Fortunately for me and my Mother, (not a dub), I listened to the nurses and Dr's who actually have an education on the subject, (so I hear), and adviced me truthfully. Can't say that about the WT.
Transfusion and Eating no difference?
by Marvin Shilmer 37 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
TD
Blood nourishes the body.
Could you flesh this assertion out a bit?
-
DATA-DOG
Wow!! I have only been a member here for 4 months and I could spot ETHOS''s true intentions in just a few words! I did not even have to read the whole paragraph! I bet Ethos, Elephant, Recovery and Fifth Column would all refuse Bibles if they were going to be on a deserted Island somewhere. They would all want copies of the Watchtower printed after 2010 and a Velvet poster of the GB to pray to. Why is Ethos disobeying Jehovah and the slave by coming here? He/she must not respect the one approved channel of divine communication. Give 'em hell Recovery...er, I mean.. Ethos!!
-
wha happened?
so they can count their time
-
problemaddict
Hey guys lay off the troll statements. Everyone here has been bullied, and it was clearly a debate thread. Don't do what you condemn on other boards. Just sayin is all.
@Ethos. Blood is a topic I am pretty in the middle of you might say. Specifically in regards to eating vs transfusing there are a few things to consider, some of which have already been mentioned. In particular, that eating is not a substitute for blood, and blood is not a substitute for food. So while they both "nourish" the body (although that might be an oversimplification), their function is very different. So here is where it falls back on all of us to be intellectually honest. The bible says "eat". It does not say nourish. If it used whatever greek equivalent for "nourish" there was, I suppose there would be a better arguement for you.
My personal view is not that someone should or should not take blood in any form. It is simply that it is ambiguous enough a directive to be a conscience matter. Instead it is a disfellowshipping offence, provided one has not repented of their decision. If their conscience dictate they accept blood or give it to their minor child, the punishment is disfellowshipping.
Back to the topic. Bloods INTENDED PURPOSE is to course through the veins. One cannot substitute a blood transfusion for a gallon of blood through the mouth. (yuck). Why could a Christians conscience not tell them that the Noachian creed, and the reassertion of that creed in Acts as being added to the law of Christ, stopped at a "misuse" of blood, menaing not being used for its intended purpose? As in....intended by Jehovah.
-
Terry
Shilmer 01 Ethos 00
-
DATA-DOG
Problemaddict,
Fair enough....
-
TD
So while they both "nourish" the body (although that might be an oversimplification), their function is very different.
Yes. Even the use of the word, 'Nourish' would be different in both instances. Food nourishes the body because it is nourishment. We're talking about a state of being. Blood nourishes the body in the sense of instrumentality, like the hand often nourishes the body inasmuch as it is the means of conveyance whereby food is brought to the mouth.
We don't bite the fingers from our hand and swallow them when we eat and similarly, our bodies don't catabolize the cellular components of blood for nourishment. Our bodies break the food we eat down into soluable materials and the blood is simply the means of conveyance. In that sense, the mouth and digestive organs also nourish the body.
