Hello Jehovah's Witnesses, let's talk BLOOD!?

Question

You see this subject has come up a few times lately and when I answer I speak the truth - that the Bible says to abstain from blood. I also state that since no-one was doing blood transfusions at the time the Bible was written, this no doubt refers to eating or drinking it, and must have been put in the Bible as a health warning - since people in the desert, dangerously thirsty, might well consider drinking something they wouldn't normally, and drinking blood (or urine) would have the same effect as drinking seawater. Usually I also put in the sources section that I am a volunteer blood donor.

For this I always get thumbs down, and it's not just the Jehovah's Witnesses that are doing it as there are too many TDs for them alone. You must think this is a bad answer, or plain wrong. Why?

Dino cutie I don't have a religion. AM on the end of my name is 'Atheist Mafia'. There's only one 'thing' (or lack of one) in atheism and you know what that is. Everything else varies from person to person.

Didn't mean to gross anyone out. Maybe that's why I'm getting TDs...

TDs = thumbs down. Sources section = you see a space for it whenever you answer.

I'd like to thank everyone for all answers here. Because of the nature of the question however I must award BA to a believer and someone who is familiar with the JWs faith:

Answer 1

Disgustin,
Go here:
http://www.ajwrb.org/bible/acts15.shtml
It honestly outlines really well why JW's don't accept blood transfusions and why it literally does not have solid basis in the bible.

I can say right away it was Not a health issue.
The context of the verses in the book of Acts that they use to defend their position shows that it was a matter of keeping the peace between newly converted Gentiles who had not been circumcised and were not under the old Law (Old Testament) and the Jewish Christians who had been circumcised and wanted the Gentiles to abide by the Law.
And this was something like a compromise.

Edited to add:
Someone likened accepting a blood transfusion to consuming it through the mouth.

Consider this:

Consider the case where two patients are admitted to a hospital because they are not able to eat and thus sustain themselves. One patient is given a blood transfusion, whereas the other is given I.V. Dextrose or the equivalent. Which one will live? Obviously, it is the one given I.V. Dextrose which can actually be used by the body as food. The patient given the blood transfusion will die because blood is not food, but simply the vehicle used to transport it.


Also:
This is taken from the W:

"It is of no consequence that the blood is taken into the body through the veins instead of the mouth. Nor does the claim by some that it is not the same as intravenous feeding carry weight. The fact is that it nourishes or sustains the life of the body. In harmony with this is a statement in the book Hemorrhage and Transfusion, by George W. Crile, A.M., M.D., who quotes a letter from Denys, French physician and early researcher in the field of transfusions. It says: ‘In performing transfusion it is nothing else than nourishing by a shorter road than ordinary - that is to say, placing in the veins blood all made in place of taking food which only turns to blood after several changes.’" (The Watchtower, Sept. 15, 1961, p. 558)

Interestingly:

What the WTS does not tell its readers, is that this doctor, Jean Baptiste Denys, lived in the 17th century! Medical science long ago abandoned this idea. Later, the Society tried to appeal to another authority, the Dane Thomas Bartholin, but now they at least admit he also lived in the 17th century. Why has the WTS found no support for this peculiar idea among more recent medical experts? Because there are none. Not even the medical doctors who are themselves Jehovah’s Witnesses will ruin their reputation by supporting this claim. The simple fact is that a blood transfusion is an organ transplant, not nutrition!

This fact is now admitted by the WTS:

"As cardiovascular surgeon Denton Cooley notes: ‘A blood transfusion is an organ transplant.’" (Awake! Oct. 22, 1990, p. 9)
"When doctors transplant a heart, a liver, or another organ, the recipient's immune system may sense the foreign tissue and reject it. Yet, a transfusionisa tissue transplant." (How Can Blood Save Your Life, 1990, p. 8; emphasis in original)


Further Achtung makes mention of the Law at Genesis 9.
Let's look at what HE quoted:

"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)


What he did NOT quote was this:
1 And God went on to bless Noah and his sons and to say to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth. 2 And a fear of YOU and a terror of YOU will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that goes moving on the ground, and upon all the fishes of the sea. Into YOUR hand they are now given.
AND
6 Anyone shedding man’s blood, by man will his own blood be shed, for in God’s image he made man. 7 And as for YOU men, be fruitful and become many, make the earth swarm with YOU and become many in it.”

So, if this is the case...then JW's ALSO have an obligation to bear children. Hm, somewhat reminscent of Catholicism....

As for the Mosaic Law:
Using the line of reasoning, again they are not under Mosaic Law. The point of Jesus' death was to free man from the Law.

Which is WHY when you look at Acts in context it is Not a Universal law to abstain from blood.

Answer 2

Papa Bear says an organization they fear is telling the truth. Jesus is truth period. Jesus is the way the TRUTH and the life, not a organization that has no credibility what so ever. Have they gotten just ONE DATE RIGHT? We all know the honest answer to that. If I told you hey Papa Bear I'm going to take you out for a nice dinner on Sat. night and that it's a really nice place so be ready, and then when the time rolls around I'm a no call no show. How would that make you feel? Sure I suppose I could call a day or two later and say I'm sorry something came up and let me make it up to you. Then I do the same thing like 8 or 10 more times no call no show I bet you would lose trust in me real fast right? I would not be dependable. Same thing with all the wrong dates and then they turn around and say no we are not false prophets we made changes. THEY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO SAY THAT BECAUSE THAT DAY PASSED WITH NOTHING HAPPENING. Then there is the New World Translation translated by who ??? None other than Jehovah's Witnesses themselves. Do you have the Kingdom Interlinear Translation also by Jehovah's Witnesses? Compare the two side by side and then you tell me in all honesty in the presence of Jehovah God that it's a reliable translation. All the proof is found in all your own publications. But see the problem is that Witnesses do not dig deep in their personal study and compare and see if what is being said here is truth. Remember Jesus said his sheep would hear his voice, listen only to his voice. Not the Watchtower Organization. Jesus is the only way, he is the door. We love you Papa Bear, we will pray for you.

Answer 3

I could be a bit slow today but I did not get the question that you were asking. However I will make a statement.



BLOOD: A truly marvelous fluid that circulates in the vascular system of humans and most multicelled animals, supplying nourishment and oxygen, carrying away waste products, and playing a major role i safeguarding the body against infection.So intimately is blood involved in the life processses that the bible says "the soul of the flesh is in the blood." (Lev 17:11)
As the Source of life, Jehovah has provided definite instructions regarding the use to which blood may be put.

I work in health care and see many being transfused on a daily basis. I also see many people that refused to have a transfusion, are they all JW'? NO. Jehovah's Witnesses do not take blood because they are obeying God's Word, the others do not take blood because of fear of getting a disease.

IS A BLOOD TRANSFUSION REALLY THE SAME AS EATING 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?

We do take transfusions, but we accept the kind of transfusions that don't carry the risk of such things as AIDS HEPATITIS, AND MALARIA. We want the best treatment for ourselves and our families.

When there is severe blood loss, the greatest need is to restore the fluid volume. No doubt you realize that our blood is actually over 50 percent water; then there are the red and white cells, and so forth. when much blood islost, the body itself pours large reserves of blood cells into the system and speeds up production of new ones. But fluid volume is needed.Plasma volume expanders that contain no blood can be used to fill that need, and we accept these.

'Plasma volume expanders have been used on thousands of persons, with excellent results.'

'Even more important to us is what the Bible says at Acts 15:28,29.


CHRISTIANS ARE COMMANDED TO 'ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD'

Answer 4

Your's isn't the first. This 'issue' gets hauled out every few days it seems. So, yet another time around the track.

It has been pointed out repeatedly, and exhaustedly that we see taking blood is the same as having a feeding tube. You are still using(eating, consuming) blood. The Bible says “the soul of the flesh is in the blood.” (Lev. 17:11) As the Source of life, Jehovah has provided definite instructions regarding the use to which blood may be put. Thus: “keep abstaining from . . . blood”? (Acts 15:29)

Nowadays many others benefit from our stand on no blood. Many medical procedures were pioneered due to our stance. You may now use your own blood, you may opt for bloodless surgery, all these things and more, including blood fillers have all come about due to Jehovah's Witnesses refusal to take blood. As such, even non-jw's are recovering faster from surgery and not having the health problems that come up with taking blood during surgery. And yes, there are Doctor's and Nurses who are also JW.

So, quite frankly, I personally don't care if you or anyone else have a problem with it. You don't agree, fine. That's your choice. Take blood, give it, whatever. I will maintain my stand that blood is not something I will accept. We were all given free will to make up our own minds on these critical issues in life. One day we will know where the rubber meets the road. I am as confident as I'm sure you are.
So, we'll all just have to wait and see.

Answer 5

what's the sources section? what is TDs? you have to remember where religion stems from, man's way of explaining things they couldn't at that time explain, and also your example of the time frame and context in which all these rules where written in . All i know is that you are doing a good thing by donating much needed blood. Do the JW's think it is wrong to help save someones life? if so then that is a religion i wouldn't want to be associated with.

Answer 6

The blood issue in the bible is sacred to Jehovah all the way through the bible. Mainly because blood carries all the bodies infections and viruses... Now a days with the tech. that we have being a blood donor helps so many... they break it down and use everything and check to make sure its healthy...

To be honest this issue is a personal one and as long as you are OK with your relationship with God then don't let anyone else tell you how "they" interpret the scriptures.

Answer 7

IF you can not eat your fed thru an IV, you're still taking it in food . Taking blood is the same thing just a new way to skirt the issue. True there are many health benefits to not taking in blood, but before people knew of the dangers of HIV,hepatitis and other things the prohibition was still there and that's what you've missed the big picture.

Answer 8

A blood transfusion saved my life after I hemorrhaged post childbirth. If it wasn't for blood donors like you I would not be here. I have Witnesses in my family and was criticized harshly for receiving it. I do believe your right about the reason for the "taking blood" scripture.

Answer 9

I think your right on tract and it makes sense of what you stated, ignore the thumbs down bit, you know how thin skinned the Christians are.

Answer 10

No, seems like a good answer to me. Well done for being a blood donor by the way. To me that seems a lot more inkeeping with the spirit of Christianity.