When did it become a matter of conscience for you to have a blood transfusion?
2007-09-13 03:45:28 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlrIDHw0mcXjcyHyJL51ALDsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070913060908AALlNFL&show=7#profile-info-as4fcPvsaa
2007-09-13 03:46:04 · update #1
NOTE: grnlow......... answer to above posted question.
2007-09-13 03:47:05 · update #2
GOD..I have a much loved DEAD grandmother after a non blood surgery...Maybe you would like to remove your statement now.
2007-09-13 04:07:05 · update #3
pugwashjw...In Bulgaria the JW's have blood transfusions, and in Canada soon it will be accepted...You need to be asking yuor questions not to me, but to your leaders.
2007-09-13 04:09:41 · update #4
Daysee...I have never lied on this forum.
EVER. so before yu judge ME, maybe you need to be asking some very hard questins of the People that yu dedicate yur life to...
God is waiting.
2007-09-13 04:21:31 · update #5
why this crusade against Jehovah's Witnesses ?
did they skip your house this week so you couldn't slam the door in your face?
2007-09-13 03:59:15 · answer #1 · answered by God 2 · 5⤊ 5⤋
You ask a lot of Jehovah's Witnesses question, but you don't accept any of our answers.
The Bulgaria papers state:
"In respect of the refusal of blood transfusion, the applicant association submits that there are no religious sanctions for a Jehovah's Witness who chooses to accept blood transfusion and that, therefore, the fact that the religious doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses is against blood
transfusion cannot amount to a threat to "public health"
The first half of the article states "sanctions", which means
"A penalty, specified or in the form of moral pressure, that acts to ensure compliance or conformity"
The last half of the article talks about a "threat to public health". We do take "sanctions" on anyone who disobey this law, because they have already been disfellowshipped and have already put themselves out of the organization.. and that will not result in a public health thread.
As of the Mosaic Law, they took sanctions and killed people who did not go by the law.. that something Jehovah Witnesses do not do.
2007-09-13 11:04:10 · answer #2 · answered by VMO 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The Watchtower may very well drop the prohibition on taking blood transfusions "some day." It is not likely, but neither is it out of the question either. It doesn't really matter though whether they do or don't. Jehovah's Witnesses know what the Bible teaches on that topic and each of us that are spiritually mature know that we will eventually stand before Jehovah in judgment.
2007-09-13 11:53:58 · answer #3 · answered by keiichi 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
J.W's do not have transfusions of whole blood.
This is in obedience to " abstain from blood"
however the conscience bit comes in , where blood 'expanders' are concerned.
these are like saline solutions that give the heart...a pump...something to pump.
Any pump will stop if it runs out of something to pump.
Expanders give the hear something to work with.
also commonsense must rule.
A good example is the case of a pregnant woman. Her blood supply is completely separate from that of her unborn child. The child can even have a different blood type.
But certain fluid components can cross the barrier between the mothers system and the babies. It is not blood as such but are protective elements that the mother can pass onto the child that gives the child immunity from disease. J.W'S have used their conscience to make use of these components to combat life threatening diseases such as leukemia and other cancers.
If God allows it in a mother, he would not ban it in the case of illness.
always though keep in mind that whole blood CANNOT pass from the mother to the child. this ALSO complies with God's law to abstain from blood.
2007-09-13 11:05:23 · answer #4 · answered by pugjw9896 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Although it was never a "doctrine" like refusing transfusions, Witnesses were once strongly discouraged from taking vaccinations. The same verses were used to discourage this as are used to support this "no blood" position. I've read, and read, and read the verses they quote, and I see it as an animal blood issue, not human. Listen, as technology and science increase, ethical questions will abound. I can understand parents being concerned about medical abuses. Anti-biotics are over used sometimes. The blood supply does have to be carefully screened to avoid disease.However, I cannot support a false interpretation of scripture adding to the AGONY many families are experiencing in life and death situations. It's an un-necessary burden. Th JW's are just plain wrong on this one.
2007-09-13 11:42:11 · answer #5 · answered by Graham 5 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Every Witness makes his or her own decision to abstain from blood or not. But if a Witness were to voluntarily accept a blood transfusion, he is understood to have disassociated himself, no matter what country he lives in.
2007-09-13 14:37:52 · answer #6 · answered by Octavia 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
JR is word playing to cover their tracks. If their leadership wasn't getting it's "new light" from lawyers they wouldn't be changing this policy, now would they?
"Dear Bulgaria, we solemnly promise not to sanction members for blood transfusions." ....We'll just dis-fellowship them! That's not a sanction! We thought you meant like burn them at the stake or something!
By the way...it says not to eat animal blood.
Tony C: that's the dumbest analogy I've ever heard.
Unsilenced Lamb: keep speaking the truth.
Edit: Greg M.: you are a cutie!!
2007-09-13 11:22:45 · answer #7 · answered by Jeni2 1 · 4⤊ 2⤋
What? The matter of conscious is whether or not to have a fraction of blood, not whether to have a blood transfusion or not. Blood has 4 major components. Fractions of these components are not considered blood.
May I ask what liable source all this information came from?
2007-09-13 10:58:20 · answer #8 · answered by Tony C 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
My brothers & sisters Why answer such questions of ones who are not interested in an anwer but are out to bring us down and smear the name of JEHOVAH with lies and put downs. I wish this person no harm as a matter of fact I wish her a long life. I just wish you all would leave them to their own devices.
2007-09-13 11:17:00 · answer #9 · answered by Daysee 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I believe sometime in the 1920s.
2007-09-13 10:55:32 · answer #10 · answered by Zindo 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I don't know when it happened, but that's what it needs to be. Not a doctrine. The verses refer to animal blood,anyway.
2007-09-13 15:08:50 · answer #11 · answered by polyman77 1 · 2⤊ 3⤋