Why don't J.W.'s give/take blood donations?

Question

(What passage of the Bible do they get hung up on?)

Answer 1

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the scriptures demonstrate a clear pattern indicating the sacredness with which Jehovah God (and thus god-fearing humankind) views all creature blood.


Predates Mosaic Law.
For example, over a thousand years before the birth of Moses, the pre-Israel, pre-Jewish, pre-Hebrew man Noah received what the scriptures record as only the second restrictive command on humans (after Garden of Eden's tree):

"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it [that is, lifeblood] and of man" (Genesis 9:3-5)


Jewish Law.
Later, God's feeling regarding blood was codified into the Mosaic Law. This part of the Law dealing with blood was unique in that it applied, not just to Israel, but also to non-Jewish foreigners among them. It's also interesting that besides forbidding the consumption of blood, the Law also mandated that it be 'poured out on the ground', not used for any purpose.

"No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood. Any man also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust." (Lev 17:12,13)

By comparison, it's significant that the Law also forbid the consumption of ceremonial animal fat, but that didn't apply to non-Jewish foreigners and it DID allow the fat to be used for other purposes.

"The LORD said to Moses, "Say to the people of Israel, You shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat. The fat of an animal that dies of itself, and the fat of one that is torn by beasts, may be put to any other use" (Lev 7:22-24)


Early Christian era.
The Christian era ended the validity of the Mosaic Law, but remember that the restriction on eating blood preceded the Mosaic Law by over a thousand years. Still, does the New Testament indicate that Jehovah God changed his view of blood's sacredness?

"[God] freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses" (Eph 1:6,7)

"[God's] beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins... and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood" (Colossians 1:13-20)

"we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood." (Acts 15:19,20)

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." Acts 15:28,29


Modern times
Some will claim that the bible's command to "abstain" from blood only applies to eating it, and does not apply to the use of blood for other purpose. If that form of respect for blood were common among Christendom, one might wonder then why so many (who ostensibly follow the book of Acts) so happily eat their blood sausage and blood pudding if they truly respect blood according to some limited understanding of Acts 15:20,29. In fact, respect for blood and for Acts and for the Scriptures themselves is too rare among even supposedly god-fearing persons.

An honest review of the Scriptural pattern over the millenia from Noah to the Apostle Paul teaches humans that blood is to be used for a single purpose: acknowledging the Almighty. Otherwise, for centuries the instruction was to simply dispose of it; 'poor it upon the ground'. When Jehovah's Witnesses pursue non-blood medical management, they are working to honor and obey their Creator.


Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/library/hb/index.htm
http://watchtower.org/library/vcnb/article_01.htm

Answer 2

Blood is sacred in God's eyes. God says that the soul, or life, is in the blood. So it is wrong to eat blood. It is also wrong to eat the meat of an animal that has not been properly bled. If an animal is strangled or dies in a trap, it should not be eaten. If it is speared or shot, it must be bled quickly if it is to be eaten.—Genesis 9:3, 4; Leviticus 17:13, 14; Acts 15:28, 29.

Is it wrong to accept a blood transfusion? Remember, Jehovah requires that we abstain from blood. This means that we must not take into our bodies in any way at all other people's blood or even our own blood that has been stored. So true Christians will not accept a blood transfusion. They will accept other kinds of medical treatment, such as transfusion of nonblood products. They want to live, but they will not try to save their life by breaking God's laws.

Acts 21:25 As for the believers from among the nations, we have sent out, rendering our decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication.”

Matthew 16:25

Answer 3

I would totally allow my dog to donate blood. One of my dogs had to have an emergency transfusion to save her life and if one of the vet techs at the vet hadn't offered up her dog that was already there, mine may have died because we didn't have time to go home and get our other dog. It's a great thing to do, it doesn't hurt the donor and it could very well save another dog's life. As long as care is taken to keep the donor comfortable, then why not? I wouldn't do it excessively, but here and there to help out, absolutely. Edit: To Sunny, you mentioned that it could bother your dog. I watched them take the blood from the donor before putting it in my dog and he was fine. They gave him a mild sedative and he just laid there calmly. They all stroked him and comforted him and afterward he just sat up like nothing had happened. He wasn't traumatized at all. If it were distressing for the individual dog, then that dog obviously isn't a candidate, but I think most dogs would do just fine.

Answer 4

Even though we're not J.W. with the current situation in the blood system it's hard to know what you're getting. My husband has to have a few radical operations and each time was glad he didn't need any blood products. Especially since he had been on chemo many times as well. If you know you may need blood for a surgical procedure I've heard you can go in ahead of time and just have them keep your own blood for your health needs. It's a difficult thing the decision to take or not take blood. We've been fortunate to be able to not need it yet.

Answer 5

Because God told Noah not to eat the blood when he ate meat. By not eating the blood, the eater would be making a symbolic gesture of reserving the "life" for God since the blood was used as a symbol of the life that had been forfeited. JW's take this literally and have lost sight of the fact that life is sacred, not blood.

As usual, JW's are quoting Leviticus chapter 17 where the Israelites and alien residents are told not to eat blood. But they never quote the exception in verse 15:*** Rbi8 Leviticus 17:15-16 ***

” 15 As for any soul that eats a body [already] dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean. 16 But if he will not wash them and will not bathe his flesh, he must then answer for his error.’”

So although the Law required everyone to drain the blood from the animals they slaughtered, it made an exception in case it was necessary to eat animals who had not been properly bled. Instead of death, the penalty was bathing and being ceremonially unclean until evening. As long as the person performed the necessary bathing, the eating of the unbled animal was not counted against them. This exception was available not only to aliens but even "native" Israelites, apparently in cases of necessity.

Certainly, under the Law, SERIOUS sins could not be atoned for merely by bathing. The whole intent of the "no blood" law was about obedience and showing respect to Jehovah; it was never suggested that someone should starve to death rather than eat unbled meat.

Answer 6

Rare Treat continues to show her ignorance of Jehovah's Witnesses. When we eat meat, we are fully aware that not every drop of animal blood has been removed. But the animal was bled to a reasonable degree. When Jehovah told the Jews to pour out an animal's blood before it was consumed, was it necessary for them to wring out every drop of blood? No. The Israelites had to drain as much blood from the animal as possible.

Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to give or take blood because the Bible at Acts 15:28, 29 forbids it.

For those who say Jehovah's Witnesses are terrible for refusing blood, I say to you: Do you show you care about life when you smoke, drink to excess and then get behind the steering wheel of your car? Do you show you care about life when you sacrifice your young people on the battlefield just because someone in a business suit behind a desk tells you that war and killing are necessary to preserve your freedom? Before you label Jehovah's Witnesses as bad people, look at yourselves in the mirror and tell me what YOU see.

Answer 7

The bible tells them so. Of course, it also says to stone grandma if she picks up sticks on the sabbath, but whatever.

Genesis9:4&16,Leviticus17:14;7:26&27,Acts15:28&29;

Answer 8

"Genesis.9:3,4" " Leviticus.17:11,12" "Acts.15:19,20"

Answer 9

Since they don't accept blood transfusions, shouldn't they all be vegetarians? That red stuff that seaps out of your steak is certainly not meat juice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_witnesses_and_blood

Answer 10

JWs DO accept blood transfusions and they DO accept blood products.