For Neologist, and anyone else affiliated with watchtower.

It certainly says what you have pointed out. But is your interpretation correct? Probably not, in the light of the remainder of the chapter.

You apparently have had considerable association with the Witnesses, so you may have been told that the Watchtower Society makes no claim to infallibility. I say this only to announce it to others who may only be reading these posts. There have been many occasions where later versions of a publication have been edited for clarity. And, of course, you must be well aware that the Society has also made significant adjustments in doctrine. For example, it wasn't until the 1970s that tobacco use was considered an offense.

Perhaps the sentence you quoted may later be rewritten; perhaps not. To me, it is simply a statement relating to whole blood that is taken to be used for some purpose. I believe the context shows that it is not referring to grey areas such as blood fractions and the recycling of blood during a medical procedure.

You could very well be correct that any use of blood for any purpose is contrary to God's law. After all, if Witnesses are admonished not to donate blood, that could effectively eliminate the use of any blood fractions but not prohibit the temporary recycling of a patient's blood. On these issues, the Bible does not give a complete answer and neither does the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

Deleted.

Noted. :wink:

Teleologist wrote:


Neologist responded:


My interpretation? I thought all JW's understood "abstain...from blood" to mean not taking it into one's body at all. If that's not your understanding then please explain what you think "abstain...from blood" means.

Neologist wrote:


Why is this a grey area? Either injecting blood into one's veins is the same as eating it or it isn't. Either injecting blood into one's veins violates the command to abstain from blood or it doesn't. Unless the Apostolic decree at Acts 15:29 forbids taking blood into one's body in any way as the Watchtower contends then there is no basis for claiming that Acts 15:29 forbids taking blood transfusions.

Both the Noachian and Mosaic law required persons to abstain from blood. What did this abstention entail? Was it a total ban on taking any blood into one's body? No. What was required was the "ritual" of pouring out the blood of an animal killed for food to show respect for the life that had been taken. This meant allowing the blood to drain till it stopped flowing . This procedure still left blood inside the carcass, perhaps as much as 50%. And yet God permited this blood to be eaten. It is obvious that neither the Noachian or the Mosaic law required total abstention from blood.

So what about the Apostolic Decree at Acts 15:29? Is there any reason to suspect that the abstention concerning blood mentioned there goes beyond the abstention required by the Noachian and Mosaic law? Not if you take seriously what previous Watchtower publications have said on this subject. Here's an example. The JW book Aid to Bible Understanding on page 244, in reference to the admonition of Acts 15:29 says:



It is a JW teaching that Acts 15:29 is not based on the Mosaic law but is based on God's law to Noah. How did righteous Noah abstain from blood? By not taking any of it into his body? No. His abstention required that he drain the blood from animals he killed for food before he ate the meat. Acts 15:29 is telling us that the Noachian law is still in effect and binding on Christians. Therefore, if we want to know what blood God wants us to abstain from and what type of abstention He requires, we need to examine the Noachian Decree.

Apparently you are one for whom there is no grey area. That would be OK. So what do you think? Does 'abstain from blood' mean no transfusions no eating, no drinking, no blood fractions, no recycling during dialysis? Or shall we just throw up our hands, say 'God is inscrutable' and have some blood sausage washed down with a bucket of beer?

You asked me what I believe and I'm sure I've told you several times. Need it again? OK.

I believe 'abstain from blood' positively commands me to not accept transfusions of whole blood or blood platelets and to refrain from eating blood as food. To these I add a few opinions for which I offer no scriptural justification:

I am not sure if blood fractions fall into this category, but I am perfectly willing to concede that my understanding may be incorrect. So far, I have seen nothing from the Society to influence me one way or the other.

Ditto with recycling my own blood at the time of the medical procedure. I think it may be OK; but that is my own understanding. As far as donating my own blood to be stored for later use, I don't think I could do that. As it turns out, each year there are fewer and fewer medical procedures where doctors might deem it necessary.

Should the Watchtower Society be more specific? It's your call, not mine.

Neologist wrote:


Neo, is injecting blood into one's veins the same as eating it? Yes or no? Does injecting blood into one's veins violate the command to abstain from blood? Yes or no? If you answer yes to either of these questions then any procedure that involves injecting blood into your veins is wrong. There is no way around it. Where is the grey area?

Neologist wrote:


Well, having the blood you lose during an operation put back in you involves a transfusion of whole blood.

You still have not come to realize that your first question is irrelevant. Eating blood or injecting blood into one's veins would be in violation of the command to abstain from blood.

You assert
1] that any chemical derived from blood is in fact blood, and
2] that any recycling of one's blood in a medical procedure would be a violation of the command to abstain from blood.

You may very well be correct.

First off, I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm simply offering an alternative Biblical perspective on the issue of blood. Before I came here no one was doing this. Those opposing the JW position on blood were hurling insults like JW's are child murderers. I'm here to elevate the discussion to Scripture and logic and not engage in personal attacks.

Neologist wrote:


No I don't. What I assert is that it's illogical to use from blood and at the same time claim to be abstaining from blood. If your doctor tells you to abstain from ham sandwiches are you complying with his directions if you get a ham sandwich and eat some of its parts separately? Of course not. Likewise with blood. If you take a pint of blood, fractionate it into smaller parts, and inject some of these parts into your veins then you can't claim you are abstaining from blood. JW's make use of many medical products that take large amounts of stored blood to produce. That to me is not abstaining from blood.

Neologist wrote:


No, that's incorrect. I think there is a distinction to be made between procedures involving actual recycling (where blood is not stored but continuously circulated) and Watchtower approved procedures where blood is removed from the body for several hours and then transfused back into the veins.

Neologist wrote:


It's not irrelevant when discussing JW doctrine because JW's like yourself still use the analogy of a blood transfusion being like intravenous feeding. I've never debated a JW that didn't use this analogy. You used it back on page 4 of this thread. I think the reason JW's use the analogy is because it is very effective. Who wants to eat blood, yuck. Visions of vampires and all that. But the analogy is bogus and I will continue to point this out as long as JW's use it.

In addition, it is my opinion that the command to "abstain...from blood" means to abstain from eating blood. The JW book "Reasoning from the Scriptures" at the top of page 71 after quoting Acts 15:28,29 says in parentheses: (There the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in.) So the authors of this book recognize that Acts 15:28,29 is telling Christians to not eat blood.

This is the first time that Teleologist has acknowledged that his contention about abstaining from blood is his opinion--throughout this discussion, he has offered it as a statement from authority, without further qualification. That others might not agree with him is the soul of divergent exegesis.

If you say you did not make these assertions. . . .Well you wrote them. What was I to think?

As far as the blood/alcohol analogy is concerned, I have no idea what it is you are trying to get across. Suppose we were to consider cocaine instead of alcohol. If a doctor told you to abstain from cocaine, would it make any difference whether you were to eat, snort, smoke or shoot? Abstain pretty much means its a no-no, wouldn't you say?

Hello to all of you!

It seems that The Watchtower Society has created a big portion of confusion regarding medical use of blood, among their members, even more among non members, nobody else, studying the Bible and familiarly with the Hebrew and Greek language, have come up with the same interpretation, conclusion and doctrine as the Society, regarding the use of blood and derivates from blood.

The Society has from the early thirties banned vaccinations, with sanctions, as the act of Satan and later on from the forties also banned blood transfusions, by learning and indoctrinated their members, that medical use of blood will displease God, which tragically has resulted in approximate 1000 adult and children's death every year and those who didn't follow the doctrines, was shunned and cut of from their family members friends and was totally socially isolated.

As time pas by, The Society positively, for their members, lift the ban on vaccinations and it was now up to the individuals own conscience to accept vaccinations or not, with that argument, that the Bible didn't mentioning anything about vaccinations.

Later on and before year 2000 the Society slowly start to change their blood doctrine, by allowing certain blood components and derivates from blood to be used. In 2004 and in the August edition of Awake 2006 it comes forth that red and white cells, plasma and pallets still are banned, but all derivates are acceptable and it is now, like vaccinations, up to each members own conscience to decide whether they will use the allowed blood derivates or not.

The Watchtower Society has for more than 50 years indoctrinated their members conscience that they will loose Gods favour, salvation and be delivered to Satan and as a result hereof, many members are still rejecting a vaccination and blood derivates, that's why it seems to be difficult to stop the death casualties, even it now has been accepted by the Society to take a vaccination and use derivates from blood, even in a situation where it could lead to the death.

It seems that The Watchtower Society are more concerned about the Organization, persons in the Governing Body, doctrines and numbers, rather than their members life and security, and the death casualties among their members continues, because it is only Countries which has a well establish hospital system and clinics, with access to derivates and resources, who can offer treatments with sell saver and Hemopure, adjusted to the Society's changing blood doctrines.

The Watchtower Society's actual stand at the blood doctrine, as described in the August edition of Awake, rise more questions, than it answers.

1. How can the Society forbid medical use of whole blood, in a distress situation, when a Jew and an Alien in Leviticus 17:15 was allowed to eat a self dead animal with all its blood in, like a sausage to sustain life? Only a ceremonial bath before evening and the matter was settled between God and the Society!

2. How can the Society allow that tons of killed animals blood are stored and not purred out at the ground, as described in Leviticus 17:13 and 97 % of the red forbidden blood cells can be used at their members, with the risk for being infected with the animal variant of the human Creutzfeldt Jacobs Disease CJD, mad cow disease BSE?

3 How can the Society forbid members to store their own blood before a planned operation, when no life are taken but they can accept that animals get killed and tons of blood can be stored and used in form of Hemopure?

4. Can the Society have got the same wrong understanding, like the disciples who left Jesus in John 6:52-63, that it isn't the physical blood, but the blood as a metaphor for life?

5. How can the Society forbid their members to donate blood, which even could save life at their followers, when they accept to receive donated blood from non members and blood from animals?

6. How can the Society manipulate and give different explanations of the Greek word "Eudolothutos" which Paul uses in the first letter to the Corinthians 8:4 and James in Acts 15:29 different for support of the blood ban and doctrine? It was not a Christian commandment but more a recommendation!

7. Have Jehovah violated his own law in the creation by letting the bat, mosquito, the leech and other animals sustain life on holy blood and letting twins share the same blood via or in the Festus. Wouldn't it be a bad example for us?

8 When the Society in public admit that the blood is a fluting organ and they now accept that organ transplantations are allowed, why are a blood transfusion still banned with sanctions?

This was only a few questions who arise because of the Watchtower Society's ban on blood, there are many others which remains, but the main thing is how can this misguided insanity be stopped, because the Bible is quite clear that nobody have the right to play masters over our beliefs, which it seems that the Governing Body totally have missed by putting sanction behind their doctrines. The second letter to Corinthians 1:24!

Ecclesiastes 1:18 and 12:11-14!

Welcome to the forum, Talkative. You most certainly have a way with words.

Thank you very much Neo, unfortunately I have not been into this forum more than this time, so after reading all of it, you maybe can understand that I have accumulated a little bit? But it is nothing compared to the Watchtower. Ecclesiastes 12:12!

There is more to follow, since The Society allow blood components, "If they are minor", with the explanation, that it isn't blood anymore! Even that 97 % of the forbidden red blood cells are allowed to be injected. Is that in accordance to a no-no situation?

9. If you take an orange and peel of the oranges shell and separate the fruit in segments and eat, is only one or are all of the segments Ok to be eaten, since it is not or can be classified as an orange anymore? Red blood cells, white cells, plasma and pallets are prohibited but 97 % of the red blood cells without the donuts, the shell, have the Society allowed to be injected!

10. Regarding fornication it is also a no-no in accordance to the Bible and when couple only do petting, a minor part of fornication, will that also be Ok, acceptable and allowed by The Society?

11. If you use and inject, or sniffing heroine, you are obviously violating the law of God, but if you get natural morphine injected or eat it as chemical tablets (e.g. Ketogane) on a hospital it is Ok!
Is it not a violence of God's law, in both cases, because the chemical structure is the alike and it doesn't matter whether you eat, snort, smoke or shoot, the effect is exactly the same, it is only a question of reaction time, opposite eating blood versus having an injection of whole blood, where the body can't use a blood transfusion as nutria. (Sustain life)

11. If the blood really is holy and not a metaphor for life itself, how can the Society, who says that they teach their members Bible standards, allow any component of the blood, if it is a no-no? Is that not a violence of God's law?

It will be highly appreciated if you or even better if The Watchtower Society will answer the questions, I have never get an answer myself, by writing several times to them, the only result was that members have been DF for asking, without an explanation in secret trails like the one with Jesus! Ephesians 5:6-15!

If it is a matter of faith, like Jim Jones followers or maybe more correct, a matter of credulousity, it is not possible to discuss the blood issue, but if you really like to find out what Jehovah shows us in the creation and what the Bible really have to say to us, then you will find the answer, not from men who only lay burden up on shoulders and teach doctrines in question of medical treatment with blood or blood components.

Jehovah has given us a free will and it is only God and his son Jesus Christ who have the right to judge us, not self conducted religious leaders, which all claim, like the Pope, Jim Jones and The Governing Body among others, that they are anointed by God but all have one in common, they create death and sorrow for people who believe they are anointed, as Jesus describe it in John 8:44!

It shall and should always have been the adults and individuals own choice to accept or reject a medical treatment with whole or derivates from blood, except for children.

It seems, that the Watchtower Society now have learned that the blood only is a metaphor for the life itself and they admit that it is not holy, but they still look at themselves as vicars for Jesus, that's why they can't admit that they have and make mistakes, opposite to what the Bible teach us in the first of John 1:9,10! At least it could be a minor compensation to all of them which they have been responsible for died, offered at the Watchtower alters. Jeremiah 7:31!

If the Gowerning Body was anointed by Jehovah or Jesus Christ, they have certainly maked the Holy Spirit totally powerleess, since and if their doctrines was from God, they would have voted 100 % for or against at their meetings in The Tower, in Question of Bible Standards or doctrines! 1914,25 and 75. Deuteronomy 18:20-22!

They "bought" the 1914 theory from the Adventists, Brown and Barbour and it was C. J. WOODWORTH'S who started the ban on vaccination and the blood and since they are more anxious about their unity and the Organisation, rather than the flock, they continue their teachings as long as the persons who have created the ideas and doctrines are alive.

There is and old proverbs who says: "Shoemaker stay with you last" but The Governing body have tried to regulate every little aspect of their followers life and mind, which in accordance to my opinion is wrong and even evil! They should have listen to Jesus Christ teachings and examples, instead of using Mind Control and indoctrination processes, based at voting's and doctrines, rather than love to their members and our next as the Bible command us to do. Romans 13:8-10!

Maybe and sometime in the future, members of the Governing body will take their decisions up to revalidation, but in the meantime brothers, sisters and their children are going to die unnecessarily, because they in more than 50 years have learned them to abstain from blood, in every respect, in accordance to the blood card. It must be stopped one way or another, based at information and legal actions, since that is what they really have respect for, maybe except for the Organisation they have created, not Jehovah nor Jesus Christ and the most valuable for them and us, the life itself. John 3:16-21!

Jesus said in Matthew 15:14; "When a blind man guides a blind man they both fall in the same pit" The question is who have guided the present members of The Governing Body?

Ecclesiastes 1:18, 12:11-14 and Psalm 146:3-5!

One good feature of a2k membership is that it serves as a continuing school for rhetorical excellence. Should you choose to apply yourself, in a short while you will be able to write readable posts. First, let me point out an application sure to help immediately:

If you will notice, just below the lower right hand corner of the text box is a button labeled 'SpellCheck'. Using it not only shows respect for others, but lends credibility to your line of reasoning.

Of course, that would not help in your misuse of the word 'fluting' and other grammatical indiscretions. But, in time, even those may be overcome.

Now as to blood being an organ, so what? How does that change the admonition to avoid it?

Neologist wrote:


Not necessarily. If your doctor told you to abstain from meat would you take that to mean you shouldn't have an organ transplant? You could reason that your doctor was telling you to not take meat into your body at all but would you? Most likely you would understand that your doctor was telling you to not eat meat and since having an organ transplant doesn't involve eating meat you would conclude that your doctor's order to abstain from meat didn't cover organ transplants.

The same logic can be applied to Acts 15:29 where it says "abstain... from blood". Does this forbid having the organ (blood) transplanted? Well, you could reason that "abstain...from blood" means not taking it into your body at all or you could reason that "abstain...from blood" means to not eat blood the same as you would reason that your doctor's order to "abstain from meat" meant to not eat meat and since transplanting blood isn't the same as eating blood then Acts 15:29 doesn't fordid the transplanting of blood.

id have to agree with Teleologist. Thats exactly what it means.

Neologist wrote:


I suspect that English is not this posters first language. Why not cut him some slack? I was able to understand all the points he made. If there is something you didn't understand then perhaps I can translate for you.

You are quite right, except for the sacred quality assigned to blood in the scriptures.

I wonder how soon advances in medical technology, especially in the development of blood substitutes, will make this argument moot.