Srecko Sostar

Getting back to this, the statement above is based on reasoning put forth by the society. The underpinnings of it can be read here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102017578?q=blood+broken+down&p=par
Religious position: Under pain of shunning, JWs cannot eat (transfuse) whole blood, white cells, red cells, platelets or plasma. But if the substance is none of these, then the individual JW can accept or decline according to their own conscience and without religious repercussion.
An extreme irony to the idea that we can eat of what comes from blood once it is no longer blood is made as simple as cooking blood under heat. Why?
When you cook blood under heat the remaining substance is neither whole blood, nor white cells, nor red cells, nor platelets, nor plasma. You can examine the cooked  material all you want. You won't find a trace of a red cell, or a white cell, or platelets, or even plasma. All that anatomy is totally gone under heat. What was blood is no longer blood, according to the society's reasoning.
In a tiny simple nutshell, that shows the current absurd state of our position on eating (transfusing) blood.
 

The first resort of an incompetent is an ad-hominem attack based only on their disregardable opinion.
Every reply you give further destroys your credibility. 
 

I completely understand what you write here, and don't necessarily disagree. The sole reason I brought up the questions you responded to was only to show there is a limit to any obedience or loyalty we may owe any human or group of humans, regardless of whatever authority they might hold.

I had no idea this topic ran on for so long when I replied above. I am reminded of the popular psych line, ‘woulda shoulda coulda,.’ What one can discern in later years, with the benefit on unhurried time for meditation, one does not discern spur of the moment. Besides, 
Not to mention how it shows he caves under pressure. He’s not going to stand up to Moses spur of the moment. Maybe in his later years, the years most of us are in, but not at the time.

Excellent point. It turns out that such a prophecy is of importance only to the one who uttered it, when he sees the fruits of its fulfillment.
 

To me, more often than not, instances like this fall into a category of assertion called affirming the consequent.
- Jerry says, "On Sunday the Jets will win."
- On Sunday, the Jets win.
A person could assert "Jerry was Divinely inspired to prophesy the Jets would win, and the outcome proves he was inspired!" when what Jerry was really doing was just guessing. There was no prophesying at all. There was nothing Divine going on at all. The consequent (the Jets winning) does not support a notion that Jerry "was Divinely inspired" just because the Jets happened to win.

Since you asked...
The first article (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290 ) conflated several topics, but the primary ones of interest here are the subjects of 1) unbled meat of an animal that died of natural cause and 2) donor blood from live humans. 
Whoever sent in the question was drawing a circle around the text of Deut 14:21 because that text was God giving Jews express permission to sell unbled carcasses of animals dead of natural cause to non-Jewish descendants of Noah specifically for them to eat, and all of Noah's descendants were bound to abide by what God told Noah after the flood about blood.
This would lead a person to believe if God felt it was appropriate for non-Jewish descendants of Noah to eat unbled animal flesh dead of natural cause then it must mean that what God said to Noah explicitly of living animals (soulical) was never to be understood to speak to animal carcasses dead of natural cause (non-soulical). Furthermore, a literal reading of Gen 9 also discloses that nowhere does it address the subject of donor blood given by a human to help save the life or health of a fellow human. The society's response says, "Such reasoning might sound valid". But then it goes on to offer commentary on why the society believes that reasoning is not valid. And, therein is found the rub. Here's why:
1) The commentary about why that reasoning would be wrong is constructed entirely on other biblical requirements stated to Jews under Mosaic Law. 
2) The second article (https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983099?q="confirming+of+standards+recognized+prior+to+Moses"&p=par ) is very succinct pointing out that the decree issued by the apostles for Christians was "a confirming of standards recognized prior to Moses". That means, appropriately the response in that Questions from Readers article should have focused on standards recognized prior to Moses, but that's not what they did. Their entire case was constructed on stipulations of Mosaic Law, which law never applied to worshipers like Noah, Job, Elihu or Cornelius.
The rub? As a basis for answering the question the society plied the Law of Moses rather than standards recognized prior to Moses. In its response to the question asked, the society plied premises it admits didn't apply to the issue inquired of.
So the question is, what happens when we try to answer the question asked based on standards recognized prior to Moses?
The answer becomes pretty evident because, according to Deut 14:21 God had no problem whatsoever with non-Jewish descendants of Noah eating unbled animal flesh dead of natural cause. To the contrary, the text of Deut 14:21 has God telling Jews they could sell this sort of flesh to non-Jewish descendants of Noah specifically for the purpose of eating it.
So those two sources are providing a quite different view on how to view the decree from the apostles to abstain from blood and things strangled. The first article (the Questions From Readers article) would have us look at the question asked purely through the lens of Mosaic Law. The second article tells us we should look at things purely through standards recognized prior to Moses.
Then we have this from Insight:
"At Deuteronomy 14:21 allowance was made for selling to an alien resident or a foreigner an animal that had died of itself or that had been torn by a beast. Thus a distinction was made between the blood of such animals and that of animals that a person slaughtered for food. (Compare Le 17:14-16.) The Israelites, as well as alien residents who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant, were obligated to live up to the lofty requirements of that Law. People of all nations were bound by the requirement at Genesis 9:3, 4, but those under the Law were held by God to a higher standard in adhering to that requirement than were foreigners and alien residents who had not become worshipers of Jehovah." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200000774?q="higher+standard"&p=par )  
Note when this paragraph initially speaks to worshipers is says "who took up true worship and came under the Law covenant". These are the same worshipers spoken of in the last sentence too. What this takes into account is that there were worshipers of God who never came under the Law covenant. Hence, men like Job, Elihu, Noah and Cornelius were never bound to the "higher standard" in respect to blood within Mosaic Law, though they were always bound by the standard recognized prior to Moses.
As it turns out, there is nothing in the provision of Deut 14:21 that conflicts with any standard recognized prior to Moses. Noah was free to eat unbled flesh of animals found dead of natural cause. He always was.
We also learn that no standard recognized prior to Moses remotely suggests that it is wrong to accept transfusion of donor blood, which is blood that another human has willingly donated for purposes of helping preserve the health and/or life of a fellow human.

Excellent point. It turns out that such a prophecy is of importance only to the one who uttered it, when he sees the fruits of its fulfillment.
 

That means everyone who studies with someone MUST MUST make them aware of ALL of this…and if that means showing them the elders book…yes,,,be up front about every thing and every possibility that may lay ahead 

Do you mean to say that every candidate should read, among other things, a secret book for elders eyes only? And read the "small print" at the bottom of the "contract"?

A statement I'll never forget reading for the first time is this:
"It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the “slave” as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1957446?q="the+voice+of+God"&p=sen
Somebody wants to be put on the same plane as the word of God. But then, I always thought that the voice of God was an inspired voice.
Yet:
"The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2017283?q=inspired+governing&p=sen
Wait. What?
Guess this means we should not respond to the "faithful slave" as we would to the voice of God.
Nothing like saying it like you mean it!
 

Please, it's nonsense. GB says they proves own teachings, supposedly, on the basis of the Bible and verse/s in the Bible or so called "biblical context".
After some time, thye refutes these teachings on the basis of the same or some other biblical passages. What is the statement even supposed to mean - that someone is against what is "biblical"?
GB lives in contradictions. 
Joshua David, JW PR in India, stated that JWs are guided by their conscience whether or not they want to accept a blood transfusion, but the Shepard book outlines the procedure that JW elders should take if someone has received a blood transfusion.
Deceiving the public. There is no freedom of choice because members are sanctioned if they take blood.
"Biblical"? haha

I want to add a thought regarding all this chronology discussion. 
Though there is plenty of history and documentation to know what was said, by whom, when, and whether it was true, false or subjective, this is material that for the most part is not really hurting anyone. Could it be misleading. Of course. Could is be misused. Yes. But for Christians who are supposed to live in a steady state of expectation is it really consequential whether something happened invisibly in 1914 or not? To me, though I know the subject area fairly well, it's something that I could sit and listen to without being too bothered.
It's other teachings that have had, and continue to have, a more direct and daily consequence to JWs that are far more important to me. We are all sinners, and our organization is no exception. We should all be grown Christians about that! What's important is looking to see where we can improve in our following of the Christ, and follow him closer. Jesus said he is the truth. So truth should be our aim.
Though we unavoidably have differences in personal conscientiously held beliefs, we can be unified in the common cause of always seeking what is true, whatever that is.

Who has to cite scripture to know Armageddon did not occur in 1914?

Right. Worse, the supposed "God-Inspired Truth" that the society cited from The World Magazine as a fulfilled extraordinary prophecy turned out to be false, because what Russell had actually predicted, Armageddon, did not come in 1914 as foretold.
The World Magazine was wrong. But that didn't stop the society from capitalizing on the fantastic media coverage that article brought to their front door. The society is still riding that pony to this very day.

Of item 1, I'd listen to the man just like I would any other, to see if what he said conformed to sound reason (another phrase to mean conforming to conventions of logical construction). If his teachings (his conclusions) were soundly reasoned than I'd accept what he said as valid. The first thing I'd look for is whether a particular teaching is falsifiable. If it's not then that teaching needs some very extraordinary evidence. If it is falsifiable then I'd look to see what evidence supports each premise of his conclusion (his teaching).
Of item 2, they're only necessary for extraordinary claims. (See Ex 4:1-9)
Of item 3, yes, fallible but with two powerful things. 1) God's testimony in writing (the Bible) and in His creation all around me, and 2) a God-given brain capable of decision based on sound reason.
You've written a lot of words and I'm not sure why.
If a teaching comes from any man or group of men and it cannot stand up to sound scrutiny then it should not be accepted as a valid teaching.

I think I see where you might be coming from on this idea, and there appears, at first, to be a nice way to rationalize the idea that plasma is a smaller percentage and therefore could fit the idea, or connotation, of "minor fraction."
One could argue that Cryoprecipitate is only 1% of the total plasma. "Minor" fraction fits.
Then, Cryosupernatant is 99% of the total remaining plasma, because it is all of the remaining plasma. 99% doesn't sound good, but it's mostly water, right? Surely, there is nothing wrong with "water." Blood is mostly water, after all. And Jehovah never showed in his Word that there could ever be an occasion when water was so closely associated with blood, that it was appropriate to pour water out on the ground, right? (Yes, I'm thinking of David.)
(2 Samuel 23:15-17) 15 Then David expressed his longing: “If only I could have a drink of the water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem!” 16 At that the three mighty warriors forced their way into the camp of the Phi·lisʹtines and drew water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem and brought it to David; but he refused to drink it and poured it out to Jehovah. 17 He said: “It is unthinkable on my part, O Jehovah, that I should do this! Should I drink the blood of the men going at the risk of their lives?” So he refused to drink it.. . .
Besides, if water doesn't count, then why not accept plasma all at once without the water? Why say plasma is forbidden? Just remove the water and it becomes a minor fraction, as if water was its major fraction (95%) which has been removed. Of course, we can't because that would only highlight the total inconsistency of the entire fractured logic of fractions. If the water doesn't count, then the remaining plasma is likely being split up into 1 part non-water plasma and 4 parts non-water plasma. If water doesn't count, then this is a split of 20% plasma (cryoprecipitate) and 80% plasma (cryosupernatant non-water).
The logic of trying to make it look like 1% and 4% is tortured. Even if it were possible to extract a full 50% of the non-water plasma into a form of cryoprecipitate, the two acceptable parts would be at best, 50% and 50%. In reality one side would always be higher than 50%, even as much as 80%. So, the fact that both are acceptable still means 100% of plasma is acceptable, whether we think of the split as 1% + 99% or 50% + 50% or 20% + 80%. It always adds up to 100%.

This is not a natural breakdown. These are the four components that are of highest importance to those who separate and break down donated blood for medical purposes.
For the purposes of supporting life (while in the body), blood's major components are:
Water Oxygen Proteins Sugar Fat Waste From the perspective of someone who is injured the major components of blood become:
Neutrofils Lymphocyte antibodies Clotting Factors Platelets Volume From the Bible's perspective, blood has only one major component:
Blood As indicated by the Watch Tower publications, the most natural use of the term major components with respect to the volume (percentage) of blood, would be:
Plasma (55%) Blood Cells (45%) 55% + 45% = 100%. This is not just true of the Watch Tower publications. It's also true of the site you quoted:
The blood that runs through the veins, arteries, and capillaries is known as whole blood, a mixture of about 55 percent plasma and 45 percent blood cells.  - http://www.hematology.org/Patients/Basics/
The Watchtower agrees:
*** w90 6/1 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
Human blood can be separated into dark cellular material and a yellowish fluid (plasma, or serum). The cellular part (45 percent by volume) is made up of what are commonly called red cells, white cells, and platelets. The other 55 percent is the plasma. This is 90 percent water, but it carries small amounts of many proteins, hormones, salts, and enzymes. Today, much of the donated blood is separated into the primary components. One patient may be given a transfusion of plasma (perhaps FFP, fresh frozen plasma) to treat shock. But an anemic patient might be given packed red cells, that is, red cells that had been stored and then put in a fluid and transfused.
The Awake! shows just how minor white cells and platelets are to the overall volume of blood by charting the same idea and showing that only about 1% of the total is platelets and white cells.
*** g90 10/22 p. 4 Selling Blood Is Big Business ***
The Main Components of Blood
 Plasma: about 55 percent of the blood. It is 92 percent water; the rest is made up of complex proteins, such as globulins, fibrinogens, and albumin   Platelets: about 0.17 percent of the blood   White Cells: about 0.1 percent   Red Cells: about 45 percent The Awake! got the percentage of white and red cells wrong. It's really about 3% white cells, therefore closer to about 41% red.
The breakdown into "four main components" is correct from the perspective of the preliminary treating and centrifuging of blood to extract its most valuable fractions (components). But it is arbitrary for the Watch Tower publications to use a breakdown that uses the word "major" to refer to the value of a component for its medical re-use, when the Bible says nothing about the value of transfused fractions. In the Bible, the entire volume of blood is important because it represents life.
 

Anna,
First of all, you are a welcome breath of fresh air in this discussion. I want to thank you for that.
Now to your comment,
Yes, of course. But recall that when the early apostles issued their decision that mentioned blood it was in response to an influx of Gentile worshipers of God becoming followers of Christ. The Gentile Christians, like Cornelius, were being taught they needed to abide by Mosaic Law. The apostles said, no. But there were certain things that all Christians, including the Gentile Christians, needed to abide by, all of which predated Mosaic Law.
Regarding blood, our publication United In Worship of the Only True God says it best,
"The decision of that governing body did list as “necessary things” certain prohibitions that were in harmony with that Law, but these were based on the Bible record concerning events that predated the Law. So there was not an imposing on Gentile Christians of a responsibility to conform to the Mosaic Law or some portion of it but, rather, there was a confirming of standards recognized prior to Moses." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983099 )
Back then, there were Jews familiar with Mosaic Law who converted to Christianity, and there was Gentiles who became Christians. Those Jewish converts knew that, under their former religion, Gentiles were free to eat the meat of animals found dead of natural cause, which flesh was unbled. In fact, those Jewish converts knew that, under Mosaic Law, they were free to sell Gentiles that sort of unbled flesh specifically for purposes of eating that unbled flesh. (Ref Deut 14:21)
Gentile descendants of Noah who were worshipers of God, like Job, Elihu and Cornelius, were never under Mosaic Law, but they were bound to keep the law issued to Noah. But they knew keeping the law to Noah required that they abstain from eating the blood of animals still alive or of the blood of animals they killed to use as food. (Gen 9) They knew that blood obtained from killing an animal represented that animal's life. In recognition of that they were to abstain from eating that blood, the blood from killing. However, other than abstaining from eating that blood they were free to use it otherwise however they wanted. Also, they knew that taking a man's blood in murder meant they would forfeit their own right to life. This is what Gentile Christians and Jewish converts to Christianity knew about blood that applied to everyone.
These Jewish and Gentile Christians lived mostly an agrarian life. They knew about killing and slaughtering animals, and they knew about eating animals found dead of natural cause.
When it came to the substance of blood, as I said before, they would never have seen four components. They would have observed whole blood and two components of serum and clot. This is all they could have seen because this is how blood separates in nature.

That's false. In the natural world blood does separate into two components (not four). The ancients could observe blood in its whole and separated forms. While an animal was bleeding out they'd see blood in its whole form. If they drained that blood into a receptacle they would see it separate. They could also make this latter observation in the veins of animals they found dead of natural cause.
In the natural world when blood is not circulating it clots. When this happens the two things a person would see is a kind-of clear watery substance and a dark colored mass. In modern terms we'd call the clearer fluid "serum" and we call the dark colored mass "clot". This is how blood naturally settles out in the natural world.
 
The modern separation of blood into four components is the result of a wholly unnatural intervention that is found nowhere in nature.
We could employ all sorts of processes to divide blood up all sort so ways. All that means is that we've found different ways to divvy up blood. This tells us nothing scriptural about blood.
I'm looking for:
...a scriptural premise for us TO disassociate (effectively: disfellowship) fellow JWs for accepting transfusion of whole blood, or any of the products known as red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma, but NOT TO disassociate/disfellowship fellow JWs for accepting any other products rendered from blood, such as hemoglobin, albumin, cryoprecipitate or cryosupernatant plasma.
That's an astute observation. But, that too would lead to further questions.
Right now I'm looking for a premise (or premises) supporting the policy as it exists.

With the “Bruen” decision of 2022 the United States Supreme court  FINALLY got it right about the 2nd Amendment “.. the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Partisan agendas had corrupted this simple edict of law since 1791.  For over 200 years this had been a hot topic of discussion, and thousands of unconstitutional legislations that subjected men to tyranny and imprisonment. In over 200 years this issue has flip-flopped thousands of times from one irrational excess to another.
In similar manner the scriptures, as a theme that runs throughout the Bible, shows through little snippets the respect God demands for blood … which he holds to belong to him, representing the life of all living things … which HE is the source of.
The last thing the Bible has to say about this is the simple directive “abstain from blood”, but it sums up a common theme that runs through the whole Old and New Testament.
Carrion with the blood could be given or sold to non-Jews, but not eaten by Jews.
They were expected to be a holy people.
If you along a roadway find someone who has been chopped to pieces … perhaps some fingers or pieces of a torso or skull, can you legitimately make the claim these fractions of a body are no longer human?
No.
A dead fractional human, but even a fingerprint is a human fingerprint. Even a single hair is a HUMAN remains. I have opened graves where the only thing left was hair, and metal coffin handles.
We treated those woodland graves with deep respect,  and relocated them as if they were 100% intact.(We were building a housing subdivision).
Once blood is created in an air-breathing animal, it belongs to Jehovah God, and we are allowed to use as food the body that made it. 
If you disassemble a firearm and acid off the serial number it does not cease being a firearm.  If it was EVER A GUN, it does not lose that identity by being fractionated.
Neither does blood.
 
 

Sometimes when coming to grips with a calamity, people do not speak with a thesaurus in hand. He meant ‘land of his birth, same as that 89 Wt.

That's not a premise. That's a doctrinal position. Why should products such as isolated white cells, or isolated red cells, or isolated platelets or isolated plasma "be regarded as being blood", yet other products rendered from blood not "be regarded as being blood"? Answer that question and you'll have a premise.
 

Short answer: they can't.
Their position on transfusion of donor blood is demonstrably wrong. It is not scriptural. It is also internally inconsistent and self-contradictory.

Yes. Transfusion of blood is an organ transplant.
Because JWs accept transfusion of product rendered from blood than JWs are exposed to all the dangers of transplantation.
Scripturally the notion of "eating" is something done for nutrition. We can render several products from the donor blood supply.
Let's talk about a product from blood we are supposed to reject, the one called red cells. If you solely transfuse red cells in an attempt at parenteral nutrition the patient will get no nutritional benefit and the patient will die from starvation.
Now let's talk about a product from blood we can accept, the one called cryosupernatant plasma. If you solely transfuse cryosupernatant plasma in an attempt at parenteral nutrition the patient will get nutritional benefit and you have an opportunity to prevent a patient from starving to death.
Hence, in relation to "eating" we have the contradictory position where a product we are told to reject provides no nutritional benefit when administered intravenously where of a product we are told we can accept it does provide nutritional benefit.