REVIEW OF SUNDAY WT ON BLOOD FRACTIONS! (BOY WAS IT CONFUISNG!)

by tresbella 13 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  tresbella

  Last week I gave a review from the June 15 study article on blood from sunday's meeting. This past sunday meeting we all received further enlightment on the blood fractions issue. SInce I received so much good points and different perspectives I wanted some more help on the matter. I tried my best to gain as much understanding concerning this whole blood fractions issue from the meeting buy boy did I walk out of the hall confused! Of course my mom gets a little suspiscious when I try to debate the issue so I hope you guys can help! JUNE 15, O4 WT PGS. 19-24: PAR: 4,5 ...19th century Bible scholar Adam Clarke wrote: "This command is stil scrupulously obeyed by the oriental Christians..No blood was eaten under the law... and under the gospel it should not be eaten.." This scholar may have been referring to the basic gospel or good news bound up in Jesus. Recall Clarke's comment: "Under the Gospel it should not be eaten, because it should be considered representing the blood which has beens he for the remission of sins.. (Tertullium again with this dude) wrote: "Consider those who with greedy thrist..take the fresh blood of wicked criminals..and carry it off to heal their epilepsy. Yet despite threats of death, Christans would not consume blood.

  Again I notice the WT articles are continuing to point to further "wordly men" for their point of view on various subjects with no scriptural backing. It has begun to irritate me.

  PAR.14,15: The Bible is clear that a person obedient to God would not eat unbled meat... Still questions might have arisen. When an Israelite killed a sheep , how quickly did he have to drain its blood? Did he have to slit the animal's throat for drainage?..What would he do with a large cow? etc. Imagine a zealous Jew facing such issues... What do you think about such varied reactions? Furthermore, since God did not require such reactions, would it be best for Jews to send a multitude of questions to a council of rabbis to get a ruling on each one? Did I read that correctly? God did not require such reactions? What does that statment even mean? If anyone knows please explain. And I think that the Jews, as any imperfect humans; it would be natural of them to ask specific questions concerning how the blood should be drained, what to do about larger animals and so on. They would want to make sure they are doing it right. And notice how the WT article actually states that they are implying that for the Jews to send a 'multitude of questions' to the rabbis would be frowned upon. Looks like the Society might be a too afraid of too many questions and concerns being sent to them concerining the accepting of blood fractions that they won't be able to ansewr. Or they just don't want to give anyone the option of any "independant thinking" about this "new light" without making them feel like there going against some Bible counsel.

  Though that custom developed in Judaism, we can be happy that Jehovah did not direct true worshippers to pursue decisions about blood in that way. God offered basic guidance on slaughtering clean animals and draining their blood but he did not go beyond that. Quick thought and correct me if I am wrong you guys but the Bible is filled with 'basic guidance' that Jehovah provides. For example: the counsel on "dress and grooming" is a basic princinple that one should be modest in their dress and grooming. Its says and does not get too specific right? There's nothig about: "no beard or skirts are too be 3 inches below the knee." (That all sounds like going beyond the law too me.

  PAR.16-18: ..Jehovah's Wittnesses do not accept transfusions of whole blood or of its four primary componenets-plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. What about small fractions ectracted form a primary component...Some have concluded that such minute fractions are, in effect, no longer blood and hence are not covered by the command 'to abstain from blood.' That is their resposibility. The conscience of others moves them to reject everything obtained from blood..even a tiny fractioon of just one primary component. (So does that mean the primary components ex:white blood cells, plasma etc.) contain substances in them that carry no blood? Moreover, some products derived from one of the four primary components may be so similar to the function of the whole component and carry on such a life-saving role in the body that most Christians would find them objectionable. Looks to me that the Society gives the option but is leaning more towards all not accepting any transfuions whatsoever. ..The first step is to learn what God's Word says and to strive to mold your conscience by it. This will equip you to decide in line with God's guidance rather than ask someone else to make a ruling for you. As to taking in blood fractions, some have thought "this is a matter of conscience, so it doesn't make any difference.'..It can be very serious. ..If he sumbles others he could 'ruin his brother for whose sake Christ died' and be sinning against Christ... If your taking a small blood fraction ( So there it is! In paragraph 18 it states: 'If your taking a small blood fraction would trouble your Bible trained conscience, you should not ingore it. Nor should you supress your conscienctous leaning just because someone tells you "its all right to take this; many have." )Remember millons of people today ingnore their conscience and that becomes deadned... Okay, so that means the fractions still contain blood! Wait a mintute! What is the difference in taking a whole blood tranfusion and taking in a part of a fraction of blood. Blood is blood right? Its like your Mom says you can't eat rat poison but then telling you that it is okay to have a piece of a piece of rat poison. Then it is okay?! Its still poison! And if it is still blood then why is the Society letting it up to us to decide. There usually so good at making decisons for us (especially ones that they claim our against the Bible) So is we are to 'abstain from blood' then why are we allowed to have fractions if blood. Just like I stated regarding paragraph 15 the Jews supposdly did not try to ask too many questions that went "beyond the law" right? Well conseling the brothers about having a part of a fraction from a whole blood sure sounds like going beyond "abstain from blood" to me. Does it not? Let me know what you all think cause boy was I stumped!
• 

  blondie

  Tres,

  Did you see about the WT last Sunday?

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/75960/1.ashx
• 

  95stormfront

  I was actually compelled to pick up and read these blood articles when my wife brought the magazines home and I walked away just as stumped and bewildered by the doublespeak and blatant hypocrisy as any reader here.

  Looks like they're dumbing down the magazines even further.
• 

  Mary

  This will equip you to decide in line with God's guidance rather than ask someone else to make a ruling for you

  Translation: We're writing this to avoid potential lawsuits, but in reality you have no choice in the matter: decide in line with OUR guidance, or your ass will be kicked out of the Organization faster than a speeding bullet.

  Why don't they just come out and say: WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN IF YOU TAKE A BLOOD TRANSFUSION OR NOT!!! I didn't even go yesterday because I read the article on Saturday and not only was it vastly confusing, it was also boring as hell.

  Though that custom developed in Judaism, we can be happy that Jehovah did not direct true worshippers to pursue decisions about blood in that way. God offered basic guidance on slaughtering clean animals and draining their blood but he did not go beyond that.

  Well isn't that an interesting statement to make. The Jews studied, reviewed and disected the Laws on blood. They asked tons of questions amongst themselves and all these Rabbis, gave their opinions, debated with each other on the topic and not one Jew; not even the most fanatical Orthodox Jew came to the conclusion that eating the blood of a dead animal is the same as TAKING A BLOOD TRANSFUSION FROM ANOTHER HUMAN BEING!!!!!

  For anyone from Bethel who's reading this, I have a question: Seeing as it was mainly Jews, or Israelites who wrote the freakin' bible, don't you think that if a blood transfusion for humans was no different than eating the blood of a dead carcass, that one of these Jews would have picked up on it?????
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Thank God it was my weekend to cover at work and I missed the WT Study
• 

  XQsThaiPoes

  tres albumin makes up 2% of your blood white blood cells less then 0.2%.

  What the watchtower is doing is ending the blood ban by using dated classifications. JWs can use any product made from fractionated blood. A red blood cell is 97% hemoglobin 3% is the shell (which is not used for anything except to give the cell form). Hemoglobin makes abour 15% of blood and is not a minor part. A hemoglobin transfusion is for "Christian to decide". A red blood cell transfusion is "unacceptable". The difference is that the hemoglobin transfusion is the red blood cells have been cooked (to break the membrain), washed with detergent, and filtered leaving it disease free and universaly acceptable.

  If you find this hypocritical jws eat non kosher meat which has no bleeding or curing standards. JWs simply buy meat and cook it. So why is it different if you medicaly cook blood and transfuse it. This is a power play to end the blood ban and hide from liability and save lives. The elder though did say "Keep conscience matters to your self".
• 

  Scully

  The elder though did say "Keep conscience matters to your self".

  Which means when translated: "You aren't allowed to discuss this with anyone else and potentially save their lives (or kill them)."

  I wonder if discussing Conscience Matters? will soon become an offense worthy of Public Reproof?.

  Love, Scully
• 

  JT

  The wt is always quoting somebody, but they never really tell you who they are- they referr to them as a Bible Scholar which creates in the mind a person who works at a college and does research on bible issues

  when in fact this guy is a pastor of a church - in fact he was like a CO in his religion, of course no jw knows this and most likely will not look it up

  for religion that dogs going to college they certainly rely heavily on men with WORLD KNOWLEDGE

  The name of Adam Clarke is synonymous with biblical scholarship and rightly so. His Commentary and Critical Notes on the entire Bible was completed in 1826 and it represented more than 30 years of intense research and writing. Other scholars have written commentaries on the whole Bible, but Clarke?s is a thesaurus of biblical, oriental, philosophical, and classical learning unequaled by any other. When it is recalled that all this work was done while Clarke was a busy, itinerant Wesleyan preacher who never had an hour?s secretarial help in his life, it, together with all his other publications, indicates a prodigious literary achievement.

  Clarke was a Wesleyan scholar and an ardent, convinced expositor of scriptural holiness. No appreciation of the holiness heritage can ignore Adam Clarke. Following the Wesley brothers and John Fletcher, Clarke?s is the next name in that illustrious line of holiness preachers and scholars from John Wesley to the present. It is altogether fitting that we should highlight Adam Clarke?s contribution to the theology of scriptural holiness. Before looking at his teaching in some detail, a brief sketch of his life and work is necessary.

  Adam Clarke was born in the county of Londonderry, North Ireland, in 1760 and was converted in 1779 through hearing a Methodist preacher.

  Three years later he left home to attend Wesley?s school in Kingswood, Bristol, England. Five weeks later he was appointed to his first preaching circuit and for the next 50 years he was a self-taught Wesleyan preacher who, among other academic accomplishments, made himself master of at least 10 languages, ancient and modern.

  He served on 24 Methodist circuits in England and Ireland, worked for years in the Channel Islands, was three times president of the English Methodist Conference and four times president of the Irish Methodist Conference. He devoted hundreds of working hours to the newly founded British and Foreign Bible Society and 10 years of painstaking editing and collating of state papers. This latter work was a colossal undertaking. It required the most exact examination, deciphering, and classification of British State Papers from 1131 to 1666. The research was carried on in different locations, including the Tower of London, London?s Westminster Archives, and Cambridge University Library. In 1808 the University of Aberdeen conferred on Adam Clarke the honorary degree of LL.D., the university?s highest academic honor.

  As well as his Commentary, Clarke?s publications ran to 22 volumes, including his Memorials of the Wesley Family, Reflections on the Being and Attributes of God, The Manners of the Ancient Israelites, 4 volumes of sermons, 3 volumes of miscellanea titled Detached Pieces, a volume on Christian Missions, A Concise View of the Succession of Sacred Literature, and A Bibliographical Dictionary. Clarke?s literary output was phenomenal when it is recalled that he was a full-time itinerant preacher.

  A glance at the record of the 24 Methodist circuits he served between 1782 and 1832 shows that his longest domicile in one place was four years, yet his moving from place to place approximately every two years does not seem to have interfered with his reading, writing, and publication.

  He was elected a member of six of the most learned societies of his day, including the Antiquarian Society, the Royal Asiatic Society, and the Royal Irish Academy. In spite of all the distinctions given to him, Clarke remained a loyal Wesleyan preacher and a devout, humble believer.
• 

  Room 215

  How is ``deciding in line with God's guidance" (good) any different than ``leaning on your own understanding" (bad)? If different, how different is it? And, how is it possible to extract the ``permissible" fractions without violating the rule of not storing blood?
• 

  XBEHERE

  I was there and I hung my head in embarrassment when we got to page 22 and that chart. It amazes me how people can read this and not see right through it. Isnt the sum of all fractions of say.. red blood cells still RED BLOOD CELLS!??!?!

  There is no logic in it. Some sister even comented about a question from readers where a pregnant woman passes some of the immunoglobins to the fetus during gestation. So therefore it may be ok to take some of these fractions based on blood components. What gets me also, and its been mentioned before on here, why cant we donate blood that will be broken down into fractions if we can use these fractions. Isnt that selfish?