Platlets...can WTBTS policy be defended? (page 2)

logical

seven:

You are correct.

Just as anybody who condemns murder, but condones euthanasia, or condemns excessive alcohol consumption, but condones drug abuse would be breaking the law.

SixofNine

Logical, Jehovah did not set a law in the Bible that prohibits blood from living donors being used medically. Anyone who says He did, is, quite frankly, a God damned liar.

How do I know? All liars are God damned liars.

When God damned liars try to tell Jehovah what he meant, and tell others that God is arbitrary, they must be especially repugnant to Jehovah. I know they are to me. When those God damned liars try to push a twisted interpretation of scripture to the point of human sacrifice, well, all I can say is, don't try to sell that for my kid when you are in physical proximity to me.

Now, may I suggest you take a look at ALL the relevant scriptures (and there are many), with a view to getting Gods mind on the matter? It would only be logical that you do so.

Sorry in advance for the rancor, but life and death issues arouse great passion in me. They seem...., I don't know?..., sacred?

Edited by - SixofNine on 14 January 2001 19:26:59

Simon

I don't really think those things are comparable to the blood issue: although euthenasia and murder both involve taking a life one is not a sub-component of the other.
The alcohol example is interesting because I remember it being use to illustrate why JWs should not use blood for medical use. The argument went that if we were told to abstain from alcohol, we would not transfuse it into our veins. This was usually followed by much 'ho ho ho-ing' and nodding of heads, weren't we clever, we really won the argument over those medical people.
However, apart from fact that the two are very different and that transfusing blood is an organ transplant as it is never digested (unless you want to argue that a heart transplant is cannibalism) the real problem is that the WTB&TS has somehow decided, without any further instruction, that parts of blood are allowed.
It seems to me that you could argue for a total acceptance of blood or a total ban on biblical grounds but there is no way a part-acceptance makes sense and can only be wrong.
I think it has more to do with lawyers and litigation than law and love.

larc

Well, the WT has rejected almost all of the old testemant law. Too bad they had to keep the one out of many that causes so much human suffereing. Just the luck of the draw, I guess. One out of ten odds and they had to draw this one.

larc

Whatever happened to the good old fashioned laws of: Keeping the Sabath, no pork, Levirate marriage, polygamy, the sacrifice of animals, tything, first born sons getting twice the inheritance of the other kids, slavery, and no cutting off of beards. AH, the good old days!

happytobefree

Logical,

I think the blood issue was the same as the fat issue and the port, a dietary concern, probably because of no refrigeration. If I not correct someone let me know.

But a blood transfusion is not eating blood, it's basically the same as an organ transplant.

That's my 2 cents

Happy to be Free (Me)

Xandit

I know this is an emotive subject, and certainly there are inconsistencies in the Organization's policies. One thing I have found interesting, and this is from non-JW sources, is that statistically speaking there is no difference in mortality and morbidity for JW patients and for patients from the general population. The only difference when you look at the overall picture is that Witnesses get out of the hospital 24 hours earlier.

Edited by - Xandit on 14 January 2001 22:48:15

Edited by - Xandit on 16 January 2001 23:23:19

Scorpion

A very good site that explains the inconsistencies of the WTBTS on this subject of blood is:

http://www.macgregorministries.org/jehovahs_witnesses/bloodymess/bmp1.html

The WT sacrifices the life of an individual for prohibition of a substance (blood) that without the life, is worthless.

joel

Xandit,

I would sure like to see where you found your information.

Everything I've read from the AMA is...that alot of JW's...needlessly...never leave the hospital.

Pax(Peace),
joel

Gozz

Logical,

beyond the inconsistencies in the current teaching and practices of the WTB&TS with regard to the subject of blood lies the actual requirement of what the scriptures reveal God demanded from Noah. The arguments have being well articulated in the bloodreview link above. Noahchian Law, which applies to all the human family and is binding does not show anything that would have prohibited Noah from, say, accepting a blood transfusion. Only that Noah could not eat the blood of animals he killed for food. The law that blood be poured on the ground is Mosaic, and was binding on those under the Law Covenant.

The official policy of JWs on the subject of blood remains baffling to me. Reconciling the policy with the current practices leads nowhere for me. You do not accept the whole but you may accept part of the whole. And there is the inevitable moral question: a JW will not donate blood, but would use fractions from donated and processed blood by others. Whenever one is reminded of what volume of whole blood is required to meet the albumin requirement of the average JW in need of albumin, I shudder and wonder what Jehovah is thinking about the policy and practice. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth, and a big pain in the heart.

Edited by - Gozz on 15 January 2001 3:14:22

Platlets...can WTBTS policy be defended?

Share this