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

[Srecko Sostar]

I just came across this title:

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses competent to resolve the issue of blood transfusion? - Włodzimierz Bednarski

https://www.academia.edu/41133507/Are_Jehovahs_Witnesses_competent_to_resolve_the_issue_of_blood_transfusion?email_work_card=view-paper

[Many Miles]

6 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Domination has led to a global alienation between man and nature. Man is mostly a master who selfishly exploits and destroys all living things around him. The Bible translations use the term "rule over" the plant and animal world, over the earth (the planet). The consequences are catastrophic, but God has allowed or even commanded it, without giving instructions on how people should rule.

From a macro-perspective, humans act like a virus consuming planet earth.

7 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

On the other hand, although there is no commandment or prohibition to rule over people, this is a consequence of the biblical text. For we are dealing here with ideas: 1) If something is not expressly forbidden, is it permitted or permissible? 2) If something is not expressly permitted, is it forbidden?

If something is not expressly forbidden it just means it's not expressly forbidden. It does not suggest permission or prohibition.

If something is not expressly permitted it just means it's not expressly permitted. it does not suggest it might be permitted or that is is prohibited.

Logically, it would be false to assert lack of permission means forbidden. This is because the premise asserts a false bifurcation that if something is not permitted that means it's forbidden when there could be reasons other than "it's forbidden" that a permission has not been expressed.

Lack of permission would only mean forbidden when there is present a demonstrable premise that everything is prohibited except that which is permitted. Without that latter demonstrable premise, lack of permission does not implicate forbidden.

16 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Did God give Adam authority over Eve? To rule over her? Is this stated directly or indirectly somewhere in the Bible text? Were Adam and Eve supposed to rule over children, grandchildren and other people?

When Eve was created she was presented as a compliment of Adam, suggesting a helping partnership. (Gen 2:18-22)

After the fall into sin, Eve was told Adam would dominate her. (Gen 3:16)

[Pudgy]

Or …. wait until I am safely dead!

[Many Miles]

38 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I just came across this title:

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses competent to resolve the issue of blood transfusion? - Włodzimierz Bednarski

https://www.academia.edu/41133507/Are_Jehovahs_Witnesses_competent_to_resolve_the_issue_of_blood_transfusion?email_work_card=view-paper

From the Introduction, we find this statement:

"In our study, we will clearly point out that this variability in medical issues makes the Watchtower Society an incompetent organization in this field, and especially regarding its determination of refusing blood transfusions."

I have to agree with that statement. When asked about the fundamental underpinnings of its doctrinal position on blood, the society has said the following:

Item 1: When asked by an elder why we would disfellowship/disassociate a JW for conscientiously taking a transfusion of a blood product like white cells but not for taking a product like cryoprecipitate, the society’s response was to say ‘while both may affect the life of the individual, both whole blood and major components (meaning red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma) carry nutrition to the body, and it is this aspect of providing nourishment that links blood transfusion with the biblical prohibition.’

Item 2: To another elder who asked a similar question, the response was to say “In weighing matters scripturally, the “slave" has decided with good-basis that blood's four primary components-plasma,-red cells, white cells, and platelets-should not be used. That is how unfractionated blood components settle out naturally. In its still unbroken-down state, each separated primary component, regardless of its respective percentage of whole blood, can still represent basically what blood as a whole symbolizes: the life of the creature.”

The problem with these two items of response is that both contain utter falsehood.

Regarding Item 1 above, it leverages the biblical statement to Noah about eating blood of animals killed to use them as food. (See Gen 9) The problem is, it is well known that transfusion of red cells offers no nutritional support. None. To be clear, if a patient was transfused with forbidden red cells for nutritional support, they would die of starvation. On the other hand, and ironically, if a patient were transfused with permitted cryosupernatant plasma it would offer a decent measure of nutritional support. Hence, not only is utter falsehood found in this position, the position is also self-contradictory.

Regarding Item 2 above, it leverages what we find in the natural world. (See Ps 19) The problem is, it is patently false to say blood settles out naturally as plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. First of all, there is no instance in nature where this is true. None. In nature, when blood settles out, it settles out as two components, not four. Those two components are serum and a clot. Second, were it true that blood settles out naturally as plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets, we’d all be dead. This is because our blood is designed to clot if it is not circulating. If it does not clot then even small abrasions could lead to death because we’d bleed out. So this idea is just flat out false. 

Because the two fundamental underpinnings the society asserts for its religious position are total nonsense, then either they are just flat out dishonest or, as the author above says, the society is "an incompetent organization in this field".

Honestly, folks inside the society should feel utterly embarrassed at this nonsense, and perhaps this explains why not a single insider with any authority is willing to publicly discuss this subject with a learned person on its merit. All they will do in public is argue that a religion has a right to hold doctrinal views, and that individuals have a right to hold doctrinal views. But publicly address the merit with a learned person? No. Never! Well, they are right that religions and individuals have a right to hold whatever religious view they want, but that doesn't mean a religious view they hold is rational or, in this case, scriptural.

[Many Miles]

50 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I just came across this title:

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses competent to resolve the issue of blood transfusion? - Włodzimierz Bednarski

https://www.academia.edu/41133507/Are_Jehovahs_Witnesses_competent_to_resolve_the_issue_of_blood_transfusion?email_work_card=view-paper

Also from this book we find this statement:

"Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot become blood donors (for those who do not share JWs’ views), even if the blood would be solely used to obtain a blood fraction or produce medicine made out of blood:"

The author cites a source for this comment, but unfortunately for him, the source is outdated and the new position has never been published by the society. So what the author states here is false.

The author quotes a 1983 publication from the society to support his statement. However, in year 2000 that position changed. But, guess what? The society has YET to publish that change in doctrinal position. I once asked Fred Rusk why the society hadn't published that JWs could donate blood for purposes of extracting permitted "fractions". He said, 'It's not something we want to talk up.' But the society did change its position on this matter beginning in year 2000.

 

[Pudgy]

The society has also never taken a position publicly on zombies marching on Washington DC, to eat the brains of politicians.  Perhaps because they might starve?

Under the “overlapping generations” idea, you could have the DC folks all eating walking carrion, or have the carrion chasing them!

[George88]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I just came across this title:

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses competent to resolve the issue of blood transfusion? - Włodzimierz Bednarski

If someone who authored a book known as "The Ever Changing Teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses" is recognized as a credible critic in an academic context, it would be reasonable to question the legitimacy of their academic paper if it underwent a thorough examination by a reputable peer review process. Furthermore, it is essential to investigate whether their discoveries are firmly based on biblical principles or rigorous academic standards. In an academic setting, one would need to address the reasons behind the mortality of certain individuals following blood transfusions, as well as the transmission of diseases through donor blood. 

Seems no one here can be considered a scholar to address those concerns on an academic level.

[Many Miles]

On 11/5/2023 at 3:26 AM, Thinking said:

I was not born into our faith, I was an adult and worked in the medical field so it was a subject I had to make sure of. Scripturally I don’t understand why anyone cannot understand there is no difference as to eating the blood and being fed the blood via a tube…..you are being FED blood via a tube….this does not require a scientific explanation..it is common sense…

Maybe you worked in the medical field, but you don't seem to understand that blood products like packed red cells are of absolutely no value as parenteral nutrition. Though red cells are loaded with protein, if a patient were starving and given red cells by transfusion as their nutrition, the patient would starve to death because given intravenously the body will not catabolize its own red cells for sake of nutrition.

This has been known since the late 19th Century when Dr. William Hunter and his colleagues published very extensive methods and findings of blood physiology and transfusion medicine. Among other things, of transfusion of whole blood they found, "We have seen that transfused blood possesses no nutritive value." Of the transfused blood's physiology they found, "It behaves, not as a mass of nutritive material, but as a tissue." (British Med J, Hunter et al, 1889 Aug 10, p 308; British Med J, Hunter et al, 1889 July 20, p 117)

Transfusion of blood is, essentially, an organ transplant. We can eat a kidney and get nutrition. We can accept a kidney transplant and we get no nutrition. Transfusing blood works essentially the same way.

The findings of Dr. Hunter et. al. were later confirmed beyond any doubt by further experimentation and research conducted by Drs. J. Garrott Allen, Edward Stemmer and Louis R. Head in the 1950s. They proved conclusively that intravenous administration of red cells offered no nutritional benefit whatsoever. None. Nada. (Annals of Surgery, Allen et al, Sept 1956, pp 345-354; see also J of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Drs. Erik Vinnars and Douglas Wilmore, Vol 27 Numb 23, 2003, p 226)

Oddly enough, though, the same trio of researchers also found that products like cryosupernatant were effective for parenteral nutrition, and this is one of the products rendered from blood the society lets JWs accept transfusion of. This finding was established in the 1930s and conclusive confirmed in the 1950s. (Ibid)

On 11/5/2023 at 3:26 AM, Thinking said:

On the ward and in medical institutions a blood transfusion is considered as dangerous and a organ donation/placement/ transplant

Yes, internal homogenic or xenogenic tissue transplantation should always be weighed carefully. You don't want them if they are not essential to protecting mortality or morbidity. A risk-to-benefit analysis is in order for sure!

[Pudgy]

What were you understand today is absolutely no value whatsoever, no matter how much modern technology and insight we have on that modern technology.

The only thing that really matters is what the apostles meant when they explained  about blood, and what the disciples understood when they heard it, reflecting what God understood when he set the laws, rules, regulations or procedures or powers in place.

Since God has clearly stated that he is very jealous for all blood, and that all blood belongs to him, I personally would not like to be in the position of being a thief of God’s personal possessions.

I’d rather die first.

[Pudgy]

In 200 years, no one on this planet will ever know that we existed and we will have been DEAD a long time.

Jehovah has the power to change all that, so what’s the big freaking deal?

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

In 200 years, no one on this planet will ever know that we existed and we will have been DEAD a long time.

Jehovah has the power to change all that, so what’s the big freaking deal?

The "big freaking deal" is the part of Genesis 9 that holds individuals responsible for deaths caused for teaching something that is false. That falls squarely in the realm of bloodguilt.

1 hour ago, Pudgy said:

Since God has clearly stated that he is very jealous for all blood, and that all blood belongs to him, I personally would not like to be in the position of being a thief of God’s personal possessions.

You've just put words into God's mouth. Under Mosaic Law Jews were to treat blood as a sacred substance that should not be used for anything, with the sole exception of using it for sacred sacrifice, and Jews were required to use blood in that way.

Aside from Mosaic Law God has never required anyone to treat blood as a sacred substance. Noah was not required to waste blood onto the ground. Of living animals he would kill to eat, Noah was not required to pour the animal's blood onto the ground. Noah could do with that blood anything he wanted to do, except for eating it. That was the sole abstention required of Noah in respect to the substance of blood.

Oh, and, before I forget to mention it, God didn't not say anything to Noah about "all blood". The only blood he talked to Noah about was blood of living animals and the blood of human's who were killed for unjustified reason. To Noah, at no time did God address 1) blood of animals dead of natural cause, or 2) donor blood.

One more thing. Christians are not under Mosaic Law. They never have been.

[Many Miles]

22 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I hoped to get back more directly to the topic of Acts 15. It seemed to me that the "James decree" had treated "abstain from blood" as if it had a more specific meaning that might not have included "things strangled." Otherwise why would it need to be added if it were already included in items that were not properly drained, for example? Today we think of the abstain from blood prohibition as already including "things strangled." 

After reviewing resources at my disposal, I offer this:

The thing at issue is language in the apostolic decree. Specifically whether abstain "from blood" and "things strangled" belong in the decree, and if so what that means.

As an initial matter, the letter containing this decree says it is the result of the holy spirit. I don't take that lightly. When someone with miraculous supernatural power says something is of the holy spirit, I listen. And, the men posting this letter are testified to have had such power.

As a second matter, this decree came after Jewish Christians, namely Peter and others who went with him, witnessed holy spirit falling upon gentile worshipers of God, even before they were baptized. Hence Jewish Christians were schooled (let's just say, very pointedly reminded!) that God accepted worship of men and woman outside Jewish law and tradition so long as they met basic standards (though God didn't immediately spell out what that was). Hence, eventually Jewish Christians were going to have to come to grips with the fact that regardless of descent "the man that fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him." But what did this mean? What made their worship acceptable? At the moment, all Jewish Christians knew was they were not the only ones whose worship God accepted; hence Jewish Christians would have to adjust their view of essential elements of acceptable worship, that is in relation to their own Jewish tradition, and in the face of their new faith in Jesus.

That said, this, together with consideration of multiple accounts of this decree (from various early church traditions, i.e., Western, Alexandrian and Caesarean text), most likely both abstain from "blood" and "things strangled" belong in the decree.

So what do we gather from both these being in in the apostolic decree?

Jewish Christians would have to dig deeper than their ritualistic traditions constructed around Mosaic Law, the temple and all that these entail. And, they had a new faith in Jesus that moved them! Holy spirit helped them out. Acceptable worship included essential things aside from Mosaic Law and beyond what natural law would dictate. One item that would fall into this gap had to do with Noahide law. It addressed a prohibition in relation to killing and blood. According to Noahide law, to "abstain from blood" would include abstention from "things strangled" by human hand. So why was "things strangled" included in the decree? It would be repetition. So why include it?

I can't be dogmatic about answering the question. I would say, though, that invoking Noahide law as essential would basically require the notion of abstain "from blood". (I.e., blood of slaughter) So that aspect was a given within the decree. When it came to "things strangled" there could be something practical going on. As a practical matter, the fresher and cleaner the meat the more preferable. Keeping an animal alive until it was sold kept its meat fresher. At the time, meat sold for dietary purposes, if it was killed at the point of sale, would often be strangled then and there. Killing a critter made the carcass more manageable. Killing a critter by strangulation aided in protecting its flesh from external contamination, which is initially helpful. (Modern processing houses for wild game much prefer an animal to be intact as possible. Field dressing, for example, tends to introduce all manner of contaminants that would not otherwise be there to have to deal with.) Hence, the notion of abstain from "things strangled" could arguably be no more than addressing a practical matter that contemporary Christians would find themselves confronted with.

In short, including "abstain from blood" and "things strangled" may mean nothing more than one is statutory language and one addresses a practical matter.

PS: Nothing about this presentation is intended to construct a logical argument. It's no more than sharing potential.