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

[George88]

13 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Sorry, the term "whole blood" does not exist in the Bible. The term "main blood components" and the term "blood fractions" do not exist in the Bible.

It is regrettable that you do not comprehend a basic concept. Would comprehending terms like "half-blood" or "quarter-blood" enhance your grasp of common sense? It's truly disappointing that even in this modern era, people still require a specific term to grasp the concept that the substance flowing through one's veins is whole blood, which includes all essential components. However, it seems that logical thinking isn't always prevalent in this regard.

18 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Also speculation and juggling is what WTJWorg does with their blood transfusion theories, changing them like the sheets in a household are changed every week.
The Bible does not support, in any text, any of the existing WTJWorg doctrine regarding what is acceptable, what is not acceptable, and what is a personal choice regarding blood. These are mere guesses and instructions from GB and their lawyers.

According to whom, former members lacking comprehension of the concept of whole blood?

20 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

A change of viewpoint among former members is no reason not to reexamine existing doctrine from current members. The change of doctrine becomes actually a necessity and a "good habit" that the Organization applies more and more as something inevitable and praiseworthy. 

Given the opposition that actually refutes the application, it is clear that this argument is baseless and silly.

[Anna]

2 hours ago, Many Miles said:

That's not a premise. That's a doctrinal position. Why should products such as isolated white cells, or isolated red cells, or isolated platelets or isolated plasma "be regarded as being blood", yet other products rendered from blood not "be regarded as being blood"? Answer that question and you'll have a premise.

 

In Bible times there was only whole blood. In modern times blood can be separated into 4 components and then these 4 components can be further separated into fractions. The question was: when is blood no longer blood? A line had to be drawn somewhere, and so the line was drawn at minor fractions because it was deemed that although derived from blood, it was no longer blood. 

The doctrinal position comes from that premise.

P.S. I honestly don't know why the line wasn't drawn at only 2 main components: red blood cells and platelets, as these two components are only found in  blood. The other two, plasma and white blood cells are also found elsewhere in the body. 

 

[Many Miles]

2 hours ago, George88 said:

The question remains far too broad. The term "human" can encompass a wide range of applications. Before the flood, there were Adam and Eve, earnestly striving to regain the favor of their Creator through obedience. If we adhere to the dietary guidelines outlined by God to Moses in Leviticus 7:22-27, the answer would be a resounding "no" for those virtuous individuals, including Noah and his family.

Okay, in all those words you may or may not be answering NO to the question I asked of you. So, since you think my question "remains far too broad" I'll narrow the question down for you.

Here:

As you understand the Bible, could the pre-flood son of Adam and Eve named Seth eat biological fat?  YES or NO?

And your answer is .....

[Pudgy]

With the “Bruen” decision of 2022 the United States Supreme court  FINALLY got it right about the 2nd Amendment “.. the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Partisan agendas had corrupted this simple edict of law since 1791.  For over 200 years this had been a hot topic of discussion, and thousands of unconstitutional legislations that subjected men to tyranny and imprisonment. In over 200 years this issue has flip-flopped thousands of times from one irrational excess to another.

In similar manner the scriptures, as a theme that runs throughout the Bible, shows through little snippets the respect God demands for blood … which he holds to belong to him, representing the life of all living things … which HE is the source of.

The last thing the Bible has to say about this is the simple directive “abstain from blood”, but it sums up a common theme that runs through the whole Old and New Testament.

Carrion with the blood could be given or sold to non-Jews, but not eaten by Jews.

They were expected to be a holy people.

If you along a roadway find someone who has been chopped to pieces … perhaps some fingers or pieces of a torso or skull, can you legitimately make the claim these fractions of a body are no longer human?

No.

A dead fractional human, but even a fingerprint is a human fingerprint. Even a single hair is a HUMAN remains. I have opened graves where the only thing left was hair, and metal coffin handles.

We treated those woodland graves with deep respect,  and relocated them as if they were 100% intact.(We were building a housing subdivision).

Once blood is created in an air-breathing animal, it belongs to Jehovah God, and we are allowed to use as food the body that made it. 

If you disassemble a firearm and acid off the serial number it does not cease being a firearm.  If it was EVER A GUN, it does not lose that identity by being fractionated.

Neither does blood.

 

 

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, Anna said:

In Bible times there was only whole blood.

That's false. In the natural world blood does separate into two components (not four). The ancients could observe blood in its whole and separated forms. While an animal was bleeding out they'd see blood in its whole form. If they drained that blood into a receptacle they would see it separate. They could also make this latter observation in the veins of animals they found dead of natural cause.

In the natural world when blood is not circulating it clots. When this happens the two things a person would see is a kind-of clear watery substance and a dark colored mass. In modern terms we'd call the clearer fluid "serum" and we call the dark colored mass "clot". This is how blood naturally settles out in the natural world.

 

1 hour ago, Anna said:

In modern times blood can be separated into 4 components and then these 4 components can be further separated into fractions. The question was: when is blood no longer blood? A line had to be drawn somewhere, and so the line was drawn at minor fractions because it was deemed that although derived from blood, it was no longer blood. 

The doctrinal position comes from that premise.

The modern separation of blood into four components is the result of a wholly unnatural intervention that is found nowhere in nature.

We could employ all sorts of processes to divide blood up all sort so ways. All that means is that we've found different ways to divvy up blood. This tells us nothing scriptural about blood.

I'm looking for:

...a scriptural premise for us TO disassociate (effectively: disfellowship) fellow JWs for accepting transfusion of whole blood, or any of the products known as red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma, but NOT TO disassociate/disfellowship fellow JWs for accepting any other products rendered from blood, such as hemoglobin, albumin, cryoprecipitate or cryosupernatant plasma.

1 hour ago, Anna said:

P.S. I honestly don't know why the line wasn't drawn at only 2 main components: red blood cells and platelets, as these two components are only found in  blood. The other two, plasma and white blood cells are also found elsewhere in the body.

That's an astute observation. But, that too would lead to further questions.

Right now I'm looking for a premise (or premises) supporting the policy as it exists.

[Pudgy]

4 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

With the “Bruen” decision of 2022 the United States Supreme court  FINALLY got it right about the 2nd Amendment “.. the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Partisan agendas had corrupted this simple edict of law since 1791.  For over 200 years this had been a hot topic of discussion, and thousands of unconstitutional legislations that subjected men to tyranny and imprisonment. In over 200 years this issue has flip-flopped thousands of times from one irrational excess to another.

In similar manner the scriptures, as a theme that runs throughout the Bible, shows through little snippets the respect God demands for blood … which he holds to belong to him, representing the life of all living things … which HE is the source of.

The last thing the Bible has to say about this is the simple directive “abstain from blood”, but it sums up a common theme that runs through the whole Old and New Testament.

Carrion with the blood could be given or sold to non-Jews, but not eaten by Jews.

They were expected to be a holy people.

If you along a roadway find someone who has been chopped to pieces … perhaps some fingers or pieces of a torso or skull, can you legitimately make the claim these fractions of a body are no longer human?

No.

A dead fractional human, but even a fingerprint is a human fingerprint. Even a single hair is a HUMAN remains. I have opened graves where the only thing left was hair, and metal coffin handles.

We treated those woodland graves with deep respect,  and relocated them as if they were 100% intact.(We were building a housing subdivision).

Once blood is created in an air-breathing animal, it belongs to Jehovah God, and we are allowed to use as food the body that made it. 

If you disassemble a firearm and acid off the serial number it does not cease being a firearm.  If it was EVER A GUN, it does not lose that identity by being fractionated.

Neither does blood.

 

 

Either you get it, or you don’t.

The Society got it right the first time.…. then, to appease the accountants and lawyers, completely screwed it up.

That’s what the love of money does.

[Many Miles]

3 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

In similar manner the scriptures, as a theme that runs throughout the Bible, shows through little snippets the respect God demands for blood … which he holds to belong to him, representing the life of all living things … which HE is the source of.

The Bible makes such statements in relation to living creatures, of soulical creatures, but not of carcasses that are dead of natural cause (causes that by act of creation they were subject to befall sooner or later). Carcasses dead of natural cause are no longer souls.

6 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

The last thing the Bible has to say about this is the simple directive “abstain from blood”, but it sums up a common theme that runs through the whole Old and New Testament.

That's false. What God required of Noah was very different from what God later required under Moses.

Noah could not eat blood of living animals. Noah had to kill the animal before he ate of its flesh, and he could not eat the blood of that slaughtered animal.

Other than that, Noah was free to use blood for whatever purpose he wanted.

Finally, Noah was not required to use blood in sacred sacrifices.

Noah was not required to treat blood as a holy substance.

10 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

They [the Jews] were expected to be a holy people.

Regarding blood, Jews under Mosaic Law were held to a different, higher standard.

They had to follow the limited requirement that already existed since Noah, but in addition they

They could not eat animals dead of natural cause. 

They could use blood for one and only one thing. They had to use blood for sacred sacrifice and nothing else.

Jews under Mosaic Law were required to treat blood as a holy substance.

[Many Miles]

8 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

The Society got it right the first time.….

The society never got it right. The Christian requirement to abstain from blood harkens back to the decree issued to the biblical Noah. Nothing said to Noah remotely addresses donor blood. Nothing.

Blood used in contemporary medicine is donated.

[Pudgy]

Your entire arguments are made attacking premises that I never made, and have wandered afar.

 

[Pudgy]

You REALLY need to learn how to diagram sentences to discern what they REALLY are saying.

[Many Miles]

1 minute ago, Pudgy said:

Your entire arguments are made attacking premises that I never made

I offered comment on things you said. If you think I've said something inaccurate then quote it and tell me how what I've said is wrong.

[Pudgy]

I have found that explaining the obvious to the agenda driven is a waste…. believe what you want.