Hypothetical ? for JWs

[ApologiaPhoenix]

So I'm in line at work tonight and I see a lady come through and when she has her wallet open, I see the "No blood" card.

I got to pondering a situation.

Suppose a JW is in a bad bad car accident and is on the verge of death and there is a blood transfusion given at the hospital and lo and behold, they notice later the no blood card. Let's suppose this JW has been a good and faithful JW all his life and before he comes to, he dies, meaning he never knew he got a transfusion and never got to "repent" of it.

Is there any teaching from the WT on what his status will be in the afterlife since he's received a blood transfusion and died without repentance?

[Sparko]

maybe they just do an all-inclusive "I repent from all my sins even the ones I dont know about" every few years.

[Super Cow]

So I'm in line at work tonight and I see a lady come through and when she has her wallet open, I see the "No blood" card.

I got to pondering a situation.

Suppose a JW is in a bad bad car accident and is on the verge of death and there is a blood transfusion given at the hospital and lo and behold, they notice later the no blood card. Let's suppose this JW has been a good and faithful JW all his life and before he comes to, he dies, meaning he never knew he got a transfusion and never got to "repent" of it.

Is there any teaching from the WT on what his status will be in the afterlife since he's received a blood transfusion and died without repentance?

It's a meaningless question to the JWs. They would not consider that the person even has to repent for having something done to them without their knowledge. The unconscious person has no sin in this regard. The conscious person administering the transfusion is the guilty party that needs to repent if he was to convert and learn what he did was wrong.

[IncRus]

It's a meaningless question to the JWs. They would not consider that the person even has to repent for having something done to them without their knowledge. The unconscious person has no sin in this regard. The conscious person administering the transfusion is the guilty party that needs to repent if he was to convert and learn what he did was wrong.

Why would the person administering the transfusion be guilty of committing SIN when he NEVER transgressed God's law? Is AVOIDANCE of blood transhfusion God's law or man's?

[Super Cow]

Why would the person administering the transfusion be guilty of committing SIN when he NEVER transgressed God's law? Is AVOIDANCE of blood transhfusion God's law or man's?

We were speaking in the hypothetical of the JW theology. If you don't believe the JW interpretation, then you don't believe he sinned. A JW believes a transfusion is a sin, by extension of the numerous blood references in the Bible. (Though it can be argued that none of them specifically speak of human to human transfusions.) Regardless, I made no claim of it being right or wrong, merely what they believe.

[IncRus]

Why would the person administering the transfusion be guilty of committing SIN when he NEVER transgressed God's law? Is AVOIDANCE of blood transhfusion God's law or man's?

We were speaking in the hypothetical of the JW theology. If you don't believe the JW interpretation, then you don't believe he sinned. A JW believes a transfusion is a sin, by extension of the numerous blood references in the Bible. (Though it can be argued that none of them specifically speak of human to human transfusions.) Regardless, I made no claim of it being right or wrong, merely what they believe.

I was expecting a JW to answer questions thrown at them whether hypothetical or not and defend what they believe is right or wrong. Since you appear to know a lot about what the JWs believe in, can you tell us why JWs believe that blood transfusion is a sin? Do the JWs have a basis for what I think is a FALSE doctrine?

[Xmansmommy]

So I'm in line at work tonight and I see a lady come through and when she has her wallet open, I see the "No blood" card.

I got to pondering a situation.

Suppose a JW is in a bad bad car accident and is on the verge of death and there is a blood transfusion given at the hospital and lo and behold, they notice later the no blood card. Let's suppose this JW has been a good and faithful JW all his life and before he comes to, he dies, meaning he never knew he got a transfusion and never got to "repent" of it.

Is there any teaching from the WT on what his status will be in the afterlife since he's received a blood transfusion and died without repentance?

As noted, how can they repent of something they didn't make a decision to do? There are also varying thoughts on what portion of the transfusion is acceptable and which is not. That is for the individual to decide between them and God.

[Xmansmommy]

I was expecting a JW to answer questions thrown at them whether hypothetical or not and defend what they believe is right or wrong. Since you appear to know a lot about what the JWs believe in, can you tell us why JWs believe that blood transfusion is a sin? Do the JWs have a basis for what I think is a FALSE doctrine?

I'm not absolutely sure I understand why they believe blood transfusions are sin, but I believe it has something to do with the OT passages that tell us that "life is in the blood."

[Sparko]

I'm not absolutely sure I understand why they believe blood transfusions are sin, but I believe it has something to do with the OT passages that tell us that "life is in the blood."

they often quote the OT and NT where it says to "abstain from eating blood"

although a blood transfusion is hardly "eating"

[Super Cow]

I was expecting a JW to answer questions thrown at them whether hypothetical or not and defend what they believe is right or wrong. Since you appear to know a lot about what the JWs believe in, can you tell us why JWs believe that blood transfusion is a sin? Do the JWs have a basis for what I think is a FALSE doctrine?

My mother is a JW, and I was raised in the faith, but never baptized. (I also have access to some of the literature) I am well aware of their theologies, excluding any changes they have made in the past 12 years or so.

For the doctrine, they believe that blood in all it's forms is sacred and should not be consumed in any way shape or form. In general, the Bible was written for the technology and understanding of the time, which was somewhat limited 2000-4000 years ago. But they interpolate the writings to modern times. So, if the Bible says to abstain from blood or "you must not eat" the blood, it is extended to mean any modern means of transferring foreign blood externally to internally. In Canada, hot dogs sometimes have on their label that they contain animal "by-products", and no JW will knowingly buy these brands as they may contain blood.

Scriptural references in the Old Testament:

Genesis 9:3,4 - Commands to Noah
Leviticus 17:11,12 - The Mosaic law code (Torah)

Scriptural references in the New Testament:

Acts 15:28,29 - Abstaining from blood put on an equal level with abstaining from idols and fornication

Now, blood was allowed to be used for sacrificial ceremonies or symbols, and an argument could be made that using blood to give back or maintain life in the event of serious injuries could either be an exception, or even preferred as a sacred testament to the sanctity of life. This is not how they view it, and feel it's better to die for their principles rather than give into that sin.

However, anything done to someone against their will cannot be held against them, but only against those forcing the sin. (You could not blame a woman who was raped, for instance, but you would the rapist. They would not blame a person who was forced to take a transfusion, but they would blame the doctor.)

[IncRus]

My mother is a JW, and I was raised in the faith, but never baptized. (I also have access to some of the literature) I am well aware of their theologies, excluding any changes they have made in the past 12 years or so.

For the doctrine, they believe that blood in all it's forms is sacred and should not be consumed in any way shape or form. In general, the Bible was written for the technology and understanding of the time, which was somewhat limited 2000-4000 years ago. But they interpolate the writings to modern times. So, if the Bible says to abstain from blood or "you must not eat" the blood, it is extended to mean any modern means of transferring foreign blood externally to internally. In Canada, hot dogs sometimes have on their label that they contain animal "by-products", and no JW will knowingly buy these brands as they may contain blood.

Scriptural references in the Old Testament:

Genesis 9:3,4 - Commands to Noah
Leviticus 17:11,12 - The Mosaic law code (Torah)

Scriptural references in the New Testament:

Acts 15:28,29 - Abstaining from blood put on an equal level with abstaining from idols and fornication

Now, blood was allowed to be used for sacrificial ceremonies or symbols, and an argument could be made that using blood to give back or maintain life in the event of serious injuries could either be an exception, or even preferred as a sacred testament to the sanctity of life. This is not how they view it, and feel it's better to die for their principles rather than give into that sin.

However, anything done to someone against their will cannot be held against them, but only against those forcing the sin. (You could not blame a woman who was raped, for instance, but you would the rapist. They would not blame a person who was forced to take a transfusion, but they would blame the doctor.)

The COMMAND of God to Noah (Gen. 9:3-4) and to the Isarelites (Lev. 17:11-12) was for them NOT to EAT blood because blood is the LIFE of all flesh (Lev. 17:14). God instructed them to "pour out the blood and cover it with dust" (Lev. 17:13).

Jesus defined EATING as something that ENTERS the mouth, goes into the stomach and is ELIMINATED (Matt. 15:17; Mark 7:19).

Since BLOOD TRANSFUSION is for the purpose of ADDING life to the DYING flesh and NOT for the purpose of EATING (blood does NOT go into the stomach and is then eliminated).......

........ then BLOOD TRANSFUSION is NOT a transgresssion of God's COMMAND, and therefore, NOT a SIN.

Hence, the JW's doctrine of PROHIBITING blood transfusion is a COMMANDMENT of men that VIOLATES God's command NOT to ADD to nor SUBTRACT from His word (Deut. 12:32; Rev. 22:19).