We cannot abstain from blood. Our bodies need it and they keep producing it. If bodies fail, a transfusion would be acceptable.

by quincemyles 16 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  quincemyles

  God prohibited the eating of blood. In Genesis, Leviticus and Deuteronomy the edict is clear: "Do not eat blood !" When the Apostles said "abstain from blood," Jewish Christians must have contextually understood that to mean "do not eat blood."
  

  For Jehovah's Witnesses "abstain from blood" means blood should not be transfused. They illustrate: “If a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcohol, would that simply mean that you should not take it through your mouth but that you could transfuse it directly into your veins? Of course not! So, too, ‘abstaining from blood’ means not taking it into your body at all.” - Live forever on a paradise earth. Ch. 25. p.216 par. 22.

  Eating blood cannot be the same as transfusing blood in the same way that eating a kidney can not be the same as a transplantation. The former is a digestive or "destructive" process while the latter leads to a constructive process involving the compatible allograft performing its normal constructive function.
  

  We can abstain from alcohol, but we can not abstain from blood in the way that Jehovah's witnesses want us to understand the phrase "abstain from blood." We need compatible blood regardless of its source.cWhen the body fails in its hemopoietic function, the prudent thing to do is accept a transfusion if deemed therapeutic.
  

  
  
• 

  cofty

  The principle is not whether blood is eaten or transfused - that is a distraction.

  The crucial point is the life of the creature from whom the blood came.

  The Watchtower are Right About Blood, but...
• 

  quincemyles

  True. Its about the source of the blood. If blood is willingly given, then there is no issue. The bible says there is no love greater than when one gives life to another. Giving blood is like giving a measure of life. It should be applauded.
  
• 

  Finkelstein

  Some practical information that could be added to this discussion is that many ancient civilizations deemed blood had some sacredness within their beliefs and this can be contributed to the observance of life stopping when blood left the body of animals or humans.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Anther angle to this blood issue and Cofty pointed this out before that this dietary blood ban was focused specifically regarding the killing and using these animals for food, the blood of the animal was to be poured out on the ground out of respect to the perceived sacredness of blood.

  
  

  There is no killing of people in the medical process of a blood transfusion so in effect the blood can still retain its sacredness. The intent to heal someone else also falls in line with Jesus commandant and direction to heal the sick and love one another.

  Again this blood abstinence by the ancient Hebrews was a strict dietary law . Even the most Orthodox Jews to this day have special procedures in the way of blood letting animals to be eaten for the meat to be identified as being Kosher.
  
• 

  TD

  The JW teaching on blood is flawed at so many levels that different people find different arguments compelling.(That's been my experience over nearly four decades at any rate.)

  Eating blood cannot be the same as transfusing blood in the same way that eating a kidney can not be the same as a transplantation. The former is a digestive or "destructive" process while the latter leads to a constructive process involving the compatible allograft performing its normal constructive function.
  

  The problem is actually more basic than the obvious fact that it's not possible to abstain from an integral part of our bodies.
  

  The problem is that the whole idea is ungrammatical to start with.
  

  If I were to walk up to you and say:
  

  "Abstain from shrubbery"
  

  "Abstain from crankshaft"
  

  "Abstain from steam."
  

  ...what would I be talking about?
  

  "Abstain" negates action. Shrubs, crankshafts and steam are not actions; they're objects.
  

  When the word, "abstain" is used in connection with an object, a finite verb is necessary to bridge the gap and transfer action from subject to object. And when that action can't be derived from the context, (As in the examples above) the phrase is nonsensical.

  What the JW's are doing with the phrase "Abstain from blood" is dishonest. It's semantic legerdemain.

  Anybody who accepts that idea has gotten their thinking tangled up right out of the gate.
• 

  Lee Elder

  We have very good articles available at AJWRB regarding these issues. Check them out if you are not familiar with them:

  http://ajwrb.org/bible
  
• 

  Giordano

  4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

  Correct me if I am wrong......... but didn't this same god just kill every person and every animal that wasn't in the Ark?

  Okay there was something about the world being corrupt. Is a new born baby corrupt? A 1 or 2 year old corrupt? How about a baby not yet born are they corrupt as well?

  And ultimately this is what the WTBTS bases it's blood doctrine on.

  It's madness and folly.

  
  
• 

  Crazyguy

  Mark 7:18 Jesus says nothing consumed by a man can defile him. I guess Jesus is an apostate. Or their blood doctrine is shit.
• 

  deanxxx

  Crazyguy makes a good point. Then Paul came along and said yeh Jesus was right but may I add that we must uphold bit of the old testament stuff, effectively contradicting Jesus. There is a big difference from what Jesus reportedly said and Pauline Christianity. Of course none of it is worth a wank not least because it contradicts itself all the time.