What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?

[Pudgy]

Your entire arguments are made attacking premises that I never made, and have wandered afar.

 

[Pudgy]

You REALLY need to learn how to diagram sentences to discern what they REALLY are saying.

[Many Miles]

1 minute ago, Pudgy said:

Your entire arguments are made attacking premises that I never made

I offered comment on things you said. If you think I've said something inaccurate then quote it and tell me how what I've said is wrong.

[Pudgy]

I have found that explaining the obvious to the agenda driven is a waste…. believe what you want.

[Many Miles]

1 minute ago, Pudgy said:

I have found that explaining the obvious to the agenda driven is a waste

Does this mean you're not going to show me where and how I'm wrong?

Saying someone is wrong is not refutation; it's just opinion.

[Pudgy]

32 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

I have found that explaining the obvious to the agenda driven is a waste…. believe what you want.

 

[Many Miles]

4 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

I have found that explaining the obvious to the agenda driven is a waste…. believe what you want.

Now you're just repeating yourself. Ever heard of a fallacy called ad nauseam?

If you've found something that is inaccurate, quote it and and show readers how it's inaccurate.

[Many Miles]

So, I asked George the following question:

As you understand the Bible, could the pre-flood son of Adam and Eve named Seth eat biological fat?  YES or NO?

George answers saying:

15 minutes ago, George88 said:

Therefore, my answer remains a resounding no.

Well, you're wrong about Seth, and all other pre-flood humans. If they were born relatively healthy they all suckled their mother's God-given teats, literally gulping down nourishing milk, which was laced with biological fat.

Imagine that! Pre-flood humans were EATING BIOLOGICAL FAT, something beyond vegetation! (Gen 1:29, 30)

Just look how easy it is to learn from God's testimony all around us in creation. (Ps 19; Rom 1:20)

[Anna]

3 hours ago, Many Miles said:

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.

Sure, but we are interested in how Jesus' disciples understood what blood meant, when they said to abstain from it. 

[Many Miles]

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,

36 minutes ago, Anna said:

Sure, but we are interested in how Jesus' disciples understood what blood meant, when they said to abstain from it. 

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.

[Many Miles]

12 minutes ago, George88 said:

Once again, you have made a mistake. In your previous post, you were discussing carrion. Therefore, there was no need for us to delve into the topic of a mother's milk, which can also be broken down into protein. It seems clear that you could benefit from further honing your skills. Once again, you simply disregard the need to broaden your perspective, using it as a justification for your flawed position. 

Please provide specific details if you would like to receive a precise answer. Carrion is an unpleasant reminder of animal fat, a prime example of disappointing wordplay.

George,

You're confused. The very pointed question I've been asking and asking you to answer had solely to do with whether pre-flood humans (like Seth) could eat biological fat.

You answered the question. You said NO.

Check your reading. I only had to ask the question over and over again to finally get an answer from you!

[Anna]

My cousin, a non Witness, studied medicine. She never got her doctor's license because she decided to sell drugs instead. By that I mean pharmaceuticals. She told me that many people do not realize how risky blood transfusions are and that she would never have one herself. But of course as Witnesses that is not our reason for not accepting blood transfusions. I am aware that there are lots of other views on what "abstaining from blood" means. Personally, I think that all of it should be a conscience matter. I don't normally comment on the open forum, so this is all I am going to say about it.