If You Can't Accept Blood Then Surely......

by Englishman 7 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Englishman

  IF I believed that it was wrong to have a blood transfusion, then I would also believe that it was wrong to ingest any human blood fractions at all. Picking and choosing what bit of blood is OK and what isn’t, is not going along with the principle of the whole thing at all. It's just dodging the issue IMO.

  IF I believed it was wrong to have a blood transfusion, common sense would tell me it was also wrong to have an organ transplant. Common sense also tells me that if it is wrong to have another human’s fluid in my veins then it is also wrong to have human flesh in my body. It's just so obvious.

  IF I believed that it was wrong to have a blood transfusion, then I would know instinctively that it was fine to have my own blood stored for future use. I would also have no qualms at all about dialysis, regardless of the route that my own blood would have to take. I know that is so just by using my brains!

  Obviously I personally have no problem with the idea of accepting a blood transfusion if it was essential to my survival, but I wonder just how many witnesses have deep down instincts that actually agree with the 3 points that I raised?

  Englishman.
• 

  RunningMan

  I think a lot of JW's, deep down, agree with you on these points. I know my wife, who is a supporter of the blood ban, would not hesitate to store her own blood.

  I would like to add another logical problem to the blood issue:

  - The Bible clearly considers killing to be a sin. But, it makes allowances for self defense. If your life is in danger, you can kill in self defense in order to preserve it. The reasoning is that the law was made for humans, not humans for the law. What's the point of being law abiding, if you're dead?

  Now, take the above sentence, and change the word "killing" to "taking a blood transfusion":

  - The Bible clearly (debatably) considers taking a blood transfusion to be a sin. But, it makes allowances for self defense. If your life is in danger, you can take a blood transfusion in self defense (against disease or injury) in order to preserve it. The reasoning is that the law was made for humans, not humans for the law. What's the point of being law abiding, if you're dead?

  Doesn't this make sense?
• 

  Gopher

  E-man,

  How many JW's listen to their instincts? Most rely on their "theocratic" indoctrination, er, training!

  With that in mind, most JW's would only agree with you on the first point, that blood is blood is blood, no matter what the current teaching of the Governing Body is.

  While the second point makes common sense, most JW's would tell you now that there is a difference between blood and organs, that blood sustains life, etc. And as far as having one's own blood stored, that would horrify your average JW... Why -- blood is to be poured out on the ground, not set aside!

  However, your points make good common sense, instinctively.

  -J.R.

  The preceding post was not evaluated by any mental health professionals.
  The opinions expressed are those of a fuzzy, cuddly rodent.
• 

  Pierced Angel

  That was one of the things I brought up when I da'd myself. I said that it was all so wishy-washy and that if you can't have blood, you can't have any blood, including fractions, PERIOD. That it just showed me that they were bending the rules because they were not sure themselves if it was as serious as they once thought. And I'm not going to risk my life or my children's lives on something they'll slowly change down the road and introduce as "new light".
• 

  bboyneko

  The Bible clearly (debatably) considers taking a blood transfusion to be a sin

  That is one of the things the bible is MOST unclear on next to what bathroom transvestites should use.
• 

  BluesBrother

  Good logic here.

  Most dubs seem to have a wait and "hope I never need it " approach .
  I have recently engaged an elder in discussion on this and other points. He was himself unclear on current teaching.

  I asked him, based on Genesis 9.4, What part of the blood contains "The soul"?, what part is the sacred bit?

  I am waiting for his comment.
• 

  ozziepost

  "The Bible clearly (debatably) considers taking a blood transfusion to be a sin." No it doesn't. And that's the problem, isn't it? Where does it 'consider' it?

  Cheers,
  Ozzie

  "If our hopes for peace are placed in the hands of imperfect people, they are bound to evaporate."

  
  - Ron Hutchcraft Surviving the Storms of Stress
• 

  RunningMan

  It looks like my original response has been somewhat misunderstood.

  First of all, I personally consider the blood issue to be flawed theologically, ethically, logically, and legally - as a minimum.

  I was presenting only one argument here - that the law and the Bible recognize exceptions to even the most serious of sins, like murder. So, for those who accept (even wrongly) that the Bible prohibits blood, there is still no reason to avoid it at the expense of your life.