It seems to me quite the leap in logic to equate not eating animal blood with blood transfusions to save life. You're not "eating" a blood transfusion; you're receiving additional blood to sustain life. One doesn't eat animal blood to sustain life as in a "life or death" situation.
Besides that, there were no blood transfusions back when the Bible was written AND if you also believe that suicide is wrong, then would it not be wrong to accept a blood transfusion when to refuse would most certainly lead to death?
Animals that were forbidden to be eaten in the Old Testament became okay to eat once Peter saw the vision from God. Could be, that with the modern technology, God expects us to use common sense to realize that it would be foolish to forsake the blessings and gifts of modern technology which enable us to live longer, healthier lives? I find it hard to believe that any father would discourage his children from doing what they can to live.
Medicine, as I said, is remarkable and it's awesome that people are able to live long, healthy lives today because of the advancements. If there are other options, then great, but when there aren't, I think blood transfusions are a far cry from the ingesting of blood - it's just not even close to being the same thing.
I've also given my own blood for surgery before. How does that factor in?
Millions of people are saved every year because of blood transfusions. Which is more humane and "Christ-like": to let people die when there's a perfectly safe, viable option or to save lives by intravenously adding to the existing blood supply in their body?
equating something taken into the body by the mouth for nourishment isn't the same thing at all when applied to the body for medicinally purposes. if you can find verses that talk about the use of blood in some other context than eating or drinking it, then that's what should be looked at to answer the question.
Medicine, as I said, is remarkable and it's awesome that people are able to live long, healthy lives today because of the advancements. If there are other options, then great, but when there aren't, I think blood transfusions are a far cry from the ingesting of blood - it's just not even close to being the same thing.
I've also given my own blood for surgery before. How does that factor in?
Millions of people are saved every year because of blood transfusions. Which is more humane and "Christ-like": to let people die when there's a perfectly safe, viable option or to save lives by intravenously adding to the existing blood supply in their body?
thousands of people also die or get diseases from having blood
people arnt just left to die because they refuse blood.
there are other options
if you read my link you will see
do you think that every jw that has a major operation dies as a result of
not having blood..
your blood is unique to you. i may have the same blood group as you
Good point, Potato. I wonder how else it's used. LOL! A real live word study!
Starbird, that's really not relevant to what the Bible says about blood. I mean, there's no chapter and verse on DNA that I know of. Also, getting a blood transfusion does not change who the person is, so I don't see how that's related either.
It IS an interesting thought about how getting blood transfusions might change someone's DNA. ..... I wonder.... don't really know what the question would be, specifically, but if someone gets a blood transfusion and then commits a crime where blood is left at the scene.... how does that affect the testing that they do in order to identify the criminal?
I know I'm not asking that correctly and it's really not related to what the Bible says about blood transfusions, but it is a curious thought. I hope you don't mind the brief little derail, Starbird. Hopefully, someone who knows the science behind blood & DNA - or you have a link that would explain that. I did look at your other link, btw. I doesn't change how I feel, though. ;) That's why I said IF that works, then great! There's more than one way to treat an illness, disease, etc... It's awesome that there's science to facilitate keeping you alive without violating the laws of your religion. :)
The short answer is "no," and the longer answer is "no way." We assembled our own little blog of blood to explain, drawing from a San Diego Union Tribune column, a posting on the MadSci Network, and several other sources.
It seems blood is composed of four main elements: red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma. And, indeed, white blood cells do contain DNA. However, most blood transfusions involve only red blood cells, which do not contain DNA. And even in a rare whole blood transfusion, no traces of foreign DNA from the white blood cells have been detected in a recipient's blood.
On the other hand, there is at least one situation in which a transplant can change your DNA. After a bone marrow transplant, the DNA in a blood sample may actually reflect the donor rather than the recipient. That's because in this case, blood stem cells are transferred. The recipient will produce blood that contains the donor's cellular elements but almost none of his or her own DNA. And yes, this would affect DNA blood evidence (though there are other ways to test for DNA.)
Then there's the even rarer case of blood being transferred due to the anti-social behavior of vampires. But that's a whole other ball of serum.
I went to Blue Letter Bible, but there are too many usages of "blood" for me to look at tonight. It's already past my bedtime. But, this is an interesting discussion and I am learning. I've always wondered about why it's against some folks' religion. I 'spose it's time I learned. :)
My husband would have died following an accident without huge blood transfusions while they did surgery to repair internal injuries. In fact, his heart stopped due to blood loss and had to be restarted on the operating table. The blood of strangers saved his life, and no, he never aquired aids or hepititus from the blood. He didn't develop some type of weird personality by having two souls in his blood.
What he did do was grow up. We met and married many years following this transfusion, and we have kids.
What Loving Father God would rather a young life be gone than for that boy to have a blood transfusion and live?
Sounds to me to be another legalistic law that doesn't really help anyone. A big ol' hoop to jump through to prove your love for your God.
24God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
20
10
21
32
Popular Days
Jan 30
37
Jan 31
33
Feb 1
31
Feb 3
13
Top Posters In This Topic
Belle 20 posts
WordWolf 10 posts
cman 21 posts
starbird 32 posts
Popular Days
Jan 30 2007
37 posts
Jan 31 2007
33 posts
Feb 1 2007
31 posts
Feb 3 2007
13 posts
dmiller
Starbird -- that's nuts. :)
If you follow this line of thinking -- you must still be an active JW.
What say ye???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
why is it "nuts"
please tell..
starbird x x x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Starbird,
It seems to me quite the leap in logic to equate not eating animal blood with blood transfusions to save life. You're not "eating" a blood transfusion; you're receiving additional blood to sustain life. One doesn't eat animal blood to sustain life as in a "life or death" situation.
Besides that, there were no blood transfusions back when the Bible was written AND if you also believe that suicide is wrong, then would it not be wrong to accept a blood transfusion when to refuse would most certainly lead to death?
Animals that were forbidden to be eaten in the Old Testament became okay to eat once Peter saw the vision from God.
Could be, that with the modern technology, God expects us to use common sense to realize that it would be foolish to forsake the blessings and gifts of modern technology which enable us to live longer, healthier lives? I find it hard to believe that any father would discourage his children from doing what they can to live.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
so belle do you truely believe that the blood they use is
clean & safe.
it says to abstain from blood any blood
if its not ok to eat it surely its not ok to have a strangers blood running through
your veins.
the soul is in the blood...
as i said there are others things they can use in transfusions
that are safe and are used on a regular basis..
please click on
undefined
starbird x x x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Medicine, as I said, is remarkable and it's awesome that people are able to live long, healthy lives today because of the advancements. If there are other options, then great, but when there aren't, I think blood transfusions are a far cry from the ingesting of blood - it's just not even close to being the same thing.
I've also given my own blood for surgery before. How does that factor in?
Millions of people are saved every year because of blood transfusions. Which is more humane and "Christ-like": to let people die when there's a perfectly safe, viable option or to save lives by intravenously adding to the existing blood supply in their body?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
equating something taken into the body by the mouth for nourishment isn't the same thing at all when applied to the body for medicinally purposes. if you can find verses that talk about the use of blood in some other context than eating or drinking it, then that's what should be looked at to answer the question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
thousands of people also die or get diseases from having blood
people arnt just left to die because they refuse blood.
there are other options
if you read my link you will see
do you think that every jw that has a major operation dies as a result of
not having blood..
your blood is unique to you. i may have the same blood group as you
but our blood is not the same
e.g d.n.a
starbird x x x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Good point, Potato. I wonder how else it's used. LOL! A real live word study!
Starbird, that's really not relevant to what the Bible says about blood. I mean, there's no chapter and verse on DNA that I know of. Also, getting a blood transfusion does not change who the person is, so I don't see how that's related either.
It IS an interesting thought about how getting blood transfusions might change someone's DNA. ..... I wonder.... don't really know what the question would be, specifically, but if someone gets a blood transfusion and then commits a crime where blood is left at the scene.... how does that affect the testing that they do in order to identify the criminal?
I know I'm not asking that correctly and it's really not related to what the Bible says about blood transfusions, but it is a curious thought. I hope you don't mind the brief little derail, Starbird. Hopefully, someone who knows the science behind blood & DNA - or you have a link that would explain that. I did look at your other link, btw. I doesn't change how I feel, though. ;) That's why I said IF that works, then great! There's more than one way to treat an illness, disease, etc... It's awesome that there's science to facilitate keeping you alive without violating the laws of your religion. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
FOUND IT!!
Dear Yahoo!:
Does a blood transfusion change your DNA?
Lori
Evart, Michigan
Dear Lori:
The short answer is "no," and the longer answer is "no way." We assembled our own little blog of blood to explain, drawing from a San Diego Union Tribune column, a posting on the MadSci Network, and several other sources.
It seems blood is composed of four main elements: red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, and plasma. And, indeed, white blood cells do contain DNA. However, most blood transfusions involve only red blood cells, which do not contain DNA. And even in a rare whole blood transfusion, no traces of foreign DNA from the white blood cells have been detected in a recipient's blood.
On the other hand, there is at least one situation in which a transplant can change your DNA. After a bone marrow transplant, the DNA in a blood sample may actually reflect the donor rather than the recipient. That's because in this case, blood stem cells are transferred. The recipient will produce blood that contains the donor's cellular elements but almost none of his or her own DNA. And yes, this would affect DNA blood evidence (though there are other ways to test for DNA.)
Then there's the even rarer case of blood being transferred due to the anti-social behavior of vampires. But that's a whole other ball of serum.
Ask Yahoo!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Starbird,
I went to Blue Letter Bible, but there are too many usages of "blood" for me to look at tonight. It's already past my bedtime.
But, this is an interesting discussion and I am learning. I've always wondered about why it's against some folks' religion. I 'spose it's time I learned. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
My husband would have died following an accident without huge blood transfusions while they did surgery to repair internal injuries. In fact, his heart stopped due to blood loss and had to be restarted on the operating table. The blood of strangers saved his life, and no, he never aquired aids or hepititus from the blood. He didn't develop some type of weird personality by having two souls in his blood.
What he did do was grow up. We met and married many years following this transfusion, and we have kids.
What Loving Father God would rather a young life be gone than for that boy to have a blood transfusion and live?
Sounds to me to be another legalistic law that doesn't really help anyone. A big ol' hoop to jump through to prove your love for your God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
You didn't answer my question.
If you're still an active JW, it would be pointless to discuss this.
I used to date a dis-fellowshipped JW woman (df'ed for smoking cigarettes),
and this here was a HUGE topic for her as well.
We had many discussions on this topic -- and she has 4 kids.
Upshot of it is -- she said she WOULD NOT give blood,
even if it meant saving the life of one of her children.
Now that (to me) is NUTS!
So -- are you still active in the WTS?
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Oh -- and here is a link to AN ARTICLE JanH POSTED ON JWO, in 2002.
Perhaps you might address his comments as well?
:)
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
if blood transfusions changes your soul they would be doing it to murderers and criminals
how silly
why don't you get all hyped up on something that is positive in the bible
instead of all this silliness
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
24God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; 27That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: 28For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
i didnt say having blood would change your personality.
or your dna
the bible says the soul is in the blood.
and of course we now know your dna is in your blood.
your blood is unique to you.
as i said there are other things that can be used.
the bible says to abstain from blood..
saline solution, ringers solution, and dextran can be used as plasma
volume expanders, and these are readily available in hospitals.
actually the risks that go with the use of blood transfusions are avoided
by using these substances.
the canadian anaesthetists society journal {jan 1975, p, 12} says,
"the risks of blood transfusion are the advantages of plasma substitutes:
avoidance of bacterial or viral infection, transfusion reactions and
rh sensatization"
jehovahs witnesses have no objection to the use of non blood plasma expanders.
when there is severe blood loss, the greatest need is to restore the fluid volume,
our blood is over 50% water; then there are the red and white cells, and so forth
when alot of blood is lost, the body itself pours large reserves of blood cells into
the system and speeds up production of new ones.
but fluid volume is needed. plasma volume expanders can be used to fill this need.
starbird x x x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
You can't change soul or spirit with something you can see.
read a bit closer and understand and get wisdom
some folks should just use common sense and quit trying to make more rules from the bible
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
click & read
blood
starbird x x x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
to go by someone elses words is religion not spirit
and i'm quite done with religion, so no thanks
and for the record i'll take a transfusion to save the life i have or anyone elses life in this world
it has no bearing or matter on the spirit or soul
Edited by cmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
"the soul of the flesh is in the blood and i myself have put it upon the
alter for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that
makes atonement by the SOUL IN IT {lev 17:11,12}
"for the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it." {lev 17:14}
starbird x x x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
ok, you are saying the soul is in the blood right
so?
the soul cannot be seen nor can it be removed by something seen
if you get someone elses blood that doesn't mean you get their soul
kind of vampire type thinking don't you think?
just because the life is in the blood don't make that life transferable
it's talking about atonement not transfering souls
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
How many people here have noticed that this RELEVANT question
(it affects the stance of the poster dramatically)
has been dodged at least TWICE so far?
Does anyone else think that's an answer in itself?
As in "I refuse to confirm my beliefs because I'm not proud enough to
declare my beliefs. I'm ashamed of my associations and will not
speak of them. But you should agree with the doctrines I've gotten
FROM them."
I prefer not to jump to conclusions, but, in lieu of anything other than
a DUCKING of the question REPEATEDLY,
by golly, a refusal to answer is indicative of the answer....
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
it wasnt me that said the soul is in the blood . god said that.
so it must be very important to him to keep saying it.
the general theme through the bible is that our blood is sacred.
if it wasnt a big deal, why then does he keep reminding us
to abstain from it.
if you're not allowed to eat it or drink it..how is it ok to
have it pumped into your veins?
god knows what is good or bad for us.
if a doctor told us not to drink something that was bad for us,
would it be ok to have that substance in our veins?
surely that substance is bad for us no matter how it gets into our body.
its like saying to an heroin addict, "dont snort heroin, its bad for you,
but its ok if you inject it"
either way we know heroin is bad for you which ever way it gets into
our system..
starbird x x x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
i havent ducked that question...
i thought the answer was quite obvious..
does it really matter..
oh and i'm very proud of my beliefs thank you..
which i also thought was obvious..
starbird x x x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.