Platlets...can WTBTS policy be defended? (page 3)

logical

As far as I can see, there is a law. It says "KEEP ABSTAINING... FROM BLOOD".

What does abstain mean?

To refrain from something by one's own choice

So, what does refrain mean?

To hold oneself back; forbear: refrained from swearing.

So according to the Greek scripture, we are to make our own choice whether or not to hold back from the use of blood.

I personally think that Jehovah's laws should be listened to. Just because technology advances, doesnt mean God's laws decline.

Cant you see the error of your reasoning? My own personal choice is NO BLOOD because thats what the BIBLE says in Acts 15:29

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.

Same tired old arguement. Questioning Jehovah, putting him to the test, bad things in His eyes. Id rather try to obey what He has commanded, rather than twist it around to suit me.

Jesus showed that the proper use of human blood was to save life and instructed his disciples to symbolicaly drink his blood. The apostle Paul said in the WT Bible 'you will prosper, good health to you.'

Yeah if you read Acts 15:29, just before Paul says those words, what does he also say? "to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood..."

The Bible is clear on the issue. Satan is the one who is clouding it over. If you simply go back to Bible truths (which the WT no longer teach regarding blood) it is there, black and white.

KEEP ABSTAINING... FROM BLOOD

Please review my list of covenant laws from the Old Testement that I presented earlier. Why is it that JW's do not follow these? Why pick one out of many laws and ignore the rest. Logical, don't you find their decision on the subject of law to be illogical?? I don't know of any scripture that says that you can pick a law or two that you like and ignore the rest. Either you reject them all because we are no longer under that arrangement or you accept them all. It seems very binary to me.

By the way, if you read the thread called Heresy of the Month, you will find that eating fat is definetly a no no.

Sassenach

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

I'd like to see that as well.

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.

I would like to know more about the study. I was told this same "statistic" from someone who read it in the watchtower magazine. It quoted a study (non witness source) that focused only on one form of surgery.

Xandit, your statement confuses me. Are you saying that witnesses leave hospital sooner than the general population or just sooner than those receiving blood? Certainly the more gravely ill patients are the ones receiving blood.

I would not consider it to be a valid study unless all other variables were equal. If your control group consists of individuals who's condition necessitated the use of blood, then the study group (jehovah's witnesses) should be comprised of individuals who's condition also necessitated the use of blood (yet did not receive it).

Thanks

logical

larc:

The law gave to use via Noah still applies to us.

The Moasaic law only applied during that time, up until 70 CE

The fact that the apostles repeated the score regarding blood in the Greek scriptures emphasises it further.

As for fat, that was a Mosaic law.

larc

Logical,

The thing about fat was a joke, which you woul find out if you bothered to read the other thread. Why don't you take a look, just to give yourself a little light heartedness.

Regarding the old laws, Collosians 2:16-23 has the following to say:

So don't let anyone critize you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating Jewish hoidays and feasts or new moon ceremonies or Sabbath. For these were only temporary rules that ended when Christ came. They were only shadows of the real thing - of Christ himself. Don't let anyone declare you lost when you refuse to worship angels, as they say you must. They have seen a vision, they say, and know you should. These proud men (though they may claim to be humble) have a very clever imagination. But they are not connected to Christ, the Head, for we are joined together by his strong sinews and we grow only as we get our nourishment and strength from God. Since you died as it where with Christ and this has set you free from following the world's ideas of how to be saved - by doing good and obeying various rules - why do you keep right on following them anyway, still bound by such rules as not eating, tasting or even touching certiain foods? Such rules are mere human teachings, for food was made to be eaten and used up. These rules may seem good, for rules of this kind require strong devotion and are humiliating and hard on the body, but they have no effect when it comes to conquering a person's evil thoughts and desires. They only make him proud.

logical

larc you

I know I read it, ooops me running ahead of myself as usual

Thanks for that scripture, that one slipped by me, ive been looking for that one, it answers quite a lot.

Frenchy

The Scripture deal with blood in the NT is very brief and does not go into any sort of explanation. In that case reasoning must be used to determine what is meant. EACH person must use his own reasoning on the matter and then it becomes HIS/HER choice and no one has a right to step in and make a judgment on that choice but Jehovah and Jesus.
I have to ask myself what is meant by this abstaining from blood. Does that mean to abstain entirely from blood? Is that what God means? If that is so then why are we permitted the eating of red meat? There is blood in the meat. So here we have at least ONE exception to the law. CONCLUSION: The law is NOTforbidding the consumption of blood per se. EXACTLY what does that prohibition refer to? Not so simple, eh?

-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

larc

By the way, if you are concerned about the amount of blood in red meat, the best meat to buy is Kosher meat. Jewish butchers make a significant effort to get as much blood as possible out of the meat.

larc

Having been raised a Witness I have a certain revulsion to the idea of a blood transfusion, even though I have been out a long, long time. However, if it was a matter of life and death, I would authorize it for myself or a loved one. However, we all should have beliefs that we are willing to die for. What those are for each one of us is a personal matter.

Gozz

Logical,

it seems to me that your poisition is a bit harder than the official position of JWs on the subject of blood. Unless I am mistaken, you would rather that no blodd be taken at all - no albumin, no immunoglobin, no haemophilia factor VIII etc etc...That, if I am correct, would indeed be a 'better' position with regard to current JW teaching, as it would harmonize practice with teaching/ But would it have a scriptural basis?

That the Mosaic Law, stringent as it was, allows that blooded meat (rather, unbled meat) be sold to gentiles (who are themselves descendants of Noah and thus under Noachian law) and also that an Israelite could eat such meat under certain conditions with the penalty being simple cleansing makes some point... I do not think it is necessary to rehash the arguments of the bloodreview site.

Platlets...can WTBTS policy be defended?

Share this