Many Miles

I think you've answered my question. Thanks. What you state about it being noticeable is interesting. On this issue there are mortality statistics available, but these are likely not understood for what they say to the average person. This is because "cause of death" is usually attributed to underlying cause rather than an intermediate cause, when had the intermediate incident been different the death would have been avoided. If you had to name a primary medical issue leading to mortality related to blood, what would be your top five?

You're not answering the question I'm getting at. Let me rephrase it: Does Christ's Law require Christians abide by provisions of the Mosaic law when it comes to blood abstention?

So, just so I'm perfectly clear, you believe Christians are bound to provisions of the Mosaic law when it comes to blood abstention?

To be in harmony means no more than to be consistent with and not contrary to. Here's something else the society teaches specifically about blood in relation to what predated Mosaic law vs. Mosaic law: "At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowance was made for selling to an alien resident or a foreigner an animal that had died of itself or that had been torn by a beast. Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of animals that a person slaughtered for food. (Compare Le 17:14-16.) The Israelites, as well as alien residents who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant, were obligated to live up to the lofty requirements of that Law. People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Genesis 9:3, 4, but those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to that requirement than were foreigners and alien residents who had not become worshipers of Jehovah." (Ref Insight, blood, emphasis added) Hence, were one to abide by Mosaic law they were also abiding by Gen 9, but everyone abiding by Gen 9 were not necessarily abiding by Mosaic law. That's what the society teaches.

Here is what the society teaches about the "three things" you alluded to: "When the issue involving application of the Mosaic Law to Gentile Christians was presented to the governing body in Jerusalem in the first century, their decision was in harmony with these facts. They recognized that Jehovah was not requiring Gentile believers to perform works in obedience to the Mosaic Law before holy spirit was poured out on them. The decision of that governing body did list as “necessary things” certain prohibitions that were in harmony with that Law, but these were based on the Bible record concerning events that predated the Law. So there was not an imposing on Gentile Christians of a responsibility to conform to the Mosaic Law or some portion of it but, rather, there was a confirming of standards recognized prior to Moses." (Ref United in Worship book, underlining added)

The society teaches the "three things" you refer to come from requirements predating Mosaic law. I guess that's the part you're missing.

I agree. But you characterized the occurrence as "occasional". How many times need I ask to get an answer of what you mean by that? If you can't quantify it then how to do characterize it as you have? So what does your characterization mean? Fight? Not hardly. I don't care a wit one way or another. I'm just asking a legit question. If you don't want to answer then just don't answer.

Of course the who blood policy of the society stands squarely on Mosaic law. Only, the society says that's not the case.

How can you realize something you've never personally known of? You must have some idea in your mind of how often an occurrence. You characterized it as "occasional". What is that supposed to mean?

That's a nice opinion. But it fails the test. Of the substance of blood, nothing whatsoever records God having humans treat blood as a sacred substance until Mosaic Law. Pre-flood humans were not required to treat blood as a sacred substance. Post-flood, humans were still not required to treat the substance of blood as sacred. I think you conflate the value God attributes to life with the substance of blood. Everything you say I find agreement in biblical text in relation to life. But regarding the substance of blood, I see none of it until the time of Mosaic Law. The thing about not boiling a baby its mother's milk? I totally get that. But this thing about the substance of blood? You conflate.

TTH, based on what you write above, you have an opinion of something you describe as "the occasional price that has been paid". Presumably you're referring to deaths caused by the society's position on blood. What, in your experience, does "occasional" mean? For example, how many of this sort of deaths would a single congregation experience over what period of time. 1 per 5 years? 1 per 10 years? 1 per 15 years? 1 per 20 years? 1 per 25 years? 1 per 30 years? 1 per 35 years? 1 per 40 years? I'm curious what your experience is and how you'd quantify "the occasional price". I understand you'd only be speaking of one man's opinion and experience. But you do have an opinion, because you shared a characterization of it.

Bartholin's opinion was based a premise that transfusing blood is equivalent to eating blood. For more than a century that notion has been known to be false. If you're going to place confidence an notions from the 17th century then maybe we need to re-start witch swimming to know who's innocent and who's guilty. I can understand why Bartholin held the opinion he held. But I can't understand why anyone in the 21st century would hold that eating blood is equivalent to transfusing blood. It's just false. Plain false. Transfused blood works as tissue, not nutrition. I'm sure that's reassuring to family who've lost loved ones for nothing more than bad teaching. Worse, for known false teaching. My primary concern is for individuals who devotedly follow what the society teaches on the subject simply because they've been convinced to trust and obey whatever it says.

Lot of truth in that comment. A lot!

When reading for pleasure my interests tend to be history and biographical. I like fiction on the big screen, especially science fiction. But fiction books were just never a thing for me. If I'm not reading for pleasure the analytical part of me comes out. I work to keep it at bay. But sometimes I open my mouth, or keyboard the submit reply button without realizing I might be ruining someone's day for no reason. I don't know much about your written works, but it sounds like you have fun with it. By itself that's reason enough to keep at it. Ignore people like me.

When I say a presentation looks like an apologetic work it's not a disparagement. There's nothing wrong with apologetic presentations. What I mean by "apologetic work" is a presentation that's written to protect a particular point of view. What you wrote about problems related to donor blood and its availability and efficacy for transfusion medicine is not necessarily false, but it may lead to a false impression. Here's an example of what I mean: You have two patients. Both patients are otherwise healthy young adults. But they have just suffered horrendous trauma and are hemorrhaging blood at an alarming rate. Each is bleeding out internally so fast that both will die before the underlying reason(s) for hemorrhage can be found, let alone remedied. Their Hb levels are lower than 2.0 g/dL. What to do? The doctors need more time. One thing can give them that time. Transfusion of volume expander and red cells. This will buy time to find and attempt to repair underlying cause(s) of hemorrhage, if that's possible. All the problems you pointed out remain. But the simple fact is that if one of those patients accepts red cell transfusion and one declines, then there's a near 100% probability that one of those patients will die. When it comes to subjects like this, any and all problems deserve attention and discussion, but if medical outcome is the critical factor then that factor can't be ignored as though it doesn't matter. So, for instance, the patient who accepted red cells and lived, maybe he contracts some disease or condition the result of that choice. But he's alive to deal with it. If you want to write about difficulties of medical use of blood then do that. If you want to write about religious aspects of medical use of blood then do that. But those two things have nothing to do with one another. If religiously taking red cells is wrong then say so and show why religiously. If medically taking red cells is wrong then say so and show why medically. Sweeping statements about problems of using blood can easily mislead. Apologetic works are written to protect (defend) a particular point of view. I prefer works that are written to share information and let people make of what they will. But, again, there is nothing inherently wrong with apologetic works.

I'll just get my popcorn.

I understand what you mean now. Newspapers, for the most part, write to sell rather than write to educate. I don't really pay much attention to them, except to get a general idea of what's going on in the world. That's probably why I didn't pick up on the nuance you pointed out to me. Thanks.

Maybe I missed something, but the article I read that you linked to was an apologetic work. Bizarre is often in the script when writing to protect a view rather than writing to share a view. Is there a link you provided I missed? Here's the one I read: https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2007/10/blood-transfusi.html

I don't understand that comment. Nothing on "the list of alternatives" is a "cure all". What do you mean?

First off, blood transfusions are no panacea, which you realize of course. When it comes to "blood transfusions", all sorts of products are rendered from donor whole blood for transfusion. No products rendered from blood for transfusion are a panacea, and all of them have risks and benefits. Now, as for the usage of "life saving", it's common usage for a wide array of therapeutics. It is false to say the term is never separated from blood transfusion. As a adjective the term is applied when context suggests it is applicable, no matter the noun it's describing. If you're bleeding out and on the cusp of death for lack of blood, about the only "life saving" hope you have is transfusion of red cells. But you'll find the adjective "life saving" frequently used colloquially for many things, including emergency transports.

Hey. I was just confessing!

I believe in evolution. I know this will stagger the faith of some participants here. But I just have to say it. Evidence: This discussion started by asking the question "How many here have ever held an MCP party card to look it over and see what it is?" Watching the subsequent path of this discussion has made me a believer. Oh, and we even have a talking beaver chiming in from time to time!

A sobering reminder that a benefit-to-risk analysis is critical for any biological tissue transplantation, and transfusion of any product rendered from blood is precisely that. This is why, for example, transfusion of products like cryosupernatant are not recommended for basic need of a volume expander. In that case, there are much safer products. But, if a patient presents with TTP and they need plasma exchange therapy to survive, then cryosupernatant rises in terms of a benefit-to-risk analysis.

Many years ago I performed a little experiment involving hospital liaison committees and their training. It was fairly easy. At that time various members in diverse parts of the world had published email accounts in recommended practices documents published for use in hospital systems. I asked a simple question. Could JWs accept transfusion of cryosupernatant plasma as a matter of personal conscience? With one exception, each responded that they didn't know, but they'd check and get back with me. The one exception responded initially that he didn't think so, but he too said he'd check to make sure. Eventually every one of them responded with an answer. Yes. They could. When the one HLC elder who initially had guessed "No" responded, he said "You should realize this component from blood is on the very limit of what we can accept as a matter of conscience." My experiment was not to test knowledge of HLC members. What I wondered was just how tightly held the information was. It turned out it was so tightly held that not one of the HLCs I contacted knew the answer. That's how close to the vest that information was being kept. It was professionals in the medical field who first made it known to public view about this product being acceptable if a JW wanted to take it. Even today, you can't find any reference at all to this at the society's web page, unless you first go to the special Medical Information for Clinicians section. Even then, all you find there is a link to an article on the use of it for TTP patients.

My piece of advice: Conduct your own thorough research in order to draw a conclusion worthy of being owned by you. You have to know your own capabilities and limitations, but don't let other people think for you if you can help it. There are folks with passions, and there are folks with biases, and there are outright charlatans too. Of course, there are unbiased experts. But you have to dig to make sure whatever information you gather is viable, and then you have to make sure whatever you deduce from that information is done soundly.