Fishy you have demonstrated very clearly on multiple occasions that you are incapable of carrying on a debate in good faith. I'm not doing it with you again.
Here are two questions from five months ago that you have still failed to answer...
Blood Transfusions are Biblically Supported
by allpoweredup 45 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
Fisherman
Cofty, it is your article. I am not convinced. Whether or not I answer your questions does not validate your conclusions. You have to show that that storing and using blood was allowed under the law.
Blood transfusions do not involve slaughtering animals or eating dead animals. They involve consuming human blood. If you can show that being allowed anywhere in the Bible, you have a point.
-
fukitol
The whole point of the scriptural prohibition is that the blood represents the soul or life that has been lost. The blood is a symbol only of the life lost.
There is not a single scripture where the prohibition is given where a soul has not been lost. In all cases, the blood not to be consumed has come from a dead soul.
Is any soul or life lost in the case of a blood transfusion??? None whatsoever.
With a blood transfusion the blood has absolutely no symbolic value as there is no loss of life.
End of story.
-
Fisherman
Fukitol, your above post is repeating cofty's conclusions. -
fukitol
I came to that conclusion myself, Fisherman, and if it so happens to also be Coftys then so much the better because it is an absolutely knockdown argument against the erroneous and sick Watchtower policy.
-
Rattigan350
I hate when people use that scripture. Saul's men ate the unbled meet, but they offered a sacrifice to atone for that.
-
Rattigan350
rocketman, of course forgiveness possible. That is what Jesus was for, to be the better forgiveness. But I hate when people used that scripture and say that Sauls men did that. That was eating blood and it was against their law back then. And anyone who broke the law could offer sacrifices.
-
Diogenesister
fukitol There is not a single scripture where the prohibition is given where a soul has not been lost. In all cases, the blood not to be consumed has come from a dead soul.
I agree with you and Cofty completely.
What's more I believe this ritual is related to, for example, what the Kalahari Bushmen and many other tribes do when they hunt and kill a creature. They will offer some kind of prayer or do a ritual to atone for the taking of a life. I believe the Isrealites had a slightly more sophisticated, or maybe regulated, form of this. The sentiment behind the behaviour is the same.
-
Diogenesister
Actually Fishy does make one good point with his Watchtower post stating autologous blood is between Jehovah and the publisher.
I wish more pregnant jw moms would see it, and store some of their own blood for emergencies. This at least would be a start, and save many lives. It might be worth Obstectric medics having a copy of that watchtower to hand!
-
Vanderhoven7
There is no basis for equating eating blood with transfusions. Would a doctor who instructed a patient to abstain from meat be upset if his patient had an organ transplant?
Transfusions are organ transplants. The ban on organ transplants was recinded by the Society in 1980. And interestingly there is always blood in the organs being transplanted.