Jump to content
The World News Media

The most DISTURBING news about the BLOOD DOCTRINE, ever


JW Insider

Recommended Posts

  • Member
15 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

"Blood is a specialized body fluid. It has four main components: plasma, red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets."

This is not a natural breakdown. These are the four components that are of highest importance to those who separate and break down donated blood for medical purposes.

For the purposes of supporting life (while in the body), blood's major components are:

  • Water
  • Oxygen
  • Proteins
  • Sugar
  • Fat
  • Waste

From the perspective of someone who is injured the major components of blood become:

  • Neutrofils
  • Lymphocyte antibodies
  • Clotting Factors
  • Platelets
  • Volume

From the Bible's perspective, blood has only one major component:

  • Blood

As indicated by the Watch Tower publications, the most natural use of the term major components with respect to the volume (percentage) of blood, would be:

  • Plasma (55%)
  • Blood Cells (45%)

55% + 45% = 100%. This is not just true of the Watch Tower publications. It's also true of the site you quoted:

The blood that runs through the veins, arteries, and capillaries is known as whole blood, a mixture of about 55 percent plasma and 45 percent blood cells.  - http://www.hematology.org/Patients/Basics/

The Watchtower agrees:

*** w90 6/1 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
Human blood can be separated into dark cellular material and a yellowish fluid (plasma, or serum). The cellular part (45 percent by volume) is made up of what are commonly called red cells, white cells, and platelets. The other 55 percent is the plasma. This is 90 percent water, but it carries small amounts of many proteins, hormones, salts, and enzymes. Today, much of the donated blood is separated into the primary components. One patient may be given a transfusion of plasma (perhaps FFP, fresh frozen plasma) to treat shock. But an anemic patient might be given packed red cells, that is, red cells that had been stored and then put in a fluid and transfused.

The Awake! shows just how minor white cells and platelets are to the overall volume of blood by charting the same idea and showing that only about 1% of the total is platelets and white cells.

*** g90 10/22 p. 4 Selling Blood Is Big Business ***
The Main Components of Blood

  •  Plasma: about 55 percent of the blood. It is 92 percent water; the rest is made up of complex proteins, such as globulins, fibrinogens, and albumin
  •   Platelets: about 0.17 percent of the blood
  •   White Cells: about 0.1 percent
  •   Red Cells: about 45 percent

The Awake! got the percentage of white and red cells wrong. It's really about 3% white cells, therefore closer to about 41% red.

The breakdown into "four main components" is correct from the perspective of the preliminary treating and centrifuging of blood to extract its most valuable fractions (components). But it is arbitrary for the Watch Tower publications to use a breakdown that uses the word "major" to refer to the value of a component for its medical re-use, when the Bible says nothing about the value of transfused fractions. In the Bible, the entire volume of blood is important because it represents life.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 6.1k
  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Boy that brings back some memories! I had more than a few exchanges with Rusky on the subject of blood, fractions, and associated biblical texts, etc. There is so much left unsaid about this issue. Ev

Rather than being disturbed by one person's belief, it might be good to remember the basics in God’s word and strengthen ourselves to obey instead of looking for reasons to justify vacillation.  

Hi JW Insider, Interesting point you have brought up regarding the blood issue and Bro Smalley.   I can see why he's "out of sorts" being in a position to defend a public policy which is quite di

Posted Images

  • Member

I suppose it is appropriate to have a laugh now and then in this very serious topic. And high blood pressure often necessitates some of the reasons for having surgery (stroke, heart attack, ravages of diabetes etc) and the medical people telling us we need a blood transfusion.

==================

On a more serious note

REMINDER - We have to practise what is mentioned in the article and note what is mentioned in the following scripture. We are not stronger than Eve who was perfect.

 

(James 1:14, 15) But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire. 15 Then the desire, when it has become fertile, gives birth to sin; in turn sin, when it has been carried out, brings forth death.

*** w86 3/15 pp. 14-15 ‘Do Not Be Quickly Shaken From Your Reason’ ***

Confidence in Jehovah

14 As we go forward, building faith and keeping busy in Kingdom service, we can confidently put our trust in Jehovah, knowing that, as our loving heavenly Father, he wants the very best for us. God teaches us; he warns us. He does this through his Word and by means of clear direction provided by his visible organization. If we were to ask a loving parent for bread and fish, he would not give us a stone or a serpent. Neither will God fool us or deceive us. (Matthew 7:7-11) Yet, God will not completely shield us from temptations or even deceptive lies and devilish propaganda. He says of himself: “I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit yourself, the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk.” (Isaiah 48:17) Yes, Jehovah ‘teaches us to benefit ourselves.’ He tells us to keep separate from apostates and their teaching, and this for our own protection. It means our life.

15 The apostle Paul warned fellow Christian elders: “From among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.” (Acts 20:30) If we keep listening to subtle arguments and specious reasoning, “twisted things” can sound as though they were straight. The longer Eve looked at the forbidden fruit and listened to the twisted reasoning of the Devil, the more she was convinced that he was right. Paul warned: “Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.” (Colossians 2:8) The apostle also indicated that “by smooth talk and complimentary speech [apostates] seduce the hearts of guileless ones.” (Romans 16:17, 18; compare 2 Corinthians 11:13-15.) Of course, the fact that a few are drawn away by that kind of propaganda does not mean that we have to follow them. Nevertheless, we need to be continually alert.

 

16 The Devil’s tactics have not changed since Eden. He uses subtle questioning and an appeal to self-interest. Peter wrote: “There will also be false teachers among you. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects . . . Also, with covetousness they will exploit you with counterfeit words.” (2 Peter 2:1-3) Something counterfeit is designed to look or sound genuine. At 2 Timothy 2:14-19, Paul stressed the importance of using Jehovah’s Word to set matters straight but warned of the need to avoid apostates, whose ‘empty speeches violate what is holy,’ for, said he, “their word will spread like gangrene.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

it is not the Witnesses who have arbitrated on the ranking of blood components or fractions. It is the general practice in most dicussion on the subject to designate in this regard:

The problem is that our publications have made use of the ambiguity. The publications have made use of the fact that the major/minor distinction refers to the size of the breakdown in fractions, based on the KM chart which highlights the "minor" percentages after breaking down blood into 4 "major" fractions. But one of those so-called "minor" percentages is 33% of a "major" component. (And one was 99% and therefore left off the "approved" list even though it was approved.)

At the same time one of the "major" components, platelets, was only considered to be 0.0017 of the total volume of blood. That's 0.17%.

Therefore, by Watch Tower definition, a MINOR component can be 99% of 55% of whole blood (cryosupernatant), or 33% of 45% of whole blood (hemoglobin), and yet a MAJOR component can be as little as little as 0.17% of whole blood. Here is a visual chart showing just how much of whole blood can be an acceptable minor component compared to an unacceptable major component. The acceptable amount of the total blood is in RED:

The following, then is the unacceptable portion of whole blood because the very tiny small red portion of the total line is a MAJOR component:

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

The following large red portion is an acceptable portion of whole blood, even though it is over half of the total blood volume, because it is a MINOR fraction:

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

This kind of arbitrary play on words is hypocritical. Note a recent Watchtower's comments:

*** w01 6/1 pp. 4-5 Whose Standards Can You Trust? ***
Would you trust a merchant who uses two sets of weights, only one of which is accurate? Certainly not. Likewise, “a cheating pair of scales is something detestable to Jehovah, but a complete stone-weight is a pleasure to him.” (Proverbs 11:1; 20:10) In the Law that he gave the Israelites, Jehovah included this command: “You must not commit injustice in judging, in measuring, in weighing or in measuring liquids. You should prove to have accurate scales, accurate weights, an accurate ephah and an accurate hin. Jehovah your God I am, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt.”—Leviticus 19:35, 36.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

@Melinda Yet, Scripturally, it is also our duty to fight against error and strongly entrenched things, and to point out where tradition has made the word of God invalid. The Watchtower might be perfectly correct in this area. Yet, if the Watchtower is speaking twisted things in this area, is it really our duty to obey it, or is our duty to obey God as ruler rather than men? As you reminded us, Eve was perfect and yet was still seduced by false reasoning. But the word of God is alive and exerts power. If it happens to break down false human reasoning, this is not our fault. It is our Christian duty to be noble-minded and question all reasoning to test it against God's word, otherwise we are trying to please humans. Isn't this the lesson that Paul wanted us to learn from Galatians and 1 & 2 Corinthians?

I'm reminded of words recently attributed to Voltaire, but closer to words from a more modern writer: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

There is a certain kind of fundamentalist thinking that shifts one's loyalties to the humans that we credit for bringing us into all truth, even if they brought us into most truth. It's the Bible, the product of Jehovah's holy spirit, that brings us into all truth.

For example, there are those who read the following verses:

(Luke 10:19) Look! I have given you the authority to trample underfoot serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing at all will harm you.

And also the following verses:

(Mark 16:17, 18) 17 Furthermore, these signs will accompany those believing: By the use of my name they will expel demons, they will speak with tongues, 18 and with their hands they will pick up serpents, and if they drink anything deadly it will not hurt them at all. They will lay their hands upon sick persons, and these will become well.”

And the experience of Paul:

(Acts 28:3-6) But when Paul collected a bundle of sticks and laid it on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened itself on his hand. 4 When the foreign-speaking people caught sight of the venomous creature hanging from his hand, they began saying to one another: “Surely this man is a murderer, and although he made it to safety from the sea, Justice did not permit him to keep on living.” 5 However, he shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no harm. 6 But they were expecting him to swell up or suddenly to drop dead. After they waited for a long time and saw that nothing bad happened to him, they changed their mind and began saying he was a god.

And Paul's counsel:

(1 Corinthians 4:16) I urge you, therefore, become imitators of me.

Putting all that together, some small "Christian" denominations thought it was incumbent upon them, therefore, to show they had the faith to handle snakes and suffer no harm. Some died, but the common fundamentalist thinking structure did not allow that problem to change their mind. In fact, it makes people dig in their heels and become even more dedicated to the idea. Some of them, we suppose, could even claim that the medical community learned more about venom and treating snake bites due to their efforts. Perhaps the sacrifice of a few led to saving many more people from snakebite.

Yet, all that one needed to do was notice that the passage in Mark was not supported from the earliest manuscripts, and to think about the spirit of the Bible, rather than specific passages without their context, in order to break down this dangerous practice.

Edited to add that this wasn't directed specifically at you Melinda, but to an argument I heard recently about how non-blood therapies have now saved more people than ever died from lack of blood therapies, or even directly from blood therapy deaths through error, contamination, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

You inferred even more from the comment than I expected. Agree with most of what you said. However the main point I wanted to stress was the danger of thinking upon something prohibited continuously. It might seem to be a simple point - like the fruit in Eden was simple. Fertility then causes the thing to look like something slight - that can be overrided, manipulated, changed, or even discarded. If you revisit the comment with that in mind you might agree.

If an angel or any one in authority (human or spirit) suggests to us to disobey Jehovah we should do the same. You know the scripture. How else will we be prepared to face Satan at the end of this system and at the end of the millennium? I think when we are dealing with anything that Jehovah says not to do, we should strengthen our resolve and dismiss anything else.

That is how I meant to bring James 1:14,15 into play. Remember Joseph fled. It does not only apply to sexual things where most people are weak. Like you I am not afraid to say unpopular things. My take does not have to be your take, but I thought I should bring that side to the discussion. Bro Rook even asked us if we were out of our minds, whether playfully or seriously, he has a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

We have to practise what is mentioned in the article and note what is mentioned in the following scripture.

I agreed with almost everything you said, too. But it struck me that the above quote was backwards. We have to practice what is mentioned in the following scriptures, and note what is mentioned in the article. (Not the other way around.)

Also, I was thinking about what the process is behind the Biblical counsel "do not be quickly shaken from your reason." This is the exact danger I mentioned earlier about how everyone was against all forms of organ transplant --and we were sure we had good reason for this-- but then, as quickly as a new article came out, every one of us was quickly shaken from those reasons, and most of us instantly accepted the new reasoning. We all believed we were using a Bible-trained conscience when we refused blood in all forms, even fractions. But then we were quickly shaken from our reason so that most Witnesses suddenly began accepting fractions. If we can be so quickly shaken from our reason, then we must not be following the Bible's counsel to question in order to make sure of all things. Therefore, it must not have been our own conscience in the first place that was real the reason behind our reasoning.

4 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

If we keep listening to subtle arguments and specious reasoning, “twisted things” can sound as though they were straight.

I think that most of us, at least at some point during our spiritual growth as Witnesses, would read that sentence just quoted, and instantly see it only as a warning not to spend time listening to anyone who says something that might point out a flaw in the teaching that currently comes from the visible organization. In context, this is exactly how the Watchtower is applying the idea. But we have to be careful that we don't use two sets of scales. What if the Bible has already answered the questions about blood fractions, for example, but we keep listening to subtle arguments and specious reasoning about blood fractions? What if we have become bloodguilty by accepting these subtle arguments and specious reasoning? What we have accepted, in general, might be perfectly good reasoning, but what if it isn't? What if it isn't questioned, precisely because we are always so quickly shaken from our reason every time a change is made?

Edited to add: I included the following comment, but it kept getting merged/attached with another post. I'm editing it back here:

1 hour ago, Melinda Mills said:

If you revisit the comment with that in mind you might agree.

I know what you mean. I over-reacted. I didn't think you had in mind exactly what I thought others might take from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

"REMINDER - We have to practise what is mentioned in the article and note what is mentioned in the following scripture. We are not stronger than Eve who was perfect."

 

Agree the above statement is better turned around. But the article has much scriptural counsel. We note first and then practice.

 

"If we keep listening to subtle arguments and specious reasoning, “twisted things” can sound as though they were straight." Quoted from w86 3/15 pp. 14-15

 

"What if the Bible has already answered the questions about blood fractions, for example, but we keep listening to subtle arguments and specious reasoning about blood fractions?"

Exactly my simple point about putting other things out of mind and listening to scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
17 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

And a composition question: Plasma appears to be 92-95% water. Cryoprecipitate is 1% (reasonably solid by definition). So, Cryosupernatant would appear to be mostly ...water, despite it's high proportion as a component? So leaving aside the water, what is it's % composition of plasma? about 4-5%? (Just trying to get a perspective).

I think I see where you might be coming from on this idea, and there appears, at first, to be a nice way to rationalize the idea that plasma is a smaller percentage and therefore could fit the idea, or connotation, of "minor fraction."

One could argue that Cryoprecipitate is only 1% of the total plasma. "Minor" fraction fits.

Then, Cryosupernatant is 99% of the total remaining plasma, because it is all of the remaining plasma. 99% doesn't sound good, but it's mostly water, right? Surely, there is nothing wrong with "water." Blood is mostly water, after all. And Jehovah never showed in his Word that there could ever be an occasion when water was so closely associated with blood, that it was appropriate to pour water out on the ground, right? (Yes, I'm thinking of David.)

(2 Samuel 23:15-17) 15 Then David expressed his longing: “If only I could have a drink of the water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem!” 16 At that the three mighty warriors forced their way into the camp of the Phi·lisʹtines and drew water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem and brought it to David; but he refused to drink it and poured it out to Jehovah. 17 He said: “It is unthinkable on my part, O Jehovah, that I should do this! Should I drink the blood of the men going at the risk of their lives?” So he refused to drink it.. . .

Besides, if water doesn't count, then why not accept plasma all at once without the water? Why say plasma is forbidden? Just remove the water and it becomes a minor fraction, as if water was its major fraction (95%) which has been removed. Of course, we can't because that would only highlight the total inconsistency of the entire fractured logic of fractions. If the water doesn't count, then the remaining plasma is likely being split up into 1 part non-water plasma and 4 parts non-water plasma. If water doesn't count, then this is a split of 20% plasma (cryoprecipitate) and 80% plasma (cryosupernatant non-water).

The logic of trying to make it look like 1% and 4% is tortured. Even if it were possible to extract a full 50% of the non-water plasma into a form of cryoprecipitate, the two acceptable parts would be at best, 50% and 50%. In reality one side would always be higher than 50%, even as much as 80%. So, the fact that both are acceptable still means 100% of plasma is acceptable, whether we think of the split as 1% + 99% or 50% + 50% or 20% + 80%. It always adds up to 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The publications have made use of the fact that the major/minor distinction refers to the size of the breakdown in fractions, based on the KM chart which highlights the "minor" percentages after breaking down blood into 4 "major" fractions.

Funny this. I never read it as relating to volume particularly. That applies to my point re plasma which you comprehensively answered. I didn't have an agenda re ranking by volume there, just seeking clarity which you provided.

Blood is a highly specialized tissue composed of more than 4,000 different kinds of components.  Four of the most important ones are red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma: 

http://anthro.palomar.edu/blood/blood_components.htm

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

These are the four components that are of highest importance to those who separate and break down donated blood for medical purposes

So the major/minor for me relates to importance rather than volume. And the connection of this ranking with donated blood separation appears relevant to the arena of confrontation also.

It is a complex subject obviously, far more so than when the prohibition was given. Blustering tirades of the "Read my lips...  A--B--S--T--A--I--N!!!" variety are unhelpful. (I don't think a carnivore can actually do this practically can they?)

The paragraph quoted below (“Keep Yourselves in God’s Love”(2014)  p215) states our position quite well I feel. It certainly renders invalid the assertion that the medical use of blood fractions other than the popularly designated and prohibited four primary components would somehow be sanctioned by Jehovah's Witness elders, whoever they may be.

Should Christians accept therapies incorporating blood fractions? The Bible does not give specific details, so each one must make his own conscientious decision before God. Some would refuse all fractions, reasoning that God’s Law to Israel required that blood removed from a creature be poured “out on the ground.” (Deuteronomy 12:22-24) Others, while refusing transfusions of whole blood or its major components, might accept treatments involving a fraction. They may reason that at some point fractions that have been extracted from blood cease to represent the life of the creature from which the blood was taken.

Seeking to inform is one thing. Seeking to impose is very different.

PS. I see the New York Times referred to Gene Smalley as a Dr. Is that correct and if so, is it as an MD?

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/29/us/2-doctors-tell-of-treatments-jehovah-s-witnesses-accept.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

“Although I was making every effort to write you about” when did Jesus secure full kingdom power… and lately my time is sparser than habitual, in spite of this I wish to point out several points about this serious matter.

First, thank you JWI for your investigation about blood, components, fractions and similar matters.

If I’ve understood well, JWI has a more serious or stricter view than many of us regarding blood utilization. I mean that many of us perhaps consider the use of some fractions. But JWI (and also James Thomas Rook Jr share this view, I think) point out the fact the Bible forbids BLOOD, without specifying little or much. Well, this is what I call it WHITE position. No pale grey, nor dark grey, but white. And this is fine. No one of us should think these brothers suffer from weak faith (oh, well, JTR does suffer high blood pressure!)

I must admit I’m not an expert in these matters. But, as my faith (and life) is involved, I need some level of knowledge, without which my position would seem fanatical to doctors or third persons.

By the way, I personally know brothers that when deciding about the chart in the KM about fractions and procedures they marked NO for everything. And others just the opposite.

 HYPOTETTICAL SITUATION IN THE HOSPITAL’S RESTAURANT

My wife is in the hospital room, waiting for some surgical intervention the next day. I had some difficulties with her anesthesiologist because her recommendation about the use of some blood’s fraction in the intervention. In spite of this, I feel very confident and take the opportunity to enjoy a big steak with salad.

While I’m eating alone in my table, the anesthesiologist approaches me and says:

  •  

    ·        “You’re eating more blood than your wife has not allowed us to use with her”

red-meat-and-juice.gif

Don’t confuse the red juice in raw red meat with blood, it’s a muscle’s protein, the myoglobin.

 

HOW MUCH WHOLE BOOD AM I EATING WITH MY MEAT?

I’m not a specialist, so I’ve made some investigation. I’ve found this surprising data:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6495586?report=abstract

Exsanguination of animals at slaughter and the residual blood content of meat.

Abstract

About 40 to 60 per cent of the total blood volume is lost at exsanguination. The loss can be influenced slightly by differences in traditional slaughter techniques and is considerably reduced after cardiac arrest in sheep and cattle. Blood not lost at sticking is probably largely retained in the viscera rather than the carcase. The residual blood content of lean meat is 2 to 9 ml/kg muscle. There is no evidence that this amount is affected by different slaughter methods or that large amounts of residual blood influence the microbiology of meat.

And this more recent and very comprehensive source states in almost 20 ml/kg of hemoglobin in the meat, depending of the slaughter method.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4093272

ajas-27-3-406-14f2.jpg

If this is correct, in the slaughterhouse, during slaughter,

·        ONLY HALF OF THE BLOOD IS SPILLED!

·        ALMOST THE OTHER HALF REMAINS IN THE VISCERA

·        FROM 2 TO 9 ml/Kg REMAINS IN THE MEAT WE EAT (12-18 mg/kg hemoglobin according the second study)

CONSIDERATIONS

In the Moses’s Law, Jehovah didn’t forbid the use of viscera for feeding (I'm not sure regarding this)

  • ·        (Lev 3:10, 11) “He will also remove the appendage of the liver along with the kidneys. And the priest will make it smoke on the altar as food, an offering made by fire to Jehovah.”

But Jehovah knew perfectly that in the viscera remained much blood of the animal. And these weren’t forbidden nor for Jews nor for Christians.

And, regarding lean meat, we can conclude, obviously, that Jehovah knew some blood remains in it. In spite of this fact, His own Son ate meat, as we do.

All of this make me think that our position about blood fractions have some logical.

ARBITRARINESS

I must admit that our position about the four main blood components (forbidden) and the other minor ones (allowed according the conscience of each one) is arbitrary. Would have been perfectly possible to determine the white/black not focusing in the importance of the components (plasma, red cells, white cells, platelets) but in the percentage of these fractions related to the whole blood. But this is incongruous. As JWI perfectly explains in his post (and with charts!) if I admit albumin (4% of plasma) or immunoglobulins (3% of plasma), I admit more proportion of blood that when I refuse platelets.

I recognize that, at some point, the GB could reconsider this incongruence and change the KM chart. In the meantime, this position is not going to make sin against God’s law about blood. It remains to me avoiding albumin, immunoglobulins and other fractions. The problem is the opposite: perhaps I would admit platelets if the focus was different. Here we are with another “vaccination” issue!

God grant them wisdom!!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 3/13/2017 at 2:35 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

PS. I see the New York Times referred to Gene Smalley as a Dr. Is that correct and if so, is it as an MD?

It was not correct, but I think it would be easier for him to give the impression that he was a doctor than it would have been for "Doc" Dixon. The heading on that particular JAMA article might have been easily misread, but the first footnote shows that his title is "Mr." not "Dr."

November 27, 1981

Jehovah's WitnessesThe Surgical/Ethical Challenge

JAMA. 1981;246(21):2471-2472. doi:10.1001/jama.1981.03320210037021
...
_________
From the Medical (Dr Dixon) and Research (Mr Smalley) Departments, World Headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn, NY. Reprint requests to Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, NY 11201 (Mr Smalley).
 
On 3/13/2017 at 2:35 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

It certainly renders invalid the assertion that the medical use of blood fractions other than the popularly designated and prohibited four primary components would somehow be sanctioned by Jehovah's Witness elders, whoever they may be.

I think it's easy for all of us to revert back to the shorthand of saying "allowed" or "sanctioned" when the full statement should include the idea of conscience or "personal decision." But the more I read in the medical journals where doctors, surgeons and medical researchers try to summarize their experiences with hundreds of JW patients, these professionals realize that the patients are often not aware of what their conscience allows until the "Church Council" lets them know if something is "approved" or not.

On 3/13/2017 at 6:40 PM, ComfortMyPeople said:

And, regarding lean meat, we can conclude, obviously, that Jehovah knew some blood remains in it. In spite of this fact, His own Son ate meat, as we do.

All of this make me think that our position about blood fractions have some logical.

But most of the blood we consume in eating liver and lean meat (muscle tissue) is whole blood, not components or fractions, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

    • xero

      xero 2,295

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • mcgiver2

      mcgiver2 1

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Pudgy

      Pudgy 2,381

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,669
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Miracle Pete
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.