JWs and blood transfusions

Originally posted by DeepThought
Abstain from blood. I rather think that the Bible is referring to things like black pudding rather than blood transfusions. So you are saying if artificial blood plasma were available it would be acceptable? I don't know if such a thing exists, I'm just wondering about the scope of the prohibition.

Abstain means abstain.
If you were told to abstain from alcohol because it would mean your life, putting it into your blood stream by needle would be ok?
Also a lot of blood going into your body is ok by transfusion, but a little in pudding is wrong?

Originally posted by galveston75
Also a lot of blood going into your body is ok by transfusion, but a little in pudding is wrong?

Eating a little bit of black pudding is not needed to save lives.

Originally posted by FMF
Eating a little bit of black pudding is not needed to save lives.

Didn't say that. But how much blood do you think God says ok, no big deal?

ab·stain (b-stn, b-)
intr.v. ab·stained, ab·stain·ing, ab·stains
1. To refrain from something by one's own choice: abstain from traditional political rhetoric. See Synonyms at refrain1.
2. To refrain from voting: Forty senators voted in favor of the bill, 45 voted against it, and 15 abstained.
[Middle English absteinen, to avoid, from Old French abstenir, from Latin abstinre, to hold back : abs-, ab-, away; see ab-1 + tenre, to hold; see ten- in Indo-European roots.]

It would seem by this and all other explinations of the word "abstain" it means you do not do something, even a little.
One cannot vote "a little". You either vote or you don't.

Originally posted by galveston75
Didn't say that. But how much blood do you think God says ok, no big deal?

ab·stain (b-stn, b-)
intr.v. ab·stained, ab·stain·ing, ab·stains
1. To refrain from something by one's own choice: abstain from traditional political rhetoric. See Synonyms at refrain1.
2. To refrain from voting: Forty senators voted in favor of the bill, 45 voted against i ...[text shortened]... do not do something, even a little.
One cannot vote "a little". You either vote or you don't.

It's not about abstaining from blood transfusions; it's about abstaining from blood sacrifices and the rituals attendant thereto.

Originally posted by galveston75
Didn't say that. But how much blood do you think God says ok, no big deal?

ab·stain (b-stn, b-)
intr.v. ab·stained, ab·stain·ing, ab·stains
1. To refrain from something by one's own choice: abstain from traditional political rhetoric. See Synonyms at refrain1.
2. To refrain from voting: Forty senators voted in favor of the bill, 45 voted against i ...[text shortened]... do not do something, even a little.
One cannot vote "a little". You either vote or you don't.

Are you going to address the pertinent fact that in SA the state had to intervene to save the life of a young girl who's Jehovah's Witness parents were going to let die rather than allow here medical care, I.e. a blood transfusion?

Thread 159598

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/kwazulu-natal/jehovah-s-witness-girl-saved-by-court-1.1700022

Originally posted by FMF
It's not about abstaining from blood transfusions; it's about abstaining from blood sacrifices and the rituals attendant thereto.

Yes it is. It is about blood period.
Read the scriptures again.....


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.”


Acts 15:28, 29: “The holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, ( 1 )to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols ( 2 )and from blood ( 3 )and from things strangled ( 4 )and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

Originally posted by galveston75
Yes it is. It is about blood period.
Read the scriptures again.....


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.”


Acts 15:28, 29: “The holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burde ...[text shortened]... tion. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!”

Blood transfusions have got nothing to do with eating animals and drinking animal blood [Gen. 9:3, 4] and blood transfusions have got nothing to do with sacrificing animals and drinking their blood [Acts 15:28, 29]. Your organisation changed its mind about this at least once in its history and will probably change its mind again at some point. The few times you have made the case against blood transfusions in the past on this forum you have lost hands down each time.

Originally posted by galveston75
Abstain means abstain.
If you were told to abstain from alcohol because it would mean your life, putting it into your blood stream by needle would be ok?
Also a lot of blood going into your body is ok by transfusion, but a little in pudding is wrong?

dude you are making too much sense, your logic unassailable, your reasoning sound, your argument fiirmly rooted in common sense, prepare for the usual balloonhead onslaught of self propelled propaganda, an infestation of spangled spacehoppers. Oh wait, i see the windy scourgebag and his sideflick are already here blowing the leaves from the trees. A perpetual autumn of blue meanies!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dude you are making too much sense, your logic unassailable, your reasoning sound, your argument fiirmly rooted in common sense, prepare for the usual balloonhead onslaught of self propelled propaganda, an infestation of spangled spacehoppers. Oh wait, i see the windy scourgebag and his sideflick are already here blowing the leaves from the trees. A perpetual autumn of blue meanies!

If you think Galveston displays common sense, sound reasoning and unassailable logic you need your bum felt................but then again, it is you I'm talking to.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dude you are making too much sense, your logic unassailable, your reasoning sound, your argument fiirmly rooted in common sense, prepare for the usual balloonhead onslaught of self propelled propaganda, an infestation of spangled spacehoppers. Oh wait, i see the windy scourgebag and his sideflick are already here blowing the leaves from the trees. A perpetual autumn of blue meanies!

Nice Robbie. It's a touchy subject for sure when anyones life can be in danger. But God is clear on this law and is "the giver and taker of all life". He is also very clear that the resurrection in the future will happen to all that have died.

Originally posted by FMF
Blood transfusions have got nothing to do with eating animals and drinking animal blood [Gen. 9:3, 4] and blood transfusions have got nothing to do with sacrificing animals and drinking their blood [Acts 15:28, 29]. Your organisation changed its mind about this at least once in its history and will probably change its mind again at some point. The few times you ...[text shortened]... he case against blood transfusions in the past on this forum you have lost hands down each time.

If you say so.......

Originally posted by Proper Knob
If you think Galveston displays common sense, sound reasoning and unassailable logic you need your bum felt................but then again, it is you I'm talking to.

I am an existentialist, i am under duress to make my own reality.

Originally posted by galveston75
Nice Robbie. It's a touchy subject for sure when anyones life can be in danger. But God is clear on this law and is "the giver and taker of all life". He is also very clear that the resurrection in the future will happen to all that have died.

sure it is thats why Zippy brought it up, AGAIN. They never mention the prostitutes, drug addicts, alcoholics, blind, deaf, gangsters, those in abject poverty, those in prison, the illiterate etc that we attempt to help, never.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am an existentialist, i am under duress to make my own reality.

Good for you, that doesn't change the fact you're wrong though. 😀

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
dude you are making too much sense, your logic unassailable, your reasoning sound, your argument fiirmly rooted in common sense, prepare for the usual balloonhead onslaught of self propelled propaganda, an infestation of spangled spacehoppers. Oh wait, i see the windy scourgebag and his sideflick are already here blowing the leaves from the trees. A perpetual autumn of blue meanies!

Galveston75 doesn't want to address the actual issue and how your doctrines affect real people, so perhaps you will:

The pertinent fact that in SA the state had to intervene to save the life of a young girl who's Jehovah's Witness parents were going to let die rather than allow here medical care, I.e. a blood transfusion?

Thread 159598

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/kwazulu-natal/jehovah-s-witness-girl-saved-by-court-1.1700022