Isn't it obvious that the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong to teach against taking in blood by transfusions?

Question

I think this post, at http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&act=ST&f=118&t=18519&st=0&, by elijah3 has the best biblical reasoning on the matter. May be if the news media and the public contacted the Jehovah's Witnesses about the matter and requested they apply a more merciful interpretation of the Scriptures this problem could be stopped.

Answer 1

ACTUALLY through a VERY "Careful" (STUDY) of God's VERY Holy Bible it is OBVIOUS that "Any" use of wHOLE Blood is "Strictly" FORBIDDEN !

DESPITE Christendom's "Soft Peddling" of Bible Principles and COMMANDS; Jehovah's CHRISTIAN Witnesses (STRICTLY) "Obey" God's ORDERS ! ! !

RESPECT (FULL) "Christian"

Answer 2

The Watchtower's no blood doctrine was first introduced in 1945, at which time neither whole blood or any fractions thereof was permitted for their followers. Since then, there has been some relaxation on this position, and certain parts of blood are now allowed, although they have changed their minds on this on occasions. For more information on these changes, take a look at this link:

http://www.quotes-watchtower.co.uk/blood.html

The truth is the ban on blood transfusions is one of the many examples of the Watchtower's own unique interpretation of the Scriptures. That most Christians disagree with their views is irrelevant, they still have the right to hold them and enforce the rules of their religion in line with those views, as indeed do all other religions.

I personally don't agree with the Watchtower's teachings on this, and was deeply saddened by the recent death of the young mum who refused the blood transfusion that may have saved her life. At the same time however, I don't agree that the Jehohah's Witnesses are necessarily "wrong" to teach this or any other doctrine, as tragic as it's application has been on this occasion. As previously stated, they have chosem to interpret Acts 15:29 in this way, and the young woman chose to act in line with that interpretation.

Answer 3

One of the earlier answers makes a good point about lives lost in the name of war. Think about it. Have you at all followed news events that show how the young American soldiers fighting in Iraq today are subject to back door drafts, extended tours of duty and in some cases even those who have wanted to leave the Army have been told they can't!! Many who have died on the battle field have not done so willingly. They died because they were forced to stay by their government. You can't say the same about any Witness. It is an individual choice. We know what the Bible says. We know, as Paul did, that there will be a resurrection of the "righteous and the unrighteous". Besides, there are no guarantees. What if this mother had accepted the blood transfusion and died anyway? She'd have died with the knowledge she violated God's law.

BTW, it's untrue that this applies only to EATING blood. It's true that the Mosaic law stated that specifically, but the command is repeated in Acts 15:20 where those early christians were told to "ABSTAIN" from blood. (and yes, that's in the King James Version)In addition, to use an old illustration, if your doctor tells you you can't drink alcohol any more... that it's harmful to your liver. Do you think he'd approve if you filled an IV bag with, say, vodka, and took it into your body THA way?

Answer 4

the jehovahs witnesses are very wrong to try to interpret biblical passages too literally.
surely all any good christian needs is 'Gods 10 commandments' to live by, the other 700 pages of the bible are just so much contadictory crap.
It's historic fact that when the bible was written the christian faith was doing its best to become widely accepted amongst the pagan peoples of europe that had hitherto often used the drinking of human or animal blood as part of their old religious rituals.
the prohibition of the drinking of blood was simply a way of encouraging new converts to fully embrace christianity and give up their old pagan ways.
the facilities to save lives with blood transfusions was simply not around in ancient times for the bibles authors to comment on adversely or otherwise.
a life sadly wasted through stupidity.

Answer 5

"but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." (Acts 15:20)

There the eating of blood is equated with idolatry and fornication, things that we should not want to engage in. So it is obviously important to God, this is why she did not accept a transfusion.

Gen. 9:3, 4: “Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.”

Yes the Bible’s prohibition include human blood, and early Christians understood it that way. Acts 15:29 says to “keep abstaining from . . . blood.” It does not say merely to abstain from animal blood. (Compare Leviticus 17:10, which prohibited eating “any sort of blood.”)

In a hospital, when a patient cannot eat through his mouth, he is fed intravenously. Now, would a person who never put blood into his mouth but who accepted blood by transfusion really be obeying the command to “keep abstaining from . . . blood”? (Acts 15:29) To use a comparison, consider a man who is told by the doctor that he must abstain from alcohol. Would he be obedient if he quit drinking alcohol but had it put directly into his veins?

It has also been proven to be harmful "as studies have shown a disturbing spike in heart attacks--as much as 25%--and even deaths in patients who have received blood, usually within a month after the transfusion." If you are interested in this study here is the link-

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...

Please do not jump to conclusions, i am not a Jehovah's witness, i'm just informing you on the beliefs.

Answer 6

Refusing a blood transfusion that could save your life is suicide. Not allowing your child to get a blood transfusion and watching them die is a a form of human sacrifice. The Bible does not address the issue of blood transfusions, because it was not a medical procedure for almost 2,000 years after the last book of the Bible was written. The Bible only tells us not to eat blood. the Watchtower totally and completely runs the lives of every Jehovah's Witness within their organization, even to the point of death. They are a sick cult, which twists the scriptures to suit themselves, and have even written their own "translation" which, according to every Greek and Hebrew scholar, is an abomination to God's Word. They also once considered organ transplants cannibalism, and also forbid vaccinations at one time as well. They reversed these policies after several of their members died. They will not reverse their stance on blood transfusions, because the number of lawsuits they would receive would bankrupt them.

Answer 7

Refusing blood does not mean your life will end any more than accepting a blood transfusion means you will live.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not store their own blood to use later. Stored blood loses its oxygen carrying capacity anyway and only serves as a volume expander. There are many artificial means of doing that as well as save and recircuiting blood as one is bleeding.

I've had 3 surgeries with no blood including 6 1/2 hour long carotid artery replacement surgery.

When transfusions came out prior to WW2, ALL RELIGIONS were against it as occult, demonic and Satanic. Then WW2 caused miliatary expedience to make it popular.

There are many huge organizations of doctors around the earth trying to undo the use of blood in medicine. None of them are JWs. Just seeking to give the best treatment.

Here is one such organization.
http://www.nataonline.com/

There are more.

Debbie

Answer 8

Blood transfusions are not safe medicine. Daily, the medical professionals are finding new problems with Blood transfusions.

Just recently Time magazine reported that for years doctors have been noticing a disturbing spike in heart attacks--as much as 25%--and even deaths in patients who have received blood, usually within a month after the transfusion. Within hours of leaving the body, the research showed, a unit of blood loses up to 70% of its nitric oxide (which is responsible for helping red blood cells carry oxygen to tissues and for propping open tiny vessels); by the time the blood reaches its "use by" expiration date 42 days later, the gas is almost nonexistent.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1670523,00.html

Have you ever heard of TRALI? Most people haven't. In medicine, transfusion related acute lung injury (TRALI) is a serious blood transfusion complication characterized by the acute onset of pulmonary edema.
http://www.fda.gov/cber/ltr/trali101901.htm

How many forms of hepatitis are there now? A,B,C,D &E ? How long before there is H,I,J,K,L,M.......?
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/

We, as humans may not understand 'why' God said "abstain from blood" but as history continues to prove, following this God given law is a protection. My father was "saved" from AIDS because he followed this law back in 1982.

I have taken the time to educate myself on the dangers of blood transfusions as well as all of the amazing transfusion alternatives that are available today. There is no way I would allow myself or my children to be treated with this dangerous, outdated form of treatment.

Answer 9

Yes, God forbade blood to be eaten at the same time as meat or milk, but it is my belief that transfusion is okay, now, in today's society because blood is cleaned and regulated and kept in the right conditions - remember they had no refrigeration in those days.

I have had several transfusions and I lay there and prayed about it and thought, well, every single one of us has blood inside us and only God knows how many there are, but as far as I can work out there are only 4 major groups of blood and I understand that 1 is compatible with all blood types, though needs monitoring.

Why would God make us with all the same blood if it were not feasible?

We were also under law before Jesus came and died for our sins. Now we have a choice, Christians can eat what they want ...... just not to excess. Such a shame about that woman with twins.

I thought there was a kind of non-blood plasma that could be used to help in her situation.

Answer 10

"The Bible commands Christians to "abstain from blood". (Acts 15:20) That includes any use of it whatever. God’s law forbids the use of blood for any other purpose than atonement for sins: “It is the blood that makes atonement by the soul [life] in it.”—Lev. 17:11.

Is the eating of blood as food fundamentally different from accepting a blood transfusion, a medical procedure that was not known in Bible times?

Nothing is there stated that would justify making a distinction between taking blood into the mouth and taking it into the blood vessels. And, really, is there in principle any basic difference?

Doctors know that a person can be fed through the mouth or intravenously. Likewise, certain medicines can be administered through various routes. Some antibiotics, for instance, can be taken orally in tablet form or injected into a person’s muscles or circulatory system (intravenously). What if you had taken a certain antibiotic tablet and, because of having a dangerous allergic reaction, were warned to abstain from that drug in the future? Would it be reasonable to consider that medical warning to mean that you could not take the drug in tablet form but could safely inject it into your bloodstream? Hardly! The main point would not be the route of administration, but that you should abstain from that antibiotic altogether. Similarly, the decree that Christians must ‘abstain from blood’ clearly covers the taking of blood into the body, whether through the mouth or directly into the bloodstream."


The question is already discussed here:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlsQv_JQkQhLau1y0qQdvZ_sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071105192940AAqv0fQ&show=7#profile-info-2rJONL48aa


*************

DANIEL W,

Is it “suicide” or exercising one’s “right to die” to refuse a blood transfusion?

Suicide is a seeking to take one’s own life. It is an attempt at self-destruction. But anyone even casually acquainted with the beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses can see that they are not attempting self-destruction. Though they refuse blood transfusions, they welcome alternative medical assistance. An article in The American Surgeon correctly commented:

“In general, refusing medical care is not tantamount to ‘suicide.’ Jehovah’s Witnesses seek medical attention but refuse only one facet of medical care. Refusal of medical care or parts thereof is not a ‘crime’ committed on oneself by an overt act of the individual to destroy, as is suicide.” (Italics added.)

Professor Robert M. Byrn pointed out in the Fordham Law Review that ‘rejecting lifesaving therapy and attempted suicide are as different in law as apples and oranges.’18 And, addressing a medical conference, Dr. David Pent of Arizona observed:

“Jehovah’s Witnesses feel that, should they die because of their refusal to receive a blood transfusion, they are dying for their beliefs in much the same way that the early religious martyrs did centuries ago. If this is passive medical suicide, there are several physicians in the audience right now who are smoking cigarettes, and that probably constitutes just as passive a suicide.”

What about the idea that in refusing transfusions Jehovah’s Witnesses are exercising a “right to die”? The fact is that Jehovah’s Witnesses want to stay alive. That is why they seek medical help. But they cannot and will not violate their deep-seated and Bible-based religious convictions.

Answer 11

Does anyone really believe that something as serious as a life and death choice hasn't been thoroughly researched and not a 'Blind Faith' option?

Or do you presume that because you aren't one of Jehovah's Witnesses you are more knowledgeable or smarter than they are?

There have been court cases where people isolated and near death have not only eaten other humans to survive, but encouraged their early death in order for them to live. So, where do you draw the line as to what you will do to, not save your life, but only prolong it?

By obeying God's commands, Jehovah's Witnesses expect to literally save their lives, even if it means suffering a physical death a little earlier than usual.

I won't go into the scriptural reasoning for that choice, but if you're serious about considering both sides of the question, by all means, I encourage you to contact your local congregation of JWs. They will be glad to explain it to you using your Bible, free of charge.