JW: if god's law on Blood was around for 4500 years why did it not apply to the Witnesses until 1945 ?

Question

oh yea and to pre-empt your light got brighter argument..
If it took till 1945 to figure out that God might not like it if you ate blood..
you really better question the whole "Jehovah's organization thing"
Unless of course Jehovah wanted his flock led by the mentally challenged

Lamb : Nice hat :) seriously

lineDancer ( I've missed you in our debates I honeslty have) The point is not if I know the answer.. It is a question I truly hope you ask your selves.. If I can get you to question just one of the WT&TS made up doctrine .. you my friend are on the road to a better life, and a much better relationship with
God ..

JR y: before you answer anything on the blood issue again explain to the class what is the physilogical progression of Hypovolumic Shock .. Answer that and you are entitled to chat about your Blood Theories

FYI for the class
blood transfusion were being used to treat hemophilia since 1840
38 YEARS before our buddy CT RUSSEL stood on a corner in a white sheet waiting for the rapture

Yanks if you worshiped God you and I wouldn’t not be having this conversation .. You worship the Watchtower and Bible Tract Society, you just don't realize it

BTW not an apostate. just a deeply concerned human being

bongobea: oh if that was true my friend .. but ask an elder tonight, tomorrow if they were told that the current system would END in 1975 .. and they will flat out lie to you and say No we never were told that.. I call BS you all believed it and not one of your Elders corrected you in 1974 .. so ya thats telling you. it is going to end

Answer 1

silly: God is getting old, on the 7th day he was resting! He did not wake up until 1945!

He also was drowsy: He told them not to have vaccinations, and not to have organ transplants..called it cannibalism...He was groggy, and came to his senses soon, but not before many died.....oops!


EDIT: Here is a response that a Doctor gave to me...Check it out:
I'm a doctor and have found myself in the appalling situation of trying to save a life where the patient refuses blood because they are a JW. If they have signed a form there's nothing we can do, but if it's a child ie if the parent refuses to allow their child a life saving transfusion, we can overrule them.

They get their anti transfusion beliefs as follows:


They cite four biblical texts (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:12-14, Acts 15:29 and Acts 21:25). They say these mean that blood, the life-force, belongs to God and is not there for human use. They believe it a sin to eat not just black pudding but also to eat the flesh of animals that have not been properly bled.

And they extend the ban to transfusions. They won't even allow someone's blood to be stored before an operation and then used after it to replace their own blood loss. Blood is not to be stored; it is to be poured out and returned to God. Some JWs even reject dialysis or cell salvage on these grounds. Some will not accept red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma, but accept "fractions" made from these components.

There is a philosophical problem here. When a substance is broken down into components does the original remain? Some 90-96 per cent of blood plasma consists of water. The remainder is albumin, globulins, fibrinogen and coagulation factors. JWs say these may be used, according to conscience, but only if taken separately. Opponents say is like outlawing a ham and cheese sandwich but allowing the eating of bread, ham and cheese separately.

They are criticised for other inconsistencies. Blood fraction products are only available because of blood donation – a practice JWs condemned as unethical.

Many JWs still carry a signed and witnessed advance directive card absolutely refusing blood in the event of an accident. And the church's website still carries alarmist material about the dangers of transfusions in transmitting Aids, Lyme Disease and other conditions. It also exaggerates the effectiveness of alternative non-blood medical therapies.

What do doctors think?

The British Association of Anaesthetists guidelines insist that the wishes of the patient must normally be paramount. US doctors take a similar view; they know giving blood to someone who does not want it could get them sued – one of the busiest trauma hospitals in Florida even has a blanket policy of refusing to treat JWs.

Other countries, like France, take a more dirigiste view. And a landmark case in Dublin recently ruled that doctors were right to give a woman blood during childbirth because the right of her child to have a mother over-ruled her own right to refuse the blood.

There are even more subtle dilemmas to come. One asks whether doctors are obliged to give chemotherapy, which is normally accompanied by a blood transfusion, to patients who insist on having it without the blood, without which it is highly likely to fail. As medicine advances things are likely to get more, rather than less, tricky.

One more thing. Their literal interpretation of the Bible allows them (not unlike the Catholic church) to keep child abuse secret: Not good. They take Deuteronomy 19:15 literally, which demands two witnesses to a crime (not easy in cases of abuse). And they cite 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 – "Does anyone of you that has a case against the other dare to go to court before unrighteous men, and not before the holy ones?" – to justify trying to deal with criminals with courts of elders rather than courts of law. A Panorama investigation reported they have an internal list of 23,720 reported abusers which they keep private. Studies in the US suggest they have proportionally four times more sexual assaults on children than the Catholic Church.

Any religion which literally interprets the Bible, and keeps its doings secret can be a cause of harm in my view. And the idea that a woman can die leaving twins, motherless because of an obscure text in the Bible appals me as a doctor and a human being.

Dr Evie Wallace

Answer 2

Blue Letter Bible - Lexicon a million) initiating, beginning place 2) the guy or component that commences, the 1st individual or component in a chain, the chief 3) that by potential of which something starts to be, the beginning place, the energetic reason the be responsive to-how of 'beginning place' and 'energetic reason' in this word is the place water comes effervescent out of the floor is the source, beginning place, reason for the river. The water remains area of of the river, and is not the author of the river. somewhat be responsive to-how english will enable you to to understand what John wrote at Rev 3:14. Even the NASB an rather Trinitarian bible equates Rev 3:14 "initiating' with Prov. 8:22. the final is the chief, yet he remains area of the army.

Answer 3

Why would you ask a question and then try to negate the answer by trying to "Pre-empt" the response? Do you like to just hear yourself talk?

You must just be an apostate with a lot of time on your hands. The Bible itself said that even the prophets that God used to pen down certain prophecies wouldnt know the meaning of what they were writing.

However now we know the truth about many of those "mysterious" matters. Regarding Blood, just because the truth was discerned regarding this issue around World War II, does that mean that it is not correct? Read for yourself what Acts 15:29 says. Thats why so many people like yourself have problems with Organized Religion. You have that unreasonable, stupid attitude. We do not worship MEN! Our worship is exclusive to God and God alone. Rather than questioning why we didnt have this understanding earlier, we are grateful that now we have a more complete understanding of Gods word

Answer 4

Because it did not become an issue until physicians made a practice of transfusing blood.

When physicians first began the practice, they were considered cultish, crazy, demonic (and they transfused animal blood into humans first).

The second world war which began in 1939 for Europe and got USA into it in 1941 and ended in 1945 made taking blood a common practice. (It was done for military expedience at it was cheaper to heal an injured soldier than to recruit, train and transport new ones. So doctors experimented on soldiers and made transfusion a standard practice by the end of the second world war.)

Many things do not "come up" as an issue until scientists invent a technology.

Before 1945, taking blood was NOT AN ISSUE for ANY religion in the USA including the mainline Christian faiths.

Debbie

Answer 5

I have no idea. But I can guess, maybe like alot of religions picking and choosing things that the founder related to in some way or another! Truth be told, I really don't know squat about anything! Peace!

Answer 6

Are you that same guy that keeps ignoring my questions/facts? Yeah, I knew it was you :D.

I think I posted this about 4 times already, but I guess I'll post part of the Watchtower Article this time.

------------------------------------
WT June 15, 2000

Today, few people would think that the laws of Almighty God are at issue if a physician suggested their taking blood. While Jehovah’s Witnesses certainly want to keep living, we are committed to obey Jehovah’s law on blood. What does this mean in the light of current medical practice?

As transfusions of whole blood became common after World War II, Jehovah’s Witnesses saw that this was contrary to God’s law—and we still believe that. Yet, medicine has changed over time. Today, most transfusions are not of whole blood but of one of its primary components: (1) red cells; (2) white cells; (3) platelets; (4) plasma (serum), the fluid part. Depending on the condition of the patient, physicians might prescribe red cells, white cells, platelets, or plasma. Transfusing these major components allows a single unit of blood to be divided among more patients. Jehovah’s Witnesses hold that accepting whole blood or any of those four primary components violates God’s law. Significantly, keeping to this Bible-based position has protected them from many risks, including such diseases as hepatitis and AIDS that can be contracted from blood.
--------------------------------------

Actually blood was used many years prior to 1840, but it that separate components of blood was mainly used in 1940's. I know much about blood and how it is used.. however, you don't know that (human) blood was rejected ever since the early churches. If you want to save yourself trouble, try doing research without the help of apostate misquoted information.. because no JWs is going to sit here and correct you every time. If you tried looking at the article I posted, it was talking about separate blood components in the 1940's

After WWII, it started to become a issue, and not prior.


------------------------

You're mistaken.. The WatchTower never stated that the world was going to end in 1975, they said that 6000 years of mans history was going to end.. but they said Armageddon COULD happen in that year. Thats totally different thing what you are talking about.

Answer 7

God's laws regarding blood have always applied, and any Christian who ignored them was wrong to do so.

Answer 8

you are putting down the light got brighter but JW's are one of the only groups that change when they find they have made a mistake,
Catholics no hell isn't hot but they still teach it.

Answer 9

If you feel you know the answer, why ask the question? Pearls will be wasted addressing your question now.

Unsliced Ham should have kept her clown makeup on. Sarcasm befits her. Now bring on the elephants and the dancing bear.

Answer 10

that law was given also in the first century, the law is there if you want you keep or not but we suffer the consequences of our acts, how many laws are in the constitution that yuo are not obeying?

Answer 11

so sad that they cant see the forest through the trees and they cant smell thier own s%!*t on thier knees