transfusions are food? is this still being taught by the bORG?

by ldrnomo 4 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  ldrnomo

  Got this from the 1989 Reasoning Book that was posted here today. Is this the latest version of this book? If so, don’t they know that a blood transfusion has no relationship to consuming food? Food is digested and the nutrients go into the blood stream to be delivered to the bodies cells. Blood is simply an organ that transport food’s nutrients around the body.

  Also noticed that the scripture at Acts 15:28, 29 has an addition of bracketing referring to “the governing body of the Christian congregation”. How does this scripture read in other translations?

  Christians are commanded to 'abstain from 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.)

  Is a transfusion really the same as eating blood?

  In a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously. Now, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to "keep abstain- ing from ... blood"? (Acts 15:29) To use a comparison, consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?

  I used this illustration years ago while talking to a doctor and he totally shot it down and made me feel like a fool.

  Are they still using this illustration?
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  The WT cannot quote a single modern authority that says a blood transfusion is "eating" blood. It has always had to resort to medical references written in previous centuries. One "authority" the WT has referred to in the past is Denys- of the 17th century! (see W 4-15-85, p.13).

  When doctors prescribe a blood transfusion, they don't do it because the patient is "malnourished" and therefore needs food in the form of blood. Guess what? If a person is starving to death you can give them blood transfusions every day and...they'll still starve to death! If a transfusion were equivilent to "eating" this would not be true.

  I do not think WT still uses this example. If they do they are fools.

  Regarding your example, yes, a medical doctor will have a field day with anyone who compares intravaneous alcohol ingestion with a blood transfusion. They are two completely different things. Alcohol is in a form that the body's cells can absorb immediately and use as a nutrient. The same cannot be said of blood.

  The WT likes to divert attention by using this stupid argument. Nourishing the body by eating and sustaining life are two different things. Eating is only one way to sustain life. We also breath, drink water, etc.
• 

  problemaddict

  This is absolutely a ridiculous miscalculation on the part of the society and one I am ashamed i did not notice when I was 13 years old. If someone is a vegetable, they are fed with a feeding tube, not through the veins. If you need a blood transfusion you cannot drink it to sustain your life, and if you are starving you cannot put a rib smoothie in your veins and live.

  The question goes to the word "abstain" and since the word has no qualifier, it is qualified now to "not go into the body".....at least in not its whole or otherwise larger component form. But its ok in fractions, or minute amounts in meat, or in organs if they were properly flushed.....

  Good grief.
• 

  Gypsy Sam

  I'm trying to think of a good comeback on Facebook for all the JW's that are reporting the 2012 article that is recirculating.

  In the Birmingham news, July 3rd, 2012. Jehovah's Witnesses do better after surgery without transfusions. - sorry, I'm not sure how to link iith was

  JW comments are all based off reasoning book info. So annoying.
• 

  wha happened?

  Funny you mention this. When I was recently speaking to an old friend. A friend whom I knew before we were both JW's, on why I feel that the WT is less than honest about blood.

  I know many have heard this before, but I'll repeat it.

  This took place about 8 years ago when my Mother was very sickly, and was in the hospital every other month. Her blood count would drop to such a low number. It would take many many units of blood to get the count back up. I was annoyed because it appeared to me, like they were just filling her up when she got low. The Doctor explained that the blood dies after a few months, and since Mom was making red blood cells fast enough, anemia would occur. (Me)Blood dies? You mean the blood lives after a transfusion? (Doctor)Yes. (Me)So you don't eat the blood in a transfusion? (Doctor)No.

  I was floored and did the research. It's obvious that the WT was less than honest with that description of a transfusion. I explained thisa scenario to my friend, and told him that the WT is blood guilty for anyone that died from a false premise.

  Of course the conversation went completely off course as he had no answer and started straw man arguments and faulty reasoning. One zinger was he wanted me to answer if I thought that Jehovah couldn't ressurect any of those who died. My initial answer was, that it didn't have anything to do with what we are talking about, but that Jehovahs ability to ressurect anyone is no excuse for murder.

  'Dubs have little regard for science and medical fact, unless it fits their agenda. Honestly I can't see how they can wiggle out of this without huge liabilities on their part. And that subject in the reasoning book is getting so old.

  I see this all unraveling at once, with a core remaining