by jgnat 317 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I guess I am thinking that dj sounds young and misguided? I don't know, I havent been on the board in ages. To Me any discussion on the issues are good discussions. Everything works to the good. Everything bears repeating that has value in my opinion.
He doesn't discuss the issues. His lot in life is to find or create workarounds for flawed Watchtower thinking. He's all about finding token explanations and uses tomes of words to describe them.
-Sab
@jgnat:
Djeggnog invited me to start a new thread about the blood doctrine, which I am happy to do here. His objection was my statement....
My thread, my rules. Name-calling distracts, so let's stick to the facts. Djeggnog, if you can put aside your native prejudices for a while, and imagine me sitting in your living room taking my words as an active, interested listener, we could have a valuable discussion.
If you don't mind, @jgnat, I'll just make an opening statement here as a way of starting this discussion. I'll take all questions later, even from -- sorry to have to say this since you don't want any "name-calling" -- the ignorant and the stupid here that think themselves to be very bright people -- I won't name names, but they are among those that have posted something to your thread, @jgnat -- and they might be "very bright," except we're now getting into the realm of science (not science-fiction), biology and facts, where foolishness has no place. If this thread should get out of hand, I'll just stop posting to it. I note from this statement (from another thread) --
I'm a never-been, but being married to a Witness leaves me open to propositioning on a regular basis.
-- that you've never been one of Jehovah's Witnesses, so 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. (1 Corinthians 1:10) @TD, who, like me, has joined your thread as well, is married to one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but I don't expect him to understand the mindset of a Christian either. Maybe, in time, you and he will opt to become one, but if neither of you don't, it won't be because I didn't try to persuade you to study the Bible so that you might stop all of the faultfinding where imperfect men are concerned that you might actually see the proverbial forest.
When blood is transfused, it's not whole blood that is given, but they receive blood components, plasma being one of them, while some might receive white cells, red cells or platelets, depending on the circumstances. In so doing, this transfused blood can be given to more than just one patient, as was not the case during WWII, when soldiers that had sustained serious, life-threatening injuries were given blood transfusions of whole blood, which contain these primary blood components (plasma, white cells, red cells and platelets).
Today, however these four (4) above-mentioned components are now being processed in such a way that useful nutrients, called "fractions," which are being used by doctors to treat patients for many illnesses. From blood plasma are produced various fractions, such as clotting factors VIII and IX, to treat hemophilia, clotting factors VIII and XIII, and well as fibrinogen, prothrombin, clotting factors II, VII, IX and X, albumin for massive bleeding and liver failure, and to treat burns; also Tig to treat tetanus and HRIg to treat rabies; globulin to provide passive immunity after exposure to certain diseases.
Also, from white cells, we get interferons used to treat certain cancers and infections; from red cells, we get hemin, which is used to inhibit the production of porphyrins; and many fractions are derived from platelets as well, which contain wound-healing factors. Some Jehovah's Witnesses might find it problematic accepting such blood fractions when seeking medical treatment, and that's ok, but it must be understood that none of these processed fractions that are derived from the four blood components constitute whole blood.
One way that I've used to explain why it is not a violation of God's command forbidding the use of blood in a manner that God condemns if to point out how NASA began back in 1998 began the reclamation of wastewater in order to produce clean water, and how it is now able to put urine through a distillation process to recover 85 percent of the water to which a little iodine is added for microbial control, and my understand is that this water tastes like tap water, a little mediciny, because of the iodine, but it's not bad, is what I've heard.
Just as some will not want to drink reclaimed water because they know it was derived from water and urine, there are some that will not want to accept blood fractions because they know it was derived from blood, but it is a matter left up to the individual to decide whether or not he or she will avail themselves of such. The point to be made here though is that accepting any of these blood factions is not the same as accepting transfusion of whole blood, which is hardly done anymore, and is not the same as receiving a blood transfusion where one of the aforementioned components of blood are transfused into someone's body.
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 succumbed were we willing to accept the treatment that the latest medical technology has produced that was not available to those that have died.
@LostGeneration:
Here is one- how could reading the bible alone lead someone to this conclusion....
You cannot unless one is willing to do a bit of research. If you are someone that needs someone to spell things out to them, that's fine, but not everyone is like you, not everyone is so gullible (btw, I'm not saying that you are gullible) so as to swallow what some charismatic individual says without doing any research, and repeat what they've heard or read as many folks, some of them being Jehovah's Witnesses, have done and still do, because research doesn't come as naturally to them as it does to others. Some folks are only willing to do research (meaning that they contact an elder to get his opinion on a matter than do real research!) when someone tragic happens to them or to a member of their immediate family.
Having said all of this, @LostGeneration, I cannot make medical decisions for anyone, but this doesn't mean that there aren't those out there that feel comfortable making such decisions for other people that are not members of their immediate family, but the point I'm making here is that you cannot read anything in the Bible and expect to understand what you are reading without doing some research.
@TD:
As the parent of a child whose platelets were attacked by a common prescription medication, this would be a very interesting discussion.
I see no reason why we shouldn't have that "interesting discussion" to which you are here referring.
@jgnat:
I recall several [occasions] when I have been in the throes of debate with a JW apologist, and a lurker makes the leap from the society. Simply spotting the difference between a reasoned argument and a diatribe is enough for many people.
I haven't followed djeggnog, but the few posts of his I have waded through have me convinced that he's on the edge of leaving the Witnesses. No-one would post so much if they didn't have doubts.
I'm sorry, but while it would just be wrong of me to say that you are a stupid person, and I'm not willing to say this at all, @jgnat, but what I will say is that this is a ridiculous statement, but no one's perfect. I've posted many posts to JWN here, and I would invite you to read them -- not all of them, but some of them -- so that you might get a better idea of the kind of person with whom you're exchanging posts. I've never been called "timid"; no one will ever describe me to you IRL as being "soft." I might be described by some as being "mean," and even if this should be an apt description of me, I'm never mean-spirited. Mere words don't bother me, they don't really set me off.
But they do set me off, so to speak, but whenever I'm righteously indignant or angry with someone, I can and will say some mean things, for despite my many typos, I have mastered the art of using words to anger, inflame, insult someone that deserves in return what he or she gives. Jesus would call those deserving "fools" and "hypocrites," and I'm sure our Lord was more artful in his choice of words when he felt a point needed to be made, but none of these other artful phrases are included in any of the gospel accounts written about him. I do have Christ's mind on matters, so hopefully I'll make some of what I say to the ignorant and foolish among us proud.
@TD:
There's certainly more pleasant ways to spend your time than being gang-tackled on an internet forum, so I sympathize if djeggnog does not want to participate on this thread.
I have enough faith to take on this entire room, @TD. Don't worry about me. I've met a lot of smart people here, you are one of them, @TD, but there is no one here that can outthink me, and I will typically ignore the things that the silly ones here (like @wasblind, like @miseryloveselders, like @OUTLAW) post since they are obviously here for entertainment's sake, whereas I have only one reason for being here. Let them gang-tackle me; let them have their fun, but you and while I ignore them, I'll discuss the more serious things with you and with those that want to do this with me.
He has not commented on the advantages vs. disadvantages of the teaching on blood here, but the statement below was made on this thread.
"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. This is true."
I have mentioned a few things in my initial post to this thread, @TD, but I intend to enlarge upon this above-quoted statement as @jgnat's thread progresses.
djeggnog and I have repeatedly gotten off on the wrong foot on this forum and I acknowledge my share of the blame.
As you should, @TD, <g> but all I ask is that you be yourself, for while I do hold back at times, I am always me. I will withdraw from this thread if I find the discussion here to have become unprofitable.
@jgnat (in another thread) wrote:
Interesting that you know the likely cause of needless deaths; the Watchtower blood doctrine. I've seen the Blood video, a deceiving mix of scripture, fearmongering and pseudoscience, with plenty of lab coats in view. The Watchtower society leaves the impression that bloodless alternatives are safe. Witnesses who follow this advice in good conscience put their lives at risk every day.
@djeggnog (in another thread):
Question #1: What does any of what you mention here have to do with the OP's thread? If your desire here is to hijack @redredrose's thread by piling on these ridiculous conclusions you've reached about the viability of bloodless surgery as an alternative to accepting blood transfusions because you might be willing to subject yourself or members of your family to having a medical procedure where there might be 50%, a 15% or even a 1% risk factor having the potential of causing you or yours lifelong quality of life issues, or even death, when absolutely no sane person would ever voluntarily agree to undertake any medical procedure where there might be any degree of risk to the patient, I might be willing to discuss all of this in a different thread, but you're off topic here.
Start a new thread and maybe I'll join it, but I am not here making any promise to do so. I'll just say it's possible that I'll join your thread were you to start it.
Well, this is that thread, @jgnat. This is your opportunity to prove what I've quoted you as saying (in this other thread) is true: First, that the Society gives "the impression that bloodless alternatives are safe"; second, that those that follow its advice in good conscience are "[putting] their lives at risk every day." I'll repeat here the same statement that @TD quoted from one of my posts in his post:
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.
Prove that this statement is not true. I'll be around.
@jgnat:
I was going to lead with a question whether the abstaining from blood transfusions is strictly a religious decision, with known consequences. It could be argued that a Witness may make that religious decision, provided they are fully aware of the consequences.
So you are of the opinion that there are those among Jehovah's Witnesses that do not accept blood transfusions for strictly religious reasons? 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?
It might be foolish; it might have poor biblical foundation. BUT when have religious taboos been known to be all-wise and well-founded? Nevertheless, religious prohibitions are generally respected in a democratic society (the burka may not be tolerated, or female circumcision).
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.
The Watchtower literature does not just stick to the religious prohibition, does it?
No, our literature doesn't just quote scriptures from the Bible, but I don't think that this is what you meant, so I'll just say that Jesus commanded all of his followers to teach, and so when we teach, we do not just quote scriptures to folks, but we teach those to whom we preach how they might use current events, science, history and logic to explain what words or concepts, like "the world" (John 3:16), "sanctification" and the "kingdom" (Matthew 6:9, 10) mean, just as Jesus and his apostles would use things that were common knowledge to the people to whom they preached.
I believe the WTS has blood on its' hands by muddying the issue with pseudo-scientific "reasons" to abstain from blood.
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?
They make transfusions look scary!
How so? We don't make transfusions look scary at all. I note that in a different thread you wrote:
I've seen the Blood video, a deceiving mix of scripture, fearmongering and pseudoscience, with plenty of lab coats in view.
What this description or yours tells me is that you really didn't understand the subject of the video, perhaps you were hoping it would be a work of fiction, or that you concluded it was not unlike watching a cartoon, like "Finding Nemo." 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.
Yes, one may still be alive after having received one of more blood transfusions, but what of the quality of someone's life when he or she gets home from the hospital, when their body is battling some disease due to some complication that arose due to a compromised immune system, a disease that requires medication costing $200-500/month for the rest of one's natural life to fend off, diseases that might have been avoided had they opted for a bloodless surgical procedure? What's so "scary" about avoiding the taking of unnecessary risks in the first place? (An unnecessary risk" is a risk that could have been avoided had one been willing to give heed to the warning given.)
@djeggnog
DJ, I would like to take you up on two points where I think you are being disingenuous.
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".
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.
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?
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 am in the UK and off to work so could I also just ask 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 trasnsfusion?
If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches the carcass will be unclean till evening. Anyone who eats some of the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. - Lev11:39-40
Think about it this way. Could an Israelite bring blood to the altar that he had collected from his herd without killiing any beasts, or was it necessary for the animal to be killed before the blood had any sacrificial value?
DG -- but it must be understood that none of these processed fractions that are derived from the four blood components constitute whole blood.
Does this mean that each of the four blood components seperately constitute whole blood?
Hello ther DJ,
glad to see that I have an honorable mention in your post ( Using the word honorable lightly )
how is it goin' over in Japan, it's good to know that their internet service hasn't been affected
especially bein' in a part of the country where the need for assistance is great, other than passin'
out pamphlets for the memorial what else is being done to provide for the homeless, hungry, thirsty
and cold people over there. This is not a gang tackle, just a question in which I'm sure you have enough
faith to take on. It's been three days scince, you left message of your departure, and scince you have not
missed a beat in postin' I'm sure you can tell us alot about how things are over there
Just so you know DJ, Feel free to run from this question,
but scince this is the thread your trek to Japan was first mentioned
it was only appropriate to ask on this thread
Page 2 posted by Miz from DJ
" Give you guys/gals a heads up. EggNogg just PMd me to let you know he's not going to be able to discuss the blood doctrine at this time. He's on his way to Japan to encourage all of those affected by the earthquake with Memorial Invitations. The Society gave the ok to start distributing the invitations two weeks early considering the tragedy. He sends his love to JWN, Agape, Eggnogg."
so 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. (1 Corinthians 1:10) @TD, who, like me, has joined your thread as well, is married to one of Jehovah's Witnesses, but I don't expect him to understand the mindset of a Christian either.
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 sacrafice - that's was only for the 144,000. And if that's so then none of the unannointed rank and file are Christians. JWS are not part of the body of Christ.
You may say I'm wrong of I misunderstand way the GB/FDS keeps spewing out but it's all there in the crap they publish.
1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes,
2 To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:
3 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
According to the GBT rank and file jws are not sanctified in Christ Jesus, the GB/FDS has shoved Jesus to the side and claimed only they can save and sanctify the lowly rank and file jws. It's not true and at best blasphemy.
JWS are baptised in the name of the organization and Jesus is not their savior. (1 Cor 1:13-17)
How is that unity?
I'm glad the man of the hour finally arrived, although I missed him last night. Glad he came in here somewhat humble, at least showing more humility than in previous posts I've read of his.
I just have one question in regards to the misuse of blood, and this isn't directed entirely at Eggnogg, but for anybody who can clarify this for me.
So fractions are acceptable and ok as fractions are not whole blood. Being that they're processed from blood, isn't that still misuse of blood? Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus 17 specifically prohibit the eating of blood. Ok, so no blood sausages for me, I can live with that. Sorry Anthony Bourdain. Deuteronomy 12 takes it a step further stating that its to be poured onto the ground, "evidently" you can consider that text as meaning to discard blood entirely. If its to be discarded entirely, wouldn't the processing of fractions from blood fall under the umbrella of misuse of blood? 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. 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?
I've met a lot of smart people here, you are one of them, @TD, but there is no one here that can outthink me,
Enough said in regards to DJ mentality, arrogance and conceit.
That and the fact that he didn't answer ANY of TD post in reagrds to Furli being put in his place:
Ten years ago, JW elder, author, scholar, and HLC member Rolf Furuli of Norway expressed a similar idea on the Rapid Response forum of the British Medical Journal and he was thoroughly chastised for it. The principal respondant was a Dr. Osamu Muramoto and his reply read in part: (Emphasis is mine)
"Despite his remark that "statistics is completely irrelevant in this situation; what counts is the informed decision of the individual patient"[1], it is Furuli who first quoted Kitchens' article [3] to support his argument "it can be more dangerous to accept a transfusion than to refuse one."[4] If Furuli truly believes "statistics is completely irrelevant", why did he have to bring up such statistics? One wonders if Furuli needs some "emotional support" to drive the fear against blood transfusion, when his "theology" of "major components" cannot withstand the criticism from his fellow Witnesses. In response, I presented Sazama's data [5] which is the closest to Kitchens' data because both were counting the short-term fatality after surgery in comparable years. Neither data is perfect for comparing every aspect of risks and benefits of blood transfusion, but the two studies are comparable. The risks of refusing blood transfusions clearly outweighed the risks of accepting blood transfusions in those comparable data.
The data I quoted from the New England Journal of Medicine [6] is different from Sazama's data because they counted almost all known complications from blood transfusions, not just short-term fatality. This is the most comprehensive data currently available for blood transfusion risks, and now widely quoted in medical literature. It is the closest to Furuli's requirement "to include all diseases and deaths which are caused by taking blood/not taking blood, and not only those occurring at the time of the operation."[1] As I quoted, based on this comprehensive data, the authors of this authoritative article in transfusion medicine concluded that "techniques or strategies to avoid blood transfusion will no longer be driven by the known risks of death from blood transfusion, since they are now so low that no alternative is currently as safe as a blood transfusion."[6] It is not I but the authorities of transfusion medicine who are telling us that blood transfusion is safer than alternatives, including refusal of blood.
It is Furuli who claimed "thousands upon thousands of people have died *because* they have been treated with blood components",[1] yet showed no data published in peer-reviewed medical journals to support his claim, whether the statistics is perfect or imperfect. His claim was based only on a video published by the Watchtower Society and an outdated quote without real data. Of course, thousands of people may have died over many years due to complications of blood products. But out of how many million people who were treated and had no complications? And how the number is compared to the number of Jehovah's Witnesses who died by refusing blood products? Show us any data or any statistics which can withstand vigorous scientific peer-review, Mr. Furuli, before making such a conclusion."
