New BLOOD Watchtower - June 15, 2004 Issue!

by UnDisfellowshipped 102 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Room 215
    Room 215

    Itsallgoodnow, I think that the WT has distanced itself from their old argument that accepting a transfusion is ``eating blood." Actually, they're quite aware that dramatic advances in medical technology has all but mooted the use of whole blood transfusions, so the permitting of ``acceptable" blood fractions represents a significant liberalization of their policy. Of course, their splitting of hairs by playing God and deciding which fractions are ``minor" and which are ``major" (and begs the question of how any potentially life-saving fraction coud be considered ``minor") creates the problem of explaining how the acceptable fractions are extracted and preserved without violating the prohibition of storing blood.

    This issue is their Vietnam; for them to do a total `volte-face" on blood would trigger a maestrom of recriminations, lawsuits and mass defection; the current policy appears to be (1) pay lip service to the prohibition; (2) liberalize via the permission of the listed fractions; and (3) hold on tight with the hope that further advances in medical research will save their bacon with some sort of synthetic blood breakthrough.

  • bebu
    bebu
    so the average JW must be saved through the ORG instead of through the Lord.

    "Lord" plus "org" = "lOrg". So, JWs must serve the lOrg, I guess!

    However, though leeches parasitically feed on blood in their natural state at present, it would not be proper for a Christian to permit leeches to draw his blood. (Proverbs 30:15) Even where this was urged for medical reasons and the leeches would later be disposed of, the use of leeches would involve deliberately feeding blood to these creatures. That would conflict with the Bible?s indication that blood, being sacred and representing life, should be disposed of if it is removed from a body.

    2 years ago my husband got permission from the hospital to try leech therapy on a horrible lesion that an inpatient elderly person had on her leg, which wasn't healing despite a lot of time and effort. There were dramatic results within a week.

    I cannot see how Prov. 30:15's metaphor ( "The leech has two daughters. `Give! Give!' they cry.") h as anything to do with the issue of life and death in medicine! That is unbelievably asanine... I guess they were convinced no one would bother to look it up.

    bebu

  • garybuss
    garybuss

    The problem with the blood doctrine and the guidelines it generated, is not the blood doctrine at all, it's the shunning practice. The Watch Tower Publishing Corporation was told how to fix it all AND save face years ago. Just leave the blood doctrine alone and change the shunning doctrine.

    No shunning for blood medical treatment. That's it! Now it's a non issue. GaryB



  • Undaunted Danny
    Undaunted Danny

    The Watchtower's Bogus Blood ban.It is so twisted,( to obstruct lawsuits ).Selected, JW elders receive special,( esoteric ) indoctrination just to try to make sense of it.

    Remember,always do that, 'regression analysis'.Just where the heck did it all come from ?

    ........Well,'detox' Joe Rutherford,got a 'burr' on his butt,back in the 1940's about blood.They knew it was bogus back then.It's an overextension of the old testament kosher law,which DOESN'T apply to new testament Christians..

    They thought that the end of the world was a coming back then,(1940ish).Sooooooooo, there wouldn't be much of a body count causality.

    Now with Blood on their hands,and the murder of thousands of innocent minor children,how can they account for the body count, if they repeal it outright now?

    More importantly,the WT$ would be sued,for mega-bucks,for all the wrongful death lawsuits.

    So,as you can see before your very own eyes,they are eroding away gradually the dogma,eventually the day will come,when "new light" will "flash up" from Jehovah.and it will be dissolved.

    By the way the chief symptom of my 28 year horror show with Bleeding ulcerative colitis is, profuse bloody bowel movements on the order of 20-30 x's a day.It created enormous stress for me to know i could bleed to death at any moment.Yes, i 'took my stand on blood',and never compromised.

  • Undaunted Danny
    Undaunted Danny

    How risky is a Blood transfusion? A comparison of transfusion risks to the risks of dying from other common causes: Serious disease or death from transfusion: 1 chance in 200,000 / year Death from electrocution: 1 chance in 200,000 / year Death from drowning: 1 chance in 35,000 / year Death from a car accident: 1 chance in 7,000 / year Death from pneumonia or influenza: 1 chance in 3,000 / year Death from cancer: 1 chance in 500 / year Death from stroke or heart disease: 1 chance in 300 / year Source: Canadian Hemophilia Society

    Check out these links: http://www.ajwrb.org/ http://www.towertotruth.net/Articles/blood_transfusions.htm http://tlc.discovery.com/fansites/trauma/case/case_07.html [Discovery Channel Video] http://www.pennhealth.com/health_info/bloodless/blood_jchart.html

  • window man
    window man

    my father died in 96 because of following no blood period there was no concience you followed or you were out can i say im angry with the borg yes but ill never allow that group of old boys too control me

  • Earnest
    Earnest
    Acts 15: 19-20 (NKJV): Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.

    Acts 21: 25 (NKJV): But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided *that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality."

    Notice, what was forbidden in Acts was obviously eating blood from animals that were "strangled" (killed by humans) -- and it did not forbid eating blood from animals that died on their own.

    I note with interest the interpretation given to these two verses, namely that the specification to keep from things strangled was "obviously eating blood from animals killed by humans". That doesn't make sense to me for two reasons - firstly because it also specified not to eat blood without any qualification so that would automatically include blood from animals killed by humans. Why specify it twice ? Secondly, because there are many ways other than strangling that an animal can be killed by humans without cutting its neck and draining the blood. It could be shot, poisoned, hit over the head...why do you think Acts limits it to strangling if the main point is that it be killed by humans ? Why not just say "any unbled animal killed for food" ? Any thoughts ?

    Earnest

  • TD
    TD

    Hello Earnest,

    Interesting question.

    Although suspending the carcass and severing both carotids and jugulars is a necessary first step, it is scarcely more than a token when it is the only step. Gravity is not sufficient to drain small capillaires and the valves in the heart and peripheral veins are specifically designed to prevent a backflow of blood. It's for this reason that Jews salt and soak any meat they do not immediately broil. When this is not done, it is difficult to consider blood as a substance as being the real issue at stake, since it is consumed either way.

  • UnDisfellowshipped
    UnDisfellowshipped

    Earnest said:

    I note with interest the interpretation given to these two verses, namely that the specification to keep from things strangled was "obviously eating blood from animals killed by humans". That doesn't make sense to me for two reasons - firstly because it also specified not to eat blood without any qualification so that would automatically include blood from animals killed by humans. Why specify it twice ?

    It appears to me that by the Apostles and older men were simply saying "Do not eat animals that were killed by humans WITH the blood inside AND do not eat the blood taken from that animal by itself."

    If the commandment in Acts is taken from either Noah's Law or the Mosaic Law (which seems very likely), then it would only be forbidding eating blood from animals that were killed by humans, because that was the law given to Noah and Moses.

    The Watchtower Society claims that the commandment in Acts was taken from Noah's Blood Law.

    If the commandment in Acts was NOT taken from Noah's Law or the Mosaic Law, then I don't know 100% what it is forbidding. In that case, it could be forbidding eating any blood at all.

    However, even if that is the case, blood transfusions are NOT the same as eating blood.

    Earnest said:

    Secondly, because there are many ways other than strangling that an animal can be killed by humans without cutting its neck and draining the blood. It could be shot, poisoned, hit over the head...why do you think Acts limits it to strangling if the main point is that it be killed by humans ? Why not just say "any unbled animal killed for food" ? Any thoughts ?

    Well, all I can say is what is in the Bible.

    In the Mosaic Law, God made a BIG distinction between eating blood from animals killed by humans and eating blood inside animals that died naturally (or were killed by other animals): If a Jew ate the blood from an animal that he killed, the punishment was the death penalty! Leviticus 17:13-14: "Whatever man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers who dwell among you, who hunts and catches any animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust; for it is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, 'You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.' If a Jew ate the blood from an animal that died naturally (or was killed by other animals), the "punishment" was bathing and washing your clothes. Leviticus 17:15-16: "And every person who eats what died naturally or what was torn by beasts, whether he is a native of your own country or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes and bathe in water, and be unclean until evening. Then he shall be clean. But if he does not wash them or bathe his body, then he shall bear his guilt." Leviticus 17: 39-40: 'And if any animal which you may eat dies, he who touches its carcass shall be unclean until evening. He who eats of its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening. He also who carries its carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until evening. Why else would the Apostles forbid eating "strangled" meat unless it was because that animal would have been killed by humans and still have blood inside?

  • UnDisfellowshipped
    UnDisfellowshipped

    Also, it appears to me that the entire "Blood Commandment" from the Book of Acts was simply a list of things that Christians should avoid back then to keep from stumbling weak Jewish Christians.

    Notice what other Scriptures say about eating meat:

    1st Timothy 4:1-5: N ow the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

    Acts 11: 4-10: But Peter explained it to them in order from the beginning, saying: "I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in a trance I saw a vision, an object descending like a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came to me. When I observed it intently and considered, I saw four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And I heard a voice saying to me, 'Rise, Peter; kill and eat.' But I said, 'Not so, Lord! For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth.' But the voice answered me again from heaven, 'What God has cleansed you must not call common.' Now this was done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven.

    Romans 14:1-4: R eceive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

    Romans 14: 12-18: So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother's way. I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who serves Christ in *these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. 1st Corinthians 10:23-33: All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own, but each one the other's well-being. Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions for conscience' sake; for "the earth is the L ord 's, and all its fullness." If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience' sake. But if anyone says to you, "This was offered to idols," do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience' sake; for "the earth is the L ord 's, and all its fullness." "Conscience," I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience? But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks? Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Mark 7: 14-19: When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, "Hear Me, everyone, and understand: There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!" When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. So He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?"

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit