Platlets...can WTBTS policy be defended?

by joel 47 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  trevor

  I refer back to my original posting at the begining of this discussion.

  The Bible's references to blood are concerning the misuse of animal blood. Jesus said eat my flesh and drink my blood. Although this was not literal he clearly did not think that it conflicted with the Isralite law. He was refering to human blood and it's place in saving lives. To suggest that a loving God would put the value of someones spare blood above a human life is not resonable. The WT allowed blood transfusions for the first 50 years of it's existence. In Bulgaria they have signed an agreement with the goverment allowing this issue to be a matter of conscience. Will the other sheep in WT club be allowed the same latitude now or will there be a different rule, depending on where they happen to be living, when a transfusion is needed. Nothing would surprise me.

  I find all this fuss about how a God feel regarding blood transfusions rather unimportant when I contemplate the WT expectations of massive blood shed and butchery at Armaggedon at the hand of the same God. But then only worldlings will die so I suppose all is well.

  trevor
• 

  Gozz

  Bulgaria will haunt most JWs. I'm yet to see one who did not assert that Bulgaria was impossible. 'We cannot do that', 'it's impossible'... may be they can't but the lawyers have.
• 

  Gozz

  (Repeated post deleted)

  Edited by - Gozz on 15 January 2001 12:25:12
• 

  amicus

  This is one of the more heavily dabated topics today among JW's today. I've never know anyone affected by this issue and yet I have spent countless hours researching and debating it. I grow weary of it.
  This is just another Pharisaical law. It has nothing to do with pure worship, love of fellowman or Christianity. It's all about power. WE have the god given right to interpret scripture. Period.
  They know they were wrong, that's why they have modified their position. They just won't come out and say, "We were wrong". The fact that people die because of this blunder is immaterial. The unity of the Organization is more important than the individual in their viewpoint.
  Christ must find this whole thing thoroughly disgusting. He went to great lengths to discourage this type of thinking. I think the GB know it's unChristlike. They read the Bible too.
  This is my favourite pertinent scripture, there are others. (Matthew12:1-14). "If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." (matt12: 7,8)
• 

  amicus

  Siiiiiiiimon,
  I'm getting posting errors again.

  Edited by - amicus on 15 January 2001 15:56:41
• 

  amicus

  I'll just make one more comment before I shut up. I didn't see this mentioned. The scripture we're discussing in Acts(15:20) was the result of a compromise reached by the Apostles and elders(Acts15:6-20). Those who had been Pharisee's wanted the Gentiles to obey the Law and become circumsized (ouch)(Acts 15:5). Peter thought that they shouldn't have to do anything(Acts 15:7-11). Barnabas and Paul agreed(Acts15:12-18). James finally came up with a compromise and explained why he thought it was necessary to compromise (Acts 15:21) and that the compromise should not be burdensome to the Gentiles(Acts15:19). The things James chose(Acts15:20) must have been very sensitive issues to the Jews at that time but they were things that were'nt difficult for the Gentiles to adhere to. So it was a good compromise. The Jews weren't offended and the Gentiles weren't inconvenienced.
  It was never intended to be a "Law" that Christians have to follow today. The Mosaic Law Covenant is no longer valid. We don't have Pharisee's and Jews raising issues like that. The blood issue is invalid today.
  The passages were recorded IMHO to indicate how difficult issues should be resolved, how Christians should interact with each other. Discussion, and if absolutely necessary compromise. Compromise that leans heavily in favor of no or very few laws. It also showed the need to not offend other believers if you can avoid it.
• 

  waiting

  Just some more stuff.....

  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 NOT forbidding the consumption of blood per se. EXACTLY what does that prohibition refer to? Not so simple, eh? - Frenchy

  To add: If we ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD - all blood, then no red meat, kosher or otherwise. I would think that pork has some kind of blood in it as pigs have blood, the same as chicken does. We become eaters of other things besides blood containing animals. Vegetarians do it - why aren't we under the same concern?

  We would also NOT take any kind of transplant - which no jw did until the late 1970's, btw, because it was considered cannibalism, and df'ing was prompt. No skin transplants, etc. To the best of my knowledge - the transplanting of live tissue involves blood - which is how the live tissue is oxygenated (from the old body) until it lives within the new body (through the new body's blood). It is impossible to wash out totally the old blood from the tissue.

  Just how far is a person supposed to go to ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD? Back in the 70's, a jw was to give grave concern as to whether to take a Tetnus(?) shot in case of stepping on a rusty nail. The reason? The antibody was started from a drop of blood - and jw's abstained from blood. M&M's used to have a color in them that was derived from a blood product. Children were instructed to look on the back of the package for the appropriate word. If it was there - don't eat 'those' M&M's. Bloodmeal for your garden? No - not respectful.
  The list is almost endless - where does one draw the line? Some jw's wouldn't even put their own finger in their mouth to stop bleeding - taking in blood. What happens when you bite your cheek, tongue, etc? Necessary to spit out blood?

  Where do you scripturally start and stop the usage and ingestion of blood? And scripturally, why?

  waiting
• 

  joel

  After reading the posts....here are further thoughts on the ABSTAINING from blood and why.
  The use of blood was common among the gentiles...these idolaters drank it often at their sacrifices,in making covenants or compacts.
  Also there is perhaps no food more unwholesome than blood...clean people naturally should revolt from it as an aricle of food.
  And yes...biblically...life is represented in the blood...proper use is to be expected...respect should be shown...but not at the cost of life itself.

  Good points on both sides guys...but if there is the slightest doubt...lets side for life...the life God gave all..only to be taken by Him.

  Pax,
  joel
• 

  Simon

  I think we need to look at the context of the scripture on blood in the New Testament.
  What was being discussed was circumcision - should new, gentiles have to be circumcised? The answer was no..."I lay no further command upon you other than that..." and then quotes the list of things that matched up with what aliens living with the Jews under the mosaic law would have had to do so as not to cause offence.
  Without ending the sentance he says "...for there are those that want to have the law of moses read..." (quoting from memory here) ie. it's all to do with the mosiac law and those who thought they should have to keep it all (like circumcision).
  There was nothing wrong, for instance, with eating food sacrificed to idols BUT if you were living in a community with Jews then you would not do so as not to offend them.
  Just as today, you may live in a muslim country and wouldn't drink alcohol - not because it was a command that you lived by but because of who you lived with and so as not to cause offence (esp. if you wanted to preach to them).
  It was not some everlasting binding command as surely something so important would have been presented in much clearer language.
• 

  amicus

  Amen, Brother Simon. Now how do we convince the Jdub rank and file of this? It's clear as can be to me. But then, they have the "truth"........