they do accept blood after all

by wonderer2003 9 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • wonderer2003
    wonderer2003

    Hi Again All

    Thought this might interest some of you, sorry me if this page has already been talked about, but i just found it and thought it very interesting....

    http://www.stnicholasla.com/blood.htm found here

    The resulting decisions based on this arbitrary classification are breathtaking examples of inconsistency. For example, plasma, which makes up 55% of blood volume, may not be used by Witnesses since it is a “major component” of blood. Yet plasma is actually made up of 93% simple water! The remaining 7% consists mostly of the components albumin, globulins, fibrinogen, and coagulation factors. The Society lists each of these components, however, as being acceptable for medical use. In other words, the Witness is allowed each of the basic components of plasma, but is not allowed all the components together mixed with a lot of water!

    Another example of a strange inconsistency involves the prohibition of leukocytes, or “white blood cells.” Even though they are commonly referred to as “blood” cells, in reality only 2-3% of the body’s leukocytes exist inside the blood system. (In fact, leukocytes constitute only 1/10 of 1% of the blood.) The rest are spread throughout the body’s tissues as part of the immune system.

    The inconsistency is this: Witnesses have been allowed to accept organ transplants since 1980, yet a Witness is likely to receive far more leukocytes in an organ transplant than if he were to receive a whole blood transfusion! Moreover, human breast milk contains five to twelve times more leukocytes than blood. Yet the Watchtower Society has so far not forbidden breast feeding to Witness mothers.

  • RAYZORBLADE
    RAYZORBLADE

    Hey Wonderer 2003: great post.

    No, it never hurts to see these things brought up.

    One never gets tired of reading about the 'blood issue'.

    There are so many things to consider, and you brought up some interesting items.

    Makes you wonder doesn't it?

    Thanks for posting that snippet. Good one.

  • hippikon
    hippikon

    I better go to the elders and confess and repent - When I eat by ham sandwich for lunch I ate a banned substance ( leukocytes) - Better not tell them about my organ transplant - they may get jealous

  • free will
    free will

    i believe ray franz coc brought this up in detail. pick up a copy.

  • HoChiMin
    HoChiMin

    It's always a good idea to see the details of such wacky rules on such a serious issue. Dieing for the old men in charge claiming to represent God, LoL, life and death sorted out into fractions by idiots.

    HCM

  • robhic
    robhic

    I found this even more interesting and hypocritical. I was never a JW and always thought the "eating of blood" was strictly forbidden in regard to animal blood and so forth. If JWs wanted to take it to the next level, well, that was their call. I don't agree with it but I guess I don't get to make the rules.

    OK, so there seems to be (at least in my mind) no question that animal blood is prohibited in the bible. It's very clear and makes sense to me. However, this site illustrates a blood substitute allowed by the WTBTS which seems to fly completely in the face of biblical teaching. If they don't allow human blood for transfusions it seems animal blood would be a no-brainer. Not so.

    I went to this site:

    Website: http://www.ajwrb.org (The Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood)

    I found the article on "HemoPure" very interesting as was the group that posted the article in the first place. JWs on reform? Wow...

    Robert

  • Oxnard Hamster
    Oxnard Hamster

    In the OT, it says not to eat pork(forget the scripture, but it is there), yet I remember having pork chops Wednesday night before the WT study.

    I even e-mailed the guy who hosts the study, showed him the scripture, and he said Jesus abolished a lot of the OT laws and besides, pork is safer to eat now because people know how to handle it better.

    Yet they take the abstain from blood issue as if it's black and white..

    Mmmmmmmm yeahhhhhh..........

  • garybuss
    garybuss


    I might have to re-read my Bible but I seem to recall there was no prohibition on blood at all. The prohibition was on EATING MEAT with the blood in it. Yet Witnesses today are not kosher in their eating meat or any other of the kosher practices. In fact they have no doctrines at all forbidding eating meats and they buy un-kosher meats at local supermarkets with blood pooled in the package tray and cook it and eat it with impunity.

    Their doctrine applies to blood medical treatment only and ignores the whole subject of eating meat properly bled. The focus on blood is what the Witnesses want. They do not want the focus to be on meat that is properly bled and treated to remove the traces of blood as is the subject of the Bible text they base their teaching. Comments?

    Gary, of the "willing to take blood medical treatment" class.


  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Interestingly the Persians also prohibited the eating of blood and declared that " blood had the soul in it" just as the Bible does. The the Bible does. Acts 15 represents a greatly distorted account of the rift between Jewish Christianity and Paiuline christianity over the isssue of of Jewish law and practice. The "decision" made was to encourage nonjewish christians to voluntarily exercise restraint in the more volatile matters such as eating blood and meat offered to idols. The passage itself makes clear that the issue is not one of divine prohibition but one of consideration for the conscience of the Jews. (Acts 15:5,20-21) Verse 21,29 are translated in my interlinear "hold back from" things sacrificed to idols and blood and things stangled. Stangulation was the method used to sacrifice to certain Gods. So the really it is a repetition of the "sacriced to idols phrs phrase. Verse 21 makes clear that the reason for this was so as not to offend or stumble Jewish converts or potential converts. In 1 Cor 8 Paul makes even clearer that this matter of eating things sacrificed to idols was nothing of importance to God but may stumble weak ones especially those with jewish backgrounds. Reasonably then, eating of blood was not a law binding upon christians at the time of writing the NT. It rather was encouraged that all hold back from stumbling the jewish converts.

  • peacefulpete
    peacefulpete

    Sorry for all the typos, I could only see 2/3rds of the screen while I was posting.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit