so they rather die.... like for example they are in the hospital and they could live if they wanted to blood.... but their religion doesnt allow it so they rather die.... im not sure what religion.... but whats the reason?
2006-08-23 08:24:58 · 14 answers · asked by Lipstick 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
is life sacred?
2006-08-23 08:31:05 · update #1
and also how can the bible tell you to do something that wasnt posible a loooooong time ago.... or was it possible to have a blood transfusion back then??? was there the technology?
2006-08-23 08:32:41 · update #2
cts 15:19-21,28 is the Scripture Jehovah's Witnesses typically point to as the reason they refuse to accept blood donations. Acts 15:20 says, "Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." It is clear from the context that the instructions were against eating / drinking blood, not blood transfusions. Blood transfusions were not even possible in Bible times, so there is no possibility that this Scripture could be referring to blood transfusions.
2006-08-23 08:33:20 · answer #1 · answered by Risika Desaunt 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Acts 15:19-21,28 is the Scripture Jehovah's Witnesses typically point to as the reason they refuse to accept blood donations. Acts 15:20 says, "Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." It is clear from the context that the instructions were against eating / drinking blood, not blood transfusions. Blood transfusions were not even possible in Bible times, so there is no possibility that this Scripture could be referring to blood transfusions. There were many pagan religious practices that involved eating and drinking blood and/or strangling an animal to keep more of its blood in its meat. This is what the Bible speaks against, not blood transfusions.
Is it acceptable for a Christian to receive or give a blood transfusion? Since the Bible does not explicitly say, a decision of this nature can only be made between a person and God. A person should carefully and prayerfully consider what God would have them to do in regards to receiving / giving a blood transfusion. There is no command either way in Scripture. Blood transfusions are therefore a matter of conscience.
2006-08-23 08:30:15 · answer #2 · answered by pooh bear 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Jehovah's Witnesses
Main article: Jehovah's Witnesses and blood
Jehovah's Witnesses prohibit eating blood or accepting tranfusions of whole blood or its major components namely, red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets (thrombocytes), and whole plasma. They are permitted to accept fractions, and the acute normovolemic hemodilution (ANH) and autologous blood salvage (cell saver) procedures.
WHY? Acts 15:19-21,28 is the Scripture Jehovah's Witnesses typically point to as the reason they refuse to accept blood donations. Acts 15:20 says, "Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." It is clear from the context that the instructions were against eating / drinking blood, not blood transfusions. Blood transfusions were not even possible in Bible times, so there is no possibility that this Scripture could be referring to blood transfusions. There were many pagan religious practices that involved eating and drinking blood and/or strangling an animal to keep more of its blood in its meat. This is what the Bible speaks against, not blood transfusions.
Is it acceptable for a Christian to receive or give a blood transfusion? Since the Bible does not explicitly say, a decision of this nature can only be made between a person and God. A person should carefully and prayerfully consider what God would have them to do in regards to receiving / giving a blood transfusion. There is no command either way in Scripture. Blood transfusions are therefore a matter of conscience.
Truthfully, some don't accept transfusions as they don't want to "mix the races" (accept blood from another ethnic group), as one doesn't know from whom tranfusions generally come. It is sometimes a racial/racist issure.
2006-08-23 08:31:13 · answer #3 · answered by Sherry K 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know what the Jehovaha's Witnesses current explination for not allowing blood transfusions is but it use to be the bit in the OT about not eating blood. Since a person can be fed through a tube they concluded that getting a transfusion was the same as eating blood.
2006-08-23 08:56:58 · answer #4 · answered by Caillech W 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
obviously, own perspectives and conscientious thoughts decision in this problem of transplantation. of direction, if a transplant might want to require taking in yet another human being’s blood, undeniably which will be opposite to God’s command.—Acts 15:19, 20. that is properly universal that using human elements for human intake varies each and each of how from minor products, inclusive of hormones and corneas, to major organs, inclusive of kidneys and hearts. at the same time as the Bible rather forbids ingesting blood, there is not any Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of different human tissue. therefore, each and each human being confronted with making a call in this remember might want to intently and prayerfully weigh concerns and then settle on rigorously what he or she might want to or might want to no longer do previously God. that is an argument for own decision. (Gal. 6:5)
2016-11-27 01:02:45 · answer #5 · answered by dalhaus 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe it's Jehovah's Witness...I'm not sure their reasoning for this, but obviously they have misinterpreted the Word. It's probably some LAW before Christ that they're clinging to and misinterpreting. God would never want someone to NOT take a blood transfusion if it would save their lives. He provides these things (medicine, etc) for our good.
2006-08-23 08:28:47 · answer #6 · answered by SAHM2_1B_1G 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am not a JW and it's not against my religon or anything, but to be honest I feel like we should not be trading blood with each other. It is just common sense. I would trust God to heal me if it be His will, rather than take someone's blood into me that I don't know...now, if it was a family member, I might do it.
2006-08-23 08:31:33 · answer #7 · answered by gracefully_saved 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When God gave mankind the privilege of eating animal meat for food, he did so with the provision that they do not eat the blood. This was a symbolic gesture to show respect for life and respect for God who is the Giver of life. The literal blood was used in a symbolic way to represent life, and if the person did not eat the blood, it was as if they were giving the life back to God and therefore not being held accountable. The gesture was obviously symbolic, since the animal's life was gone, his flesh was eaten, and not eating the blood didn't change that. But it was a way of 'atoning' for eating the flesh of an animal whose life had to be forfeited so you could eat it. The blood was basically substituted for the life.
Does this same symbolic gesture apply to human life? Obviously human life is much more important than that of animals. So we could reason that if this law applied to animals, how much more so would it apply to humans. Or we could reason that the intent of this law was never meant to be applied to humans in any way. If it did, we could slaughter and eat each other, pour out the blood and be free of bloodguilt because we had "returned" the life to God. Obvlously that's just plain foolish because God doesn't accept any substitute for human life. He never commanded us to pour out the blood of humans, but he does command us to return the life of our fellow humans to him by NOT COMMITTING MURDER. A blood transfusion doesn't require life to be lost, only blood. But Jehovah's Witnesses interpet these passages about eating animals in such a strict, legalistic and extreme manner, that they have elevated the blood itself to a higher priority than the life it represents.
This was not an unreasonable command from God. A provision in the Law of Moses provided that if one did eat meat that had died of itself and hadn't been bled properly, one could atone for his error by bathing and being unclean. But if he didn't take the proper steps, then he would have to answer for his error. Obviously it was the attitude of the person that mattered. Just as with the Sabbath, in an emergency one could reasonably disregard the Sabbath. But to needlessly perform some work would result in the person being stoned, because of their outright disregard for God's law.
Jesus acknowledged that in spite of the Sabbath law, a person would retrieve a sheep out of a ditch on the Sabbath. Even the extremist Pharisees would make some allowances for emergencies. Jesus also reminded them that David and his men ate the loaves of presentation which was not lawful. Obviously Jesus wasn't as extreme as the Pharisees, but the Pharisees didn't have anything on JW's when it comes to interpreting the letter of the law and missing its intent.
2006-08-23 12:08:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They claim it is even scientific in nature to forbid blood transplant and death for them is God's will. It is a respect that I would consider not to question them but surely my religion allows blood transplant.
2006-08-23 08:31:34 · answer #9 · answered by Rallie Florencio C 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the bible says that by one blood have all nations of people been made,so therefore we are still one blood,by eating blood that means defiling blood which is not Holy,but when using blood to save someones life is diffrent. which the Lord Jesus did for us
2006-08-23 08:31:36 · answer #10 · answered by holyghost130 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋