From: Leithart@aol.com
Subject: Blood transfusions
Hey, you medical and ethical and medical-ethical types,
What do you think of blood transfusions? Are they covered by the prohibition of blood in Acts 15? Would blood transfusions have been prohibited under the law? Has anything changed to make it OK?
Peter
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:14:27 -0600
From: “James B. Jordan”
Subject: Re: Blood transfusions
Hey, you medical and ethical and medical-ethical types,
What do you think of blood transfusions? Are they covered by the prohibition of blood in Acts 15?
No. Why would one think so? Eating is not involved.
Would blood transfusions have been prohibited under the law?
No.
JBJ
James B. Jordan
Director, Biblical Horizons
Box 1096
Niceville, FL 32578
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:17:59 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
From: Scott Linn
Subject: Blood transfusions
Greetings,
What do you think of blood transfusions? Are they covered by the prohibition of blood in Acts 15? Would blood transfusions have been prohibited under the law? Has anything changed to make it OK?
Get caught asking this question in public, and they’ll call you a JW.
I was more opposed to transfusions and transplants before my daughter became diabetic. [So, I have no moral backbone.] Still, I think the eating of blood had more significant religious overtones in the OT era than it does in our world today. To me, the case of Adam donating a rib to give life to his wife seems to allow for us to sacrifice ourselves for others. I guess my main sticking point — when it comes to transfusions/plants — is if the donor will be killed by removing the organ. In other words, I’d give my kidney for my child, but I would oppose taking a pancreas for the Islets of Langerhans cells to cure her disease because it would kill the donor to take that organ.
Just my random, unsolidified thoughts.
Scott Linn
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:19:15 -0700
From: “Tim Gallant”
Subject: Blood transfusions
At 12:57 PM 2/9/2005, you wrote:
Hey, you medical and ethical and medical-ethical types,
What do you think of blood transfusions? Are they covered by the prohibition of blood in Acts 15?
No. Why would one think so? Eating is not involved.
Peter’s a closet JW, that’s why.
:)
tim
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:19:59 EST
From: Leithart@aol.com
Subject: Blood transfusions
In a message dated 2/9/2005 11:19:00 AM Pacific Standard Time “James B. Jordan” writes:
Eating is not involved.
So there’s no analogy between taking in blood through the mouth and taking it directly into a vein?
Peter
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:20:29 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
From: Scott Linn
Subject: Blood transfusions
Greetings,
No. Why would one think so? Eating is not involved.
Peter’s a closet JW, that’s why.
I told you that was coming.
Scott Linn
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 14:33:54 ESTFrom: Leithart@aol.com
Subject: Blood transfusions
In a message dated 2/9/2005 11:32:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, Scott Linn writes:
Peter’s a closet JW, that’s why.
JWism is the REAL telos of NPP, AAPC, Norman Shepherd, etc. I’m amazed the rest of you can’t see it, you blinded fools. Ligon does.
Really, though, Burke drove me to it.
Peter
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:37:49 -0700
From: “Tim Gallant”
Subject: Blood transfusions
In a message dated 2/9/2005 12:33:21 AM Pacific Standard Time, Leithart@aol.com writes:
JWism is the REAL telos of NPP, AAPC, Norman Shepherd, etc. I’m amazed the rest of you can’t see it, you blinded fools. Ligon does.
Well, clearly, Ligon doesn’t. But that’s only because he thinks there are only two destinations, Rome or Geneva. Ha!
tim
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 13:40:49 -0600From: pduggan
Subject: Blood transfusions
Hey, you medical and ethical and medical-ethical types,
What do you think of blood transfusions? Are they covered by the prohibition of blood in Acts 15? Would blood transfusions have been prohibited under the law? Has anything changed to make it OK?
One proponent of the Sanguine Vision has called into question the legitimacy of blood transfusions, employing for his concerns the same doctrines as former presbyterian covenant theologian Charles Russel.
Ligonberry Dunkin Donut
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 12:45:07 -0700
From: “Tim Gallant”
Subject: Blood transfusions
LOL
Oops, I better say something substantial. Thankfully, we don’t get buked anymore.
Acterally, I kinda miss it....
tim
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 14:17:59 -0600
From: “James B. Jordan”
Subject: Blood transfusions
So there’s no analogy between taking in blood through the mouth and taking it directly into a vein?
Peter
Nope. None. Not even one.
JBJ
James B. Jordan
Director, Biblical Horizons
Box 1096
Niceville, FL 32578
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:52:36 -0000
From: “Robert Maddox”
Subject: Blood transfusions
Leithart@aol.com wrote:
Hey, you medical and ethical and medical-ethical types,
What do you think of blood transfusions? Are they covered by the prohibition of blood in Acts 15? Would blood transfusions have been prohibited under the law? Has anything changed to make it OK?
Peter
Peter,
I think blood transfusions are a lot of fun. I gave blood yesterday for a church member. Receiving them can be fun too, if you need it, but then, whatever is making you need it probably isn’t fun.
Not to make fun of such a serious subject, but this used to be a major issue for me. It is ironic that a large percentage of transfusions done 15 years ago could not be done now because payment criteria have changed. And why your interest now? You should have asked and answered this question 20 years ago while it still mattered. Now transplants of every sort are accepted as standard. (Is transfusion a transplant? Blood may or may not be considered an organ, but it is necessary for living and it is immunologically self.)
Is transfusion eating? Certainly. By JBJ’s definition of eating, incorporating into yourself, it is just a rapid incoporation. If the prohibition against eating blood is to prevent us from attempting to live off someone else’s life in a magical way, that sure prevents blood transfusion. But my objection to transplants has softened to reservations. And most of those reservations have less to do with Acts 15 and more to do with practice.
I can’t see how blood transfusions would have been allowed under the law (perhaps a rabbi can help). But something certainly has changed. We are now under the blood of Christ, and encouraged to lay down our lives for one another.
Rob
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:29:42 -0600
From: burke
Subject: Blood transfusions
I wouldn’t say magical, but in an idolatrous fashion, since it was tied up with false worship. A blood transfusion is not tied up with false worship.
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:47:40 -0000
From: “Robert Maddox”
Subject: Blood transfusions
I wouldn’t say magical, but in an idolatrous fashion, since it was tied up with false worship. A blood transfusion is not tied up with false worship.
Oh but that is my point. A blood transfusion is the ultimate in mechanistic idolatrous cures. You put the blood in and a life is saved.
Rob
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:16:04 -0700
From: “Tim Gallant”
Subject: Blood transfusions
Oh but that is my point. A blood transfusion is the ultimate in mechanistic idolatrous cures. You put the blood in and a life is saved.
I don’t find that compelling. By that standard, we could call virtually anything a “mechanistic idolatrous cure.” In fact, medicine is just one big project at giving mechanistic idolatrous cures.
Now, of course, it *can* be. But I’m sure that you (especially you!) have no intention of calling the whole profession in principle idolatrous, even if it often may be in practice.
tim
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:33:31 -0600
From: burke
Subject: Blood transfusions
Oh but that is my point. A blood transfusion is the ultimate in mechanistic idolatrous cures. You put the blood in and a life is saved.
No, you eat blood as part of the idolatrous worship; a transfusion may be an ‘eating” in your estimation, but it is not part of a false worship service. What God forbids in the scriptures is the express eating of it in idolatrous, worship services.
Burke
