That is not the discrepancy. All meat has some blood in it. It is to be expected.
The discrepancy is their saying that Jehovah values life, but he won't allow them to save it. They say they will be resurrected.
And that has not happened.
Glaring discrepency in Blood Doctrine
by kjg132 34 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
In WT's view, the symbol for life is more important than life!
It's no different than argung that a wedding ring is more important than the marriage itself; and if one must choose one or the other, you save the ring and discard the marriage.
Incidentally, under the Law, a Jew could eat the unbled meat of an animal they found already dead. Why? Because, since the Jew did not take the animal's life, there was nothing to return to god (in symbol of pouring out the blood). No life taken= nothing to return to god= it was acceptable to eat the meat.
Does anyone give their life when donating blood? No!
No life was taken = nothing to return to god.
Even if a transfusion constituted "eating" blood (it does not), under the Law a JW could still accept a transfusion. But, JWs aren't under the Law (except when WT needs to digress in order to fabricate yet another nonsensical policy to bind JWs with, like the "two witness" rule). So WT's rule is absurd no matter how one looks at it.
-
Heaven
In WT's view, the symbol for life is more important than life!
ADCMS, you are correct. This is one of my reasons for never becoming a dedicated Jehovah's Witness. It went against my core integrity.
-
kjg132
AndDontCallMeShirley.....really good point there too. I have done a lot of research in my 3-4 out but sometimes I still come across things that surprise me. I don't remember coming across the point that if the animal was already expired there was no need to bleed it. It is a good point. The few relatives and one friend that still talk to me avoid talking to me about anything JW anymore but it would be good to get that out somehow. The blood doctrine is one of the more damaging policies obviously because it involves people's lives.
-
AndDontCallMeShirley
if the animal was already expired there was no need to bleed it.
Once an animal is dead, it is impossible to bleed it. Regardless, the Law clearly said the meat could be eaten.
'Anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean. 16 But if he does not wash his clothes and bathe himself, he will be held responsible.' --Lev. 17:15
"If an animal that you are allowed to eat dies, anyone who touches the carcass will be unclean till evening. 40Anyone who eats some of the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening. Anyone who picks up the carcass must wash his clothes, and he will be unclean till evening." -- Lev. 11:39
marrow was not excluded from the Hebrew diet even though it contained the blood cells :
"Animal bone marrow was apparently used for food by the Israelites. (Compare Mic 3:2, 3.) It has a very high nutritional value, being rich in protein, fats, and iron. Jehovah’s banquet for all the peoples, therefore, fittingly includes symbolic "well-oiled dishes filled with marrow."—Isa 25:6." --Insight p 345
In addition it is not excluded from Jehovah's Witnesses medical treatment. They may accept a bone marrow transplant if they wish, even though it contains someone elses blood cells: Wt 84 5/15 p31
.
Additionally, the Law allowed Jews to sell unbled meat to foreigners. Go figure.
---
Question: how can the WTBTS argue that organs/tissues can be accepted by JWs but blood cannot? Scientifically, blood is as much a tissue as any other in the body, as the following information reveals:
Blood is a specialized bodily fluid in animals that delivers necessary substances such as nutrients and oxygen to the cells and transports metabolic waste products away from those same cells.
In terms of anatomy and histology, blood is considered a specialized form of connective tissue, given its origin in the bones and the presence of potential molecular fibers in the form of fibrinogen.
from
http://www.siumed.edu/~dking2/intro/blood.htm
Blood is a highly specialized, fluid tissue.
Blood is traditionally classified as a specialized form of connective tissue . To appreciate the basic unity of blood and other varieties of connective tissue, consider the following.
All of the several blood cell types originate in the connective tissue of bone marrow.
Certain white blood cells, notably lymphocytes and monocytes, move freely back and forth between blood and other connective tissues.
The chemical composition of plasma is very similar to that of interstitial fluid in ordinary connective tissue
.
All connective tissue consists of cells embedded in a matrix that consists of ground substance and fibers. Blood may thus be described as connective tissuewhose matrix consists of free-flowing ground substance (plasma) with no fibers.
-
kjg132
AndDontCallMeShirley....Wow thanks for the info. I am a nursing student and recently completed Anatomy and Physiology. What you are pointing out about blood being connective tissue makes complete sense, I feel silly for not having connected the dots already! Also, I wonder why more JWs don't wake up when they read about the Jews eating marrow? Of course marrow contains blood, its crazy.
-
Vidiot
smiddy - 'What is it about todays society that they are so afraid to step on the toes of religous people?"
I suspect that's changing; they're just carefully dotting their i's and crossing their t's to make it stick.
-
redvip2000
heir policy was also in contradiction to the belief held that if given the chance, anyone could be a Jehovah's Witness. Not true for hemophiliacs and others requiring whole blood products to survive.
and since hemophial is a genetic condition,then why would Jehoober allow this to happen knowing that they need whole blood products to live?
-
Splash
Whether the white cells die once consumed is immaterial, the 'eating of white cells' has been done by that time. This is an instant df'ing offence in any other context.
The benefit of mothers milk is specifically because of the colostrum - the part of milk which is rich in white cells and gives baby early protection.
It makes the blood policy indefensible.
Splash
-
redvip2000
@Splash
I agree that it makes the policy indefensible! It's worse than a blood transfusion because breast milk is actually ingested and processed by the body as food, while a transfusion is a replacement of tissue.
It's getting to the point that this policy has as many holes as the whole story of the Noah's flood.