Jehovah's Witnesses: If your church allowed it, would you ever consider a transfusion of your own blood?

Question

trk....I

I understand. But the question is about your own blood, not someone else's. Would you feel differently?

Answer 1

It is not about what our religion "allows" it is about what the bible says.... but to answer your question the best I can..... We do allow, up to each others conscience to have our blood continually flow while being cleaned and then RIGHT back into our body if the person is ok with that. This is up to the person, One JW may be ok with this, one may not. But to have our blood taken out and stored for another time, no we would NOT do that, this form is not a conscience matter then.

In the example above, the blood would be continually flowing and as some may view it as an extension of their "veins" I guess you could put it. Some JWs feel ok with this, some do not. Each has a redendering with Jehovah God and has to decide what they are ok with in this situation. But to take and store our blood, No never.

Update~~~
But to answer your question... If our "religious leaders" as you put it were to come out and say that it is now a conscience matter to take blood, I would NOT do it. I know what I know about the scriptures. It is very clear! My conscience would never allow this. The situation you ask of, would never happen though..... And again, its not about "religious leaders" as everyone on this board is so quick to say.. It is about the Bible.

Answer 2

The implication, as I understand your question, is that my 'church' disallows such. This is, however, inaccurate. It is the Bible which guides my attitude respecting this issue. As regards this subject, I know whereof I speak. I was supposed to die – twice – because I would not consider a blood transfusion, despite the ridiculous amount of blood I lost. I am still here – healthier than most.

It would seem to be close to pointless to answer your question since, according to one respondent, " no matter how many indignant JWs deny it here, if their leaders changed their interpretation . . . " we would do it anyway. How presumptuous for a stranger to suggest that he or she knows me better than I. And how malicious to suggest that no matter my indignation, I am a liar.

Having said that, I will respond. The answer is no. I would not. The reasons therefor have to do with God's viewpoint concerning blood and its value in his eyes. Behind every law of God is a principle. This is no less so when it comes to God's law on blood. God views it as the life of the soul. He provided one use and one use only. There is nothing in scripture, implicit or overt, which would allow humans to preserve their lives with the use of blood. The one use allowed by God has already been taken care of: the ransom sacrifice of Jesus.

Humans have an inherent right to protect and preserve life, this is true. But any and every method of doing so is not approved of by God.

Hannah J Paul

Answer 3

on condition which you have been married to him and he had no longer signed the scientific directive all JWs are meant to hold with them (forbidding complete blood transfusions), might desire to you provide permission (if he replace into subconscious). Any individual that takes a determination on such concerns has to have his needs respected by utilising the scientific occupation. it somewhat is in simple terms close to minors that others could take judgements, and parental refusal may be over-ruled by utilising the Courts. it appears that evidently his mom might do each little thing a danger to evade him getting one, probably by utilising asserting she knew his needs and that he does no longer elect one. If no longer something is declared in writing by utilising him, it will be a messy muddle. yet while he nevertheless needs to refuse blood while he's no longer a working in the direction of JW, you will possibly ascertain that the religion has an corporation carry on him. he's very probably to re-connect them at a later degree in his existence. that would desire to make your place extremely puzzling. the final component you may desire to do may be to be sure the biblical motives as to why God would not require martyrs to the blood transfusion 'reason', and tutor him from the Bible. regardless of each little thing, the JW stance is basically theological and surely isn't in accordance with any scientific motives in any respect. e mail me in case you elect information.

Answer 4

No way, I already know how Jehovah feels about it. He is the one I worship.

Actually, just the thought of putting someone else's blood in my body makes me sick to my stomach. Yuk!

Edit: No I wouldn't use my own blood either, because of God's laws to abstain from blood, this would include your own once it has left your body.

Answer 5

Unless you erase the book of Acts 15:28-29 and several other verse of the bible forbidden the use of the blood, you don´t understand the only think they do is to show where in the bible says certain thing over of that we obey it .

Answer 6

You are mistaken. Jehovah's Witnesses simply accept that the Bible says to "Abstain from blood".

Answer 7

No JWs refused blood transfusion until 1960 when their leaders came out with a new interpretation of a handful of verses in the Bible that spoke of not eating blood. From the 1960s hundreds of thousands of JWs died. They all accepted their leaders interpretation.

Over the years their leaders slowly eased up on the long list of 'unacceptable' treatments. Today, JWs are 'allowed' to have some blood treatments that JWs in decades past would have died for as they felt obliged to refuse them. Now JWs can have blood fractions separately, but whole blood is still forbidden (woops, I mean 'discouraged'.) The subject is now so complex, most JWs depend on specially trained elders to be their spokesperson in hospital. These elders need to be alert to keep up with their leaders ever-changing 'advice'.

Your question has been answered by some JWs who toe the Society line in saying 'No' to transfusion of their own blood. This means they cannot donate their own blood in advance of an operation. Their leaders say it would violate 'biblical' principles. That's what determines matters for JWs - what their leaders say. These leaders are supposed to be anointed and God's personal channel for communication today (no other religious leaders are). To disregard them is to disregard God.

So I can assure you (no matter how many indignant JWs deny it here) that if their leaders changed their interpretation on blood to say they could receive their own blood in a transfusion, they would all accept that bit of 'new light' as from God himself, applaud it, and never think for a second that their leaders are duping them.

Answer 8

I agree with what my sister says. Its not what our ''religion'' says, its about what is outlined in the bible. Our standards are created by gods word the bible. Ha, i cant saying anything else, she answered your question well!

Answer 9

Ditto to All of the Above!

Answer 10

No, most Jehovah's Witnesses would likely continue to adhere to the bible's plain direction regarding blood.

True Christians (such as Jehovah's Witnesses) consider the bible to be the only inspired infallible means of knowing God's will and purposes. The scriptures demonstrate a clear pattern indicating the sacredness with which Jehovah God (and thus god-fearing humankind) views all creature blood.


Predates Mosaic Law.
For example, over a thousand years before the birth of Moses, the pre-Israel, pre-Jewish, pre-Hebrew man Noah received what the scriptures record as only the second restrictive command on humans (after Garden of Eden's tree):

"Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it [that is, lifeblood] and of man" (Genesis 9:3-5)


Jewish Law.
Later, God's feeling regarding blood was codified into the Mosaic Law. This part of the Law dealing with blood was unique in that it applied, not just to Israel, but also to non-Jewish foreigners among them. It's also interesting that besides forbidding the consumption of blood, the Law also mandated that it be 'poured out on the ground', not used for any purpose.

"No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood. Any man also of the people of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who takes in hunting any beast or bird that may be eaten shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust." (Lev 17:12,13)

By comparison, it's significant that the Law also forbid the consumption of ceremonial animal fat, but that didn't apply to non-Jewish foreigners and it DID allow the fat to be used for other purposes.

"The LORD said to Moses, "Say to the people of Israel, You shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat. The fat of an animal that dies of itself, and the fat of one that is torn by beasts, may be put to any other use" (Lev 7:22-24)


Early Christian era.
The Christian era ended the validity of the Mosaic Law, but remember that the restriction on eating blood preceded the Mosaic Law by over a thousand years. Still, does the New Testament indicate that Jehovah God changed his view of blood's sacredness?

"[God] freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses" (Eph 1:6,7)

"[God's] beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins... and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood" (Colossians 1:13-20)

"we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood." (Acts 15:19,20)

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." Acts 15:28,29


Modern times
Some will claim that the bible's command to "abstain" from blood only applies to eating it, and does not apply to the use of blood for other purpose. If that form of respect for blood were common among Christendom, one might wonder then why so many (who ostensibly follow the book of Acts) so happily eat their blood sausage and blood pudding if they truly respect blood according to some limited understanding of Acts 15:20,29. In fact, respect for blood and for Acts and for the Scriptures themselves is too rare among even supposedly god-fearing persons.

An honest review of the Scriptural pattern over the millenia from Noah to the Apostle Paul teaches humans that blood is to be used for a single purpose: acknowledging the Almighty. Otherwise, for centuries the instruction was to simply dispose of it; 'poor it upon the ground'. When Jehovah's Witnesses pursue non-blood medical management, they are working to honor and obey their Creator.


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