rootcause,
First, may I suggest to you not to copy and paste so much from Watchtower material, because it makes it look like you can't think for yourself, and instead of expressing your own opinions or thoughts, you're relying on someone else's. And if you have to quote from a source to make your point, at least as a footnote provide the publication and page numbers so it's clear to everyone you are in agreement with (or disagree with) the material you are copying and pasting and it's clear to everyone where you're getting your information from.
www.ajwrb.org is really the best site to research this topic (although I'm in disagreement with its assertion that thousands of JWs have died from lack of blood-related treatment), so I'm not going to repeat much that can simply be found there. I am just going to offer a few thoughts I have right now as I'm watching Sportscenter on ESPN.
Medically speaking, according to the American Red Cross, the chances of contracting a disease from a blood transfusion is very low. A brief review of the screening processes of donated blood is found here: http://www.redcross.org/services/biomed/0,1082,0_320_,00.html . Other countries may not have as advanced techniques. But still, if the doctor's opinion was that there was a 10% chance you were going to bleed to death (from hemorraghing after a severe trauma, say massive injuries from an automobile accident or a woman during childbirth), and a .3% chance of contracting Hepatitis C from a transfusion, which odds would a reasonable person say are the better choice?
Biblically speaking, I already made my point in my other post. The decree made in Acts chapter 15 was circulated to non-Jewish Christians to accomplish two goals: One, to direct them that it was not necessary for them to follow the Jewish ritual of circumcision in order to be Christian, and two, to ask them (non-Jews) to follow four specific guidelines of the Mosaic Law in order to 'keep the peace' with their Jewish brothers in the faith. These four "necessary things" are brief descriptions of the wider and more detailed Levitical code found in Leviticus chapters 17 and 18 that dealt with "alien residents", again, non-Jews, and what they were expected to also follow in order to be found acceptible in the Jewish community. There is nothing about Acts 15 that indicates the four "necessary things" were universal, permanent Christian laws. The decree was issued to soothe tensions existing at that time. This interpretation is what nearly every commentary on Acts 15 holds, and is indeed how Charles Russell also understood it. This explains why murder, lying, stealing, and other gross sins are not mentioned.
Watchtowerly speaking (), and more to the topic of the thread, the Watchtower organization has changed its stance on whether the congregation is responsible for removing or expelling a person who submits to a blood transfusion knowingly and willingly. This makes it obvious that they do not have the mind of God on the matter. I refer you to this Watchtower article:
The Watchtower of January 15, 1961, on pages 63 and 64 (of the bound volume), in the section labeled "Questions From Readers", states:
In view of the seriousness of taking blood into the human system by a transfusion, would violation of the Holy Scriptures in this regard subject the dedicated, baptized receiver of blood transfusion to being disfellowshiped from the Christian congregation? The inspired Holy Scriptures answer yes. . . If, however, [the recipient of blood] refuses to acknowledge his nonconformity to the required Christian standard and makes the matter an issue in the Christian congregation and endeavors to influence others therein to his support; or, if in the future he persists in accepting blood transfusions or in donating blood toward the carrying out of this medical practice upon others, he shows that he has really not repented, but is deliberately opposed to God’s requirements. As a rebellious opposer and unfaithful example to fellow members of the Christian congregation he must be cut off therefrom by disfellowshiping. Thereby the Christian congregation vindicates itself from any charge of connivance at the infraction of God’s law by a member of the congregation through blood transfusion, and it upholds the proper Christian standard before all the members of the Christian congregation.
The reason I highlighted the words in red is because today, the policy is not to disfellowship such a person, but to announce to the congregation that the person, by his taking blood, has disassociated himself or herself and by such action is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Therefore, the argument made in 1961 that it was the congregation's responsibility before God and its members to act judicially has been reversed. Now, either "the inspired Holy Scriptures" either answer "yes" or they do not. Which is it?
There are many other issues that can be taken up with the Watchtower organization's positions over the years regarding blood, such as allowing some components of human, stored blood to be transfused without a disassociation being announced, while transfusion of other components of human stored blood would result in such a disassociation, or the Watchtower's original argument that transfusing blood is biologically equal to eating it, but I'll leave those aside for now. You don't have to give me an answer, rootcause. Answer for yourself: In view of the seriousness of taking blood into the human system by a transfusion, would violation of the Holy Scriptures in this regard subject the dedicated, baptized receiver of blood transfusion to being disfellowshiped from the Christian congregation?
