@TD:
It's nice to talk to someone with a knowledge and interest in this area.
I've been admittedly selfish in this thread since I've never heard anything like your story before.
Drug induced thrombocytopenia is not an hereditary condition. Theoretically it can happen to anyone, but it's more common in children because of their more active immune systems. In technical terms this condition is caused by a drug dependant platelet reactive antibody.
I may have heard about (probably not!) drug-induced thrombocytopenia, but I don't recall reading anything about this, and while you are saying here that "acute thrombocytopenic purpura" is not hereditary, I believe "thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura" is hereditary, and while you indicate here that your son's condition -- obviously idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura -- was caused by a drug-dependant platelet-reactive antibody. As you know, I'm not a doctor, but was your son taking quanine? You said that there were "no injuries, no antibiotics and no aspirin," but might this have been a quanine-induced thrombocytopenia episode? I found an article on the 'net where someone's platelet count had dropped to <2:
http://tinyurl.com/5tbx7lj
What happens is that a molecule in the drug will [interact] with the cell membrane to produce a [neoantigen]. This is not necessarily harmful unless by chance there happens to be an antibody in circulation that is a match for this new antigen. A lot depends on what diseases and immunizations the person has recently had. If antibodies bind to the antigen on the platelet surface, the normal housekeeping functions of the body suddenly become harmful because now it's not just worn out and damaged platelets that are being destroyed via thrombophagocytosis; all the platelets are being destroyed.
This is a lot to contemplate. I want to say that I didn't mean to pry, but that wouldn't be true since I don't learn anything unless I ask questions. You see, I don't just listen to what folks say, but I will often do a little research, and then end up doing some lab work or I might ask questions of professors that make their living teaching certain subjects in which I have an interest. Thank you for sharing your story with me, @TD.
I have some questions about the balance of what you've said, but I'd like to preface them by saying that when a JW tells me that blood is sacred, they're preaching to the choir. I think blood is sacred too.
But when you say this, it's clear to me that you don't mean what I mean when you say this.
Transfusion is a use of blood as blood.
And this is the problem. As I view it, you do not view blood as being sacred. You see no problem with re-use of it as blood. I do.
It is not a use of blood as a food, ink, dye, stain, paint, gelling agent or any other use known to the ancient world.
You're right. I agree. So...?
Do JW's simply assume that transfusion medicine should be judged under the same rubric as the mundane uses of blood known to the ancient world or is there a logical construction that would get us to that conclusion?
The transfusion medicine "doctrine" is a re-use of blood that disregards God's command to "abstain ... from blood" at Acts 15:20. So, yes, it's the same rubric.
@djeggnog wrote:
The second one, to abstain "from blood," means that it cannot be eaten or taken into our bodies in any form, whether this be orally by drinking a cup of it or intravenously.
@TD wrote:
My question would be how do you know that it means this?
I explain how I know below.
There's no such thing as abstinence from a physical object. What would it mean to "Abstain from sky" or "Abstain from ocean?" When the word "Abstain" is used in connection with a physical object the meaning is implicitly understood. In order to make the meaning explicit, an interpolation must be made. (i.e. The translator inserts a finite verb) For a translator, the context is the only legitimate source.
You said something like this in your previous post, so let me say first that you're putting the wrong word into the blank. You used the words "ocean" and "sky," but put the word "foods" into the "abstain from what" blank. In a previous post, I gave you "abstain from peanuts," but in the Bible I lifted the phrase "abstain from foods" from the apostle Paul's words at 1 Timothy 4:3, and so if we were to substitute "foods" for "what," what might this phrase mean?
o abstain from foods
- abstain from kicking foods
- abstain from burning foods
- abstain from criticizing foods
- abstain from mocking foods
- abstain from bashing foods
- abstain from eating foods
- abstain from drinking foods
Which of these would seem appropriate to you? Now try alcohol, meaning the beverage, just like there as there aren't two kinds of blood, one for consumption and one for topical use, and tell me: What might this phrase mean?
o abstain from alcohol
- abstain from kicking alcohol
- abstain from burning alcohol
- abstain from criticizing alcohol
- abstain from mocking alcohol
- abstain from bashing alcohol
- abstain from eating alcohol
- abstain from drinking alcohol
Which of these would seem appropriate to you? Now try blood and tell me: What might this phrase mean?
o abstain from blood
- abstain from kicking blood
- abstain from burning blood
- abstain from criticizing blood
- abstain from mocking blood
- abstain from bashing blood
- abstain from eating blood
- abstain from drinking blood
"First-century culture and the context of the Decree. In reading the command to "abstain...from blood" it is clear that something is missing: a verb. The Decree does not come right out and say, "abstain from drinking or eating blood."
Sure it does. This was originally Greek and what James said at Acts 15:20 was translated into English and this phrase "abstain .... from blood" doesn't require a verb at all. He's entitled to his opinion, as are you, but we're just playing tiddly winks, aren't we, @TD?
He uses the phrase "abstain from paint" to make a different point; it's a useless strawman to prop up what he argues here about the need for "a verb of some kind ... to complete the thought": His thought. But the phrase "abstain from blood" requires no verb at all and this is no "work-around," as you characterize what he says:
"It is clear that 'eating' and 'drinking' are to be understood in the context of the Decree, for they were the only verbs that could have been understood."
Exactly, but how does the following statement he makes connect up?
"But the fact is, there is no verb specifically stated, so it appears that the holy spirit left the matter open in terms of what verb a Christian should supply....
The holy spirit doesn't leave matters open for the reader to interpret the need for an unspoken verb. I submit that he made this up in order to support the conclusion he had already reached (like when an evolutionist touts DNA and how wonderful the genetic code in living things are, only to then state his yet-unproven conclusion, "But here we are, the proof that evolution exists!"):
"The use of an unqualified prohibition regarding the use of blood would cover the present means of taking blood into one's system (eating/drinking) and it would also allow for a Christian to evaluate future uses of blood such as transfusions." (p. 434)
This explanation takes into account the limitations of the language....
You read Greek and I believe you have a good understanding of nouns and verbs, so maybe I could get you to analyze "abstain from foods" (1 Timothy 4:3) as you did "abstain ... from blood" (Acts 15:20), and hear what you have concluded as to difference between "foods" and "blood."
It appears though that you're telling me that the inclusion of transfusion in the prohibition is clear and explicit (?) On that I would disagree
I believe Acts 15:20 to be both clear and implicit, @TD.
When you read a verse, like Acts 15:20, you read the words, but the words on the page may not necessarily convey to you the meaning that it does to a servant of God, who has God's spirit, as I do. For example, you know how to read the surrounding verses, like, for example, I'm pretty sure it occurred to you, when you were trying to get the sense of what "abstain from ... blood" means in this verse, to read the following verse at Acts 15:21. Of course, you did that, but were you moved in some way by the spirit as you read this verse? Did the holy spirit cause you to think about what the verse meant when it says that "from ancient times Moses ... is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath"? What exactly does this verse mean by this, and how does what it says connect up with the verse previous to this one, the one at Acts 15:20 that we're now discussing? Who is Moses and why were those attending the synagogues back then reading aloud about him on every sabbath?
I know you don't have holy spirit, @TD; to my knowledge, you've never claimed to have it. Your wife is one of Jehovah's Witnesses and, as such, she is in possession of holy spirit, but because you, her husband, are not one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I would consider you to be -- based on the discussions I've had with you here -- a thinker? Yes. a very nice guy ?Yes. And a worldling? Yes, a worldling, but a very nice guy, who is a thinker.
I'm privy to God's spirit. I have it in abundance and whenever I speak -- even if I'm being silly -- it is always with me, which is why my speech is "wholesome" most of the time -- notice how I qualified this wholesomeness, because sometimes I slip -- or to use another spiritual word, "healthful." (Titus 2:1, 8)
When you quote verses from the Bible, you are quoting "spiritual words" (1 Corinthians 2:13), as am I when I do it, words taught by spirit and not by human wisdom, such as are the things one learns in a school, but the difference is, I also act according to the instructions and directives given me by means of holy spirit. Should you quoted these words to me from the Bible, @TD, it is not you that is speaking them, but the holy spirit that is speaking to me, these words are on your tongue. You may be a worldling now, but commit no crime if you should allow the holy spirit to speak through you by quoting this verse or that verse from God's word, the Bible. Like the kids say, "It's all good, @TD."
Your question was, how do I know that "abstain ... from blood" means do not eat, do not drink, do not re-use blood (as in transfusing blood from one person into someone else, which, when you think about it, is really no different than what a cannibal does)?
Well, in trying to get the sense of Acts 15:20, the question that ought to have come up after you had read Acts 15:21 (to pick up the context) is this: What did the apostle James mean when he referred to Moses being read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath? The holy spirit tells me that James could not have been referring to the Torah, although often when "Moses" is mentioned in the Bible, it is a reference to the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, as the reference to "Moses" by Jesus at Matthew 8:2-4 was to the third book of the Torah, Leviticus, specifically the passage at Leviticus 14:2-32, who told the former leper that he had just cured of his leprosy to go and "show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses appointed, for the purpose of a witness to them."
James could not have been referring to the Torah despite our finding Jesus, at Mark 12:26, making reference "to the book of Moses," which was actually to Exodus, the second book of the Torah, since there is no such thing as the "book of Moses," when Jesus makes reference to "the account about the thornbush," and paraphrases what God said to Moses -- "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob" -- at Exodus 3:6.
This was the year 49 AD, and upon Jesus' death, the Jews were no longer obliged to keep the Law of Moses, and were we to contextually the examine the circumstances that had existed back in 49 AD as set forth toward the beginning of this chapter, at Acts 15:5, we would find that some Jewish Christians that had formerly belongs to "the sect of the Pharisees" had been preaching to the non-Jewish Gentiles that had also become believers that "It is necessary to circumcise them and charge them to observe the law of Moses." Yes, these men from Judea, these Jewish Christians, had been teaching their Gentile Christian brothers: "Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." (Acts 15:1)
So, clearly, the issue here was whether it was necessary for Gentile Christians to be circumcised as had all Jewish Christians before they became Christians, but what James states at Acts 15:20, beginning with the just before it at Acts 15:19, helps us to understand what he was saying about "Moses ... being read about in the synagogues on every sabbath" at Acts 15:21:
"My decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood."
So, then, what was James saying about Moses? To what in the Torah as he referring at Acts 15:21?
was being read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath?
That God had indicated His will with respect to these "necessary things" (Acts 15:28) from which His worshippers needed to abstain, not listing circumcision at all, but listing the four "necessary things" that had predated the Law, but which Moses had written in the first book of the Torah -- Genesis -- which "necessary things" all true worshippers needed to observe, whether they be Jew or Gentile, at Acts 15:28:
"For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!
So while the requirement to observe the Law of Moses had now gone away, the requirement "to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols" (Genesis 35:2; Exodus 8:25-27), "to keep abstaining ... from blood," "to keep abstaining ... from things strangled" (Genesis 9:3, 4), and "to keep abstaining ... from fornication" (Genesis 26:8-11; 34:2-7; 19:5-11) continued upon Christians, and by extension, upon all mankind for God had given such commands to Noah and to Jacob, among others, before the Law had come into existence and mankind itself was obliged to observe these "necessary things" after the Law had come to an end.
Some have suggested that the prohibition against idolatry ("to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols"), drinking blood ("to keep abstaining ... from blood") eating blood ("to keep abstaining ... from things strangled") and immoral sexual relations ("to keep abstaining ... from fornication") were temporary, an olive branch given to appease the Jewish Christians that had been railing against Gentile Christians because they felt circumcision to be a 'necessary thing' in order to tamp down the arguments that were taking place at the time between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.
However, idolatry, drinking blood, eating blood and immoral sexual relations were wrong before God gave the Law to Israel. These things were wrong under the Law of Moses. These things were wrong after the Law was fulfilled upon the death of Jesus Christ. And IMO, these things continue to be wrong today.
Now were I a doctor and I were asked to give someone a blood transfusion, I would have no problem doing this, since, as in the example about the nation of Israel, who, as God's people, were obliged to properly drain the blood in meat before eating any of it, but who, as God's people, could opt to sell an unbled carcass to a foreigner, for non-Christians are, in effect, "foreigners," too, and no Christian can impose their own religious beliefs upon a non-Christian. (Deuteronomy 14:21)
While the consciences of some Christians might not be able to do this, my conscience would not be disturbed in the least to give someone as many blood transfusions as would be medically necessary, but I would have to recuse myself were the patient a betrayer of Lord Jesus Christ. Only food, and not blood, is sanctified by prayer over it, and a Christian that is willing to accept a blood transfusion is someone lacking faith in the value of Jesus' blood.
But here's the point: When a Christian abstains from blood, he or she, in effect, expresses his or her faith that the precious blood of Jesus Christ redeems him or her and will save him or her, not just for another 10, 20 or 30 years in this life, but completely, that is to say, save him or her forever.
@TD wrote:
I have some questions about the balance of what you've said, but I'd like to preface them by saying that when a JW tells me that blood is sacred, they're preaching to the choir. I think blood is sacred too.
To me though, it doesn't necessarily follow that the sacredness of blood is profaned or desecrated when it is performing the function that God designed it to do in the first place. (Circulating in the arteries and veins)
@just n from bethel wrote:
I think that is the best line of reasoning I've ever heard. Anyone who tried to argue against this point would have to be either retarded or blinded by a cult.
What "line of reasoning" did you hear? The first paragraph that you quoted from @TD's post is just a statement to me that he also believes blood to be sacred. @TD's second paragraph is just the expression of his opinion. Do you know how you can tell that it's an opinion? Because the first two words of this second paragraph you quoted are "To me...."
If you have nothing to say, it's not a crime for you say nothing. Can you tell a joke? Can you be funny? Outlaw thinks he can be funny (and I believe he's even funnier when I'm the brunt of his jokes!). If you have something to say of substance, then by all means, say it. Otherwise, saying nothing is ok. Someone once said it's better to be silent and thought a fool -- not that I'm saying that you're a fool -- than to speak and remove all doubt.
@TD wrote:
To me though, it doesn't necessarily follow that the sacredness of blood is profaned or desecrated when it is performing the function that God designed it to do in the first place. (Circulating in the arteries and veins)
@miseryloveselders wrote:
By the way something I've been thinking about since following this thread is, the Law's stipulations regarding blood were dealing with the blood of animals, not humans. Its got me wondering if this debate is a lot more simple than we're actually treating it. We're arguing over the use of blood being transfused from one human to another human. The Law's intent was regarding the blood of an animal being consumed by a human as food/drink. That being said, for a Christian to not be obligated to follow the Law, and not consuming the blood of an animal, what is there to debate about at that point?
Seriously??? Just two points and I'm done with this: Point #1: Can you imagine transfusing animal blood into a human being? Point #2: If God put animal blood to be sprinkled on His altar to representatively atone for the sins of human beings, where's the logic in God's allowing human blood to be sprinkled on His altar (or, in this case, transfused onto someone else's altar when animal blood and human blood belong to God!) when this animal blood foreshadowed the perfect human sacrifice of the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world?
@garyneal:
I find it sad that we even have to have this discussion to begin with.
Why? You clearly are out of your depth as are most folks that criticize Jehovah's Witnesses for doing something that we have always been able to do, but wasn't such a big deal until the last 15 years or so. No one called these "blood fractions," even though this is what they were. However, because of the prevalence of AIDS and folks worrying that they might become HIV+ from a blood transfusion, people that weren't interested in either blood management or bloodless substitutes have fallen into line behind Jehovah's Witnesses who were already pursuing such alternatives to blood transfusions, but for religious reasons.
If the Watchtower's stance on no use of blood is purely on religious grounds then it would follow that no use of blood is permissible. The fact that the Society allows blood fractions, to me, negates the whole premise of their stance.
Methane is a component of natural gas (the other six (6) components are thane, propane, butane, pentane, hexane, heptanes) and gasoline in a component of crude oil, but plastics that come from crude oil/natural gas would be a fraction since it is a byproduct of crude oil. It is no longer crude oil and it cannot be used as fuel. The same thing is true about blood fractions, which are a byproduct of one of the four components of whole blood. Because these fractions are no longer blood, and are no longer resemble the blood components from which they are derived, Jehovah's Witnesses may use such blood fractions.
If the Society wishes to argue that abstaining from blood is 'better medicine' because it helps people avoid blood born pathogens, then it would follow that those pathogens could also be contracted from blood fractions.
No, it doesn't. What you just said is ridiculous.
The truth is, the Society has painted itself into a corner with no way out.
What "corner"?
Too many lives have been lost defending this doctrine to just all of a sudden rescind it.
Jehovah's Witnesses have rescinded nothing.
Sadly, far too many witnesses are too captive of the concept that the GB speaks for God to even dare question it.
The governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses does not speak for God. You people here on JWN repeat this mantra over and over again and bash our governing body, and for what reason? Envy? NoOne is your god and you are always seeking to do NoOne's will. NoOne is the god of your own selfish desires, and you will say anything, do anything, to please your god. I get it. Like my God, Jehovah, NoOne cannot be seen, but not like my God, the true God, NoOne is a false god and cannot save you, cannot save anyone. Just as you speak for your god, I speak for my God. Do you want book, chapter and verse on that, even though you don't believe any of what the Bible teaches? It's 2 Corinthians 5:20:
We are therefore ambassadors substituting for Christ, as though God were making entreaty through us. As substitutes for Christ we beg: "Become reconciled to God."
Of course, Paul here makes specific reference to the anointed brothers of Jesus Christ, but I also make entreaty for God as a substitute for Christ as an envoy as I, too, beg folks to "become reconciled to God." My God can and will save me. Like I said, NoOne can't save you or anyone. NoOne is an impotent god.
@djeggnog
