Blood Fractions

by 92 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • palmtree67

    Alice, the topic of blood fractions has been hashed and re-hashed on this board over and over.

    Instead of starting yet another thread on it, why don't you read some the threads already here? Because quite frankly, you haven't added one iota of new information.

    Have you forgotten that most of us here were Witnesses? You can't fool us with your lies.

    You said once that TD and Leolaia were the only ones on this board that were intelligent enough for you to debate with. (Although I notice that neither of them has much to say on your threads.....)

    Why not read TD's points in this thread:

    Your argument above has poked holes in absolutely nothing.

  • wasblind

    Alice says: "The reason the faithful and discreet slave left the acceptance or refusal of these blood products an individual choice is because or these types of people"

    Alice are you saying that the Organization allows popular demands by the people to direct their steps and change Gods laws ?


    If someone wants to address what I said here, fine. I'm not going through any archives that were posted before I was here.

  • wasblind

    Alice the Jehovahs Witnesses still use the Reasoning from the Scriptures book

    so that means it is not an archive yet


    " If you systematically break down any aspect of human composition, you eventually get to the same elements found in the earth beneath us. This is the reasoning as to why the use of blood fractions can be acceptable."

    In the Reasoning from the Scriptures book on page 71 it states:"Any food to which whole blood or even some blood fraction has been added should not be eaten."

    if what you state is true today about human composition, then what make fractions unacceptable in the reasoning book ?

    i'm really trying to have a logical conversation Alice"

    rs p. 71 par. 2 Blood

    Similarly, any food to which whole blood or even some blood fraction has been added should not be eaten.


    Common sense 101: What would be the point in eating blood or a blood fraction as the fraction has no sound medical purpose?

  • wasblind

    Alice says: "If a logical answer offends you??? You solidify the knowledge that people like yourself lie and can't handle even one objective person poking holes in your arguments"

    alice, If a logical question offends you ??? you know how the rest of the statement go, after all you wrote it

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog


    When a religious organization that claims to be Bible based makes official statements or publishes information, it can weighed in concordance with what the Bible says.

    Oh yah?

    Christians are simply to make an adequate effort to abstain from blood (Acts 15:19-21).

    What does the bible say about pets abstaining from blood?

    The answer is NOTHING.

    Look at what your WT says about it.

    WT 2/15/64



    The psalmist declared at Psalm 119:97: "How I do love your law! All day long it is my concern." Such a love of God’s law and a concern for it would surely cause a dedicated servant of God to avoid any violation of God’s law whatsoever. God’s law on blood is very clear. Blood is not to be used as food and, when withdrawn from a body, it is to be poured out on the ground. (Gen. 9:3, 4; Lev. 3:17; Deut. 12:16, 23, 24; Acts 15:20, 28, 29) Christians certainly would not wish to do anything in violation of Jehovah’s law on blood. Love for God and for the righteous laws and principles of his Word calls forth that response from them in matters pertaining to blood.

    Since God’s law on blood has not been altered over the centuries, Christians today realize that they are bound by it. Please note, however, that it is not fear of some reprisal that moves them to comply with Jehovah’s law on blood. They do not obey God’s law simply because violation of it might result in the imposing of sanctions by the Christian congregation of which they are a part. They love what is right. Furthermore, because of their love of God’s law they will not rationalize or seek ways in which it appears possible to circumscribe it with seeming impunity.

    How, then, must we answer the question, Would it be a violation of the Scriptures for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to a pet? By all means, to do so would be a violation of the Scriptures.To use blood for transfusion purposes, even in the case of an animal, would be improper. The Bible is very clear in showing that blood should not be eaten. It should not be infused, therefore, to build up the body’s vital forces, either in the case of a human or in the case of a pet or any other animal under the jurisdiction of a Christian.

    In harmony with this, surely a Christian parent could not rationalize to the effect that a pet belongs to a minor child and thus this unbaptized child might, on its own, authorize a veterinarian to administer the blood. No. The baptized parent bears the responsibility, for that parent has authority over the child and over the pet and should control the entire matter. That is the parent’s obligation before God.—Eccl. 12:13, 14; Jas. 4:17.

    What, then, of animal food? May it be used if there is reason to believe there is blood in it? As far as a Christian is concerned, the answer is No, on the basis of principles already mentioned. Therefore, if a Christian discovers that blood components are listed on the label of a container of dog food or some other animal food, he could not conscientiously feed that product to any animal over which he has jurisdiction. He could not conclude that doing so would be excusable, for this would not be a case of an animal killing another animal and helping itself to the blood of that creature. No, this would be a direct act on the part of the Christian, making him responsible for feeding blood to a pet or other animal belonging to him.

    Of course, if there is no indication on the label of a package of animal food that the product contains blood, a Christian might conclude that it could be used. Still, his conscience might trouble him. In that case he should put his conscience to rest by making reasonable inquiry and acting in accord with the information he receives, for a Christian surely desires to have a good conscience before God.—1 Pet. 3:21.

    But now, what about fertilizer that has blood in it? One who is going to show respect for God’s law on blood would not use it. True, according to the Mosaic law, blood when taken from a body was to be poured out upon the ground and covered over with dust. (Lev. 17:13, 14) The objective was, however, that the blood should serve no useful purpose when thus disposed of. It was not placed on the ground with the thought in mind that it would serve as fertilizer. Hence, no Christian farmer today could properly spread blood on his fields to fertilize the soil, nor would he use commercial fertilizer containing blood. Such blood use would be a commercializing on something that God has reserved for himself. It would be a violation of God’s Word.

    Servants of God have been told in the Scriptures what is to be done with blood. So they know that they would be held responsible by Jehovah for any misuse of blood over which they might have control. What is more, because they love God they are prompted to observe the laws and principles of his Word. Thus they are moved to keep Jehovah’s law on blood even in ways that might appear to some to be insignificant. They do not view compliance with it as an encumbrance, for they hold in remembrance the words of 1 John 5:3, which states: "For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments; and yet his commandments are not burdensome."

  • palmtree67
    If someone wants to address what I said here, fine. I'm not going through any archives that were posted before I was here.

    You truly are an idiot.

  • Essan

    Alice, you said " If you systematically break down any aspect of human composition, you eventually get to the same elements found in the earth beneath us. This is the reasoning as to why the use of blood fractions can be acceptable."

    This is similar to saying that if you put a human in an acid bath, then " you eventually get to the same elements found in the earth beneath us".

    So would it not be murder as long as you reduce the victim to basic elements?

    To get to the elements, in both cases, requires actions the Society insist are inherently wrong and say Christians should have no part in!

    It's hypocrisy.

    No blood or blood products whatsoever would be understandable - wrong, but understandable - but the present stance is hypocritical and makes no real sense.

  • jwfacts

    The fact that the Watchtower used to say fractions were wrong, but now say they are ok, shows they have no idea what they are talking about and cannot be relied upon. It is dangerous for people like you to put forward such ignorant ideas that lead to the death of mindless followers

    On the subject of blood components in comparison with fractions: ...

    If you continue to break down blood components into fractions, ...

    Those statements are spurious, and show your gullibility for Watchtower logic. The Watchtower has coined the terms fraction vs component simply to make it seem there is a difference. In reality a component is just a fraction. There is no logical reason that a component is any different or more wrong to use than a "minor fraction".

    Jehovah's Witnesses came to an agreement as to where a line can be drawn.

    Another stupid comment. JW's did not come to agreement. The leaders tell JWs what to believe, whether they agree or not. And there is no agreement between the leaders either; shown by new leaders replacing what previous leaders taught.

Share this