[Blakestr]

I'm curious about the range of derivation from blood. For example, if I took a sample of your blood and made a product that was essentially cloning your blood, would that be the same?

Some people's spiritual rejections lie more in the "we're playing God we shouldn't do x" whereas what you are describing is something in regard to the sanctity of the blood.

Actually to further my understand, would you be permitted to receive blood that you yourself had donated and had been stored for your personal use in the advent of a medical emergency? Again, I'm not trying to pry or question the validity of your beliefs, just seeking to understand.

[JoelMcCracken]

Sure, no worries. I am happy to answer questions.

This is a complex question. Some things are clear, some are less so. Basically in the Christian Greek scriptures I believe this is only mentioned once: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/study-bible/books/a...

Here is more info: https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/bible-about-...

Our feelings are that blood is sacred, and once it leaves the body it should return to the ground. Basically, blood is life, and life belongs to Jehovah.

Cloning blood would be wrong because its misusing something that has specific guidelines around its use. If you could clone the blood without like actually drawing blood from someone for the procedure, I guess that would be OK. This is weird and I am not totally sure.

We would not be OK with storing our own blood for future use, as this would be a kind of usage, and is contrary to the instructions to pour it out. And this would also be considered consumption/not abstaining.

As I think about this, though, it makes me think about using blood in the contexts of blood testing. Hmm.

Anyway I mean the scriptures give some instructions and we are doing our best to extrapolate to other situations. Things aren't always cut and dry. We just do our best to understand.

[Blakestr]

Thank you for taking the time to explain that - it seems the "abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,from what is strangled, and from blood" is obviously a literal interpretation. "From what is strangled and from blood" I always took as profiting from war or suffering but I understand that the challenges of scripture is determine what is literal and what is metaphorical - there's also the concept of what is an "idol" and how is it polluting.

I appreciate you clarifying this. I think I understand a bit more, that there are some aspects of medical science construed as idolatrous, as perhaps glorifying an institution of man and not God.

Have you ever heard of any talk of a ceremony that would somehow reconcile these elements? Again I'm ignorant of JW doctrine and priests don't seem as prevalent, but I'm wondering if there could ever be room for some type of transfusion ceremony that allowed for this, in the precense of correct scripture and religious authority, that was "in the service to Jehovah." Sort of a "Deo volente" thing.

[JoelMcCracken]

For us, I don't think idolatry factors into the decision re: blood. It is more like those are three things to abstain from.

To your other question, no, we do not have any sort of ceremony like that. But tbh avoiding blood transfusions is nbd nowadays. There are alternatives.

[TeMPOraL]

GP may be more up to date, but from I remember from previous decade, cloning blood would be no-go, and so your own blood that was stored outside of your body. Cardiopulmonary bypass was AFAIR considered OK, because it's considered to be just an extension of body's blood flow.

[JoelMcCracken]

Things have not changed much. Cardiopulmonary bypass is considered OK, as well as other devices that might be considered as extensions. An individual might still choose to not accept such treatment.