Are you confident about blood?

by eyeslice 18 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  eyeslice

  The issue of blood remains a tricky one.

  Personally, I think that the OT prohibition of blood is more of a statement of respect for life and in particular respect for the life of the animal that lost it life in providing food for man. Similarly, it was prohibited for a calf to be cooked in the milk of its mother.

  With blood transfusions, no one actually dies and, therefore, in my view blood transfusion is more a matter of personal conscience than centrally dictated law.

  Undeniably though, it is clear that risks are associated with blood transfusions, particularly hepatitis C.

  If an alternative were available, would you not choose this every time over whole blood? Would this not then justify the current JW stance?

  eyeslice
• 

  funkyderek

  If an alternative were available, would you not choose this every time over whole blood?

  Of course. I would choose the most effective, safest treatment available.

  Would this not then justify the current JW stance?

  Absolutely not. Their refusal to take whole blood transfusions is not based on the dangers of doing so, but on a bizarre misinterpretation of an ancient dietary practice of a group of primitive tribesmen. Non-JWs are not suggesting that everyone should have blood transfusions, only when it is in the best interests of the patient. JWs refuse blood transfusions even when doing so is not in the best interests of the patient.
• 

  Nowhere

  And also, don't forget that blood transfusion will give you a whole new personality:

  The poisons that produce the impulse to commit suicide, murder, or steal are in the blood." And Dr. Amrico Valrio, Brazilian doctor and surgeon for over forty years, agrees. "Moral insanity, sexual perversions, repression, inferiority complexes, petty crimes -- these often follow in the wake of blood transfusion," he says. - The Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1961, p. 564

  And your children will be stillborn:

  "Lifesaving efforts by unscriptural means can never produce results of lasting good. How foolish it is to think that one can save life by violating the laws of the Life-giver! While it may produce seemingly beneficial results at the moment, it may ultimately take its toll in disease and stillborn children as a direct result of such an ill-advised course. Even if no physical harm results to the patient or to ones offspring, violation of the law of God seriously jeopardizes one's opportunity to gain eternal life in God's new world." - The Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1961, p. 565

  The old bible writers didn't have any idea of what the bood really was. They thought that blood was the life itself.

  And WTBTS are still in the dark here. They can't understand that the whole bible isn't inpired, just look at Genesis 1:1-3, the biblewriters didn't at that time, knew the nature of ligtht. You can't blame them for that, but it also proves that they weren't inspired.
• 

  Ed

  Personally, I think that the OT prohibition of blood is more of a statement of respect for life

  I totally agree with that. By pouring out the blood of an animal, the Hebrews acknowledged that although they were taking the flesh of the animal, its life still belonged to God. That's it. The life of the animal was the issue, not the blood. By focusing on the symbol and turning it into the main issue, JWs miss the point of the lesson.

  Jesus had no problem with bending certain rules such as the Sabbath when it meant he could actually help someone in need. It was only the Pharisees who kept jumping up and down and saying "Ooooooh!! He's breaking the Sabbath!"

  If an alternative were available, would you not choose this every time over whole blood? Would this not then justify the current JW stance?

  Not really. JW's have always said that their refusal of blood is purely for religious reasons, not medical. (Then some doctor points out the advantages of operating without blood, and suddenly it's "See? See? We were right!")
• 

  hawkaw

  Well .... I spent a helluva a lot of time creating this for you guys and I spent a lot of time in the medical library at Queen's too. Read the following slowly, click on the pictures, read the referenced articles and think. It's title is "Jehovah God Does Allow Natural Whole Blood Transfusions and He Provides Pictures"

  http://www.geocities.com/osarsif/twins.htm

  hawk
• 

  Shutterbug

  Hawk,

  I for one want to thank you for all your research on this subject.
• 

  SwordOfJah

  hawkaw: That is a very interesting essay you wrote. Although, some of the medical terms were over-my-head, but I understood the conclusions you reached. I still choose to obey Jehovah's law regarding blood, no matter what everyone's interpretation of the law. In my mind, a law is a law and Jehovah did formid the consumption of blood. Are you not consuming blood when you are accepting someone elses blood? Also meditating on the example of the twin fetuses, is that really a good comparison to a blood transfusion? I think it would more resemble procedures like blood salvaging machines that creates a closed circuit, and these procedures are left to each conscience to accept. Once again, interesting analysis.
• 

  AlanF

  : If an alternative were available, would you not choose this every time over whole blood?

  Of course. Just as I would choose any workable alternative over any other kind of organ transplant. But that's not the point, which is:

  : Would this not then justify the current JW stance?

  Of course not. Their stance, they claim, is purely religious and they would hold it even if transfusions were perfectly safe.

  Their stance is based on a misinterpretation of Acts 15, as well as on a misdirected notion that Christians need to obey the Mosaic Law.

  AlanF
• 

  Gerard

  Swordofjah,

  "The Scriptures clearly show that it would be wrong for a dedicated Christian to donate whole blood for use by someone else either in a transfusion of whole blood or or in a transfusion of any of its four primary components (Acts 15:20)."

  Really?

  Acts 15:20 But that we

  write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.

  It clearly show nothing of the sort!

  Back then they had no idea blood transfusions were possible. They were unaware of its basic components and that they could be used lovingly to save lives.

  How about Leviticus 4:7 "And the priest shall put of the blood upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before Jehovah, which is in the tent of meeting; and all the blood of the bullock shall he pour out at the base of the altar of burnt-offering, which is at the door of the tent of meeting."

  Ain't that offering kind of dark and pagan? If not, why is it that the WT does not make blood offerings in the KH for Jehovah?

  The WT has distorted the Scriptures in a way that that such practice and subsequent deaths glorifies their man-made organization.

  Gerry

  Edited by - Gerard on 21 January 2003 18:11:36

  Edited by - Gerard on 21 January 2003 18:47:40
• 

  artful

  Great article hawkaw!

  SwordofJah: I would say that no, a blood transfusion is not consuming blood. Something that is consumed or eaten goes into the stomach to feed or nourish the body. A blood transfusion is a "transplantation" of a fluid tissue. Also, the comparison of the twins to a blood salvage "closed circuit" is not really correct. A blood salvage does not involve the passing of blood from one human body to another human body. A better comparison might be the direct transfusion of blood from one human to another. For instance if the twins had grown up and one of them required a transfusion and the other twin provided it for him, why would Jehovah forbid this, considering he allowed it in the womb?

  I would agree with you eyeslice that the command was out of respect for the animals life, as their blood was the "symbol of that life". There was a good quote that read something like "does it make sense that God would want us to put the symbol of life above life itself". In other words out of respect for the life of the person who gave the blood (even though they are still alive - unlike the poor animal in Genesis) would God really expect us to forfeit our life or the life of a loved one?

  Artful