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

[Thinking]

11 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

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

That’s why each one must make sure before baptism..and yes..that was double speak…

[Srecko Sostar]

9 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

But when I submit (so long as agree), the one to whom I submit is me

"Love your neighbor as yourself."  - by Jesus

Yes, first I have to love myself. Yes, first I have to agree with myself. - by ....

[Srecko Sostar]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

That’s why each one must make sure before baptism..and yes..that was double speak…

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"?

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

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"?

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 

[Srecko Sostar]

4 minutes ago, Thinking said:

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 

Unfortunately, this is not possible!

The first reason that makes it impossible is the "non-transparency" of the so-called theocratic system as run by WTJWorg. At any level of the hierarchy from how material resources are used, how research papers are done and the selection of material for publication, court cases, out-of-court settlements, etc., it is clear that the individual JW has no insight into all of this. Nor could she/he "understand" it all or most of all, due to the specifics of each of the activities involved in running such a massive organization. Who have enough time for that?

The second reason. As far as the doctrines and related events are concerned, not a single JW is familiar with the complete history of the organization. This requires deep knowledge of things, theoretical knowledge and long-term experiential knowledge through the practice of one's own and other people's lives. So how could any JW possibly "warn" a potential new follower about possible/certain risks.

The third reason. The organization is not naive to discover its weaknesses, mistakes, dubious practices and disastrous consequences of the policies it implements today or has implemented in the past.

[Thinking]

34 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

The third reason. The organization is not naive to discover its weaknesses, mistakes, dubious practices and disastrous consequences of the policies it implements today or has implemented in the past.

This is a good thing,,no?

[Srecko Sostar]

39 minutes ago, Thinking said:

This is a good thing,,no?

Good or bad, that's what everyone does.

[Anna]

15 hours ago, Juan Rivera said:

These propositions they appeal to, are revealed in Scripture and have to be interpreted by someone if they want to understand their meaning and assent to it

Ahh, interpretation of scripture, who can get it right? That is the question. In my opinion, the most important scriptures, those that help us to live as Christians, do not need much interpreting. When read in context they are self explanatory. It is prophetic books that are written in riddles that need interpreting. Also some of Jesus' illustrations about the Kingdom etc. We have made a number of adjustments to our interpretation of prophecies, but there is no quarantee that we have got even the latest right. (It always makes me laugh when we say that sometimes prophecies are understood after they have occurred. I always wonder, what is the point of the prophecy then, lol. At the same time, I believe that full understanding of prophetic words won't happen until they are revealed not by people, but by Jesus himself in a supernatural way. And I think this will occur when other supernatural things are already occurring, i.e. during and after Armageddon). 

The point is, if you live your life as best as you can, according to what you know the scriptures that need no interpretation say about it, then that is all you can do presently. If you are unsure about the interpretation of something the GB teaches, especially things that pertain to the future, like the order of what will occur during the great tribulation etc. and who will attack who, then you have to evaluate if that is something God will judge you on. Or will he rather judge you on how you lived your life. I think the latter. I believe the Witnesses are the only group that teach people how to live their life in order to be pleasing to God, using scriptures which need no interpretation. The book Enjoy Life Forever covers it all. There are just three lessons out of a total of 60 which personally I am unsure about. Those three I put on the back burner. I have not covered them  with a Bible student yet but when I do, I will let the Bible student form their own opinions, of course. It will be up to them how they receive them, I am definitely not going to influence them either way. And if they by any chance ask my opinion, I will tell them my opinion is irrelevant, they have to form their own opinion on the information they have read...
 

[Many Miles]

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

Well I dont know ..I read those articles and I don’t see a problem….I think I’ve got the grasp of them but I’m asking others here to comment as you seem so strong in this..understanding you have….so your going to have to spell it out for me

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.

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, Anna said:

(It always makes me laugh when we say that sometimes prophecies are understood after they have occurred. I always wonder, what is the point of the prophecy then, lol.

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.

 

[Many Miles]

16 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

2 hours ago, Anna said:

(It always makes me laugh when we say that sometimes prophecies are understood after they have occurred. I always wonder, what is the point of the prophecy then, lol.

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.

[Thinking]

7 hours ago, George88 said:

Do you believe, If people in Jesus' time had read the ancient scrolls, they would have undoubtedly realized that the Pharisees were engaging in dishonest practices, regardless of their literacy levels.

Imagine the future. Despite the overwhelming evidence that demonstrates Trump's racism, dishonesty, deceit, and manipulative nature, do you think there will come a point when MAGA supporters will open their eyes and see the truth about him as it is consistently revealed to them in the media?

Why do apostates refer to the Shepard book as a "secret book" when it is simply a manual for Elders? What is the basis of their belief? If the instructional manual is based on scripture, then it would be appropriate to refer students to the Bible when they have questions. It becomes the responsibility of the "teacher" to guide the students in comprehending and applying scripture to their everyday lives.

Yes just like I just said.