U.K. NHS Attitude to Blood Transfusion and its Safety
There is no logical reason for the Watchtower's convoluted policy beyond it being an "organizational policy".
There is a Biblical basis that must be considered, and to JW, WT says what the Bible says - not you.
Fisherman: We've managed to open the minds of many JW's simply by asking the question: "Where in the Bible does it explain which parts of blood are OK and which parts are not"?
Where in the Bible does it explain which parts of blood are OK and which parts are not ?
Lee, the Bible says to "keep abstaining from blood" -that command has to be considered. But what does that mean to 'keep abstaining from blood' and who decides it, each individual? You? JW are taught to believe that GB decides. Deciding about blood fractions is only part of the same decision.
Sure, but context is very clear that it is the "eating of blood" under discussion. GB has to demonstrate that the use of blood products is the equivalent of "eating" blood. They have never done that. Bible is silent on blood products/fractions/elements. Once the JW understands these points it becomes clear its nothing more than a non-scriptural "organizational" policy.
Yes. The fact that the phrase, "keep abstaining...from blood" is a direct reference to the eating of blood as forbidden in the Law was actually the original rationale for the allowance of fractions; the idea being that fractions did not "nourish" the body as blood allegedly did.
AFAIK, the most recent acknowledgment of that fact is in the article, "Paul" in the JW Bible Encyclopedia, Insight on the Scriptures.
So even within the corpus of JW literature, there really is no confusion on the meaning of the phrase. --It simply gets forgotten when the subject at hand is transfusion.
context is very clear
Well, that's what you think. JW leadership says different.
FM, I don't think Lee is ignoring the base scriptural reference to blood. The point is that the WTS has not actually stuck to their original position on this scripture. When the policy was first implemented you just had whole blood transfusions. Whilst the relationship between eating blood and intravenous delivery can be argued, at least the position was consistent with a simplistic interpretation of scripture.
With the advancement in medical technology the lines have become ever more blurred over time. Instead of sticking to their position they have muddied the waters by allowing the wide use of products obtained by processing donated blood. It is impossible to back up what actually is permitted with scripture - what is acceptable or not acceptable is simply down to the whim of the GB.
There are a mass of inconsistencies, illogical arguments and nonsense surrounding this policy which are conveniently ignored by the faithful simply because they are indoctrinated to accept the ramblings of the F&DS.
Why have the Witnesses got themselves in this mess? Because they are stubbornly holding onto a policy for no other reason than to keep the lid on a legal Pandora's box were they to say they were wrong and remove the prohibition.
To that end it is and organisational policy. Sure, it has a history in scripture but policy and scripture are so far apart now it's ridiculous.
FM, I don't think Lee. is ignoring the base scriptural reference to blood. -K99
My point to LE is that JW leadership decides doctrinal matters for JW and JW have confidence and faith in the GB but there are those as yourself who are not JW that challenge JW leadership on doctrine and other grounds as you explain in your post, and you can do that and you are welcome to feel the way you do and others are welcome to join you if they wish, they are free to do so, but, the direction coming from the FDS at this time on blood is what it is.
Fisherman's comments are exactly the J W stance on this matter and I appreciate his input.
It is the G B that decides this issue of medical treatment for the members
It is the G B who have decided that only whole blood and the big 4 components violate the requirement.
So who are the following ? God, Jesus, or men?
Does not The Bible say " It is in vain that you worship me because you teach commands of men as doctrines" ....Matt 15 : 9
Thanks FM for reminding me that JWs look to the GB for direction on what to believe. I'd forgotten that.
Honestly FM you do make me wonder what point you are really trying make sometimes. Nobody questions the fact that what is said here makes zero difference to the GB and most Witnesses will submit to their ramblings whatever they are. How does it move the conversation forward to say that the GB would disagree with the view of an exJW or someone still in but questioning the policy?