Freewilly just posted some entertaining shtuff from a new friend he made on that MSN JW thread. i posted on there too and new friends are just coming out of the woodwork! it seems like everyday there's another handful of messages from these JW defenders (some of them are unbelievably mean too!)
so, without further ado, here are Doogie's continued adventures with my new friend, Jehovah's Witness Guy. (it's kind of long and goofy, but his comments are pretty funny. he kind of interjects stuff into my emails to him. his comments are bold.) enjoy!
first email:
Hello Doogie,
It is sad isn't that people cause problems.
your comments seem to think so.
Your Comments about Jehovah's Witnesses seem to think that they
have a problem with you. But the problem is how you think about
blood. I am wondering what is wrong with not accepting blood?
Where is the down side in that?
Hey Jehovah’s Witness Guy,to be perfectly clear, i have NO problem with people not accepting blood transfusions. i strongly believe that it is the individual's decision to make and if someone's conscience will not allow a blood transfusion, then more power to them!
my issue is that in my reading of the bible, i do not see where certain portions of the blood are allowed and certain ones are not. the bible says "abstain from blood," not "abstain from the primary components of blood." yet, if an active jehovah's witness accepts a transfusion of red blood cells, he will be disfellowshipped (well, technically, i guess he would be "disassociating himself by his actions", but it's all semantics),
Red blood cells are blood. So knowlingly accepting that would be violationg Acts 15 and prior command.
But accepting it in itself is not disfellowshipping, it is the motive or reason behind that that would be.whereas, if he accepts hemoglobin (which makes up 97% of the red blood cell), this is his personal decision to make.
I don't think so. Hemoglobin is blood.But because things are not punished does not make them acceptable or alright. It is just that those things are not
congregational matters.
i read the scriptures to say "continue abstaining from blood." where does it make the distinction between red blood cells and hemoglobin? they are both blood (and constitute EXTREMELY similar portions of the entire substance).If you are resolved to abstain from all blood, then why are you concerning yourself with with others may do?
Because you choose not to make such a distinction, why are you preventing others?
And why involve the Society in this. What a person does is not a Society issue, but a personal issue.
The reason that they printed some things about that is because some people need to be told
what they can and can not do rather than researching and praying on matters themselves. What bothers me is that you are making an issue out of something that involves others not yourself.
You sound like you are upset because they are not taking a stand as conservative as you would like.
You think that their liberalism is bad. (lol!)the point is, how can the society determine which portions of blood the scripture refers to and which ones it does not? whether an individual comes to the same conclusion as the society or not is not the point...like i said at the outset, if an indivdual decides he'd rather not accept blood, i have no beef with him and i wish him the best. the issue is whether the society is condemning something that the bible never did.blood should either be completely forbidden as the bible makes no distinction between fractions and primary components (categories which are unknown in medicine), or completely a conscience matter. to continue to forbid this portion and allow that portion is to ADD to the commandment to abstain from blood by ADDING clauses explaining what blood is or isn't...clauses that are not even alluded to in the bible. the bible just says "blood."
This is a subject that is not put into practice. It is theory only. It is like arguing about the draft or military service at
peacetime. You are getting yourself in a tizzy for nothing.All that they said is that blood components are no longer blood.
Blood consists of water. Is water blood? But the 4 main components,
Red, white, plasma, and platelets are still blood. Anythingelse is up to
the person.
Do some research and you will find that for yourself.
Those major blood fractions are not acceptable.
http://www.pennhealth.com/health_info/bloodless/blood_units.html
my response to his response (with his response to my response in bold...got it? me neither):
hi Jehovah's Witness Guy,Thank you for your reply. i had the same difficulties describing my issue to my brother. It is not that I wish the Society to be more conservative in their interpretations. I simply see it as a double standard. For decades, the society has identified themselves as the “NO BLOOD” religion. But now, as you mention, people usually are administered portions of the blood in their various treatments, and not whole blood. So now what? does the society say that these treatments would also fall under the umbrella of no blood, or does that command not apply? They say that it does not apply to the blood fractions. rather than say “it’s up to the individual”, the society declares which portions are “ok” and which are not. As you mentioned, I do understand that just because something is not punished does not make it right, it just means it is not a congregational matter. But why is any of it a “congregational matter” since the bible is not explicit in this matter?
They say that it is up to the conscience of the individual because the Bible is not clear on that so they
can not state for a certainty whether that is under God's law or not.When they are blood fractions and a conscience matter, it is not a congregational matter.
For what it’s worth, I believe that the scripture in Acts referred to the eating of blood in connection with the practice of pagan religious ceremonies, in which case, the medical use of blood was not even alluded to and the discussion of “whole blood vs. blood fractions” would be irrelevant. Currently, at this time a Jehovah’s Witness is able to accept EVERY PORTION of the blood, as long as it is broken down enough. It’s as if your doctor tells you that because of your cholesterol, you can’t eat any more philly cheesesteaks…but you can still eat bread, steak, cheese, onions and green peppers separately. To me, this is silly. Either the blood the substance is sacred (in which case, wouldn’t every part of that substance be sacred?), or it’s a matter of respecting blood because it is a symbol of life (and if that is the case, wouldn’t you be showing more respect for life by trying to sustain it in any way possible?). in any case, again, since the bible is not explicit in this matter, why is any of it a congregational matter?It is not just about eating blood with pagan ceremonies as it is medically better to not take blood
transfusions. I don't see the point of protesting. The Bible says to abstain from blood. So that
would include no transfusions. But why place burdens on others from that which we don't know?
Fractions are not congregational matters.I know that we don’t see eye to eye on this, and that’s fine. I tried to make it clear on the board that I have nothing but respect for your right to believe as you wish. I just ask for that same level of respect. Differences of opinion do occur within the congregation. By your emailing me, you demonstrate that you disagree with the society’s instruction not to defend the Watchtower on the internet. So, clearly, we both disagree with some of the society’s instructions. The only difference between us is that they know I disagree with them.
Why don't we see eye to eye? The Bible says to abstain from blood. So that
would include no transfusions. The fractions or further broken down into
the minor components are something no one is sure of.
The Society does not say not to defend the Watchtower on the internet.
so, after all that, i spent a bunch of time researching and writing and finally sent off this message below. why am i not surprised that he returned it as spam without opening it...
hi Jehovah’s Witness Guy,let me try to explain my problem a little better. something you wrote caught my eye. you said:
"It is not just about eating blood with pagan ceremonies as it is medically better to not take blood transfusions. I don't see the point of protesting. The Bible says to abstain from blood. So that would include no transfusions. But why place burdens on others from that which we don't know?"
So, if i understand you correctly, you reason that because it’s “medically better to not take blood transfusions,” the scripture must not only be referring to eating blood but also the medical use of blood? The context of the scripture in Acts makes absolutely NO reference to the medical use of blood. Acts 15:29 does end with the comment, “Good health to you!”, but every bible commentary I’ve looked at describes this as a cordial ending to a letter (much like me telling you, “See you later!”, or, “Have a good one!”), and not a reference to physical health.
The society says the command to “abstain from blood” applies in a DIETARY and MEDICAL context (no eating blood, no blood transfusions). Acts 15 contains instructions for Gentiles regarding what laws need to be observed. Some Christians were demanding that converted Gentiles be circumcised but since the Mosaic Law was no longer in effect they needed a ruling on the issue. James responded with the comments on ‘abstaining.’ The scripture lays out restrictions on these new coverts’ involvement with the practices that they used to take part in…eating things sacrificed to idols, practices involving blood, fornication, and eating strangled animals. Acts 15:28, 29 (NWT) says:
28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU , except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!
So, the question is, what was intended by the comment ‘abstain from blood’? The society agrees that the apostles were only speaking of dietary restrictions (just like the Mosaic Law only referred to dietary restrictions on blood use); however, they argue that they had no medical applications for blood at the time and that’s the only reason that medical uses weren’t also commanded against. to me, that is even more reason to believe that this scripture did not refer to medical uses of blood. They didn’t even have any back then!!! If there were no such things as “blood transfusions” at the time, why would the apostles possibly be instructing people to not take them??? This scripture could be referring to:
1) EATING blood; and/or,
2) USING blood in religious ceremonies, both of which were common among the pagans at the time.
The society argues that as far as eating blood goes, it’s not the EATING of the blood through the mouth that was unacceptable, it was the INTRODUCING of blood into the body through any avenue that was unacceptable. However, that is merely speculation since, at the time of writing, the scripture was only referring to ORAL ingestion of blood. If someone today decides that their conscience will not allow them to accept blood as medicine, that’s completely fine by me, and I can understand their logic, but the by making something that is not mentioned in the bible and was completely nonexistent at the time of writing a DISFELLOWSHIPPING offense, the society is overstepping their authority and ADDING speculation to the command to ‘abstain.’
In addition, it can be shown that the scripture in Acts condemned these practices ONLY when done in connection with pagan religious rituals. in 1 Corinthians 10:25-29, it says that it is completely acceptable for a Christian to eat strangled, unbled meat if it does not bother his conscience. This is one of the exact things that was condemned in Acts!!! However, the context in 1 Corinthians points to mature Christians eating unbled meat privately for meals, whereas, the directions in Acts are specifically for newly converted Gentiles who still participated in pagan rituals. That is why I feel that the commandments in Acts are condemning these practices in connection with religious rituals, and these practices were not necessarily condemned in and of themselves. Again, considering the scripture in 1 Corinthians, clearly it’s the CONTEXT of the action, and not the action by itself.
Similarly, the bible is not explicit as far as condemning pornography. Jesus cautions that a man “looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her” has already committed fornication in his heart. there is room to believe that Jesus was referring to pornography, however, the bible does not explicitly condemn pornography. The society got this one right by not making pornography a disfellowshipping offense (although they have written guidelines steering people away from it), and ultimately, it is up to the individual to determine how they feel about pornography without fear of punishment by the society. The society should take a similar stance on blood transfusions. To condemn something that the bible does not puts their authority higher than the bible.
oh well. i don't know why i opened my big mouth to begin with. from now on, i'm staying on the sidelines .