Has there been any "New Light" on the Blood Issue? (page 15)

rootcause

Hello Cygnus,

Finally, someone who did not misunderstood me . . .

As you can see, in knowing the function of placenta blood derivatives or should I say the the mail the postman delivered were allowed to be recieved and not the blood. Since, technology showed how God made the as a vehicle to deliver nutrients and also clean our body. Did it not more logical now to accepts its "mail delivery" but still keeping away from blood.

You are definitely correct that disease can also be transmitted if not processed correctly. So, you have this knowledge that the "mail can be accepted " but there are chance or risk of disease like in Canada, What will you do now? based on conscientious or the best logical decision. Remember life is sacred.

http://www.americasblood.org/download/bulletin_v5_n1.pdf

The Institute of Medicine report,

To Err Is Human , has called attention to the enormous morbidity and mortality associated with hospital-based errors. These errors have been largely ignored by government agencies focused on blood safety. For example, the Canadian Krever Commission selectively applied the precautionary principle only to infectious risks of transfusion, but not to the very real non-infectious hazards of transfusion.

For the Organization, you are definitely correct...Now the next question can an organization be called an organization without a sets of rules and regulation?

Thanks,

rootcause

hello Blondie,

Did it not when you extract the passenger you get rid of the Bus?

Thanks,

TD

As you can see, in knowing the function of placenta blood derivatives or should I say the the mail the postman delivered were allowed to be recieved and not the blood.

What part of plasma does not cross the syncytial membrane?

rootcause

Hello TD,

Red blood cells (erythrocytes), Platelets (thrombocytes)

Is it therefore the bus or the passenger? Is it not the four primary components: (1) red cells; (2) white cells; (3) platelets; (4) plasma (serum) of the blood? like the bus, you got the engine, the wheel, system, the braking system, and the body.

Are they the passenger?

Thanks,

rootcause

Hello TD,

Are you refering to the initial implantation of the fertilized egg cell? if it yes, at this primitive state does the fertilized egg already got its own distinctive type blood?

Thanks,

TD

Hello Rootcause,

Is it therefore the bus or the passenger? Is it not the four primary components: (1) red cells; (2) white cells; (3) platelets; (4) plasma (serum) of the blood? like the bus, you got the engine, the wheel, system, the braking system, and the body.

Blood is a liquid tissue and water is that liquid. All blood components are "passengers" of this liquid medium which transports them. The "bus" is simply water. This is why I don't believe your bus/passenger analogy provides a viable defense of the JW transfusion medicine taboo. Another problem with this analogy is the arbitrary nature of the resultant distinctions.

For example, you attempted to answer Blondie's question regarding the JW allowance of hemoglobin based blood substitutes using this analogy. But regardless of whether the hemoglobin is free or encapsulated by an intact cell membrane, it is still simply a "passenger" as far as your analogy is concerned.

Are you refering to the initial implantation of the fertilized egg cell? if it yes, at this primitive state does the fertilized egg already got its own distinctive type blood?

No. I'm referring to the syncytial (placental) membrane from approximately 30 weeks after conception through term. From this point on, the various plasma proteins do cross from the maternal to the fetal side and vice versa. This even includes albumin, which actually performs the specific function of keeping the blood fluid from diffusing into the surrounding tissues by preventing membrane trensference. (Low levels of albumin result in edema --the swelling of joints caused by fluid escapement.)

For example, t he MSAFP test (Maternal Serum Alpha-Fetoprotein) is commonly utilized here in America to determine the levels of AFP from the fetus in the mother's blood. Elevated AFP levels can be indicitive of problems in fetal formation. (i.e. failure of part of the embryologic neural tube to close (Neural tube defects include anencephaly (failure of closure at the cranial end of the neural tube) and spina bifida (failure of closure at the caudal end of the neural tube))

This test would be impossible if albumin were not transferred. The point here is that when it comes to plasma, the passenger/bus analogy again fails to explain the JW position. The individual plasma proteins do cross between the maternal and fetal circuits and when you extract all the plasma proteins from serum, all you have left is water. Which is the "passenger" and which is the "bus?" Which is "blood" and which is not?

The problem here, Rootcause, is that "blood" is really the sum total of all of its components. Once we start separating these components, it becomes completely arbitrary to try to claim that some of these are still "blood" and some of are not.

To go back to Blondie's question, how could it be said that the erythrocyte membrane is "blood" but the hemoglobin within is not? Since mature erythrocytes do not possess a nucleus or other organelles, they are really nothing more than sacks of hemoglobin floating in the bloodstream. The JW allowance of hemoglobin once it has been separated from the cell membrane is tantamount to saying, "It is OK to eat blood as long as you cook it first." since heat will rupture the cell membrane and fractionate the hemoglobin.

Abaddon

rootcause

AH, so you are arguing that the soldiers were not killed because Saul forced them into a situation where they had to consume blood.

Well this is a poor arguement for two reasons;

1/ They were not forced, they were only hungry, not about to die. They could have waited. Yet despite this they were not punished

2/ If Saul died because he forced people into a situation where they ended up consuming blood, and because it was his fault they did not suffer the penalty themselves, your arguement would allow blood transfusions in emergency situations where the person needing the blood was not responsible for needing the blood - like in a car accident.

Using exactly the same logic you use, in such a situation any penalty would fall upon the person who caused the accident, and no punishment for taking blood would fall upon the person taking blood.

Oh, please show me the scriptures that say Saul died because of the events described in 1 Sam 14. I think you are clutching at straws and cannot prove this; Saul did not consume blood himself.

And please explain how JW's can say a life-saving blood transfusion is punishable in the way they punish it. As the example YOU gave shows, in such a situation where no life was threatened, the person taking blood was not held accountable if it was caused by the actions of another.

2) Are you an Apostate ? Did you not believed in Jesus Teachings? if you are why not the postmaster delete your post in this JW forum? Or are you just those people who needs to have the exact knowledge?

Are you really THAT simple? Or just lying to salve your conscience? I would say over 90% of active posters on this board are no longer Jehovah's Witnesses, and if you have read ANY threads here you'd be aware of that. You are actually totally going against society guidelines by being here. So you are an apostate, as you are 'standing against' (see the meaning of the word) the guidance of the JW's.

And you ignore the point I am making; from my reading of the Bible you are an apostate as you are insisting that blood cannot be consumed without punishment when the Bible shows us the exact opposite.

I am glad you now conceed that the word 'organisation' does not occur in the Bible. How can you claim that any group of people form 'god's organisation' when the Bible doesn't even use those words? You are adding to the Bible; just like the Pharasees added to god's word. More apostacy on your part.

It is a pity you are too busy judging others (I recommend you read the book of James) to accept that you are also doing wrong by not showing a Christ-like attitude towards those you deal with.

rootcause

Hello abaddon,

(1 Chronicles 10:1-3) . . .And the Phi·lis´tines, for their part, made war upon Israel; and the men of Israel went fleeing from before the Phi·lis´tines and kept falling slain in Mount Gil·bo´a. 2

And the Phi·lis´tines kept in close range of Saul and his sons; and the Phi·lis´tines got to strike down Jon´a·than and A·bin´a·dab and Mal´chi-shu´a, sons of Saul. 3 And the fighting became heavy against Saul; and those shooting with the bow finally found him, and he got wounded by the shooters. . .

(1 Chronicles 10:13) 13

Thus Saul died for his unfaithfulness with which he had acted faithlessly against Jehovah concerning the word of Jehovah that he had not kept and also for asking of a spirit medium to make inquiry. . .

Do you think 1 Chronicles 10:13 only refer to a single unfaithfulness of Saul? also, in 1 Chronicles 10:1-3, can you assume that the man who died in Gilboa did not include the man who eat along with blood in 1Sam14?

By the way are you a JW before? also, did I judge anyone?

Thanks,

rootcause

Hello TD,

Are, you saying that the mother's blood crosses with that of the fetus? if so, is it normal even if the mother's blood did not have same blood type as the fetus?

Thanks,

4nick8

Rootin Tootin-

I'm safe from study with

you at the helm,buddy

Tracy

Has there been any "New Light" on the Blood Issue?

Share this