Watch Tower Society and Blood Issues

[Rahab]

Non Trinitarian..... I realize you have a lot on your plate and apologize for asking you some details in regard to the forbidance of blood transfusion. Among the various doctrinal teachings of JWs, that is the one I find to be worthy of being contested as its practice results in depriving an individual from a life saving measure. Here are my questions and please do take your time answering them.

- what semantic connection could be made between "drinking human blood or animal blood" and a medical treatment which involves no idol worship nor any type of ritual or ceremony which is devoted to Baal (as a symbol of the god of evil) ?
- considering that in the 4 Gospels Christ encourages recovery and healing of human physical illnesses, how do you conciliate that forbidance with God's obvious intent thru Christ to better human health?

- I am already aware of arguments revolving around the risks of blood transfusion in terms of tainted blood with some contagious diseases. However, I do not believe they should be interpreted as a sign of God disapproving of blood transfusion. But rather as medecine having to catch up with the onset of modern illnesses which happen to be transmitted by bodily fluids mainly blood. Since the discovery of hepatitis and HIV contaminated blood supply,testing is now mandatory to insure the "sterility" of donated blood. As you may know, individuals who have resided in Europe after 1995 are not allowed to donate blood to safeguard the blood supply from possible "mad cow" contamination. So I do not give much credibility to any argument based on "blood tranfusion can kill you".

- Do you also forbid organ transplants? bone marrow transplant? some organs have to be blood irriguated to maintain their viability between the time they are harvested and the time they are transplanted. Where do you draw the line? and in a critical situation where time may mean imminent death,how much details and assurance are you to require from a medical team to insure that no blood from an organ donor would enter the body of a JW? in the case of skin graffs....how do you determine "no blood" from the donor to a burn victim for example?

Thanks for your time.

[NonTrinitarian]

Hi Rahab. I cannot get to all of your questions now but will hit the first few.


- what semantic connection could be made between "drinking human blood or animal blood" and a medical treatment which involves no idol worship nor any type of ritual or ceremony which is devoted to Baal (as a symbol of the god of evil) ?
You seem to imply that the prohibition for drinking blood is due to false worship. Is that what you are stating? If so, do you think it would have been okay for Christians to eat/drink blood if it was not involved in false worship? Say I was just going to make a soup with goat blood as an ingrediant. No religious tones whatsoever. Would that have been okay?

- considering that in the 4 Gospels Christ encourages recovery and healing of human physical illnesses, how do you conciliate that forbidance with God's obvious intent thru Christ to better human health?
JW's are not Christian Scientists. We do believe in going to get medical help. But we won't compromise our principles. For instance, a pregnant JW is having health problems and the Dr. says the only way she will live is if they kill the unborn baby. She wants medical help obviously but she will not kill the child even though it is the suggested 'medical treatment'.

- I am already aware of arguments revolving around the risks of blood transfusion in terms of tainted blood with some contagious diseases. However, I do not believe they should be interpreted as a sign of God disapproving of blood transfusion. But rather as medecine having to catch up with the onset of modern illnesses which happen to be transmitted by bodily fluids mainly blood. Since the discovery of hepatitis and HIV contaminated blood supply,testing is now mandatory to insure the "sterility" of donated blood. As you may know, individuals who have resided in Europe after 1995 are not allowed to donate blood to safeguard the blood supply from possible "mad cow" contamination. So I do not give much credibility to any argument based on "blood tranfusion can kill you".
That's fine. We don't use that argument as the reason why we don't take blood and I haven't seen any JW writing that says God is punishing those who take blood with disease. Now, having said that, we do point out the dangers of taking blood. Recent studies have also shown that if two people having the same surgery, one taking blood and one not, the one not taking blood recovers faster. The reason is that even though you are getting the same blood type, it is still not YOUR blood and your body begins attacking it. More and more Dr's are going to bloodless surgery. I'd say in 10-20 years nearly all surgeries will be bloodless. The reason is that Dr's are starting to see that not using blood is actually better medicine. But again, that's not our argument for not using blood. Get to the rest of your questions later.

BTW, you may want to talk to a JW and ask them to let you borrow a few videos on blood. They quote many hospitals and Physicians (who are not JW's) and why they are using non-bllod medicine, even on people who are not JW's.

[Rahab]

Hi Rahab. I cannot get to all of your questions now but will hit the first few.



You seem to imply that the prohibition for drinking blood is due to false worship. Is that what you are stating? If so, do you think it would have been okay for Christians to eat/drink blood if it was not involved in false worship? Say I was just going to make a soup with goat blood as an ingrediant. No religious tones whatsoever. Would that have been okay?


JW's are not Christian Scientists. We do believe in going to get medical help. But we won't compromise our principles. For instance, a pregnant JW is having health problems and the Dr. says the only way she will live is if they kill the unborn baby. She wants medical help obviously but she will not kill the child even though it is the suggested 'medical treatment'.


That's fine. We don't use that argument as the reason why we don't take blood and I haven't seen any JW writing that says God is punishing those who take blood with disease. Now, having said that, we do point out the dangers of taking blood. Recent studies have also shown that if two people having the same surgery, one taking blood and one not, the one not taking blood recovers faster. The reason is that even though you are getting the same blood type, it is still not YOUR blood and your body begins attacking it. More and more Dr's are going to bloodless surgery. I'd say in 10-20 years nearly all surgeries will be bloodless. The reason is that Dr's are starting to see that not using blood is actually better medicine. But again, that's not our argument for not using blood. Get to the rest of your questions later.

BTW, you may want to talk to a JW and ask them to let you borrow a few videos on blood. They quote many hospitals and Physicians (who are not JW's) and why they are using non-bllod medicine, even on people who are not JW's.
Thank you for replying.

Since I did not mean to imply that the Biblical forbidance was for false worship rather for sacrificial rites where the blood was the main element offered up as a sacrifice, I do not think I need to answer your speculations regarding "would it be OK for christians"..... can we try to stay on the topic of my question which was " where is the semantic connection between drinking blood and a transfusion?". I am really interested in an answer.

As you limit medical help to your principles, you are entering an area where the life of a patient may be placed in jeopardy if a transfusion is absolutly necessary as a life saving measure. There is a serious ethical question to raise as to claiming that God forbids such a measure. The same ethical dilema occurs as a mother to be may be leaving already existing children and hubby as her life is evaluated to be jeopardized as the result of a severe illness or complications and no treatment can be administered to her without causing the death of her unborn. Of course as a JW she can choose to refuse any medical treatment but only under the protection of the Patient's Bill of Rights as any patient would.

The only risks of rejection occuring during a transfusion would be caused if the medical team neglicted to verify the Rhesus and type compatibility between the donor and recipient. There is no immune system reaction if both factors are compatible. I am not sure where you got the information that "because it is not your blood the body attacks it". Millions of lives have been saved because of transfusion. Also blood transfusions are prescribed only because it is a vital necessity. They often occur during surgery as the result of important blood loss. If the patient's PB becomes dangerously low, a transfusion will be operated. Transfusions are not "elective measures".They are a life preserving and saving measures. They are a medical treatment to respond to a crisis situation.

I can hardly imagine a surgeon deciding to undertake a surgery which will cause blood loss without the proximity of a compatible blood supply and claim" it is better medecine". He could actualy be charged with criminal negligence for not taking all the necessary precautions for crisis intervention.

One more thing.....I assume your fordibance to absorb any blood makes you a person who has to be careful in not ingesting any leukocytes and corpuscles from any meat.

[NonTrinitarian]

Since I did not mean to imply that the Biblical forbidance was for false worship rather for sacrificial rites where the blood was the main element offered up as a sacrifice, I do not think I need to answer your speculations regarding "would it be OK for christians"..... can we try to stay on the topic of my question which was " where is the semantic connection between drinking blood and a transfusion?". I am really interested in an answer.The bible doesn’t just say, "don’t drink blood." It says, "abstain from blood." We can try to rationalize away why it’s okay to ignore that command but it is just rationalizing. Do you think it’s okay for me to drink a glass of blood today? If so, why? If not, why not? If not, why can I put it in my veins through a needle? How does a medical need all of a sudden invalidate God’s command? If someone threatens to shoot me unless I bow down and worship them, does that give me license to worship them, since I was saving my life?

As you limit medical help to your principles, you are entering an area where the life of a patient may be placed in jeopardy if a transfusion is absolutly necessary as a life saving measure. There is a serious ethical question to raise as to claiming that God forbids such a measure. The same ethical dilema occurs as a mother to be may be leaving already existing children and hubby as her life is evaluated to be jeopardized as the result of a severe illness or complications and no treatment can be administered to her without causing the death of her unborn. Of course as a JW she can choose to refuse any medical treatment but only under the protection of the Patient's Bill of Rights as any patient would.You’re right, it is a serious ethical situation. That’s why prayer and study are very important. So is faith in God. Do you believe in abortions? If yes, we might as well end this conversation because if you believe in abortions then I will never convince you that transfusions are wrong. If you do not believe in abortions, why not? Is it because you feel the child is still a living human being inside the womb? Or do you feel the child is not quite as much a human being in the womb than out of the womb? Do you think a Christian would kill another living being, even her own child, to save her own life? Or would she kill the child because she doesn’t want her other children or husband to have to go through life without her? Once you answer those questions, then you’ll have the answer as to whether Jesus was saying that we should accept all medical treatments if our life is in danger. After all, that was an original argument you made.

The only risks of rejection occuring during a transfusion would be caused if the medical team neglicted to verify the Rhesus and type compatibility between the donor and recipient. There is no immune system reaction if both factors are compatible. I am not sure where you got the information that "because it is not your blood the body attacks it". Millions of lives have been saved because of transfusion. Also blood transfusions are prescribed only because it is a vital necessity. They often occur during surgery as the result of important blood loss. If the patient's PB becomes dangerously low, a transfusion will be operated. Transfusions are not "elective measures".They are a life preserving and saving measures. They are a medical treatment to respond to a crisis situation.

I can hardly imagine a surgeon deciding to undertake a surgery which will cause blood loss without the proximity of a compatible blood supply and claim" it is better medecine". He could actualy be charged with criminal negligence for not taking all the necessary precautions for crisis intervention.Rahab, I’m not sure where to go from here. You show a lack of familiarity with this subject as a number of your above comments are wrong. I can’t very well post videos and TV programs on Tweb. And even if I watched the videos again, took notes and then copied them to an email, would you accept them? If I told you a recent study, not done by JWs, suggested much of what you said above was wrong, would you accept it? I will try to do some research on it and see if I can find written transcripts of the studies. But in short-


Hospitals frequently give transfusions needlessly
Your body DOES fight foreign blood, regardless of the type. The wrong type will nearly kill you. The right type will still slow down your recovery because your body does resist it
Thousands of people have bloodless surgeries and more and more non-JWs are as well. More hospitals and doctors are moving in the same direction. And there are thousands of surgeons that perform surgeries fully knowing no blood is to be used.
One more thing.....I assume your fordibance to absorb any blood makes you a person who has to be careful in not ingesting any leukocytes and corpuscles from any meat.That would be wrong. The command to abstain from blood was a fact for God’s servants, since the days of Noah. Yet they could and did eat meat. How would they answer your question? Once you answer that, you’ll most likely know my answer.

[Lazy Agnostic]

[size=2] If someone threatens to shoot me unless I bow down and worship them, does that give me license to worship them, since I was saving my life?

Well of course it does. What kind of whacked-out, ego-freak monster do you think God is?

[Rahab]

The bible doesn’t just say, "don’t drink blood." It says, "abstain from blood." We can try to rationalize away why it’s okay to ignore that command but it is just rationalizing. Do you think it’s okay for me to drink a glass of blood today? If so, why? If not, why not? If not, why can I put it in my veins through a needle? How does a medical need all of a sudden invalidate God’s command? If someone threatens to shoot me unless I bow down and worship them, does that give me license to worship them, since I was saving my life?

You’re right, it is a serious ethical situation. That’s why prayer and study are very important. So is faith in God. Do you believe in abortions? If yes, we might as well end this conversation because if you believe in abortions then I will never convince you that transfusions are wrong. If you do not believe in abortions, why not? Is it because you feel the child is still a living human being inside the womb? Or do you feel the child is not quite as much a human being in the womb than out of the womb? Do you think a Christian would kill another living being, even her own child, to save her own life? Or would she kill the child because she doesn’t want her other children or husband to have to go through life without her? Once you answer those questions, then you’ll have the answer as to whether Jesus was saying that we should accept all medical treatments if our life is in danger. After all, that was an original argument you made.

Rahab, I’m not sure where to go from here. You show a lack of familiarity with this subject as a number of your above comments are wrong. I can’t very well post videos and TV programs on Tweb. And even if I watched the videos again, took notes and then copied them to an email, would you accept them? If I told you a recent study, not done by JWs, suggested much of what you said above was wrong, would you accept it? I will try to do some research on it and see if I can find written transcripts of the studies. But in short-

Hospitals frequently give transfusions needlessly
Your body DOES fight foreign blood, regardless of the type. The wrong type will nearly kill you. The right type will still slow down your recovery because your body does resist it
Thousands of people have bloodless surgeries and more and more non-JWs are as well. More hospitals and doctors are moving in the same direction. And there are thousands of surgeons that perform surgeries fully knowing no blood is to be used.
That would be wrong. The command to abstain from blood was a fact for God’s servants, since the days of Noah. Yet they could and did eat meat. How would they answer your question? Once you answer that, you’ll most likely know my answer.


Which particular translation are you using? Considering that blood transfusions did not exist in OT times, how could one verse refer specificaly to blood transfusion? I think what is dangerous is to apply principles which are based on unverifiable interpretation.... principles which will cause the death of a patient necessitating a blood transfusion. I am a Health Care worker....I am part of a system which promotes health betterment. It is quite unconcievable to me that one verse subjected to such interpretation and applied to blood transfusion can result in the worsening and possible fatal outcome of anyone's health. I do not see what abortion has to do with blood transfusion. Please try to stay on the topic of endangerment of a patient's life based on unverifiable claim by JWs that God forbade blood transfusion.

I deny your claim that I made the argument that Jesus said that we should accept all medical treaments.Please do not misrepresent my thoughts. I expect some integrity on your part in terms of communication. You are on such a defensive trend that you seem to misinterpret what is suggested to you. You exhibited the same pattern with the other posters earlier who were challenging some of your beliefs.

The familiarity I have with some medical matters is not the result of video tapes and TV programs. Most of us in the various nursing professions have to keep up with scientificaly demonstrated medical updates.
I repeat.... a surgeon who would make the decision to operate on a patient he knows will necessitate a blood transfusion at some point of time in the surgery, to not have a ready to go blood supply because he thinks that "it is better medecine" (to use your exact quote) is basicaly endangering the life of his patient. I cannot fathom the administrators of a hospital giving such liberty to one of their surgeons who would argue " it is better medecine to let the patient die rather than use a blood transfusion". I do not accept your argument. If a blood transfusion is VITAL to the life support maintainance of an in surgery patient, NO surgeon is going to risk his license experimenting on his patient.

The thousands of surgeries which do NOT necessitate a blood transfusion are evaluated to be safe because they DO NOT necessitate a vital blood loss replacement. Any problems understanding that?
And the thousands of surgery which do necessitate a blood transfusion are evaluated to cause a fatal outcome on the patient if the blood loss is not compensated by blood transfusion. Thus the proximity and availability of compatible blood supply.

I am still awaiting for a response regarding organ transplants.

It seems to me that if your actual concern is to "abstain from blood" to the point that you will condemn to death a patient who necessitates a vital blood loss compensation via transfusion, you also need to be consistent with "abstaining " from eating meats which do contain blood. Thus my comment about absorbing leukocytes and corpuscles. You need to also be consistent with certain organ transplants. It might take you a while to establish a new "principle" semanticaly related to "abstain from blood" when it comes to organ transplants.

So far..... none of your arguments have validated in my mind your interpretation of one verse. You may want to continue to argue your case, but I will be honest with you that your claims have left me with the impression that you are so determined to justify your beliefs that you remain blind to the consequences of your beliefs. I am urging you to use the gift of Reason God has uniquely offered to mankind to use so that we would not attribute to Him intents He did not have.

There is a process of thought indoctrination which seems to occur among JWs. You are obviously not permitted to use critical thinking over the topic of blood transfusion.

[NonTrinitarian]

NT –“The bible doesn’t just say, "don’t drink blood." It says, "abstain from blood."”

Which particular translation are you using? Considering that blood transfusions did not exist in OT times, how could one verse refer specificaly to blood transfusion?

You seem to imply only a “particular” translation says “abstain” from blood. How about you show me a non-paraphrase Bible that DOESN’T say abstain? And where did I say a verse specifically referred to blood transfusions? For that matter, where does the Bible specifically say a lot of things? They’re principles. Abstaining from blood covers a number of areas. You either abstain or you don’t.







It is quite unconcievable to me that one verse subjected to such interpretation and applied to blood transfusion can result in the worsening and possible fatal outcome of anyone's health.

One verse? Try a bunch of verses scattered through out the Bible. Again. You either abstain from putting blood in your body or you don’t.





I do not see what abortion has to do with blood transfusion. Please try to stay on the topic of endangerment of a patient's life based on unverifiable claim by JWs that God forbade blood transfusion.

Which is probably why you’re not getting much of this. Let me spell out our discussion thus far. You made the following comment:

“- considering that in the 4 Gospels Christ encourages recovery and healing of human physical illnesses, how do you conciliate that forbidance with God's obvious intent thru Christ to better human health?”

This implication of this statement is that since Jesus encouraged healing, our refusal of a medical treatment goes against his teaching. To which I clearly showed the folly of such an argument in the abortion scenario. You then made this comment:

“As you limit medical help to your principles, you are entering an area where the life of a patient may be placed in jeopardy if a transfusion is absolutly necessary as a life saving measure. There is a serious ethical question to raise as to claiming that God forbids such a measure.”

Thus, Rahab, you demonstrate that you DID understand the point I was making. That there ARE situations where true Christians WILL refuse the suggested medical treatment, even if it means their own life. You raise the question as to whether God would really forbid such a thing. I then posed this to you:





Do you believe in abortions?
If yes, we might as well end this conversation because if you believe in abortions then I will never convince you that transfusions are wrong.
If you do not believe in abortions, why not? Is it because you feel the child is still a living human being inside the womb? Or do you feel the child is not quite as much a human being in the womb than out of the womb?
Do you think a Christian would kill another living being, even her own child, to save her own life? Or would she kill the child because she doesn’t want her other children or husband to have to go through life without her?
None of which you answered. As far as staying on topic. I am staying on topic. Part of the topic is whether Christians would refuse certain medical treatments, even if their life was in danger, if they went against Bible principles. Now we are discussing transfusios but we have to layout the ground work that just because a person's life is in danger does not mean we ignore God's command. Do you now understand why it's important to include this abortion scenario in the discussion?


Rahab said,


I deny your claim that I made the argument that Jesus said that we should accept all medical treaments.Please do not misrepresent my thoughts. I expect some integrity on your part in terms of communication. You are on such a defensive trend that you seem to misinterpret what is suggested to you. You exhibited the same pattern with the other posters earlier who were challenging some of your beliefs. but note what Rahab said in an earlier thread


“- considering that in the 4 Gospels Christ encourages recovery and healing of human physical illnesses, how do you conciliate that forbidance with God's obvious intent thru Christ to better human health?”

You tell me how I should take that.

As far as integrity, why don’t you actually engage in this discussion instead of skirting the questions I asked?

The familiarity I have with some medical matters is not the result of video tapes and TV programs. Most of us in the various nursing professions have to keep up with scientificaly demonstrated medical updates.
I repeat.... a surgeon who would make the decision to operate on a patient he knows will necessitate a blood transfusion at some point of time in the surgery, to not have a ready to go blood supply because he thinks that "it is better medecine" (to use your exact quote) is basicaly endangering the life of his patient. I cannot fathom the administrators of a hospital giving such liberty to one of their surgeons who would argue " it is better medecine to let the patient die rather than use a blood transfusion". I do not accept your argument. If a blood transfusion is VITAL to the life support maintainance of an in surgery patient, NO surgeon is going to risk his license experimenting on his patient.

And thus your comments show the lack of familiarity with this subject, as do they show the lack of familiarity with the biblical verses used to support it.

The thousands of surgeries which do NOT necessitate a blood transfusion are evaluated to be safe because they DO NOT necessitate a vital blood loss replacement. Any problems understanding that?

Hmm. The thousands of JW’s that have open-heart surgery, knee replacements, etc. will be surprised to find that out.



I am still awaiting for a response regarding organ transplants.

And I’m still waiting for answers to my questions. I’ll conclude this email with them below.

It seems to me that if your actual concern is to "abstain from blood" to the point that you will condemn to death a patient who necessitates a vital blood loss compensation via transfusion, you also need to be consistent with "abstaining " from eating meats which do contain blood. Thus my comment about absorbing leukocytes and corpuscles.

See questions below for your answer




So far..... none of your arguments have validated in my mind your interpretation of one verse. You may want to continue to argue your case, but I will be honest with you that your claims have left me with the impression that you are so determined to justify your beliefs that you remain blind to the consequences of your beliefs. I am urging you to use the gift of Reason God has uniquely offered to mankind to use so that we would not attribute to Him intents He did not have. At least I’ m engaged in the discussion. So far you’ve ignored every question I’ve asked of you. Who’s really turning a blind eye here?



Here are some questions, some of which I will ask for the THIRD time:



1.)Are there medical situations where a Christian will refuse the suggested medical treatment by the hospital due to their love for God’s principles, even if refusal will likely cause their death?

2.)What does it mean to “abstain from blood”?

3.)Since they didn’t have transfusions back then, how would you propose the Bible say to avoid transfusions if God didn’t want us to have transfusions?

4.)Would “abstain from blood” be capable of covering transfusions? Or does the Bible have to say “Thou shall not inject blood into your veins through a needle”?

5.)The NT doesn’t mention bestiality or a number of other sexual sicknesses. Does the command to “abstain from fornication” cover this or can Christians do what they want with animals? In other words, does the phrase “abstain from fornication” cover all types of sexual sin or does the NT need to mention each type specifically?

6.)The Bible doesn’t mention “abortions”. Does this mean since it is not mentioned it is okay to have them? You skirted the question as to whether abortions are wrong. I’d be curious to know your position on this because if you say “no”, I have no reason to continue on this discussion.

7.)If you answer that abortions are wrong, is there a situation where they are acceptable? Your answer here will tell me a lot too.

8.)Did early Christians eat blood?

9.)Did they eat meat?

10.)So does your question regarding leukocytes and corpuscles have any real bearing?

11.)Can I drink a glass of blood today?

12.)If not, why not?

13.)If not, why CAN I put it in my veins?

14.)Does blood being used for medicine annul God’s command to abstain from blood?



Answer these and then I’ll answer your organ question. (Like we haven’t ever been asked that one before.)

[dizzle]

I am going to request that this abstaining from blood portion be split from this thread, as I as the thread starter would llike my original topic to remain on that focus.

[NonTrinitarian]

You're right Dee Dee. Sorry to hijack your thread.

[dizzle]

Oh NonTrin no problem at all. I didn't think it was anything purposeful. I requested a moderator to split the thread, so carry on until it can be split.

[Rahab]

Sorry Dee Dee... I did not intend to highjack your thread. I intended to question one specific JW's claim in terms of a Spirit Directed interpretation of scriptures. The blood transfusion topic being what troubles me.
As far as I am concerned, I have at this point no desire to pursue this communication.

[dizzle]

The moderators are ignoring me anyways :baw:!

[AVmetro]

bada bing

The moderators are ignoring me anyways :baw:!
Th..the mo..d the moder.... Bah, I can't read this, what are you trying to say? :blush:

[ratioann]

Quote:
Originally Posted by NonTrinitarian

[size=2] If someone threatens to shoot me unless I bow down and worship them, does that give me license to worship them, since I was saving my life?


What about that verse, whoever tries to save his life will lose it?

Anyways, my 2 cents about the blood thing. Jesus "broke" the Sabbath to heal others. If a law is coming between saving a persons life, something is wrong. Transfusions are good, they save lives. Blood has always been shown in the bible as bringing life, why not here too. Drinking blood for rituals or whatever does no good at all, so it what they are most likely reffering too.

[NonTrinitarian]

Originally Posted by NonTrinitarian

[size=2] If someone threatens to shoot me unless I bow down and worship them, does that give me license to worship them, since I was saving my life?
What about that verse, whoever tries to save his life will lose it?
My point exactly. Go back and read the post you quoted this from. Does it sound like I was trying to say it IS okay to save one's immediate life at all costs? No.


Anyways, my 2 cents about the blood thing. Jesus "broke" the Sabbath to heal others. If a law is coming between saving a persons life, something is wrong.
Jesus didn't break the sabbath. The Jews accused him of breaking the sabbath when he healed someone but they were wrong. Jesus stated "It IS lawful to do good on the sabbath."-Matt 12:12 There are a number of instances in the scriptures where people died or were willing to die because a 'law came between saving their life.' Just consider Daniel.


Transfusions are good, they save lives. Blood has always been shown in the bible as bringing life, why not here too. Drinking blood for rituals or whatever does no good at all, so it what they are most likely reffering too.
The blood brings life in the scriptures via sacrifices, which is why it is so valuable. There's no account of literal blood being ingested as being a good thing. Just the opposite is shown. See 1 Sam 14:24-33.

[AVmetro]

Why is is okay by WTS standards to use "blood fractions" yet not the whole blood? Does scripture make this distinction? Shouldn't this fall under the command to "..abstain from blood?" Is this a form of rationalization, IYO?

Interesting point that I read somewhere in the past is that orthodox jews, who carefully drain the blood from their food, will accept a blood transfusion.

Jesus didn't break the sabbath. The Jews accused him of breaking the sabbath when he healed someone but they were wrong. Jesus stated "It IS lawful to do good on the sabbath."-Matt 12:12 There are a number of instances in the scriptures where people died or were willing to die because a 'law came between saving their life.' Just consider Daniel.
When Christ refers to David eating the "shewbread" He refers to David as doing that which "is unlawful" implying that David did "break" the law. However, David was sinless under the "mercy" clause which is what ratioann was getting at.

-AV

[NonTrinitarian]

Hi AV,

Why is is okay by WTS standards to use "blood fractions" yet not the whole blood? Does scripture make this distinction? Shouldn't this fall under the command to "..abstain from blood?" Is this a form of rationalization, IYO?
Blood is over 90% water. Does this mean I cannot drink water?


Interesting point that I read somewhere in the past is that orthodox jews, who carefully drain the blood from their food, will accept a blood transfusion. Orthodox Jews believe in the OT and some even a Messiah but they don't believe in Jesus. See the point?


When Christ refers to David eating the "shewbread" He refers to David as doing that which "is unlawful" implying that David did "break" the law. However, David was sinless under the "mercy" clause which is what ratioann was getting at. -AV
I understand the rational behind it. But this flies in the face of all the faithful people who died because of their refusal to break God's law. Here is a WT article on it:

Questions From Readers

· Is it all right to break God’s law in order to save a life, as has been
reasoned from Matthew 12:1-8?

Though some persons having that view have referred to Matthew 12:1-8 for
support, a careful consideration of the Scriptures shows that it is an
incorrect conclusion.

When passing through a grainfield, Jesus’ disciples gleaned a small amount
of grain, as permitted by the Law. (Leviticus 19:9, 10; Deuteronomy
24:19-21) The Pharisees criticized them for doing this on the sabbath. These
religious leaders had added to the Law many interpretations, especially as
to what was unlawful “work” on the sabbath. According to these human rules,
and the legalistic mentality behind them, by what they did the disciples
were guilty of two forms of work, harvesting (“plucking”) and threshing
(“rubbing” the grains). (Matthew 12:1; Luke 6:1) However, Jesus said:

“Have you not read what David did when he and the men with him got hungry?
How . . . 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? Or,
have you not read in the Law that on the sabbaths the priests in the temple
treat the sabbath as not sacred and continue guiltless? But I tell you that
something greater than the temple is here. However, if you had understood
what this means, ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have
condemned the guiltless ones. For the Lord of the sabbath is what the Son of
man is.”—Matthew 12:3-8.

Christ was referring to the incident when David and his men, fleeing from
murderous King Saul, went to High Priest Ahimelech at Nob. David indicated
that he was on a secret assignment from the king and asked for bread. “There
is no ordinary bread under my hand,” Ahimelech told him, “but there is holy
bread; provided that the young men have at least kept themselves from
womankind.” He meant the showbread (or, loaves of presentation), consisting
of twelve unleavened cakes placed weekly on a table in the Holy of the
tabernacle. As fresh cakes were presented each sabbath, the older ones were
removed and ‘became Aaron’s and his sons’, to eat in a holy place.’ David
explained that his men were ceremonially clean, and he implied that they
were in a sense holy, being on a mission from Jehovah’s anointed king. So
Ahimelech “gave him what was holy, . . . the showbread that had been removed
from before Jehovah.”—1 Samuel 21:1-6; Leviticus 24:5-9.

In the light of all of this, what about the view that God’s commands can be
ignored ‘if life is at stake’? Persons have reasoned: ‘God overlooked David’
s breaking a serious command when his life was in danger; also Jesus
condoned violating the sabbath and said that you could do good and save a
soul on the sabbath.’ (Luke 6:9; Matthew 12:11, 12) Yet, such thinking
proves to be deceptive and contrary to the Bible.

For example, this reasoning assumes that you accept the premise that David
and Jesus’ disciples were in ‘life or death’ situations. But were they? The
Bible does not say that David and his men were on the verge of starving to
death because there was no other food to be found. In fact, according to
geographical authorities, Nob was just north of the Mount of Olives, within
a few miles of Jerusalem and many towns. A direct reading of the account
allows for the conclusion that David and his men were basically hungry and
seeking a meal from someone whom they trusted. Similarly, the Bible tells us
that when Jesus’ disciples “got hungry” on the sabbath they gleaned and ate
some grain. They must have eaten on the previous day, and on the day after
the sabbath they could buy food in surrounding villages. (John 4:8; Matthew
14:15) So, if an individual wants to use these incidents to show when God’s laws can be broken, he might as well say that at any time people ‘get hungry ’ it is all right to violate Jehovah’s commands. Obviously that is not correct.

We still need to know, however, what is the meaning of Matthew 12:1-8. Jesus
was exposing the Pharisees’ narrow, legalistic view. We can better
appreciate this by giving thought to the object of the sabbath, and by
noting carefully Jesus’ explanation.

Why were Israelites not to work on the sabbath? Was the object simply to
forbid work? No. It was so that secular pursuits, such as working for food
and clothing, would not consume all the people’s time and attention. The
sabbath arrangement advanced true worship by assuring that the people would
have time for worship without being distracted by normal work. (Exodus
20:8-11; Isaiah 58:13) Jesus encouraged this understanding rather than the
narrow view of the Pharisees.

He said that even priests serving at the temple could be accused of
‘treating the sabbath as not sacred’ and thus of breaking the law. How?
Well, the priests worked hard on the sabbath butchering sacrificial animals.
Were they lawbreakers? Christ said that those priests ‘continued guiltless.’ Their labors at the temple, rather than interfering with worship,
contributed to it. As Jesus (who was “greater than the temple” and would
offer the ultimate sacrifice) went about with his disciples, they were
teaching God’s Word and thus promoting true worship. Hence, they were not
violating the sabbath by gleaning a bit to eat. Nor, as Jesus explained,
would it have been contrary to the spirit of the sabbath law to ‘save a soul
’ by pulling a sheep out of a pit, even though it was a day for
worship.—Matthew 12:5, 11; Luke 6:9.

...Contrast this with the incident when Israelite soldiers in Saul’s army
violated God’s law on blood, as related at 1 Samuel 14:32-35. They had been
in battle with the Philistines, enemies of Jehovah’s people. Tired and
hungry from the fight, some Israelites slaughtered animals and “fell to
eating [meat] along with the blood.” Whether it is claimed that this was a
case of satisfying a powerful hunger or that it was an emergency situation,
breaking the law on blood was not excusable. It was ‘sinning against Jehovah
’ and it called for special sacrifices in behalf of those who ‘sinned
against Jehovah by eating along with the blood.’

It was sin because in giving the law on blood God said that while humans
could eat animal flesh to keep alive they should not sustain their lives by
taking in blood. (Genesis 9:3, 4) He gave no allowance for breaking that law
if it seemed that ‘life was at stake.’ The Creator decreed that blood was
sacred. Saving life with blood was not to be by taking it into the body in
any way. But by Christ’s giving his blood in sacrifice everlasting life
would be possible.—Ephesians 1:7.

The record of the early Christians who were put to the test by Roman
authorities agrees with this and illustrates that we should not think that
God’s law can be broken in ‘life or death’ situations. Sometimes their test
was, either eat blood sausage or die in the arena. Would the Christians
violate God’s law on blood and renounce their standing with him? Or, when
pressured to burn a pinch of incense to the deity of the emperor, would they
break God’s command against idolatry? History proves that faithful
Christians refused to break God’s commands even when their present life was
at stake. Though they lost their lives obeying Jehovah’s law, they had the
assurance of eternal life.—Matthew 16:25, 26.

Consequently, the Scriptures do not endorse the view that divine commands
can be broken in a difficult situation. Rather, we are told: “By this we
gain the knowledge that we are loving the children of God, when we are
loving God and doing his commandments.”—1 John 5:2.

I bolded some points but notice what Jesus was saying. The priests in the temple working on the Sabbath, though appearing to break the Sabbath had not really broken it. They were doing what God told them to do. Jesus wasn't using these accounts to say it is okay to break God's law, he was using them to show that they had the wrong understanding of God's law. By their legalistic approach, they should not only accuse Jesus of breaking the sabbath, but they should also accuse the priests and David of breaking God's law too. Since the Jews apparently were not accusing the priests or David of breaking God's law, they had no reason to condemn Jesus either.

Matt 12 does not give support for breaking God's law, whether we're just hungry or whether doing so would save our life.

[barryrob]

Non Trinitarian..... I realize you have a lot on your plate and apologize for asking you some details in regard to the forbidance of blood transfusion. Among the various doctrinal teachings of JWs, that is the one I find to be worthy of being contested as its practice results in depriving an individual from a life saving measure. Here are my questions and please do take your time answering them.

- what semantic connection could be made between "drinking human blood or animal blood" and a medical treatment which involves no idol worship nor any type of ritual or ceremony which is devoted to Baal (as a symbol of the god of evil) ?
- considering that in the 4 Gospels Christ encourages recovery and healing of human physical illnesses, how do you conciliate that forbidance with God's obvious intent thru Christ to better human health?

- I am already aware of arguments revolving around the risks of blood transfusion in terms of tainted blood with some contagious diseases. However, I do not believe they should be interpreted as a sign of God disapproving of blood transfusion. But rather as medecine having to catch up with the onset of modern illnesses which happen to be transmitted by bodily fluids mainly blood. Since the discovery of hepatitis and HIV contaminated blood supply,testing is now mandatory to insure the "sterility" of donated blood. As you may know, individuals who have resided in Europe after 1995 are not allowed to donate blood to safeguard the blood supply from possible "mad cow" contamination. So I do not give much credibility to any argument based on "blood tranfusion can kill you".

- Do you also forbid organ transplants? bone marrow transplant? some organs have to be blood irriguated to maintain their viability between the time they are harvested and the time they are transplanted. Where do you draw the line? and in a critical situation where time may mean imminent death,how much details and assurance are you to require from a medical team to insure that no blood from an organ donor would enter the body of a JW? in the case of skin graffs....how do you determine "no blood" from the donor to a burn victim for example?

Thanks for your time.

Another good reason to listion and obey what Jehovah says on this matter:-

Head line in the Daily Mail, Wednesday, September 22, 2004 p.8 in England:-

"4,000 patients told that they may have been given blood tainted by CJD*."
*Mad Cow Disease.


"There is no test for the infection, and those at risk must live with a ‘timbomb’ of knowing they could develop the incurable brain-wasting disease."


"A total of 17 Britons have been contacted after receiving a one-to-one transfusion of 'whole blood’ from donors who later developed vCJD, There have so far been 143 deaths from the disease."

Barryrob

[sklemetti]

I don't find the problem with refusal of blood transfusions.

Some say that it is denying life-saving treatment, but that does not save lives, it only prolongs it.

People say that people can die if they refuse blood? Is that bad?
People die everyday from various causes, why focus on that one?

The key is to find that which will end death and the only way to do that is through Jesus and his blood. Thus those obeying him which includes the abstaining of blood will get life.

[Sparko]

I don't find the problem with refusal of blood transfusions.

Some say that it is denying life-saving treatment, but that does not save lives, it only prolongs it.

People say that people can die if they refuse blood? Is that bad?
People die everyday from various causes, why focus on that one?

The key is to find that which will end death and the only way to do that is through Jesus and his blood. Thus those obeying him which includes the abstaining of blood will get life.

when you or your loved one is laying in a hospital bed and you have to choice to "prolong" your or their life, then come back and say that.

[sklemetti]

Why is is okay by WTS standards to use "blood fractions" yet not the whole blood? Does scripture make this distinction? Shouldn't this fall under the command to "..abstain from blood?" Is this a form of rationalization, IYO?

Because the bible specifically forbids blood, whole in the ancient times, but they did not have fractions. Water is a fraction of blood, would water be forbidden? Thus some may think that parts of blood are and others are not. Since there is not a consensus on that, then it is a conscience matter.


Interesting point that I read somewhere in the past is that orthodox jews, who carefully drain the blood from their food, will accept a blood transfusion.


When Christ refers to David eating the "shewbread" He refers to David as doing that which "is unlawful" implying that David did "break" the law. However, David was sinless under the "mercy" clause which is what ratioann was getting at.

-AV

Why would anyone care what an orthordox Jew does? As if they know anything.

People forget that Acts 15 is a thought out restatement of that which existed prior to the Law.

[sklemetti]

when you or your loved one is laying in a hospital bed and you have to choice to "prolong" your or their life, then come back and say that.

I would avoid blood just out of spite for the anti-JWs.

But then we do know that blood is a poor treatment and that there are better alternatives.

[Sparko]

I would avoid blood just out of spite for the anti-JWs.

But then we do know that blood is a poor treatment and that there are better alternatives.


you would let your loved one die out of SPITE????

dude, you are sick..

and the bible says do not EAT blood. They had no way of even imagining blood transfusions. There is no prohibition against using blood to SAVE a life. Eating blood is wrong because you are dishonoring the life giving portion of blood by eating it as a food. Using it in a transfusion is GIVING LIFE, SHARING it with another. How can that be wrong?

And no there are NOT better alternatives. When you are low on blood, blood is the best cure.

[Bill the Cat]

Because the bible specifically forbids blood,

It specifically forbids EATING blood.

Genesis 9:4
"Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Even the NWT says :

4 Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat


Leviticus 17:12
"Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, 'No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood.'


And the Acts verse Acts 15:29 reiterates this without using the obvious "eating"

[IncRus]

you would let your loved one die out of SPITE????

dude, you are sick..

and the bible says do not EAT blood. They had no way of even imagining blood transfusions. There is no prohibition against using blood to SAVE a life. Eating blood is wrong because you are dishonoring the life giving portion of blood by eating it as a food. Using it in a transfusion is GIVING LIFE, SHARING it with another. How can that be wrong?

And no there are NOT better alternatives. When you are low on blood, blood is the best cure.

I agree 100%!

[IncRus]

It specifically forbids EATING blood.

Genesis 9:4
"Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.

Even the NWT says :

4 Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat


Leviticus 17:12
"Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, 'No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood.'


And the Acts verse Acts 15:29 reiterates this without using the obvious "eating"

I also agree 100%!

[IncRus]

Another good reason to listion and obey what Jehovah says on this matter:-

Head line in the Daily Mail, Wednesday, September 22, 2004 p.8 in England:-

"4,000 patients told that they may have been given blood tainted by CJD*."
*Mad Cow Disease.


"There is no test for the infection, and those at risk must live with a ‘timbomb’ of knowing they could develop the incurable brain-wasting disease."


"A total of 17 Britons have been contacted after receiving a one-to-one transfusion of 'whole blood’ from donors who later developed vCJD, There have so far been 143 deaths from the disease."

Barryrob

Listening to and obeying what Jehovah says means not adding to nor subtracting from His words or commands (Deut. 12:32; Rev. 22:18-19). It alsdo means not thinking beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6).

What God forbids as written in the Old Testament is the "eating" of blood (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 17:14; Deut. 12:23).

And we know that blood transfusion is not, by any means, "eating" blood.

In fact, Jesus said, "There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?" (Mark 7:15, 18-19). "Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceeds out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man" (Matt. 15:17-18).

Thus, if we go by what Jesus preached to his disciples, eating foods offered to idols, or strangled animals, or even eating blood for food cannot defile a man because this is what God has spoken to us in these last days by His Son, Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:2).

Apostle James' decision to admonish the first-century Gentile Christians to abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality (Acts 15:20, 29) was an act of compromise with the Christian Jews who wanted the Gentile converts to be circumcised like them (Acts 15:1-20).

You will note that apostle James' admonition to the Gentile Christians did not carry with it a penalty. It does not tell us what happens if one does not abstain from eating things offered to idols, eating things strangled or eating blood. Why is this so? Because apostle James could not go against what Jesus had preached before hand about food. He was only doing this to appease the Jewish converts.

Of all these things which apostle James exhorted the Gentile Christians to abstain from, only sexual immorality was given special attention by apostle Paul (1 Cor. 5:9-13; 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21).

Apostle Paul wrote: "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body" (1 Cor. 6:12-13, 18).

Therefore, I believe that one is not defiled by eating things offered to idols, or eating things strangled, or eating blood. And allowing people to die because they are denied blood transfusion for the wrong reason is worse than allowing someone to abort the life of an unborn fetus for the right reason.