Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

The argument that having blood injected into one's veins is the same as eating blood can be found in the Reasoning from the Scriptures book on page 73.

Is it still a teaching of the Watchtower Society that having blood injected into one's veins is the same as eating it? The answer may surprise you.

I don't think it is the same as eating it. I actually think it is much worse. It is good reasoning, in my opinion, to look at the prohibition of the eating of blood and see that it would also apply to the injecting of it into ones veins.

I think it is important we respect the fact that blood has been treated with great reverence by Jehovah's people for thousands of years.

People like to resort to 'emotionally charged' arguments to justify using blood for our perceived 'human' needs. However what we feel we need and what we really do need are not the same thing.

One thing I like to think about to get things into better perspective is the fact that for 6000 years people have died because they did not know how to inject someone else's blood into their veins. It is ONLY in this last 100 years or so (apprx since 1914 - the Great War) that this practice has become a common medical procedure.

People often say that we should consider life sacred and so save it when we have the power to. To this I would reply that NONE of us have the power to save lives. Not even using someone's blood. In fact this is a weak argument because it boils down to a very 'human' lack of real faith in the resurrection hope. Our death is as nothing in the ultimate scheme of things as it is not death in the eyes of Jehovah. Those who loyally serve him and are respectful of his ways and the resources he has given us will not die from a lack of blood ever!

If you consider life sacred than really you should give it back to God in as clean a state as possible. To me this means not contaminated by the blood of another.

We use one another's blood to 'keep us going a little longer' when we fall sick or become damaged. If Jehovah really felt that this is a good and life-respecting thing to, why did he not lead us to develop this procedure sooner? Why let humanity 'suffer' without it for 5900 years and only have it revealed in the last 100 or so, just before the end?

That does not make sense to me. I think it is awfully interesting timing that this practice became extremely popular after the start of the Great War. Right after Satan was cast out of heaven.

Accepting blood transfusion has not always been a disfellowshipping offense...

(Watchtower 1958)

"Questions from Readers

question..."One of Jehovah’s witnesses who claims to be of the anointed remnant recently went to the hospital and took a blood transfusion, voluntarily. Should she be allowed to partake of the emblems of bread and wine at Memorial time?"

answer..."We, of course, regret with you that this sister who professes to be one of the anointed remnant took a blood transfusion voluntarily during her stay in the hospital. We believe that she did the wrong thing contrary to the will of God. However, congregations have never been instructed to disfellowship those who voluntarily take blood transfusions or approve them...."

The light gets brighter and the congregation gets cleaner. Did you know they used to smoke too?

Hi Wibble! Your belief is certainly legidiment and your reasoning is logical and should be binding upon your conscious, as a viable conclusion. However, please alow for different angles of viewpoint on this matter.
It can be argued that, blood is no more sacred then any organ of the body, and that blood is used as a metaphor for the sacredness of life. It's vain to argue about this, but I believe that blood is not "consumed" when injected, like intravenous feeding. No life is being "lost" or sacrificed in the procedure, and that sharing one's body with another, especially to prolong their present life, is a most nobel and loving thing to do.
The fault lies when we allow dogmatic opinions to cause divisions and worse, condemnation, against ones with different paradigms. To make an informed personal opinion, one needs to forget any preconceived ideas, and read every verse in the Bible surrounding blood, from many translations. Especially Acts 15.
It was new to me, that the edict made by the "Judean council", was not directed to all Christian as a law, but was directed only to the brothers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia...
Acts 15:22 Then the apostles and the older men together with the whole congregation favored sending chosen men from among them to Antioch along with Paul and Bar′na·bas, namely, Judas who was called Bar′sab·bas and Silas, leading men among the brothers; 23 and by their hand they wrote:

“The apostles and the older men, brothers, to those brothers in Antioch and Syria and Ci·li′cia who are from the nations: Greetings! 24 Since we have heard that some from among us have caused YOU trouble with speeches, trying to subvert YOUR souls, although we did not give them any instructions, 25 we have come to a unanimous accord and have favored choosing men to send to YOU together with our loved ones, Bar′na·bas and Paul, 26 men that have delivered up their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We are therefore dispatching Judas and Silas, that they also may report the same things by word. 28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!”

We know this is so because Paul violates this edict in 1 Cor. 8:7;...
4 Now concerning the eating of foods offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him.

7 Nevertheless, there is not this knowledge in all persons; but some, being accustomed until now to the idol, eat food as something sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 But food will not commend us to God; if we do not eat, we do not fall short, and, if we eat, we have no credit to ourselves. 9 But keep watching that this authority of YOURS does not somehow become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone should see you, the one having knowledge, reclining at a meal in an idol temple, will not the conscience of that one who is weak be built up to the point of eating foods offered to idols? 11 Really, by your knowledge, the man that is weak is being ruined, [your] brother for whose sake Christ died."
Really, Paul is here explaining the situation existing is some of the Gentile congregations, giving the Corinthians further clarification, stateing, "food will not commend us to God", likewise neither would a blood transfusion.
You may believe otherwise though, good health to you!

Wibble wrote:

Then you disagree with what is stated in the Reasoning book. On page 73 this question is asked:

Is a transfusion really the same as eating blood?

In order to make the point that it is, a blood transfusion is equated with intravenous feeding.  

The watchtower Society has a long tradition of arguing that taking a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood.

* w51 7/1 414-6 Questions from Readers *
? Many say receiving a transfusion is not like eating blood. Is this view sound?

So we see that for about 40 years or longer, the WT declared that a transfusion was the same as eating and for most of that period they stated that it was this use of blood as food that was prohibited in the Bible.

Wibble wrote:

It also helps put things in a better perspective to realize that for 6000 years people have died because they did not know how to inject blood fractions into their veins. It's only recently that many blood fractions have become available and JW's are making use of them.

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses from childhood onward, I was an expert on blood, or..... so I thought. I didn't realize how negligent I was until after I stopped being one.

Blood transfusions are not given to provide bodily nourishment, in fact this would be an extremely inefficient form of providing nourishment to the body. Likening a blood transfusion to eating blood is disrespectful to the medical community and to those it is peddled upon.

People are given transfusions for various reasons, some because they do not have enough oxygen carriers to sustain them, or perhaps they suffer from hemophilia and do not have the clotting agents needed to keep from hemorrhaging.

I am a strong advocate of personal bible-based conscience in matters as serious as ones health and ones life. I would strongly encourage those with Watchtower-based preconceptions on blood to do some research into what the consequences are for ones who deny treatment because the Organization said so, and try to imagine what it would be like if you bled to death, or lied gasping for air faster than your lungs could take it in until finally your heart gives out from the stress.

I find the account of the woman with a flow of blood, who touched Jesus' garment and became clean fascinating. Here you had a nation with a strict law code, who said that such people were unclean. This woman suffered 12 years from this ailment. Can you imagine, not just the physical stress, but the emotional and mental stress this put on her? Daily questioning and second-guessing: "Did I touch something?", "Did I make someone unclean?" Constant pressure, what would it do to her mentally?

However, the law is the law, right? She broke that law by touching Jesus' garment. How could it be "ok" for her to break that law simply to make her life a little easier. As the progenitor of the Christian congregation, Jesus was himself the model of what was acceptable and not acceptable, what was clean and what was unclean. After all, her health was nothing in the grand scheme of things. Certainly, as God's perfect son, Jesus would rebuke that woman for her disobedience, and disrespect for God's arrangement, Right?

Well, you know that answer. Jesus did not condemn the woman for seeking a treatment that was previously unavailable, but rather commended her, for her show of faith. Interestingly, her faith displayed itself by means of a wish for self-preservation. Selfish? Apparently not to Christ.

Sometimes I wonder what her story was after the bible account. Just how did she spend the rest of her life? Perhaps that woman became a christian. Perhaps she saved lives. Something she may not have been able to do with her previous condition.

Maybe someone who received a blood transfusion is only extending their life a few years. But maybe, just maybe, they spend those years saving lives and helping others. Whether they do or not, a wish for self-preservation, no matter how long or short is not wrong. I think it's something Jehovah built into us.

Yes. I personally feel that the use of blood fractions would be wrong. However there is a clear wording in the Bible regarding whole blood. "Abstain". This word is timeless in that it encompasses any use we might want to put our blood to. An abstention is an abstention.

Clearly the Bible can not be expected to cover every precise use for any prohibited item. This would be absurd. However it is not difficult to look at the wording in this instance and draw a clear conclusion. "Abstain" means abstain. So we can not use blood for food. Nor could we use it as a lubricant in a piece of machinery. Neither as a die for colouring fabrics. None of these things could be considered as 'abstaining' from blood.

Now just because we can make a strong emotionally charged argument about the 'sanctity' of life and appeal to our desire to help 'poor little children' this does not give us the right to use that from which we are commanded to abstain. It merely makes us 'want' to do so.


Consider this. If the scientific community as a whole had rejected the whole idea of using one person's blood to save another. Where would medical science be now? Of course it is impossible to tell but MY guess is that there would be more people who survived and fewer people who died. Our blood is always poisonous to another person. Without exception.


Now what about blood fractions?

There is no clear wording regarding fractions of blood. Water is a blood fraction and there is clearly no prohibition against using water. So what can we do about these?

If the society of Jehovah's Witnesses decided to ban them outright they would be accused of going beyond the wording of the Bible. Instead they say it is up to the conscience of the individual and they are accused of double standards.

There is no doubt that with scientific advancement it is increasingly more difficult to apply Bible principles to each individual thing. I believe the society are doing the best they can by prohibiting that which is explicitly prohibited and leaving up to conscience that which lies withing the large grey area between 'blood' and 'water'.

Of course those who are looking to paint the society as being bad will always be able to find ammunition from such a complex issue, whatever guidance they choose to provide.

Wibble wrote:

Are you unaware that the Watchtower Society approves of medical procedures where blood is removed from one's body, taken to a laboratory, treated in some manner, and then transfused back into one's body several hours later? If putting blood into one's veins is the same as eating it as the Reasoning book claims then JW's are guilty of eating their own blood. If putting blood into one's veins is not abstaining from blood then JW's do not abstain from blood.

Dear Wibble!

Sorry to interfear here to, but may I kindly ask you Wibble; Would you ever have taken the same position in question of blood, when and if you never have heard or been teached from or by the Watchtower doctrine?

The reason for above question is that nobody else, who read the Scriptures in their own language, understand the context and are willing to give their life for it, have never come to the same understanding in question of medical treatment with blood and derivates!

It has to be mentioned that it is impossible to discuss feelings opposite facts and what the Scriptures really show and give of examples.

Where in the Scriptures can it be seen that we shall pure out humans blood as with animals blood?

Have you ever thought of that Acts 15:29 states both abstain from blood and from strangled animals?

What does the Scriptures really tells us in Genesis 9:6 and in Deuteronomy 22:8 and why we should abstain from humans blood?

What does the Scriptures really teells us in Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus 17:13 about animals blood and why should we abstain from strangled animals?

Why this double concensus in the vers of Acts 15:29, if it was blood in general we humans should abstain from, why wasnt it enought to state, abstain from blood, which would have covered both animals and humans blood as equals?

Doesn't the Watchtowers fiddling with blood and derivates manifest that abstain from humans blood isn't absolute. Could they be wrong in their interpretation of what totally abstain from blood really mean?

Here is what they have said about eating blood:

So the question is are a blood transfusion the same as eating blood, when it doesn't nourish the body, but only replace and do what the blood was designed to do and by the way is destroyed after a while, replaced by the persons own blood?


Christian love to all of you.

Talkactive.

Ps. The Watchtowers hypocrisy in the blood question can be seen and are documented at http://www.ajwrb.org

Ecclesiastes 1:18!
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
People can’t hear and carry the truth, because the lies are tickling their ears!

Jeremiah 8:8!
How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

NB. It has to be mentioned that blood as medicine or any other medicine isn't good medicine, since there will always be side effects, opposite the healing Jesus and his disciples afforded, showing what to come, but in the meantime we have to deal with the life itself as sacred and be able to make personal decisions, to sustain the most important for Jehovah and each individual, the life itself in accordance to Galatians 6:5 and not being forced by threats and sanctions into a premature death, by man made doctrines, in opposition to what comes forth in 2 Corinthians 1:24 and 1 Peter 5:3! Like Tully and thousands of others haven’t been able to do:

http://www.energeticsolutions.com.au/tully_story.pdf

Among other places documented in Awake from May 22, 1994! Thousands have died......

The rule about pouring blood onto the ground was part of the Mosaic law and as Christians we are not under that law. If this rule was binding on Christians then JW's would be in violation of it as they use products derived from donated, stored blood.  

When it comes to meat even drained meat has blood left in it (a couple of teaspoons per pound).  Everytime a JW eats a Big Mac they are consuming blood.

I find it curious that most JW's don't eat koshered meat. Koshering is the Jewish practice of subjecting meat to additional steps in order to remove more blood than conventional slaughtering. Over a lifetime the average Jew eats much less blood than the average JW. If JW's are so concerned about abstaining from blood then why don't they eat only koshered meat? Or better yet, not eat meat at all? If JW's think they are required to totally abstain from blood then they should be vegetarians.

True. That is why I also mentioned the rule to "abstain" from blood. A rule regarding blood was given to Noah, the Israelites and the Christians. Although we are not bound by the Mosaic Law from not eating blood we gain the understanding that God does not want us using it. The command given to the Christians covers ALL uses (other than the one Jehovah gave for it) as far as I can see.

Of course. It is not the eating of blood per say (as discussed earlier) but the respecting of God's law. When we drain meat of blood we are respecting Jehovahs desire for us to abstain from blood. Inconsequentially it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to be rid of all of it.

That is very Pharisaic thinking. When does the meat cease to contain blood? When it contains 1 teaspoon? Half a teaspoon? A dozen molecules? One molecule?

The point is to respect Jehovah's wishes. He told the Israelites to not eat meat with the blood in it. They did not. But of course they did because they had a few teaspoons full with each meal. So what? Are we going after the letter of the law or the spirit of the law?

After all one could argue that every time we breath in we breath in a few smoke particles that are always present in the air. Therefore we might just as well smoke cigarettes and Jehovah will not mind. He understands we can not avoid all of it so we might as well stop trying to avoid it at all.

The point is it is what we are trying to do that counts. That is what displays the condition of the heart. We can not be perfect. But we can want to be.

Howdy Wibble

Re: "Are we going after the letter of the law or the spirit of the law?"

Matthew 9:12...

" Hearing [them], he said: “Persons in health do not need a physician, but the ailing do. Go, then, and learn what this means, ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.”

If one believes they are making a sacrifice, by determining that blood not be used for benefiting health in an emergency situation...might this scripture not apply...to do the merciful thing/apply the principle of mercy rather than apply the letter of the law/sacrifice?

Christian love,

gogh

Warren wrote:

Wibble responded:

You missed my point. If one is going to claim that "abstain from blood" means to not take any blood at all into one's body, then Christians should not eat meat. But Acts 15:29 isn't telling Christians that. Christians are being told to abstain from eating the meat of animals killed for food that haven't had their blood drained. That's all this scripture is saying.