.
But luminol also reacts to saliva and bleach, as well as to certain animal and vegetable proteins, so if Simpson or someone else in his household had shoved the remains of the salad served last Friday down the garbage disposal in the kitchen sink before you left to go on your eight-day cruise to Cancun, a luminol test would be revealing this fact, but it wouldn't know when it was that he shoveled this food down into the garbage disposal, or whether it was chicken or poultry that got shoved, or the fact that one of the kids had soaked their white socks in a sink maybe a week before last Friday's meal, a solution consisting of water, detergent and bleach, or whether someone did a gargle and rinse in that Brentwood kitchen sink.
But with respect to DNA and genes, evolutionists tell us that mutations are responsible for the diversity that exists in the human family, but, as I said, DNA is a perfect system for storing the genetic information that makes each living creature unique, a perfect system created by Jehovah God that leads to the genetic diversity we see in flowers, animals and humans, which genes get translated into hair proteins, muscle proteins, cartilage proteins. However, it's important to note that despite what evolutionists say, mutations never produce anything beneficial. For example:
In the Bible, we read that the Philistine giant, Goliath, had six fingers on each hand, six toes on each foot. (2 Samuel 21:20) In the fruit fly experiments conducted during the early 20th century, mutations caused some of these fruit flies to develop 4, 8, 12 wings, but it was also found an amazing ability in the DNA code to repair the genetic damage caused by these experiments so that the fruit fly genus is preserved by normal fruit flies eventually being produced in successive generations because of enzymes that Jehovah put in the fruit fly that assure the integrity of the fruit fly having its two wings and not 12, and that assure that other humans beings will have five fingers on each hand, five toes on each foot, because the blueprints that Jehovah made didn't call for the six-fingered hands or six-toed feet like this Philistine we read about had.
Contrary to what evolutionists say, mutations produce nothing new and mutations aren't beneficial to anyone or to anything. I mean how difficult Goliath's shopping must have been, trying to find gloves for five digits and a thumb on each hand. A clothier that sells gloves of the "Goliath" variety would draw few customers and would need to expand its product line to keep its doors open, would it not? And how is a multi-winged fruit fly going to fly anywhere?
DNA is found in the cells of every living thing, and as our cells divide, DNA makes copies of itself, so that in the four (4) smaller molecules of the DNA double helix -- called by the letters "G," "A," "T" and "C" -- what had formerly been an "A" in one special sequence in the mother's DNA code can become a "G" within the DNA of the fertilized egg, or what had formerly been a "C" in the father's DNA code can become a "T" within that egg's DNA, causing minute changes that become manifest in the baby having the same blue eyes that its mother or father has, or the hazel eye color that its maternal grandmother or paternal grandfather had, or even an eye color that no one knew could be a family trait. A baby may have freckles whereas its parents have none, or this baby may have dimples, which all of its first cousins on its father's side have, while none of its first cousins on its mother's side have. The same thing here applies to the hemoglobin that a child receives from its parents, half from its mother and half from its father.
But none of this is relevant to the point I was making about blood fractions. A lot had been said here and I wanted to cover as much as I could to give you some idea as to what your chances might be in pretending to know this subject. Does Acts 15:20 have application to fractions? What do you say? What is your decision on the matter? You decide. The Bible says "abstain ... from blood." It doesn't say "abstain ... from blood fractions." You must decide for yourself what kind of person you ought to be "in holy acts of conduct and deeds of godly devotion." (2 Peter 3:11) No one can do this for anyone else. What you decide to do in this regard is entirely up to you.
Could you explain to me how the organisation's decision to permit a transfusion of haemoglobin but prohibit transfusion of whole blood is not foolishness of the sort the Pharisees were infamous for?
Maybe someone else can, but I cannot. If someone in Jehovah's organization does, in fact, explain how it is possible to transfuse hemoglobin into someone and not violate God's command to "abstain ... from blood," I'd like to have his or her name.
When did I ever say that Jehovah's Witnesses believe or teach that we can accept a blood transfusion of any kind? Did I lose my mind and write somewhere that Jehovah's Witnesses accept blood transfusions of any kind? I do recall specifically mentioning hemin, which is used to inhibit porphyrins production, but you were the one that introduced hemoglobin in your post. I didn't mention hemoglobin at all. The immune system of an infant that has developed hemolytic disease due to a Rh negative mother and a Rh positive child (fetus) may be benefitted by injections of IgG and IgM serum antibodies (red blood cell fractions), but some doctors may think it more beneficial to transfuse the child with RBCs (red blood cells)
Secondly for you to try to muddy the waters with arguments about the risks of blood transfusions is not acceptable. If you don't realise that there are times when only an urgent transfusion of fresh whole blood will do to save a life then you are not yet qualified to have this discussion. Please stick to explaining how your position is biblical and logically consistent.
I have a counteroffer to make to you. How about you getting off that high horse you're riding and joining this discussion about the view of Jehovah's Witnesses with respect to blood fractions like everyone else? Do not pretend again that you can dictate to me what it is I should or shouldn't discuss in this thread at @jgnat's invitation. I am free to pass on the rest of your posts at will. I view your opinion are being mere words on a computer screen; they mean nothing of any relevance to me. I don't "muddy" anything; I clean things up. As a matter of fact, I have been sanctified by my God to bind others and lead them as captives to the Christ. I am able to do this for those that want to make their symbolic robes white.
I cannot agree with you that there are times when only "fresh whole blood will do," but, then again, I don't have to agree with you. And I don't. I am always both scripturally and logically consistent in what I say. My question to you is this, @cofty: Can you say this?
Why were the Israelite permitted to eat the blood of an unbled dead animal as long as it wasn't slaughtered, and can you see how this relates to blood [transfusion]?
I don't know that they were permitted to do so. What I do know is that if anyone should break God's law, there was penalties exactly upon them for their error. (Leviticus 17:15, 16) There are things that Jehovah asks His servants to do, but we aren't always successful in doing those things, like we should not forsake the gathering of ourselves together (Hebrews 10:25), but we might work a little overtime so that we do not have to rise up early the next morning or get to work an hour earlier than usual to complete some task and miss a regularly scheduled meeting. Why do you ask?
Think about it this way. Could an Israelite bring blood to the altar that he had collected from his herd without [killing] any beasts, or was it necessary for the animal to be killed before the blood had any sacrificial value?
An Israelite couldn't bring any dead animal to God's altar to be sacrificed, since what sacrifice is it when the thing to be killed is already dead? In fact, he could, but if the Israelite ever brought a lame, blind or sick animal to God's altar, he would certainly be called upon his doing so (Malachi 1:8), so where did you get the idea that a dead animal or its blood would have sacrificial value of any kind?
@Listener:
Does this mean that each of the four blood components [separately] constitute whole blood?
No, but because together these blood components constitute whole blood, separately they are split whole blood. I'm in Southern California where tacos are kind of a mainstay for many people, and if you have corn tortillas and seasoned ground beef, with cheese, lettuce and salsa on your cutting board, you have a taco even if they should be separate components. You can have onion, salsa, sour cream, guacamole and avocado as "components" on that cutting board, but a corn tortilla or a wheat flour tortilla (the latter being called a "soft taco") is a major component of a taco, just as plasma, white cells, red cells and platelets would separately be components of whole blood.
Let me add, even though you did not ask, @Listener, that what this thread is about are the fractions that are processed from these four components of whole blood, which provide useful nutrients like the various clotting factors, and albumin and globulin.
@mrsjones5:
Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Christians. Christ is not their mediator. The rank and file jws (the majority of jws) are only friends of jehovah, in other words associates of the 144,000/FDS. The GB/FDS (cuz the GB are the FDS) keep pointing out the lowly stature of the rank and file in their literature, that they are not saved by Christ's [sacrifice] - that's was only for the 144,000. And if that's so then none of the [unanointed] rank and file are Christians. JWS are not part of the body of Christ.
I won't spend a lot of time with this, and you're off-topic anyway: I believe that you're entitled to have this point of view. There are many people that feel exactly the same way you do about Jehovah's Witnesses. People that are not Jehovah's Witnesses or who are no longer Jehovah's Witnesses have every right to believe what they choose to believe in harmony with their religious beliefs, just as we have our own religious beliefs about folks that aren't Jehovah's Witnesses, too.
Do you have anything that you'd like to contribute to this thread initiated by the OP (@jgnat) that is related to blood factions? Perhaps there are some here that would be interested in hearing your thoughts as they relate to the topic.
@miseryloveselders:
So fractions are acceptable and ok as fractions are not whole blood.
Yes.
Being that they're processed from blood, isn't that still misuse of blood? ... [W]ouldn't the processing of fractions from blood fall under the umbrella of misuse of blood?
No.
Back then blood was either to be discarded after the slaughter of an animal, or used upon the altar. There was no other options for blood back then. So the average Joseph Joe Blow Israelite would be obligated to discard blood, hence pour it onto the ground, get rid of it. Even if they had the ability to utilize the blood for something practical like painting, or cosmetic purposes, this would have been a no-no under the Law.
While the Law of Moses did serve its purpose until "Christ our passover [was] ... sacrificed" (1 Corinthians 5:7), the Law was abolished upon Jesus' death, so that Jewish Christians and non-Jewish Christians alike are not obliged to keep the Law. But you are correct in that as long as the Law was in effect, it was unlawful for an Israelite to use blood for any reason.
So if we're going to maintain the hardline with the use of blood corresponding the Law as applied to Israelites thousands of years ago, to our time today, shouldn't we be discarding blood entirely? No room at all for processing anything from it, as its to be discarded, right?
Christians are not automatons, and Christians ought to be looking at God's word, not as a dead text, but as the living word of God. (Hebrews 4:12) Unlike the way things were in Bible times, there are uses to which blood can be put that do not involve blood transfusions, for blood fractions that are available to us today simply weren't available to the Israelites during the 16th century BC or during the first century AD, but it is up to the Christian to decide whether he or she can conscientiously avail himself or herself of such.
@PSacramento:
That and the fact that he didn't answer ANY of TD post in [regards] to [Rolf Furuli] being put in his place....
But I did answer @TD's post. I had no comment to make regarding someone else's opinion. Furuli isn't here on JWN with us sharing his opinion, but you and I are here sharing our opinions, and we are able to discuss things with each other than neither of us can with Furuli since he's not here. You want to have such a discussion involving someone else's opinion that isn't here, that's fine, but by my not commenting on Furuli's opinion, I effectively answered this portion of @TD post, meaning Furuli was entitled to his opinion, even as you and I are entitled to ours, @PSacramento.
@moshe:
I have asked this question of many JWs, "will a blood transfusion save the life of a starving man?"They hate that question (never heard it before, so they don't have a canned WT answer for it) and they usually try to avoid giving an answer.
I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses and here's my answer (and it's not a canned one).
The answer, "no", explains why blood transfusions have nothing to do with the OT Bible prohibitions against eating blood- and it explains why Jewish Rabbis see so religious conflicts with blood transfusions, either. Transfused blood has no food/calorie value for the body.
No, it doesn't, nor does a "no" explain how non-Jehovah's Witnesses, like these Jewish rabbis to whom you refer view the command given to all Christians during the first century AD to "abstain ... from blood." (Acts 15:20) You seem to believe that the discussion about blood factions has something to do with eating blood, but this discussion is about using blood fractions is the same as accepting a blood transfusion, and we believe these two things to be mutually exclusive.
The WT publications, to my knowledge, have never mentioned that the Jews accept blood transfusions....
Watchtower publications are aids provided by Jehovah's Witnesses to help others to obtain a better understand of the Bible. These publications are no substitute for the Bible, even if you happen to have some dated quote from a famous pastor saying some such thing about his six-volume set of "Studies in the Scriptures" that he had no idea would turn out to be one of the most quoted statements used in an attempt to discredit Jehovah's Witnesses. There are a few sects of Judaism, and Jehovah's Witnesses do not belong to any of them.
I have one more thing to say-
Ok.
The blood fractions dogma that JWs look to as God's law- how did they get it?
You're not one of Jehovah's Witnesses so why do you need to know? Do you need to know before you can be persuaded to resume your service to Jehovah? I think not.
Getting that out of the way, the GB made the decision without consulting the F&DS....
Where did you get this information? You just threw this out, didn't you, knowing that you wouldn't have to prove that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses was solely responsible for deciding that it would be up to the individual to decide if he or she could conscientiously accept blood fractions while knowing that these fractions are derived from the four blood components that he or she would not otherwise permit to be transfused into his or her body.
What could this mean to a JW? Well, it means to me, that (if they have a conscience) some members of the GB likely wanted to drop all WT blood dogmas. Could this change the mind of a JW, whose child needed a blood transfusion after an accident, if they knew that the conscience of some of the GB think that blood transfusions are not against God's laws?
Do you have a conscience? We all do, but this topic isn't about blood transfusions, is it? Or, is it? I thought this thread was a discussion about "the blood doctrine" was really about blood fractions, but maybe I'm wrong.
Suppose just one thinks this way?
That's ok. With everyone having free will, even you yourself are free to think this way.
Don't JWs have a right to know that their Jehovah does not speak with one voice in this matter of life and death?
What do you mean by this? Did something in the Bible change with respect to life and death? Did the resurrection hope itself suddenly die? Did Jehovah leave the proverbial building for some reason? What are you saying here? You're coming off to me like a fanatic that is having difficulty making sense of the topic. Perhaps if I knew that you understood the topic was about blood fractions, @moshe, I would be of another opinion, but what you are saying in your post seems to me to be a rant if some sort.
@TD:
Okay. Here's a thumbnail sketch of the scenario.... A textbook case of acute thrombocytopenic purpura.
How did you know that this was a textbook case, @TD?
At the emergency room, you're told that the child's platelet count has fallen to <1. A platelet count of <10 is considered life threatening.
Why had your child's platelet count fallen so? If you do not want to say, then don't.
The medical staff does not want to reflexively transfuse platelets because ATP is facially indistinguishable from ITP and a transfusion of platelets can aggravate ITP in the long term. But a sudden drop in blood pressure would indicate internal bleeding and the medical staff would have no choice either way.
All of this might be relevant to the scenario, but why had your child's platelet count fallen to <1?
This is not a case of injury or terminal illness. One and only one blood component has neatly been removed from the child's system and consequently, symptoms and indications are very clear.
Why did this occur, @TD?
My objections to the JW teaching on blood and reasons why I think the JW responses to the situation above were inadequate are primarily Jewish in nature and not things you would likely accept.
You're probably right, but did you wife, who is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, accept these Jewish teachings that were evidently at play here? If so, what was your wife willing to accept that you have reason to believe other Jehovah's Witnesses do not?
But I do believe you would recognize that evitable loss of life is a very serious thing. When a child with a dangerously low platelet count is vomiting their own blood, it would be extremely important that the parent who refuses to authorize the recommended treatment is not simply speculating on what God might want.
A Christian doesn't have to read any tea leaves, @TD: We know exactly what God's will is in this regard.
From King Saul to Uzzah, the Bible gives enough examples of people who violated one of God's commands based on what they had speculated God would want. They were all punished.
Uzzah, yes, but King Saul? No. He didn't speculate; he knew what God had said and he presumptuously decided to take a contrary course. But I don't want to go off topic here, since I do understand the point you're making here. But I don't agree with it.
In this regard, I don't think that JW's are on solid ground. Some try to invoke the incomplete predicate "..." apart from the context that completes it as an independent construction. I hope you're not among them, because this approach violates basic rules of grammar in both languages.
There's nothing about the context that affects the words "απεχεσθαι...και αιματος" for the rest of the verse at Acts 15:29, which says " ε?ξ ?ν διατηρου?ντες ε?αυτου`ς ε? πρα´ξετε" would literally be rendered, "Out of which thoroughly keeping selves well you will perform." Because Greek is an expertise of yours, you don't suffer from thinking in English as I do, but, still, I don't see any grammatical rules being broken by the NWT in rendering the rest of this verse, "If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper."
[EDIT: I'm sorry, @TD, but I didn't know how to paste Greek characters into my post. Oh, well.]
JW's with academic qualifications in this area avoid that pitfall and some, like Rolf Furuli for example, have produced some very elegant reasoning. But it is fatally marred by speculation.
Ok, but this would be your opinion, right?
I'm not necessarily looking for a classical Aristotlean three-point syllogism here, but the gap between the consumption of blood and the transfusion of blood needs a more substantial bridge than gut feeling.
You are certainly free to think that Jehovah's Witnesses read Acts 15:20, 29, based on a "gut feeling" they have about what the holy spirit says in these verses, but I see no "gap."
@Mary:
A family member is diagnosed with a horrifying form of leukemia called Myelodysplasia and he's in the advanced stages of it.... [N]othing but a stem cell/bone marrow transplant will be able to save his life.
In order for this to work though, his present bone marrow has to be destroyed by chemotherapy and ... he's going to need multiple blood transfusions to keep him alive until the treatment has been administered.
I quote here just the portions of your post that I want you to know were my focus as I read about your brother. You said two things that are mutually exclusive: (1) He was in the advanced stages of Myelodysplasia and needed a bone marrow transplant to save his life; and (2) Chemo was going to kill him unless he compromised his integrity to Jehovah by accepting blood transfusions to sustain his life until the transplant that could have saved his life had been administered.
Unfortunately, this man is a Jehovah's Witness and he's been taught his entire life that God would rather see him dead rather than accept blood from another human being, even though no one was slaughtered or killed in order to obtain the needed blood.
Really?
If he accepts a blood transfusion to try and save his life, he will be murdered by God at Armageddon and will never get a resurrection---his eternal salvation is in [jeopardy].
You don't know this to be true and I don't either. No one knows whether Jesus -- who will be the One to decide such things, and not Jehovah -- will not extend mercy to anyone that should succumb to fear of death and accept a blood transfusion. Peter succumbed to fear and Jesus forgave him after Peter had three times denied knowing Jesus. The point is, Mary, that we want to do the best we can to obey God in everything, and when we cannot do that, we have a helper with the Father, whose righteousness covers our many shortcomings. I believe he is both able and willing to show mercy those whose faith was either weak or just gave out when suffering the stress of not wanting to make the wrong decision and fear of death. (Hebrews 2:15)
Not only that but if he takes the transfusion, he'll be completely shunned by fellow family members and life long friends---in fact, everyone he loves will look through him as though he does not exist.... The man decides (against the Oncologists' advice) to forego the transfusions as he doesn't want to disobey Jehovah.
You don't know this to be true either. His oncologist was evidently powerless to save him, but the doctor was perfectly willing to transfuse blood in violation of God's command to the world since Noah stepped off the ark in an attempt to try to give your brother a few additional years of life and at what cost to the doctor? The oncologist puts nothing at all on the line, but your brother puts the relationship he had had with his God on the line, yes, in that case, "his eternal salvation is in jeopardy."
Before I leave this point, @Mary, I need you to adopt the mindset of a pragmatist. I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but I know how to think like a pragmatist, since when anyone requires medical care, it's not only important to know what options are available to you, but it's also important to make a risk assessment as to these options so that you can make an informed decision. Let's say your brother, although being one of Jehovah's Witnesses, adopted the mindset of a pragmatist so that he made a risk assessment and informed himself as to what all of the risks were, and he decided against the blood transfusions for a very different reason, but just didn't give you the reason. Where am I going with this?
Chemo was going to kill your brother if he wasn't willing to accept blood transfusions to keep him alive, but if a blood transfusion lowers the immune response, making it harder to fight infections -- and it does! -- and it predisposes a sick patient for the inset of infections that their immune system could have fought off were it not for the transfused blood having been introduced into the patient body, what guarantee did the oncologist give him that he would survive until the bone marrow transplant had been administered? Maybe you won't, but I'd like you to answer this question.
I know you're bitter, that you hate Jehovah's Witnesses, that you hate "the cult" to which your brother belonged, that you hate the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses, so you hate me, too, and I know that I would be dead right now if you could choke me out, or stab me to death or you'd empty all 17 rounds of a Glock 9mm into my body if you could because we believe in things like free will, in not violating one's own conscience, and we also believe in a person's right to make informed choices. I know you're bitter and hate the fact that every time you think of your brother you think of your brother's "cult" and how you wish he had refused to believe all of the nonsense we teach.
You also do not believe in the law of informed consent, the right of the brother to receive sufficient information that would permit him to either accept or decline the doctor's advice. You believe in stripping folks of their right to self-determination and no doubt, if you could legally get away with it, you would have forced these blood transfusions on your brother. I know this, @Mary: That there are men -- soldiers that have returned from the war in Iraq -- that were faced with the choice of having both of their legs amputated or dying in a number of days or weeks from the inset of wet gangrene in them that have chosen to die because they did not wish live the reset of their lives without legs and believed their wives deserved a whole man. They died so that the family could move on.
I know heard of soldiers that had decided to stay behind in a fire fight against the enemy "in theater," as they say, in order to afford fellow soldiers the opportunity to escape capture or death. They died because they loved their country. But it's that cult and its governing body that put those ideas in your brother's head as to what the Bible meant when it directed Christians to "abstain ... from blood." They are who are the ones responsible for the decision your brother made to reject blood transfusions. Your brother died because of his love for God. How ridiculous is that?
djeggnog, your blind devotion to an outdated man-made law and lack of understanding of human nature is pathetic and nauseating to anyone who reads your bullshit tripe. If the Governing Body said tomorrow that it was okay to accept transfusions, you'd suddenly get [amnesia] over all the crap you've spewed on the subject and fully back them in anything they said on the matter. In other words, you're not interested in 'truth', you're only interested in being a 'yes man' to a bunch of senile old thugs who wouldn't glance in your direction or give you the time of day if you needed it.
It's not "blind devotion"; it's faith. I've never met your brother, but I'm like him in this respect: I love Jehovah and I sanctify his name, for He is my God and is also your brother's God. I give honor to the Lord Jesus Christ, whose is the King of kings and Lord of lords, for he is my king and is also your brother's king. My hope is that I will endure to the end of my life and keep my integrity the same as your brother did.
@jgnat:
You have judged me as a possible second-rate Christian, djeggnogg, but I beg your indulgence to value my questions and comments on their own worth, rather than their source.
This was not my intention and I apologize. At the risk of coming off exactly as I did to you in my previous missive, I believe it's possible for you to comprehend the reasons I might provide you in response to some of your Bible-related questions, I don't believe you will understand all of my reasons unless you have taken the time to study the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses. I wrote:
I wouldn't exactly expect you to understand the mindset of a Christian, even if you should hold yourself out to be such, because not all Christians are alike, nor do all Christians believe the same things unless they should be Jehovah's Witnesses.
Perhaps it would have been more pleasing to you if I had said "I wouldn't exactly expect you to understand the mindset of Jehovah's Christian Witnesses, even if you should hold yourself out as such, because not all Christians are alike....," but upon reading what I wrote, I'm pretty sure that I offended you and I apologize. Many of the things I might say here thought may be a bit difficult to understand, and it may be necessary to ask your spouse, or someone you trust that is one of Jehovah's Witnesses, for a more comprehensive explanation if you should not trust me to give you one.
My chief complaint, which I'll repeat here, is that the prohibition on blood is strictly a religious choice. If God had not commanded the prohibition, Jehovah's Witnesses would readily accept blood transfusions. Do you agree with this?
Yes.
@djeggnog wrote:
I'm pretty sure that many Jehovah's Witnesses would have availed themselves of medical treatment that involved the use of blood factions had they been available before they died of whatever the illness was to which they succumbed, but unfortunately many of the blood factions that I mention above have only come online in the years since they decease, so it is possible that many of us today will not succumb to the same illnesses to which our loved [ones] succumbed were we willing to accept the treatment that the latest medical technology has produced that was not available to those that have died.
So you are of the opinion that there are those among Jehovah's Witnesses that do not accept blood transfusions for strictly religious reasons?
@jgnat wrote:
I would assume all of them...unless they have been led to believe that there are "scientific" reasons to avoid the risk of transfusion.
I cannot possibly speak for all Jehovah's Witnesses here and confidently tell you why any of them wouldn't have scientific reasons as well as religious reasons for not accepting blood transfusions, one of them being that they do not wish to risk a quality of life issue arising after their acceptance of a blood transfusion for once one's immune system has been compromised with someone else's blood, there is no way to reverse whatever adverse effects will result therefrom.
@djeggnog wrote:
Do you also opine that among these that there are those that abstain from blood without being fully aware of the potential consequences of their doing so? Like who, for example, @jgnat?
@jgnat wrote:
My husband for one. He does not fully understand the consequences and hopes the decision will be taken out of his hands.
If anyone should find themselves having to face a surgical procedure of any kind, I cannot imagine that your husband would not inform himself of the potential consequences that will ensue were he to accept a blood transfusion. Often an employee doesn't bother to read the section in the Employment Manual on his or her Worker's Compensation benefits until an accident occurs on the day and he needs to know how much of his or her regular salary he or she will receive while they on Worker's Comp leave, but eventually they do inform themselves, and so would your husband.
@djeggnog wrote:
If the stand that Jehovah's Witnesses take with regard to blood transfusions -- not those that tend to do what they are told to do and never think as to the reasons why that should or may not want to accept a blood transfusion, but those that both know and can articulate why they are unwilling to accept blood transfusions -- is a foolish one, then what we are doing cannot possibly have a scriptural foundation since the Creator of the earth and all of the living creatures in it isn't a foolish God.
@jgnat wrote:
Another possible explanation is that a misguided congregation misunderstood a bible precept, and have imposed an unbearable prohibition on [its] people. Not God's fault at all.
Ok.
@djeggnog wrote:
Please elaborate. What "pseudo-scientific 'reasons'" do Jehovah's Witnesses teach with respect to the repugnance they feel about disobeying God and using blood in any other way than He directs in His word in view of our appreciation of it as being something sacred to our God?
@jgnat wrote:
you've mentioned one of them - the fear of the transfusion itself and the possibility of acquiring a donor's disease like hepatitis.
My question was about the repugnance that Jehovah's Witnesses teach others as to any of His servants deliberately disobeying His command to "abstain ... from blood." Although I'm sure that there are some Jehovah's Witnesses whose reasons are non-religious ones, but our reasons are religious ones.
@jgnat wrote:
They make transfusions look scary!
@djeggnog wrote:
How so? We don't make transfusions look scary at all. I note that in a different thread you wrote:
[@jgnat:]
I've seen the Blood video, a deceiving mix of scripture, fearmongering and pseudoscience, with plenty of lab coats in view.
[@djeggnog:]
What this description or yours tells me is that you really didn't understand the subject of the video.... The truth is that we want Witnesses and non-Witnesses alike to be wary of those who would have them believe the myth that a blood transfusion can save their life, for the risks associated with the use of blood in connection with the transfusion of blood and blood products far outweigh the benefits that one hopes to obtain.
@jgnat wrote:
There are risks associated with any transfusion, which you have already mentioned.
But my point, again, here is that the risks associated with blood transfusions far outweigh the benefits that one hopes to obtain from accepting such as treatment for a medical illness.
@dgp:
I have always wondered how this blood issue would apply to, say, a 2-year old haemophiliac who is given a transfusion by her parents. This little girl would obviously NOT understand the issues at stake, and therefore it would be impossible for her to make the decision herself. It would always be a decision made by her parents.
And this is how it should be. While this thread is about blood fractions and we are touching upon blood transfusions, the focus of it is about blood fractions that Jehovah's Witnesses will accept..
It is always said that YHWH will punish or reward you on the basis of what you do. Apparently he would also punish or reward you on the basis of what someone else would do in your name.
No. I didn't follow your logic here either.
I wonder how it is that Jehovah's witnesses don't consider this murder.
Why would this be murder? Murder is when you kill someone with malice aforethought. It's not reasonable to think that a parent -- any loving parent -- would want to maliciously kill their own child.
Someone else would make the decision for the little girl. That someone would decide over her life or death.
To allow someone else to make the decision for the little girl (e.g., a doctor or a judge) would be to wrest the rights of the parent to raise their own children in the religion of their parent's choice, not to have someone else decide for the parents what religious scruples the child will or will not observe. For example, parents may have religious reasons for not allowing their child to participate in Christmas and Easter activities because they are Jewish, and they would resent it if they were hauled off to court only to have a judge rule on behalf of the school administrator to force the child to participate in these "harmless" holiday activities. I'm pretty sure that Jewish child will be attending a different school the very next day after the court hearing. No one has the right to force their own religion on someone else's child.
You can claim that parents can choose the best treatment for their children, but, can you say that the best treatment is the one that consists of no treatment and results in death?
I don't know of any of Jehovah's Witnesses that would ever opt to not give their child the very best medical treatment available. Jehovah's Witnesses are not against receiving good quality medical treatment and they are willing to pay whatever the cost might be to protect their children from any such medical emergency that should arise. Jehovah's Witnesses will accept blood fractions, but we just won't accept blood transfusions, and will reject such being included as being a part of any comprehensive medical treatment rendered to them.
@jgnat:
DGP, the impossibility of a minor to make a choice like this is the very reason why the government/courts will intervene here in Canada on behalf of minors. If adults want to risk their lives to follow their beliefs, fine...but they cannot make that choice for minors.
If what you say is true, that's too bad for Canadians, for when it comes to one's choice of religion or in what religion a child will be raised, such decisions have in the past been sacrosanct here in the US, but maybe what you are saying here is not true and children do have freedom of choice in Canada as they do here in the US.
And, thankfully, the secular authorities disagree on this point. Where children's lives are in danger, the government/courts have granted temporary custody to the "crown" ("state" in the US). Once the child is out of danger, he/she is returned to the parents.
In what kind of "danger" would a child be exactly? A judge can no more guarantee that giving a blood transfusion to a child will be safe nor that such a transfusion of blood it will not result in complications as the proximate result of a compromised immune system, and if the blood administered to the child patient should be more than two weeks' old (blood degrades after 42 days, so some hospitals have no problem dispensing blood older than two weeks!), there may be a significant risk of complications following one or more transfusions, including post-operative infections, respiratory problems, kidney failure or death.
@dgp wrote:
Would the Watchtower render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar in this case? Do they do it in Canada?"
@jgnat wrote:
The WTBTS has represented parents in cases like this, and attempted to stop or halt temporary custody proceedings. The court proceedings typically take longer to resolve than to receive a transfusion, so the WTBTS/parents can make a show of standing up for their religious rights without endangering the children. We have also had cases where the WTBTS/parents have taken full advantage of the civil courts to sue over the course of action after the child has received the life-saving transfusion. Again, safely after any danger to the child is past.
It's interesting when I read posts from folks that claim to be Christians while demonstrating their lack of faith in God by making the state ("Caesar") superior to the God that they claim to be serving, for their God is evidently impotent and doesn't deserve his worshipers' praise or respect, or not as much so as does Caesar is deserving of praise or respect it seems. In the age of AIDS, human papilloma virus (HPV), and folks coming up as HIV+ following a blood transfusion, you cannot really think that a judge will open himself or herself up to a wrongful death lawsuit for signing off on an order to transfuse a child at the behest of a doctor, a relative or concerned individual over the objection of the child parents, do you? Not in Canada and definitely not here in the US. Those days when doctors went to court to get a judge to force a transfusion upon someone are over. Or is it that you do you not read your local newspaper?
@djeggnog
...OUTLAW