Ask about Jehovah's Witnesses

[Rainbow Mage]

So Pegg what is the Witness take on evolution? Is evolution taught as being a means by which God created, or are individual witnesses allowed to think that?

 

[Pegg]

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.

and there are genuine alternatives to blood too. Its not as if the medical profession only have blood on the shelf...they have a whole range of alternative products designed to do exactly the same thing as blood does - increase fluids.

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:

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.

blood fractions are a conscience matter because of the very fact that they are not derived from whole blood. As an example, the plasma is 90 percent water and from that technicians can isolate and use many of the ingredients found in it such as hormones, inorganic salts, enzymes, and proteins as albumin and antibodies to fight diseases. Once these products are isolated in this way, it is no longer blood. This is why some JW's will accept these types of products, but others will continue to refuse them.
The point is that it is up to individuals to decide...the WT do not forbid the use of them nor do they condone the use of them.

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

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

thankyou, i saw that before and a had a quick look but honestly, their reasoning skewif and i only had to read 2 paragraphs.

 

[Friend of Bill W]

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?

I think he feels it's his duty to protect the lives of innocent children, many of whom have been killed by bad JW doctrine that seems to keep changing with 'new light'. He's a genuine fella - I know a lot of JWs and they're all nice people - (I have no personal axe to grind), but if you read up on the reasons why the WTS have adopted the stance they have taken, you will see that it's a mess, and could be more political than spiritual.

That's not to say that your whole religion is wrong; just this doctrine; since it does really kill people.

 

[Pegg]

So Pegg what is the Witness take on evolution? Is evolution taught as being a means by which God created, or are individual witnesses allowed to think that?

the stance of the WT has always been and, i imagine, will always be that God created mankind from the dust, and created each animal kind.

This is because within each Genesis 'kind' there can be several species. If two animals can reproduce, they are of the same genesis 'kind' and for that reason we accept that evolution occurs within each 'kind' (hence why there are a great variety of cats or dogs or horses) And humans are a good example of how evolution works very well within a kind. There are many different varieties of humans on earth, but we are all of the same kind and we can all interbreed.

But we do not believe that God used evolution to bring all the different animal kinds to life.

 

[Pegg]

I think he feels it's his duty to protect the lives of innocent children, many of whom have been killed by bad JW doctrine that seems to keep changing with 'new light'.

Im sure his heart is in the right place, even if it is a little misguided.

He's a genuine fella - I know a lot of JWs and they're all nice people - (I have no personal axe to grind), but if you read up on the reasons why the WTS have adopted the stance they have taken, you will see that it's a mess, and could be more political than spiritual.
That's not to say that your whole religion is wrong; just this doctrine; since it does really kill people.

I really do not believe it is political. Blood has been an issue for christians since the Apostles gave the instructions that christians were required to keep themselves from blood in the first century.

And its not this doctrine that kills people. Its our alienation from God that kills people. Obeying Gods laws and accepting his rulership in our life is what brings us closer to God.

 

[Friend of Bill W]

Thanks, Pegg, I'll not beat up on you any more with regards the blood issue. We can agree to disagree and yet still be agreeable 'n' all that malarky.

 

[Friend of Bill W]

Okay, here's a genuine question. What's the score with the United Nations? I think you believe this organisation will kind of take over the World, ban all religion, and persecute JWs.

I may be incorrect here (without Googling I can't remember all the ins and outs).

Does the WTS still believe this?

 

[Pegg]

Thanks, Pegg, I'll not beat up on you any more with regards the blood issue. We can agree to disagree and yet still be agreeable 'n' all that malarky.

Thankyou, i appreciate it

I was just watching a news program tonight and they did an interview with a young family up in Queensland who lost their young baby in the recent floods. I can completely understand why our stance on blood is such a major issue to many people...the loss of a young one is a tragedy beyond words under any circumstance...but moreso when there is the chance to save a child.

I guess our mindset is that life belongs to God and God can restore a person/child to life...this is what gets us through...its not because we want to risk death to prove ourselves or to be martyrs. Obedience in the face of death has always been what christians have done.

 

[Pegg]

Okay, here's a genuine question. What's the score with the United Nations? I think you believe this organisation will kind of take over the World, ban all religion, and persecute JWs.

I may be incorrect here (without Googling I can't remember all the ins and outs).

Does the WTS still believe this?

the UN is a world power in that it represents all the nations and their governments...it acts as an entity in the world and according to our understanding, it is the 'wild beast' of Revelation....the final world power.

Our current understanding is that this world power will bring down religion in some way...it may put such restrictions on religious organizations so that they cease to function or it may be some other way, we wont know until it acts. Of course JW's will be included in the onslaught...so yes, we fully expect the UN to cause us trouble as well.

 

[averageJOE]

Balance brought up a good point, are witnesses not allowed to eat a medium-rare stake? Because you would be clearly eating blood if you did.

But more importantly, witnesses claim that refusing blood is god's law, but this law wasn't recognized until 1945. Who was it that read the bible and had this sudden epiphany? If it was god's law it would seem to me that it would have always been clear on the subject. (I just don't understand that if blood is so sacred that it would have to be spilled on the floor and wasted, like urine.)

 

[Pegg]

Balance brought up a good point, are witnesses not allowed to eat a medium-rare stake? Because you would be clearly eating blood if you did.

again I ask, if Noah was able to bleed the animal sufficiently for God to give his approval to eat the meat, then our method of bleeding the animal is also sufficient

once the blood ceases to come out of the animal, it can be considered to be properly bled....the meat that remains is suitable for eating as it was for Noah and the Isrealites

But more importantly, witnesses claim that refusing blood is god's law, but this law wasn't recognized until 1945. Who was it that read the bible and had this sudden epiphany? If it was god's law it would seem to me that it would have always been clear on the subject. (I just don't understand that if blood is so sacred that it would have to be spilled on the floor and wasted, like urine.)

the knowlege of the blood law has been there for a very long time and has often been focused on by various christians, not only JWs.

I posted this on the previous page:

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Did you bother to read your article?

Please pay attention to the parts that I've highlighted:

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.

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?

Depends on the actual effects of the material.

In the case of, say, chemotherapy drugs, the answer would be "yes" when they're taken for their intended purpose.

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.

Wait one minute: blood isn't "poured onto the ground as directed by God" in any hospital procedure. If blood is spilled, it's collected as biohazardous material and disposed of... usually by incineration.

the way our meats are bled are sufficient...

Partial adherence to God's law is "sufficient"? Blood is still present in some quantity in all meat.

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?

Dunno; does it matter? If Noah broke God's law, do you think this would give you permission to copy him?

However, it may be a moot point, since I can't recall the Bible ever saying that Noah ate meat at all. You can't necessarily assume that Noah ate blood-containing meat (i.e. any meat).

 

[Pegg]

Dunno; does it matter? If Noah broke God's law, do you think this would give you permission to copy him?

However, it may be a moot point, since I can't recall the Bible ever saying that Noah ate meat at all. You can't necessarily assume that Noah ate blood-containing meat (i.e. any meat).

the account is in Genesis 9:1 And God went on to bless Noah and his sons and to say to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.... 3 Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. 4 Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat"

Noah was given permission to eat meat but the blood had to be removed first. that law was given also to the isrealites and later the Apostles of Christ also made this a binding command upon christians

eating meat is acceptable if the blood is properly removed and disposed of...this is how our meats are handled and it makes them suitable for consumption.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

So Jehovah's Witnesses believe eating rare steaks for example to also be forbidden?

 

[Pegg]

So Jehovah's Witnesses believe eating rare steaks for example to also be forbidden?

no not at all

how one likes to eat their meat is a personal choice. As long as the meat has been properly bled and not strangled, then it is suitable to eat.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

the account is in Genesis 9:1 And God went on to bless Noah and his sons and to say to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.... 3 Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for YOU. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to YOU. 4 Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat"

Noah was given permission to eat meat but the blood had to be removed first.

But the blood can't be completely removed. This command is kinda like saying "you can drive any car you want, but don't use gasoline."

Frankly, I see the JW position as fundamentally hypocritical. I find it bizarre that you would take a commandment not to eat blood and interpret it so that it doesn't condemn literally eating literal blood (as in the case of the residual blood in all meat) but does condemn blood transfusion, a procedure that doesn't involve eating at all.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about Baptism and Communion? How do they believe the Holy Spirit is imparted to a person?

 

[Sententia]

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.

But you will eat blood but will not allow blood to be transfused to save a child? (Jews obviously go through a lot more trouble to insure blood removal then Witnesses) They justify the act in a similar fashion yet are perfectly fine with Blood Transfusions...

It seems like a silly argument in that most witnesses that had blood transfusions to save their lives to my knowledge remained jehovah witnesses. (Well they werent kicked out... put it that way)

Silly I guess until your life actually hangs in the balance. The Effect of that decision will either lead to life or unto death.

 

[Pegg]

What do Jehovah's Witnesses believe about Baptism and Communion? How do they believe the Holy Spirit is imparted to a person?

baptism is for those who have made a conciencous decision to do the will of God. For that reason we dont baptize our children. We bring them up and teach them our beliefs, but we leave it to them to decide if they will become a JW. And before one can be baptized they need to show that they are willing to live by christian standards, they need to know the basics of Gods laws and requirements and be willing to comply with them.

Communion as practiced in other churches is different to how we observe it. We have a yearly memorial of Christs death in which only 'annointed' christians partake of the wine and bread. Everyone else is an observer only. This is because the wine and bread was given only to Jesus Apostles because he invited them into the heavenly kingdom to serve as priests and kings... as most of us will be earthly subjects of that kingdom, we dont partake of the emblems.

 

[Pegg]

But you will eat blood but will not allow blood to be transfused to save a child? (Jews obviously go through a lot more trouble to insure blood removal then Witnesses) They justify the act in a similar fashion yet are perfectly fine with Blood Transfusions...

thats not really the case and to assume that eating any meat at all is contrary to Gods laws about not eating blood simply ignores the fact that God permitted mankind to eat meat in the first place.

the process of draining the blood out is sufficient and in harmony with Gods requirement about blood. We are in no way superstitious about blood, if we were we might all be vegetarians.