Need help in discussing the blood issue with some friends.........


Viewed 464 times

    MarkAnthony posted Fri, 18 Feb 2005 01:31:00 GMT(2/18/2005)

    Post 2 of 9
    Joined 2/2/2005

    I got into a debate with 2 other friends (one a mormon and the other JW, I'm RC) about the blood transfusion issue. The JW friend cited: Genesis 9:4,16 Leviticus 7:26,27 & 17:14 Acts 15:28,29 & 21:25 I cannot for the life of me see how anyone can read those and honestly beleve that what was ment was to reject blood to save life! Both myself and my Mormon friend beleve that it refers to the ritualistic sacrifice/offering of blood common in those times. As I'm sure many here already know, we recived a blank stare and shruging sholders when we tried to get our JW friend to communicate how they can think it to mean anything else. I asked if she would let her newborn baby die for the lack of giving her own blood to it, and she simply kept saying God forbid it. I asked if she would breast feed and she said yes, I explained that breast milk contains blood (Blank stare) I asked if she ate meat, she said yes, I said it contains blood (Blank stare) [B]Can anyone help with some SIMPLE items I can use to try and take this discussion deeper, from the hipocracy of the WTC on this issue as well as the actual facts concerning what is written? Is there anything anyone can think of that is written that actually goes against what they beleve when saving a life? My Mormon friend thinks there is something in the Bible that talks about this and actually refutes JW belief and is trying to find it tonight.[/B]

    M the_classicist posted Fri, 18 Feb 2005 01:39:00 GMT(2/18/2005)

    Post 162 of 2005
    Joined 1/3/2005

    That site is pretty good for the actual writings of the WTBTS. Logic does not work with most JWs however, as they are programmed to believe sans logic. You have to remember, the people in charge who make these doctrines have nothing more than a high school diploma; I bet the person who made this doctrine was just trying to make the JWs different.

    Scully posted Fri, 18 Feb 2005 02:01:00 GMT(2/18/2005)

    Post 6440 of 13474
    Joined 11/2/2001

    If you can get the JW to agree that blood is SYMBOLIC of life, then the following may get them thinking:

    Is a symbol more important than the thing it symbolizes?

    If you were held up at gunpoint by someone who demanded your jewelry - including your wedding ring - or else he was going to shoot your spouse, what is more important? The person you are married to? The marriage itself?? or the ring that symbolizes the marriage and the love you share for your spouse?

    If blood is a symbol of life which is supposedly precious and sacred to God, why should a life be sacrificed over the thing that it symbolizes?

    As far as denying blood transfusions to children whose life may depend on it, ask the JW whether they think this is something that Jehovah requires - the sacrifice of a child. Regardless of their answer, you can then read the account from their own Bible about how God views the sacrifice of children:


    Rbi8 Jeremiah 7:29-31 ***

    Shear off your uncut hair and throw [it] away, and upon the bare hills raise a dirge, for Jehovah has rejected and will desert the generation with which he is furious. 30

    ?For the sons of Judah have done what is bad in my eyes,? is the utterance of Jehovah. ?They have set their disgusting things in the house upon which my name has been called, in order to defile it. 31 And they have built the high places of To´pheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hin´nom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart.?


    Rbi8 Jeremiah 19:3-5 ***


    And you must say, ?Hear the word of Jehovah, O YOU kings of Judah and YOU inhabitants of Jerusalem. This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said:

    "?"Here I am bringing a calamity upon this place, of which when anyone hears, his ears will tingle; 4 for the reason that they have left me and have proceeded to make this place unrecognizable and to make sacrificial smoke in it to other gods whom they had not known, they and their forefathers and the kings of Judah; and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent ones. 5 And they built the high places of the Ba´al in order to burn their sons in the fire as whole burnt offerings to the Ba´al, something that I had not commanded or spoken of, and that had not come up into my heart."?

    M A Paduan posted Fri, 18 Feb 2005 02:03:00 GMT(2/18/2005)

    Post 1903 of 3006
    Joined 6/10/2002

    • Scriptures stated don't eat swine, meaning 'be' like them, or birds of prey, meaning to target the vulnerable, or sea life without fins and scales, those who dwell at the bottom of the sea of man.
    • The pharisees in their stupid fear tried to literally obey the spiritual directions as commands for the flesh, and put the same 'burdens' (demands) onto others. That's why it was said of them that "their god is their belly".
    • The jews in the first century still tried to live by scriptural rules according to the flesh, and would be deeply offended by people among them who didn't do the same - hence, the apostles directed certain people that a few of these rules were necessary in order to get along in some way, one of them being 'abstain from blood' - ie. necessary 'burdens'.
    • Our society is not as offended by life-saving transfusions as much as they are by such an ignorance of bigotry.

    M Outaservice posted Fri, 18 Feb 2005 03:06:00 GMT(2/18/2005)

    Post 422 of 1664
    Joined 4/8/2001

    Send me a note with your e-mail Mark. Got some good blood info.


    M MungoBaobab posted Fri, 18 Feb 2005 08:06:00 GMT(2/18/2005)

    Post 301 of 406
    Joined 10/9/2004

    A Mormon, a Jehovah's Witness, and a Catholic are sitting around discussing religion? Sounds like the start of a joke to me! Let's see, how can we end it? They all get in a big fight over whose religion is correct, the Witness says "If you don't believe in my religion you can drop dead!" while the other two say to eachother "And you can go to hell!"

    M Pole posted Fri, 18 Feb 2005 08:52:00 GMT(2/18/2005)

    Post 731 of 1515
    Joined 6/13/2004

    Two very good posts by Narkissos:

    1) The apostolic decision was not universally applicable for Christians:

    2) Leviticus makes fat as holy as blood for all generations to come. Does that mean we shouldn't use fat either?


    Gill posted Fri, 18 Feb 2005 08:52:00 GMT(2/18/2005)

    Post 678 of 6029
    Joined 11/4/2004

    I think that a lot of JWs still stick to the scripture that says, 'refering to blood, fornication and things strangled' :

    '..if you carefully keep yourself from these things you will prosper. Good health to you.'

    I believe there was a Watchtower article which said that the 'Good health to you' didin't refer to their avoiding STD and blood borne diseases. However, I have even recently heard JWs refer to this point. That God was keeping them safe.

    It can be difficult to argue with what someone WANTS something to mean.

    M coult9056 posted Sun, 20 Feb 2005 01:54:00 GMT(2/20/2005)

    Post 29 of 32
    Joined 4/25/2001

    In my opinion, making the argument against the JW blood ban has gotten easier since the June 15, 2000 Watchtower's Question from readers which allowed what the society calls "blood fractions." I tell people that JWs DO NOT HAVE A BAN ON BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS!

    Since they allow fractions, they allow transfusions. The transfusion ban is dead. The argument is easier to make now. Think about it. When the ban was an absolutely total ban on blood, organ transplants, etc., arguing against the ban was very difficult. The issue was black and white. Now, though, the Sociey allows organ transplants and a "little bit" of transfusions, which is like being a little bit pregnant. But make sure to make this point: The Watchtower Bible and Tract Socity ALLOWS TRANFUSIONS!!!

    The only gray area now is on what they allow. They have opened the door to fractions....This makes the hypocrisy much more easy is prove. I love to quote Ray Franz, former member of the Governing Body who used the following illustration about the Society's blood policy:

    "It is as if a person were instructed by a doctor to stop eating ham and cheese sandwiches, but told that it is acceptable to take the sandwich apart and eat the bread, the ham and the cheese separately, not as a sandwich." (In Search of Christian Freedom, Ray Franz, Commentary Press, 1999, Page 288).

    If you'd care to read my letter to the editor printed today, February 19, 2005, check out this link:

    In conclusion, let me say this: In regards to my beliefs that blood transfusions should be allowed and that the non-doctor, non-blood expert, uneducated Governing Body should abandon their policy altogether, I no longer discuss the issue Scripturally, I use common sense and logic.

    Good health to you!

    M GetBusyLiving posted Sun, 20 Feb 2005 04:36:00 GMT(2/20/2005)

    Post 221 of 3010
    Joined 12/10/2004

    Are you not online much Mark? Cuz you got a ton of replies to your first post.


      Confirm ...