trk....I
I understand. But the question is about your own blood, not someone else's. Would you feel differently? It is not about what our religion "allows" it is about what the bible says.... but to answer your question the best I can..... We do allow, up to each others conscience to have our blood continually flow while being cleaned and then RIGHT back into our body if the person is ok with that. This is up to the person, One JW may be ok with this, one may not. But to have our blood taken out and stored for another time, no we would NOT do that, this form is not a conscience matter then.
In the example above, the blood would be continually flowing and as some may view it as an extension of their "veins" I guess you could put it. Some JWs feel ok with this, some do not. Each has a redendering with Jehovah God and has to decide what they are ok with in this situation. But to take and store our blood, No never.
Update~~~
But to answer your question... If our "religious leaders" as you put it were to come out and say that it is now a conscience matter to take blood, I would NOT do it. I know what I know about the scriptures. It is very clear! My conscience would never allow this. The situation you ask of, would never happen though..... And again, its not about "religious leaders" as everyone on this board is so quick to say.. It is about the Bible. I agree with what my sister says. Its not what our ''religion'' says, its about what is outlined in the bible. Our standards are created by gods word the bible. Ha, i cant saying anything else, she answered your question well! Unless you erase the book of Acts 15:28-29 and several other verse of the bible forbidden the use of the blood, you don麓t understand the only think they do is to show where in the bible says certain thing over of that we obey it . 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.
Soldiers, left and died, for a principle that they believe are right. They left their own kids and love ones. Does someone here scream at them?
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).
Some misapplied Mark 5:25-34. 鈥?might on occasion have needs that would justify the breaking of these laws 鈥?br>
Answer : Making an implication that it is okay to disobey Gods law when life is involved or if you are in serious health is wrong. Question for you, is it okay to worship Satan if you know that someone will kill you if you don鈥檛? Notice that the woman showed great faith in Jesus. Aside from that, the Mosaic Law is going to end very soon so Jesus has showed compassion, and notice the woman trembled and got frightened, showing repentance and told Jesus the WHOLE truth. Definitely Jesus forgave her because the woman got healed. Today, most people who had blood transfusions do not show any signs of trembling and repentance eventhough the Bible clearly stated to abstain from blood. So remember obedience is better than sacrifice.
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? Ditto to All of the Above! No, most Jehovah's Witnesses would likely continue to adhere to the bible's plain direction regarding blood.
True Christians (such as Jehovah's Witnesses) consider the bible to be the only inspired infallible means of knowing God's will and purposes. 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.... The implication, as I understand your question, is that my 'church' disallows such. This is, however, inaccurate. It is the Bible which guides my attitude respecting this issue. As regards this subject, I know whereof I speak. I was supposed to die 鈥?twice 鈥?because I would not consider a blood transfusion, despite the ridiculous amount of blood I lost. I am still here 鈥?healthier than most.
It would seem to be close to pointless to answer your question since, according to one respondent, " no matter how many indignant JWs deny it here, if their leaders changed their interpretation . . . " we would do it anyway. How presumptuous for a stranger to suggest that he or she knows me better than I. And how malicious to suggest that no matter my indignation, I am a liar.
Having said that, I will respond. The answer is no. I would not. The reasons therefor have to do with God's viewpoint concerning blood and its value in his eyes. Behind every law of God is a principle. This is no less so when it comes to God's law on blood. God views it as the life of the soul. He provided one use and one use only. There is nothing in scripture, implicit or overt, which would allow humans to preserve their lives with the use of blood. The one use allowed by God has already been taken care of: the ransom sacrifice of Jesus.
Humans have an inherent right to protect and preserve life, this is true. But any and every method of doing so is not approved of by God.
Hannah J Paul No way, I already know how Jehovah feels about it. He is the one I worship.
Actually, just the thought of putting someone else's blood in my body makes me sick to my stomach. Yuk!
Edit: No I wouldn't use my own blood either, because of God's laws to abstain from blood, this would include your own once it has left your body. You are mistaken. Jehovah's Witnesses simply accept that the Bible says to "Abstain from blood". No JWs refused blood transfusion until 1960 when their leaders came out with a new interpretation of a handful of verses in the Bible that spoke of not eating blood. From the 1960s hundreds of thousands of JWs died. They all accepted their leaders interpretation.
Over the years their leaders slowly eased up on the long list of 'unacceptable' treatments. Today, JWs are 'allowed' to have some blood treatments that JWs in decades past would have died for as they felt obliged to refuse them. Now JWs can have blood fractions separately, but whole blood is still forbidden (woops, I mean 'discouraged'.) The subject is now so complex, most JWs depend on specially trained elders to be their spokesperson in hospital. These elders need to be alert to keep up with their leaders ever-changing 'advice'.
Your question has been answered by some JWs who toe the Society line in saying 'No' to transfusion of their own blood. This means they cannot donate their own blood in advance of an operation. Their leaders say it would violate 'biblical' principles. That's what determines matters for JWs - what their leaders say. These leaders are supposed to be anointed and God's personal channel for communication today (no other religious leaders are). To disregard them is to disregard God.
So I can assure you (no matter how many indignant JWs deny it here) that if their leaders changed their interpretation on blood to say they could receive their own blood in a transfusion, they would all accept that bit of 'new light' as from God himself, applaud it, and never think for a second that their leaders are duping them. |
