by jgnat 317 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Moshe,
Why TD, they're JW's, that's why!
Well this is one of several areas where conflicting things have been said and an interested person can call the information desk at Patterson and get clarification. I've done it. They will confirm that the teaching is an interpretation based on Scripture --that Jehovah's Witnesses feel that the principles behind the prohibitions on blood would apply by extension to transfusion medicine.
Djeggnog,
I have a question for you, if you have time for it.
Introduction:
Watchtower doctrine prohibits the conscientious acceptance of plasma. If a Witness does conscientiously accept transfusion of plasma they are, as a result, subject to repercussion of Watchtower’s organized communal shunning policy known as disassociation (prior to year 2000 the term disfellowshipping was applied in these cases).
Watchtower doctrine does not prohibit the conscientious acceptance of cryosupernatant and cryoprecipitate. If a Witness does conscientiously accept transfusion of these blood products they are not, as a result, subject to repercussion of Watchtower’s organized communal shunning policy known as disassociation. Rather, other Witnesses are expected to respect the conscientious choice made by the individual who accepted these blood products.
Cryoprecipitate is rendered from a unit of plasma. The leftover of this rendering is cryosupernatant. These two blood products are the sum total of the original plasma unit. If you want to have the original plasma unit, all you have to do is place the cryoprecipitate back into the cryosupernatant.
My question:
What biblical statement tells us that Christians should react differently to a fellow believer accepting transfusion of plasma versus accepting transfusion of cryosupernatant and cryoprecipitate? If both the latter are going to be transfused and it is acceptable to fellow believers then why pay someone to dismantle what you are only putting back together by transfusion?
Marvin Shilmer
that Jehovah's Witnesses feel that the principles behind the prohibitions on blood would apply by extension to transfusion medicine.
Well, TD, it's not like they take a poll of JWs to verify this, do they?
Take Marvin's information on the loyatty oath that all the JW presidents have signed in order to get a passport- when I have shown a JW the oath and ask, if JWs will sign this, they have 100% said, NO- they are neutra, l BUT--, then when I show them the proof that their dead WT presidents signed it, well, the fun begins, now they say, it's uh, OK , after all the GB signed it!
Well, TD, it's not like they take a poll of JWs to verify this, do they?
That's what's humorous about it Moshe. As far as what the community of Jehovah's Witnesses actually believes it's not true at all.
The average JW still believes that they decline whole blood and the so-called major components because the phrase "keep abstaining...from blood." should be treated as if it were spoken in an operating room
The subtleties at work in the June 15, 2004 Watchtower were utterly lost on them.....
I think it was cofty . . .
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?
DJeggnog . . . perhaps you were still giddy from the realisation that you are so superior in intellect to everyone here . . . but if you read the above question again, you will see that you missed the point entirely . . . and failed to answer the question.
Unfortunately for you, embodied in this question is the identification of the basic flaw in the doctrines you espouse . . . thus deserving your open-minded and thoughtful consideration
Owing to the high level of intellect and thinking ability you possess . . . I will leave you to work it out for yourself. If you have a folder named "humility" in that high performance hard drive of yours . . . then I encourage you to open it soon.
As for me . . . I will pray earnestly for the speedy arrival of your "eureka" moment.
Luvonyall
What about my questions?
It should be obvious that a blood transfusion causes no harm, bodily injury or death to the blood donor, which is not the same as when the Bible talks about pouring the blood out on the ground or shedding blood, which= death.
What rule do you live by?- A: all things are forbidden, unless they are explicitly allowed or,
B: all things are allowed, unless the are explicitly forbidden?
The Bible does not mention blood transfusions at all, eating blood yes, but not transfusions.
God, with his all seeing eye could easily see in to the future and know that blood transfusions would soon be invented, so he could have, by his spirit, made the Bible writers use more explicit language that would have covered the use of blood in transfusions. Could have , but didn't.
However, 99.9% of the world sees no religious problem with blood transfusions- it's only JWs who are stubbornly locked in on a Bible interpretation that denies a life saving blood transfusion for it's members. No doubt, it would be hard for JWs to switch sides after so many JWs have died over the last 50+ years. - if they did reverse themselves, then the issue of innocent lives lost and blood guilt would have to be addressed. Just how do you think Jehovah would punish just such a religion as that? What would be a just punishment for manslaughter done in the name of God?
I talk to my PC and it types whatever it is I might say. I say "might say" because part of this process is correcting the recognition errors that Dragon NaturallySpeaking makes, although transcription accuracy is probably somewhere around 95%.
So you actually speak that all aloud? That is about as cool as it gets. I just wish you had more than Watchtower rederick to spout out. I think we both know you'd make a much better Apostate than you make a Witness Company Man. I hope you know it is meant as a high compliment.
-Sab
It should be obvious that a blood transfusion causes no harm, bodily injury or death to the blood donor, which is not the same as when the Bible talks about pouring the blood out on the ground or shedding blood, which= death.
Moshe . . . that's the basic flaw! . . . without the connection to "life" . . . blood has no spiritual value, literally of symbolically . . . I was hoping DJeggnog's sharp intellect would quickly bring about this realisation . . . perhaps I have misjudged him . . . hopefully he will be grateful for your help and realise that God's intention (ie; respect for "life" - not blood) has been turned on it's head by WTBTS and used to commit pre-meditated murder
dgp . . . Many questions remain unanswered by DJeggnog . . . but I'm sure you'll agree the proper understanding of blood's role in the sanctification of "life" . . . renders most other issues (blood fractions etc) redundant.
Luvonyall
