What's Sacred, what's not?

by Frenchy 47 Replies latest jw friends

  • Stormy

    I have been confused over the fact that the Society does allow some parts of blood. But tells us we can't store our own blood before an operation. The certain allowed parts of blood are from stored blood. Where in the Bible does it say you can have this part of blood but not that part?

    Watchtower 6/1/1990 page 31 Questions From Readers
    Others have felt that a serum (antitoxin) such as immune globulin containing only a tiny fraction of a donor’s blood plasma and used to bolster their defense against disease is not the same as a life-sustaining blood transfusion. So their consciences may not forbid them to take immune globulin or similar fractions.* They may conclude that for them the decision will rest primarily on whether they are willing to accept any health risks involved in an injection made from others’ blood.

    That some protein fractions from the plasma do move naturally into the blood system of another individual (the fetus) may be another consideration when a Christian is deciding whether he will accept immune globulin albumin or similar injections of plasma fractions. One person may feel that he in good conscience can; another may conclude that he cannot. Each must resolve the matter personally before God.

    *One example is Rh immune globulin which doctors may recommend when there is Rh incompatibility between a woman and her fetus. Another is Factor VIII which is given to hemophiliacs.

  • Caytf

    No one here has even addressed the part of the scriptures that state WHAT MUST be done with the blood when it was removed from animals. The scriptures state that it was TO BE POURED OUT UPON THE GROUND. Simply stated the converse was prohibited and the converse of pouring it out upon the ground would be TO SAVE IT-USE IT-STORE IT.

    Now we are not fanatics and do not hinder someone else from breaking god's laws so when the medical profession has found USE for blood and decided to SAVE it and STORE IT, they are in violation of God's law but so what? They are of the world and will have their own accounting. A lot of people here are misrendering the new stance the society has taken. THEY ARE NOT SAYING USE OF BLOOD IS OKAY OR FINE OR WE SUPPORT IT. They are saying we can't do anything about it and they are absolutely correct. They can't do anything about what individuals decide to do with their relationship with Jehovah anymore than we can do anything about what worldly people do in violation of God's laws. They HAVE TO LET US decide for ourselves we are the sole arbiters of our own relationship with Jehovah.

    I was nearly stumbled out of the truth when an Elder's wife who chose to take the shot of blood given to most new Mothers (who are blood incompatible with their mates)told me the society said it was OKAY to take the shot if you wanted. Its been many years but I think its called Rhogam--not sure on that. I went home very upset and immediately looked it up and never anywhere in the article did it say it was OKAY to take it. To put it as simply as I can it said the indiviuals decided for themselves what they could do and that you as an indivual had to take into account all the scriptural accounts of prohibitions on blood and decide. They could'nt hinder you in your decision one way or the other and you should keep the decision private. I believe this sister and others who have taken the shot just so they can have continued pregnancys should heed the Societys advice and keep it private. Thankfully the societys publications were there to speak for themselves when it came down to someone interpreting their message into an acceptable answer that tickeled her ears and cleansed her conscience(in her own eyes). I sleep very well each night knowing that my one perfect child is enough in this old decaying system AND that Jehovah blesses my decision. I have never had the slightest doubt-never a qualm-not one iota of indecision on this subject. Can women who've chosen the shot so they can have more babies say the same? Only Jehovah knows.

    Edited by - Caytf on 17 April 2000 16:27:53

    Edited by - Caytf on 17 April 2000 16:37:42

  • Frenchy

    Thank you for your repsonse, Catyf. You stated in your post: "A lot of people here are misrendering the new stance the society has taken. THEY ARE NOT SAYING USE OF BLOOD IS OKAY OR FINE OR WE SUPPORT IT. They are saying we can't do anything about it and they are absolutely correct. " I don't believe I have misread the stance or the directions. Having served as an elder for a number of years I am quite familiar with what happens when someone takes blood. The Society is not now saying nor has it ever said that it could not do anything about taking blood. When it becomes known that a witness has accepted a blood transfusion, a judicial committee is convoked and unless repentance is demonstrated by the 'offender' then disfellowshipping can indeed occur. The society STILL prohibits transfusions. This is not a conscience matter. You and I do not have a choice. The blood fractions, however, is another matter entirely. The society says that this is a matter for you to decide on. My question on this topic is: Why are certain parts of the blood still sacred and other parts are not? Why are some components a matter of conscience and others not? What is the Scriptural basis for this?

    Thank you again for taking the time to respond. Please do so again.

  • Caytf

    So Frenchy maybe I wasn't explicit enough in my answer when I said THE SOCIETY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT SOMEONE WHO CHOOSES TO TAKE BLOOD FRACTIONS any more than they can disfellowship a married couple (today) who admittedly enjoy felatio & cunnilingus within the confines of their marital union. THE SOCIETY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. They tried hard and fast in the 70's and realized their prudish stance would necessitate POLICING the publisher's private lives. Tell me brother when was the last time you heard of a substantiated account of married couples being disfellowshipped for the sexual practices mentioned above? The society has decided they cannot and will not police individuals private lives and that includes their medical decisions too. Why are you insisting to know a date of when this happened? It was the best decision in JW history to let the individual handle their own relationship with Jehovah with out let or hindrance by the society.

    Edited by - Caytf on 21 April 2000 8:3:42

  • Frenchy

    Caytf: “Why are you insisting to know a date of when this happened? “

    Reply: I wasn’t asking WHEN it happened, I know that already. - w90 6/1 30-1-Questions from Readers. This is what I posted: “My question on this topic is: Why are certain parts of the blood still sacred and other parts are not? Why are some components a matter of conscience and others not? What is the Scriptural basis for this?”

    To answer your question: “…when was the last time you heard of a substantiated account of married couples being disfellowshipped for the sexual practices mentioned above?” I was in on a case where this was addressed. The husband was severly reprimanded and had he not ‘repented’ well, you know the rest.

    You keep using the phrase “THE SOCIETY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT…” The fact of the matter is that they CAN do whatever it is they wish on the matter. They make the rules. They can disfellowship you for smoking (nowhere mentioned in the Bible) Then can disfellowship you for gambling (nowhere mentioned in the Bible) They can disfellowship (it’s called something else here but it’s the same thing) you for joining the army (nowhere mentioned in the Bible.) As a matter of fact quite a few soldiers in the Bible are given favorable mention and none is ever reported as leaving the military. For years the Society prohibited vaccinations (nowhere mentioned in the Bible). For a few years transplants were prohibited (nowhere mentioned in the Bible). The point here is that the CAN and DO make quite a few rules outside the Scriptures, some of which they most certainly do disfellowship for.

    I don’t mean to be argumentative and I certainly hope you don’t take it that way. Thank you for your responses, I really appreciate them. I look forward to hearing from you again.

  • Frenchy

    In Response To Stormy’s Post: (April 16)

    I’m glad that you posted this here because I have a problem with a few things in this article. Remember the question? “Do Jehovah’s Witnesses accept injections of a blood fraction, such as immune globulin or albumin?”

    I’m somewhat amused by how this is answered. The article states that some Christians“…have felt that they should not” while “Others have felt that [they could]” Is this the basis for the decision on what parts of the blood may and may not be used? Because some feel they can? I’m sure there are ‘Christians’ that feel they can commit fornication. Can we say that it is now a matter of conscience because “some have felt that…”? Since when is this the basis for what is right and what is wrong?

    I ran across an interesting passage in the following 1958 Watchtower p. 575 “Each time the prohibition of blood is mentioned in the Scriptures it is in connection with taking it as food, and so it is as a nutrient that we are concerned with in its being forbidden.” Now that’s interesting because transfused blood is not used as a nutrient but merely as a tissue or organ transplant.

  • Caytf

    Frenchy--the point of contention you seem to have is with the individuals who sit on the judicial boards- yet you keep saying the society does what it wants. Individuals on judicial committees do not make policy for the socity. The society FDS wouldn't sanction a modern disfellowshipping of married couples who engage in unusual sex within the confines of a consentual married relationship no matter how vehemently it is opposed by individual elders & ministerial servants. Fuss & fume all they want about what they (individuals) feel the society would disfellowship a publisher for--it all comes down to---Does the person feel repentance???If yes then guess what, no disfellowshipping is gonna happen but if no then the elders would have to find something else to get them on. The disfellowshipping is announced but not the problem that brought it about. So if it were the mother-in-law who heard about the "problem" and reported it to the elders--then she walks away feeling vindicated. And she spreads the unknown falsehood that "you can get disfellowshipped for oral sex." Its not true but she thinks it is and guess what the elders on the committee are not going to set her straight because they want that anti-perversion rumor to go around. It suits their purpose. But not the societies. They are completely separate entities. And if you are an elder like you said you were then, you know that there have been times when one elder has been able to persuade and entire elder body to his way of thinking simply by his passion for his beliefs and reasonings.

    Edited by - Caytf on 27 April 2000 3:48:9

    Edited by - Caytf on 28 April 2000 7:23:1

  • Frenchy

    Caytf: I'm sorry but you've lost me. I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough on my end of it. I said that the Society CAN and DOES do what it wants when it comes to determining what is a disfellowshipping offense. There is no one to check their hand on this or to call them down on it. They have the final say. It doesn't even have to be an offense specifically stated in the Bible ( I cited some examples earlier). The reason I said this was in response to your saying that the Society can't do anything about taking blood fractions.

    You are quite correct in saying that (by the book) disfellowshipping occurs only when there is no evidence of repentance. (Just saying 'I'm sorry' is insufficient evidence). Of course that has nothing to do with WHAT is a disfellowshipping offense. You are right also in stating that ONE elder can sway an entire committee (usually only three brothers), as a matter of fact, sometimes one brother can sway an entire BODY of elders. Again, I don't see the connection here.

    Anyway, thanks for your reply, look forward to hearing from you again.

  • Caytf

    What I said was that the society won't try to police individuals medical decisions. I expanded the discussion to include the fact that the society can no longer police sex practices within a consentual marriage relationship--to make a point about what an elder body may perceive as a disfellowshipping offense and that it may be contradictory to what the society may or may not consider to be a disfellowshipping offense.

    The ultimate truth about free will is that WE(individual understood) are the sole arbitors of our relationship with Jehovah. Jehovah has chosen the society to currently keep the worldwide congregation as clean as is possible for a group of imperfect people. The society has had to refine their practices as Jehovah has made the light grow brighter. Not a few have been disappointed in the societies (relatively new) decision to no longer police in a proactive fasion.

    You say the society has no one to check their decisions but do you really believe that?

    If I were to be disfellowshipped today for something I know was an unjust accusation and/or not Bible based-I wouldn't let it bother me--why? Because I am the sole arbitor of my relationship with Jehovah.

    Edited by - Caytf on 28 April 2000 7:53:2

  • Caytf

    ...Also Frenchy your post dated April 20th is incorrect when you stated that people could get disfellowshipped for gambling. It is not gambling that is a disfellowshipping offense it is greed. There is a difference. I personally believe that a christian shouldn't gamble but I know many Witnesses that have decided that they can gamble for recreation and they haven't been called before a committee because it doesn't fit the definition of greed if they meet their obligations.

Share this