Blood Fractions - following quote from the Reasoning Book

When I asked the elder about blood fractions he said that they are allowed because the bible does not speak directly to fractions....well if the bible does not speak directly to fractions, upon what did they base the below statement in the Reasoning from the Scriptures book......

Animal flesh may be eaten, but not the blood
Gen. 9:3,4: "Every moving animal that is alive may serve
as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give
it all to you. Only flesh with its soul-its blood-you must
not eat."
Any animal used for food should be properly bled. One
that is strangled or that dies in a trap or that is found after
it has died is not suitable for food. (Acts 15:19,20; compare
Leviticus 17:13-16.) Similarly, any food to which whole
blood or even some blood fraction has been added should not
be eaten.

Yep the reasoning book needs to be updated to reflect all that new light.

It is obvious that they are moving away from the blood issue. 

An object lesson as to how this may be done could well be how the "vaccinations are dirty and demonized" idea was killed off in the early 1950s.

The blood doctrine is HEINOUS....

Do you know of any foods that are made with fractionated blood? I thought that it was limited to the medical world. Do they fraction animal's blood?

This describes a lot of dishes made from whole blood...For me it still has a "Yuk!" effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_as_food

The Bible doesn't directly reference cigarettes, Christmas or blow jobs. If that's the reasoning they want to go with, they're in trouble.

http://www.quotes-watchtower.co.uk/blood.html

http://jehovah.net.au/blood.html

http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/blood-transfusions.php

http://www.jwfiles.com/blood.htm

Good find, ISOT...

Here's another one from the Reasoning book:

Only sacrificial use of blood has ever been approved by God

Lev. 17:11, 12: "The soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the alter for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it.  That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: 'No soul of you must eat blood and no alien resident who is residing as an alien in your midst should eat blood.'" (All those animal sacrifices under the Mosiacl Law foreshadowed the one sacrifce of Jesus Christ.)

Heb. 9:11-14,22: "When Christ came as high priest...he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of  young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place and obtained an everlasting deliverance for us.  For if the blood of goats and of bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who have been defiled sanctifies to the extent of cleanness of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through an everlasting spirit offered without blemish to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works that we may render sacred service to the living God?...Unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place."

Eph. 1:7: "By means of him [Jesus Christ] we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his undeserved kindness."

Highlighting mine

And my favorite...  (I'd heard this from the platform a bunch, but had forgotten that they were stupid enough to put it in print...)

Is a transfusion really the same as eating blood?

In a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously.  Now, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusions really be obeying the command to "keep abstaining from...blood"? (Acts 15:29)  To use a comparison, consider a man who is told by the doctor that he mus abstain from alcohol.  Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?

To use a comparison, consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol.  Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?

And of course everyone knows how to refute this one, right?

It's comparing apples and oranges. Alcohol consumed orally or injected into the veins is processed similarly within the body, while there is a huge difference with regard to blood.

Blood that is eaten is attacked by enzymes, broken down, digested, and converted into energy. Blood that is transfused becomes part of the body - it is in effect an organ transplant.

A more accurate comparison would be, "Consider a man who is told by a doctor that he is starving to death. Would he survive if he refused to eat but consented to a liver transplant?"

Consider this also - could you keep a comatose person alive on blood transfusions alone?  I suggest not - it is not the same as using a feeding tube like they had to do with Terry Chiavo.

Similarly, any food to which whole
blood or even some blood fraction has been added should not
be eaten.

Insearchof the truth you are absolutely correct. The more the idiocy of their stand on fractions is exposed, the better. It is a compelling example of straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

I'm sorry, I think I missed something, is the WT insinuating that a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood ??

I never reallu gacve it much thought but, if I need blood because of blood loss, can I get it be eating blood? or is a transfusion the only possible way to  get blood back in the body?

I am not 100% sure but I don't think you can recup loos blood by eating blood, correct?

So taking this change in doctrine a step further, can a JW now eat blood sausage, coagulated duck blood (chinese food) amongst other things, as long as the blood in the recipe is taken from the allowed fractions......

Question sarcastic in nature....but still am wondering?

PSacramento: No, blood that is eaten works like a nutrition, just like eating a liver and getting a liver transplant is not the same thing. the interesting part is that they make the connection by amongst other thing quote people who have been dead for centuries in the blood brouchure on watchtower.org. its really that far out

thats why the thing about eating and transfusing alcohol is dead on wrong. eating and transfusing alcohol is pretty much the same thing. if you hear it, answer: "yeah, and if my doctor told me to abstain from meat, would it be allright for me to get a liver transplant?"

"yeah, and if my doctor told me to abstain from meat, would it be allright for me to get a liver transplant?"

Good statement, I guess along those lines, if following that logic a vegetarian would not be able to get organ transplants......

Hey undercover and sir82, I heard an answer to that one.

Because someone else's blood is foreign to the patient, transfused blood will still be broken down and 'consumed' by the body in a few days. Similarly with organ transplants. Organs from someone else, even though they might be well matched, will be broken down and 'consumed' by the body UNLESS they are organs from your identical twin OR you take anti-rejection drugs. It is only the anti-rejection drugs that keep the organ as an fully functioning organ. No anti-rejection drugs are used for blood transfusions so the body will 'eat' the blood pretty soon.

Comments?

Clueful JW's will tell you that the WTS doesn't endorse any fractions - simply it allows individual Christians to exercise their God-given conscience to choose what they personally find acceptable.

Hardline JW's will reject all fractions and be admired to the death for doing so.

Because someone else's blood is foreign to the patient, transfused blood will still be broken down and 'consumed' by the body in a few days. Similarly with organ transplants                                                                              

Yes, AnnOMaly, I've also heard the JWs say this. Trouble is, the Watchtower also strictly forbids autologous blood transfusions (i.e., donating and storing one's own blood prior to surgery for oneself).