Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 22, 1999 at 15:55:49 {k/.KBikg62hxaL3hj3H2OgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: *Blood Transfusion posted by Cygnus on November 22, 1999 at 15:28:12:
Cygnus
: Way back when blood transfusions were becoming popular our publications spoke even of anointed ones approving of them. (See The Watchtower of August 1st, 1958, page 478)Perhaps, but if anyone even casually reads the QFR, it is quite apparent that the Society disapproved of that person's actions, even determining that such a course of conduct should result in a person's being considered spiritually "immature" and not being assigned privileges of service. Indeed, the article begins its discussion of the topic in question by saying:
Yes, the Society did disapprove of that persons action, but that is not the relevant point in my remarks. My point—which that 1958 article supports—is that there are persons who are JWs hold the view that blood transfusions are categorically wrong.
Just what point do you think I was making?
: Those sincere convictions were born from what was then known scientifically about blood together with our then present understanding of scripture.Throughout the 1960s, the Watchtower held the position that transfusing blood was biologically equivalent to eating and digesting it, is that not true? Isn't that why the WT of 9/15/61 558 quotes a source who quotes a 17th century physician in order to substantiate that nonsense? Just what exactly was "scientifically known about blood" in the 1960s that the Society had access to which even slightly supported their theories?
My comment about "what was then known" has to do with what was then known/understood about blood by JWs.
To a great extent the Society’s change to shun based upon blood transfusion was a response from JWs worldwide. Was their view influenced by the Society’s publications? Yes, to a great extent. Problem is that at the time the Society was pretty closed mind about the issue as well. They all saw things as very cut a dry, about the Bible and blood. Now, though, there is a deeper understanding amongst JWs in general and the Society, enough to accept the suggested change without too much backlash.
: Like their master Jesus, Christians are concerned with present conditions of life and present life, but not at the expense of future life promised.That to me seems quite selfish and contradictory. Say (speaking about current WTS custom) a parent refuses to allow her 2-year old child a necessary blood transfusion. The child certainly doesn't understand the situation, and so seemingly wouldn't be held responsible or accountable. The mother accepts such responsibility before God. Does the mother refuse the transfusion:
(i) because the child's promised future life (ostensibly, post-Armageddon) is at risk?
(ii) because the mother's promised future life is at risk (for making the decision of no blood)?
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that the one responsible for decisions and actions is accountable to God. Naturally the mother wants to be part of her child’s future so she acts accordingly. Is that selfish? Probably. Is it natural? Yes. Is it moral based upon the Bible? In this case that is the question and the issue that deserves resolution. It is what this thread is addressing.
As for the situation with children, the Society has already yielded a great deal in that regard. Enough that JW parents can allow the physician leeway for his own conscience and legalities.
Also (and not incidental to the Blood Issue), it seems that Jesus once said (paraphrasing here), "No one has greater love than he who is willing to lay down his life (or, give up his soul) for his friends." According to the Witnesses, a person's soul represents his life in the present (being alive), and any prospective possibilities (Cp. Matt 10:28). So it could be construed that Jesus was saying that giving up even one's own life prospects for one's friends is commendable.
The article considers those words of Jesus as they apply to the subject of blood transfusion.
Jesus (the alleged Master) didn't do that. He got his life back (so we're told).
Jesus words to his followers had to do with giving up temporary human life that another human may gain temporary life. Those manifesting such love, like Jesus, are promised life again.
Jesus did give up his human life. The difference though is that his sacrifice intends to supply redemptive power toward mankind, something Jesus’ followers could not do.
: As Christians we respect that we are instructed biblically to abstain from blood. (See Acts 15:28,29)Contemporary Christians are not. 1st century Gentile Christians were (Cp. Acts 21:25). Any other suggestion or application requires stretching of the text.
The article says, "we" as in Jehovah’s Witnesses. The article is written with the view of addressing the JW position, not that of Christendom.
: We also understand that that instruction to abstain from blood is a reaffirmation of that said to Noah after he and his family providentially survived the flood. (Gen. 9:1-17)That would be an incorrect understanding. James never mentions Noah in Acts 15.
Same here.
: Noah was told, "Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat." Besides prohibiting the eating of blood. . .Those words did not directly prohibit the eating of blood (although that interpretation may follow). It merely said that flesh with the blood may not be eaten. What, in turn, that means is subject to further interpretation.
That interpretation you offer is more straining that that presented. If we apply such hyperliteral interpretation then we can also allow that animal flesh so eaten need not come from an animal killed.
Friend