On which the witnesses of Jehovah they based the great dilemma when not allowing blood transfusion.?

Question

their great dilemma are they assassins, or forcing to suicide to it member they are known as fornicate, and deniers of the deity of Jesus like God Father. That it is smaller sin to allow than a life tranfusion of blood saves by one or to sin being adultery..

Answer 1

Imagine if organ transplants were technologically possible in a world with the cultural sensibilities of the 1600's. Imagine that a slave-owner is told that his child needs a heart transplant, and imagine that the surgeon suggests that the slave population be cross-tested and matched for a suitable heart donor.

A godly neighbor might ask how he can ignore explicit bible teachings (against killing humans). The slave-owner explains his opinion that the bible is an old irrelevant book that was written a long time ago and anyway those Scriptures that plainly say to "abstain from killing" mean to "abstain from killing [non-slaves]".

The fact is that the bible repeatedly teaches that Almighty God prohibits the misuse of blood. Significantly, the broadest, most explicit prohibition from God was directed to the Christian congregation (more so than was covered by the Noachian prohibition or the Jewish Mosaic prohibition).

When anti-Witnesses pretend that a conscientious decision to pursue non-blood medical management is akin to a death wish, the critics ignore the plain truth that MULTIPLES more have died as a direct result of a blood transfusion. Perhaps pro-blood activists (and/or anti-Witness critics) ignore the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses accept all minor blood fractions, so if there is some targeted need then a Witness will accept a targeted treatment (their only objections are to those four components which approximate actual blood).

(Acts 15:20) Write them [the various Christian congregations] to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

(Acts 15:28-29) For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper.

Answer 2

@ bar.... has informed us, "The Bible says no longer something approximately "rank-and-report" Christians removing people who take the lead. quite, it counsels obedience to those "governing" us. (Hebrews thirteen:17) Any member of the governing physique who grew to become spiritually corrupted could be bumped off by making use of an identical technique that the different Witness who turns into spiritually corrupted is bumped off." First it is not biblical yet then it rather is biblical, sounds like wide-spread Watchtower double communicate. they have finished now with "New mild" as there has been too quite some it, now the "mild is getting brighter" is how they're getting new counsel. whilst technological understanding makes new discoveries, this a technique or the different facilitates the Watchtower to re-translate, "Abstain for blood" to have new meaning and allow some factions of blood to be injected, however the translation nonetheless denies the injecting of alternative factions. merely like their historic previous of what's and isn't any longer allowed, they are in a position to no longer aid you understand from one minute to the subsequent what the present policies are. right this is the Watchtower’s historic previous on the problem of blood # 1940 Blood transfusions are suitable # 1945 Blood transfusion are no longer suitable # 1956 Blood serums could be dealt with as blood and are banned # 1958 Blood serums and fractions suitable # 1959 storage of very own blood unacceptable # 1961 Blood fractions are no longer suitable # 1964 Blood fractions are suitable # 1974 Blood serums are own decision # 1975 Hemophilia treatments (element VII & IX) are no longer suitable # 1978 Hemophilia treatments (element VII & IX) are suitable # 1982 Albumin is suitable # 1983 Hemodilution is suitable # 1990 Hemodilution isn't suitable (Blood Brochure) # 1995 Hemodilution is suitable How ought to they understand what's contemporary??

Answer 3

I only have the faintest idea of what your question means, but probably English is not your first language, so keep working on it! Now, the great dilemma of JWs in not allowing blood transfusions....

Their practical dilemma is keeping up with their leaders' constant moving of the goalposts. The problem is now so complex, they have to have specially trained elders mediate for them in hospital, to be sure they don't unwittingly accept a blood fraction on the "disapproved" list. On the other hand, they're now allowed so many blood fractions, the only real problem is ensuring they don't have so many of them all at once that they'd actually be receiving whole blood! They can have so many single components of blood, the idea that they are keeping "free from blood" is nonsense. The idea that having a whole blood transfusion forced on them is like being raped is rubbish when most JWs would gratefully accept 90% of blood fractions, just so long as they weren't given all at once. A bit like saying, "No rape, but do it my way and it's okay"? Discuss?

Their spiritual dilemma is far more serious. They have invalidated the word of God by taking his symbol for the sanctity of life (blood) and saying it's more important than the thing it symbolises. That is legalism gone mad.

Answer 4

If you going to bash people for refusing blood transfusions, you need to get new material. Only 10% of those who refuse are JWs. So many now are refusing that over 150 hospital routinely offer it to all patients. Google it and you will see.

So, why are so many people now refusing? Could it be that England has now decided to using American blood for the youths, and have switch to Australia because of problems with over bleeding, as well as contamination. They don't use their own because of the problems with Mad Cow Disease, the same reason they don't import from Canada.

There was a conference in it here last March with reps from blood banks from all over the world. Interesting what you pick up driving a taxi.

Answer 5

Lafaraona said:

"I'm not a Jehovah's witness, but that is something I've always seen happen, they think God listens, but they don't dare mix, the life of another life with that of the patient, and they think if God loves the patient in question he will be saved, I have heard of several cases, when needing an organ transplant, they have recuperated, and probably based on that they think they will come out fine, b/c they really think this will happen, and this really is a thing of faith. Odd, right? greetings."

Why she wrote that in spanish I don't know.

Sasi:
"They have invalidated the word of God by taking his symbol for the sanctity of life (blood) and saying it's more important than the thing it symbolises."

Great, now maybe you can prove that by using the word of God to support your arguments.By that I mean the bible.

Answer 6

Acts 15:29 "to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from BLOOD and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper.

JWS may use other medical treatments and methods rather then using Whole blood such as:

Blood donation strictly for purpose of further fractionation, Transfusions of autologous blood part of a "current therapy", Hemodilution, Intraoperative blood salvage, Heart-Lung Machine, Dialysis, Epidural Blood Patch, Plasmapheresis, Platelet Gel, Hemopure, PolyHeme, among others.....

Answer 7

I think you could ask the question in a way that is easier to understand, I'm not sure I understand it so I thought I would be a nice person and say Huh?

Answer 8

Did not Jesus bleed and die so that we may have life?

Sin is sin and is looks like sin to God and Jesus.

Answer 9

Transfusions are necessary--if a religion says they don't allow such--That would be between the believer and his church. God knows these things.

Answer 10

They believe that one can not "eat the blood, for the life is in the blood"
Somehow they equate the plasma of transfusions with blood