Jw and blood transfusjon

[nPeace]

If life is sacred and blood is the "juice" of life, then why would you not be allowed to use blood to save lives?
Note that transfusion of blood is not the same as eating blood.

Blood is life, or represents life, as life is in the blood.
However, in my post, I quoted the texts, where it specifically says that blood is sacred, and has only one use. Did you see that?

Reading through this thread here..... I came to a general wondering...

Perhaps @nPeace and @Deeje can shed some light on this.

What if you as a JW would donate blood "to yourself"? Is that allowed?
So you tap out blood and keep it in a personal vault. And when the day comes that you require blood, you use your own personal blood stock.

Is that allowed then?
If not, why not?

Quick search.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Blood is life, or represents life, as life is in the blood.
However, in my post, I quoted the texts, where it specifically says that blood is sacred, and has only one use. Did you see that?

I just asked a follow up question. You bible references seems to refer primarily to "eating" / "consuming" blood. Hence my pointing out that "transfusion" is not that.

Quick search.

So your answer is "no", you can't even use your own blood to give it to yourself when you need it.


This, in and of itself, shoots a MASSIVE hole in your entire argumentation.
Because throughout this thread, you have been trying to rationalize this stance on blood transfusion by trying to attack the medical idea behind it. By trying to point out problems with your body not accepting it, immunity going out of wack due to "foreign" cells being introduced into your bloodstream, etc etc etc... ALL of it, every single argument given, becomes wholly irrelevant once you become your OWN donor of blood.

So really, we can see that this has NOTHING to do with rational arguments against the medical aspect of it, and EVERYTING with irrational religious beliefs about it.

That's it.


I wonder why you go so out of your way trying to argue from the medical standpoint, while clearly that has nothing to do with JW objection to the practice of blood transfusion - since every single one of these 'arguments' becomes completely irrelevant once you are your own donor.

If those 'arguments' are really the reason for objecting to it, then you should have no problem with it in case you are your own donor.




So for future reference, let's not play that silly game where you pretend as if the problems with the procedure are the rationalization of it, because it matters not at all, clearly.

Off course, the majority of your "objections" from a medical standpoint are already nonsensical because they are based in ignorance and misrepresentation. But even IF we were to accept them at face-value, every single one of those problems would no longer be problems when YOU are your OWN donor.

But even then, you object to it.

This tells us that it doesn't matter at all how safe or unsafe it is. What matters, is what you believe religiously.

Blood transfusion could be 110% safe in 100% of cases. We could imagine a world where blood is a straightforward universally compatible thing, with no such things as "blood types", with no such things as any kind of "contamination" whatsoever. We could imagine a world where blood is as universal for people as simple water or oxygen is, and STILL you'ld be against it, simply because of what you believe religiously.





So.... let's stop pretending. Let's stop trying to rationalize it with wacky arguments from ignorance concerning the medical context. Let's just be honest and say it like it is: it is purely a religious thingy, with no grounding in observable reality whatsoever.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't get it, either, but JWs have all sorts of weird beliefs that result from their...novel... interpretation of certain verses. I suppose if you're bleeding out in the street, dying of shock from blood loss, you should just die.

 

[nPeace]

I just asked a follow up question. You bible references seems to refer primarily to "eating" / "consuming" blood. Hence my pointing out that "transfusion" is not that.



So your answer is "no", you can't even use your own blood to give it to yourself when you need it.


This, in and of itself, shoots a MASSIVE hole in your entire argumentation.
Because throughout this thread, you have been trying to rationalize this stance on blood transfusion by trying to attack the medical idea behind it. By trying to point out problems with your body not accepting it, immunity going out of wack due to "foreign" cells being introduced into your bloodstream, etc etc etc... ALL of it, every single argument given, becomes wholly irrelevant once you become your OWN donor of blood.

So really, we can see that this has NOTHING to do with rational arguments against the medical aspect of it, and EVERYTING with irrational religious beliefs about it.

That's it.


I wonder why you go so out of your way trying to argue from the medical standpoint, while clearly that has nothing to do with JW objection to the practice of blood transfusion - since every single one of these 'arguments' becomes completely irrelevant once you are your own donor.

If those 'arguments' are really the reason for objecting to it, then you should have no problem with it in case you are your own donor.




So for future reference, let's not play that silly game where you pretend as if the problems with the procedure are the rationalization of it, because it matters not at all, clearly.

Off course, the majority of your "objections" from a medical standpoint are already nonsensical because they are based in ignorance and misrepresentation. But even IF we were to accept them at face-value, every single one of those problems would no longer be problems when YOU are your OWN donor.

But even then, you object to it.

This tells us that it doesn't matter at all how safe or unsafe it is. What matters, is what you believe religiously.

Blood transfusion could be 110% safe in 100% of cases. We could imagine a world where blood is a straightforward universally compatible thing, with no such things as "blood types", with no such things as any kind of "contamination" whatsoever. We could imagine a world where blood is as universal for people as simple water or oxygen is, and STILL you'ld be against it, simply because of what you believe religiously.





So.... let's stop pretending. Let's stop trying to rationalize it with wacky arguments from ignorance concerning the medical context. Let's just be honest and say it like it is: it is purely a religious thingy, with no grounding in observable reality whatsoever.


View attachment 46118

I gave the reason for not using blood.
I made no argument of things you are claiming here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I gave the reason for not using blood.
I made no argument of things you are claiming here.

While it is true that it is primarily @Deeje that seems to be pushing that rationalization, you certainly didn't go against it by pointing out that it is all irrelevant since your own blood isn't allowed either.

But please, let us not pretend as if you didn't engage in such argumentation in this very thread alone. Do you lose track of your own posts that quickly?

Very few persons submit to what they see before them, but I quickly let them know, I understand. It's an emotional thing, and since most people promote blood transfusions as the only and best option, it can be hard for persons to go against it. Sometimes they don't know of any other way.
Many have come to realize though, that what is the norm, is not always the best.
I spoke to many persons who preferred anything but blood, but they went with blood, because it's the only option they are presented with.
If people were aware however, that other methods were available, right next door, they would make a beeline for it. One of the articles I linked you, shows this.

I was thinking about the problems that mankind is having with health issues - whether physically, or mentally, and it got me thinking, Isn't there a cause for every effect?
Could it be, there is a contributing cause which is not being looked at?
So, I researched what has recently come to light in evolutionary biology - Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT).
Are genes passed on during blood transfusions? What genes? Do they kill the person, or just deteriorate their health.
Would you like to see what I found?

I'll like to share what I found, so far, though still in the process of going further.
This however is not an issue with JWs, since our decision is not made on the basis of what can happen to us, health-wise if we take a blood transfusion. That's a secondary concern, since Paul did say our obedience to the directive results in good health - (Acts 15:29) . . .If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you. . .

Can I PM you with the information?

@Eyes to See you can start with this one. It's a very good read. Long, but, of great interest.

A bit of helpful information to me...
Immunological disorders are diseases or conditions caused by a dysfunction of the immune system and include allergy, asthma, autoimmune diseases, autoinflammatory syndromes and immunological deficiency syndromes.

Cytokines are regulators of host responses to infection, immune responses, inflammation, and trauma. Some cytokines act to make disease worse (proinflammatory)
Interleukin (IL)-1 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) are proinflammatory cytokines, and when they are administered to humans, they produce fever, inflammation, tissue destruction, and, in some cases, shock and death.

...and I found this one interesting also. I just read the Abstract portion.

Found this article a bit interesting.
Interestingly and somewhat alarmingly, high frequencies of HGT in infants’ meconium and early fecal samples have been recently reported . Antibiotic-susceptible commensal bacteria may acquire resistance to antibiotics via mutations in target genes or the acquirement of resistance genes by HGT, mainly by the transfer mediated by MGEs. MGE-mediated transfer of genetic cargo from one organism to another greatly contributes to the dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes, because it can take place between closely or non-related species and in diversified environments, including the animal and human gut

@Meandflower you might be interested in this.
43 Bloodless Surgeries in 25 Years
Sister Cecilia Alvarez, from Argentina, has dealt with severe health problems her entire life. Her first procedure was when she was only 16 days old...


1999: Five-year-old Cecilia at Juan P. Garrahan Children’s Hospital

When blood transfusions are force on children, of Jehovah's Witnesses, is it based on rationality, facts, unbiased opinion, or is it based on discrimination?
It's a rhetorical question... not posed to you.

Isn't that like saying, before medical advancement in treating X, people died from X?
The fact is, people die from complications. Blood was not the life-saver. Blood was used only to fill the loss, but it has become evident that people survive on a very low hemoglobin level. So what was once taught to be the case, is now proven to be false.
People were acting based on ignorance, and lack of education.
Hear what one doctor says on this.

Ever single one of those quotes are only dealing with the "medical" argument. ie: trying to argue against the medical merit in an attempt to rationalize the religious opposition to it.

It is all irrelevant since even if proven a "miracle treatment" 100% of the time in 100% of cases, then still you would oppose it. Because it has one basis and one basis only: religious beliefs.

 

[nPeace]

While it is true that it is primarily @Deeje that seems to be pushing that rationalization, you certainly didn't go against it by pointing out that it is all irrelevant since your own blood isn't allowed either.

But please, let us not pretend as if you didn't engage in such argumentation in this very thread alone. Do you lose track of your own posts that quickly?













Ever single one of those quotes are only dealing with the "medical" argument. ie: trying to argue against the medical merit in an attempt to rationalize the religious opposition to it.

It is all irrelevant since even if proven a "miracle treatment" 100% of the time in 100% of cases, then still you would oppose it. Because it has one basis and one basis only: religious beliefs.

I repeat...
I gave the reason for not using blood.
I made no argument of things you are claiming.

If you think any of the information I posted is false, then please feel free to point out exactly what you think is false. Otherwise, have a good day, or good night.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I made no argument of things you are claiming.

So someone hijacked your account and made those posts I quoted in your name?

 

[nPeace]

So someone hijacked your account and made those posts I quoted in your name?

Nothing specific or useful? Okay. Good bye.

 

[Deeje]

I don't get it, either, but JWs have all sorts of weird beliefs that result from their...novel... interpretation of certain verses. I suppose if you're bleeding out in the street, dying of shock from blood loss, you should just die.

We can talk about those verse if you like.....you will have had them interpreted by the RCC, so are you sure that they had it right in the first place, given your current status?

If you are bleeding out on the street and they can stop the bleeding, and give you saline in time, they will save your life. Blood transfusions are not normally performed on the street.....saline is administered routinely.

Dying of shock from blood loss is equally treatable with alternative therapies. There is no reason to die unless first-aid is not administered immediately. People die from blood loss with shark attacks, motor vehicle accident and internal hemorrhages......it happens every day. But if therapy is administered right away and the volume of a person's blood is maintained, then the administration of EPO and saline will make up red cells in no time, usually leaving the patient to recover with no complications. This is our experience, not hear-say.

You need to be a bit more up to date on these things. Check out nPeace's links...you might learn something.

 

[rational experiences]

Healer science, biological genetic science, Genesis and its sacrificed exodus quotes cell and blood changes, so that blood unnaturally oozes out of the cell. Life historic in its irradiated sacrifice.

A medical status. Radiation fall out changed the water biological forms that involve the presence of human blood in its health.

If you read from a biblical medical genetic statement and claim, the status for unholy blood was stated before as advice, yet it occurred as human life sacrifice, then wouldn't it be proof today that radiation extra conversion of God mass sciences caused that human condition?

Isn't human belief and behaviours a taught preaching out of a book that says status in natural history as observed and data inferred?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nothing specific or useful? Okay. Good bye.

Good job ignoring the quotes I gave you from your own posts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We can talk about those verse if you like.....you will have had them interpreted by the RCC, so are you sure that they had it right in the first place, given your current status?

If you are bleeding out on the street and they can stop the bleeding, and give you saline in time, they will save your life. Blood transfusions are not normally performed on the street.....saline is administered routinely.

Dying of shock from blood loss is equally treatable with alternative therapies. There is no reason to die unless first-aid is not administered immediately. People die from blood loss with shark attacks, motor vehicle accident and internal hemorrhages......it happens every day. But if therapy is administered right away and the volume of a person's blood is maintained, then the administration of EPO and saline will make up red cells in no time, usually leaving the patient to recover with no complications. This is our experience, not hear-say.

You need to be a bit more up to date on these things. Check out nPeace's links...you might learn something.

Why do you bother making the "medical argument" to try and rationalize your religious objections to it, when the official stance of JW is that even in a perfect world where blood transfusion is a miracle cure that works in 100% of cases 100% of the time, it would still not be allowed?

I don't get it.

 

[capumetu]

Why is jw against blood transfusion? I think its strange because i do not believe God have any reasons to be against it. Blood transfusion can save many lifes and help people. Not one place in the bible is it written "do not take blood in your body if you have a deadly illness".

It is an indepth study maam. God was very explicit on what was to be done with blood. He does not change. Jesus died and we are no longer under those laws, however a circumcision issue came up in the congregations in the first century that was dividing God's people, so the apostle Paul went to Jerusalem to the governing body to get a decision, they gave this:
(Acts 15:28, 29) . . .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, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

So as you can see, the 1st century Christian governing body determined that Christians will abstain from blood. That is why we will not accept blood transfusions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The reason JWs do not take blood transfusions has to do with what God says about it.
(Genesis 9:3, 4) 3 Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. 4 Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.

The idea that a blood transfusion is "eating blood as food" is ridiculous, but if we're going to go down that road, then Romans 14 and 1 Timothy 4 both become relevant... and their condemnation of those who would try to deny particular foods would apply to the JWs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We can talk about those verse if you like.....you will have had them interpreted by the RCC, so are you sure that they had it right in the first place, given your current status?

If you are bleeding out on the street and they can stop the bleeding, and give you saline in time, they will save your life. Blood transfusions are not normally performed on the street.....saline is administered routinely.

Dying of shock from blood loss is equally treatable with alternative therapies. There is no reason to die unless first-aid is not administered immediately. People die from blood loss with shark attacks, motor vehicle accident and internal hemorrhages......it happens every day. But if therapy is administered right away and the volume of a person's blood is maintained, then the administration of EPO and saline will make up red cells in no time, usually leaving the patient to recover with no complications. This is our experience, not hear-say.

You need to be a bit more up to date on these things. Check out nPeace's links...you might learn something.

"I know of many times someone could have used a screwdriver and screw, but used a hammer and nail instead and it worked out fine.

"I also know of a time that someone's grip on their screwdriver slipped and they hurt their hand.

"From stories like these, we know that a screwdriver is not a useful tool and must never be used."

Give me a break.

 

[nPeace]

The idea that a blood transfusion is "eating blood as food" is ridiculous, but if we're going to go down that road, then Romans 14 and 1 Timothy 4 both become relevant... and their condemnation of those who would try to deny particular foods would apply to the JWs.

I don't know where you got the idea from, so I can't help you with that idea.
As for Romans 14, and 1 Timothy 4, what's your point? I'm lost as to their relevance, sorry.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know where you got the idea from, so I can't help you with that idea.
As for Romans 14, and 1 Timothy 4, what's your point? I'm lost as to their relevance, sorry.

Both deal with the issue of food. Both speak out against those who condemn others for what they eat.

Romans 14:1-6:

Now receive the one who is weak in the faith, and do not have disputes over differing opinions. 2 One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not despise the one who does not, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who eats everything, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on another’s servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One person regards one day holier than other days, and another regards them all alike. Each must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day does it for the Lord. The one who eats, eats for the Lord because he gives thanks to God, and the one who abstains from eating abstains for the Lord, and he gives thanks to God.

1 Timothy 4:1-5:

Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the later times some will desert the faith and occupy themselves with deceiving spirits and demonic teachings, 2 influenced by the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared. 3 They will prohibit marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creation of God is good and no food is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving. 5 For it is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer.

... So if a blood transfusion is "eating blood," then the Bible would suggest that JWs are wrong - and even deceived by "demonic teachings" and "the hypocrisy of liars" - for condemning blood transfusions and threatening its members with excommunication for getting them.

 

[capumetu]

The idea that a blood transfusion is "eating blood as food" is ridiculous, but if we're going to go down that road, then Romans 14 and 1 Timothy 4 both become relevant... and their condemnation of those who would try to deny particular foods would apply to the JWs.

Bible says abstain from blood, simply put I abstain from blood.

 

[ppp]

Bible says abstain from blood, simply put I abstain from blood.

Do you keep all of the other non-sacrificial commandments of the Old Testament?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bible says abstain from blood, simply put I abstain from blood.

So you've decided to reject this part of the Bible?

For every creation of God is good and no food is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving. For it is sanctified by God’s word and by prayer.