English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The last I heard was that it was up to individuals within the congregation. Also that the GB allows people to accept parts of blood, indeed all of the parts of blood seperately, but not all at the same time !!!

2007-05-21 03:30:25 · 10 answers · asked by monno 1 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

Dee hat, but Charles Russell said that abstaining from blood did not apply to modern day christians. Watctower, April 1st , 1909

2007-05-21 04:22:20 · update #1

10 answers

Ex-Jehovah's Witness here.

The answer is no, they do not believe in accepting blood. This belief stems from a misinterpretation of scripture.

They attribute a blood transfusion to eating it, the same way a person can be fed intravenously. It's complete stupidity.

Any basic science book explains that blood is NOT consumed in the body like food. Blood is like a liquid organ. It CARRIES food, nutrients, and oxygen throughout the body to maintain health, and carries waste out of the body to the different organs that process the waste. The body DOES NOT treat it like food. PERIOD. The JW stance completely ignores this basic scientific fact. It's lunacy.

2007-05-21 04:08:51 · answer #1 · answered by Danny H 6 · 1 5

Jehovah's Witnesses consider a competent Witness who approves of the misuse of blood to have disassociated himself from the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses (similar to one who joins the military or another religion).

Formerly, a committee of Witness elders might have actually "investigated" an apparent misuse of blood by a baptized Witness and that investigation may have led to disfellowshipping. Also, the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses now limits its comments to the misuse of whole blood and the four major components which approximate whole blood. Thus, minor fractions from plasma, platelets, or red/white cells are left entirely to the conscience of the individual Christian.

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

2007-05-21 09:31:18 · answer #2 · answered by achtung_heiss 7 · 2 0

"The last you heard" was in 1909? That is certainly not our position now. Needless to say, your information is way off. The last I heard, Charles Russell is no longer a part of the Governing Body, seeing as he died almost a hundred years ago.

2007-05-21 11:45:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

They are guided by the Bible. What does it say? Acts 15:19, 20: "Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood."

2007-05-21 03:38:59 · answer #4 · answered by LineDancer 7 · 4 0

And, besides that, YOUR blood of YOUR souls shall I ask back. From the hand of every living creature shall I ask it back; and from the hand of man, from the hand of each one who is his brother, shall I ask back the soul of man. 6 Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God’s image he made man. Genesis 9:5, 6


“As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in their midst who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood, and I shall indeed cut him off from among his people.”—Leviticus 17:10.

The above-quoted scripture applies to animal blood. Would the same principle apply to human blood? Yes, with even stronger force.

2007-05-21 03:52:25 · answer #5 · answered by SIMSGIRL 2 · 5 0

Abstain.

Act 15:20 But that we write unto them, that they ABSTAIN from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] BLOOD.

2007-05-23 15:03:48 · answer #6 · answered by keiichi 6 · 0 0

They have belief that blood contains a soul of individual. Therefore they think it is a sin to gain or lose some soul.
They are too materialistic. No wonder this type of religion derives from West not from East. West is more about material world

2007-05-21 03:35:56 · answer #7 · answered by alexandredz 3 · 0 5

I can't understand why they would deny something that is only around to help them. It's not something that is done for pleasure. If you are dying and need blood who has the right to say that God wouldn't want you to take it.

2007-05-21 05:21:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

its a no no, when it fits them but when its a family member they stop the practice oh JW and do it what kinda religion do you know that you can come and go as you please in your belief in that type of religion one minute your JW the next min your not...wow whatta cult..

2007-05-21 03:37:26 · answer #9 · answered by Pastor Biker 6 · 1 6

Do Jehovah’s Witnesses accept any minor fractions of blood?

The following answer is reprinted from the issue of June 15, 2000.

The fundamental answer is that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not accept blood. We firmly believe that God’s law on blood is not open to reform to fit shifting opinions. Still, new issues arise because blood can now be processed into four primary components and fractions of those components. In deciding whether to accept such, a Christian should look beyond possible medical benefits and risks. His concern should be what the Bible says and the potential effect on his relationship with Almighty God.

The key issues are quite simple. As an aid to seeing why that is so, consider some Biblical, historical, and medical background.

Jehovah God told our common ancestor Noah that blood must be treated as something special. (Genesis 9:3, 4) Later, God’s laws to Israel reflected the sacredness of blood: “As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident . . . who eats any sort of blood, I shall certainly set my face against the soul that is eating the blood.” By rejecting God’s law, an Israelite could contaminate others; thus, God added: “I shall indeed cut him off from among his people.” (Leviticus 17:10) Later, at a meeting in Jerusalem, the apostles and older men decreed that we must ‘abstain from blood.’ Doing so is as vital as abstaining from sexual immorality and idolatry.—Acts 15:28, 29.

What would “abstaining” have meant back then? Christians did not consume blood, whether fresh or coagulated; nor did they eat meat from an unbled animal. Also ruled out would be foods to which blood was added, such as blood sausage. Taking in blood in any of those ways would violate God’s law.—1 Samuel 14:32, 33.

Most people in ancient times would not have been troubled over the consuming of blood, as we can see from the writings of Tertullian (second and third centuries C.E.). Responding to false charges that Christians consumed blood, Tertullian mentioned tribes that sealed treaties by tasting blood. He also noted that “when a show is given in the arena, [some] with greedy thirst have caught the fresh blood of the guilty . . . as a cure for their epilepsy.”

Those practices (even if some Romans did them for health reasons) were wrong for Christians: “We do not include even animals’ blood in our natural diet,” wrote Tertullian. The Romans used food containing blood as a test of the integrity of real Christians. Tertullian added: “Now, I ask you, what sort of a thing is it, that when you are confident [that Christians] will turn with horror from animals’ blood, you should suppose them greedy for human blood?”

Today, few people would think that the laws of Almighty God are at issue if a physician suggested their taking blood. While Jehovah’s Witnesses certainly want to keep living, we are committed to obey Jehovah’s law on blood. What does this mean in the light of current medical practice?

As transfusions of whole blood became common after World War II, Jehovah’s Witnesses saw that this was contrary to God’s law—and we still believe that. Yet, medicine has changed over time. Today, most transfusions are not of whole blood but of one of its primary components: (1) red cells; (2) white cells; (3) platelets; (4) plasma (serum), the fluid part. Depending on the condition of the patient, physicians might prescribe red cells, white cells, platelets, or plasma. Transfusing these major components allows a single unit of blood to be divided among more patients. Jehovah’s Witnesses hold that accepting whole blood or any of those four primary components violates God’s law. Significantly, keeping to this Bible-based position has protected them from many risks, including such diseases as hepatitis and AIDS that can be contracted from blood.

However, since blood can be processed beyond those primary components, questions arise about fractions derived from the primary blood components. How are such fractions used, and what should a Christian consider when deciding on them?

Blood is complex. Even the plasma—which is 90 percent water—carries scores of hormones, inorganic salts, enzymes, and nutrients, including minerals and sugar. Plasma also carries such proteins as albumin, clotting factors, and antibodies to fight diseases. Technicians isolate and use many plasma proteins. For example, clotting factor VIII has been given to hemophiliacs, who bleed easily. Or if someone is exposed to certain diseases, doctors might prescribe injections of gamma globulin, extracted from the blood plasma of people who already had immunity. Other plasma proteins are used medically, but the above mentioned illustrate how a primary blood component (plasma) may be processed to obtain fractions.

Just as blood plasma can be a source of various fractions, the other primary components (red cells, white cells, platelets) can be processed to isolate smaller parts. For example, white blood cells may be a source of interferons and interleukins, used to treat some viral infections and cancers. Platelets can be processed to extract a wound-healing factor. And other medicines are coming along that involve (at least initially) extracts from blood components. Such therapies are not transfusions of those primary components; they usually involve parts or fractions thereof. Should Christians accept these fractions in medical treatment? We cannot say. The Bible does not give details, so a Christian must make his own conscientious decision before God.

Some would refuse anything derived from blood (even fractions intended to provide temporary passive immunity). That is how they understand God’s command to ‘abstain from blood.’ They reason that his law to Israel required that blood removed from a creature be ‘poured out on the ground.’ (Deuteronomy 12:22-24) Why is that relevant? Well, to prepare gamma globulin, blood-based clotting factors, and so on, requires that blood be collected and processed. Hence, some Christians reject such products, just as they reject transfusions of whole blood or of its four primary components. Their sincere, conscientious stand should be respected.

Other Christians decide differently. They too refuse transfusions of whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets, or plasma. Yet, they might allow a physician to treat them with a fraction extracted from the primary components. Even here there may be differences. One Christian may accept a gamma globulin injection, but he may or may not agree to an injection containing something extracted from red or white cells. Overall, though, what might lead some Christians to conclude that they could accept blood fractions?

“Questions From Readers” in The Watchtower of June 1, 1990, noted that plasma proteins (fractions) move from a pregnant woman’s blood to the separate blood system of her fetus. Thus a mother passes immunoglobulins to her child, providing valuable immunity. Separately, as a fetus’ red cells complete their normal life span, their oxygen-carrying portion is processed. Some of it becomes bilirubin, which crosses the placenta to the mother and is eliminated with her body wastes. Some Christians may conclude that since blood fractions can pass to another person in this natural setting, they could accept a blood fraction derived from blood plasma or cells.

Does the fact that opinions and conscientious decisions may differ mean that the issue is inconsequential? No. It is serious. Yet, there is a basic simplicity. The above material shows that Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse transfusions of both whole blood and its primary blood components. The Bible directs Christians to ‘abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from fornication.’ (Acts 15:29) Beyond that, when it comes to fractions of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful and prayerful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself.

Many people would be willing to accept any therapy that seems to offer immediate benefit, even a therapy having known health risks, as is true of blood products. The sincere Christian endeavors to have a broader, more balanced view that involves more than just the physical aspects. Jehovah’s Witnesses appreciate efforts to provide quality medical care, and they weigh the risk/benefit ratio of any treatment. However, when it comes to products derived from blood, they carefully weigh what God says and their personal relationship with our Life-Giver.—Psalm 36:9.

What a blessing for a Christian to have such confidence as the psalmist who wrote: “Jehovah God is a sun and a shield; favor and glory are what he gives. Jehovah himself will not hold back anything good from those walking in faultlessness. O Jehovah . . . , happy is the man that is trusting in you”!—Psalm 84:11, 12.

[Footnote]

See “Questions From Readers” in The Watchtower of June 15, 1978, and October 1, 1994. Pharmaceutical firms have developed recombinant products that are not taken from blood and that may be prescribed in place of some blood fractions used in the past.

SUGGESTED QUESTIONS FOR THE DOCTOR

If you face surgery or a treatment that might involve a blood product, ask:

Do all the medical personnel involved know that, as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I direct that no blood transfusions (whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets, or blood plasma) be given to me under any circumstances?

If any medicine to be prescribed may be made from blood plasma, red or white cells, or platelets, ask:

Has the medicine been made from one of the four primary blood components? If so, would you explain its makeup?

How much of this blood-derived medicine might be administered, and in what way?

If my conscience permits me to accept this fraction, what medical risks are there?

If my conscience moves me to decline this fraction, what other therapy might be used?

After I have considered this matter further, when may I inform you of my decision?

2007-05-21 03:49:51 · answer #10 · answered by Dee Hat 4 · 5 0

fedest.com, questions and answers