Transfusion and Eating – no difference?

Posted in the Jehovah's Witness Forum

First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#1 Nov 9, 2012
Transfusion and Eating – no difference?

Today I added a new article to my blog addressing what Watchtower says in public view about transfusion versus eating compared to what it admits in private about transfusion and eating. It’s short and sweet, and of course documented.

My article is titled "Transfusion and Eating – no difference?" and is available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/11/tra...

Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#2 Nov 10, 2012
Marvin Shilmer wrote:
Transfusion and Eating – no difference?
Today I added a new article to my blog addressing what Watchtower says in public view about transfusion versus eating compared to what it admits in private about transfusion and eating. It’s short and sweet, and of course documented.
My article is titled "Transfusion and Eating – no difference?" and is available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/11/tra...
Marvin Shilmer
http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
I notice no one bothered addressing this particular post of yours, so I followed the link to the article. After reading the excerpts from the book, and the letter to the elder, I am left with the question......What's your point?

sidgi

“New one man.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#3 Nov 10, 2012
I have a question and I'm sorry if its not the right 'topic'.
In the letter they say that it was the life sustaining blood, or not consuming the blood that sustains its life (the animal).
I'm not wording this right but I hope you get it.
If it is that they had to dispose of enough of the blood that would sustain the animal's life, and not eat it, then why are transfusions so wrong when you are not taking enough life sustaining blood from another person?
I realize that you may need more than one unit, but you have not taken the life sustaining blood from anyone. That appears to be the true objection. It is for the 'respect of life', so they are saying. People don't die when they donate.
I've made a muck of this, hope you can translate.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#4 Nov 10, 2012
MixedMedia wrote:
I have a question and I'm sorry if its not the right 'topic'.
In the letter they say that it was the life sustaining blood, or not consuming the blood that sustains its life (the animal).
I'm not wording this right but I hope you get it.
If it is that they had to dispose of enough of the blood that would sustain the animal's life, and not eat it, then why are transfusions so wrong when you are not taking enough life sustaining blood from another person?
I realize that you may need more than one unit, but you have not taken the life sustaining blood from anyone. That appears to be the true objection. It is for the 'respect of life', so they are saying. People don't die when they donate.
I've made a muck of this, hope you can translate.
Please don't take this as a WTBTS positional answer. The reasons are clearly stated in the bible. Everything belongs to God. Some He has given to man, and some He has not. Blood is one of those He has not.

sidgi

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#5 Nov 10, 2012
sidgi wrote:
<quoted text>
Please don't take this as a WTBTS positional answer. The reasons are clearly stated in the bible. Everything belongs to God. Some He has given to man, and some He has not. Blood is one of those He has not.
sidgi
Then tell us why a Jew, which was granted with a higher standard than the Gentiles, was't cut off when he or she has eaten a self dead unclean animals, a carcass with all its coagulated blood in... Leviticus 17:15... in spite of what comes forth in Genesis 94 and Leviticus 17:13...?

Is coagulated blood in a carcass not blood any longer... if not... will it be Ok to eat blod sausages...?

“New one man.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#6 Nov 10, 2012
sidgi wrote:
<quoted text>Please don't take this as a WTBTS positional answer. The reasons are clearly stated in the bible. Everything belongs to God. Some He has given to man, and some He has not. Blood is one of those He has not.

sidgi
But the blood is still in humans sustaining life. It's god given no?
Thirdwitness

Oklahoma City, OK

#7 Nov 10, 2012
I'm glad Marvin brought this up because I was about to start a thread on this very subject.

The question posed in the WT that Marvin quotes in his blog is a good one. In other words, in what ways is transfusing blood not actually different from eating blood? And then we might also show in what ways is transfusing blood actually different from eating blood?

I will show you how the WT makes known the differences as well as the similarities and that there is no contradiction in showing both. What's more is this: I will show you that Marvin Shilmer agrees with the WT publications on the differences and similarities. And furthermore I will show you that Noah was forbidden to eat, drink, or otherwise take blood into his body.

Furthermore you will see the anti-JW blood hero cower in fear as he refuses to answer questions straightforwardly and honestly simply because answering them will refute his claims.

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#8 Nov 10, 2012
Thirdwitness wrote:
I'm glad Marvin brought this up because I was about to start a thread on this very subject.
The question posed in the WT that Marvin quotes in his blog is a good one. In other words, in what ways is transfusing blood not actually different from eating blood? And then we might also show in what ways is transfusing blood actually different from eating blood?
I will show you how the WT makes known the differences as well as the similarities and that there is no contradiction in showing both. What's more is this: I will show you that Marvin Shilmer agrees with the WT publications on the differences and similarities. And furthermore I will show you that Noah was forbidden to eat, drink, or otherwise take blood into his body.
Furthermore you will see the anti-JW blood hero cower in fear as he refuses to answer questions straightforwardly and honestly simply because answering them will refute his claims.
That sounds good Third Witness...

Tell us where we can read, where red and white blood cells, plasma and patelets comes forth in the Scriptures, which your idols the Governing Bodys are banning and follow upp with sanctions...?

Further to above, where we can read that is is acceptable to store tons of killed annimals blood and get use of derivates from this source, e.g the hemoglobin and platelet gel... without sanctions... seen in the light of Genesis 9:4 and Leviticus 17:13 and the principles hereof...?

I take the liberty to make an illustration, even that we know you have difficulties to understand, due to our idols mind control and that you get us of the Watchtower magazines as blinkers but there re for sure ohers that have the capaility to understand like those at the time Jesus Christ was among us...

If an owner of a car prohibits all his friends to get use of his car... which, as a natural fact of the usage, also will empty the tank for some part of the gasoline...

Will it then be in acordance to the owners will and the principles hereof, to drain it for some litres of gasoline and remove the spare wheel and get use of it in another car... even with a modification of the spare wheel...?

Lets see how often you and your cronies will get use of the Scriptues as references to support and defend your idols, the Governing Bodys evil an weird doctrines of men... like the Scribes and pharisees described in Jeremiah 8:8,9... and with the same result as comes forth in Jeremiah 7:31,32... where they continue to bury...:HUH:

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#9 Nov 10, 2012
Veritas 69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Then tell us why a Jew, which was granted with a higher standard than the Gentiles, was't cut off when he or she has eaten a self dead unclean animals, a carcass with all its coagulated blood in... Leviticus 17:15... in spite of what comes forth in Genesis 94 and Leviticus 17:13...?
Is coagulated blood in a carcass not blood any longer... if not... will it be Ok to eat blod sausages...?
I don't need to tell you "why" anything. the bible itself tells you and everyone. there is not one scripture allowing blood use. There are some that you could reason on that might lead one to the conclusion that God allowed the nations to eat blood, but in reality it only shows that the Jews were held to a higher standard, as they were regarded as God's own people. If you, or anyone, wishes to be considered as less than God's people, it is your own choice. Never the less, the statements at Genesis 9 stand, regarding mens blood. God says it belongs to Him, and He wants it back.

sidgi
Thirdwitness

New Boston, TX

#10 Nov 10, 2012
First off Marvin quotes the the Live Forever book which asks on paragraph 22 page 216: "Why is taking a blood transfusion not actually different from “eating” blood?"

Well what exactly is the answer found in paragraph 22. This: "‘abstaining from blood’ means not taking it into your body at all"

Thus the book shows that blood transfusions are no different from literally eating blood in that EITHER WAY BLOOD IS TAKEN INTO YOUR BODY.

This is similar to the question on paragraph 10 of the Truth book page 167: "Explain why getting a blood transfusion is not actually different from “eating.”"

The answers from paragraph 10:

1. Transfusing blood is no different from eating blood in that it can be "life-sustaining".

2. Transfusing blood is no different from eating blood in that "the same method" is used to administer it as "when a patient is unable to eat through his mouth".

3. Transfusing blood is no different from eating blood in that we are "taking it into our bodies" either way.

Thus transfusing blood is not actually eating blood literally by mouth but it is no different from eating blood literally by mouth in that it is 1. "life sustaining" 2. the "same method" is used in intravenous feeding 3. we are "taking it into our bodies".

The similaries are NOT in the way the blood is taken into the body and the WT has never said otherwise. The similarities are not that intravenous feeding is actually literally eating by mouth and the WT has never said otherwise. The WT has long recognized that literally eating blood and transfusing blood thru the veins is two different means of sustaining life and taking blood into the body.

It is just as the Sept 15, 1961 WT clearly states: "It is of no consequence that the blood is taken into the body through the veins instead of the mouth. Nor does the claim by some that it is not the same as intravenous feeding carry weight. The fact is that it nourishes or sustains the life of the body."

Marvin is attempting to prejudice the reader by making it appear that the JWs have a silly teaching that transfusing blood is exactly the same as literally eating blood in every way possible. And this is not and never has been what the WT publications have stated.

We know the differences and we know the similarities and we have stated both and Marvin has agreed with us on occasions. I will show you.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#11 Nov 10, 2012
MixedMedia wrote:
<quoted text>
But the blood is still in humans sustaining life. It's god given no?


Like the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, in the garden, God put restrictions on blood. It shows to any reasonable person, that His interest in it goes beyond Mens interests. According to your line of thought, a man might reason that if he doesn't kill someone and take their food, he might starve, himself. The bible says you shouldn't kill, but a man might reason that his own life is more inmportant than someone else' or their cildren. Using blood for medical purposes doesn't nesessarily kill anyone, but it could. Never the less, it is restricted by the bible, and that is the important thing.

sidgi
Thirdwitness

New Boston, TX

#12 Nov 10, 2012
But first lets now look at the 2006 letter to an elder that Marvin quotes. It states: "Regarding the observation that taking a transfusion is not technically "eating" blood, obviously the taking of blood into the circulatory system by transfusion is not "eating" it in the conventional sense as in the case of food or drink that goes into the mouth and passes through the digestive system in providing some nutrients to sustain the body."

This is exactly what that WT of Sept 15 stated way back in 1961: "It is of no consequence that the blood is taken into the body through the veins instead of the mouth."

Yes it is obvious that taking blood into the body thru the veins is not "technically" or literally eating by mouth as eating is "conventionally" understood as being. And so recognizing the difference the WT has stated that the difference is of no consequence since EITHER WAY the blood nourishes, sustains life, is fed into the body using the same method as intravenous feeding of glucose solutions, is taken into the body, and is not abstaining from blood.

Marvin has agreed with this and now I will show you this.
Thirdwitness

New Boston, TX

#13 Nov 10, 2012
The Watchtower of September 1, 1986 asks the question on paragraph 12, page 25: "Why are blood transfusions to be equated with eating blood through the mouth?" Paragraph 12 then proceeds to tell us why transfusing blood is equated with eating blood through the mouth.

Not true, say opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses. Transfusing blood cannot be equated to eating blood in any way. But did you know that Marvin Shilmer, who vehemently opposers Jehovah's Witnesses, equates eating blood to transfusing blood? No way, you say. That's impossible! Marvin Shilmer would never say anything like that. No, he would never actually directly come out and agree with Jehovah's Witnesses that transfusing blood can be equated to literally eating blood. But he has done so unwittingly and correctly so. Let me clearly document this for you so that you have no doubt that Marvin Shilmer agrees with WT publications on this matter.

1. Transfusing blood can be equated to eating blood in that either way blood is consumed by the body receiving it.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
"Transplanting blood is consuming blood."--Marvin Shilmer.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
"Dietary use of blood....Tissue transplantation...both are CONSUMPTION"--Marvin Shilmer.

2. Transfusing blood can be equated to eating blood in that either way the blood is used to sustain the body receiving it.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
"Of course plasma has a value to help sustain life, this is why it is used in transfusion medicine as are many other products from blood."--Marvin Shilmer.

3. Transfusing blood can be equated to eating blood in that either way the blood is used as nourishment for the body receiving it.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
"Nourishment is anything taken into the body so sustain life."--Marvin Shilmer.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
"nourishment is anything that helps sustain the body, which would include acts such as topical application of fresh blood to a wound or severe burn."--Marvin Shilmer.

Certainly if Marvin believes that topical application of blood is nourishment then most definitely he believes that intravenous feeding of blood would be nourishment to the body receiving it.


4. Transfusing blood can be equated to eating blood in that either way the blood provides nutritional benefit as food.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
"if transfusing constituents from blood provides nutritional benefit as food, then it is false to say Witnesses abstain from blood. This is my perspective, too."--Marvin Shilmer.

Certainly 'if transfusing constituents from blood provides nutritional benefit as food' then transfusing blood itself would do the same.

Continued
Thirdwitness

New Boston, TX

#14 Nov 10, 2012
5. Transfusing blood can be equated to eating blood in that either way the blood provides nutritional value to the body.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
"Transplanting blood intravenously ... will provide nutritional value to the body"--Marvin Shilmer.

6. Transfusing blood can be equated to eating blood in that either way matter is placed in the digestive tract because of the blood entering the body.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
"Eating is to place matter into our digestive tract."--Marvin Shilmer.

It is scientific fact that transfused blood will end up placing blood matter into the digestive tract.

7. Transfusing blood can be equated to eating blood in that either way the intake of that blood is providing nutrition or new material/energy for the body receiving it.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
"Nutrition is the intake and extraction of new materials/energy."--Marvi n Shilmer.

As we all know, transfused blood is new material that was not in the body before being transfused into the body.

8. Marvin also understands and agrees with JWs that transfusing blood can NOT be equated to eating blood in that either way it is administered in the same manner.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
"I HAVE NOT asserted that Watchtower teaches that intravenous administration and swallowing matter are THE SAME as physical acts....
-- I HAVE asserted that Watchtower teaches that intravenous administration of BLOOD and swallowing BLOOD are acts that should be EQUATED. Got that?"--Marvin Shiilmer.

Yes we do 'got that'. We do understand that Marvin agrees that WT DOES NOT TEACH that intravenous administration of blood and swallowing blood are equal in that they are the same physical acts or administered into the body in the same exact manner. We also understand that Marvin equates transfusing of blood to eating blood in the same exact way that the WT publications equate transfusing of blood to eating blood.
Thirdwitness

AOL

#15 Nov 10, 2012
But now here's the real clincher. The Bible says 'abstain from blood'. This is reiteration of the Noachian decree which says "animals...may serve as food for you....its blood you must not eat (or must not serve as food for you). Jehovah's Witnesses believe this means blood should not be literally eaten of course but that it also should not be taken into the body by other means such as transfusions because it will provide nourishment, sustenance, nutritional value, etc. This would be failure to 'abstain from blood'.

Marvin also agrees and equates transfusing blood with eating blood in that either way it is failing to abstain from blood. Let me show you.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
"Transplanting blood intravenously ... will provide nutritional value to the body"--Marvin Shilmer.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
"if transfusing constituents from blood provides nutritional benefit as food, then it is false to say Witnesses abstain from blood. This is my perspective, too."--Marvin Shilmer.

Notice that Marvin tells us that transfusing blood is equated to eating blood in that it will provide nutritional value then he tells us that transfusing constituents of blood, for that reason, is failure to abstain from blood.

Of course he says this because of his anti-JW agenda in trying to prove to us that JWs are wrong for allowing fractions and are thus not 'abstaining from blood' when taking fractions since such fractions provide nutritional value to the body. Certainly if taking fractions is failure to abstain from blood then taking blood which contains the fractions is failure to abstain from blood.

Thus on the most important point of all Marvin Shilmer agrees with WT publications that transfusing blood is equated to eating blood in that either way a person has failed to 'abstain from blood' because they have taken blood into their bodies in a way that provides 'nutritional benefits as food' or 'nutritional value to the body'.

And that is what you call a true slam dunk.

"Transplanting blood intravenously ... will provide nutritional value to the body"--Marvin Shilmer.

"if transfusing constituents from blood provides nutritional benefit as food, then it is false to say Witnesses abstain from blood. This is my perspective, too."--Marvin Shilmer.

What Marvin has said with these two statements:

1. He agrees with JWs that transfusing blood is failure to abstain from blood.
2. He disagrees with JWs that fractions should be allowed as a conscience matter and shows us that he believes taking fractions is also failure to abstain from blood.

He shows us that he believes JWs are too lenient in allowing fractions. Since he believes that, he definitely should not take fractions himself.
Thirdwitness

AOL

#16 Nov 10, 2012
To summarize:

Marvin Shilmer has agreed with the WT publications that transfusing blood is equated to eating blood in that either way:

1. blood is consumed by the body receiving it.

2. blood is used to sustain the body receiving it.

3. blood is used as nourishment for the body receiving it.

4. blood provides nutritional benefit as food to the body receiving it.

5. blood provides nutritional value to the body receiving it.

6. matter from blood is placed in the digestive tract of the body receiving it.

7. blood is providing nutrition or new material/energy for the body receiving it.

8. blood is NOT equated in the way it is administered into the body receiving it.

9. blood is not being abstained from

Once again Marvin Shilmer shows us that he agrees with the WT publications and Jehovah's Witnesses and that transfusing blood can be equated to eating blood in various ways but NOT in the way it is administered.

This should be a real eye opener for those interested in truth rather than Marvus Bulshiddus.
dee lightful

Piedmont, SC

#17 Nov 10, 2012
Thirdwitness wrote:
5. Transfusing blood can be equated to eating blood in that either way the blood provides nutritional value to the body.
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
"Transplanting blood intravenously ... will provide nutritional value to the body"--Marvin Shilmer.
6. Transfusing blood can be equated to eating blood in that either way matter is placed in the digestive tract because of the blood entering the body.
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
"Eating is to place matter into our digestive tract."--Marvin Shilmer.
It is scientific fact that transfused blood will end up placing blood matter into the digestive tract.
7. Transfusing blood can be equated to eating blood in that either way the intake of that blood is providing nutrition or new material/energy for the body receiving it.
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
"Nutrition is the intake and extraction of new materials/energy."--Marvi n Shilmer.
As we all know, transfused blood is new material that was not in the body before being transfused into the body.
8. Marvin also understands and agrees with JWs that transfusing blood can NOT be equated to eating blood in that either way it is administered in the same manner.
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
"I HAVE NOT asserted that Watchtower teaches that intravenous administration and swallowing matter are THE SAME as physical acts....
-- I HAVE asserted that Watchtower teaches that intravenous administration of BLOOD and swallowing BLOOD are acts that should be EQUATED. Got that?"--Marvin Shiilmer.
Yes we do 'got that'. We do understand that Marvin agrees that WT DOES NOT TEACH that intravenous administration of blood and swallowing blood are equal in that they are the same physical acts or administered into the body in the same exact manner. We also understand that Marvin equates transfusing of blood to eating blood in the same exact way that the WT publications equate transfusing of blood to eating blood.
Nice try third, but no cigar!
Your twisting doesn't work the way the WT's twistings once worked, for people today are much more intelligent than your average JW's.( that what happens when you listen to men and refuse an education).
Besides all your rhetoric comes to nought now that the WT believes it is okay to take parts of blood and is no longer a dsf offense so the in effect they are saying it is okay to not abstain.
Are you confused much by their flip flopping rules?
Thirdwitness

AOL

#18 Nov 10, 2012
dee lightful wrote:
<quoted text> Nice try third, but no cigar!
Your twisting doesn't work the way the WT's twistings once worked, for people today are much more intelligent than your average JW's.( that what happens when you listen to men and refuse an education).
Besides all your rhetoric comes to nought now that the WT believes it is okay to take parts of blood and is no longer a dsf offense so the in effect they are saying it is okay to not abstain.
Are you confused much by their flip flopping rules?
There you have it. Rhetoric labeling verifiable reputable sources and proof as rhetoric for no other reason than having an anti-JW agenda. Nothing more.
dee lightful

Piedmont, SC

#19 Nov 10, 2012
Thirdwitness wrote:
<quoted text>
There you have it. Rhetoric labeling verifiable reputable sources and proof as rhetoric for no other reason than having an anti-JW agenda. Nothing more.
Really? What did I get wrong? Can you deny that the WT now allows the taking of parts of blood? Yet you still call that abstaining?
.
LURKERS and BIBLES STUDIES
Can you see how third cannot dispute what I said so now you now get the double talk that actually says nothing at all.
Remnant143999

Rio Rancho, NM

#20 Nov 10, 2012
Jw's believe blood tranfusions are a sin. My question is, who cares if a jw takes a blood transfusion, isn't that an issue between Jehovah and the transfusion taker? There are so many sins a jw comittes in their life time that are overlooked, so why not just worry about youself and let Jehovah sort it out in due time?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
WBTS teaching on 1 John 5:12 ? 4 min Christs witness 156
Thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses 'seek God's Ki... 4 min supersonic boom 127
What if the Child just isn't Interested? 7 min Brother P 11
Question about divorce! 8 min Nodoubt 12
Why does God need a name? 13 min SARDS 17
Why I'm STILL one of Jehovah's Witnesses... 28 min Brother P 584
Same old apostate filth at it again 29 min BUDGIE 3
Found this today about Gods name. 44 min Christs witness 288
Why was the NWT written? (Dec '13) 1 hr Pat 791
What is the trinity? (Apr '13) 2 hr Beelzebub Hook 16,954
LL -How to translate the Bible ? 4 hr jace 108
YES-Jesus WAS once known as Michael 5 hr imagoodboy 156

Jehovah's Witness People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE