risc of allowed fractions

by inbetween 10 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  inbetween

  A brother in my hall mentioned in a twist of scriptures how we can thank the faithful slave class for warning us in connection with blood transfusions since 1945, because now the medical field recognises the riscs and try to minimize the use of blood.

  Despite the fatcs, that this statement is ridicolous in so many ways, I´d like to find information (outside the "apostate" realm) that proves, that even allowed fractions are involing the risc of getting hepatitis, aids etc...

  That would completely refute such a notion.

  thx in advance..
• 

  Amelia Ashton

  I know Factor 8 (blood clotting agent used for haemophiliacs) was contaminated with HIV back in the 80s
• 

  Alfred

  The so-called faithful & discreet slave could have warned us about eating apples and you'll always find some JWs (who are allergic to apples) who will thank the FDS for "discerning the scriptures" as the medical field is now recognizing the dangers of apples in some people. And the same could have been said about practically anything else that enters the human body. JWs have become so dumbed down over the years that most have lost their ability to reason logically... that is why the WT can easily convince them that their ridiculous interpretation of blood-related Bible texts was facilitated by the holy spirit...
• 

  Gayle

  I find it so frustrating on how JWs will feel they 'win' their blood transfusion argument, when they ask a doctor if the doctor can 'guarantee' surviving the surgery with blood. When the doctor states he cannot 'guarantee' the JW feels they win the argument. The medical world cannot and does not 'gurantee' anything, rightfully. Even an aspirin has no guarantee. Life has no guarantees.

  Ironically, even with JWs, if asked if one follows the JW program, is there a 'guarantee' to survive into the new world. I think at best they only say, 'probably,'
• 

  JeffT

  My family is full of doctors, here's the thing: EVERY medical procedure, all the way down to taking an aspirin has some risks. Doctors spend all day waying the risks of doing something vs the risks of not doing it.

  Think of it this way, let's say ten out of one thousand people who have a blood transfusion during surgery will die from complications due to the transfusion, and five hundred out of one thousand people who have the surgery without blood will die of anemia, which group do you want to be in?
• 

  blond-moment

  My favorite argument of theirs is "blood transfusions slow down the healing process" from what I understand Death does too. As the poster above states, everything has risk, sometimes the risk is worth it. Jesus himself said, do not be stumbled by what others eat. He asked for mercy, not sacrifice.

  Not so long ago myself, I would have died for the blood issue, now I see it for what it is. Human sacrifice, makes for a good article.
• 

  dgp

  I would assume that all "fractions" could be contaminated. That does not mean they could also be clean and save lives.
• 

  BluesBrother

  If whole blood is donated, then screened for all the normal checks and passed as o k ....does it really matter whether it is then fractionated or not? Or just split into the "big 4" components?

  It has passed the screening and whatever is in it - is still in it...N B more than 99.9 % is fine

  As I recall, the WTS still warn that you must take responsibility for the safety of the treatment if your conscience allows you to accept blood fractions.
• 

  wallsofjericho

  to this day the Reasoning book uses Acts 15:28, 29 as the basis for their prohibition on blood:

  *** rs p. 70 par. 3 Blood ***
  Acts 15:28, 29: “The holy spirit and we ourselves [the governing body of the Christian congregation] have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [or, killed without draining their blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (There the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in.)

  ***(Notice that murder is not included in this list of necessary things)

  on page 70 this paragraph is found

  *** rs p. 72 - p. 73 Blood ***
  Does the Bible’s prohibition include human blood?
  Yes, and early Christians understood it that way. Acts 15:29 says to “keep abstaining from . . . blood.” It does not say merely to abstain from animal blood. (Compare Leviticus 17:10, which prohibited eating “any sort of blood.”) Tertullian (who wrote in defense of the beliefs of early Christians) stated: “The interdict upon ‘blood’ we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, p. 86

  Now lets look at what Tertullian ACTUALLY said

  Tertullian's full sentence from The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV is as follows (the part quoted by the Society is bold):

  "Sufficient it is, that in this place withal there has been preserved to adultery and fornication the post of their own honour between idolatry and murder: for the interdict upon "blood" we shall understand to be (an interdict) much more upon human blood."

  So Tertullian was speaking of a prohibition on human blood to mean that you must not murder (shed human blood). This would make sense that the Jerusalen elders would have meant this, thus they were saying abstain from:

  • idol worship
  • murder
  • eating unbled meat
  • fornication

  this would really be a complete list of necessary things that would encapsulate the "rules" of Christianity when viewed from the perspective of not offending Jews or Jewish Christians, after all, the reason for this counsel at Acts was a result of Christians from Jerusalem attempting to impose Jewish traditions upon gentile christians. (for you Lurkers, yes the WTS manipulates facts with the intent of decieving you. They know you are gullable and count on it since they have pounded it into you for years to not question them lest you hasten Jehovah's wrath... and it works!)

  Funny how the Reasoning book highlights several verses from Leviticus 17 yets omits Lev 17:15

  *** Bible Citations ***
  (Leviticus 17:15) As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean.

  so the WTS makes it a point to say that eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, yet Lev 17:19 says if you eat blood to take a bath and be clean.

  What does the bible say about idolaters?

  (Deuteronomy 13:6-10) 6 “In case your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or your cherished wife or your companion who is like your own soul, should try to allure you in secrecy, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ whom you have not known, neither you nor your forefathers, 7 some of the gods of the peoples who are all around YOU, the ones near you or those far away from you, from one end of the land to the other end of the land, 8 you must not accede to his wish or listen to him, nor should your eye feel sorry for him, nor must you feel compassion, nor cover him [protectively]; 9 but you should kill him without fail. Your hand first of all should come upon him to put him to death, and the hand of all the people afterward. 10 And you must stone him with stones, and he must die,. . .

  and of fornicators?

  (Deuteronomy 22:23-24) . . .“In case there happened to be a virgin girl engaged to a man, and a man actually found her in the city and lay down with her, 24 YOU must also bring them both out to the gate of that city and pelt them with stones, and they must die, . . .

  How can the WTS even think to suggest that eating blood is the same to God as idolatery and fornication??? On top of this, by claiming "to abstain from blood" meant to not eat blood would mean that not only did this list of necessary things NOT include murder, but that the sin of eating blood was SO great that they actually took the time to repeat it twice within this list of 4 things bumping murder as a necessary thing to abstain from.

  Murder, Idolatery and Fornication were all punishable by death yet eating blood made you unclean for the evening and you had to take at bath. The WTS's rationalization of banning blood and then introducing fractions as allowable is laughable if it weren't so deadly
• 

  stillin

  somebody here made the point recently that if fractions were admissible in the case of blood, then logically, in the context of the scripture, fractions of fornication must be admissible also.