why do Jehovahs refuse real life-saving blood yet symbolically consume a dead man's blood and flesh...........

Question

I've always thought organised religion was overall a bad thing, but this is just insane!

They refuse life-saving blood transfusions, yet they symbolically consume the blood and flesh of a person who's been dead for 2000 years!

Sheer madness.

Dwayne

My point is that two children are without their mother because she put a book of superstitious myth over her kids.

That, my friend, is insane.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7078673.stm

Answer 1

This is a misguided question, because Christ himself instituted The Last Supper to replace the Jewish Passover. Jesus retained the main emblems that the Jews already associated with Passover, but he redefined their meaning to Christians.

In a similar way, even before Jesus' ministry some Jews sought out water baptism by John the Baptist (and others apparently). That earlier form of baptism was intended to recognize the person's need to cleanse himself of his previous sin and resolve to do better in the future. By contrast, the Christian congregation uses baptism to represent one's figurative "dying" to one's former self-centered course (including "burial"/immersion below the surface) and subsequent "resurrection" to a life dedicated to God and Christ.

Would the questioner suggest that baptism teaches killing or suicide?

Incidentally, Jehovah's Witnesses quite uniquely accept the form of blood that really does save lives...
http://watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm?article=article_05.htm

Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/200608/article_03.htm

Answer 2

Actually, Jehovah's witnesses are Christians. Just another branch of Christianity. They take the Bible a little more literally than other branches of Christianity, In a passage where it says to abstain from things strangled and from blood, they take this to mean not ingesting blood in any form, whether by transfusion or eating. My own opinion on this is that the law applied to the eating of things not bled correctly, a bit like the Jewish Kosher tradition and similar tradition with Muslims. In a transfusion, the blood is not being eaten, it is still doing the same job it did before in a different body. If it were eaten, it wouldn't be doing so. I think it's a shame the J'W's couldn't look at this again. The symbolic eating of Christ's flesh is just that, symbolic. Unlike other Christian sects they don't believe it actually changes upon eating it. I don't agree with their interpretation of the above passage (in the Bible), as regards transfusions, though I can see the point about eating a blood product. This is common in a few religions that follow the old testament, as Noah and his sons were apparently also told not to eat the blood of animals. This is reinforced later in the book of Acts in the 'new' testament. Personally, I don't think it allows for advances in technology, this law was aimed at a simpler society. We now know about blood groups, and can use blood in various forms, plasma etc. It's a shame they have taken this passage so literally. Having said that, other religions also take passages in their own holy books literally, with equally bad results.

Answer 3

You answered it with the work symbolically. And by the way when it comes down to it they do get blood transfusions and some of them keep an emergency supply of their own blood for this reason.

Answer 4

I don't know the answer to that one but the fact that they have this belief gives me a great way to get rid of them when they come to my door. They usually ask if they can come in for a few minutes and talk about the bible. My response to them is to tell them I am a blood bank technician. They then get horrified expressions on their smug faces, turn around and leave.

Answer 5

Are you thinking of Catholics with the "symbolically consume
the blood and flesh" bit? Never heard of Jehovahs doing that.

But even if they did....to symbolically do something is by definition not doing it for real.

Answer 6

They consume the stmbolistic blood and flesh because Jesus supposedly said to drink his blood and life forever. And yet giving up your lifeblood or taking the lifeblood of someone else is strictly against their beliefs. In my opinion, they are taking things a little too seriously and much too far.

Answer 7

Expecting a religion to make consistent sense is generally going to fail, especially with an essentially cultic group like the Witnesses.

Answer 8

Organized religion is not a bad thing. It helped Homo Sapiens develop inteligence.

Your "question" is really a statement, nonetheless, i agree.

Answer 9

Um, considering that you said "symbolically" yourself, what exactly is your point?

We refuse blood because God holds it sacred - it is through Jesus' shed blood that we (all humans) are able to attain salvation at all. Symbolically consuming his flesh (as opposed to literally doing so b/c we don't believe in transubstantiation) shows that those who will rule in heaven share oneness with Jesus in thought and deed.

Come on, you gotta do better than that - take a lesson from Unsilenced Lamb. Shoot a sharper slug next time.

Answer 10

Well, crackers and grape juice (or wine) typically doesn't carry with it a host of diseases now, does it?

I'm not a JW, but your statement strikes me as odd.