Questions About the Watchtower's View on Blood Transfusions. (page 4)

Alex Williams

I do,as I stated and quoted from scripture after the flood God told Noah he could now eat meat and I said why God now allowed the killing of animals now for food where as before he didn't ,Blood is sacred to God ,he says the life is in the blood and in Israel without the shedding of blood sins could not be forgiven

New International Version
In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

New International Version
"But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.

Whats the difference to taking a blood transfusion and just drinking blood ,believers are told to abstain from blood

Abstain ;

One is free to do what he wants in regards to things God forbids but will suffer the consequences in the end

cofty

Alex - Blood is only sacred insofar as it represents a life THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN.

That is why Israelites could eat the unbled flesh of an animal that has died of itself with impunity.

TD

Alex,

Whats the difference to taking a blood transfusion and just drinking blood

The former is a tissue transplant

The latter is an act of cannibalism

That is a substantial distinction, physically, ethically and morally.

...believers are told to abstain from blood

In the context of a dispute over whether Christians should be circumcised and follow the Law, the ruling was to:

"Keep abstaining....from blood"

I'm quoting your own NWT, which in my opinion, is quite accurate here.

The clear connotation is the continuation of an existing prohibition that was already being kept.

And this is not simply my opinion. As I've already pointed out, your own church publications acknowledge that this was in fact, a reference to the eating of blood as forbidden in the Law.

Alex Williams

David who was thirsty exclaimed he longed for water after being pinned down,his warriors heard that and fought to get water to David,but what did he do when they offered it to him?

New Living Translation
David remarked longingly to his men, “Oh, how I would love some of that good water from the well by the gate in Bethlehem.”

New International Version
So the three mighty warriors broke through the Philistine lines, drew water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem and carried it back to David. But he refused to drink it; instead, he poured it out before the LORD.

Why did he do this?

New American Standard Bible
and he said, "Be it far from me, O LORD, that I should do this. Shall I drink the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?" Therefore he would not drink it. These things the three mighty men did.

So sometimes distinction, physically, ethically and morally are relevant
.

Vanderhoven7

The David account is irrelevant to the discussion. It was water not blood that David refused because the men who brought it to him risked their lives to get it. Nothing about the subject at hand.

So again, why are organ transplants allowed by the WTS when they know millions of white blood cells are transferred with each transplant?

TD

David who was thirsty exclaimed he longed for water after being pinned down,his warriors heard that and fought to get water to David,but what did he do when they offered it to him?

He refused to drink it. ---Poured it out on the ground.

Why did he do this?

Because his (David's) men could easily have been killed. The water, in this instance, represented their lives, which they risked in obtaining it. David even compares it to drinking their blood.

I'm not sure how this supports the JW position on blood. If anything, it seems to directly contradict it.

David refused to place a higher value on water than human life

Aren't you doing exactly the opposite of what David did when you place a higher value on blood, which (in the context of death) represents life than you place on life itself?

Splash

1. If a baby needs a white cell transfusion it would not be allowed, yet it can feed on white cells from its mother, literally eating what is allegedly prohibited.

How do you make sense of this?

2. If under the Law an animal had a vein opened for a short while and lived on, would the collected blood be acceptable to God as a sacrifice? No, the animal had to die. It's the lifeblood that was prohibited from being eaten. When someone donates blood they don't die, so God doesn't view that as lifeblood and the prohibition doesn't app!y.

3. What's God's view of the WT after it banned the taking of haemoglobin and people died, then it permitted haemoglobin. The WT literally took people's lives through their arrogant ineptness.

4. What was the purpose of Jesus saying about rescuing an animal on the Sabbath. What does "I want mercy not sacrifice" mean?

5. Who decided that blood fractions were ok but those four components were not. How do we know God endorses that? In Eden could Eve have eaten a fraction of the fruit and been ok, maybe just the fruit skin?

Alex Williams

It was water not blood that David refused,wrong to him it was blood thats why he didnt drink it

Vanderhoven7

And yet the anointed have no qualms drinking "blood" every year on the 14th of Nisan.

Yes, I know it is symbolic.....just like the water was to David.

You have no argument.

Why not answer real questions...like why the Watchtower does not stop mothers from nursing their babies or Christians from receiving organ transplants?

The GB/F&DS blood policies make no sense.

DomineIvimus-DI

“symbolic” is the point. Since when did the symbol of life become more important than life itself? When did my wedding ring become more valuable than my marriage? As soon as you start to make rules, then circumstances change and you have to make more rules, then more ad infinitum. “My yoke is kindly and my load is light....” hmmmmm

Questions About the Watchtower's View on Blood Transfusions.

Share this