Meagan
Church Militant
Posts: 151
|
Acts
Jul 7, 2008 10:38:23 GMT -5
Post by Meagan on Jul 7, 2008 10:38:23 GMT -5
Regarding the verses in Acts where the apostles issued the letter re the matter of blood.
What is the viewpoint according to the Church on these verses and how do they compare to the JW's?
I'm a little fuzzy on this.
According to the JW's the matter of the transfusion was no different than taking it in as food. So, in the case of Acts where it says to Abstain from blood, couldnt' it be said that it means Abstaining From blood Period?
What would be the counter argument?
|
|
NanaR
Church Militant
Posts: 173
|
Acts
Jul 7, 2008 13:07:07 GMT -5
Post by NanaR on Jul 7, 2008 13:07:07 GMT -5
Regarding the verses in Acts where the apostles issued the letter re the matter of blood. What is the viewpoint according to the Church on these verses and how do they compare to the JW's? I'm a little fuzzy on this. According to the JW's the matter of the transfusion was no different than taking it in as food. So, in the case of Acts where it says to Abstain from blood, couldnt' it be said that it means Abstaining From blood Period? What would be the counter argument? Olivia: I recently read a very exhaustive letter written by a former elder that takes apart the JW stand on blood transfusions. His letter is found here: exjehovahswitnessforum.yuku.com/topic/922/t/Letter-of-disassociation.htmlBut you also asked about the Catholic perspective, and that particular letter doesn't address that (although the person who wrote it does echo some thoughts found in the Catholic links below). Here are a couple of articles from the Catholic viewpoint: www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0009eye.aspwww.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=26The Precious Blood of Jesus is central to Catholic doctrine. JWs have no such reverence for Jesus' blood, for communion (in which Catholics share in the Precious Blood), or even (apparently) for the lives of those who have died because they refused a blood transfusion. This issue has always resonated with me due to the fact that my mother had life-saving surgery (with blood transfusions) shortly before the Witnesses started forbidding the practice. Most people do not know that the Witnesses used to encourage people to donate blood. I have read the quotes in scanned copies, but I don't have them handy right now. If you need to see them, I'll try to find them. Orthodox Jews, to whom the dietary laws of the OT are still paramount, do not consider blood transfusions to be the same as consuming blood as food. In point of fact, blood transfusions are NOT nourishment. If a person needs to be fed intravenously, what they receive is not blood but a nutrient solution such as glucose or electrolytes with glucose. Blood is given to provide oxygen transport, not nutrition. As the writer of the letter I linked first points out, the Watchtower also used to condemn vaccines. Then they decided vaccines were okay. They roundly condemned organ transplants as cannibalism, and then began making such a "conscience matter". Many Witnesses have received organ transplants. Here's what I have learned working in the Science Department of a community college: BLOOD IS AN ORGAN!! and ALL OTHER ORGANS AND TISSUES OF OUR BODY CONTAIN BLOOD CELLS. Matching blood is very complex, but matching tissue involves the same exact process plus goes even farther. Taking a tissue donation from another person is fraught with problems -- but the Catholic Church considers the donation of organs to be an "act of charity": www.geocities.com/agarry.geo/facts.html#C and www.donatelifeny.org/organ/o_religious.htmlMy personal opinion is that N. H. Knorr (or Fred Franz) was seeking to find an issue that would make Jehovah's Witnesses "different", that would produce martyrs (!), and that could be pointed to as a *mark of true religion*. Rutherford had already provided the "name" and the Flag Salute/Neutrality issue. The war was over. An issue was needed that would continue, and blood transfusion was it. Rutherford instilled mistrust of governmental and religious authority. Knorr/Franz expanded the mistrust to include the traditional medical community. Now we have a situation where JWs do not trust any traditional authority figure. I hope this makes sense. I put it together quickly. Pax, Ruth
|
|
Meagan
Church Militant
Posts: 151
|
Acts
Jul 7, 2008 13:22:12 GMT -5
Post by Meagan on Jul 7, 2008 13:22:12 GMT -5
Whoa, thank you so much Ruth!!!! Sheesh, in a matter of a few short days I have collected enough reading material to last me well a while LOL Ok, I do understand the matter of nourishment, that makes really good sense. Thank you for sharing the thought of Catholic perspective and the links. Pulling it altogether it makes sense.
|
|
|
Acts
Jul 7, 2008 19:48:46 GMT -5
Post by tcabeen on Jul 7, 2008 19:48:46 GMT -5
Hi Olivia,
Just to add a bit to Ruth's excellent post, the ancient Jews had a law they call Pikuah Nefesh, the law of the sacredness of life. According to Jewish law, if it came down to a question of saving a life or obeying the Jewish law, the life came before the law. (Excepting the laws governing execution, presumably and those regarding the sacrificing of animals.)
Jesus seems to be referring to this when he says "Which of you, if his animal falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not pull him out?", thus doing work on the Sabbath. The Jewish tradition that doing good by saving a life was more important than keeping the letter of the law Jesus applied to his own works of healing, both physical and spiritual, which he performed on the Sabbath.
I read that during the late Middle Ages, when the plague was in full force in Europe, the great rabbi's forbid the Jews to observe the traditional Jewish fasts, as they needed to eat to keep up their strength to avoid being struck by the plague. They invoked the law of Pikuah Nefesh at that time.
That is another reason why Jews have no objection to blood transfusions, even though they are forbidden to eat blood.
I agree with Ruth on her idea of why the WTS created the interdiction against blood transfusions... just something to make JWs different.
Tom
|
|
Meagan
Church Militant
Posts: 151
|
Acts
Jul 7, 2008 20:37:29 GMT -5
Post by Meagan on Jul 7, 2008 20:37:29 GMT -5
Wow what an incredible da letter!
I love this part:
That just rocks.
|
|
Meagan
Church Militant
Posts: 151
|
Acts
Jul 7, 2008 20:41:50 GMT -5
Post by Meagan on Jul 7, 2008 20:41:50 GMT -5
Yes it makes sense!!!!
Considering how well this contrasts against the Jewish consideration that Tom brings to the discussion, I think you are correct. They created their own tribulation.
Wow, what a contrast huh?!
|
|
|
Acts
Jul 8, 2008 7:10:06 GMT -5
Post by anne on Jul 8, 2008 7:10:06 GMT -5
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/kashrut.html It is a dietary law and was for birds/mammals -fish not included ,a dead unbled animal could be given to the nations...... Wine and grape juice and other products made by non-Jews were also forbidden . The penalty for eating blood was to be unclean until evening and have a wash. Euthanasia is a very serious sin,JWS are assisting people to die .. and adults are committing suicide. some could view it this way. www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/kashrut.html EUTHANASIA. article says : 1.man is created in the image of God. 2.In every human there is a divine spark 3. each human life is sacred 4.Each human life is of finate worth. ... JWS are captives of a concept ,to them the ORGANISATION BIG MOTHER . speaks for God. NO! they do not.....they speak for OLD CRUSTYFACE.
|
|
|
Acts
Jul 8, 2008 7:12:22 GMT -5
Post by anne on Jul 8, 2008 7:12:22 GMT -5
I think it was Jim penton who said Jehovahs Winesses originally were going to be called 'Joes Witnesses'
|
|
|
Acts
Jul 8, 2008 7:14:31 GMT -5
Post by anne on Jul 8, 2008 7:14:31 GMT -5
JRutherford must have been drunk again while living the high life in his mansion built for the faithful worthies and deeded to David BETH SARIM.
or maybe they were talking to too many angels again...
|
|