Let's talk about Blood again....

by stuckinarut2 49 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  stuckinarut2

  I know we have all talked about this topic before, but for some new ones on the forum, or to refresh ourselves, I wanted to start this thread.

  The Society likes to go on about the Sacredness of Blood, and how it should not be transfused etc.

  They liken it to a symbol of life itself. Something that should be respected and therefore not transfused.

  BUT, what is more important: REAL life, or a Symbol of life?
  

  An illustration came to mind.

  If we give a bunch of flowers to a loved one as a symbol of our love for them, are those flowers more important than the LOVE itself? Is it not better to actually demonstrate our love by our conduct? Simply giving flowers doesn't make up for displaying real love to that one.

  So too with taking in blood. If the REAL life is at risk of being lost, and blood can be used to save that REAL life, is that not the right thing to do? Saying that "blood is a symbol of life, and therefore should be respected and not transfused" is a cop-out, because here we have a REAL life in front of us that can be actually saved!

  Thoughts?
  
• 

  ScenicViewer

  That is exactly what Jehovah's Witnesses do - they put the 'symbol of life' ahead of life itself. Isn't that the very definition of idolatry?
• 

  Island Man

  Good illustration. Another illustration I've seen is that of a country on the brink of defeat and destruction by the enemy, and the only hope of saving the country rests in the hands of one lone soldier who has only one option - use the national flag to create a molotov cocktail to destroy the enemy's weapon before it activates. Should the soldier value the sanctity of his country's national flag above the country itself? Should he let his country suffer destruction because its national flag is too sacred to be destroyed in process of defeating the enemy?
• 

  Island Man

  My argument against the blood ban is simple

  1. BLOOD WAS CREATED TO FLOW IN THE VEINS. In fact, this is the very reason why blood is considered sacred and equated with life - because of its life-sustaining function as a medium for feeding and oxygenating all body tissue.

  2. GOD IMPLICITLY APPROVES OF PEOPLE USING THEIR OWN NATIVE BLOOD IN THEIR VEINS. If he didn't he would require all his worshippers to slit their throats and bleed themselves to death in order to abstain from blood. But he doesn't require them to do this, even though he requires them to abstain from eating blood.

  3. GOD DOES NOT APPROVE OF PEOPLE EATING THEIR OWN BLOOD. The scripture condemns eating "any sort of blood". This establishes that the source of the blood is irrelevant. It matters not whether the blood is your own or coming from a donor.

  4. LOGICALLY, THEN, THE ISSUE HAS TO BE ABOUT THE USE TO WHICH THE BLOOD IS BEING PUT. Flowing in the veins is ok. Eating it as food is bad. Therefore blood transfusions are legit because they involve putting blood in the veins to do what it was created to do.

  Ask a JW what's the difference between using your own native blood in your veins and getting it from a donor in a transfusion. They'll resort to the source argument. You then point out that source is irrelevant because scripture condemns eating any sort of blood and JWs aren't even permitted to transfuse their own blood back to themselves. Then maybe they'll give the reasoning that once it leaves the body it cannot be put back in. You simply respond by asking them why the organization allows the use of heart-lung machine and dialysis which involves the blood leaving the body and reentering. They'll say that it's different because the blood never stops flowing so the equipment functions as a continuation of the circulatory system. Then you ask them well will it be ok if you got transfused with a system that keeps the blood flowing from one person to another without stopping. Then they'll say that they're not here to argue and they'll leave. lol.
• 

  Fisherman

  It ain't up to individual JWs to decide for themselves whether or not to accept a blood transfusion as described by WT. WT defines that JW do not accept BT. And that's that. If a JW accepts blood contrary to wt teachings he is commiting a sin and is going against wt doctrine.
• 

  LevelThePlayingField

  I am completely convinced that if a WT article came out tomorrow saying, that it's now ok to accept blood transfusions if a person's conscience allows it, then 99% of all witnesses would do so. No doubt about it.

  Same thing about blood fractions. While you were still in, how many DPA's did you come across that said NO to everything? I only know of one. And she was 80 years old at the time.
• 

  label licker

  I think of the first blood transfusion that god performed. That was when he took the rib from Adam and made the rib into the woman, Eve. It's a known medical fact that our ribs make red blood cells until we die. Was that the first blood transfusion or not? You decide!
• 

  Finkelstein

  To put things in a clear perspective the ancient Hebraic law concerning the abstinence of blood was a dietary law for they created this sacredness by observing life stopped when blood left the body of an animal or human, other civilizations held to this ideology as well.

  After a animal was killed the blood was to be drained out of respect to god the giver of life and man's relationship to him.

  The will to save another life through a blood transfusion could therefore still take place and still hold blood sacredness intact because the blood transfused did not come from a dead person.

  Even the most Orthodox Jews today still hold to this theological acceptance.

  The novice bible theologians namely F Franz screwed this up which costed thousands of human lives, remember that guy that used the 6000 years of mankind's existence twice after it was used previously by C T Russell.
  
• 

  ironsnake656

  All about "Sacredness of Blood" is BS from the Org to justify the doctrine about blood, in order to prevent it from liability and lawsuits. First, it took about 66 years to the Org to set the doctrine (1879-1945). Then, the prohibition of blood among vaccinations. After that, the "personal and conscience" use of fractions of blood or medical procedures. They have to understand that the account of Acts needs to be interpreted according to the culture and knowledge about blood in those times.

  I found interesting the note in the article of Matthew Goff "Monstrous Appetites: Giants, Cannibalism, and Insatiable Eating in Enochic Literature": "It is possible that the prohibition against the consumption of blood developed because this act played a role in divination. Divination and the consumption of blood are banned together in Lev 19:26 (cf. 1 Sam 14:31–35). See Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, 1490–93; Biale, Blood and Belief, 21–23; Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits, 148. Consult also P.T. Reis, “Eating the Blood: Saul and the Witch of Endor,” JSOT 73 (1997): 3–23."
• 

  wolfman85

  Blood was considered sacred in the Bible as long as it meant the death of the animal or person. For the blood of an animal to be sacred and could atone sin it was required that the animal was killed. It was not enough to extract some blood from a bull or a sheep without killing them. If the animal was not killed it had no sacred value for the atonement. Therefore the donated blood used for a transfusion is not sacred because the person who donates it does not sacrifice its life.