Why do Jehovah Witness not accept blood transfusions?

Because they're idiots. Any belief which requires that you refuse medical treatment which in no way harms anyone else. I could understand refusing treatment with embryonic stem cells because of the loss of life but refusing blood transfusions is idiotic.

Now onto the real reason for why they refuse blood transfusions. In the book of Leviticus God commands the people not to eat meat which still contains blood and pretty much not to consume blood in anyway.

Edit: Fire, I know that you have good intentions but you are wrong. While it is true that hospitals are using more bloodless procedures that still doesn't mean that all surgeries are going to be bloodless that is just ridiculous. Also, what do you propose we do when car crash victims come in and have lost 4 pints of blood. Should we pray or save their life? I give blood every 8 weeks and I am O negative(universal donor). I don't do drugs don't go around having sex with everyone. I have been tested for most diseases since i volunteer at a hospital. Blood collection agencies also test the blood they receive for diseases like AIDS, and thanks to their efforts infection rates due to transfusion is very low but the number of lives saved thanks to transfusions is huge. I aspire to be a doctor and to actually save lives so when i hear people like you denounce the efforts of those who work in health care i become infuriated.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not accept blood transfusions
based on Act 15:28,29.

Jehovah requires that we abstain from blood. This means that we must not take into our bodies in any way at all other people's blood or even our own blood that has been stored. (Acts 21:25) So true Christians will not accept a blood transfusion. They will accept other kinds of medical treatment, such as transfusion of nonblood products. They want to live, but they will not try to save their life by breaking God's laws.鈥擬atthew 16:25.

there is no twisting, the bible both new and old scriptures say to stay away from blood. Its not just an old test. thing.

First is it respect to what the bible teaches. God does not want his people to eat or consume blood. People that believe in the bible are going to honor Gods laws. His promises like a resurrection are also part of bible teaching. What is more important, your life or having faith that when a person dies, anyway, God will not resurrect you.

Now, in our day, the science of this old law, now proves itself very beneficial. More and more hospitals are now going to bloodless procedures. As people continue to become more ill, and sexually active, more aids and STD's, and understaffed medical staff, mistakes are raising, and so on. All this stuff proves yet again the wisdom that the bible is from God.

because we respect the sanctity of blood, as God commanded in the Bible (Acts 15:29).

there are many forms of bloodless medicine that have successfully been used to save the lives of many, JW or not. the use of blood is one type of treatment, just as chemotherapy is one type of treatment for cancer.so just because we refuse blood doesn't mean we don't explore other options. if that was the case, we'd never go to the doctors/hospitals at all.

This is all from wikipedia, so hopefully it helps. I am not JW so I do not speak from actual knowledge, just did a search for you.

Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses believe that the Bible prohibits eating blood, and that this includes the storage and transfusion of blood, including in cases of emergency. This belief was introduced in 1945, and has been elaborated upon since then. Accordingly, the organization has established Hospital Information Services responsible for education and facilitation of bloodless surgery. This service also maintains Hospital Liaison Committees, whose function is to provide support to adherents.

Based on their interpretation of various biblical texts, such as Genesis 9:3, Leviticus 17:10, and Acts 15:29, their current doctrine states that:

* Blood is sacred to God.[1]
* Blood means life in God's eyes.[2]
* Blood must not be eaten or transfused.[3]
* Blood leaving the body of a human or animal must be disposed of,[4] except for autologous blood transfusions considered part of a 鈥渃urrent therapy鈥?[5][6]
* Blood was reserved for only one special use, the atonement for sins, which led up to Jesus' shed blood.[4][7]
* When a Christian abstains from blood, they are in effect expressing faith that only the shed blood of Jesus Christ can truly redeem them and save their life.[8]
* Even in the case of an emergency, it is not permissible to sustain life with transfused blood.[9]
* Conscientious violation of this doctrine is considered a serious offense, after which a member is subject to organized shunning, known amongst Jehovah's Witnesses as being disfellowshipped.[10][11][12]

Because their religious leaders (the Governing Body of the Watchtower Society) tell them to.

You will notice that the purported JWs on this thread point out that Acts 15 says to "abstain from blood." Though transfusions were unknown at that time, and the only way blood was taken into the body involved EATING blood, the Witnesses argue that the scriptural command is to COMPLETELY abstain from blood.

Well let's see if the Witnesses are consistent.

To do this, compare Paul's command at Acts 15 to his command at 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "Let your women KEEP SILENCE in the churches: for IT IS NOT PERMITTED UNTO THEM TO SPEAK; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for IT IS A SHAME FOR WOMEN TO SPEAK IN THE CHURCH." (caps added for emphasis)

If the Witnesses were consistent in their interpretation of scripture, they would apply this clear command of Paul literally...and not allow women to speak at their meetings. But they do not follow this command literally. Rather, they allow women to give certain parts and to give comments from the audience.

This flatly contradicts the plain language of Paul's command.

Note that I don't have a problem with this, but I just find it inconsistent with their prohibition of blood transfusions. Most non-JWs believe that at Acts 15:28-29, Paul was simply prohibiting the eating of blood in order to keep peace among the Jewish and Gentile converts to Christianity.

But, as we all know, JWs take Paul's counsel to "abstain from blood" to mean COMPLETELY abstain--including transfusions of whole blood and certain so-called major components.

Isn't it interesting how the JWs pick and choose which portions of scripture to take literally? They (reasonably in my opinion) do not rigidly follow Paul's counsel in 1 Cor. 14:34-35, but they (unreasonably in my opinion) are tremendously rigid in their application of Paul's counsel at Acts 15:28-29.

Just another example of a man-made organization picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to apply...no different than most other religions of Christendom.

The first mention of a ban on eating blood is Gen. 9:4, where Noah was told that man could eat the flesh of any moving animal; but only the flesh with the blood still in it he could not eat. This is not a ban on eating blood per se, but unbled meat.

You can be fed intravenously, so to be given blood intravenously equates to JW's as eating blood.

Our stand on blood is fully Bible-based. In Acts 15:19-20, Christians are counseled to "abstain.......from blood".

It's not solely a matter of blood transfusions, as such medical procedures were unknown at the time. It's strictly a matter of obedience to our Creator, the one to whom ALL life (as represented by blood) belongs. God inspired the Bible writers to include the prohibition against taking blood into our bodies. To "abstain" from something means to refrain entirely from involvement with it. So to "abstain" from blood, to a true Christian, means they would not take it into their bodies in any way, shape or form. At the time, it was common for some food items (i.e. blood sausage) to contain blood within it, and some who ate meat did so without the meat being properly bled. Note that the Bible verse in Acts 15 doesn't say "abstain.......from blood UNLESS your life or your child's life is at stake", it simply says to abstain from it. Period.

In the Bible, in scriptures such as Proverbs 21:3, God shows that he truly values a person's obedience to Him over any sacrifices they can offer. In that regard, a true Christian recognizes that even if they should find themselves or a beloved family member in a critical medical situation, the wisest course is to obey God fully, even if death should be a result. Why is that? For one thing, consider the fact that God is the one who gave us life to begin with. He has the power, ability, and desire to restore that life to us if we should die through the course of our faithful obedience to him. And why is that a comfort to us when difficult situations like these arise? Consider the very promise of Jesus Christ in John 5:28, 29 - "Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment."

So the import of the Jehovah's Witness stand against blood transfusions is clear: to take blood into our bodies is to violate God's law to "abstain.....from blood". Why can we maintain that stand? Because of God's promise (as mentioned by Jesus) that there will be a resurrection of those who have died. And the simple, logical reasoning involved: if we refuse blood transfusions and we die, our death came about as a result of our faithful stand for God's laws, and so would God be more inclined to resurrect us back to life if we are obedient, or would he be inclined to resurrect us if we purposely disregard his law and take in the blood?

The choice is clear: obedience to God's laws comes above our own desires. That is what is involved in being a true Christian.

the bible forbid it in Acts 15:28-29it says:

For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things,

29聽to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!鈥?br>

Does the command to abstain from blood include blood transfusions?

Yes.

To illustrate: Suppose a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcoholic beverages. Would that simply mean that you should not drink alcohol but that you could have it injected into your veins? Of course not! Likewise, abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all. So the command to abstain from blood means that we would not allow anyone to transfuse blood into our veins.

THAT is the reason why among JWs the rate of people with AIDS is almost ZERO.....we avoid all thing that can spread AIDS

Fornication, Homosexuality, drugs and blood transfusions.....

IF I am Wrong I invite someone who prove me contrary
--------------------------------------...

WHY PEOPLE LIE telling that we are using LEVITICUS if obviously we are quoting ACTS??

SO IT IS OK TO LIE but is wrong to obey ACTS....WHY NEVER say it is in the NT that we are reading??

firstly, because the bible said to 'abstain from blood'

second, read this:

http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/article_0...

(there is nothing religious on that page, just some medical facts)

Their beliefs include an interpretation of a bible verse that says "no man shall eat blood" to include any intake of another person's blood, even intravenously.

THE BIBLE SAYS TO ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD TH ATS WHAT A CHRISTANS SHOULD DO TH ATS WHAT THEY DO FOLLOW JCEXAMLPE THAT WHAT JEHOVAH WITNESS ARE CHRISTIANS

This was answered already: http://tinyurl.com/cn5f23

They are afraid that education and knowledge can be transfered through blood.

They twist Leviticus,where it says do not eat blood.

http://www.cftf.com

it is for our own benefit not to contact any disease and blood is sacred in God view.

They think it taints their blood or something.