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

[Many Miles]

1 minute ago, Pudgy said:

I have found that explaining the obvious to the agenda driven is a waste

Does this mean you're not going to show me where and how I'm wrong?

Saying someone is wrong is not refutation; it's just opinion.

[Pudgy]

32 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

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

 

[Many Miles]

4 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

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

Now you're just repeating yourself. Ever heard of a fallacy called ad nauseam?

If you've found something that is inaccurate, quote it and and show readers how it's inaccurate.

[George88]

3 hours ago, Many Miles said:

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 .....

You're now using lard (pig fat) for cooking. You should be thinking more of Caine than Seth. I guess you haven't studied the book of Seth. 

"And the perfect Majesty is at rest in the ineffable light, in the truth of the mother of all these, and all of you that attain to me, to me alone who am perfect, because of the Word. For I exist with all the greatness of the Spirit, which is a friend to us and our kindred alike, since I brought forth a word to the glory of our Father, through his goodness, as well as an imperishable thought; that is, the Word within him - it is slavery that we shall die with Christ - and an imperishable and undefiled thought, an incomprehensible marvel, the writing of the ineffable water which is the word from us. It is I who am in you, and you are in me, just as the Father is in you in innocence."

Seth's unwavering commitment to defend his father, Adam, in his pursuit of righteousness is commendable. However, the notion of Seth consuming unhealthy and forbidden foods, such as fatty, decomposed carcasses, spoiled meat, and blood not ordained by God (which were only introduced by demons mingling with earthly women before the flood), is something that I cannot condone. I haven't discovered any evidence that shows those who followed God ever consumed animal fat. Therefore, my answer remains a resounding no. The conditions put forth by God to Moses after the flood clearly outline certain dietary guidelines that they adhered to.

Although this answer might contradict your perspective, it is important to remember that personal opinions and observations are subjective and can vary. Therefore, it is not crucial for an answer to be accepted. It should be noted that your authority over me is nonexistent, as I have mentioned previously. Keep in mind that we are discussing a biblical context, not the history of mankind.

[Many Miles]

So, I asked George the following question:

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

George answers saying:

15 minutes ago, George88 said:

Therefore, my answer remains a resounding no.

Well, you're wrong about Seth, and all other pre-flood humans. If they were born relatively healthy they all suckled their mother's God-given teats, literally gulping down nourishing milk, which was laced with biological fat.

Imagine that! Pre-flood humans were EATING BIOLOGICAL FAT, something beyond vegetation! (Gen 1:29, 30)

Just look how easy it is to learn from God's testimony all around us in creation. (Ps 19; Rom 1:20)

[Anna]

3 hours ago, Many Miles said:

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.

Sure, but we are interested in how Jesus' disciples understood what blood meant, when they said to abstain from it. 

[George88]

11 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Well, you're wrong about Seth, and all other pre-flood humans. If they were born relatively healthy they all suckled their mother's God-given teats, literally gulping down nourishing milk, which was laced with biological fat.

Imagine that! Pre-flood humans were EATING BIOLOGICAL FAT, something beyond vegetation! (Gen 1:29, 30)

Just look how easy it is to learn from God's testimony all around us in creation. (Ps 19; Rom 1:20)

Once again, you have made a mistake. In your previous post, you were discussing carrion. Therefore, there was no need for us to delve into the topic of a mother's milk, which can also be broken down into protein. It seems clear that you could benefit from further honing your skills. Once again, you simply disregard the need to broaden your perspective, using it as a justification for your flawed position. 

Please provide specific details if you would like to receive a precise answer. Carrion is an unpleasant reminder of animal fat, a prime example of disappointing wordplay.

[Many Miles]

Anna,

First of all, you are a welcome breath of fresh air in this discussion. I want to thank you for that.

Now to your comment,

36 minutes ago, Anna said:

Sure, but we are interested in how Jesus' disciples understood what blood meant, when they said to abstain from it. 

Yes, of course. But recall that when the early apostles issued their decision that mentioned blood it was in response to an influx of Gentile worshipers of God becoming followers of Christ. The Gentile Christians, like Cornelius, were being taught they needed to abide by Mosaic Law. The apostles said, no. But there were certain things that all Christians, including the Gentile Christians, needed to abide by, all of which predated Mosaic Law.

Regarding blood, our publication United In Worship of the Only True God says it best,

"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 https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983099 )

Back then, there were Jews familiar with Mosaic Law who converted to Christianity, and there was Gentiles who became Christians. Those Jewish converts knew that, under their former religion, Gentiles were free to eat the meat of animals found dead of natural cause, which flesh was unbled. In fact, those Jewish converts knew that, under Mosaic Law, they were free to sell Gentiles that sort of unbled flesh specifically for purposes of eating that unbled flesh. (Ref Deut 14:21)

Gentile descendants of Noah who were worshipers of God, like Job, Elihu and Cornelius, were never under Mosaic Law, but they were bound to keep the law issued to Noah. But they knew keeping the law to Noah required that they abstain from eating the blood of animals still alive or of the blood of animals they killed to use as food. (Gen 9) They knew that blood obtained from killing an animal represented that animal's life. In recognition of that they were to abstain from eating that blood, the blood from killing. However, other than abstaining from eating that blood they were free to use it otherwise however they wanted. Also, they knew that taking a man's blood in murder meant they would forfeit their own right to life. This is what Gentile Christians and Jewish converts to Christianity knew about blood that applied to everyone.

These Jewish and Gentile Christians lived mostly an agrarian life. They knew about killing and slaughtering animals, and they knew about eating animals found dead of natural cause.

When it came to the substance of blood, as I said before, they would never have seen four components. They would have observed whole blood and two components of serum and clot. This is all they could have seen because this is how blood separates in nature.

[Many Miles]

12 minutes ago, George88 said:

Once again, you have made a mistake. In your previous post, you were discussing carrion. Therefore, there was no need for us to delve into the topic of a mother's milk, which can also be broken down into protein. It seems clear that you could benefit from further honing your skills. Once again, you simply disregard the need to broaden your perspective, using it as a justification for your flawed position. 

Please provide specific details if you would like to receive a precise answer. Carrion is an unpleasant reminder of animal fat, a prime example of disappointing wordplay.

George,

You're confused. The very pointed question I've been asking and asking you to answer had solely to do with whether pre-flood humans (like Seth) could eat biological fat.

You answered the question. You said NO.

Check your reading. I only had to ask the question over and over again to finally get an answer from you!

[Anna]

My cousin, a non Witness, studied medicine. She never got her doctor's license because she decided to sell drugs instead. By that I mean pharmaceuticals. She told me that many people do not realize how risky blood transfusions are and that she would never have one herself. But of course as Witnesses that is not our reason for not accepting blood transfusions. I am aware that there are lots of other views on what "abstaining from blood" means. Personally, I think that all of it should be a conscience matter. I don't normally comment on the open forum, so this is all I am going to say about it. 

[George88]

40 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

George,

You're confused. The very pointed question I've been asking and asking you to answer had solely to do with whether pre-flood humans (like Seth) could eat biological fat.

You answered the question. You said NO.

It seems that you confused my previous comment. You mentioned carrion in the other topic by which you also mentioned "biological fat" after lying about spoiled meat. I provided specific examples to clarify my point. Therefore, my answer was a clear "no" to using animal fat. Let's continue with your wordplay.

"However, the notion of Seth consuming unhealthy and forbidden foods, such as fatty, decomposed carcasses, spoiled meat, and blood, not ordained by God. "

As a deceitful individual, you possess the ability to manipulate facts to your advantage.

[Many Miles]

4 minutes ago, Anna said:

My cousin, a non Witness, studied medicine. She never got her doctor's license because she decided to sell drugs instead. By that I mean pharmaceuticals. She told me that many people do not realize how risky blood transfusions are and that she would never have one herself. But of course as Witnesses that is not our reason for not accepting blood transfusions. I am aware that there are lots of other views on what "abstaining from blood" means. Personally, I think that all of it should be a conscience matter. I don't normally comment on the open forum, so this is all I am going to say about it. 

Anna,

I'll say the same thing to you that district and circuit overseers have said to me, and at least one who used to be at Bethel, lyman Swingle. It's brave of you to openly state what needs stating. Of course we all know our Master, the Christ, did  this. He was disfellowshipped the old fashion way for doing it. But he spoke what needed to be said nevertheless. None of use are greater than our Master.

Given the above, I'm not expecting more in the way of response. I will say that I agree with you that the whole thing should be left to each person's conscience. If folks want to believe something is of the Bible that they can't prove true from the Bible, well that's their business. But these should never take it upon themselves to force that view onto others without being able to prove the position true to he extent they want to enforce it.

As for dangers of blood transfusion, yes there are dangers. But there is such a thing as bleeding to death. That's real! Very real! In medical cases of severe anemia often the only thing that will prevent death is transfusion of packed red cells. In my case, I'd only accept transfusion of a product rendered from blood if that was the best available option.