Jump to content

Guest Nicole

Are JWs allowed to get Platelet-rich plasma?

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Guest Nicole -
JOHN BUTLER -
48
1508

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Others will say: ‘It’s not a cake until you mix the ingredients.’

Aren't the ingredients already mixed in this case (blood) and the opposite is done, splitting the 'ingredients' apart. 

If blood is sacred or of high importance to God then surely it should not be messed with or split up in such a way ?

Just a thought, though in practice i still don't think God meant it that way.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

From Genesis to Leviticus. Scripture is referring to LIFEBLOOD. Don’t eat the animal without first draining its blood. This is a commandment from God. Is God inferring that you squeeze the animal dry to drain every last drop? No, it means that the life of the animal is the blood, and as soon as the blood is drained, it becomes lifeless and ready for consumption.

This is a good concept to remember, but it produces some questions. If the blood referred to was the LIFEBLOOD then one could discontinue draining as soon as the animal was lifeless. If a live animal, heart beating, was hung upside-down, and then its throat slit, its "LIFEBLOOD" would already be gone even when only half the blood is drained. If the animal was already killed by lethal weapon, blunt force, or from another animal, or even had just died on its own, the amount of blood that could be drained by hanging it upside-down and slitting its throat would be much less than if it died during the draining process. In any case, the Jewish law required that the draining take place, and blood be poured onto the ground, as a kind of ritual of respect. We assume then that the animal was drained at least until the pouring stopped and the pouring turned into a drip. Since it was a ritual of respect before Jehovah, I would assume that it might be kept in position until the dripping had also stopped.

Of course, Christians of most stripes, should be informed by Acts 15 and 21 on this matter, more so than Genesis through Leviticus. Otherwise we would have to treat the fat with the same amount of respect, and the fat has exactly the same problem, not draining out completely when cooking.

  • (Leviticus 3:17) 17 “‘It is a lasting statute for your generations, in all your dwelling places: You must not eat any fat or any blood at all.’”

Why was fat put on the same level as blood here? Perhaps we get a hint from the very first use of the word "smell" in the Bible:

  • (Genesis 8:20, 21) . . .Then Noah built an altar to Jehovah and took some of all the clean animals and of all the clean flying creatures and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And Jehovah began to smell a pleasing aroma.. . .

When meat-eaters enjoy a juicy steak, much of the intrinsic flavor is from left-over blood and fat. The "pleasing aroma" of cooked meat comes more from the fat. The blood is poured downward to the ground, and the fat smokes upward "toward heaven."

To me, this says that this Mosaic law was based on a ritual of respect, the same as we see in many cultures who understood the grave seriousness of taking another life, killing a soul. Some Native American cultures were well-known for this, whenever an animal was killed for its meat. Also see: 

    Hello guest!
.  Part of the idea is that man shouldn't take another life for pleasure. And enjoying the savory meat as food is taking pleasure from killing another life.

Should note that some cultures preferred to sacrifice by strangling their meat, boiling it whole, etc. (See Scythians in the Wikipedia article above.) Homer and Hesiod wrote of sacrificing/cooking meat on their altars and how their god ("God the Father," Zeus) loved the savory aroma from the fat that rose high into the heavens. (Interesting discussion here:

    Hello guest!
)

Of course, turning to the Greek Scriptures, again, we know that Jehovah no longer accepts any animal or human sacrifices after Jesus himself. And, as Jesus' body was never burned, the aroma is obviously figurative, not literal, of course:

  • (Ephesians 5:2) . . ., just as the Christ also loved us and gave himself for us as an offering and a sacrifice, a sweet fragrance to God.

Extrapolating from the concept of comparing LIFEBLOOD with "fractionated blood" is a bit too dependent on one particular facet of Hebrew Scripture definitions, without considering other aspects of sacrificial ritual. (It might even imply that less care be taken with blood drainage, when measuring the threshold of blood necessary for life-sustenance compared to the original amount of blood.) And of course, the continuation of the idea in Acts 15, might also be primarily about abstaining from idolatry-related rituals, especially now that Christians realized that sacrificial rituals had no more place in the true worship of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Can a human live a normal life without a heart? Can a human live a normal life without lungs?

This, in essence, is fractioned blood. On their own, it means very little to the human body, since it is just one particular function out of many.

I like this reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This is a good concept to remember, but it produces some questions. If the blood referred to was the LIFEBLOOD then one could discontinue draining as soon as the animal was lifeless. If a live animal, heart beating, was hung upside-down, and then its throat slit, its "LIFEBLOOD"

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Technically, what the meat contains is leftover blood, not "blood by-product." By-product would be the blood that was separated or drained, not the blood still in the meat. 

An argument could be made with this concept. The idea would need further study between a conscious animal and an unconscious animal. While the blood is being drained, the heart still beats. Then the question becomes a matter of circulation or flow.

The theory of blood by-product under a microscope can have the same concept. When meat is purchased at the store. Sometimes red liquid is seen in a package. That red liquid is technically referred to as cow bovine, not blood. The (RBC) peripheral blood determination is made by the packager. It can have from 10% to 15ml, 100ml. This does not exclude cow bovine from having red blood cells under a microscope or a scientific setting.

The question then becomes what Biblical standard we are willing to subject our thoughts to adjust those scientific standards when there was none in ancient times just God’s commandment to drain the lifeblood of the animal. The concept of squeezing every last drop becomes an unfounded scientific concept.

This is why the decision is now left to the individual. What conscience argument are we willing to make when being judged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

That red liquid is technically referred to as cow bovine, not blood.

No. The red liquid is not technically referred to as cow bovine. It is bovine in the same way that a cow's hide is bovine, or a baseball glove is bovine, or a leather chair, or a kind of saliva, or a certain type of sound, or a kind of meat, or a specific kind of hoofprint in the mud, or a certain kind of "mudpie"/"patty"/"buffalo chip"/etc.

In other words, the milk I drank this morning was bovine, but it did not contain any bovine. The meat I ate last week was bovine, but it did not contain any bovine. There is no such phrase as "cow bovine" as far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

That red liquid is technically referred to as cow bovine, not blood. 

I've not heard that, must be a butchers term or something. Bovine is usually another name for cow, or cattle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

An argument could be made with this concept. The idea would need further study between a conscious animal and an unconscious animal. While the blood is being drained, the heart still beats. Then the question becomes a matter of circulation or flow.

I agree that you could make such an argument. But the heart stops beating before all the blood is drained. That was my point. The animal can have a lot of blood still remaining and yet dies while being drained. The heart stops and there is plenty of blood to be drained. (We had 3 of our bulls slaughtered when I was about 15.  Technically they were "steers.") I was interested in the process due to the blood issue, because in this case, the animals were shot in the head first (bolt gun), then strung up to drain. Technically, we were supposed to ask the butcher not to save the blood for fertilizer or feed or any other purpose, and we would pay him a bit more for disposal. (In those days the Watchtower told us that we should not even let our dogs and cats eat unbled meat.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Anna said:

Bovine is usually another name for cow, or cattle

Correct, part of the meat, not blood. This in itself doesn’t exclude red blood cells from existing under a microscope within the meat which is what the red liquid is. This can also be summed up by referring to dead cattle meat for consumption. Cow’s body part.

Meats will have an undetermined amount of red blood cells within the fibers or fabric of skin and muscle. This is one reason vegetarians use to not eat meat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

The theory of blood by-product under a microscope can have the same concept. When meat is purchased at the store. Sometimes red liquid is seen in a package.

I don't believe anyone would claim that this red liquid in the package is blood. But as you say, it contains blood, whole blood cells. So does the meat itself.

But it looks like your argument boils down to something like this:

  • No one can actually get rid of all the whole blood cells that will be found in meat by any practical process. And the Bible's laws never technically meant that absolute full drainage was required anyway, as the idea of "lifeblood" was intended, not blood, per se. Therefore, if we were not supposed to worry about small amounts of whole blood, we should not necessarily worry our conscience about fractions or particles of blood, either.
2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

The question then becomes what Biblical standard we are willing to subject our thoughts to adjust those scientific standards when there was none in ancient times just God’s commandment to drain the lifeblood of the animal. The concept of squeezing every last drop becomes an unfounded scientific concept.

I agree with this, that it's a "question of what Biblical standard we are willing to subject our thoughts to,"  but it doesn't really seem to address the question of why certain fractions are prohibited from the perspective of the Watchtower's guidelines, and certain fractions are considered to be a matter of individual conscience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

But the heart stops beating before all the blood is drained.

Interesting concept. The purpose of a heart is to circulate the blood. Even a small amount of blood or fluid will keep a heart beating. Perhaps you are referring to cardiac arrest. The experience you indicate can be found in any slaughterhouse. The experience I had, the cow would drown under its own blood before all the blood was drained. Is this what you are referring to? But the actual cutting wouldn't start until after the cow was prepared. This preparedness has similarities with God's commandment since the blood would be drained. But the expectation of completely draining an animal from blood has no scientific justifiable agreement for that conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I agree with this, that it's a "question of what Biblical standard we are willing to subject our thoughts to,"  but it doesn't really seem to address the question of why certain fractions are prohibited from the perspective of the Watchtower's guidelines, and certain fractions are considered to be a matter of individual conscience.

Some markers can be placed individually, while others can’t. My understanding in scientific studies led me to believe that not all fractioned blood can be separated enough to become acceptable. RBC and WBC comes to mind when dealing with the makeup of a life sustaining blood product. The nucleus factor.

The studies in synthetic blood if proven successful will prove a solution to all blood issues concerning Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:
3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

That red liquid is technically referred to as cow bovine, not blood.

No. The red liquid is not technically referred to as cow bovine. It is bovine in the same way that a cow's hide is bovine, or a baseball glove is bovine, or a leather chair, or a kind of saliva, or a certain type of sound, or a kind of meat, or a specific kind of hoofprint in the mud, or a certain kind of "mudpie"/"patty"/"buffalo chip"/etc.

In other words, the milk I drank this morning was bovine, but it did not contain any bovine. The meat I ate last week was bovine, but it did not contain any bovine. There is no such phrase as "cow bovine" as far as I know. 

JW INSIDER IS EXACTLY CORRECT !

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I don't believe anyone would claim that this red liquid in the package is blood. But as you say, it contains blood, whole blood cells. So does the meat itself.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I was interested in the process due to the blood issue, because in this case, the animals were shot in the head first (bolt gun), then strung up to drain.

Mr. JWinsider

Forgive me for not understanding. I am multitasking.  I believe you are referring to a cow being killed through a headshot, while I was referring to a cow being killed through slitting its throat. One will be conscious while the other will not. The cow shot will in effect have its heart stop by having no further communication with the brain to function. When a cow’s throat gets cut, the cow will remain conscious until it drowns.

The process is different. Where they remain the same. The cow being hung will have the blood drained. The steps are different since the cow being shot as you stated will have its throat cut after which some, believe is more humane than just cutting the cow’s throat and watch the cow battle until it dies.

If the cow is conscious or not, if the heart is beating or not. The process will have the same end result. The animal’s blood will be drained. This experience might have a different concept with a chicken when it has the head cut off. The body can continue to react.

The red liquid in meat packages under the FDA rules, this liquid is not considered blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that matters is this:

What was in the mind of everyone at the time the edicts were given, that when Jehovah God had those edicts given, it was crystal clear, without any mental gymnastics.

All these considerations, options, analysis, pondering, and mental gymnastics are complete and total unadulterated, ugly as home-made sin RATIONALIZATIONS.

WHAT?

ARE WE TRYING TO CONVINCE GOD WHAT HE REALLY HAD IN MIND?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I believe you are referring to a cow being killed through a headshot, while I was referring to a cow being killed through slitting its throat.

Sort of. I was referring to both. And our steers were only stunned with the head shot, not killed outright, so the heart was still beating. I was just saying there was a time when I was more interested in the various processes, so as to compare them, partly because of the blood issue, and partly because we had raised our steers from calves (along with a heifer and a milk cow). I therefore had a concern about their suffering. Naming them was a bad idea. I was interested in the process then, because a true kosher slaughter, at least at the time, required that the animal be readied for stringing up and then the throat cut as soon as the animal was strung up. There was no stunning or bolt gun with the kosher method, with the idea that the heart (and fear of the process) would help the heart beat stronger, and pump out more blood. How much more, I don't know. I might not have even been given completely correct info. 

3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

One will be conscious while the other will not. The cow shot will in effect have its heart stop by having no further communication with the brain to function.

The bolt-shot (stunned) unconscious animal might be in a kind of shock, lowering the heart rate I would assume, but I suppose the amount of blood drained could be similar, but might take longer, when compared with an animal that is fully alert, and the throat is slit with a fully beating heart. I think it's interesting that our slaughterhouse told us that the kosher method is faster because the animal is so afraid of dying that the blood is pumping more strongly and the heart rate is off the charts. But more recently, when more people are interested in whether the animal experiences fear and suffering, the kosher method is sometimes touted as "instant death" -- which it definitely is not.

3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

If the cow is conscious or not, if the heart is beating or not. The process will have the same end result. The animal’s blood will be drained.

That might be. And I might have been given wrong information about how the kosher method supposedly drains more blood, by throat slitting without ever knocking out or stunning the animal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

ARE WE TRYING TO CONVINCE GOD WHAT HE REALLY HAD IN MIND?

We don't really care, or shouldn't care as much what God had in mind in Genesis, Exodus, or Leviticus. But we should care what James and Peter had in mind when they gave an edict "abstain from blood" to Paul and Barnabas to spread among the Gentile believers.

Even so, I think you are right -- assuming that we truly believe that the intent of the edict "abstain from blood" referred to any means of taking it into the body. And this is exactly what we believe, whether by medical procedure or by consumption through the mouth.

I always imagined it like this:

  • Let's say Adam and Eve had been told to abstain from eating from a certain tree of the garden and let's say that this tree had been, for example, a banana tree, and there was only one of these trees in the whole garden. So they proceed to pick the fruit and find ways to make food products from it: banana puree, banana wine, banana sugar, banana jam, dried banana chips, banana powder, banana oil, including products from banana peels, banana leaves, banana tree bark, and banana tree roots. Satan appears in the form of a tarantula spider and tells them that all these products are just fine because they aren't really eating from the tree, they are eating byproducts from the tree. Satan says that as long as you process and smash and dry and mix and powder and recombine with other products, it's not really the same as eating from the banana tree. Just don't eat the whole banana fruit at once,  or the whole leaf, or the whole root, or the whole peel. Otherwise, it's just a matter of conscience. 

I should add, however, that in the last couple of years, I've changed my mind on just how far one could apply this specific illustration. And now --based on something very specific and clear that the apostle Paul wrote-- I think that the whole blood issue is entirely a matter of conscience. Due to conscience, I might personally view the matter more strongly than another believer, or less strongly. But I would not wish to impose my own conscientious view on others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I think that the whole blood issue is entirely a matter of conscience. Due to conscience, I might personally view the matter more strongly than another believer, or less strongly. But I would not wish to impose my own conscientious view on others.

I agree .... what other people do or do not do, inside and outside of the Truth in this regard, is their business between them and God, and his Christ.

I am not their master ...

If I was given the job, I would reject it.

However, what bugs the hell out of me is rationalizing, irrational arguments of those who float like leaves on the winds of adopting specious thinking, adopting bogus philosophical arguments, BECAUSE they are afraid of dying.

Without Divine Intervention, 1,500 years from now, we ALL will have been dead approximately that long ... and that is just the beginning.

For perspective, I strongly suspect that each "Creative Day" was, and is, one-half billion years in duration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

That might be. And I might have been given wrong information about how the kosher method supposedly drains more blood, by throat slitting without ever knocking out or stunning the animal.

Kosher is a different process of preparation. This is in keeping with the Jewish tradition of not allowing the animal to suffer. Some might suggest in order for food to be kosher, it needs the blessing of a Rabbi. Both instances carry a ceremonial theme.

Kosher, also means what animal is good. This tradition has no biblical application since God told Noah all animals would be food. While cow's and goats are okay, pigs are not. The emphases are with, what “fit to eat” means without having no biblical support. This tradition continues in some cultures, today.

 When draining the blood of an animal, you will find there is no real difference. Both methods have the animal strung up to allow the blood to flow down. The conscious state of the animal doesn't determine the outcome by the method used. It's the process.

Activist found some of those methods inhumane and cruel. Methods approved by the FSIS are captive bolt pistol, regular pistol, electric shock.

This brings us back to the question, does kosher meat have less blood than meat processed through conventional means. I would agree the 72 hours of the shechitah process, meat can be cleaner but under a microscope how much cleaner. Being washed and none eatable parts removed are extra steps, I would think the meat would be a cleaner.

This doesn’t imply, meat processed in a slaughterhouse is not washed but recent salmonella outbreaks do come to mind.

 This brings us to what James used as an illustration to the council of Jerusalem. The ancient scrolls. The Gentiles would be taught the ways of the Jew, and not eat strangled animals and blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • By The Librarian
      Certain foods, notably pork and shellfish, are forbidden; meat and dairy may not be combined and meat must be ritually slaughtered and salted to remove all traces of blood. Observant Jews will eat only meat or poultry that is certified kosher.
    • Guest Indiana
      By Guest Indiana
      Question:  Why did Jehovah’s Witnesses  recently organize a worldwide letter writing campaign due to the persecution in Russia and not for other countries where there is also persecution?
    • Guest Indiana
      By Guest Indiana
      Justice has authorized an premature newborn to receive blood transfusions, as opposed to the child's parents, who are Jehovah's Witnesses, a religion that prohibits the procedure. The ban occurred after maternity leave, in Goiânia, to come in with a request. The information is from G1.
      The child was born just 28 weeks and weighs just over 1 kg. Therefore, he was accepted as a bed for neonatal intensive care (ICU). The medical report shows that the baby has anemia and may need a "transfusion" at any time, as it does not show improvement.
      Judge Clauber Costa Abreu stated in his judgment that the release of blood transfusion is a right to life for a person who has not yet received the blood transfusion. can answer for itself. He used the Child and Youth Charter (ECA) to provide security in his decision. The judge also explained that he does not deny the couple's religious freedom, but access to health and life must prevail.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By The Librarian
      An older instructional video a brother made to help others out.
    • Guest Indiana
      By Guest Indiana
      I read this question at another site, it is interesting to me since as far as I know in Spanish we don't use that phrase: 
       
      JWs don't say, "I am a Jehovah's Witness."
      Instead, they say, "I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses."
      What does the second way of saying it convey that the first does not?
      In other words, why does the organization prefer the second formulation?
      This isn't a teaser.
      I really don't know the answer.
       
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Is not that equivalent to boast about the "many" hours you dedicate preaching about God over others who have not the same agenda?
       
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      What should I gift a new born of Jehovah's Witnesses?
    • By She
      How can I get comments for watchtower study’s  pictures ?
    • Guest Nicole
      By Guest Nicole
      Are Jehovah's Witnesses allowed to vote?
    • By James Thomas Rook Jr.
      .
      Why doesn't the Society translate and provide the Russian Court Transcripts for us?
      Since somewhere around 5.5 million Brothers spent somewhere around 20 million hours writing letters to the officials of the Russian Federation mailing an average of somewhere around 4 letters each at an international postage rate of perhaps 80 MILLION DOLLARS, total ... why has the WTB&TS not translated FOR THE BROTHERHOOD, translations of the Russian REAL transcripts, so we will know exactly what is going on?
      You would think that for 80 or so MILLION DOLLARS, some usable hard data would be forthcoming, from people that reportedly are the world's best translators !!
      This affects the Brotherhood worldwide, as well as being banned in the Russian Federation .... I sure hope this is not a repeat of the Haiti Relief Fiasco, where the news was so onerous, the WTB&TS Relief efforts intertwined with the United Nations, and the Red Cross that the news of what really happened throughout the relief effort could not be published on the Society's "News" portion of the web site.
      Why doesn't the Society translate and provide the Russian Court Transcripts for us?.
      ... and the WORLD at large!
      .That is hard news EVERYBODY can use!
    • By The Librarian
      New research in the USA shows that Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions recover from heart surgery faster and with fewer complications than those who have transfusions.
      Patients who are Jehovah's Witnesses had better survival rates, shorter hospital stays, fewer additional operations for bleeding and spent fewer days in the intensive care unit than those who received blood trans­fusions during surgery, a study in the Archives of Internal Medicine shows.
      Jehovah's Witnesses undergo extensive blood conservation before surgery, including red blood-cell boosting erythropoietin drugs, iron and B-complex vitamins to guard against anaemia. The practice offered a "unique natural experiment" for scientists to study the short and long-term effects of the blood management strategy and may point to ways to reduce need for transfusions, researchers said.
      The study included 322 Jehovah's Witness patients and 87,453 other patients who underwent heart surgery at the Cleveland Clinic from 1983 to 2011. All Jehovah's Witness patients refused blood transfusions. In the other group, 38,467 did not receive transfusions while 48,986 did.
      The authors wanted to look at the difference between patients who receive blood transfusions during surgery and Jehovah's Witness patients, who undergo strict blood conservation practices before, during and after surgery, Koch said.
      While many patients do not have blood transfusions during and after heart surgery, they also do not undergo the same blood conservation practices that doctors use for Jehovah's Witness patients.
      Jehovah's Witness patients had an 86 per cent chance of survival at five years and a 34 per cent chance of survival 20 years after surgery, compared with 74 per cent at five years and 23 per cent at 20 years for non-Jehovah's Witness patients who had transfusions.

      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.
    • By Jack Ryan
      Hello guest! Please register or sign in (it's free) to view the hidden content.  
  • Forum Statistics

    60,057
    Total Topics
    109,377
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,194
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Vinod
    Newest Member
    Vinod
    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.