For Neologist, and anyone else affiliated with watchtower.

This is very interesting neologist, and I'm glad you're taking my questions for just what they are....questions to obtain information.

Yes, I too am looking foward to a response to Tele's question.

Also, (sorry to be ignorant) do JW's abstain from pork?...that heparin question was really an aside addressed to religions that do. I was just musing in general about medical procedures and religious practices. Yeah, I know Witnesses do accept dialysis in general.

Funny...last night after posting here I logged off to read for a while. I'm reading a text that I just got to the section about JW's...which gave some of the history.

From what I read, Rutherford was the person who interpreted God's word re the blood business, siting Leviticus. However, this brought to mind a thread I started a while back called something like "Leviticus light...."

In that thread, questioning the a la carte approach to the laws found there. So, that said, why accept the blood prohibition, but not others? The section of the book I was reading was of course not all inclusive of any particular relegions beliefs, so it made me wonder why Rutherford considered that law above others.

Also, as far a blood being sacred....Well, yes...I agree with you personally. Looking at the entire world as a gift, everything is sacred.

If a person were to acknowledge the sacred aspect of, for instance, everything eaten, it makes every day sacred.

To me, it's a mind set...if one takes from the earth mindlessly, you won't realize it's a gift. By taking all, including the blood, as a life sustaining event, one is honoring the sacredness of it.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Neologist: To me, the word 'abstain' casts a wider net than 'do not eat'.

Teleologist: Well, that's something worth discussing but first I would like to know if you still think that taking a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood?

To Jehovah, yes.

Chai Tea wrote:

This is very interesting neologist, and I'm glad you're taking my questions for just what they are....questions to obtain information.

Yes, I too am looking foward to a response to Tele's question.

Also, (sorry to be ignorant) do JW's abstain from pork?

The Jewish dietary restrictions were removed at the expiration of the Old Covenant (See Acts 10:9-16)

Chai Tea wrote:

Funny...last night after posting here I logged off to read for a while. I'm reading a text that I just got to the section about JW's...which gave some of the history.

From what I read, Rutherford was the person who interpreted God's word re the blood business, siting Leviticus. However, this brought to mind a thread I started a while back called something like "Leviticus light...."

In that thread, questioning the a la carte approach to the laws found there. So, that said, why accept the blood prohibition, but not others? The section of the book I was reading was of course not all inclusive of any particular relegions beliefs, so it made me wonder why Rutherford considered that law above others.

Also, as far a blood being sacred....Well, yes...I agree with you personally. Looking at the entire world as a gift, everything is sacred.

If a person were to acknowledge the sacred aspect of, for instance, everything eaten, it makes every day sacred.

To me, it's a mind set...if one takes from the earth mindlessly, you won't realize it's a gift. By taking all, including the blood, as a life sustaining event, one is honoring the sacredness of it.

Using bananas as an example: :wink:

Certainly they are a gift from God and an example of the great love he shows for us in the variety of foods we have to eat. If, in that sense, bananas are sacred, I leave it for you to decide. There are, however, no scriptural references to the value of bananas in sacrifice.

Blood, however, has a singular designation both in its sacrificial value and in its relationship to life's essence. "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood. . ." (Leviticus 17:11)

When Jesus instituted the New Covenant, he used wine as a symbol for his blood - the perfect blood - which was necessary for our redemption.

Can you provide a link to 'Leviticus light'?

0 Replies

Neologist, please explain why taking a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood. Are you disputing the medical evidence that transfused blood is not treated by the body as food? Are you disputing that a person that can't eat through their mouth will die of starvation if nothing other than blood is transfused into their veins? Are JW's that have their own blood transfused back into them guilty of eating blood?

0 Replies

We're not on the same page, Tele. The laws regarding blood are scriptural. I believe I said earlier in this thread that modern medicine is likely to move away from the routine use of blood products because of the inherent dangers. But the medical evidence one way or the other is irrelevant.

As far as storing one's own blood for later transfusion, most witnesses would consider it contrary to God's law. There is a fine line between this and having one's blood leave one's body and returning via kidney dialysis, so I would have to say we are dealing with a grey area that I am not qualified to judge.

I am going in for knee replacement surgery in a few weeks and my orthopedist has asked me to consider whether it would be OK for them to collect my blood lost and transfuse it back into me. I haven't decided on this as yet. Either way would be OK with him.

0 Replies

Neo,
It would be interesting to see what your decision turns out to be. I hope that nobody becomes judgemental, whatever it is.

0 Replies

Neologist: We're not on the same page, Tele. The laws regarding blood are scriptural...medical evidence one way or the other is irrelevant.

Teleologist: I don't dispute that there are scriptures that prohibit the eating of blood. What I'm trying to determine is why JW's claim that taking blood through the veins is the same as taking it through the mouth. The scriptures certainly don't say this, so what is this teaching based on? JW publications use medical evidence to support their claim that taking blood through the veins is the same as taking it through the mouth. How so? Well, they present evidence that persons can be fed through their veins in a medical procedure known as intravenous feeding. With this medical evidence in hand they try to connect blood transfusions with intravenous feeding and then claim that taking blood through the veins is the same as taking in through the mouth. In case you missed it this is a medical and not a scriptural argument. If JW's use medical evidence to make their case that taking a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood then it's certainly relevant if there is medical evidence that refutes this claim. Do you agree?

Neologist: As far as storing one's own blood for later transfusion, most witnesses would consider it contrary to God's law. There is a fine line between this and having one's blood leave one's body and returning via kidney dialysis, so I would have to say we are dealing with a grey area that I am not qualified to judge.

I am going in for knee replacement surgery in a few weeks and my orthopedist has asked me to consider whether it would be OK for them to collect my blood lost and transfuse it back into me. I haven't decided on this as yet. Either way would be OK with him.

Teleologist: Watchtower teaching prohibites storing up one's own blood for a future operation but allows one to have procedures done wherein the blood is out of one's body for a period of hours not weeks. Exactly where the line is drawn is a mystery.

If you insist that blood transfused into one's veins is the same as eating it then why would you possibly consider taking a transfusion of your own blood? Wouldn't you be eating it?

0 Replies

Hi,Teleologist

It would be very helpful if you could use the quote function so that the statements made can be identified by who posts them. You can either use the quote box on the right side, or you can just use [ quote ] at the beginning of the quote and [ /quote ] at the end. Without the spaces.

Thanks

0 Replies

You seem to know a little about the Witnesses and the blood issue, Tele; so why not focus on the command to abstain from blood. In that case it wouldn't matter whether the blood was transfused, eaten or snorted, wouldn't you think?

0 Replies

Before we switch to a different topic I would like to get some closure on what we've been currently discussing. You presented the argument that blood transfusions are comparable to intravenous feeding in order to bolster the claim that taking blood transfusions are the same as eating blood. Can you back up the claim that blood transfusions are comparable to intravenous feeding or not? If you can't, just say so and we can move on.

0 Replies

For my part, I'm completely opposed to the idea that children could be denied life saving medical treatment before they are old enough to make the decision for themselves. The law has been changed in Australia to prevent Jehovas Witnesses from committing murder in this manner.

0 Replies

Neologist, I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why having your own blood transfused back into you isn't the same as eating it.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Before we switch to a different topic I would like to get some closure on what we've been currently discussing. You presented the argument that blood transfusions are comparable to intravenous feeding in order to bolster the claim that taking blood transfusions are the same as eating blood. Can you back up the claim that blood transfusions are comparable to intravenous feeding or not? If you can't, just say so and we can move on.

What point are you trying to make. I'm not giving you a scientific or medical or dietary opinion, just a scriptural one.

0 Replies

You made the claim that blood transfusions are comparable to intravenous feeding. Is that claim based on scripture? No. It's a medical opinion. The only way to determine if a blood transfusion is comparable to intravenous feeding is to find out what the body does with transfused blood. Have you done that? If not, then your medical claim is baseless. That's my point.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me why having your own blood transfused back into you isn't the same as eating it. Since you are having difficulty answering this question I will help you out. The reason why having your own blood transfused back into you isn't the same as eating it is because your body will not consume the transfused blood as food. When your blood is put back into you it will resume doing exactly what it was doing before it left your body. Does this help?

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

You made the claim that blood transfusions are comparable to intravenous feeding. Is that claim based on scripture? No. It's a medical opinion. The only way to determine if a blood transfusion is comparable to intravenous feeding is to find out what the body does with transfused blood. Have you done that? If not, then your medical claim is baseless. That's my point.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me why having your own blood transfused back into you isn't the same as eating it. Since you are having difficulty answering this question I will help you out. The reason why having your own blood transfused back into you isn't the same as eating it is because your body will not consume the transfused blood as food. When your blood is put back into you it will resume doing exactly what it was doing before it left your body. Does this help?

The scriptural admonition is to 'abstain from blood'. (Acts 5:20,29)

So, whether it is eaten, transfused, snorted or sucked from one's neck shouldn't make any difference. What is your point?

If I confused you by making an analogy between eating and transfusing, I beg forgiveness. Is anyone else confused?

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

For my part, I'm completely opposed to the idea that children could be denied life saving medical treatment before they are old enough to make the decision for themselves. The law has been changed in Australia to prevent Jehovas Witnesses from committing murder in this manner.

Is it OK to murder one's unborn children in Australia?

"Hypocrites is as hypocrites does." Gump said that, right?

0 Replies

Exactly my thought, Neo.

0 Replies

Neologist wrote:

Quote:

If I confused you by making an analogy between eating and transfusing, I beg forgiveness. Is anyone else confused?

Yes, I guess the Watchtower Society is confused. The analogy between eating and transfusing came from them not you. You just quoted them. They have made this bogus analogy for over 30 years and they should know better by now. You evidently agreed with the analogy or you wouldn't have posted it. The analogy between eating and transfusing is totally baseless, yet JW's continue to use it. Hopefully you won't use it in the future and save yourself further embarrassment.

Neologist wrote:

Quote:

The scriptural admonition is to 'abstain from blood'. (Acts 5:20,29)

So, whether it is eaten, transfused, snorted or sucked from one's neck shouldn't make any difference. What is your point?

My point is what you keep ignoring. Why are JW's allowed to take a transfusion of their own blood? You recently posted that you are going to have surgery and are trying to decide whether or not to have the blood you lose during the operation put back into you. You must think there is a difference between transfusing your blood back into you and sucking blood from your neck. So why don't you spell it out?

0 Replies

Most Witnesses I know of draw the line at storing their own blood for later use but have no objection to using recovered blood or blood that travels through a machine, as in dialysis. There exists a grey area which I am contemplating myself because of the surgery I expect to undergo in a few weeks.

Your reasoning that transfused blood has no caloric value and cannot be compared to the intravenous infusion of alcohol is both non sequitur and red herring.

The only use for blood approved by God is sacrificial. That would exclude its use in fertilizer and animal food.

0 Replies

Neologist wrote:

Quote:

Most Witnesses I know of draw the line at storing their own blood for later use but have no objection to using recovered blood or blood that travels through a machine, as in dialysis. There exists a grey area which I am contemplating myself because of the surgery I expect to undergo in a few weeks.

You insist that transfusing blood into the veins is the same as eating it. Recovered blood is transfused into the veins, thus by your logic it is the same as eating it. Where is the grey area?

Neologist wrote:

Quote:

Your reasoning that transfused blood has no caloric value and cannot be compared to the intravenous infusion of alcohol is both non sequitur and red herring.

I never said anything about caloric value. Sure, blood has caloric value when taken by mouth. What I said was that transfused blood is not treated by the body as food. If you dispute this then cite any evidence that proves me wrong. You won't find any doctor, scientist, or medical researcher that equates a blood transfusion with intravenous feeding. Intravenous feeding never includes blood. Why? Because the body doesn't recognize blood as food. A person given nothing but blood transfusions would soon die of starvation. Don't you realize that if your body treated the blood in your veins as food that you would soon be depleted of blood and be dead? This isn't rocket science. This is simple basic stuff.

Neologist wrote:

Quote:

The only use for blood approved by God is sacrificial.

Then that would rule out all medical uses of blood including recovering blood lost during an operation and transfusing it back into a person. It would also rule out the use of all those products derived from blood that JW's use. Do you know what is left from a pint of blood after JW's get though taking all the approved fractions from it? Nothing! JW's can use ever bit from a volume of blood as long as it is fractionated first.

Do you know how many pints of blood it takes to make one Watchtower approved treatment for a JW hemophiliac? It takes 2,500 pints of blood! Is this a sacrificial use of blood?

Another Watchtower approve blood fraction is albumin. Albumins are primarily used in connection with burns and severe bleeding. A person with third degree burns over 30 to 50 percent of his body would need about 600 grams of albumin. How much blood would be needed to extract this quantity? It would take from 40 to 60 pints of blood to produce that quantity of albumin. This is not a small amount. It is also obvious that the blood from which the albumin is derived was stored, not "poured out."
Is this a sacrificial use of blood?

Similarly with immunoglobulins (gamma globulins). To produce sufficient gamma globulin for one injection by syringe (a vaccination Jehovah's Witnesses traveling to certain southern countries may take as protection against cholera) close to 12 pints of blood are needed as the source of supply. This is more blood than is generally employed for a common blood transfusion. And again, the gamma globulin is drawn from blood that is stored, not "poured out." Is this a sacrificial use of blood?

Although JW's can take from the donated blood supply they are forbidden from contributing to it.

0 Replies

You obviously know more about which blood products may or can be used by Jehovah's Witnesses than I can possible ever know. I only answered on this thread because I seem to be the only JW rash enough to frequent A2K. I am not a representative of the Watchtower Society and have my own opinions which I have posted.

I already told you of my soul searching regarding the procedure proposed for me in the near future and I will take your comments under advisement.

Now that you have buried me in an avalanche of information, please excuse me while I consult my navel.

0 Replies

For Neologist, and anyone else affiliated with watchtower.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know