Blood Fractions

by alice.in.wonderland 92 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  jamesmahon

  Alice

  I read this thread and feel really sorry for you (I seem to have said that to quite a few people on this board and do always mean it). If God inspired the bible why did he not get whichever man in a dressing gown wrote Acts to say "abstain from blood (except the components of blood which can be classed as elements or are not unique to blood)". I mean, if it was that important to him he would not leave it down to man's interpretation would he? And saying that man would not have understand doesn't wash really. Look at revelation, how many seven headed beasts being ridden by a harlot had John ever seen? God gave him a vision supposedly and he just wrote down what he was told. Just because the messenger did not understand is irrelevant.

  On a related point why didn't god inspire someone to write something down that was a good bit of scientific fact that was unknown at the time but would have made atheists believe in him now? Even something simple about atoms? In fact why could he not have really helped us and told us how to build an internal combustion engine? Or just something almost useful. Good grief, all those chapters of "jehosophat begat hobbywash" but not one verse even on what to use to wipe your arse when you run out of toilet paper and you used the last of the baby wipes that morning. Proof indeed that there is no god.

  Anyway, back to topic (must stop posting at 1 in the morning).

  You would be willing to die (or allow your children to die) because the WT says the bible says don't take blood but you talk to a bunch of apostates when the WT says the bible says not to. I think you 'pick and mix' witnesses are the worst sort really. I understand staying in because of family (just) but staying in because "it is more true than anything else" is just a load of tripe. This religion does not offer a halfway house and you know it, so you must be one mixed up lady.
• 

  palmtree67

  so you must be one mixed up lady.

  Recently, he/she/it was posting under the name "Consfearacy" and claiming to be a man.....so who knows??

  Agreed on the "mixed up" part.
• 

  alice.in.wonderland

  "Recently, he/she/it was posting under the name "Consfearacy" and claiming to be a man.....so who knows??

  Agreed on the "mixed up" part."

  Consfearacy didn't receive any tasteless offensive sexist remarks or PMs from forum members who claim to be men.
• 

  palmtree67

  When you were Consfearacy, you toned down the insults a bit at first.

  That's why we didn't realize it was you at first.
• 

  nugget

  Alice I respect your efforts to explain the unexplainable. This is a difficult and thankless task. I know you do not want to look back over the archives but you would benefit by doing so.

  We were taught as witnesses that to understand the scriptures we must attend to the context. I was surprised to discover that the scriptural context means that this scripture does not mean what the society preaches. As this affects your health and well being I would sincerely request that you look back on this topic and start with an open mind. After all the truth will not become a lie if scrutinised.
• 

  TD

  From the most ancient renderings of the New Testament (the New World Translation is based on the Westcott and Hort text. Two manuscripts were favored by Westcott and Hort: Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), Acts 15:20 clearly states to abstain from blood. If you translate the Bible a hundred different ways, what is stated can mean whatever you darn well want it to. There's plenty of people that play games with the plain meaning of plain words.

  The infinitive "to be abstaining....from blood" is more accurate, but otherwise well said Alice

  Which party is actually playing word games here though?

  Is it the party invoking an incomplete predicate apart from the context that completes it or the party insisting that complete sentences should be evaluated in context?

  Is it the party attempting to force a transitive meaning out of an an intransitive verb or the party insisting that the rules of grammar in both languages should be observed?

  Is it the party promoting the idea that it's possible to "abstain" from an integral part of the human body or the party recognizing that this is nonsensical and contradictory?

  The fact that you would prefer the paraphrase of the Decree at verse 20 to its formal reading at verse 29 is interesting, but does not change the context of compliance to the Law for the sake of the believing Jews:

  "Therefore do this which we tell you: We have four men with a vow upon themselves. Take these men along and cleanse yourself ceremonially with them and take care of their expenses, that they may have their heads shaved. And so everybody will know that there is nothing to the rumors they were told about you, but that you are walking orderly, you yourself also keeping the Law. As for the believers from among the nations, we have sent out, rendering our decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication."

  Do you think the situational context of the Decree might have a tiny bit to do with what it meant? Do you think the comments of James himself might have something to do with the intent of the Decree?

  You are the one playing word games Alice. You are the one committing grammatical shenanigens for the express purpose of forcing a comment out of the Bible alien not only to its historical and cultural context, but alien to the situational context of the Decree itself.
• 

  wasblind

  Alice said: " Blood transfusions weren't a common medical practice in the 1st century (the century the last book of the Bible was completed)."

  That's exactly right Alice.

  And it proves that what they state in the Reasoning from the Scriptures book about blood fractions on page 71, was opinions from men not the Bible.
• 

  undercover

  The entire WT prohibition on blood lays on one scripture... Acts 15:29. They try to bolster that prohibition by using the "principle" of the Mosiac Law regarding blood.

  Now...forget all the shit about fractions and elements and blah blah blah...

  JWs supposedly accept the Bible as the last word on any subject. Their entire theology is supposedly based on God's Word. They accept Jesus as God's son who fulfilled the Law Covenant and set up the Christian congregation. Jesus is ruling at God' right hand and is King.

  If you accept that, then let Jesus, the King, God's son weigh on the matter. He didn't say anything about eating blood (or transfuing it) you say? No, not in so many words. What he did do was set the principle of how one views the sanctity of life. If the WTS can imply "principle" from the Law Covenant how much more fitting is it to apply "principle" from Jesus' words and actions?

  Matthew 12: 1-13 (NWT)

  1 At that season Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath. His disciples got hungry and started to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 At seeing this the Pharisees said to him: “Look! Your disciples are doing what it is not lawful to do on the sabbath.” 3 He said to them: “Have YOU not read what David did when he and the men with him got hungry? 4 How he entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests only? 5 Or, have YOU not read in the Law that on the sabbaths the priests in the temple treat the sabbath as not sacred and continue guiltless? 6 But I tell YOU that something greater than the temple is here. 7 However, if YOU had understood what this means, ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice,’ YOU would not have condemned the guiltless ones. 8 For Lord of the sabbath is what the Son of man is.”

  9 After departing from that place he went into their synagogue; 10 and, look! a man with a withered hand! So they asked him, “Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath?” that they might get an accusation against him. 11 He said to them: “Who will be the man among YOU that has one sheep and, if this falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not get hold of it and lift it out? 12 All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do a fine thing on the sabbath.” 13 Then he said to the man: “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and it was restored sound like the other hand.

  Mark 2:23 - 3:5

  23 Now it happened that he was proceeding through the grainfields on the sabbath, and his disciples started to make their way plucking the heads of grain. 24 So the Pharisees went saying to him: “Look here! Why are they doing on the sabbath what is not lawful?” 25 But he said to them: “Have YOU never once read what David did when he fell in need and got hungry, he and the men with him? 26 How he entered into the house of God, in the account about A·bi´a·thar the chief priest, and ate the loaves of presentation, which it is not lawful for anybody to eat except the priests, and he gave some also to the men who were with him?” 27 So he went on to say to them: “The sabbath came into existence for the sake of man, and not man for the sake of the sabbath; 28 hence the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath.”

  1 Once again he entered into a synagogue, and a man was there with a dried-up hand. 2 So they were watching him closely to see whether he would cure the man on the sabbath, in order that they might accuse him. 3 And he said to the man with the withered hand: “Get up [and come] to the center.” 4 Next he said to them: “Is it lawful on the sabbath to do a good deed or to do a bad deed, to save or to kill a soul?” But they kept silent. 5 And after looking around upon them with indignation, being thoroughly grieved at the insensibility of their hearts, he said to the man: “Stretch out your hand.” And he stretched it out, and his hand was restored.

  Here Jesus set the principle that life was more important than the law. From reading how Jesus dealt with a situation that meant breaking a law in order to save a soul, the real question is:

  Is it lawful to do a good deed or a bad deed, to save a soul or kill a soul, to allow a blood transfusion or to not allow a blood transfusion?
• 

  snowbird

  UnderCover just hammered the last nail into the coffin of the no-whole-blood/allowable-fractions doctrine.

  Syl
• 

  brotherdan

  I liked cantleave's comment. Alice, can I donate my blood to be used to make blood fractions? Is that a "conscience matter"? Or would I be df'd for that?