Are you confident about blood? (page 2)

AlanF

SwordOfJah wrote:

: hawkaw: That is a very interesting essay you wrote.

There was another excellent essay at http://www.jwbloodreview.org . Unfortunately the site seems to be down.

: 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.

The problem with this idea is that Jehovah says nothing about blood transfusions. You know that perfectly well. And of course, Jehovah says nothing about blood fractions. Can you find a single scripture that says that JWs are not allowed by Jehovah's law to accept red blood cells, but it is a "conscience matter" to accept red blood cells from cows, which have been stripped of the cell wall and purified a bit more? I.e., 99% pure hemoglobin? Do offer a scripture that speaks about plasma, platelets and white cells and states that Christians are forbidden by God to transfuse such substances.

: In my mind, a law is a law

What law are you talking about? It can't be anything given in the Mosaic Law, since Christians are not under it. And of course, Acts 15 says nothing about transfusions.

: and Jehovah did formid the consumption of blood. Are you not consuming blood when you are accepting someone elses blood?

Of course not. Are you eating part of someone's eye when you get a cornea transplant? Are you doing the equivalent of chewing and swallowing someone's kidney when you get a kidney transplant?

: Also meditating on the example of the twin fetuses, is that really a good comparison to a blood transfusion?

That example is based on reasoning by the Watchtower Society itself. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?

: 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.

That sort of reasoning is stupid, and a product of Pharisaic minds. When blood leaves your veins, it's out of the body. There is no difference between blood being in an external tube for a few seconds or minutes, and being in a storage container for a few seconds, minutes or months. The Watchtower Pharisees make a distinction without a difference. And again, where does the Bible have to say anything about these matters?

AlanF

Gerard

The Neo-Watchtower apologists frame their arguments in such a manner (intentionally or not) that it appears that someone could arrive at the same belief as official Watchtower doctrine through independent study. But is that possible? Is it possible to come to what the Watchtower calls "the truth" independently of the publications produced by the Watchtower? To ask it another way, from the Watchtower's official position, can the study of New Testament Greek grammar and syntax bring someone's beliefs in line with existing Watchtower doctrine? After examining several Watchtower publications, it would appear that it would be impossible for a person studying the Greek New Testament apart from Watchtower helps to come up with a faith that matches the Watchtower's "truth".

WTBTS = CULT

avishai

Sword of jah, do you eat meat? Is it prepared by a Shoket (jewish butcher)? If not, you probably eat blood every day. It does not "cook out" as the jw's say, that's a bunch of hooey, blood cells don't evaporate. If they were really as concerned about blood as they say they are, they would make you have special butchers. But, see thats no big deal, to eat blood on a daily basis for them. But if it involves life or death, It's death every time. I'm willing to bet that more jw's die from this ridiculous policy EVERY YEAR than died at jonestown & heaven's gate combined. Sick, sick, sick. Grow a brain sword of jah.

BadJerry

I'm afraid the one's at the hall (when we went) that were the hardest hardliners were the one's who had seen a loved one die because he/she refused a blood transfusion. With that kind of twisted devotion ("my dad gave his life by refusing to take blood, and I'll do the same thing, even my children will!), I don't know how you would break this cycle. Even as the GB gets more lenient, I have still heard those of the above type refuse to even consider the fractions. I hope they get some type of reward for their mixed up devotion, other than a broken heart when they sacrifice another loved one on the bloodless alter!

wednesday

. Even as the GB gets more lenient, I have still heard those of the above type refuse to even consider the fractions. I hope they get some type of reward for their mixed up devotion, other than a broken heart when they sacrifice another loved one on the bloodless alter!

The reason u hear that is the consessions the WTS makes about blood, or anything they can be sued about, is only for legal pruposes. I had an elder tell me that all REAL JWS know that, and would still follow the letter of the law. U can't help some people. REAL JWS know what mother really is saying.

hawkaw

Hi guys,

I wish jwbloodreview.org was up and running too. Its been down for some time and I always go there looking for references. I also wanted to reference that site as well, Alan, as I know some very good people, who I highly respect, had prepared that web site. I always urge people to go to that site to understand the bible side of it.

As for the monochorionic gestation (identical twins) article and the natural sharing of "whole blood", I thought I put the information in a fairly easy to explain way so if there is something I can help you explain, Sword of J., please let me know. But I must admit I am a little taken back by your compliment Sword - you are at least thinking. Congrats. I wonder ... if you see this problem in the doctrine, then don't you think that all blood transfusions should be a matter of conscience for a JW instead of an immediate dissassociation with loss of God, death at the big "A" and shunning offence?

Also, it is very important that everyone look at the colour pictures in the articles that were given. If you click on the small picture it will blow up on your computer screen. The pictures of the placentas are in colour so anyone can see them. Look closely at how the whole blood of one fetus (an individual) flows from a vein into an artery of the second fetus (a second human) at the placenta.

What you are looking at people is the "natural" sharing or "transfusion" of whole blood between two beautiful human beings. The natural sharing concept was something that the Watchtower recognized when they stated in 1990, that albumin is allowed to be taken as a transfusion because this part of blood is "naturally" shared between two individuals (a mother and a fetus). Also and just as interesting is that it is better if the twins have more connections, rather than a few, to share their blood back and forth helps to offset any medical problems such as Twin to Twin Syndrome during gestation.

So my humble question I ask the leadership of the Watchtower is why the hell do they have this ban if the evidence is so "picture" clear ? Should this not be a matter of conscience for all JWs?

I can't thank Osarif and of course Simon at this site enough for helping me publish this document along with the scientific research on natural whole blood transfusions and Sam Muramoto's literature on the allownance of white blood cells if the transfusion is called another name. One other person who deserves a lot of credit is "Maximus". I orginally posted a comment on my reseach on monochorionic gestation and TTT syndrome back in March of 2001 to a resounding thud. It took my good friend to bring this fascinating research I found back to life in August 2001 and I can't thank him enough in getting the word out in the JW and exJW community.

After all this child abuse stuff is done at CBC later this month I will also be getting this research on to Lee Elder's web site at AJWRB.org .

hawk

Edited by - hawkaw on 22 January 2003 9:5:4

Edited by - hawkaw on 22 January 2003 9:6:45