This question was asked earlier and I answed with the following:
Does God want mothers to put a commandment ahead of their and their children's lives?
Here is the thing... when those commands were written, the ones in the answer written above, what was the meaning in the blood? They had no way of giving blood. Yes the idiots in those days drank blood. Some still do because they believe that gives them some sort of dark power.
To me it is a question of does the command to abstain from blood reach down to today's blood transfusions?
To take a very life and death view of these scriptures as literal is just exactly that, life and death. To be fair the witnesses believe that it would mean death forever if they did take a blood transfusion. My thoughts on this have a wide spectrum from a kind of sick admiration to a very empty feeling for the kids and father. I am certain that this married couple knew the ramifications of this decision and put it in Jehovah's hands.
However, finding the required help for this father for the next 20 some odd years is no small order. Even if they are witnesses. Humans are still human and step kids are still step kids. It's not easy to raise kids much less alone. In fact I'll bet it was easier for them to make this decision than many think. Of course they were surrounded by family and friends PLUS Elders from their congregation.
So, back to the point... "What do you think?" Does abstaining from blood mean do not take a blood transfusion? No matter the circumstances? To me the interesting point of the Witnesses stance is that it is OK to use blood expanders but not blood products, not even their own. Mind you it is OK to use vitamins to strengthen their blood it's even OK to eat the liver or heart of animals. And there is the rub for me. I understand that their view is that the blood belongs to Jehovah and is sacred. The filter of and pump of blood is not. They are just mussels.
Are the Heart and liver simply just organs that are consumable and the product that they circulate and filter are not. Can they have a heart transplant? Yes..... Think about that for a bit would you? But, to take red blood cells even from a mate is both punishable by Jehovah and means for excommunication for the surviving mate if they are part of the decisions. That’s right so not only is the dieing mate trying to save her soul, in this case, with Jehovah but on top of that the threat of excommunication for the surviving mate. So, there goes his support system if she had one and still died.
Does God want us to prove that we will put this command ahead of not dieing? Is life sacred? Would this mother have stopped respecting the sanctity of life and the giver of it if she had consumed red blood cells? I do not know but we will never know will we? Nor will her children or husband.
I for one have never read anyplace were Christ Jesus placed a circumstance on any of the people that he resurrected. Who is to say that they did not receive “new blood” the instant that he awoke them but we just did not have the means or the scientific back ground to ask medical questions about this very real process.
Even the witnesses will stipulate that Jesus was part of the creation of man and he had great empathy for our condition and was moved to raise people from the dead. Further, Jesus never had a word to say on this matter.
I am sorry for the kids and father and I pray that the elders and friends stick with this soul for as long as it takes to raise these boys. And I feel they will owe them a huge apology when they miss their mother. Finally, if it is equally true when Christ prayed for them to be one just as he and the farther are one and if its true that in marriage they become one flesh the other mate and the unified Christian congregation should be allowed to share their unified (one) blood.
2007-11-05 16:44:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by Old guy 5
·
1⤊
3⤋
Yes they would be disfellowshipped. A co-worker's mother was a Jehovah's Witness. The mother became hospitalized and required a blood transfusion, as a matter of life and death. A family argument insued over this issue with the mother not wanting the transfusion. However due to her illness she went into a coma. The family then had the transfusion done, but the mother died anyway. Upon learning that a transfusion was done, the Jehovah's Witnesses distanced themselves away from this family and the mother was not allowed to have a Jehovah's Witness funeral.
2007-11-05 14:55:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by ignoramus_the_great 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
It all boils down to these verses that they misconstrue...
Genesis 9:4
But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Leviticus 7:26-27
Moreover ye shall eat no manner of blood, whether it be of fowl or of beast, in any of your dwellings.
Whatsoever soul it be that eateth any manner of blood, even that soul shall be cut off from his people.
And Acts 15:19-29 which I won't list here to save space.
Typical misinterpretation from the Watchtower. These verses are speaking solely of eating animals blood, NOT transusions. In fact, look at what this verse tells us...
Mark 7:15
There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
Quite simply, nothing can defile us that enters us. The things that come out, are his words....and those can truly defile you.
Now they are rethinking this issue. Here's the dilemma. The Watchtower claims to be the mouthpiece of God. The faithful and discreet slave. The qualifications of a prophet (mouthpiece) are not trial and error, and get better along the way. ALL the prophets of the Bible were batting 1000!! The faithful and discreet slave also would never misconstrue teachings....read the qualifications....they will be dead on. So here, the self-proclaimed prophet and slave....in the Watchtower, have failed miserably.
2007-11-05 15:28:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by green93lx 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
No Helen. The Governing Body makes the Congregations aware of what God's Word Says.On the Point of Blood, they show the Seriousness of it. If some decide to go ahead and get a Blood transfusion, then that issue is one between that person and Jehovah. Witnesses are smart enough to Put their trust In The Creator to Reward his subjects based On OBEDIENCE.
Partial Obedience Not Enough
Not all who have claimed to be obedient to God have actually obeyed him. Consider King Saul of ancient Israel. God instructed him to wipe out the wicked Amalekites. (1 Samuel 15:1-3) Though Saul destroyed them as a nation, he spared their king and preserved some of their sheep and cattle. Samuel asked: “Why is it you did not obey the voice of Jehovah?” In reply, Saul said: “But I have obeyed the voice of Jehovah . . . The people [of Israel] went taking from the spoil sheep and cattle, the choicest of them . . . , to sacrifice to Jehovah.” Stressing the need for complete obedience, Samuel replied: “Does Jehovah have as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of Jehovah? Look! To obey is better than a sacrifice, to pay attention than the fat of rams; for rebelliousness is the same as the sin of divination, and pushing ahead presumptuously the same as using uncanny power and teraphim. Since you have rejected the word of Jehovah, he accordingly rejects you from being king.” (1 Samuel 15:17-23) How much Saul lost because he did not have an obedient heart!
Hope that clears things up a bit.
2007-11-05 15:04:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by conundrum 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
the use of the Blood is a sin.
Fornication is a sin.
are all JWs that commit fornication disfellowshipped? No
that depend of the situation but still is a sin , at the end the judgement day we will render account to the Judge Jesus Christ if we did for a lack of faith or weakness, or if we did it cause even knowing it was a sin we did it that is for evil , he will destroy evil people.
Ignoramus are you JW? no then if you are not don´t talk about thing you can´t comprehend.
2007-11-05 14:52:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
No they wouldn't.
Hospitals hardly ever do FULL blood transfusions(which has red bloodcells, white bloodcells, and plasma combined) they're usually seperated so it can save 3 lives.
I read that it is only full blood and autologous blood transfusions that are prohibited.
2007-11-05 14:53:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is a sin for them.They would get into trouble but since I have never been a JW, I do not know what would be the punishment. Maybe they would not talk to you for a long long time. They expect you to be willing to die.
2007-11-05 14:57:58
·
answer #7
·
answered by Nina, BaC 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Jehovah's Witnesses no longer disfellowship for misuse of blood. A former Witness who disassociated himself by voluntarily misusing blood could be reinstated as soon as he qualified.
Incidentally, Jesus never taught that one's life (or another's) was more important than one's integrity and obedience to God. What do the Scriptures teach about the relative importance of integrity and the earthly life a human might now cherish?
(Matthew 10:28) And do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body
(Matthew 16:25) For whoever wants to save his soul will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.
(Luke 12:4,5) Do not fear those who kill the body and after this are not able to do anything more. But I will indicate to you whom to fear: Fear him who after killing has authority to throw into [the grave without hope of resurrection]
(Luke 17:33) Whoever seeks to keep his soul safe for himself will lose it, but whoever loses it will preserve it alive.
(Revelation 12:11) And they conquered ...because of the word of their witnessing, and they did not love their souls even in the face of death.
Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/rq/index.htm?article=article_10.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/dg/index.htm?article=article_05.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/lmn/index.htm?article=article_11.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/jt/index.htm?article=article_08.htm
2007-11-06 09:26:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by achtung_heiss 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Conun & Moises, you both amaze me in all the wrong ways! Åm I getting the real dawn to fall upon me??? The both of you are teaching your follower's "Indoctrinated Suicide"? Is not SUICIDE a sin in YHWH's eyes??? Is that a "Eternal Sin" for the both of you??? If I stand correct the both of you are WRONG!
Leviticus 17: 14: because the life of every creature is its blood. That is why I have said to the Israelites, "You must not eat the blood of any creature, because the life of every creature is its blood, anyone who eats it must be cut off."
Leviticus 17: 15, 16: "Anyone, whether native or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening, then he will be clean. But if he does not wash his clothes and bathe himself, he will be held responsible.
YHWH said, "must be cut off; wash your clothes and wash your body" I did NOT read where YHWH said "Kill them, death sentence!"
Luke 17:1-3: Jesus said to his disciples, "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but WOE to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to CAUSE ONE of these LITTLE ones to sin. SO WATCH YOURSELVES."
2007-11-05 15:47:36
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋