Need Help with Blood Transfusion Illustration

by Dissonant15 78 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • Dissonant15
    @TD I'm still reading. I'm really enjoying some of the well thought out response.
  • paradisebeauty

    I meant they did not want the christians to come in conflict with jews.

  • TD

    @TD I'm still reading. I'm really enjoying some of the well thought out response.

    Are there any other arguments against transfusion that you find compelling?

    I think we've explained the illegitimacy of the alcohol/blood analogy in every conceivable way at this point.

    Football star Walter Payton suffered from a rare liver disorder and was forbidden to eat meat the last few years of his life. That instruction to abstain from meat obviously would not have extended to a liver transplant because there is a huge, huge difference between transplanting a liver and eating a liver.

    The same thing is true of blood. When blood is consumed, it is broken down and destroyed by the digestive system. When blood is transfused, it retains its form and resumes its function in the body of the recipient just like any other successful transplant.

    Because ethyl alcohol is a simple compound (Two Carbon atoms, Six Hydrogen atoms and One Oxygen atom) that goes straight through the lining of your stomach into your bloodstream, the practical distinction between consumption and injection is arguably nonexistent.

  • R. Jerome Harris
    R. Jerome Harris

    The blood issue is simple to articulate. Just obey what God commanded us at Luke 9:35.

    So who did The Most High God tell us to listen to? His Son!

    (No, not to the prophets of old or to his disciples or religious organizations or to a book (as a whole) called "The Bible." No! We are to listen to his Son as ONLY HE is The Word of God (not a book called the Bible as men falsely assume).

    Now ask yourself, "Did Jesus ever tell anyone not to eat blood or abstain from blood transfusions (if it existed back then?)

    No he did not?

    The problem is that many are listening to religious organizations, a book (Bible) and other men RATHER than listening to the person of Christ himself.

    Many treat Christ as if he is dead and unable to teach us, So they consult anything and everything thing except him.

    Wake up people and notice the subtle pulling away of people from Christ to books, religious organizations and other people and they are given more prominence than Christ himself.

    These "things" stand in a holy place where they do not belong.

  • OrphanCrow

    Somebody should have explained the error in the alcohol/blood anaolgy to Dr. Ron Lapin - the bloodless surgeon that is called a pioneer of blood management. He is the JW hero of the bloodless world.

    From the biography written by Gene Church - No Man's Blood - where a JW explains the alcohol blood theory to Dr. Lapin:

    313 Lapin raised a thick black eyebrow as he inquired, “God says you’re not supposed to have blood transfusions?”
    314 “Absolutely. On several occasions.”
    315 “Oh?” Lapin’s subtle double-take went unnoticed. “I guess I missed that.”
    316 “Not if you read the Bible,” Dennis said. “Leviticus 17:11 says, ‘… the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make the atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it.’”
    317 Lapin didn’t say anything for a couple of seconds, then replied, “Sorry, I didn’t get anything in there about blood transfusions.”
    318 “Let me go on,” Dennis said. Lapin’s tone of voice fell somewhere between mild understanding and guarded pessimism. The tone was one Dennis had heard thousands of times, to the point where it didn’t bother him in the least. “It continues in Leviticus 17:14, ‘… you must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.’”
    319 “I’m impressed,” Lapin said. “Those sounded like direct quotes.”
    320 “They were.”
    321 “Then I’m more impressed.”
    322 “With the Scripture?”
    323 “More with your memory.”
    324 “Being cut off,” Dennis explained, “means exclusion from eternal life.”
    325 “Eternal life…” Lapin pondered with the same raised eyebrow. “What does that have to do with accepting a blood transfusion?”
    326 “Everything,” Dennis answered, “absolutely everything! If a man, any man, eats the blood of any sort of flesh,” Dennis smiled and added with emphasis, “… any flesh… he’ll be cut off… and out. That’s what it says.”
    327 A confidence swept through Lapin. He loved to win. He was nearly smug with his reply, “‘Eats the blood.’ You said, ‘eats the blood.’ I’m sorry, but I still don’t get what that has to do with blood transfusions. Being brought up as an orthodox Jew, I’ve read Leviticus and I used to salt all my meat for forty-eight hours before I’d eat it. That would draw out all the blood. But I’d still take a blood transfusion if my life depended on it and I’d still remain a good Jew.”
    328 Dennis was unshaken by Lapin’s alleged profoundness, “Let’s look at it this way,” he resumed. “If a man was an alcoholic, a confirmed alcoholic, and he went to his doctor for help… treatment… and his doctor told him that he was absolutely going to die if he didn’t stop drinking… you with me?”
    329 “So far,” Lapin answered attentively.
    330 “And the man stopped drinking… and for all practical purposes the man’s life was saved… does it seem logical that the man’s life would once again be placed in jeopardy if his doctor or anyone else for that matter gave him alcohol intravenously? By transfusion? In his veins?”
    331 “Yes, but…”
    332 “And the man would probably die?” Dennis interrupted.
    333 “Yes, but…”
    334 “It’s the same thing. The Bible says… God says… don’t take blood. If you do, you will not attain everlasting life. It’s just that simple.”
    335 Lapin was momentarily speechless, almost thankful when he heard his name announced over the P.A. Saved by the bell was his uncontrollable thought as he excused himself and walked toward the wall phone. A gnawing feeling erupted inside him. It wasn’t so much that he’d lost a confrontation, it was just that Dennis made sense. It was difficult to absolutely pin down, and he was sure that at that moment he couldn’t convey the same controlled rationale Dennis had just expressed, but he knew it sure made sense.
    336 Lapin had trouble getting the analogy out of his mind as he spoke to the operator on the phone. It was the recovery room calling. A patient was coming out from under the anesthetic and a nurse needed some further orders. He gave complete instructions and informed the nurse that he was on his way.
    337 Medically, Lapin was sound. But emotionally… emotionally, it was an altogether different thing for him. He returned the phone to its cradle and looked at Dennis, not knowing how to respond. What could he say?
    338 He stopped at the table on his way out of the cafeteria. When their eyes met, Lapin knew he was looking at a man whose beliefs came from deep within his heart. The aura about Dennis transcended belief in mere theories; it gave evidence of his absolute knowledge. Dennis knew deep within him — without reservation, without question — that what he said was the truth. Lapin could feel that conviction also.
    339 Lapin’s question of how to respond resolved itself. He didn’t understand exactly where the answer came from, or why, or the logic behind it, but nevertheless the answer was there. He chose acceptance, at least for the time being. “You know what, Dennis?” Lapin finally concluded. “You’re right.” And then he left.

  • TD

    If the story is true, (Which I doubt) Lapin would not be the first person to be tripped up by the fallacy of equivocation.

    Church states:

    “It’s the same thing. The Bible says… God says… don’t take blood. If you do, you will not attain everlasting life. It’s just that simple.”

    Although "Take blood" and "Taking blood" and "Taking in blood" and "Taking blood into one's system" are all pet expressions of JW writers, equivalency is not established by regression to generic terms. That is equivocation, plain and simple.

    Drinking a glass of water and drowning in the ocean can both be described generically as "Taking in water," but there is a world of difference between taking water into your stomach (Your digestive system) and taking water into your lungs. (Your respiratory system.)

    Using a generic term when a specific term is more appropriate serves no other purpose but to obfuscate and confuse.

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer
    Using a generic term when a specific term is more appropriate serves no other purpose but to obfuscate and confuse.


    In 1950 Watchtower published the following statement:

    If transfusion of human blood in the modern way was not practiced back there in Noah’s day or in Moses’ day, there was no need for God to expressly state a law against it; just the same as he included no law against smoking tobacco in his commandments to his typical people.”

    Here's the problem with that statement by Watchtower. To Noah God did make a statement about one use of blood, which was the act of eating blood (of animals killed as food). Nothing was said to Noah about other uses of blood, such as the ancient and various uses of blood for medicinal transplantation that then existed. If we accept what Watchtower says above then we have no reason to think God ever expected humans to refrain from non-eating uses of blood, and particularly when that use would help preserve health/life.

    Because the ancients (like Noah) did not have our modern technology and know-how to transplant blood like doctors of today does not mean the ancients did not transplant blood in various ways available to them for medicinal value.


    Medicine Practiced in Noah’s day — and Blood

    Ancient Blood Transplantation, and Noah

    Historical Medicinal Uses of Blood

  • Finkelstein

    Just a side note concerning blood and what many ancient civilizations thought or self assumed about blood.

    There have been many civilizations throughout human history that developed a kind of sacredness to blood derived from observing how when blood drained out from an animal or human caused the life to abruptly stop.

    Being that the ancients didn't know of the biological function or purpose within animals to sustain life, blood became something of special significance appealing to sacredness to the gods who created that life.

    The ancient Hebrews assume this as well.

  • OrphanCrow
    TS: If the story is true, (Which I doubt) Lapin would not be the first person to be tripped up by the fallacy of equivocation.

    You should doubt the story. It was written as a promotional book.

    The analogy falls apart when you examine where the directive came from. In the first case (blood), the directive came from God/Bible. In the case of alcohol, the directive came from a doctor. A doctor does not equal God. (unless you are a narcisstic asshole like Lapin).

    Also, the alcohol "will kill him" because the person had already overused alcohol. With blood, the patient had not created an internal environment that would result in death by taking it in - it was only a belief in death that the patient faced with the Bible directive, not an actuality.

    Belief cannot be equated to knowledge. Belief is not necessary when knowledge exists.

    The alcohol/blood analogy does not equate "like with like" - it puts knowledge up against apples and oranges argument.

Share this