Jehovah's Witnesses and Blood Transfusions

[BibleSteve]

Let’s say your doctor said that you were to “Abstain from alcohol”. How would you interpret this? Would this mean that you were no longer to drink alcohol? Would this mean that you would no longer be able to use alcohol as an antiseptic?

Yes, if a doctor told me to abstain from alcohol, I’d easily understand him to mean don’t put it your mouth, don’t inject it in your veins.

As for taking a substance I’ve been ask to abstain from and wiping it on an open cut, I’d likely use something else.

Steve

 

[BibleSteve]

I wonder how many apostate JW’s are out there that have to live with the pain of a lost child because while they were faithful JW’s, they refused their child a blood transfustion?

I wonder how many current JW’s are in the same position, and how they reconcile the pain with WTS beliefs?

My prayers go out to all in that situation.

brisbanetimes.com.au/news/health/are-transfusions-the-holy-grail-dont-take-it-as-read/2007/06/02/1180809381382.html

 

[BibleSteve]

How many individuals do you know who have reached this conclusion on blood transfusions from this Bible passage independently of the Watchtower Society? That speaks volumes to me.

Some people make their decisions based upon what other people do. If that is what makes sense to you, then that is fine… for you.

I’ve studied all the arguments on both sides and have made my own decision based on what I think, not what others think.

If the scripture specifically said: Abstain from Blood Transfusions, would you obey it,or break it if you thought your life was in danger?

Steve

 

[yessisan]

brisbanetimes.com.au/news/health/are-transfusions-the-holy-grail-dont-take-it-as-read/2007/06/02/1180809381382.html

Here we go again with the same thing. You already posted something quite similar to this with the same exact study. Don’t you have anything else? Two websites don’t prove you right.

 

[mikeledes]

Some people make their decisions based upon what other people do. If that is what makes sense to you, then that is fine… for you.

I’ve studied all the arguments on both sides and have made my own decision based on what I think, not what others think.

If the scripture specifically said: Abstain from Blood Transfusions, would you obey it,or break it if you thought your life was in danger?

Steve

If it were in the Bible and required for salvation, I would obey it. Fortunately its not and countless lives are unnecessarily put in danger by a doctrine that is not found in Scripture. Blood transfusions and “eating” blood are two different things. Jesus is God anyway so this is a moot point.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Bishopite]

Jesus left a clue to determine who his real followers were after the death of the apostles. Here it is:

(John 13:35) By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves.”

To the best of my knowledge there was lots of fighting, arguing, killing between various Christian sects.

Which group back then do you see clearly being distinguished with love among themselves and not killing the people who thought differently than them?

Steve

Another false reread of historical facts and an obvious obviscation of recognizing that there was only one church for at least a thousand years. You avoid the historical truth and if the Watchtower could it would produce evidence from the early church fathers writings that show their beliefs were as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, yet they can’t.

 

[BibleSteve]

Another false reread of historical facts and an obvious obviscation of recognizing that there was only one church for at least a thousand years.

I’ll work on find the reference. It wasn’t from a JW source. One of the articles on Wikipedia.

You believe there were not violent clashes between various groups of people professing to be Christian? I remember reading their were up to 80 different groups claiming to be Christian, all claiming different ideas.

There was no violence between these various groups?

Steve

 

[Yerusalyim]

Some people make their decisions based upon what other people do. If that is what makes sense to you, then that is fine… for you.

I’ve studied all the arguments on both sides and have made my own decision based on what I think, not what others think.

BULL HOCKEY, I’m calling FOUL. If you received a blood transfusion or allowed one of your children to do so you would be Disfellowshipped faster than you could say SPIT. It’s not a matter of conscience in your cult…it’s a matter of being shunned by everyone you know…you and countless thousands of others are held by fear.

Here’s the simple facts…you’ve swallowed hook, line, and sinker the BS put out by this group of geriatrics in Brooklyn who change things on a whim.

The NT said the gentile converts were to avoid eating blood…a transfusion is not eating blood…and that was an issue of CULTURAL SENSTATIVITY trying to keep unity between gentile and Jewish Christians…PERIOD. The BORG (Brooklyn Organization) used to mandate that receiving an organ transplant was a sin that merited being disfellowshipped…then changed…as it does so many of it’s doctrines.

Tell me Bible Steve…how many times has the Society changed it’s ruling on whether or not a woman who is raped but doesn’t scream should be disfellowshipped or not…any idea?

 

[RIBrett]

Cat, your post is very much appreciated! Thanks for posting this here. Maybe some JWs will see that the blood transfusions are not just a plain simple thing for “eating” it… as you stated, they are there to save lives.

Are Catholics going to see that they are following a MAN, the Pope? Are they going to stop believing that Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, even though Jesus said he was greater than his father and that his Father SENT him, and that he came to do his FATHER’S will? Probably not. So, it stands to reason that, since JW’s stand on blood is based on scripture, and actually a ‘healthful practice’ as well, they are not going to ‘SEE’ that it is about anything other than what the Bible says; to be ABSTAINED from. There are so many alternative procedures which work marvelously, and many hospitals now actually have developed bloodless surgery units which many besides Witnesses take advantage of. Just wanted you to know.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

RlBrett, hi, how are you?
Are you a JW? If you are, you are following the Governing Body’s interpretation of scripture, whom you refer to as the Faithful and Discreet Slave Class. You know that if you disagree with ANYTHING they publish, you will be disfellowshiped and shunned.

Catholics DO accept exCathedra doctrinal definitions of the Pope, but these are extremely rare. And Catholics are perfectly free to examine the scriptural and Apostolic Tradition (the oral teachings of the apostles which they left behind in all the ancient churches through the YEARS AND YEARS of sermon preaching, none of which is recorded in scripture but is testified to by the unanimous belief of the early Christians all over the empire in the writings they have left behind and the universal customs of every ancient church including those no longer in communion with Rome).

Catholics are following a man, in a sense, but that man is the gloriously resurrected God-Man, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal SON of the FATHER.

We DO believe that the Father and the Son share the same
divine nature. We do NOT believe that the Father and the Son are the same PERSON. The father eternally begets the Word or Son, which is why the Son is called only begotten or “monogenes in Greek,” which literally means only-generated one.

We give our assent to Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church, which Church all ancient history PROVES to be the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches also share in the great Catholic Heritage and are sadly separated from us because of largely cultural differences which came to a head
in 1054 A.D. Both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are working hard to understand each other where, in those certain rare areas which we disagree, and are working prayerfully for a hopeful re-unification.

Our doctrines go back to apostolic times.
Protestant doctrines appeared for the first time in history
in the 15th and 16th centuries.
JW and Mormon doctrines appeared for the first time in human history in the 19th Century.

We do not “follow a man.” The Bishop of Rome, commonly called the pope, can be shown historically to be the successor of St. Peter the apostle in Peter’s office of confirming the brethren in their faith. This office was established by Christ in the person of St. Peter, who personally appointed the first three men who were to serve him as Bishop of Rome after his death: Linus, Cletus, and Clement.

God bless you, RlBrett.
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Bishopite]

I’ll work on find the reference. It wasn’t from a JW source. One of the articles on Wikipedia.

You believe there were not violent clashes between various groups of people professing to be Christian? I remember reading their were up to 80 different groups claiming to be Christian, all claiming different ideas.

There was no violence between these various groups?

Steve

Sure there may have been violent clashes between groups who professed to be Christian, as I pointed out earlier there were many heretical groups against the Catholic church. The Arians were a violent group indeed, the Vikings were Arians and we know about them!
Disagreements aren’t foreign to scripture though, read Act 15:37-40 where Paul and Barnabas parted ways…
“Barnabas wanted to take with them also John, who was called Mark, but Paul insisted that they should not take with them someone who had deserted them at Pamphylia and who had not continued with them in their work. So sharp was their disagreement that they separated. Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus. But Paul chose Silas and departed after being commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord.”

Some Christians saw heresies as not just killing the body but moreover killing the soul, so to publicly proselytize for a heresy in the early church and middle ages wasn’t just to ruin the body or government but they considered it ruining the soul.
And were these groups to which you speak “Christian?”
I’m not sure since being Christian in the classical historical sense is believing in the Trinitarian baptism Mt 28:20, so it would depend on the group to which you are speaking. The early church was pretty much non-violent as you don’t see them going to war and it wasn’t until St. Augustine that the “just war theory” began. Isolated skurmishes happen everywhere; accusations also are everywhere some are without merit.
We all wish the world wasn’t filled with war and violence, but read the book of Exodus, Dueteronomy, Chronicles, Genesis, 1 and 2 Samuel about how God at times commanded the Israelites to fight.
And I understand why you put so much emphasis on non-violience as a prerequisite for being a follower of Jehovah because you are a pacifist as are JW’s, no military service, no fighting for ones country. If the Catholic church acted that way, we’d all be speaking Arabic, for it was the Catholic church that defended Christianity against the onslaught of Islam upon western Europe and the holy lands in the middle ages. There are times that it IS JUST to fight, just like of someone breaks into your home and attempts to rape and or murder your wife or child, you then have not only the right but more so the DUTY to protect your wife/child and if in the process you end up having to kill the intruder then you are completely justified to do so and so be it.

 

[TraditionalCath]

theage.com.au/news/national/are-transfusions-the-holy-grail-dont-take-it-as-read/2007/06/02/1180205580405.html

The above URL is for an article about a cardiovascular surgeon who thinks all patients shoudl be treated like JW’s because the survival rate on heart surgery for nontransfused patients is higher. (other studies have shown similar results for other types of procedures that would normally involve transfusion)

This does not mean doctors are bad, but as the article brings out transfusions have become a kind of religion among medical professionals (they’re only human) to the point they have become dogma without reason.

I believe this bears out the point that the Bible is truly God’s gift to man and a reliable guide for our lives that never goes out of date.

not true in all cases friend. a patient starts hemoraghing, what do you think the doctors give him? nothing? not likely. they’ll give him a blood transfusion and not let him lay there and die. even if they can’t control the bleeding, they will still give him a transfusion.

that surgeons opinion is his own, and not that of the entire medical community. witnesses belief in no blood is erroneous and not Scripturally based at all. 2000 years or more ago, blood transfusions were not even invented. Blood that is taken through a tube and goes into the veins is not absorbed by the body as food.
It replaces the lost hemoglobin from whatever caused the loss.

It is not chewed, nor does it go down the esophageous into the stomach and through the elimination process and out of the body
as we eat food. so once again, the witnesses belief in this is absolutely erroneous and false.

the society will be held accountable by God when the time comes to the massive loss of life because of a lack of a life saving blood transfusion, and i would not want to be in their shoes when that judgement comes down. no way. no thanks.

they have the deaths of thousands upon thousands on their hands because of their false beliefs about blood transfusions. all i can say is better get out of the false belief and embrace Christ Jesus
before the end comes because when it comes, they will be judged according to their works. and it will be too late. anyone not found in the Book of Life, well we all know where they go.

 

[TraditionalCath]

Which group back then do you see clearly being distinguished with love among themselves and not killing the people who thought differently than them?

Steve

not yours. your belief has been responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of men women and children for brainwashing them into refusing a life saving transfusion. period. that is not love. that is basically suicide. the witnesses themselves are told that if they take a transfusion, there is dire consequences for that action. that is blackmail and coercion. that is not love. not at all. do this or else! that is a threat and it is to me blackmail to use fear tactics of eternal anihilation if you take a blood transfusion, and furthermore, they also threaten to expel you from the congregation if you DARE to take a blood transfusion, and they also cut you off from friends and family within the congregation if you do not comply or repent for taking one. that is the worst sort of blackmail or emotional coercion. it is wrong. it is a sin to do that to someone. a sin, and it is despicable.

 

[JW_Annihilator]

The JWs got lucky with the blood transfusion issue, they made a heap of ridiculous bans on medical stuff in the early days and then kept the only one they could slightly back up at all. The most ridiculous thing is that you aren’t allowed to store your own blood before an operation. Id love to see how you JW apologists think banning this could possibly be of any medical benefit.

 

[BibleSteve]

Like I said before. If the Bible’s command said “Abstain from Sugar”, would it mean to stop putting it your mouth, but it would be OK to inject it in your veins?

 

[JW_Annihilator]

Like I said before. If the Bible’s command said “Abstain from Sugar”, would it mean to stop putting it your mouth, but it would be OK to inject it in your veins?

Should we literally follow every command in the old testament even though Jesus said we didn’t need to? I seem to recall the old testament commanded people who make false predictions in gods name should be put to death…

 

[TraditionalCath]

Like I said before. If the Bible’s command said “Abstain from Sugar”, would it mean to stop putting it your mouth, but it would be OK to inject it in your veins?

you taking this out of context. God said, do not eat or drink blood. that is actually eating itor drinking it it has nothing to do with using blood to save your life. nor does it have anything to do with using blood via a tube into your veins to save your life. there is no prohibition in the Bible in regards to using blood to save a life. none.

you society adds it own belief in regards to blood. and as i explained carefully to you, the blood is not absorbed by the body as food, no one is eating it or drinking it either, so your statement is absurd.

one other thing, jw’s can allow blood to be put through a tube and resent back to the body to filter the blood of toxins such as in the case of diabetics. if there is a prohibition on blood, then that also includes this because this is basically transfusing the blood via a tube that goes back into the body. you can technical jargon it all you like. the fact is, the blood leaves the body is and is resent back via a tube, so that is in effect a transfusion. whether it be your blood or someone else,. the fact is, this blood leaves the body and is resent back by a same type of tube that is used to transfuse your own blood or someone else’s blood by a transfusion. jw’s governing body are absolute hypocrites in regards to blood transfusions and this medical procedure. hypocrites steve. if they say that blood is not to re-enter the body once it leaves, then that is the way it is period. this also includes this procedure.

 

[JW_Annihilator]

one other thing, jw’s can allow blood to be put through a tube and resent back to the body to filter the blood of toxins such as in the case of diabetics. if there is a prohibition on blood, then that also includes this because this is basically transfusing the blood via a tube that goes back into the body. you can technical jargon it all you like. the fact is, the blood leaves the body is and is resent back via a tube, so that is in effect a transfusion. whether it be your blood or someone else,. the fact is, this blood leaves the body and is resent back by a same type of tube that is used to transfuse your own blood or someone else’s blood by a transfusion. jw’s governing body are absolute hypocrites in regards to blood transfusions and this medical procedure. hypocrites steve. if they say that blood is not to renter the body once it leaves, then that is the way it is period. this also includes this procedure.

Some more fanatical ones say they wont even do this, though you wont get shunned for it if I recall correctly.

 

[BibleSteve]

Should we literally follow every command in the old testament even though Jesus said we didn’t need to? I seem to recall the old testament commanded people who make false predictions in gods name should be put to death…

We are talking about the NT command here:

(Acts 15:28-29) For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29*to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication.

 

[BibleSteve]

you taking this out of context. God said, do not eat or drink blood. that is actually eating itor drinking it it has nothing to do with using blood to save your life. nor does it have anything to do with using blood via a tube into your veins to save your life. there is no prohibition in the Bible in regards to using blood to save a life. none. .

Simple question. If Acts 15:28, 29 said “Abstain from Sugar”, would you interpret that to mean you could inject sugar into your veins?