since JWs forbid blood transfusion, is it reasonable to let the person die even if he/she has 99% chance to live if he/she only recieves blood transfusion?
which one is important, blood or the life of a human being? just some chick, tell me, where can you read here in my post that says I am making them do what they want? Some have died rather than have a blood transfusion.There was a case recently of a mother giving birth to twins and there were complications,she refused a blood transfusion and died although the twins survived.
Those poor children will never know their mother and all because of a stupid cult. Since they can't get into their heaven if they have had a blood transfusion, they would rather die than have one. when you die you go to heaven, which is supposedly much much cooler than earth, why would any believer choice the transfusion?
Also, you can't force them to do anything they don't want.
edit- "is it reasonable to let the person die..." that suggests they can't make the decision right now (knocked out or something) and someone has to choice for them. you wasn't refering to you personally, don't get so defensive. In my opinion, life is the logical choice. Respecting God and his views on life and blood are what is truly important.
We take ALL measures available- except blood transfusions. But many educated people who are not Witnesses also abstain from blood transfusions. Other than being against God they're simply too unclean and unsafe.
**Edit**
Witnesses do not believe they all go to heaven. Only 144,000 go to heaven. Everyone else (INCLUDING Witnesses) have the prospect of being resurrected onto the paradise earth.
Acts 15:20- "but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. " blood is grouped in there right along fornication and idolatry. We take the Bible seriously. If God says, don't do it, we do our best not to- period. We love our God and don't want to displease or upset him (similar to how an affectionate child tries not to displease her/his parents). JW is a religion of superstitions. Because it was in the law that we are not to drink blood, they can't have transfusions either. Because Belchazar was killed during his birthday party, they can't have birthday parties. I refused a blood transfusion for myself in 2003. I refused a blood transfusion for my son when he was a baby, and again earlier this year. I'm not even baptized yet, but am upholding Jehovah's principals before what any man would say to do. It depends? Some people want to live according to each verse of the bible and do what ever it takes to do the right thing! Would a person get tattoos all over their body? I don't know I would think it would not be the right thing to do! If you let a person decide on what makes them closer to God then let them do what is fit for them. After all we have one God and one truth and the truth will set you free and it was the blood of Jesus that sets us free not the blood transfusion. No where in the Bible does it say that an individual can't have a blood transfusion with another individual. What it's talking about is about drinking animal blood or not eating meat that's not properly cook that still has blood running out of it.
Up Date:
keiichi, not one verse did you mention has anything to do as to whether or not a person is allow to have a blood transfusion.
Moises_F, JWs don't serve in our military so what does your comment prove?
If you are trying to say God has never sent anyone to war, you need to read the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua.
As for "Banked Blood Loses Ability to Deliver Oxygen to Tissues",
It's a known fact that blood can only be stored for so long otherwise it becomes no good. That still doesn't prove from the Bible that God is against blood transfusions.
"But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." Genesis 9:4
"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." Leviticus 7:26-27.
Read Acts 15:28-29:
"That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood,..." Blood of what? Blood of animals. No, we are not to drink it. (I couldn't image someone wanting to drink blood regardless unless they are in a satanic cult.)
God's on Words proves that the issue is not about blood transfusions at all. Yet, the above verses are what the Jehovah's Witnesses claim as their proof.
"There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him:" Mark 7:15
"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15 How many JWs you know have been killed in the war of Iraq? Zero.
How many JWs you know have been killed by complications in medical situation about blood? maybe one or two that is why they are in the News cause is not often..
Now compare that numbers with the amount of "Christians"soldiers sacrifice in the altar of the war?
The Ratio is 1 to 10000,
Do you really thing that Jesus Christ will support the assasination of muslims children and women just because someone told me they are dangerous? and have weapons?
We don麓t go to war cause the bible forbid to kill the same why we don麓t use blood transfusion according to Acts 15:28-29 is forbidden.
Banked Blood Loses Ability to Deliver Oxygen to Tissues
http://www.dukemednews.org/news/article.... Life.
Not this life that will be extended by just a few years, months or even days. I'm talking about the real life, a resurrection into a clean paradise earth with the prospect of living forever.
We do not accept blood transfusions because God forbids them. After trying my best to live by God's standards all my life, it'd be very foolhardy to break his laws on my potential death-bed, don't you think? Obedience, (2Sa 6:6,7 1 Kings 20:35,36 Gen 22:10,12)
to Jehovah to follow his commandments:
Act 15:20, 29 Abstain from blood.
What does "abstain" mean to the reader? God's law is paramount for a true Christian, such as a Jehovah's Witness.
Sadly, a pro-blood activist or anti-Witness critic will pretend that the bible teaches that one's life is more important than adherence to God's laws. The bible does not teach that, and true Christians follow the bible rather than human opinions.
What about two specific accounts, which are favorites of pro-blood activists and anti-Witness critics?
Does 1 Samuel 14:32-35 indicate that the bible's command to abstain from blood could be ignored when life seems at risk?
No, that bible account is actually powerful testimony of the precise opposite. For one thing, the soldiers involved in this account were not literally at risk of starvation, for they had been without food for perhaps one day and had had the bodily resources to fight a battle just minutes or hours earlier. However unwise it was for King Saul to forbid the soldiers from eating until the battle was concluded, nothing in the account implies that eating within minutes or hours (or days for that matter) would be life-saving.
...(1 Samuel 14:32-34) And the people began darting greedily at the spoil and taking sheep and cattle and calves and slaughtering them on the earth, and the people fell to eating along with the blood. 33 So they told Saul, saying: 鈥淟ook! The people are sinning against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.鈥?At this he said: 鈥淵ou have dealt treacherously. First of all, roll a great stone to me.鈥?34 After that Saul said: 鈥淪catter among the people, and you must say to them, 鈥楤ring near to me, each one of you, his bull and, each one, his sheep, and you must do the slaughtering in this place and the eating, and you must not sin against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.鈥欌€?Accordingly all the people brought near each one his bull that was in his hand that night and did the slaughtering there.
With regard to that livestock, what was different about "slaughtering in this place [the great stone]" (verse 34), rather than "slaughtering them on the earth" (verse 32)?
It seems that the Israelite soldiers actually were making some attempt to properly slaughter the livestock, but they did so "greedily" and hastily so that the blood puddled "on the earth" and some splashed onto the meat. The purpose of "the great stone" was to elevate the animal so that its blood could drain off that elevated surface onto the earth below.
Does Matthew 12:4 imply that God's laws are subject to human whims? No, that verse mentions an account which teaches almost exactly the opposite. Jesus himself noted...
...(Matthew 12:4) [David] entered into the house of God and they ate the loaves of presentation, something that it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests only
Did the Mosaic Law go into any detail implying that eating the loaves of presentation would be a "serious sin". No; in fact, the only Scripture which really discusses the command at all is Leviticus chapter 24. (By contrast, failure to abstain from blood was a capital crime under both the Mosaic Law and the earlier Noachan Covenant mentioned at Genesis 9:4,5).
...(Leviticus 24:7-9) it must serve as the bread for a remembrancer, an offering made by fire to Jehovah. 8 On one sabbath day after another he should set it in order before Jehovah constantly [for one week]. And [after that week] it must become Aaron鈥檚 and his sons鈥? and they must eat it in a holy place, because it is something most holy for him from Jehovah鈥檚 offerings
Did David and his men decide for themselves that they could ignore this command? No. The Jewish priest analyzed the matter and came to a theological determination, as he was authorized to do. Even during this seeming emergency involving the anointed David on his obviously godly mission, the authorized priest did not "ignore" God's law, but made certain that David and his men met the absolute minimum requirement for emergency priestly duties.
...(1 Samuel 21:4-6) But the priest answered David and said: 鈥淭here is no ordinary bread under my hand, but there is holy bread; provided that the young men have at least kept themselves from womankind.鈥?So David answered the priest and said to him: 鈥淏ut womankind has been kept away from us...鈥?At that the priest gave him what was holy
More than a thousand years before the birth of Moses and the creation of the Mosaic Law, God told humans to abstain from blood. Years after the founding of the Christian congregation, the holy spirit specifically instructed the apostles that the Mosaic Law was no longer in force EXCEPT for its command to abstain from blood. It seems rather obvious that this is a matter which Almighty God takes seriously.
...(Acts 15:20,28,29) Write them [the various Christian congregations] to abstain from things polluted by idols [the meat of which is likely to contain blood] and from fornication and from what is strangled [the meat of which is likely to contain blood] and from blood. ...For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols [the meat of which is likely to contain blood] and from blood and from things strangled [the meat of which is likely to contain blood] and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper.
Learn more:
http://watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm?art...
http://watchtower.org/e/vcnb/article_01.... |
