For Neologist, and anyone else affiliated with watchtower.

Neologist said:

Quote:

You obviously know more about which blood products may or can be used by Jehovah's Witnesses than I can possible ever know.

Sorry if I overwhelmed you. It's really not that complicated. Go look at your blood document. There you can choose an option that says: "I accept all fractions derived from any primary component of blood" This is an admission that JWs use from blood.

Neologist said:

Quote:

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.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I sincerely want to understand your reasoning on this issue. I can't for the life of me figure out how you can claim that injecting blood into the veins is the same as eating it and at the same time think that injecting your own blood into your veins isn't eating it. I don't believe in eating blood myself but I wouldn't have any problem with having the blood I lost during an operation put back in me because I recognize that my body isn't going to use that blood as food. The recovered blood that is put back in me is going to be doing exactly what it was doing before it came out of me. My blood wasn't being used as food by my body before it came out of me so why would it be used as food by my body after it was put back? This seems to me to be so simple and logical I can't understand why an intelligent person like yourself can't see it.

0 Replies

If whether or not transfused blood were being used as food were the only consideration, the decision would be much simpler, I agree.

0 Replies

Neologist said:

Quote:

If whether or not transfused blood were being used as food were the only consideration, the decision would be much simpler..

It is the only consideration when trying to determine if taking a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood. The Watchtower teaches that blood is used by the body as food and thus taking a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood. This is a false teaching that should have been abandoned by your organization a long time ago. It's beside the point that you can use other arguments to support your beliefs on blood. I'm simply pointing out that this particular argument is completely bogus.

Certain aspects of the Watchtower's blood policy make no sense. On the one hand they teach that having blood injected into one's veins is the same as eating it. On the other hand they don't teach that recovering blood lost during an operation and having it injected into one's veins is eating blood. Why not? Is blood being injected into the veins sometimes eating blood and sometimes not eating blood? Is this notion based on scripture?

You have the exact same problem if you want to use the "abstain from blood" argument. On the one hand the Watchtower teaches that having blood injected into one's veins is not abstaining from blood. On the other hand they don't teach that one is in violation of the abstain from blood rule if they have their blood transfused back into them. Why not? Let's say you have two patients next to each other in the hospital. One is a non-JW having a blood transfusion. The other is a JW having a transfusion of blood they lost during an operation. Is one of them abstaining from blood and the other one not abstaining from blood? If so, please explain how you determined this. Please cite any scriptures you found helpful.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

. . . Certain aspects of the Watchtower's blood policy make no sense. On the one hand they teach that having blood injected into one's veins is the same as eating it. . . .

Not true, exactly. The eating/transfusing connection is metaphorical in the light of the command to abstain.

Teleologist wrote:

You have the exact same problem if you want to use the "abstain from blood" argument. On the one hand the Watchtower teaches that having blood injected into one's veins is not abstaining from blood. On the other hand they don't teach that one is in violation of the abstain from blood rule if they have their blood transfused back into them. Why not? Let's say you have two patients next to each other in the hospital. One is a non-JW having a blood transfusion. The other is a JW having a transfusion of blood they lost during an operation. Is one of them abstaining from blood and the other one not abstaining from blood? If so, please explain how you determined this. Please cite any scriptures you found helpful.

You have put your finger on the crux of the decision I have yet to make, though you have not stated the problem in its full spectrum. I'll have to get back to you.

Edited later to add:

Perhaps the answer may be found in the assertion that the 'soul of the animal is in the blood.' (Leviticus 17:11) Has not DNA research revealed that the blood of each human is unique?

I'll have to study that.

0 Replies

Neologist said:

Quote:

Perhaps the answer may be found in the assertion that the 'soul of the animal is in the blood.' (Leviticus 17:11 ) Has not DNA research revealed that the blood of each human is unique?

Are you suggesting that it may be okay to eat your own blood?

0 Replies

Personally, i find it hilarious that someone is bashing someone else's exegesis, given that the someone in question started a thread which ran for pages and pages based on the assertion that "intelligent design" is not a religiously inspired concept . . .

0 Replies

Specifically, that particular idiotic contention, and the title of the thread were: Intelligent design is not creationism.

0 Replies

Teleologist wrote:

Neologist said:

Quote:
Perhaps the answer may be found in the assertion that the 'soul of the animal is in the blood.' (Leviticus 17:11 ) Has not DNA research revealed that the blood of each human is unique?

Are you suggesting that it may be okay to eat your own blood?

You should recall that the question you asked, and to which I was responding, had to do with my forthcoming decision whether or not to allow my own blood to be collected and transfused.

Could it be that you are simply being an argumentative schnook? You have made a few valid points; or, should I say you have made few valid points. It's time to cash in your chips and tip the dealer.

0 Replies

Well, maybe I misunderstood the point you were trying to make in reference to Leviticus 17:11. Why don't you explain it to me? I suggest you apply the counsel found at 1 Peter 3:15.

0 Replies

OK, Tele.
When I get a chance, I will take it all the way back to here:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2224640#2224640

I'll get to it tomorrow, sometime.

0 Replies

Neo...tele isn't being a schnook, he's asking questions.

He's not being argumentative, just repeating his questions which IMO you're evading answering. It's more like you're trying to wheedle out of answering.

I've found his questions to be very straightforward and asked in such a way that a straightforward answer should be given. However, you keep talking around the fringes.

You know, it's okay to say you don't know, or even, God forbid, this has given you things to think about that possibly question your religion.

You've got from saying blood is sacred, and when that didn't work, starting on the abstain aspect. It seems that when something from the Watchtower doesn't work, you turn to the Bible, and vice versa.

However, none of this directly answers tele's questions.

Actually, the last few pages have been the least argumentative I've seen a thread in S&R be in some time. I feel like, not wanting to address these direct simple questions, you're the one pulling the argumentative deal out of the drawer.

BTW, I'm not arguing either, just waiting for answers.

Tele, I'm really enjoying your straightforward attitude.

0 Replies

I could not agree less.

0 Replies

Chai Tea wrote:

. . .I've found his questions to be very straightforward and asked in such a way that a straightforward answer should be given. However, you keep talking around the fringes.

You know, it's okay to say you don't know, or even, God forbid, this has given you things to think about that possibly question your religion.

You've got from saying blood is sacred, and when that didn't work, starting on the abstain aspect. It seems that when something from the Watchtower doesn't work, you turn to the Bible, and vice versa. . .

You are correct in your assertion that this is an issue I had not thought through completely. But I can't see where I have deviated on at least these points:

I know of no Witness who would willingly accept a blood transfusion, even to accept the storing of his/her own blood for later use. Reasons?
>Blood is sacred.
>The only scriptural use for blood is in sacrifice.
>The command to not eat blood was restated in the NT as abstain from blood. Therefore, Tele's contention that transfused blood would not be used as food is irrelevant.

There are considerable grey areas in the light of modern medical procedures which, among other things, allow the use of blood fractions and the temporary removal of blood from the body, as in dialysis. These are the areas the Society has left as matters of conscience; and I have not completely worked them out in my own mind.

If Tele's question as to whether it might be OK to eat one's own blood is straightforward, I leave for him to decide.

The fact that our blood supply is in such a state that many non-Witnesses will claim to be Witnesses in order to avoid transfusions is a subject for the medical forum.

0 Replies

It is important to note that prior to the Christian era God's law to abstain from eating blood was not an absolute prohibition on eating any blood at all. In actual practice, abstaining from blood required draining an animal of blood before its flesh could be eaten. And an animal didn't have to be thoroughly drained of blood to be considered properly bled. On the contrary, the animal simply had to be bled until the blood stopped flowing, which meant that a substantial amount of blood was still left in the carcass and subsequently eaten. Since Christians are allowed to eat meat and drained meat has blood in it then it is clear that the Apostolic Decree "to keep... abstaining from blood" is not an absolute prohibition against taking blood into our bodies. It is simply a re-statement of God's requirement that existed prior to the Christian era, namely, that animals killed for food had to be drained of their blood before being eaten. JW's must realize this or they would all be vegetarians. Everytime a JW eats a Big Mac they are consuming blood.

I find it curious that most JW's don't eat koshered meat. Koshering is the Jewish practice of subjecting meat to additional steps in order to remove more blood than conventional slaughtering. Over a lifetime the average Jew eats much less blood than the average JW.

0 Replies

Neologist said:

Quote:

Blood is sacred.

Blood was sacred under the Mosaic law because it was used in animal sacrifices to atone for sins, however, the Mosaic law is not binding on Christians. The Watchtower society teaches that the Apostolic Decree at Acts 15:29 is not based on the Mosaic law but rather the Noachian law. Under the Noachian law it was life that was sacred not blood.

Neologist said:

Quote:

I know of no Witness who would willingly accept a blood transfusion, even to accept the storing of his/her own blood for later use.

The Watchtower society forbids the storing of one's blood for later use if a period of weeks is involved but it does allow the storing of one's blood for several hours or even a day or two as long as it is part of a current or ongoing therapy. The Watchtower cites no scriptures to support this policy.

Neologist said:

Quote:

The only scriptural use for blood is in sacrifice.

This was true under the Mosaic law but the Mosaic law has been done away with. The Apostolic Decree is not based on the Mosaic law but rather the Noachian law. If for the sake of argument it was a rule "that blood could only be used in sacrifice" then JW's would be in violation of this rule. JW's use many medical products that take gallons of stored blood to produce.

Neologist said:

Quote:

The command to not eat blood was restated in the NT as abstain from blood. Therefore, Tele's contention that transfused blood would not be used as food is irrelevant.

Did you really mean to use the word "restated" in that sentence? If God's law to Noah was "restated " at Acts 15:29 then that implies that Acts 15:29 is saying essentially the same thing regarding blood as did God's law to Noah. I agree with that. Abstaining from blood to Noah meant that he had to drain the blood from animals he killed for food before he could eat the meat. That is what is being restated at Acts 15:29. You, on the other hand, think it is telling Christians to not take any blood into their bodies at all. But this must be wrong. Christians are not forbidden from eating meat. And since drained meat contains blood it is obvious that Acts 15:29 isn't telling Christians to not take any blood into their bodies at all. If it was, then Christians would have to be vegetarians. Acts 15:29 is simply telling Christians that they must abstain from blood the same way righteous Noah abstained from blood.

0 Replies

Re: For Neologist, and anyone else affiliated with watchtowe

Doktor S wrote:

Would you, Neo, let your child die if a blood transfusion was the only method that might save his/her life?
This is obviously not an attack, but it has been puzzling me how you might rationalize this.

I'm very new to this forum and sorry I haven't read all 16 pages of this thread, but when I read what "Doktor s" had to say I felt obligated to post. I'm angered by some of the justifications and excuses people make in the name of their religions, particularly when these impinge on the lives of innocents such as young children. There are no justifications that people can make for that rationale.
Over simplifying my beliefs.............people have a soul (the part that encompasses and defines the uniqueness of the individual - or if you prefer, the part that is capable of independent thinking and cognitive thoughts), and a body which is physical and therefore fragile.

Once an individual is mentally mature enough to make the decision not to have that sort of medical help to save their life then fair enough. However, babies, small children, and most young adults cannot make those decisions on an informed basis. More now is understood about the recycling of blood than ever before. My opinion about part of the basis that underlies this religious superstition, is that people believed that the blood that was replaced would stay in the body, thereby making the individual less of themselves. This is obviously only the tip of the iceberg, I know that it runs much deeper.

When I was born I had to have a full blood transfusion, without which I would almost certainly have died.

On a lighter note - Doktor S - how can you say you're a Satanist but that you don't have religion?

0 Replies

Neologist wrote:

Quote:

Therefore, Tele's contention that transfused blood would not be used as food is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant because the blood as food thing was introduced by you back on page 4 of this thread when you tried to make a connection between intravenous feeding and blood transfusions. I have shown that no such connection exists. The fact that you have now switched to a different argument doesn't change the fact that your original argument has been refuted.

0 Replies

does any1 else think communion sound like a cult practice? Let us now drink the blood of our god in remeberance!

0 Replies

EpiNirvana wrote:

does any1 else think communion sound like a cult practice? Let us now drink the blood of our god in remeberance!

Not sure I would use the word "cult." really seems like a fairly common pagan ceremony--the body and the blood.

0 Replies

Quote:

On a lighter note - Doktor S - how can you say you're a Satanist but that you don't have religion?

Satanism is a philosophy. It can be religion to those that enjoy the trappings of ritual and dogma, but I'm just not that sort of fella.

0 Replies

For Neologist, and anyone else affiliated with watchtower.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know