amo Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 During some talks/discussions with a J-W coworker the subject of blood came up. I heard her side, I told her ours but after a while we went back to square 1. Any good learned advise on this subject ? Thx.
thesometimesaint Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 There is no mutually happy resolution to that question. Agree to disagree, as long as we don't force others to agree. 1
bluebell Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 I don't think there's anything to do but agree to disagree. 1
Calm Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) JWs' refusal to accept blood transfusion have benefitted all of us. Whether or not one agrees with them, we should be grateful for their faithfulness and principled stands. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-jehovahs-witnesses-are-changing-medicine Edited February 27, 2017 by Calm 3
notHagoth7 Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) The biblical OT injunction can be taken to be figurative along the lines of Ammonites entering a covenant to never partake of the shedding of another's blood. It has some parallels in the NT, especially in the NT. I can see how JW's opt to take it literally. Jews likewise insist on kosher-butchered meat from a similar viewpoint. But to refuse a transfusion? I still feel that's missing the mark. If Jesus of Nazareth shed every drop of his blood to save others...and even JW's partake in remembrance...why not allow our fellow man to willingly shed a safe pint to do the same? (Wise/harmless. Doves.) Touching on something said in another thread in another thread, the difference being that the blood shed there was violently taken, rather than lovingly given. Thus unclean. I respect whatever they choose to believe/do. Thoughts? The Nephites stood in the gap in the middle ground, willing to shed blood of aggressors to protect the innocent. What if the charitable prayers/faith/deeds of the righteous - of those like JW's unwilling to lift the sword - and of the rest of us who are weary of war - became so solar-flare glaring with JackFrost-melting charity that the need for the physical sword vanished and was replaced with the sudden need for plowshares to help feed the incoming streams of peoples...who were converted as profoundly as the Lamanites converted by the peaceful/faithful Ammonites? And with such faith, what if not only none would *dare* assault the city on the hill, but more importantly, *the very desire* to do so would be vanquished...transformed, and laid under foot? Is that not what scripture promises of blinding faith? Question being, at what point does it become prudent to drop the sword for the plowshare. Does evil require that we yet hold a sword in one hand and a trowel in the other? At what point does it become wisest to release the nut of so-called-security clenched in our fist...to be able to slip our hand free of the bars of the cycle of violence/bloodshed? I would genuinely value your JW friend's input on that question. Thoughts/impressions? Edited February 27, 2017 by notHagoth7 1
Ahab Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 1 hour ago, amo said: During some talks/discussions with a J-W coworker the subject of blood came up. I heard her side, I told her ours but after a while we went back to square 1. Any good learned advise on this subject ? Thx. I would just give our understanding on the issue, if you can do that, and leave it at that. Well, maybe also with the thought that things can be misinterpreted rather easily and that we do not believe it is a sin for one person to give their blood to help save another person or people.
notHagoth7 Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: JWs' refusal to accept blood transfusion have benefitted all of us. Whether or not one agrees with them, we should be grateful for their faithfulness and principled stands. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-jehovahs-witnesses-are-changing-medicine Agreed. I have tremendous respect for the few I have had the privilege to meet. ?! Thank you for sharing this! Edited February 27, 2017 by notHagoth7
amo Posted February 27, 2017 Author Posted February 27, 2017 4 hours ago, Calm said: JWs' refusal to accept blood transfusion have benefitted all of us. Whether or not one agrees with them, we should be grateful for their faithfulness and principled stands. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-jehovahs-witnesses-are-changing-medicine Are you being serious ? At the cost of hundreds of lives like this 1, for example ...? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-jehovahs-witness-death-young-mom-investigation-1.3806578
Glenn101 Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 4 hours ago, amo said: During some talks/discussions with a J-W coworker the subject of blood came up. I heard her side, I told her ours but after a while we went back to square 1. Any good learned advise on this subject ? Thx. In Leviticus 17 and again in Deuteronomy 12 the Children of Israel were commanded not to eat blood, i.e. to cook and eat an animal with the blood still in it but were rather commanded to drain the blood from the body prior to cooking and eating any flesh. That is my understanding of the edict in Acts 15 concerning abstaining from blood.
Derl Sanderson Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 Don't want any of you to get the big head, but I must say that the charity with which you treat Jehovah's Witnesses here is most impressive, especially when compared with they way they are trashed on other religion-related sites (which I could name, but I don't know if that would be acceptable or appropriate here). 1
Calm Posted February 27, 2017 Posted February 27, 2017 2 hours ago, amo said: Are you being serious ? At the cost of hundreds of lives like this 1, for example ...? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-jehovahs-witness-death-young-mom-investigation-1.3806578 I am not saying it was the right thing to do, but we have greatly benefited from it as you can read in the article I linked to. One can be sad for the lives lost while still recognizing what their actions led to for us. 1
amo Posted February 28, 2017 Author Posted February 28, 2017 13 hours ago, Calm said: I am not saying it was the right thing to do, but we have greatly benefited from it as you can read in the article I linked to. One can be sad for the lives lost while still recognizing what their actions led to for us. Well, of course I respect your opinion, but I believe that 1 life lost is 1 too many, and I'm sure that that's the thinking behind this issue and is what motivates the scientific world so that things can change, and not the other way around. But then again, that's my opinion too...
amo Posted February 28, 2017 Author Posted February 28, 2017 15 hours ago, Glenn101 said: In Leviticus 17 and again in Deuteronomy 12 the Children of Israel were commanded not to eat blood, i.e. to cook and eat an animal with the blood still in it but were rather commanded to drain the blood from the body prior to cooking and eating any flesh. That is my understanding of the edict in Acts 15 concerning abstaining from blood. That seems to be the general consensus. I'm wondering however, if there's any new material, any ancient text, that may give a greater insight into this matter.
Alan Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 I have always felt the JW's have a point. I certainly wouldn't want someone else's blood in my body.
Rain Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 20 hours ago, notHagoth7 said: The biblical OT injunction can be taken to be figurative along the lines of Ammonites entering a covenant to never partake of the shedding of another's blood. It has some parallels in the NT, especially in the NT. I can see how JW's opt to take it literally. Jews likewise insist on kosher-butchered meat from a similar viewpoint. But to refuse a transfusion? I still feel that's missing the mark. If Jesus of Nazareth shed every drop of his blood to save others...and even JW's partake in remembrance...why not allow our fellow man to willingly shed a safe pint to do the same? (Wise/harmless. Doves.) Touching on something said in another thread in another thread, the difference being that the blood shed there was violently taken, rather than lovingly given. Thus unclean. I respect whatever they choose to believe/do. Thoughts? The Nephites stood in the gap in the middle ground, willing to shed blood of aggressors to protect the innocent. What if the charitable prayers/faith/deeds of the righteous - of those like JW's unwilling to lift the sword - and of the rest of us who are weary of war - became so solar-flare glaring with JackFrost-melting charity that the need for the physical sword vanished and was replaced with the sudden need for plowshares to help feed the incoming streams of peoples...who were converted as profoundly as the Lamanites converted by the peaceful/faithful Ammonites? And with such faith, what if not only none would *dare* assault the city on the hill, but more importantly, *the very desire* to do so would be vanquished...transformed, and laid under foot? Is that not what scripture promises of blinding faith? Question being, at what point does it become prudent to drop the sword for the plowshare. Does evil require that we yet hold a sword in one hand and a trowel in the other? At what point does it become wisest to release the nut of so-called-security clenched in our fist...to be able to slip our hand free of the bars of the cycle of violence/bloodshed? I would genuinely value your JW friend's input on that question. Thoughts/impressions? Shed every drop or shed from every pore? I've not understood it was every drop. So what you said makes me wonder if JW do believe he shed blood. It seems like it is a given, but I met someone once who didn't believe Jesus shed blood at all, quoting Luke 22:44 as a reference. Looking at the JW site for their version of the scriptures it is worded similar to the KJV: "his sweat became as drops of blood falling to the ground". JW.org This person believed that he shed sweat, not blood. His sweat was just LIKE blood.
Benjamin McGuire Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 Quote JWs' refusal to accept blood transfusion have benefitted all of us. Whether or not one agrees with them, we should be grateful for their faithfulness and principled stands. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-jehovahs-witnesses-are-changing-medicine On the other hand, does our benefit mean that we should ignore other problems that come from it? The problem with this is that it creates a standard that we wouldn't want to adopt necessarily in other areas. Refusal to be immunized creates risk for the larger community (should we deny people the choice?). Should we judge the outcomes of medical experimentation on humans - not by the impact that it has for the individuals being tested but by the larger benefit it might create for the rest of the population? These sorts of ethical questions suffer very badly when we use simple anecdotal evidence.
thesometimesaint Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 2 hours ago, Alan said: I have always felt the JW's have a point. I certainly wouldn't want someone else's blood in my body. Even if it kept you alive? 1
notHagoth7 Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, Rain said: Shed every drop or shed from every pore? I've not understood it was every drop. So what you said makes me wonder if JW do believe he shed blood. It seems like it is a given, but I met someone once who didn't believe Jesus shed blood at all, quoting Luke 22:44 as a reference. Looking at the JW site for their version of the scriptures it is worded similar to the KJV: "his sweat became as drops of blood falling to the ground". JW.org This person believed that he shed sweat, not blood. His sweat was just LIKE blood. Correction: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/19.18?lang=eng#17 Beyond that, the paschal lamb required something more. That was fulfilled ca. 2000 years ago - either in the spirit of the law, or the letter of the law, or both. I currently believe the latter. In theory, laying down one's life shouldn't matter how much blood was shed, since doing such is giving one's all...whether a drop remains or none was shed at all. NT is quite clear that we are cleansed by that blood once shed. (...a core purpose of the bread and water.) We are expected to drain the cup empty...not just sip. I believe, but do not yet know, that such a requirement is in memory of something much more important than H20. I will end my reply on a note of what was thereby provided: Edited February 28, 2017 by notHagoth7
Rain Posted February 28, 2017 Posted February 28, 2017 (edited) 48 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said: Correction: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/19.18?lang=eng#17 Beyond that, the paschal lamb required something more. That was fulfilled ca. 2000 years ago - either in the spirit of the law, or the letter of the law, or both. I currently believe the latter. In theory, laying down one's life shouldn't matter how much blood was shed, since doing such is giving one's all...whether a drop remains or none was shed at all. NT is quite clear that we are cleansed by that blood once shed. (...a core purpose of the bread and water.) We are expected to drain the cup empty...not just sip. I believe, but do not yet know, that such a requirement is in memory of something much more important than H20. I will end my reply on a note of what was thereby provided: This person wasn't LDS so I wouldn't expect her to have our belief on this nor accept LDS scriptures. It doesn't matter to me how much - the atonement worked - except I wanted to be correct on what I know so I was wanting to know if there was something that I was missing that said it was every drop. Edited February 28, 2017 by Rain
Calm Posted March 1, 2017 Posted March 1, 2017 (edited) 16 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: On the other hand, does our benefit mean that we should ignore other problems that come from it? The problem with this is that it creates a standard that we wouldn't want to adopt necessarily in other areas. Refusal to be immunized creates risk for the larger community (should we deny people the choice?). Should we judge the outcomes of medical experimentation on humans - not by the impact that it has for the individuals being tested but by the larger benefit it might create for the rest of the population? These sorts of ethical questions suffer very badly when we use simple anecdotal evidence. I am in no way saying we should ignore the problems, I am just saying we should recognize that we personally have benefitted even if their own people have suffered. There is often a certain self righteousness that exists in criticisms of faiths not our own, I find that especially troubling when we have benefitted from these other faiths. My feeling is it is similar to those who criticize sweat shops or illegal immigration while benefitting from the lower costs such bring. I believe by being grateful, recognizing what role that faith has played in improving medical procedures (or other things impacted by faith positions we disagree with), we will be more understanding and empathic of the others' position and therefore in a better position to persuade them to what we ourselves believe is a better way or at least we will have greater access and trust established so that if we choose to override their choices, they will recognize that it is not done out of arrogance, a need to be right, or disrespect, but out of love. Edited March 1, 2017 by Calm 1
Calm Posted March 1, 2017 Posted March 1, 2017 (edited) 19 hours ago, Alan said: I have always felt the JW's have a point. I certainly wouldn't want someone else's blood in my body. The blood doesn't last very long, the more common red blood cells 4 months (120 days) or less depending on how old it was when entering the body, white a year (on average, some only last a few days, the longest appears to be 6 years) Would you prefer to die?(serious question), I don't understand the problem of taking in blood given we take in meat from animals that may have traces of blood, we eat animal organs and muscles with pleasure, wear their skin. We shared our own mothers' blood in the womb. Kissing we share saliva. Edited March 1, 2017 by Calm
amo Posted March 1, 2017 Author Posted March 1, 2017 10 hours ago, Calm said: I am in no way saying we should ignore the problems, I am just saying we should recognize that we personally have benefitted even if their own people have suffered. There is often a certain self righteousness that exists in criticisms of faiths not our own, I find that especially troubling when we have benefitted from these other faiths. My feeling is it is similar to those who criticize sweat shops or illegal immigration while benefitting from the lower costs such bring. I believe by being grateful, recognizing what role that faith has played in improving medical procedures (or other things impacted by faith positions we disagree with), we will be more understanding and empathic of the others' position and therefore in a better position to persuade them to what we ourselves believe is a better way or at least we will have greater access and trust established so that if we choose to override their choices, they will recognize that it is not done out of arrogance, a need to be right, or disrespect, but out of love. I tend to disagree with your opinion. I believe our deepest gratitude and appreciation should be directed to science and the hundreds of doctors, researchers, etc., who, facing a life threatening problem like this blood ban, were able to find a solution–still in process-, guided/inspired by God’s love to his children.
Rain Posted March 1, 2017 Posted March 1, 2017 4 minutes ago, amo said: I tend to disagree with your opinion. I believe our deepest gratitude and appreciation should be directed to science and the hundreds of doctors, researchers, etc., who, facing a life threatening problem like this blood ban, were able to find a solution–still in process-, guided/inspired by God’s love to his children. Your opinions are not mutually exclusive. You can see that we have benifited from their beliefs while having a deep gratitude for those who worked to find a solution.
Alan Posted March 1, 2017 Posted March 1, 2017 22 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Even if it kept you alive? I'd rather explore alternatives. There often are alternatives available in cases where blood is routinely used. The JW's have demonstrated this quite successfully. And to be honest, I'm not all that concerned about being kept alive.
Recommended Posts