“keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication.” Acts 21:25
“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!” Acts 15:29
“you must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Leviticus 17:14
“has esteemed as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified.” Hebrews 10:29
The scientific community would perceive this as a warped philosophy for three reasons:
1. It is possible to screen blood and eliminate diseases and many health risks.
2. Biblical hermeneutics, the study of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible cannot always be assessed strictly through linguistics. Not according to the Bible anyway. Linguistics is the scientific study of human language. The “words of Jesus in red” may come to mind and many scriptures are fairly straightforward, but the Bible introduces the idea that “holy spirit” is required for a definitive understanding of the Bible.
We have not received the spirit of the world but the spirit which is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 1 Corinthians 2:12
But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you. John 14:26
http://bible.org/article/holy-spirit-and-hermeneutics: This brief essay is a preliminary attempt at articulating the role of the holy spirit in relation to the interpretation of scripture.
3. The idea “that the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood,” the “sanctity” of blood in relation to formal injunctions regarding blood in the Bible. A concept similar to the sanctity of marriage in relation to fornication, a concept independent of health considerations.
Reasons two and three are concepts that refer to a transcendent or transcendental power or deity. Concepts relative to divinity vary significantly depending on which god is being discussed, but it all hinges on the existence of a supernatural realm, a realm beyond the natural world we perceive with our senses and can study by rational scientific methods.
Similar logic can be applied to adherents of the Qu'ran, that what is stated is subjective.
"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors." Qur'an, Chapter 2, verse 190.
http://www.islam-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=225&Itemid=205
Inner Jihad-striving towards harmony
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=18199
Claims that jihad is an "inner struggle" are best seen either as the apologetics of those who do not want to face the fact that jihad means war, or who wish to cover up this fact in order to achieve the ends of Islamic rule. What the claimants call an "inner jihad" is a process of internal intellectual evasion, in which facts and conclusions contrary to support for Islam are suppressed. The outward political manifestations of such deception are censorship and propaganda, which are used to further Islamic rule. Islamic totalitarianism remains an active, and dangerous, force in the world, which must be confronted intellectually and defeated militarily.
There are some in the medical community that may insert scriptural and historical religious deliberation into their proposals when confronting Jehovah's Witnesses:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1377670/
Bioethics of the refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses: Part 1. Should bioethical deliberation consider dissidents' views?
The basics of modern biology can be encompassed within five unifying principles: cell theory, evolution, genetics, homeostasis, and energy. Evolution (naturalism) as a central organizing concept in biology is that life changes and develops through evolution, and that all life-forms known have a common origin.
I haven't communicated with medical professionals about this, but do you think the conclusion of most in the scientific community, would be that Jehovah's Witnesses blood doctrine is based on idealism and a scriptural debate regarding the matter would be pointless? Not to mention, dissidents are not organized on concepts in biology accepted in the medical community.
Bioethics of the refusal of blood by Jehovah's Witnesses: Should bioethical deliberation consider dissidents' views?
by Celestial 15 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
Celestial
-
Celestial
Ouch. No takers. I guess my perspective is no different than contrasting the secular and religious perspectives of Dr. Kevorkian, assisted suicide and abortion. The only difference with Jehovah's Witnesses and the blood issue is there's little public or political interest in either side of the debate.
-
JeffT
My father is a retired hemotologist/oncologist. My brother and sister are both doctors. Put simply, they think that the JW position on blood transfusions is irrational and unsupported medical science. They don't care about the religious arguments at all.
-
Celestial
My father is a retired hemotologist/oncologist. My brother and sister are both doctors. Put simply, they think that the JW position on blood transfusions is irrational and unsupported medical science. They don't care about the religious arguments at all.
Do you feel the same way about the religious arguments of dissidents? That was part of what I discussed.
National Center for Biotechnology Information
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1377670/
Abstract
Jehovah's Witnesses' (JWs) refusal of blood transfusions has recently gained support in the medical community because of the growing popularity of "no-blood" treatment. Many physicians, particularly so-called "sympathetic doctors", are establishing a close relationship with this religious organization. On the other hand, it is little known that this blood doctrine is being strongly criticized by reform-minded current and former JWs who have expressed conscientious dissent from the organization. Their arguments reveal religious practices that conflict with many physicians' moral standards. They also suggest that a certain segment of "regular" or orthodox JWs may have different attitudes towards the blood doctrine. The author considers these viewpoints and argues that there are ethical flaws in the blood doctrine, and that the medical community should reconsider its supportive position. The usual physician assumption that JWs are acting autonomously and uniformly in refusing blood is seriously questioned.
Full textFull text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (1.3M), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.
-
Dogpatch
The scientific community would perceive this as a warped philosophy for three reasons:
That was what Charles T. Russell said, too, about the NT "ban" on blood in a 1910 Watchtower, April 15, 1909, p. 116, 117.
Rutherford and Knorr and Franz just wanted another totally non-biblical reason to STAND OUT AND ATTRACT OTHERS LIKE THEMSELVES.
So what if thousands are sacrificed?
Randy
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
… do you think the conclusion of most in the scientific community, would be that Jehovah's Witnesses blood doctrine is based on idealism and a scriptural debate regarding the matter would be pointless?...
I have had this discussion with many in the medical field, doctors in particular. The general sentiment is that debating theology is a waste of time because so often theological preference is not determined by logical construct.
There are a few doctors who will touch the discussion with a patient, but in most cases this is either to measure the basis of the person’s position on blood or to convince them to accept blood regardless of theology.
Oddly enough, among licensed medical physicians who are also Jehovah’s Witnesses never one time have I been able to engage on in a discussion of the logical construct of Watchtower’s blood doctrine. They avoid the discussion like laypersons avoid the plague.
Marvin Shilmer
-
Celestial
I have had this discussion with many in the medical field, doctors in particular. The general sentiment is that debating theology is a waste of time because so often theological preference is not determined by logical construct.
There are a few doctors who will touch the discussion with a patient, but in most cases this is either to measure the basis of the person's position on blood or to convince them to accept blood regardless of theology.
Oddly enough, among licensed medical physicians who are also Jehovah's Witnesses never one time have I been able to engage on in a discussion of the logical construct of Watchtower's blood doctrine. They avoid the discussion like laypersons avoid the plague.
I know that Baylor College of Medicine indoctrinates their students with evolution.
http://www.baylor.edu/biology/index.php?id=77368
Statement of Evolution
"Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously."
A medical practitioner would probably be predisposed that the Bible is an unrelated assortment or collection of heterogeneous fragments from Jewish and Christian literature.
I read in part 2 what was suggested that a physician could present to a patient that's one of Jehovah's Witnesses. It seems to address the blood issue from this perspective, short of saying that the Bible is an unrelated assortment or collection of heterogeneous fragments from Jewish and Christian literature and the blood doctrine is esoteric and cannot be tested rigorously . -
james_woods
I have a simple question:
Has there ever been any reality of any culture or gastronomy - ancient or modern - actually eating animal meat from an animal which had been strangled to death?
Can you imagine how difficult it would be to strangle a full-sized cow, lamb, (or even a filthy full-sized pig)?
This has never made any sense to me.
-
NewChapter
I know that Baylor College of Medicine indoctrinates their students with evolution.
Indoctrinates?
-
rebel8
To my knowledge this is the first article in medical literature that addresses the need of physicians to understand and deal with the fundamental problems of the JW blood doctrine...such activity may be viewed as invading the patient's religious freedom.
I cannot wrap my head around such logic. Physicians are scientists. Patients seek care from physicians, knowing this. They can either accept or refuse what the physician has to offer. It is really that simple.There is no, "Well, my recommendation based on science (proof) is to have a transfusion, but since you believe an imaginary bearded sky daddy is telling you not to, I'll just change my recommendations and ignore the proof." It doesn't work like that.
Physicians often feel that they must unquestionably comply when any demands or refusal of certain treatment from the patient is framed as religious.
Of the many physicians I've personally seen confronted with this issue, none behaved like that. If they did, there would be no such thing as the...what are they called?...the blood committees the elders have. There would be no blood brochure. There would be no blood cards.For example, the ones who cared for me pled and argued with my mother to come to her senses. They certainly didn't feel any impetus to "unquestionably comply".
Physicians are confronted with noncompliant patients and garden variety nutjobs all the time. They know the drill. They don't just shrug their shoulders and give up instantly when some wackadoodle spouts nonsense. It's their job not to.
