The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty 556 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  cofty

  I did not know that you did not want to discuss the medical part.

  It is a given that there are risks with any medical procedure. JWs do not refuse blood because it has risks. The blood brochure that came out in the 80s made that point very clear.

  JWs keep telling each other the dangerous lie that modern medicine has made transfusions unnecessary.

  In cases of large blood loss - car crash, stabbing, shooting, hemorrhage - the choice is still very simple. Blood transfusion or death.

  These things are not the topic of this thread.

  What do you mean by OP?

  Opening Post.

  That is where the author of the thread explains their point and sets the specific topic.

  It is an annoying feature of all forums that people often don't bother to read an OP.

  Later this evening I want to link the context of Genesis 9, Leviticus 17, and Acts 15.
• 

  cofty

  challenging your position that blood is only sacred only after an animal is killed.

  Please read the OP and the linked article...
  

  Later....
• 

  Pistoff

  You will never get a believing witness to listen to you about blood.

  It has gone beyond a rational belief; it is a superstition.

  The idea of blood makes them shiver; they regard university trained MD's with decades of experience as being shills for 'the blood industry'.

  They will always fall back on believing the 'slave'.
• 

  defender of truth

  This article talks a little about the context of Genesis 9:

  
  http://ajwrb.org/bible/genesis-9-and-the-eternal-covenant

  "..there is nothing in this scripture that addresses the misuse of human blood, outside of forbidding murder, and that is not what they are implying. Try as you like, you simply cannot formulate the argument that a blood transfusion is a misuse of blood from these verses."

  "Additionally, the entire discussion of blood takes place in the context of killing, either animals or humans. This is an important point because a blood transfusion does not involve killing."
  
• 

  defender of truth

  And here is one that discusses Acts 15:
  http://ajwrb.org/bible/acts-15-and-the-apostolic-decree

  Keep up the good work, Cofty.
• 

  Fisherman

  Please read the OP and the linked article...

  Your referenced post is nonsense, more specifically drivel. Here is one reason why:

  In Genesis 6 when god gives permission for humans to kill animals for food. God tells Noah that he is to pour out the blood of the animal on the ground.

  That is false! Genesis 6 does not say that neither is the word blood used in Gen 6 at all.
• 

  cofty

  You're correct that Gen 6 doesn't specifically say to pour the blood on the ground. That sentence needs to be phrased more carefully.

  However the article is far from drivel. It is a carefully researched and succinct critique of the Watchtower's theology regarding blood.

  I'm off to bed shortly but sometime tomorrow I will connect the dots from Gen to the Law to Acts 15.
• 

  fukitol

  "Additionally, the entire discussion of blood takes place in the context of killing, either animals or humans. This is an important point because a blood transfusion does not involve killing."

  BINGO. This is a knock-down argument against the JW blood policy. The whole point of the scriptural prohibition is that the blood is merely a symbol of the soul that is lost. By observing the prohibition, the taker of the life is giving recognition that only YHWH is the source of life.
  
• 

  cofty

  Exactly!

  Love your avatar fukitol.
• 

  Fisherman

  Marvin Shilmer:

  I have read the information you linked in your post.
  

  Cryosupernatant Plasma
  is prepared from slowly thawed Frozen Plasma that is centrifuged to separate the plasma from the insoluble cryoprecipitate. The insoluble cryoprecipitate is removed and the remaining plasma is refrozen.
  
  Cryoprecipitate is prepared from slowly thawed Frozen Plazma that is centrifuged to separate the insoluble cryopreciptate from the plasma. The insoluble cryoprecipitate is refrozen.

  http://www.oscp.ca/files/oscp/Plasma%20components%20circular%202.pdf
  

  Seems to me that both products are not whole blood but a component of a component of blood.
  

  Seems also that they may carry the risk of HIV, HCV, HBV, and HTLV and other medical risks similar to those in blood transfusions. What you seem to be saying is: How can WT use "risk" at all as an argument for refusing BT to support religious position while concurrently not "banning" (allowing ) another blood product that is equally risky. Is that what you mean?