Eating Blood v Transfusion . . . same thing?

by sizemik 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  sizemik

  The WTS ban on the transfusion of whole blood or primary components is established on a number of "principles" which when taken in their entirety give rise to the doctrine.

  One important one is the refusal to distinguish between the consumption of blood by eating . . . and the consumption of blood by surgically implanting it (transfusion). We've all heard the "alcohol" analogy. I know it's a logical fallacy to compare the two . . . but the WTS considers it a fair "principle" and continues to adhere to it "religiously".

  OK . . . what about the consumption of human flesh? If "eating" is the same as "transfusing" blood by surgical implant . . . then an organ transplant is the same as eating it . . . right? It's the "consumption" of human flesh without the distinction between eating and surgically implanting it . . . as the WTS insists!

  This principle, if applied consistently, renders the transplanting of human organs as being the same as eating them . . . ie; cannabalism. The WTS's (now discarded) ban on organ transplants is entirely consistent with their ban on blood.

  The WTS needs to re-instate their ban on organ transplants . . . otherwise their stand on blood is 100% hypocritical, and they are merely sanctioning cannabalism.
• 

  thetrueone

  Whoever said the WTS. leaders had sound logical sense of reasoning concerning biblical scripture interpretation ?

  Its obvious that the Mosaic laws concerning the use of blood was mostly concerned about the eating of blood which is still applied today

  by strident Orthodox Jews.

  The ancients didn't know what blood was for as part of the biology of animals, all they knew was that if blood pored out

  of animals or humans that death occurred, hence this gave it sacred significance to them.

  Orthodox Jews still perceive the sacredness of blood intact in the medical procedure of blood transfusions.
• 

  wha happened?

  Well in their previous blood booklet, they called blood, basically an organ transplant. (Thier words). They stopped saying that when organ transplants became approved.

  I learned alot about blood when dealing with my mother's illnesses. Blood transfusion is not eating. Period. The blood remains in your body , circulating and transporting oxygen and nutrients for about 4 months. Then the cells die.
• 

  Inisc

  I asked my mum about this,

  If there was no such thing as transfusions when the bible was written, how do we know for sure it doesn't just mean eating blood is forbidden.

  And if blood cries out to Jehovah when its spilled then why would me borrowing some blood to keep me alive be worse than my own blood being spilled in death?

  All she came up with was that blood needs to return to the ground, (she didn't see that I'd only be borrowing it and when I died I'd give god his blood back) and then all the stock bullshit answers about how we don't need blood because there is so many alternatives that are way better all thanks to Jehovah's witnesses!

  She could not or more likely would not see my logic.

  I gave up and changed the subject.
• 

  renderme

  Injecting blood and eating it are 2 very different things...when blood is injected into a vein it does the same job as the blood it is replacing..it stays in the veins and bloodstream and does not go to the stomach to be digested, which it would need to do in order for it to be considered "eaten".

  We certainly can't literally "abstain" from blood..it's running through our veins...does that mean we are "eating" our own blood over and over again? Makes no logical sense. The Bible was referring to literally eating and digesting blood..blood was never meant to be digested..it belongs in our veins only. ..but to say it is a sin to have a transfusion is presumptuous...putting words into God's mouth as usual when it comes to JW's.

  Just my opinion.
• 

  Knowsnothing

  Inisc, I feel you. Reasoning is sometimes impossible. They simply adhere to what they are told.

  A bit off-topic, what method would you choose if given the option? Bloodless or transfuse? I'd go bloodless, unless at emergency.
• 

  wha happened?

  besides, eating blood was never an offense worthy of death, read Leviticus 17:15.
• 

  Inisc

  Knows nothing, bloodless unless it was an emergency.
• 

  Phizzy

  Hey Sizemik, I had EXACTLY your thought on this a couple of days ago, that the position they hold as to organ tranplant is not consistent with the continued ban on blood.

  All the other arguments, it is the same as eating, must be poured out etc have all been shown to be wrong before on this board/site , but the thought about organ tranplant is new, I think.

  Give a starving man nothing but blood transfusions and he will still die.....of starvation, you need to get the bugger to eat, so BT is not eating blood.

  The poured out on the ground bit was because a life had been taken, no life is taken when BT is performed, even if you said "the life is in the blood" as noted above, that life has not been taken, just borrowed.

  The MURDEROUS Blood Doctrine of the WT has nothing, Nothing ! to support it.

  Funny you and I should have the same New Light, Size, maybe we should be on the Governing Body of the Apostates, though I wouldn't want to try to govern this lot, herding cats is a piece of piss in comparison.
• 

  blondie