How are you getting blood transfusions equate to eating blood? I don't see the logic there. :huh: The two are totally unrelated. On that point alone, your argument loses validity.
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.
You're the one who brought up DNA and you use the fact that "your blood is unique to you" and contains DNA as a reason for not having a transfusion. But DNA is NOT in the blood used for transfusions.
So, why did you bring up DNA if it's not an important part of your position? On one hand you say that a blood transfusion does not change a person nor his DNA, but then you go on to say that your blood is unique to you because of DNA.
It seems like you're using the uniqueness of a person's DNA as a reason for not having a transfusion, but there is no DNA exchanged in a blood transfusion.
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.
How do you explain John 5:53-56:
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Are JW's dispensational? Is the OT not written "to us"? Or is that a moot point with the JW religion? I know for TWI doctrine, those verses in the OT are not "to us" so they aren't relevant as far as any practice goes. The tithe, however, is still relevant in TWI logic, but that's talking about giving money to the church, so of course that practice is still expected.
How do these additional verses fit with the argument against blood transfusions?
Mark 7:15
There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
Matt 15:11
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
(Although, with a blood transfusion - one is not eating blood.)
Gal 5:18
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
"Back in the day" there were groups of people who believed that drinking blood would provide supernatural powers. This is idolatry and the primary reason the practice was forbidden. A blood transfusion to save life is not idolatry.
It is a scientific fact that blood cannot be completely removed from any living thing that is used for food. Virtually everyone that eats meat or its by-products has "eaten" a large amount of blood during their lifetime. This means that virtually every Watchtower Society members -- unless they are strict vegetarians -- has consumed a large quantity of animal blood during their lifetime.
Again, I'm glad that science is able to accommodate the laws of your religion, but I think your argument for avoiding blood transfusions is without merit.
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
If "all things" are lawful, then, blood transfusions would be included in that, no?
1 Cor 10:27-28,31
If any of them that believe not bid you [to a feast], and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.
But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth [is] the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
It would seem that, as long as the blood wasn't sacrificed to idols (which, in the hospital would be highly unlikely), then it's lawful and acceptable to God.
This is a very interesting discussion. I hope you're not merely quoting the company line without really knowing or understanding why you believe what you've been taught.
Are you aware that there is a reform movement of JW's to change the JW policy? Are you aware that the JW church has changed it's policy bit by bit over the years to the point where accepting Hemopure - Cow's Blood as a transfusion is now acceptable? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
The church has further gone on to allow blood transfusions as long as the "whole blood" is not used. I suppose as long as it's administered different parts at a time, then it's acceptable. It appears as though the Biblical interpretation of the JW ruling authorities is not withstanding scrutiny and they are unable to support their position sufficiently enough to enforce this aspect of the legalism within the JW religion.
The new policy will permit JWs to accept blood fractions of previously prohibited cellular components, namely red cells, white cells and platelets. The article gives examples of interferons and interleukins from white cells and a wound healing factor from platelets. Regarding those fractions, the article states:
"Such therapies are not transfusions of those primary components; they usually involve parts or fractions thereof. Should Christians accept these fractions in medical treatment? We cannot say. The Bible does not give details, so a Christian must make his own conscientious decision before God." [1]The careful reader will notice that the above statement implies that the Bible does give details regarding the use of red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma. Clearly it does not. In any event, the new policy will open the door to JWs accepting many additional blood products and eventually blood substitutes that are hemoglobin based.
It appears as though changes in this policy are beginning to happen on a regular basis and it's only a matter of time until they begin to phase the blood transfusion teachings out of the strict doctrine. This is similar to what is happening with the TWI doctrine of debt. It's being less and less taught and enforced because TWI is and has been wrong on this, but will never admit it.
How are you getting blood transfusions equate to eating blood? I don't see the logic there. :huh: The two are totally unrelated. On that point alone, your argument loses validity.
You're the one who brought up DNA and you use the fact that "your blood is unique to you" and contains DNA as a reason for not having a transfusion. But DNA is NOT in the blood used for transfusions.
So, why did you bring up DNA if it's not an important part of your position? On one hand you say that a blood transfusion does not change a person nor his DNA, but then you go on to say that your blood is unique to you because of DNA.
It seems like you're using the uniqueness of a person's DNA as a reason for not having a transfusion, but there is no DNA exchanged in a blood transfusion.
How do you explain John 5:53-56:
Are JW's dispensational? Is the OT not written "to us"? Or is that a moot point with the JW religion? I know for TWI doctrine, those verses in the OT are not "to us" so they aren't relevant as far as any practice goes. The tithe, however, is still relevant in TWI logic, but that's talking about giving money to the church, so of course that practice is still expected.
How do these additional verses fit with the argument against blood transfusions?
Mark 7:15
There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
Matt 15:11
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
(Although, with a blood transfusion - one is not eating blood.)
Gal 5:18
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
"Back in the day" there were groups of people who believed that drinking blood would provide supernatural powers. This is idolatry and the primary reason the practice was forbidden. A blood transfusion to save life is not idolatry.
It is a scientific fact that blood cannot be completely removed from any living thing that is used for food. Virtually everyone that eats meat or its by-products has "eaten" a large amount of blood during their lifetime. This means that virtually every Watchtower Society members -- unless they are strict vegetarians -- has consumed a large quantity of animal blood during their lifetime.
Again, I'm glad that science is able to accommodate the laws of your religion, but I think your argument for avoiding blood transfusions is without merit.
oh come on belle..
you know when jesus said about drinking his blood it was symbolic..
as i said if a doctor told you by eating or drinking certain substances was
bad for you do you think he would recommend putting it in your veins.
jehovahs witnesses who avoid having transfusions isnt without merit
they follow the command to please jehovah..
as i thought all christians would do..
back then there were no blood transfusions but i bet if there had of been
it wouldnt have been acceptable for christians to have blood.
god back in the begining knew what would take place in the future
so if it was acceptable i think he would have said abstain from blood
except for medical purposes, but he didnt
he said to abstain from blood.
i think it better to be safe than sorry in following his laws.
Beloved starbird and everybody elst that is part of this tread
God loves us all
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Ok all I read this verse - we are not to eat the blood of everything that has life
did you know that even plants have blood that flow in them?
Another question comes to mind - Why did God tell us not to eat the blood?
I would say there was a reason which was for our health.
Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
the word abstain means refrain or try not to
others wise do your best not come near these things but that does not mean its wrong to come close to these things
with God its the heart of things
other wise receiving blood to save your life is not a sin
Lev 17:10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
again we are talking about eating blood not handing it in other ways
but this does not say the person can not be forgiven or cleaned and then welcome back with his people
Lev 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof:
If the life of the soul is in the soul and by science we know that blood is oxgen and a form of water
so do we stray away from oxgen in the air too - breath life too
Beloved starbird and everybody elst that is part of this tread
God loves us all
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Ok all I read this verse - we are not to eat the blood of everything that has life
did you know that even plants have blood that flow in them?
Another question comes to mind - Why did God tell us not to eat the blood?
I would say there was a reason which was for our health.
Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
the word abstain means refrain or try not to
others wise do your best not come near these things but that does not mean its wrong to come close to these things
with God its the heart of things
other wise receiving blood to save your life is not a sin
Lev 17:10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
again we are talking about eating blood not handing it in other ways
but this does not say the person can not be forgiven or cleaned and then welcome back with his people
Lev 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof:
If the life of the soul is in the soul and by science we know that blood is oxgen and a form of water
so do we stray away from oxgen in the air too - breath life too
I find it most interesting that starbird will got out of his/her way to discredit the acceptance of blood and call it suicide, but yet cannot look at what the statistics are for how transfusions and transplants will save lives. It is looking at trees with a refusal to open one's eyes to the forest that is around them. It's called bondage but then I wouldn't expect much different from someone who will not clearly answer questions or engaged in debate without baiting his/her own posts.
First off, if the logic was carried through on abstaining from blood, then please tell me WHY JW's are not all vegans? Blood is in the meat that you cook and eat - why is that acceptable? It seems to me that all these scripture refer to eating blood products. There is no reference to having them placed in one's veins.
I do know that some blood products are now acceptable. I believe it was the practice during the 1960's and 70's when a more extreme measure was taken by JW's to not accept any blood products at all. This has changed, that I am sure of. (I work in a hospital and very closely with the spiritual care and quality management department.) Also, it is not honest to say that ALL JW's embrace this belief - there is a rift within the organization about this practice. It is my understanding now that it is an individual's choice. Most hospitals have policies now that deal with JW's *extreme* beliefs and how the beliefs may be circumnavigated by a court of law to save a patient's life, especially in the case of a minor. [by the way - it is the JW's belief that is someone received a transfusion, it is not a sin of their own.]
There is nothing heroic about someone dying because of a lack of a transfusion. Religious freedom, although permitted by this country's constitution, is not absolute in that people should not loose their lives to it when their lives could and should be saved. The Hippocratic oath that physicians take begins with the words, "First, do no harm..." To allow a patient to bleed out or become so low in blood, when the rest of the prognosis could be good, would be a violation of that oath. I do not believe that God could have possibly meant this to the extreme that it has been taken.
The risks of a dying from a complication from a transfusion are 1/220,000 (some stats are lower - I picked a high one to be fair) - you have a greater chance of dying in a car accident or from electrocution or from being poisoned or from heart disease or ___________. So, why aren't some of those things not allowed by the religion? I mean, if the logic is that you "might die" from a transfusion, and the probability of you dying is higher from a MVA - then why are you allowed to drive?
In pregnancy, blood passes from the placenta - part of the mother's body - to the baby. This is, for all definitions of the word - a transfusion. If it wasn't for this - none of us would be here today. Life started with a transfusion... think about it. The blood in your body now was once in some else's body - your mother's.
The JW standards on transfusions and transplants has changed throughout the years. Its not written in stone and has "softened" compared to where it was 20-30 years ago. It's not black and white as starbird has stated and there's even a reform movement within the organization to change the policy. That alone speaks in volume to the practice and belief.
Edited to add this note:
The scriptures referring to abstaining from consuming blood also refer to the blood of things that are dead. Blood donations do not come from dead donors.
A couple of interesting excerpts. BTW - mods I saw no copyright mentions near this article but you find one, or are concerned, please delete the following text excerpts and leave the link fo people to read on their own.
Thanks.
Since then changing medical practices and technologies have prompted further suggestions and questions from individual Jehovah's Witnesses and various adjustments to the "blood policy" have resulted. Subsequent adjustments have tended toward recognizing that many decisions related to the medical use of blood are a matter of individual conscience.
1. The Apostolic Decree at Acts 15:20, 28, 29 "to abstain from blood" is based on standards supplied to mankind through Noah after the flood. It is not an imposing upon Christians of the Mosaic Law or of some portion of it. (United in Worship of the Only True God, page 149.)
3. The Mosaic Law obligated Israel (and those taking up worship with Israel) to conform to special standards that were consistent with the Noachian Law, but which went well beyond it. The Mosaic Law did not, and does not, apply to mankind in general. It has been fulfilled (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1, page 345, par. 6.)
5. The conclusion is that the Noachian Law, which was the basis for the Apostolic Decree, applies only to blood obtained by a person's killing a creature. While the Mosaic Law might provide grounds for prohibiting blood transfusions, the Noachian Law does not provide any grounds for coming to that conclusion, because donated blood is not obtained by killing humans or animals.
Clearly this last conclusion differs from the Society's current stance. However, the following material will make the case that this conclusion is not only consistent with scripture, but also with many of the Society's expressed views. Further, its adoption would resolve remaining inconsistencies and sources of confusion associated with the current status of the blood doctrine. Jehovah is a God, not of disorder, but of peace (1 Cor. 3:33).
The Watchtower Society's stand on blood seems simple: Jehovah's Witnesses must abstain from blood. Despite this seeming simplicity, the Society's views on the medical use of blood have undergone substantial change and, in actuality, Jehovah's Witnesses do not abstain from all medical use of blood.
The early position that using whole blood or its components is wrong has evolved into the current understanding stated in a recent "Questions From Readers" article (The Watchtower, June 15, 2000. Compare with The Watchtower of February 15, 1963 page 124) that the use of most blood components is a matter of individual conscience.
you know when jesus said about drinking his blood it was symbolic..
as i said if a doctor told you by eating or drinking certain substances was
bad for you do you think he would recommend putting it in your veins.
jehovahs witnesses who avoid having transfusions isnt without merit
they follow the command to please jehovah..
as i thought all christians would do..
back then there were no blood transfusions but i bet if there had of been
it wouldnt have been acceptable for christians to have blood.
god back in the begining knew what would take place in the future
so if it was acceptable i think he would have said abstain from blood
except for medical purposes, but he didnt
he said to abstain from blood.
i think it better to be safe than sorry in following his laws.
starbird x x x
Wrong JW do accept Blood fractions.They can except all the parts of blood just not the whole blood.
From Wikipedia
The following are examples of medical procedures and products not prohibited:
* Blood donation strictly for purpose of further fractionation of red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma for either allogeneic or autologous transfusion.[16][17]
* Transfusions of autologous blood part of a “current therapy” .[18]
* Hemodilution, a modified technique in which equipment is arranged in a circuit that is constantly linked to the patient's circulatory system. .[19]
* Intraoperative blood salvage (autologous) or cell-saver scavenging, a method of picking up blood that has spilled from the circulatory system into an open wound, cleaning and re-infusing it.[20]
* Heart-Lung Machine, a method in which blood is diverted to an artificial heart-lung machine and directed back into the patient.[21]
* Dialysis, blood circulates through a machine that filters and cleans it then returns it to the patient.[22]
* Epidural Blood Patch, a small amount of the patient's blood is injected into the membrane surrounding the spinal cord.[23]
* Plasmapheresis, blood is withdrawn filtered, plasma removed, substituted added and returned to the patient.[24]
* Labeling or Tagging, blood is withdrawn, mixed with medicine, and then transfused to the patient.[25]
* Platelet Gel, blood is withdrawn and put into a solution rich in platelets and white blood cells.[26]
* Fractions from red blood cell
*
o Hemoglobin, the content of red blood cells. Also see blood substitutes
* Fractions from white blood cells.[27]
*
o Interferons
o Interleukins
* Fractions from platelets[28]
*
o Platelet factor 4
* Fractions from blood plasma.[29]
*
o Albumin
o Globulins
o Clotting factors, including Factor VIII and Factor IX derived from large quantities of stored blood
o Wound healing factor
* Erythropoietin (EPO).[30]
* PolyHeme, a blood substitute solution of chemically modified human hemoglobin.[31]
* Hemopure, a blood substitute solution of chemically stabilized bovine hemoglobin derived from cow's blood.[32]
I know this because I was a JW.Born and raised in the cult.My Uncle died a year and a half ago from loss of blood.He lost 75% of his blood due to a bleed in his colon.He died because he refused blood and blood based products.He could have been saved by accepting one of these products now allowed by the JW's own Governing Body.He died at 56 years old.
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
cman
Jesus Christ is
o it does matter how it gets in
of this God is very specific
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
How are you getting blood transfusions equate to eating blood? I don't see the logic there. :huh: The two are totally unrelated. On that point alone, your argument loses validity.
You're the one who brought up DNA and you use the fact that "your blood is unique to you" and contains DNA as a reason for not having a transfusion. But DNA is NOT in the blood used for transfusions.
So, why did you bring up DNA if it's not an important part of your position? On one hand you say that a blood transfusion does not change a person nor his DNA, but then you go on to say that your blood is unique to you because of DNA.
It seems like you're using the uniqueness of a person's DNA as a reason for not having a transfusion, but there is no DNA exchanged in a blood transfusion.
How do you explain John 5:53-56:Are JW's dispensational? Is the OT not written "to us"? Or is that a moot point with the JW religion? I know for TWI doctrine, those verses in the OT are not "to us" so they aren't relevant as far as any practice goes. The tithe, however, is still relevant in TWI logic, but that's talking about giving money to the church, so of course that practice is still expected.
How do these additional verses fit with the argument against blood transfusions?
Mark 7:15
There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
Matt 15:11
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
(Although, with a blood transfusion - one is not eating blood.)
Gal 5:18
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
"Back in the day" there were groups of people who believed that drinking blood would provide supernatural powers. This is idolatry and the primary reason the practice was forbidden. A blood transfusion to save life is not idolatry.
It is a scientific fact that blood cannot be completely removed from any living thing that is used for food. Virtually everyone that eats meat or its by-products has "eaten" a large amount of blood during their lifetime. This means that virtually every Watchtower Society members -- unless they are strict vegetarians -- has consumed a large quantity of animal blood during their lifetime.
Again, I'm glad that science is able to accommodate the laws of your religion, but I think your argument for avoiding blood transfusions is without merit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Great points Belle.
This has not been addressed either-
So it's pick and choose i guess as the religion dictates.
Done with dictators myself......
And hey if they could make a blood transfusion into a pill, that would save a lot of lives quickly!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
1 Cor 10:23
If "all things" are lawful, then, blood transfusions would be included in that, no?1 Cor 10:27-28,31
It would seem that, as long as the blood wasn't sacrificed to idols (which, in the hospital would be highly unlikely), then it's lawful and acceptable to God.
Edited by BelleLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
o well, jw's miss the entire point of the blood anyway.
wonder...if blood is so important, why don't they celebrate birthdays?
just a thought-maybe some connection there. in some strange way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Starbird,
This is a very interesting discussion. I hope you're not merely quoting the company line without really knowing or understanding why you believe what you've been taught.
Are you aware that there is a reform movement of JW's to change the JW policy? Are you aware that the JW church has changed it's policy bit by bit over the years to the point where accepting Hemopure - Cow's Blood as a transfusion is now acceptable? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
The church has further gone on to allow blood transfusions as long as the "whole blood" is not used. I suppose as long as it's administered different parts at a time, then it's acceptable. It appears as though the Biblical interpretation of the JW ruling authorities is not withstanding scrutiny and they are unable to support their position sufficiently enough to enforce this aspect of the legalism within the JW religion.
Another Policy Change
It appears as though changes in this policy are beginning to happen on a regular basis and it's only a matter of time until they begin to phase the blood transfusion teachings out of the strict doctrine. This is similar to what is happening with the TWI doctrine of debt. It's being less and less taught and enforced because TWI is and has been wrong on this, but will never admit it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
oh come on belle..
you know when jesus said about drinking his blood it was symbolic..
as i said if a doctor told you by eating or drinking certain substances was
bad for you do you think he would recommend putting it in your veins.
jehovahs witnesses who avoid having transfusions isnt without merit
they follow the command to please jehovah..
as i thought all christians would do..
back then there were no blood transfusions but i bet if there had of been
it wouldnt have been acceptable for christians to have blood.
god back in the begining knew what would take place in the future
so if it was acceptable i think he would have said abstain from blood
except for medical purposes, but he didnt
he said to abstain from blood.
i think it better to be safe than sorry in following his laws.
starbird x x x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
belle sorry but i've checked what you said about jws now being able
to accept certain blood componants, its wrong i'm affraid
the jehovahs witnesses still do not accept blood transfusions.
and they will not change on that it is what god commanded,
abstain from blood.
the site that you had your link to was an ex jw site..
starbird x x x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
So you're sticking to your select few verses and don't want to address all the other verses to the contrary?
Nor, do you want to address the facts I stated from that site?
Then, I guess the discussion is over. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
What about suicide, Starbird? Is suicide also wrong? Isn't it wrong to refuse a blood transfusion that could save your life?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
it is not suicide to refuse blood... rather the opposite.
suicide to accept blood.
it is a command from god to abstain from blood..
you take your chance on that & i'll take mine.
starbird x x x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved starbird and everybody elst that is part of this tread
God loves us all
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Ok all I read this verse - we are not to eat the blood of everything that has life
did you know that even plants have blood that flow in them?
Another question comes to mind - Why did God tell us not to eat the blood?
I would say there was a reason which was for our health.
Acts 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
the word abstain means refrain or try not to
others wise do your best not come near these things but that does not mean its wrong to come close to these things
with God its the heart of things
other wise receiving blood to save your life is not a sin
Lev 17:10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
again we are talking about eating blood not handing it in other ways
but this does not say the person can not be forgiven or cleaned and then welcome back with his people
Lev 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof:
If the life of the soul is in the soul and by science we know that blood is oxgen and a form of water
so do we stray away from oxgen in the air too - breath life too
will this is what I think right now
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
oh perleeze
did god tell us to abstain from plants..... no.
starbird x x x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved starbird
God loves you my dear friend
So you are saying the green herb is not talking about plant life and that they do not have life
plants have growth life
plants live and die as animals live and die as everything fleshly from dust lives and dies
so you do not agree with me
that is ok
because I do not agree with you
what do you mean by "oh perleeze"
maybe you never saw plants grow and die or maybe you have green herb animal
tell me what you mean my friend
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChasUFarley
I find it most interesting that starbird will got out of his/her way to discredit the acceptance of blood and call it suicide, but yet cannot look at what the statistics are for how transfusions and transplants will save lives. It is looking at trees with a refusal to open one's eyes to the forest that is around them. It's called bondage but then I wouldn't expect much different from someone who will not clearly answer questions or engaged in debate without baiting his/her own posts.
First off, if the logic was carried through on abstaining from blood, then please tell me WHY JW's are not all vegans? Blood is in the meat that you cook and eat - why is that acceptable? It seems to me that all these scripture refer to eating blood products. There is no reference to having them placed in one's veins.
I do know that some blood products are now acceptable. I believe it was the practice during the 1960's and 70's when a more extreme measure was taken by JW's to not accept any blood products at all. This has changed, that I am sure of. (I work in a hospital and very closely with the spiritual care and quality management department.) Also, it is not honest to say that ALL JW's embrace this belief - there is a rift within the organization about this practice. It is my understanding now that it is an individual's choice. Most hospitals have policies now that deal with JW's *extreme* beliefs and how the beliefs may be circumnavigated by a court of law to save a patient's life, especially in the case of a minor. [by the way - it is the JW's belief that is someone received a transfusion, it is not a sin of their own.]
There is nothing heroic about someone dying because of a lack of a transfusion. Religious freedom, although permitted by this country's constitution, is not absolute in that people should not loose their lives to it when their lives could and should be saved. The Hippocratic oath that physicians take begins with the words, "First, do no harm..." To allow a patient to bleed out or become so low in blood, when the rest of the prognosis could be good, would be a violation of that oath. I do not believe that God could have possibly meant this to the extreme that it has been taken.
The risks of a dying from a complication from a transfusion are 1/220,000 (some stats are lower - I picked a high one to be fair) - you have a greater chance of dying in a car accident or from electrocution or from being poisoned or from heart disease or ___________. So, why aren't some of those things not allowed by the religion? I mean, if the logic is that you "might die" from a transfusion, and the probability of you dying is higher from a MVA - then why are you allowed to drive?
In pregnancy, blood passes from the placenta - part of the mother's body - to the baby. This is, for all definitions of the word - a transfusion. If it wasn't for this - none of us would be here today. Life started with a transfusion... think about it. The blood in your body now was once in some else's body - your mother's.
The JW standards on transfusions and transplants has changed throughout the years. Its not written in stone and has "softened" compared to where it was 20-30 years ago. It's not black and white as starbird has stated and there's even a reform movement within the organization to change the policy. That alone speaks in volume to the practice and belief.
Edited to add this note:
The scriptures referring to abstaining from consuming blood also refer to the blood of things that are dead. Blood donations do not come from dead donors.
Edited by ChasUFarleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
starbird
i have two close friends one a jehovahs witness the other not,both had major operations
both refused to have blood.
my jehovahs witness friend is 75 yrs old she had major surgary, and the surgeon
was more than happy to operate on her. she was told she could loose alot of blood.
after the operation the surgeon came to her with a small medicine tot
he showed her how much blood she had lost 20ml..
my other friend who is not a jw had major heart surgery without blood.
that too was a success.
as i said you take your chance & i'll take mine.
"trust in jehovah with all your heart, and do not lean upon your own understanding" {pro 3:5}
starbird x x x
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumRunner
http://www.towerwatch.com/articles/blood_issue.htm
A couple of interesting excerpts. BTW - mods I saw no copyright mentions near this article but you find one, or are concerned, please delete the following text excerpts and leave the link fo people to read on their own.
Thanks.
Since then changing medical practices and technologies have prompted further suggestions and questions from individual Jehovah's Witnesses and various adjustments to the "blood policy" have resulted. Subsequent adjustments have tended toward recognizing that many decisions related to the medical use of blood are a matter of individual conscience.
1. The Apostolic Decree at Acts 15:20, 28, 29 "to abstain from blood" is based on standards supplied to mankind through Noah after the flood. It is not an imposing upon Christians of the Mosaic Law or of some portion of it. (United in Worship of the Only True God, page 149.)
3. The Mosaic Law obligated Israel (and those taking up worship with Israel) to conform to special standards that were consistent with the Noachian Law, but which went well beyond it. The Mosaic Law did not, and does not, apply to mankind in general. It has been fulfilled (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1, page 345, par. 6.)
5. The conclusion is that the Noachian Law, which was the basis for the Apostolic Decree, applies only to blood obtained by a person's killing a creature. While the Mosaic Law might provide grounds for prohibiting blood transfusions, the Noachian Law does not provide any grounds for coming to that conclusion, because donated blood is not obtained by killing humans or animals.
Clearly this last conclusion differs from the Society's current stance. However, the following material will make the case that this conclusion is not only consistent with scripture, but also with many of the Society's expressed views. Further, its adoption would resolve remaining inconsistencies and sources of confusion associated with the current status of the blood doctrine. Jehovah is a God, not of disorder, but of peace (1 Cor. 3:33).
The Watchtower Society's stand on blood seems simple: Jehovah's Witnesses must abstain from blood. Despite this seeming simplicity, the Society's views on the medical use of blood have undergone substantial change and, in actuality, Jehovah's Witnesses do not abstain from all medical use of blood.
The early position that using whole blood or its components is wrong has evolved into the current understanding stated in a recent "Questions From Readers" article (The Watchtower, June 15, 2000. Compare with The Watchtower of February 15, 1963 page 124) that the use of most blood components is a matter of individual conscience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Well --- actually you did duck the question (imo).
Let me offer a small tutorial about this site, if I may. ;)
You said the answer should have been quite obvious.
To me it is and was quite obvious. But -- (here's the tutorial part).
Some folks around here have jumped to conclusions about other posters in the past,
merely from looking at the other's posts and basing a judgement garnered only from that.
Then when said other poster accuses the "assumer" of lying, flaming, what not,
personal attacks begin, threads get derailed, and feelings get hurt.
And all that could have been avoided by a simple question;
such I asked you, so as not to seem to reach unmerited conclusions.
Had I merely started off "accusing" you of being active JW, and you weren't,
you would've (rightly) been able to castigate me for making unfounded assumptions.
Some of us ask questions (like I did),
before we leap and hit the enter button to reply to some post,
that might cause the disharmony I mentioned earlier,
without having asked the other poster first (as I did to you).
So -- when a direct question is asked of ANY poster here about specifics
(in whatever thread, in whatever forum) about something such I did with you,
it's always good to answer, because some of us don't assume anymore.
Now -- I don't want to derail this any further by my comments on this subject --
So ----- TIME TO GO BACK TO TOPIC.
:lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
not so fast starbird
nice name btw
just what do you think Jesus meant when he said 'this is'
i'd say something quite spiritual took place at this little gathering
cya tomorrow perhaps
gotta get some rest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Noni1974
Wrong JW do accept Blood fractions.They can except all the parts of blood just not the whole blood.
From Wikipedia
The following are examples of medical procedures and products not prohibited:
* Blood donation strictly for purpose of further fractionation of red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma for either allogeneic or autologous transfusion.[16][17]
* Transfusions of autologous blood part of a “current therapy” .[18]
* Hemodilution, a modified technique in which equipment is arranged in a circuit that is constantly linked to the patient's circulatory system. .[19]
* Intraoperative blood salvage (autologous) or cell-saver scavenging, a method of picking up blood that has spilled from the circulatory system into an open wound, cleaning and re-infusing it.[20]
* Heart-Lung Machine, a method in which blood is diverted to an artificial heart-lung machine and directed back into the patient.[21]
* Dialysis, blood circulates through a machine that filters and cleans it then returns it to the patient.[22]
* Epidural Blood Patch, a small amount of the patient's blood is injected into the membrane surrounding the spinal cord.[23]
* Plasmapheresis, blood is withdrawn filtered, plasma removed, substituted added and returned to the patient.[24]
* Labeling or Tagging, blood is withdrawn, mixed with medicine, and then transfused to the patient.[25]
* Platelet Gel, blood is withdrawn and put into a solution rich in platelets and white blood cells.[26]
* Fractions from red blood cell
*
o Hemoglobin, the content of red blood cells. Also see blood substitutes
* Fractions from white blood cells.[27]
*
o Interferons
o Interleukins
* Fractions from platelets[28]
*
o Platelet factor 4
* Fractions from blood plasma.[29]
*
o Albumin
o Globulins
o Clotting factors, including Factor VIII and Factor IX derived from large quantities of stored blood
o Wound healing factor
* Erythropoietin (EPO).[30]
* PolyHeme, a blood substitute solution of chemically modified human hemoglobin.[31]
* Hemopure, a blood substitute solution of chemically stabilized bovine hemoglobin derived from cow's blood.[32]
Blood Products Allowed by JW's
Edited by Noni1974Link to comment
Share on other sites
Noni1974
I know this because I was a JW.Born and raised in the cult.My Uncle died a year and a half ago from loss of blood.He lost 75% of his blood due to a bleed in his colon.He died because he refused blood and blood based products.He could have been saved by accepting one of these products now allowed by the JW's own Governing Body.He died at 56 years old.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Noni -- good to see you here posting again.
I was hoping you would add your perspective. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Noni1974
Hi Dmiller.I saw Roy's post at JWO and came right over.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
(I made the JWO a live link, for the folks here).
Roy gets around! (Uhhhh -- guess I do too)!
Glad to have you here answering starbird, with posts from the JW perspective!
Edited by dmillerLink 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.