by Marvin Shilmer 37 Replies latest jw friends
Transfusion and Eating – no difference?
Today I added a new article to my blog addressing what Watchtower says in public view about transfusion versus eating compared to what it admits in private about transfusion and eating. It’s short and sweet, and of course documented.
My article is titled Transfusion and Eating – no difference? and is available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/11/transfusion-and-eating-no-difference.html
Marvin Shilmer
Oh Marvin. I honestly expected something better from you. Number one, you used a reference from a publication nearly THIRTY years old, and secondly the letter stated what is obvious to all JW's. Tranfusion is obviously not the same thing as literally ingesting blood orally. That was never an equivocation made by the WTS (to my knowledge). The equivocation is in the fact that tranfusing blood NOURISHES the body, just as EATING does. I do not understand why you would flaunt an apparent contradiction, you all too well know isnt the case.
If you had a heart transplant, does that mean you have eaten a human heart?
_
“…you used a reference from a publication nearly THIRTY years old…”
So what’s your point?
Since 1989 has Watchtower’s Governing Body seen fit to publish a statement saying “taking a blood transfusion IS actually different from eating blood?”
Or since 1989 has Watchtower’s leadership left the statement for consumption by Jehovah’s Witnesses in, say, it’s latest CD library?
Which is it?
“The equivocation is in the fact that tranfusing blood NOURISHES the body, just as EATING does.”
Guess what? Transfusing blood does nourish the body “just as EATING does.”
Where did you go to school?
And, speaking of publication decades ago, more than 50 years ago scientists learned and published findings with conclusive demonstration that transfusion of product like red cells does not nourish the body “just as EATING does”.[1]
Marvin Shilmer
______________
References:
1. Blood Doctrine Built on “Eating” Myth available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/10/blood-doctrine-built-on-eating-myth.html
If you had a heart transplant, does that mean you have eaten a human heart?
Yes, just with your chest as a mouth and a scalpel was required.
-Sab
with Marvin on this Ethos, what is the relevance for highlighting the fact that Marvin is quoting from something that is 20 odd years old? why are JW's so obsessed almost scared of older publications?
you used a reference from a publication nearly THIRTY years old, and secondly the letter stated what is obvious to all JW's. Tranfusion is obviously not the same thing as literally ingesting blood orally
Regarding what Ethos said about a 30 year old publication my question is, did the truth change in the last 30 years. The illustration mentioned below has been in many bible study aid books through out the years. The illustration leads one to believe that blood just as alcohol would provide caloric nourishment to the body and this is just not true.
I was the elder that the letter Marvin posted was written too. It was in response to a letter I wrote to the society concerning many things about blood fractions and why ones conscience could justify using some parts of blood but not others. In my letter, I told the society that the illistration used in the knowledge book where a doctor tells a patient to abstain from alcohol and the question is asked whether transfusing alcohol would be OK with the doctor. I stupidly used this illustration once when witnessing to a doctor and he quickly shut me down by telling me that it is not even close to being the same thing.
-
ldrnomo,
Thanks for engaging this topic, and thanks for having courage to write Watchtower’s top leadership about its insane blood taboo.
Most of all, thanks for having courage to let your letter be shared for all the world to see how Watchtower’s Governing Body responds to and treats one of its own.
… [The doctor] quickly shut me down by telling me that it is not even close to being the same thing.”
As well he should have.
Not only is intravenously applied alcohol different in terms of its caloric food value, there is also a big difference in a doctor telling a patient to abstain from alcohol versus the same patient accepting medical transfusing alcohol.
A patient suffering ethylene glycol poisoning can die without counteracting treatment. One such treatment is intravenous administration of ethyl alcohol.
No doctor who tells the patient to abstain from alcohol is implying that when medically necessary the same patient should refuse intravenous alcohol.
Marvin Shilmer
Ethos is a JW apologist: He said this (I paraphrase) -
"There was a time when I did not accept the invisible coming of Jesus in 1914. I talked about it with the Elders and they did not disfellowship me a day or two later"
Any more comments like he made above to Marvin and I will start the Troll Clock on him.
The point is much information has changed and been further researched and assessed about blood in the past 30 years. Marvin is attempting to portray a contradictionary error when there isn't one. Although the WTS has not retracted its stance in this particular deduction of the blood doctrine, quoting from a 30 year old publication and using it as a corroboration of evidence to prove that something is erroneous in the PRESENT, 2012 understanding of blood is fallacious and marginally deceiving.
Blood nourishes the body. Though blood tranfusions are not consumed orally, they still provide nourishment and in a technical sense can be equivocated to "eating" blood. It seems you, the WTS, and medical personnel are all in accord on this. So im not really sure why there's a side to choose or why this article was necessary because there is nothing to rebuttal?
