What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

As you rightly noted, the book serves as an invaluable guide for Elders to navigate various situations that may arise. It is crucial to acknowledge that Elders exercise discretion in matters concerning the congregation, as the Watchtower cannot possibly dictate every decision. After all, even imperfect human beings, like ourselves, make mistakes regularly. None of us can claim to be perfect in a flawless world. It is often those who are quick to criticize others that fail to recognize their own shortcomings. These individuals mistakenly assume their voice should hold authority, even though their understanding may lack wisdom and discernment.

Who should we trust and strive to emulate: the Pharisees or Christ?

Although I can agree with the assumption that some guidelines should exist for those who are required to implement such guidelines, we can hardly consider them "invaluable".
The reason, which you yourself confirm my opinion, is found in the continuation of your comment, when you talk again and again about "imperfections, mistakes" that are inherent in human organizations. So, if something is imperfect and with errors, then the "Shepherd" book is not "invaluable" in any sense. Especially, when these same elders, who have to implement the "guidelines of the Organization" (of lawyer's), cannot (should not) rely on their conscience, understanding and logic in some decisions.

[Pudgy]

Actually, I found the book “Shepherding The Flock Of God“ to be quite valuable.

I found absolutely nothing wrong with it, having read every word from cover to cover, although the part dealing about brazen conduct was creepy and a catchall for anything the Elders didn’t like, like when you confronted them with overreach.

”Brazen Conduct”. (?)

What I did not like is that it was top-secret. What I did not like is that sisters were not supposed to know of it’s existence, or touch it..

How would you feel if you were dragged into court for some traffic offense or some criminal offense and you wanted to know what you were charged with, and the court or the police said I’m sorry I’m not allowed to tell you what law you broke or to know in advance what they are, and you’re not allowed to know how the proceeding is going to go against you.

SURPRISE!!

And if you’re convicted it’s roughly the equivalent of being executed, Because you’ll be evicted from the Congregation from which is the source of life.

Secrecy ALWAYS begets tyranny! 

[Many Miles]

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

It doesn’t say anything about carcass already dead… because you will be eating them with blood..I don’t understand  how you don’t get  this ,…..but…I know they eventually did this…..but it wasn’t Jehovahs instructions to do so.

you are reading into it something that isn’t there….

There's that.

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

Okay I get that bit now..thanks for the correction and over look any remarks concerning this….

And, there's this.

Does this mean I have no need to respond to that?

Had I known you were Aussie, I'd have kept my work here to just a sentence or two at-a-time.

[Pudgy]

“Brazen Conduct” is one of those nebulous indefinite and non-defined terms that can in the hands of the inexperienced inflict TREMENDOUS damage to people with strong personalities.

Often with BRAZEN disregard for reality, or consequences.

 

[Pudgy]

That’s why the disingenuous create “upvote clones” to feed their egos. Transparent and silly , but it makes them feel valuable. 

[Srecko Sostar]

5 hours ago, George88 said:

You constantly highlight all the negative aspects of the Org, yet fail to acknowledge the significance. Secular laws are subject to change, and this necessitates that Elders receive guidance to support their decision-making.

 

Illustration. When WTJWorg builds KH and residential buildings, under what laws does it do so? Does it have a building internal manual just for JW workers? I guess it adheres to "secular" building regulations.

Biblical Law says that lawbreakers, even JW members, are subject to punishment by a "secular court", not a JW court. Why, then, did the WTJWorg Australia branch keep a record of law breakers and not report a single one to the authorities? Similar is in all other countries. Because the manual (Shepherd book) told them to call Bethel, and they told them, "keep it to yourself."

The "secular law" was not changed, and neither was the biblical law. Both laws say that "Caesar" should decide about crimes.

[Thinking]

8 hours ago, Many Miles said:

There's that.

And, there's this.

Does this mean I have no need to respond to that?

Had I known you were Aussie, I'd have kept my work here to just a sentence or two at-a-time.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit….but that’s okay..I know it must be hard to know I licked ya!!

[Srecko Sostar]

I came across some more interesting information that I would like to share with you.
You remember that we saw how God arranged the issue of dead animals for human consumption. He told the Israelis that they were not allowed to eat such animals, but that they could freely sell them to non-Israelis, thus commercializing the prohibition to their advantage.
However, I came across an article from the WT, October 15, 1981, which puts a negative light on that decree of God if it were to be applied today. 

Quotes (not in same order as in article):

...Finally, questions have arisen about disposing of animal carcasses that have blood in them. In Israel a person who found a carcass of an animal that died of itself could sell it to a foreigner who was not interested in keeping God’s law. (Deut. 14:21) It is noteworthy, however, that this provision was not made so that an Israelite might make a regular business of trafficking in blood or unbled meat. .........

....Accordingly, a farmer today might have to get rid of an unbled carcass, such as a cow that he found dead so that it was no longer possible to drain the blood. Or a hunter might find a dead animal in a trap. What could he do with such an unbled animal? Sell the carcass to a rendering plant? Sell the dead animal to a non-Christian who had some personal or commercial use for the flesh? The individual Christian would have to decide for himself after considering what the law of the land requires and factors such as those discussed above, including the value of having a good conscience before God and men.—Acts 24:16 -

.....Yet Christians know from the Bible that blood is not simply another biological product to be used in any way possible or profitable.

.....Do you see the point? Though they could eat neither blood nor fat, Jehovah said that they could put fat to uses other than in sacrifice. But God did not say that about blood. If blood was not put on the altar, it was to be poured out on the ground, thus returning the animal’s life to the Life-Giver.—Lev. 7:22-27.

Christians are not under the Mosaic law. (Rom. 7:6; Col. 2:13-16) We are, though, specifically commanded to “abstain . . . from blood.” And we surely ought to respect the sacredness of blood, realizing that our salvation has been made possible through the blood of Christ. (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:13, 14, 20) A Christian who deeply appreciates this does not need endless rules about what he should do with regard to commercial uses of blood.

Consider, for instance, the use of blood as fertilizer. When an Israelite hunter poured an animal’s blood out on the ground it was not in order to fertilize the soil. He was pouring it on the earth out of respect for blood’s sacredness. So, would a Christian with a similar appreciation of the significance of blood deliberately collect it from slaughtered animals so that he could use it as fertilizer? Hardly, for such commercialization of blood would not be in accord with deep respect for the life-representing value of blood.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1981770

 

We must be clear about one fact. WTJWorg equates animal blood with human blood. This is something that deserves further discussion. Because every blood prohibition mentioned in the Bible is related to animal blood and flesh.

In the past, the commercialization of blood was not prohibited. Today GB considers it something bad and non-Christian behavior. They go so far as to admonish JWs that it would be improper to feed our pets with the blood of other animals.

The GB literally interprets the commandment "to abstain from the blood" of the flesh of animals to mean that the animal must be slaughtered and that the blood must be bled, poured on the ground.

Now the problem begins when this teaching (Bible command) should be applied to human blood. Obviously, GB believes that other rules apply here. But they didn't explain why.

If all blood is to be "poured on earth", how is it possible that GB has no objection to human blood being collected and commercialized?

How is it possible that GB thinks that JWs are allowed to use blood, even some parts of blood, when that blood has come out of the body and therefore cannot be used for any purpose other than the one that God intended for it? God intended the use of blood only as a sacrifice.

Is the blood that people donate (or charge for it, anyway) a kind of act that implies some kind of sacrifice (for humanitarian reasons) for another human being?

 

[Srecko Sostar]

13 minutes ago, George88 said:

Would it be more appropriate to construct synagogues or worship in tents to address your question?

I've never had the chance to pitch a tent, but I don't think that skill should be underestimated.

14 minutes ago, George88 said:

The Elders actually have a list that covers a span of 65 years, documenting the actions of certain individuals, but not everyone. This is done while respecting the privacy laws of the respective governments. However, it is not accurate to claim that the Watchtower instructed anyone to keep this information to themselves. In fact, there was a situation in the Australian Royal Commission where at least one person, who was being investigated, insisted that secular authorities should not be contacted.

Address that situation.

ARC said that WTJWorg had not reported a single case. What came to the police was because of individuals who reported the crime.

16 minutes ago, George88 said:

This is incorrect as well. Secular laws were modified to accommodate the Australian Royal Commission (ARC). However, some territories in Australia still maintain clergy privileges that apply to "all" religions, not just a few. In matters of government, it's a matter of all or nothing, and the decision to protect the Vatican, just as the government did with "Pall", was made by Caesar, not the Watchtower.

Why haven't you challenged the ARC's decision to overlook Australia's detention centers and the government's readiness to apprehend and imprison doctors, nurses, or any whistleblowers who expose concerns regarding these institutions? Back then, a law was specifically passed for that very purpose.

I will answer that in a "stupid" way: "The whole world is under the power of Satan. And people are imperfect. What to expect?". 

.....WTJWorg operate under same conditions.

Good answer?  

 

[Many Miles]

This discussion includes all manner of responses on the subject. There are some I haven't read because of a few responders I've placed on ignore. I don't mind responses that disagree, so long as they offer some kind of rational refutation. So here, I'm reducing this discussion to a series of propositions and questions. I'll supply my answers to each in a followup post. I look forward to seeing how other participants answer, or not.

Proposition 1: When God created biological life on earth either animals were created to live forever or they were not. Question of Proposition 1:  Do you think animal life was created to live forever? If yes, why. If no, why?

Proposition 2: When God gave humans and animals express permission to eat vegetation of the earth, either that was an exhaustive itemization of what humans could eat or it was not. Question of Proposition 2:  Do you think this an exhaustive itemization of what humans could eat? If yes, why. If no, why?

Proposition 3: When God forbid humans from eating of the tree of knowledge, either that was the sole food forbidden to humans or it was not. Question of Proposition 3:  Do you think eating from the tree of knowledge was the sole food forbidden to humans? If yes, why. If no, why?

Proposition 4: When God gave Noah express permission to gather and eat from every sort of food eaten, either we accept that Noah could gather and eat from every sort of food eaten or we do not. Question of Proposition 4:  Do you accept that Noah was given express permission to gather and eat from every sort of food eaten? If yes, why. If no, why?

Proposition 5: When God told Noah "Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat" either God said those words of living animals that Noah had just been told he could use as food, or not. Proposition 5:  Did God say those words of living animals Noah had just been told he could use as food, or not. If yes, why. If no, why?

[Many Miles]

Proposition 1: When God created biological life on earth either animals were created to live forever or they were not. Question of Proposition 1:  Do you think animal life was created to live forever? If yes, why. If no, why?

My answer to proposition 1: No. Because 1) Peter spoke of unreasoning animals as "naturally" being destroyed, and 2) unlike humankind nothing in the Genesis account suggests animals could not die.

Proposition 2: When God gave humans and animals express permission to eat vegetation of the earth, either that was an exhaustive itemization of what humans could eat or it was not. Question of Proposition 2:  Do you think this an exhaustive itemization of what humans could eat? If yes, why. If no, why?

My answer to proposition 2: No. The natural created world is God's testimony just as the Bible is God's testimony. Water. As created, water is the majority component of human bodies with a result that water is a primary and essential nutrient for human life. Humans must eat water to live. Vegetation may contain water, but vegetation is not water. Water was not itemized for eating. For me to accept vegetation represents the sum total of what humans could eat would force me to accept that Adam was not free to palm and drink water from the river in Eden. I can't imagine this, and doing so would be contrary to what we see in creation. Milk. Human females naturally produce milk which new born infants need for healthy life. Milk was not itemized for eating. For me to accept vegetation represents the sum total of what humans could eat would force me to accept that early human babies were not free to suckle milk from the mothers' teats. I can't imagine this, and doing so would contrary to what we see in creation. Because there are essential foods that are not vegetation, then vegetation could not be the exhaustive list of food humans could consume.

Proposition 3: When God forbid humans from eating of the tree of knowledge, either that was the sole food forbidden to humans or it was not. Question of Proposition 3:  Do you think eating from the tree of knowledge was the sole food forbidden to humans? If yes, why. If no, why?

My answer to proposition 3: Yes. God had the ability to tell early humans what food item, if any, He required humans to abstain from eating, and He did so, including that a penalty would result in the eating of this forbidden food.

Proposition 4: When God gave Noah express permission to gather and eat from every sort of food eaten, either we accept that Noah could gather and eat from every sort of food eaten or we do not. Question of Proposition 4:  Do you accept that Noah was given express permission to gather and eat from every sort of food eaten? If yes, why. If no, why?

My answer to proposition 4: Yes. God had the ability to tell Noah what food items, if any, He wanted him to gather and use as food at his preference, and He did so. Every sort of food eaten would have included anything then eaten as food by humans or animals.

Proposition 5: When God told Noah "Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat" either God said those words of living animals that Noah had just been told he could use as food, or not. Proposition 5:  Did God say those words of living animals Noah had just been told he could use as food, or not. If yes, why. If no, why?

My answer to proposition 5: Yes. Because regarding biological tissue, the entire text of this address of God to Noah speaks of and only of things soulical.

[Anna]

 

5 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Proposition 5: When God told Noah "Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat" either God said those words of living animals that Noah had just been told he could use as food, or not. Proposition 5:  Did God say those words of living animals Noah had just been told he could use as food, or not. If yes, why. If no, why?

My answer to proposition 5: Yes. Because regarding biological tissue, the entire text of this address of God to Noah speaks of and only of things soulical.

Same answers as you except for the last one.

I do not think God meant for Noah to eat animals while they were still alive and kicking. He had to kill them first, and then drain the blood out so he would not be eating flesh with blood.