for religious purposes?
Is there any other religions who forbids blood transfusions? It's important to realise the JWs ONLY reason for refusing b.t. is their religious interpretation of a few scriptures. They do NOT refuse b.t. for medical reasons, so don't let all their screeds of bumph about medical advantages fool you!
It's because their theological stance is so weak that they go on about medical points. Who are they trying to convince?
Christian Scientists, I think, are the only ones similar. But they are worse because they refuse ALL medical treatments / medicines! They suppose faith should be sufficient to deal with all ill health and pain. They are no more 'Christian' in their stance than the JWs are with b.t.
It was only in the early 1960s that JW leaders decreed taking blood to be against God's law and a disfellowshipping offence. Since then hundreds of thousands of JWs have needlessly died. But the goal-posts are being moved very far apart now, so that JWs are 'allowed' to take all blood fractions individually, just so long as they don't take them all together in the 'skin' of whole blood. Theology just doesn't come into that kind of warped logic. It is an insult to God's good name and his word, the Bible, that such interpretations are made in his name. Saving life by using blood has nothing to do with taking life by shedding blood, which is what God says will be accountable to him. grunt Not much. I don't really care to be honest.
I think it is a little ridiculous but who am I to say how a person should or shouldn't live their life?
My grandma has become Jehovah's Witness in the last few years and she has always had poor health. To be honest I would think it would be selfish of her to allow herself to die over taking a blood transfusion especially since no ones else in the family shares her beliefs. Don't care, I want blood, if I need it. No only JWs many people will say it is Ok .
many Christians will be rejected by Jesus
Matthew 7:21-23 鈥淣ot everyone saying to me, 鈥楲ord, Lord,鈥?will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.
22 Many will say to me in that day, 鈥楲ord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?鈥?br>
23 And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew YOU! Get away from me, YOU workers of lawlessness
CHRISTIANS: can you show me one
verse of the bible that authorize the use of the blood apart of Jesus 麓s blood to save our life? (Luke 22 "drink" and Revelation 7 "Wash") muslims.
i can't say as i blame them; not for religious reasons, but because i don't want anyone's dna in me except MINE. It is their own choice and Who am I to judge that? I am just me... They can do as they please...just as I will do as I please. And no one has the right to tell people otherwise! Survival of the fittest, hum....
So Evolution does work actually..... mere stupidness, they all die and discover no hell no heaven!!!! but death.... It is a prime example of trying to apply 1st century sensibilities to 21st century reality.
It is a sad and unfortunately destructive dogmatically derived theology that only leads to greater human suffering.
I mean really, does God hate me simply because I donate blood to those who need it to save their lives. Really? I can't even conceive of ever wanting to recognize, let alone worship, such a deity. There are many things I would argue with a Jehovah's Witness about. This, however, is not one of them.
It's an individual choice to accept or refuse blood transfusions. I personally don't understand that. If you're drowning and a boat comes by, then you jump on. That's God's way of sending help, right? If blood is available to save your life, why die in spite of the available benefits of medical science? I disagree their stance, but a secular nation hasn't the basis to tell them what to do. I think it is the epitome of how dangerous religious dogma can become. I have experienced it first hand, both my parents have been JWs for the past 20 years.
A few years ago, one of them suffered an accident and had massive internal bleeding. They of course refused to accept blood, even after the doctor only gave a 50% chance of survival. I came very close to loosing a parent because of some stupid outdated ideas. I don't know of any, but there are certainly many other religions that forbid ingesting certain things. i think people have a right to their religious freedom (as long as it harms no-one but themselves).
it is interesting that the jehovah's witnesses were the only christian group considered a direct threat by the nazi party (they wore purple triangles in the death camps). Interesting that no-one seems to be bringing up the Biblical basis for this behaviour.
As I understand it, it derives from a rule that the 'drinking' of blood is an abomination, and the JWs decided that transfusions were close enough.
This is hardly unusual behaviour for theists - consider the Jewish thing about meat and milk.
CD What I find ironic, it that if you commit suicide by shooting or hanging yourself etc, they refuse to give you funeral and treat what you did as a monstrous sin.
Yet if you commit suicide by refusing to take blood, they praise you as a martyr and plaster your face all over their magazines. I agree. Not everyone understands but if that is what they believe and they have surrendered themself to God, they will follow through. It is their choice. Same as if I wish to not be kept alive on life machines if it ever comes up. I have my own blood stored at the hospital here if I ever need it. I'm not catching anyone else's diseases. You know, my dad is a JW. I respect them. I agree with some things (no trinity) and disagree with others (soul sleep, 144,000 in heaven, blood transfusions).
A few years ago, he almost died from a bleeding ulcer. He needed a blood transfusion, and was stressed from this decision. He had been a devout JW for about 20 yrs, and was really challenged regarding this dilemma. Without a transfusion, he faced death.
He chose the transfusion. He went with his gut reaction... we all want to survive.
I do not agree with the refusal for a blood transfusion based upon their interpretation of the OT verses. It says not to <EAT> blood, it doesn't say not to use it in other ways. Transfusions are not eating. Eating is when we ingest food and it gets digested. With transfusions, there is no digestion at all, it just gets added to the patient's own blood supply.
eating = digestion, goes through the alimentary canal
transfusion = no digestion, goes straight into veins, never touches the alimentary canal
These are completely different things. And I'm SO GLAD my Daddy chose the transfusion!!!!! JWs believe in the Bible as the word of God and it is for everyone's lasting benefit to follow it. We follow the Bible's command to abstain from blood as stated in Acts 15:29. Eventhough we do not accept transfusion of blood, we accept other ALTERNATIVES to blood transfusion. We believe that putting any sort of blood in our body is a serious sin that we can loose our chance of the life promised by God and Jesus.
The Israelites, who ate blood, was cut off from God's people. See Lev 17:10.
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.
Acts 15:29 - to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication
When did the practice of blood transfusion started? According to wikipedia.org that it started "The first historical attempt at blood transfusion was described by the 15th-century chronicler Stefano Infessura". So do you expect the Bible to explicitly speak against medical transfusion of blood during the 1st century when during that time it wasn鈥檛 practiced? Or have you ever thought that just quoting a GENERAL instruction, i.e., to 鈥淎BSTAIN from Blood鈥?will suffice. How come in the Hebrew Scriptures it always state a SPECIFIC instruction to 鈥渄o not EAT blood鈥?but when it comes to the Greek Scriptures, it becomes a GENERAL instruction 鈥渁bstain from blood鈥?and NOT 鈥渁bstain from eating/drinking blood鈥?
The question then is, when Acts 15 states 鈥渁bstain from blood鈥?is it only for eating and drinking blood? At that time, early Christians, understood that 鈥渁bstaining from blood鈥?means not eating and drinking it because blood transfusion is not being practiced. If it was being practiced at that time, the instruction in Acts 15 did not EXCLUDE "blood transfusion". The early Christians also understood that they won鈥檛 use blood for medical reasons, that鈥檚 why they didn鈥檛 use blood to cure epilepsy.
The point there is 鈥渆ating and drinking blood鈥?means the blood goes IN to your body. So what the Bible says is that we abstain from blood going IN our body. This means that you can use blood for testing, clean it, etc.
If you are allergic to nuts, the doctor will only say, 鈥渁bstain from nuts鈥? that covers everything, that is, nothing to be taken orally and to be transfused. If you have allergies to nuts, you鈥檒l understand. You don鈥檛 force your allergic kid to accept nuts , do you?
Have you ever wondered why in Rev 2:14, , Jesus has something AGAINST Pergamum, i.e., to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication, which reflects the original instructions in Acts 15:29?. Also, Jesus has something AGAINST some in Thyatira because Jezebel misleads Jesus鈥?slaves to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols (From the original instruction in Acts 15:20, 29)? Many years have passed when the Apostle John wrote Revelation but the instruction from Acts 15:20,29 is still in effect. So you think, the instructions in Acts 15:29 are only temporary? And notice that the instructions given in Rev 2 are not only for Gentiles but to all Christians, even Jewish Christians.
The early Christians ate meat which are properly bled, but eventhough 100% of the blood wasn鈥檛 removed, they were still considered abstaining from blood.
Lev 17:10 states 鈥溾€楢s for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who eats any sort of blood鈥?br>
Notice ANY SORT OF BLOOD, so no faithful follower of God, eats blood of any sorts, animal or human. That鈥檚 why humans cannot drink or eat animal or human blood.
The prohibition for blood is repeated in Acts 15:28-29 but instead of just saying do not EAT blood, Acts 15 changed it to ABSTAIN FROM BLOOD, which is a general term to encompass not only eating, drinking of any sort of blood but the future use of blood in the body, which includes transfusion.
Notice too that the Bible doesn鈥檛 say abstain from nuclear bombs nor abstain from cannibalism, but the underlying principles found in the Bible can help us determine that we have to abstain from those things.
Is a subcomponent/fraction of the main components of blood, considered blood? In the case of an egg, is an egg white, egg yolk, still an egg? Is the subcomponent of an egg white, still an egg? Is oxygen, a subcomponent of water, water still? The same with blood, is one of the subcomponents of a main component still considered blood? Some will say yes, some will say no. This a personal decision we have to answer to God.
If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!. Acts 15:29 Please notice YOU WILL PROSPER, GOOD HEALTH TO YOU. (The word health here is all encompassing, not only limited to spiritual or physical health, otherwise it should have said Good spiritual or physical health to you.) Have you not wondered why Acts 15:29 EXPLICITLY stated those two reasons as why the Gentile reasons should abstain from blood and NOT the reason of maintaining peaceful relations with the Jews or other reasons?
For example, a few weeks back, a news reported:
鈥淚t doesn't matter how much oxygen is being carried by red blood cells, it cannot get to the tissues that need it without nitric oxide," said Dr. Jonathan Stamler of Duke University, leader of one of the research groups.
Blood vessels relax and constrict to regulate blood flow and nitric oxide opens up blood vessels, allowing red blood cells to deliver oxygen, he explained.
"If the blood vessels cannot open, the red blood cells back up in the vessel and tissues go without oxygen. The result can be a heart attack or even death," he said.鈥?br>
So without nitric oxide, blood cannot help supply back oxygen to the body. So to say that blood transfusion will save the woman鈥檚 life is not totally true.
There are some alternatives to blood, that each individual JWs can use depending upon their conscience.
So basically, if a JW lost a lot of blood, we would like to have the volume expanders and other nonblood products or practices that help replace the lost oxygen. Please see www.noblood.org
Other doctors though are recognizing the alternatives to blood transfusion. Please see this website.
http://www.englewoodhospital.com/medserv...
The instruction in Acts 15:29 is not only limited for eating animal blood. Why? Do you know of any faithful follower of God who drank and ate HUMAN blood? Do you know of any God鈥檚 faithful followers who DRANK or ATE blood from LIVING animals or humans?
So the abstention of blood is for both animals and humans alike. People also die,i.e. loses LIFE, because of blood transfusion (AIDS, wrong blood types, etc).
If someone died because of wrong blood type transfused OR got AIDS and died because of blood transfusion, who will be accounted for the cause of death? The one who transfused the blood, the who one gave his blood or the one who accepted it?
Early Christians died and were thrown in the lion鈥檚 den and killed because of their faith. Some have seen even their own love ones died , their children, husband, wife, relatives, and other kins because of having faith in Jesus. Were they wrong to choose death because of their Christian faith? Were they wrong to die because they chose not to show even a little sign of worship to the Roman emperor or eat blood sausage?
In short, we have to abstain from blood, - Acts 15:29, Christians need to abstain from the use of the SAME product, which is the blood, INSIDE our bodies no matter if it goes thru the mouth or thru the veins. It will be interesting to find out what " Absent in the body equals Presant with the Lord" means to Witnesses.
Can you emagine, youTHINK, you are making a Godly sacrafice, only to find out the instant after your death, that you were wrong? WOW And youleft behind 2 babies and a husband for your mistake. Blood transfusions weren't really around back then... Does the Bible prohibit saving one's life?
I would have died at 8 had it not been for a blood transfusion. I cut my leg. Ow.
Pretty much what I think:
"I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use."
-- Galileo Galilei Besides true Christians, true Jews also do not misuse blood.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe in getting the best medical care available for themselves and their families. Many individuals among Jehovah's Witnesses are themselves physicians and other health care professionals.
It is sad when those who have theological differences with the Witnesses actively work to spread misinformation about their beliefs. The fact is that Jehovah's Witnesses have hundreds of hospital liaison committees around the globe to help advance nonblood medical management technologies and awareness in the medical community.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that 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.... God gave us brains to use..i dont disagree with it if its needed |
