Originally posted by galveston75
So take the one if you like it and it fits your view or look at the others to get the better and unalterd explination. Your decision...

This is a hypocritical stance by the J-Dubs because on one hand they say No whole blood yet we can have parts of the blood?

Christ died and rose again and His Blood paid for our sins. Blood is about sacrifice as you have said the life is in the blood. Christ gave his life and blood for us.

I agree to actually eat blood probably NOT good and I would not do it. However to receive a blood transfusion is not the same as ingesting blood. One goes into to your stomach and comes out as waste. The other goes into to your veins and into your blood stream. Scientifically not the same. Context is everything. To abstain from eating blood and strangled things sacrificed to false gods Not Abstain from a blood transfusion because I was just in a horrible accident and have lost a ton of blood and will die if I don't receive this blood two different things. Plus Jesus said it is never lawful to do evil not even on the Sabbath. A man would save his donkey from falling into a well but it was not ok to heal a man on the Sabbath? Jesus said this is backwards.

Manny

History of doctrine

From 1931, when the name "Jehovah's witnesses" was adopted, Watch Tower Society publications maintained the view of Society founder Charles Taze Russell that the reference to abstaining from the eating of blood in the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15:19-29 was a "suggestion" to be given to Gentile converts. Watch Tower publications during the presidency of Joseph Franklin Rutherford commended the commercial and emergency uses of blood. A 1925 issue of The Golden Age commended a man for donating blood 45 times without payment. In 1927, The Watchtower noted, without elaboration, that in Genesis 9, God decreed that Noah and his offspring "must not eat the blood, because the life is in the blood". In 1940 Consolation magazine reported on a woman who accidentally shot herself with a revolver in her heart and survived a major surgical procedure during which an attending physician donated a quart of his own blood for transfusion.
In 1944, with the Watch Tower Society under the administration of president Nathan Homer Knorr, The Watchtower asserted that the decrees contained in Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus 17:10-14 forbade the eating or drinking of blood in biblical times "whether by transfusion or by the mouth" and that this applied "in a spiritual way to the consecrated persons of good-will today, otherwise known as 'Jonadabs' of the Lord's 'other sheep'."
In September 1945, representatives of the Watch Tower Society in the Netherlands commented on blood transfusion in the Dutch edition of Consolation. A translation of their comments into English reads:
When we lose our life because we refuse inoculations, that does not bear witness as a justification of Jehovah's name. God never issued regulations which prohibit the use of drugs, inoculations or blood transfusions. It is an invention of people, who, like the Pharisees, leave Jehovah's mercy and love aside.

So just more historical back ground the J-Dubs were ok with blood transfusion and even commended it. Then about 1945 they switch up just more BS and lies. Some knew this was not right like these Dutch J-Dubs


Manny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions


Manny

Inconsistency

Muramoto has described as peculiar and inconsistent the Watch Tower policy of acceptance of all the individual components of blood plasma as long as they are not taken at the same time.[100] He says the Society offers no biblical explanation for differentiating between prohibited treatments and those considered a "matter of conscience", explaining the distinction is based entirely on arbitrary decisions of the Governing Body, to which Witnesses must adhere strictly of the premise of them being Bible-based "truth".[100] He has questioned why white blood cells (1 per cent of blood volume) and platelets (0.17 per cent) are forbidden, yet albumin (2.2 per cent of blood volume) is permitted.[100] He has questioned why donating blood and storing blood for autologous transfusion is deemed wrong, but the Watch Tower Society permits the use of blood components that must be donated and stored before Witnesses use them.[123] He has questioned why Witnesses, although viewing blood as sacred and symbolizing life, are prepared to let a person die by placing more importance on the symbol than the reality it symbolizes.[112]
Kerry Louderback-Wood alleges that by labeling the currently acceptable blood fractions as "minute" in relation to whole blood, the Watch Tower organization causes followers to misunderstand the scope and extent of allowed fractions.[115]
Witnesses respond that the real issue is not of the fluid per se, but of respect and obedience to God.[124][125] They say their principle of abstaining from blood as a display of respect is demonstrated by the fact that members are allowed to eat meat that still contains some blood. As soon as blood is drained from an animal, the respect has been shown to God, and then a person can eat the meat even though it may contain a small amount of blood.[126] Jehovah's Witnesses' view of meat and blood is different to the Jewish view that goes to great lengths to remove minor traces of blood.[127][128]
See also: Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses#Blood

Manny

Originally posted by menace71
History of doctrine

From 1931, when the name "Jehovah's witnesses" was adopted, Watch Tower Society publications maintained the view of Society founder Charles Taze Russell that the reference to abstaining from the eating of blood in the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15:19-29 was a "suggestion" to be given to Gentile converts. Watch Tower publications during ...[text shortened]... BS and lies. Some knew this was not right like these Dutch J-Dubs


Manny

Originally posted by galveston75
"umming and ahhing afterwards"

I'm not aware I've been doing that.

And yes I think you have it right so far. Nowhere has God given any use for blood other then what he has said in the Bible. So take that as you may....

But lets get this description understood. For a doctor or lab to test ones blood for health reasons is not consuming it or e d.
A silly thought but just incase you were going there with something strange like this.

Originally posted by galveston75
God's view of ones blood compared to any other part of a human body is different. In God's eyes it is the life of that person.

“For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it.” (Le 17:11)
For like reason, but ...[text shortened]... pect the life process that he has given us and understands much more then we will ever know..

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it is just an interpretation you people give about one tiny verse in the bible. blood is life, life is precious, but you won't give of your life to save another's life.


also, you took an immaterial concept like a soul and tied it to a material object like one's blood.

you also consider it is a sin to put one's soul in another person, but what happ ...[text shortened]... voking tl;dr: this belief is as idiotic and downright evil as the hunting of witches was.

Originally posted by divegeester
I planned to stay out of this thread as I'm aware I antagonise the JW's far more than is intended. However...

I completely agree with you Manny. I'm not convinced that there is aspiritual connection with the "eating of blood", but I do think there is possibly a health one that was identified even in NT times; possibly also a matter of weak conscience ...[text shortened]... ded well frankly, I'd jump on their head till their eyes popped out.

Just saying...

Originally posted by RJHinds
You have a point there. Christ, in His resurrected body without any blood, was taken up to Heaven's throne to sit at the right hand of the Father. The blood can not contain the soul. So the statement, "the life is in the blood" can not be the same as "the soul is in the blood." Perhaps, it simply means that if an animal or human lost all blood it also has no life left for it will be dead. 😏

Originally posted by galveston75
Tertullian wrote: “Consider those who with greedy thirst, at a show in the arena, take the fresh blood of wicked criminals . . . and carry it off to heal their epilepsy.” Whereas pagans consumed blood, Tertullian said that Christians “do not even have the blood of animals at [their] meals . . . At the trials of Christians you offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that [it] is unlawful for them.”

G-man....stay steeped in your ignorance and darkness. I bet if the Watchtower told you to believe that the earth was flat you would believe it in spite of the evidence.

PS: So your organization used to think it was ok explain that away!!!!
The foundation is based on lies and so it is a lie the J-Dubs




Manny

Originally posted by menace71
No argument that eating blood is sick and gross and can make us sick but once again you can't understand that eating blood and a blood transfusion are two different things



Manny

Originally posted by galveston75
Why would you not eat another humans blood? Would you be willing to eat the blood of a human if it was from a hospital and "supposedly safe"?