Ask about Jehovah's Witnesses

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes we do have the right to 'protect' our children. We see blood as something that has proved to be a very dangerous substance and its not something I would want to put into my child because its like playing russian roulette...no one can guarantee you that they will not come out of it unscathed which is why hospitals pay out millions of dollars every year on botched transfusions.

OTOH, refusing a transfusion is often like playing Russian Roulette with an automatic.

It's hypocritical to object to blood transfusions on the basis of risk. Argue that your God forbids them if you want to, or that you think that it will lead to reward in Heaven, but don't pretend that you help a person's survival chances when you deny them life-saving treatment.

 

[Pegg]

Pegg I as a Gnostic, claiming also to follow Jesus, try my hardest. I try my hardest to love everyone, and to not judge, and to give charity.

showing love is the foundation of Christ, its commendable and worthy and that is what God wants us to do

But we must remember that our love must first go to God...remember Jesus words "the two greatest commandment are You must love your God with your whole heart mind and soul, and you must love your neighbor as yourself"

Jesus also said that the love of God means observing his commandments.

 

[averageJOE]

So Pegg, with all those scriptures you threw at me that talk about "eating" blood, how and when did consuming blood translate to a blood transfusion? And again, how do you know rejecting a blood transfusion is god's law and not Charels Russel's law?

 

[Pegg]

So Pegg, with all those scriptures you threw at me that talk about "eating" blood, how and when did consuming blood translate to a blood transfusion? And again, how do you know rejecting a blood transfusion is god's law and not Charels Russel's law?

Charles Russel was not around when the JW's took a stance on blood...we dont follow Brother Russel...we follow the bible.

but to answer your question, here is an answer from a 1956 ariticle on this question:

"A patient in the hospital may be fed through the mouth, through the nose, or through the veins. When sugar solutions are given intravenously, it is called intravenous feeding. So the hospital’s own terminology recognizes as feeding the process of putting nutrition into one’s system via the veins. Hence the attendant administering the transfusion is feeding the patient blood through the veins, and the patient receiving it is eating it through his veins. After all the artful contrivings and reasonings and quibblings are over, the bald fact remains that a goodly quantity of one creature’s blood has been deliberately taken into the system of another. That is what is forbidden by God, regardless of method."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Charles Russel was not around when the JW's took a stance on blood...we dont follow Brother Russel...we follow the bible.

but to answer your question, here is an answer from a 1956 ariticle on this question:

"A patient in the hospital may be fed through the mouth, through the nose, or through the veins. When sugar solutions are given intravenously, it is called intravenous feeding. So the hospital’s own terminology recognizes as feeding the process of putting nutrition into one’s system via the veins. Hence the attendant administering the transfusion is feeding the patient blood through the veins, and the patient receiving it is eating it through his veins. After all the artful contrivings and reasonings and quibblings are over, the bald fact remains that a goodly quantity of one creature’s blood has been deliberately taken into the system of another. That is what is forbidden by God, regardless of method."

Can you give a reasonable definition for "nutrition" that could possibly include transfused blood?

 

[Pegg]

Can you give a reasonable definition for "nutrition" that could possibly include transfused blood?

it is irrelevant because God forbids that we use another creatures blood for any purpose...all blood was to be poured into the ground...there was no acceptable use for it according to Gods laws and therefore its nutritional value is irrelevant in this context.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

it is irrelevant because God forbids that we use another creatures blood for any purpose...all blood was to be poured into the ground...there was no acceptable use for it according to Gods laws and therefore its nutritional value is irrelevant in this context.

So the article excerpt you just gave, which justified the JW stance on transfusions on the basis of them being "food" or "nutrition", was an irrelevant red herring?

 

[Pegg]

So the article excerpt you just gave, which justified the JW stance on transfusions on the basis of them being "food" or "nutrition", was an irrelevant red herring?

no, your question about nutritional value was a red herring

The comment in the article was answering a 'Question from Readers' asking how receiving a transfusion is like eating blood....many people say to us that they are two different things...transfusions are not 'eating' blood.

But let me ask this, say i have a bottle of liquid with a warning label on it that says 'Poison-do not eat'
Could I take it intravenously instead?... I wouldn't be eating it if i insert it directly into my veins so do you think the manufacturers of the poison would object to me using it in another way?

 

[Friend of Bill W]

The JW stance on blood is bonkers. They're not allowed whole blood, BUT they are allowed ALL THE DIFFERENT BLOOD PARTS, which funnily enough come from donated blood. Yet they themselves are not allowed to donate blood.

Also, at one time JWs were not allowed to have organ transplants; they called it cannibalism, but after a load of 'em died, this policy was changed and now they can have organ transplants. This proves that JW policy is not always correct first time.

But, because there's an awful lot of JWs in the US lining up with lawsuits against the JW organisation, the Watchtower will not change their stance; at present; but it will change.

Here is a good website set up by current JWs who wish to change the blood policy:

AJWRB presents - Jehovah's Witnesses, the Watchtower and NEW LIGHT ON BLOOD

I recommend that all JWs read its contents; it's well researched and has plenty of medical facts and doctrine discussions.

 

[Friend of Bill W]

Oh, just to add, JWs could have blood transfusions without a problem. And during WW2, in the USA, giving blood was seen as a hugely patriotic thing to do.

JWs do not do 'patriotism', and in 1945 the Watchtower implemented the blood doctrine citing a few vague Bible references to back up their claim. Acts 15 is one of them.

I believe this blood policy is based more on political reasons (because of their anti patriotic stance) than any good spiritual reason; and many people - including children - have died because of this.

 

[Friend of Bill W]

"A patient in the hospital may be fed through the mouth, through the nose, or through the veins. When sugar solutions are given intravenously, it is called intravenous feeding. So the hospital’s own terminology recognizes as feeding the process of putting nutrition into one’s system via the veins. Hence the attendant administering the transfusion is feeding the patient blood through the veins, and the patient receiving it is eating it through his veins. After all the artful contrivings and reasonings and quibblings are over, the bald fact remains that a goodly quantity of one creature’s blood has been deliberately taken into the system of another. That is what is forbidden by God, regardless of method."

This has medically been proven to be rubbish. Blood - given as a blood transfusion - acts more like an organ than a nutriment.

For proof of this, if you just gave someone blood transfusions and no other nutrition; the recipient would 'starve' to death.

Transfused blood does not act like intravenous feeding. FACT.

 

[Pegg]

This has medically been proven to be rubbish. Blood - given as a blood transfusion - acts more like an organ than a nutriment.

For proof of this, if you just gave someone blood transfusions and no other nutrition; the recipient would 'starve' to death.

Transfused blood does not act like intravenous feeding. FACT.

it doesnt get around the fact that the blood is not being poured onto the ground as directed by God.

The blood is being used in a way that is contrary to Gods law regarding one person taking the blood of another into their own body.

 

[Sententia]

A scenario that could arise.

Hi Mother so and so... your son fell on the porch and has lost a lot of blood. We have stabilized him and he should be fine so long as we give him 2 units of blood. I found this card in on him so I checked and it looks like your a match. Can you donate your own blood to your son to save him?

Sorry doc... God says no.

But you had this child in your body and physically attached to you.

Doc. Perhaps you do not understand. I will pray for him but under no circumstance shall you give him my blood or any other persons blood.

Maam your son will likely die quite painfully without a simple transfusion.

Give him some morphine.

Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Atheists, Agnostics, More moral Jehovah Witnesses all get to keep their son.

But Jehovah witness Zealots watch their kids die. Their kids that never celebrates a Christmas, birthday, Halloween or easter. Their kids that got to sit or leave the classroom when it came time to say the pledge of the allegiance.

The whole thing strikes me as immoral. If your kid needs blood to live, give it to them. Simple. Its not even a question... if your kid needs a bandaid then put one on. If he is cold clothe him and if he is hungry feed him.

 

[Sententia]

it doesnt get around the fact that the blood is not being poured onto the ground as directed by God.

The blood is being used in a way that is contrary to Gods law regarding one person taking the blood of another into their own body.

Ra never said anything like that nor did most christian versions of your god. Nor were blood transfusions even known about when the simpletons that recorded what you regard as the holy word of god were about.

This is quite simply an argument from ignorance to justify a supportive stance of the supernatural version of some fake deity who also struck children dead to punish their dad and who was so inept as to be unable to destroy iron chariots.

In any event you do eat blood as you are not vegetarian. But a little blood in my medium rare steak is fine so long as a little blood is not being injected to save a life. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Pegg]

Ra never said anything like that nor did most christian versions of your god. Nor were blood transfusions even known about when the simpletons that recorded what you regard as the holy word of god were about.

during the Trullan council held at Constantinople in 692 C.E., the following rule was set forth: “The eating of the blood of animals is forbidden in Holy Scripture. A cleric who partakes of blood is to be punished by deposition, a layman with excommunication.”
In the 12th century, clergyman Joseph Priestley (1733-1804) wrote: “In A.D. 1125, Otho, bishop of Bamberg, was instrumental in converting the Pomeranians . . . It deserves to be noticed, that, among the instructions given to these people relating to their new religion, they were forbidden to eat blood...”
Even Issac Newton wrote about the blood laws and seemed to understand that they required christians to reject blood.
The issue of the use of blood has been a part of christianity since the first century when it was written as a directive to those early christians.

 

[Sententia]

during the Trullan council held at Constantinople in 692 C.E., the following rule was set forth: “The eating of the blood of animals is forbidden in Holy Scripture. A cleric who partakes of blood is to be punished by deposition, a layman with excommunication.”
In the 12th century, clergyman Joseph Priestley (1733-1804) wrote: “In A.D. 1125, Otho, bishop of Bamberg, was instrumental in converting the Pomeranians . . . It deserves to be noticed, that, among the instructions given to these people relating to their new religion, they were forbidden to eat blood...”
Even Issac Newton wrote about the blood laws and seemed to understand that they required christians to reject blood.
The issue of the use of blood has been a part of christianity since the first century when it was written as a directive to those early christians.

Is this an attempted argument that the scribes that were influenced by the almighty to pen the books of bible which would later be interpreted by your religion to not accept blood transfusions and by 100s or others who use the same basis and allow it also knew about about blood transfusions?

They said don't eat it but witnesses still eat meat which still contains blood. Jews eat meat but go to ludicrous measures to insure no blood remains and still usually fail but there is no requirement for JWs to eat kosher food.

Your are honestly gonna chow down on a hamburger and thus consume blood but not allow blood to be injected to save a childs life? (As an aside if anyone keeps up on jewish laws etc... why does fish blood not contain the soul of the fish and why does the whole no blood thing only apply to mammals?)

To be clear... Your interpretation is one of hundreds and almost every other interpretation allows blood transfusions and there is large chance your interpretation on this fact is wrong. Why bet a kids life on the chance that this one facet of your religion is critical?

Just allow blood transfusions and if anyone says anything say well he was gonna die without it and that is that. Thats what my mom did and there was no dis-fellowshipping and really no problem at all.

Its an out dated belief and the lives of your kids are either worth more to you then your outdated and probably misunderstood beliefs or not and if not then you're immoral and wrong and I hope you never have to make that decision.

 

[Pegg]

Is this an attempted argument that the scribes that were influenced by the almighty to pen the books of bible which would later be interpreted by your religion to not accept blood transfusions and by 100s or others who use the same basis and allow it also knew about about blood transfusions?

no, its simply to show that JW's are not the only christians who have upheld the bibles stance on blood over the years.

They said don't eat it but witnesses still eat meat which still contains blood. Jews eat meat but go to ludicrous measures to insure no blood remains and still usually fail but there is no requirement for JWs to eat kosher food.

the way our meats are bled are sufficient...do you think Noah had some other way to obey Gods law to remove the blood other then hanging the animal upside down and allowing the blood to drain out?

To be clear... Your interpretation is one of hundreds and almost every other interpretation allows blood transfusions and there is large chance your interpretation on this fact is wrong. Why bet a kids life on the chance that this one facet of your religion is critical?

the stated laws have to do with blood. We readily accept transfusions of non-blood products...so the 'transfusion' part is not what we object to... its the 'blood' part.

 

[Friend of Bill W]

Pegg, your argument fails, since JWs are ALLOWED TO HAVE ALL BLOOD PARTS, which are derived from blood. You can't have whole blood in one go, but the Watchtower changed it's stance and you can have all the different parts of blood:

Here, have a read of this (it's produced by JWs against the blood policy)
6-15-04.shtml

Remember, the Watchtower got it wrong when they said organ transplant was cannibalism and then changed its tune and said, "Actually, no, you can have transplants now!"

I'm not a JW, but I have a JW friend who is active in trying to get this blood issue changed. He tells me that when he's in front of God, he is responsible for his conscience and that's why he's against the JW blood doctrine.

Not all JWs are unthinking robots; and that's a good thing.

 

[Pegg]

Pegg, your argument fails, since JWs are ALLOWED TO HAVE ALL BLOOD PARTS, which are derived from blood. You can't have whole blood in one go, but the Watchtower changed it's stance and you can have all the different parts of blood:
Here, have a read of this (it's produced by JWs against the blood policy)
6-15-04.shtml

That is quite incorrect if that is what they are saying. Here is an answer directly from the WT Society which addresses your point.

As transfusions of whole blood became common after World War II, Jehovah’s Witnesses saw that this was contrary to God’s law—and we still believe that. Yet, medicine has changed over time. Today, most transfusions are not of whole blood but of one of its primary components: (1) red cells; (2) white cells; (3) platelets; (4) plasma (serum), the fluid part. Depending on the condition of the patient, physicians might prescribe red cells, white cells, platelets, or plasma. Transfusing these major components allows a single unit of blood to be divided among more patients. Jehovah’s Witnesses hold that accepting whole blood or any of those four primary components violates God’s law. Significantly, keeping to this Bible-based position has protected them from many risks, including such diseases as hepatitis and AIDS that can be contracted from blood.

However, since blood can be processed beyond those primary components, questions arise about fractions derived from the primary blood components....The above material shows that Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse transfusions of both whole blood and its primary blood components. The Bible directs Christians to ‘abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from fornication.’ (Acts 15:29) Beyond that, when it comes to fractions of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful and prayerful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself.

The WT Society has maintained its stance against whole blood and the separated primary components of blood. It does not enforce an opinion on the 'blood fractions' and their use. It leaves it up to each individual to decide if they will accept them or not.

Remember, the Watchtower got it wrong when they said organ transplant was cannibalism and then changed its tune and said, "Actually, no, you can have transplants now!"

no, this is actually also a bit of a stretch. Have a look at the term 'Medical Cannibalism' and you'll see that it is a term used by some in the medical profession.

When organ transplants were in their infancy, many people were concerned that it amounted to cannibalism because people from various cultures have made it a practice to eat human flesh and drink human blood as a way to heal the sick. As doctors were now using body parts to treat the sick, it was easy to connect the two. It was with this fact in mind that they made this comment in a 1967 'Question from Readers'"Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others."
Now they were not wrong in that regard...eating human flesh and blood as a way of healing oneself was widely practiced in some cultures. However, even with this connection, they still made it a conscience matter for individuals to decide...they did not lay down a blanket rule over transplants:
"Whether wider use of such operations will be made, we do not know. Nor can we decide whether a Christian should accept some animal part as a transplant; that is for personal decision....Christians who have been enlightened by God’s Word do not need to make these decisions simply on the basis of personal whim or emotion. They can consider the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures and use these in making personal decisions as they look to God for direction"

I'm not a JW, but I have a JW friend who is active in trying to get this blood issue changed. He tells me that when he's in front of God, he is responsible for his conscience and that's why he's against the JW blood doctrine.

Not all JWs are unthinking robots; and that's a good thing.

well you know, we all feel the same way....we are all living by our consciences toward God and therefore I feel it is wrong of your friend to try and make me live by his conscience. If he wants to take in blood, he is free to do so...I wont try and stop him. But why is he trying to stop me?

 

[Friend of Bill W]

Jehovah’s Witnesses hold that accepting whole blood or any of those four primary components violates God’s law[/U]. Significantly, keeping to this Bible-based position has protected them from many risks, including such diseases as hepatitis and AIDS that can be contracted from blood.

I was going to post a load of pictures of children who have died because they did not receive a blood transfusion, but I feel that would be over dramatic. But your argument is invalid, since when blood is given it's normally because of severe traumatic circumstances where the patient is going to die.

Risks have to be weighed between the risk of losing life due to not getting a blood transfusion and the tiny risk of getting an infection from it. You're just using the routine fear-based scare tactics JWs routinely use when discussing this subject. If the risks outweighed the reward (of surviving a traumatic accident for example), then the medical profession wouldn't give blood. But they do, because there is a genuine medical need in many circumstances.

The WT Society has maintained its stance against whole blood and the separated primary components of blood. It does not enforce an opinion on the 'blood fractions' and their use. It leaves it up to each individual to decide if they will accept them or not.

No, the WTS has repeatedly changed it's stance with regards the blood issue.

This document explains the changes of the JW blood doctrine:

http://www.ajwrb.org/history/index.shtml#modern

And you yourself say that the WTS does not enforce an opinion on the 'blood fractions' and their use, and these blood fractions are DERIVED FROM WHOLE BLOOD, which totally contradicts your previous statement of:

it doesnt get around the fact that the blood is not being poured onto the ground as directed by God.

The blood is being used in a way that is contrary to Gods law regarding one person taking the blood of another into their own body.

So by taking blood fractions, surely that is contravening God's law because the blood is not being poured onto the ground; it's being split up first and then taken into a JWs body. This whole doctrine is a mess and kills people.

This site is a good read and explains a lot of stuff:

AJWRB presents - Jehovah's Witnesses, the Watchtower and NEW LIGHT ON BLOOD