Need Help with Blood Transfusion Illustration

by Dissonant15 78 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • wallsofjericho

    To abstain from blood was to abstain from eating meat that was not bled properly.

    All meat has blood in it, its not the blood but the ritual cleansing that is the act of obedience.

    The illustration about alcohol is both a red herring and straw-man as it does not accurately follow the premise

    if it were somewhat apples to apples, the illustration would be to avoid alcohol in excess but of course this would not support the WTS position

  • berrygerry

    There is a great response on yahoo.

    Acts also forbade meat sacrificed to idols, but Paul later allowed it. Why?

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer
    If your doctor directs you to 'abstain from alcohol' would you be OK to have it injected into your veins rather than drink it?

    Yes. It would.

    A doctor tells a patient to abstain from alcohol if the patient's use of alcohol is bad for his health. But if the same patient shows up at an emergency room with ethyl glycol poisoning he'll likely have alcohol administered to counteract the deadly effect. In each case (i.e., abstention and administration) the reason is the same: best interest of the patient.

  • wolfman85
    Abstain from alcohol doesn't mean that the patient can't use it. The patient could use alcohol to disinfect a wound, to clean a body area before an injection, in a cold remedy, for rubbing sore joints, even in his cologne or after shave, deodorant. And most important is that alcohol isn't part of our body as blood is, so the illustration is ridiculos
  • stuckinarut2
    Just Kidding

    Great link 'just kidding'!

    Thanks for posting it!

    As said, it is a MUST READ...

  • bsmart
    Not entirely on subject; but if someone was starving a blood transfusion would not prevent that person from dying of starvation.
  • cofty

    The command to abstain from blood must be understood in context.

    It is part of a letter from apostles at Jerusalem to the early churches regarding the question of whether Gentile christians needed to get circumcised and keep the Law.

    When we examine the Law we find that Israelites were permitted to eat blood with impunity under certain circumstances - as long as the life of the animal had not been taken.

    See here... and here... for a fuller explanation ...

  • Island Man
    Island Man

    The alcohol illustration is a false analogy because the reason a doctor tells you to abstain from alcohol is very different from the reason the bible says to abstain from blood. Also, the body treats alcohol the same way whether it is ingested or injected. But the body treats blood very differently depending on whether you inject it or eat it.

    The doctor is concerned about alcohol's effect on the patient's body. On the other hand God is concerned with our impact on blood's sanctity. These are two completely different reasons and so it nullifies the efficacy of the analogy.

    In the case of alcohol it would not matter whether you inject it or drink it because in both cases it would have the same negative effect on the body. Alcohol is a basic food substance, meaning that it does not need to be digested and so it is absorbed whole into the blood from the stomach. So whether you inject it or drink it, it enters the blood whole and has the same effects on the body.

    In the case of blood, it makes a big difference whether you eat it or transfuse it. Eaten, blood is digested like food and the nutrients from it is what is absorbed. So eaten it is treated as food and thus amounts to equating the soul or life, with food. (Contrast Matthew 6:25b which says the soul is worth more than food) This amounts to an undermining of blood's spiritual efficacy on the altar to atone for the soul of the sinner. A soul (tokenized as blood) has to be sacrificed to buy back the soul of the sinner. By eating blood, you make it into food and this undermines the sacrificial system because now you'd be offering food on the altar to buy back a soul. This is what Leviticus 17:10-12 is getting at.

    In a transfusion, however, the blood funtions in the body in the same way that the patient's own native blood functions. Since it is obviously not scripturally wrong to use your own native blood flowing in your veins, then logically it would also not be wrong to use donated blood because the donated blood is being used for the exact same purpose that was instituted by the creator himself! If the use of donated blood in the veins amounts to a violation of the sanctity of blood then logically it would also be wrong to use your own native blood in your veins and everyone would have to cut their throats and bleed themselves to death in order to comply with the command to abstain from blood.

    Thus it is foolish to equate eating blood with receiving a blood transfusion; and it is foolish to equate the doctor's order to abstain from alcohol with the bible's decree to abstain from eating blood.

  • Island Man
    Island Man
    JWs using Acts 15:28's "abstain from...blood" to reject blood transfusions is as foolish as if they were using Acts 15:28's "abstain from ... fornication" as grounds for sisters to reject invasive gynecological exams. Think about it.
  • Finkelstein

    This is the kind of expressive dishonest ploys JWS make and a Red Herring of an allegorical statement for it evades the true content of abstaining from blood as a sacred religious dietary law involving the killing of animals by the ancient Hebrews.

    Is this really surprising in that JWS are encouraged to lie to support the doctrines of their faith ? ( Spiritual Warfare)

    Blood transfusions are between two humans and the giver of the blood is not killed in the process and supportively holds up the sanctity of human life as instructed by Jesus Christ in the caring and helping of the sick.

Share this