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

[Pudgy]

Comedian W.C. Fields passed away at age 66, at the Las Encinas Sanitarium in Pasadena, California. The sanitarium, a type of health facility, served as the location of his death on December 25, 1946, from complications of pneumonia.

On his deathbed he was visited by a friend who when he walked into the room, caught  W.C. reading the Bible. W.C. looked embarrassed, and shut the Bible, explaining “… just looking for loopholes …”.

There are several versions of that story, and true or not, it is certainly “in character” with all we know about him.

That’s why I go with the Society’s original stance on the sacredness and jealous regard for the value of blood, which God says specifically, it all belongs to Him.

….. also ameliorated by what I believe is a “Natural Law” by Shakespeare … “Cowards die a thousand deaths, but the Valiant die but once.”, (paraphrased) and of course the “Cowboy Code”, of which there are several versions.

The fear of death 💀 is short term thinking.

[Pudgy]

Truly horrible, scary choices is what picking up a torture stake IS.

…. that’s the job.

[Srecko Sostar]

11 hours ago, Many Miles said:

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

Perhaps God should have told her (and all women after her) that she has the right to resist any violent intention of a man who uses prophetic words with unjust and immoral motives. That women will not allow themselves to be exploited. Since God has nowhere specifically said that a woman may/must not resist dominion and/or violence from men in marriage or outside of marriage, this means that women may/have right to resist any kind of enslavement by men. And that they can see patriarchy as an unjust order. This would even apply to Jesus and his somewhat milder attitude towards women when he was on earth.

The apostolic words, which even command the subordination of the wife to her husband "in everything", do not correspond to the nature of things that were in Eden and the partnership that was established by the act of creation. A big minus for "Christianity".

So we see a flaw in the Bible or in the perfection of God Himself. God prophesies that Eve will be under the dominion of Adam. Then men (and women too) accepted this as their fate, as something "normal", God-given. The absence of God's word on this subject, of a God who says of himself that he hates injustice, has contributed to wrong attitudes in society in general and also in WTJWorg. Free space for wrong interpretations.

[Pudgy]

I disagree. 

The harder life is, the more important are “military protocols”.

Even Spock realized that.

[Srecko Sostar]

8 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

I disagree. 

The harder life is, the more important are “military protocols”.

Even Spock realized that.

I partially agree.

[Srecko Sostar]

10 hours ago, George88 said:

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. 

 

Some treatments are associated with great risks. I agree that blood and blood products can have negative aspects. But that is a risk that the patient should weigh up.

If you want to point out that disobedience to God's commandment is the cause of death for those who are disobedient, then that's not really an argument. Because on the other hand, obedience to God is also the cause of death. There are biblical examples and examples of JWs who gave their lives for the "idea", for the "faith" because of obedience to doctrine.

[Srecko Sostar]

12 hours ago, Many Miles said:

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.

 

Perhaps we can look at these and similar things in this way. Anything not clearly rejected by the WTJWorg through the written text of a new edition of the publication is still valid and considered instruction or doctrine.

[JW Insider]

10 hours ago, Many Miles said:

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.

A lot of great points brought up by several people on ths topic. Wish I had more time to go through and consider them more carefully. Unfortunately for me I need to take another couple of weeks off from commenting. Carry on! Till we meet again to "chew the fat" as it were. (I might just go to France to take in some Paris-sites.)  

[Many Miles]

 

12 hours ago, Many Miles said:

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.

Enter Paul's ministry ...

On 11/17/2023 at 1:27 PM, JW Insider said:

Paul never repeats the idea that we should not eat unbled meat. In fact Paul very clearly says:

(1 Corinthians 10:25-27) . . .Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience, ²⁶  for “to Jehovah belong the earth and everything in it.” ²⁷ If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience. 

(1 Corinthians 8:1-8) . . .Now concerning food offered to idols: . . . ⁴ Now concerning the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one.  . . . ⁷ However, not all have this knowledge. But some, because of their former association with the idol, eat food as something sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. ⁸  But food will not bring us nearer to God; we are no worse off if we do not eat, nor better off if we eat. 

(1 Timothy 4:3-5) . . .They forbid marriage and command people to abstain from foods that God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth. ⁴For every creation of God is fine, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, ⁵  for it is sanctified through God’s word and prayer over it.

And Jesus too: (Matthew 15:11) . . . It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.”

So I think a much more relevant discussion would skip the interpretations and conjectures about Noah and Moses and go straight to trying to understand why there is an apparent contradiction between the Acts 15 view of blood and things sacrificed to idols (which definitely could include blood) and Paul's view of potentially bloody meat and things sacrificed to idols.

Between Jews converting to Christianity and Gentiles embracing Christianity, we find that each has persons whose worship God accepted.

But Jewish Christians had just learned something new. There were Gentiles who aside from all the Jewish tradition and ritual, had worship that God accepts, just as it was at the time.

Just reading the room a bit, when Cornelius and his household met Peter and his entourage it is a bit more than evident God was nudging the gentiles toward Christianity. Though He accepted their worship, there was something more He was looking for in them. Hence, though their worship was already acceptable, God was showing them something new too. But the new for them was not extensive ritualistic law codes. Rather, it was embracing Jesus and becoming followers of him. Peter immediately offered baptism in the name of Jesus, and these holy spirit bearing gentiles were thus baptized.

Leaping

Between the Jewish Christians and the gentile Christians, one could argue the Jewish Christians needed to make a bigger leap than the gentile Christians. The Jewish Christians learned their expectation of fellowship with gentiles would need them to do a seriously large downsizing. For fellowship with gentiles they basically needed to rip the entire Mosaic Law code out of their head. It obviously wasn't needed for acceptable worship, and insisting on its provisions would certainly hamper brotherly fellowship with gentile Christians, when they should all be siblings in faith.

Holy spirit entered the picture by pointing to standards of behavior held out for all men that existed prior to Mosaic Law and all its associated ritualism. It boiled down to a few items that were not Mosaic Law but were more than natural law. It boiled down to the letter issued as an apostolic decree and found in Acts 15. This decree filled the gap for sibling fellowship for al Christians, no matter their decent.

Enter Paul

Paul knew God had already accepted gentile worshipers as they were, which was made evident by holy spirit falling upon them. This is not to say that the worship of all gentiles was acceptable to God, but of some of them it was (such as Cornelius). Hence in his words to them he didn't argue to ignore the apostolic decree but, rather, it appears he was telling them not to go to extremes in relation to it. Hence, what was sold in a meat market, unless they knew it was something contrary to the apostolic decree then don't worry about it. As Paul said, 'Make no inquiry'. Regarding food used in idolatrous ceremony, it was not the food's fault how it had been used. But once the ceremony's over why waste food that's perfectly edible!? Paul wasn't advocating that idolatry was okay. He was only pointing out that nitpicking about where food had been is nonsense and should not interfere with eating something that's perfectly edible. Don't make a big deal out of it!

Then Paul says to Timothy, "For every creation of God is fine, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving." That statement would, by itself, stand in stark contrast to the apostolic decree that had been issued with help of holy spirit. But this statement does not stand alone. Paul prefaced this statement by saying he was speaking of "foods that God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving..." It just happens to be the case that of the foods "God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving..." there was a provision that God had expressed to all humankind that should be observed out of respect for life. That was to abstain from eating blood of animals killed to eat their flesh. This was the "blood" and "things strangled" cited in the apostolic decree.

Jesus speaks

He said, ". . . It is not what enters into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but it is what comes out of his mouth that defiles him.” Jesus also said, "For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks"

Aside from what natural law would tell a person, I ask the question: what would come out of the mouth of someone who understood God's sentiments on respect for life and what He expected in demonstration of that respect? That, out of respect for life and God's sentiments of it, it would be right and proper to abstain from eating blood of animals killed to eat their flesh. This is the "blood" and "things strangled" cited in the apostolic decree that should be abstained from. The worship Jesus spoke of was not based on technical things but, rather, what is in the heart. The heart of anyone who worships God wants to please Him out of fear (respect) of his dominion over them and their wanting to please Him in how they live their lives, which in the end is our worship. Our worship is how we live our life, and it's done authentically only from the heart.

 

 

[Thinking]

18 hours ago, Many Miles said:

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)

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!

The packed red blood cells do provide a protein to help 

OXYGYEN…the oxygen is what it’s all about…go anywhere on line away from the societies writings and you will read that.

i think miles as you may have some interesting stories to tell I think your a stirer  who  at times just want to sound of hearing your own voice and over the dumbest subjects..I’d like to know your other alias names you use on line.

there is something familiar out you…and sadly I don’t think it’s good 

 

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

The packed red blood cells do provide a protein to help 

OXYGYEN…the oxygen is what it’s all about…go anywhere on line away from the societies writings and you will read that.

The protein of erythrocytes (red cells) that release oxygen to tissue is called hemoglobin. Essentially, the erythrocytic cell is a carrier of the hemoglobin protein. This protein is a combination of the heme molecule and globin proteins. The heme molecule in this protein has an affinity for oxygen, which is why it releases carbon dioxide and binds with oxygen in lung tissue. As this oxygen rich molecule circulates through the body, when it encounters tissue with more oxygen affinity than it has, it releases oxygen to that tissue and binds with that tissue's carbon dioxide, which it then circulates back to lung tissue to release the carbon dioxide and acquire oxygen for another trip to transport more oxygen to needy tissue.

But here's the important part. The body is not catabolizing the erythrocytic cell. It's not "eating" the cell. The cell remains intact and functioning as a tissue. Also, though the erythrocyte is rich in protein, its protein is not catabolized as food. Transfused red cells are transport vehicles for oxygen and carbon dioxide. The oxygen and carbon dioxide they exchange, retrieve and deliver is not eating, its inhalation and exhalation; it's catch and release.

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

i think miles as you may have some interesting stories to tell I think your a stirer  who  at times just want to sound of hearing your own voice and over the dumbest subjects..I’d like to know your other alias names you use on line.

there is something familiar out you…and sadly I don’t think it’s good 

Each person must conclude what they will about other persons. That's the way it is, it'll always be that way, and it should be that way.

In my case, I prefer to learn from those around me, whether I like what they say or not. This is because I want to learn, even if that means I find out I'm wrong about something. For me, I could care less about your personality. But I do look to learn from each interaction. Also, sometimes, someone puts information out in public view that the public deserves to know is incorrect. In this case, it's incorrect to assert:

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

...there is no difference as to eating the blood and being fed the blood via a tube…

That was said in terms of intravenous administration, and it is just plain false. And, the one who said this did so under auspice of someone who "worked in the medical field". This suggests the notion above is said authoritatively. Yet, the statement that "there is no difference as to eating the blood and being fed the blood via a tube" is patently false.

- If you eat blood the body sees nutritional elements and it metabolizes those elements as food. It's eating.

- If you transfuse blood the body see biological tissue that it uses as tissue. It's a tissue transplant.

Think of my person however you want. But if you're going to say things at least say things that are correct.

[George88]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

i think miles as you may have some interesting stories to tell I think your (you're) a stirer (stirrer) who at times just want to sound of hearing your own voice and over the dumbest subjects..I’d like to know your other alias names you use on line. 

there is something familiar out you…and sadly I don’t think it’s good 

Do you think of "witness" and "pearl doxsey"? When someone makes a deliberate effort to sound intelligent, it often results in nothing more than mere noise lacking scholarly backing. Particularly when this person spreads absurdities, such as the notion that the "Mosaic Law has never required anyone to treat blood as a sacred substance" since God does hold people and animals accountable for the spelling of blood that is included in the Noahide code and the Mosaic Law.

The fact and the law given to Moses about killing remain unchanged, regardless of the wordplay with selected words and phrases. Leviticus 17:14, Deuteronomy 12:23, Ezekiel 3:18, Genesis 9:6, Exodus 12:13. Yet, whose blood ended up being the most sacred?