I am finding this hard to understand. If a child, for example, needs a transfusion to survive a surgery, would n't he die? How is that different from murder? It is a damaging doctrine bestowed on them from skewed scripture mentality. There are various places in the Torah which prohibit the use of blood from animals, for instance Deuteronomy 12:16. These prohibitions are used by the Jews to forbid the consumption of meat from animals which have not been bled. Jehovah's Witnesses interpret them as meaning that blood may not be used in blood transfusions, and to some extent other situations such as the replacement of clotting factors for haemophiliacs and blood products used in vaccines. Although i don't think this is what the Bible meant, and in fact see this as very much interpreting against the grain of what it meant, it has led to a situation where much research has been done into bloodless surgery and other ways of avoiding blood transfusions, and this is a positive thing. It is now more widely recognised that when people have blood transfusions it is a little like an organ transplant and it often causes problems and slows recovery. Blood in surgery can be returned to circulation and plasma expanders can be used to keep the volume of the blood up. In other situations, the patient can simply recuperate, and there are also natural substances, such as erythropoietin, which can be used to boost blood production by the bone marrow.
Having said that, there are situations where blood transfusions can save lives, and the main point of pouring the blood on the ground, as the Torah says, is probably to preserve its fertility for future generations, so i wouldn't say the Bible really prohibits it. Even so, it isn't quite as harsh as it sounds. Alternatives to Blood Transfusion
Over the past six years, Hospital Liaison Committees for Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses worldwide have distributed tens of thousands of copies of the video program Transfusion-Alternative Strategies鈥擲imple, Safe, Effective in some 25 languages to those within the medical community.* The program shows world-renowned physicians discussing effective strategies currently used to treat patients without blood transfusions. People are taking note. For example, after viewing the program in late 2001, the National Blood Service (NBS) in the United Kingdom sent a letter with a copy of this video to all blood-bank managers and consultant hematologists throughout the country. They were encouraged to watch the program because of 鈥渋ncreasing recognition that one of the aims of good clinical care is to avoid blood transfusion wherever possible.鈥?The letter acknowledged that 鈥渢he general message [in the video] is praiseworthy and is one the NBS strongly supports.鈥?br>
--------------------------------------...
Scripture is clear that we should not 'eat' blood. They understand receiving a transfusion to be a violation of that prohibition. I was told many years ago that blood transfusions were almost totally unnecessary, for with ringers lactate, and oxygen, a reasonably healthy person could be kept alive until they could make more blood. Life is a terminal condition. All die. The important thing is to be ready for the judgment when you do. The Bible says to abstain from blood. God considers blood sacred. It represents the precious gift of life.
**For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you! -- Acts 25:28,29
**Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. -- Acts 15:19,20
**Only flesh with its soul鈥攊ts blood鈥攜ou must not eat. -- Genesis 9:4
**That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: 鈥淣o soul of YOU must eat blood and no alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst should eat blood. -- Leviticus 17
It is true that lately the number of health risks carried by blood transfusions has declined but they are still highly risky. It is much safer to perform a surgery without using blood.
*http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/article_0... Ironically, the fact remains undisputed that many MULTIPLES more have died as a direct or indirect result of a blood transfusion than have died from a conscientious decision to pursue other medical treatments.
Fair-minded healthcare experts admit that the medical technologies exist to treat literally every illness and injury without resorting to the old-fashioned infusion of whole blood, plasma, platelets, or red/white blood cells. Perhaps pro-blood activists (and/or anti-Witness critics) ignore the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses accept all minor blood fractions, so if there is some targeted need then a Witness will accept a targeted treatment (the only objections are to those four components which approximate actual blood).
It is not Jehovah's Witnesses who decide that blood is sacred. It is Almighty God who declares it so, as the Divine Author of the Holy Bible!
As God's spokesman and as Head of the Christian congregation, Jesus Christ made certain that the early congregation reiterated, recorded, and communicated renewed Christian restrictions against the misuse of blood.
Jehovah's Witnesses are not anti-medicine or anti-technology, and they do not have superstitious ideas about some immortal "soul" literally encapsulated in blood. Instead, as Christians, the Witnesses seek to obey the very plain language of the bible regarding blood.
As Christians, they are bound by the bible's words in "the Apostolic Decree". Ironically, this decree was the first official decision communicated to the various congregations by the twelve faithful apostles (and a handful of other "older men" which the apostles had chosen to add to the first century Christian governing body in Jerusalem). God and Christ apparently felt (and feel) that respect for blood is quite important.
Here is what the "Apostolic Decree" said, which few self-described Christians obey or even respect:
.. ..(Acts 15:20) Write them [the various Christian congregations] to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
.. ..(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. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper.
Quite explicitly, the Apostolic Decree plainly forbids the misuse of blood by Christians (despite the fact that nearly every other provision of former Jewish Mosaic Law was recognized as unnecessary). It seems odd therefore, that literally one Christian religion continues to teach that humans must not use blood for any purpose other than honoring Almighty God.
A better question would ask: How can other self-described Christian religions justify the fact that they don't even care if their adherents drink blood and eat blood products?
Jehovah's Witnesses recognize the repeated bible teaching that blood is specially "owned" by God, and must not be used for any human purpose. Witnesses do not have any superstitious aversion to testing or respectfully handling blood, and Witnesses believe these Scriptures apply to blood and the four primary components which approximate "blood". An individual Jehovah's Witness is likely to accept a targeted treatment for a targeted need, including a treatment which includes a minor fraction derived from plasma, platelets, and/or red/white blood cells. Something about the Old Testament saying that life is in the blood (I think it's in Exodus or Leviticus) and this somehow prohibits blood-transfusions. (Don't ask me how, I'm not a JW)
Somehow, I would be even more willing to give blood if the Bible says life is in the blood. It's means you are giving the person (or saving the person's) life (which you are). Also, Jesus gave all of His blood for all of us. No. It is Not Murder.
If a Dr., gave your child blood and
the child dies anyways, Is That Murder? No.
No, Dr., on the planet will guarantee that if you
do receive a B.T., YOU WILL LIVE.
Because that is just NOT Realistic!
You could still die, anyways.
God and men view things in very different lights.
What appears important in our eye is very often
of no account in the estimation of infinite wisdom;
and what appears trifling to us is often
of very great importance with God.
It was so from the beginning.--
An Enquiry Into the Lawfulness of Eating Blood,"
Alexander Pirie, 1787.
It's not "the religion" that "does not permit BT's."
It is the word of God, the Holy Bible that says to
"abstain from blood."~Acts 15:1-21.
If you carefully keep yourselves from these things,
you will prosper. Good health to you!"~Acts 15:29
So, whether a Dr., is adding or taking away;
we are to "abstain."
Human blood has great significance
and should not be misused.
The only life saving blood that there ever was, ever will be,
is Jesus' shed blood.
The true God, Himself, said regarding the use of blood:
"If anyone of the house of Israel or the strangers
who reside among them partakes of any blood,
I will set my face against the person
who partakes of the blood,
and I will cut him off from among his kin.
For the life of the flesh is in the blood."~ Lev 17:10,11
Contrary to how some today reason,
God's law on blood was not to be ignored
just because an emergency arose.
During a wartime crisis,
some Israelite soldiers killed animals and
"fell to eating along with the blood."
In view of the emergency,
was it permissible for them to sustain their lives with blood?
No.
Their commander pointed out that their course
was a grave wrong.~ 1Sam 14:31-35
Hence, precious as life is,
our Life-Giver Never said His standards Could be ignored
in an emergency.
By adhering to these words, that are for our own benefit,
we set a pattern of respect for life and blood.
Do you not respect those who put principle
above personal gain?
Scientist Joseph Priestly concluded:
....we cannot but conclude,
that it was intended to be absolute and perpetual;
for blood was not to be eaten by any Christians
for many centuries."
Dr.'s the world over are turning to this alternative.
because it is safer, for the patient.
J's Witnesses stand on the non-blood issue;
has paved the way for all of mankind to be better informed
of healthy alternatives, for better health care.
Many non- J's W's are accepting this
alternative medical care.
For who wants tainted blood.
Dead blood put inside of YOU.
"Blood Transfusions: Uses, Abuses, Hazards,"
Dr. Douglas H. Posey,Jr.,
Journal of the National Medical Association, July 1989.
"Case Builds Against Transfusions,"
Medical World News, Dec. 11, 1989.
The journal "Cancer" Feb 15, 1987
A cumulative 5-yr overall survival of
48% for the transfused and
74% for the nontransfused patients.
Physicans at USC followed up on 100 patients
who underwent cancer surgery.
"The reoccurence rate for all cancers of the larynx
was 14% for those who did not receive blood and
65% for those who did.
For cancer of the oral cavity, pharynx, and nose or sinus,
the reoccurence rate was 31% without transfusions
and 71% with transfusions."
--Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology, March 1989
What do such studies suggest regarding transfusions?
In his article "Blood Transfusions and Surgery for Cancer."
Dr. John S. Spratt concluded:
"The cancer surgeon may need
to become a bloodless surgeon."--
The American Journal of Surgery, Sept. 1986 Jehovah's witnesses get this teaching from verses like
Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. Acts 15:20
The question was brought to the leaders in Jerusalem about whether the Gentiles should be forced to obey Jewish customs/laws. The answer was no, but the leaders just gave a few basic commands...and one of them involved blood. The restriction against blood goes back to Leviticus 17, where the EATING of blood was prohibited. So this is obviously what is meant in verses like Acts 15:20. Blood transfusions is never addressed in the Bible since the procedure wasn't known back then.
I think we should remember how Jesus approached the Pharisees in the Gospels. He was questioned for healing on the Sabbath. Jesus asnwer was:
Then Jesus said to them, "I ask you, which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to destroy it?" Luke 6:9
So I think the answer would be, wouldn't Jesus want to save life if transfusions are available?
**** To the reviewer that says Jesus respected blood****
He did indeed respect blood. He placed high value in it. But instead of teaching us to NOT partake in the blood, He tells us that life is FOUND in the blood - His blood. He tells us that without "drink[ing] his blood", there is "no life in" us. How does that square with JWs teachings???
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 NIV There are a number of biblical quotations about not consuming blood. The JWs have interpreted these as being a prohibition against blood transfusions as well, which is why the don't permit them.
The blood symbolizes life and stuff. You're not supposed to give it to other people and junk. Here's their official website:
http://www.watchtower.org/ This question is getting old, only 10% of those refusing blood are witnesses.
As for people claiming that abstaining (Acts 15:20) only refers to eating, does that mean that only oral sex is bad and that all other forms of fornication are okay? The scripture also says to abstain from immorality.
UCLA now performs bloodless transplants. Google 鈥淏loodless Surgery鈥?and you will find 150 hospitals now offer bloodless options to all their patients.
There is so much in the Bible that they could not have understood the science behind why something should or should not be done. In our modern times, we are learning just how the science fits. A good example was when God instructed his people to no longer allow marriages between close relatives. They didn鈥檛 understand what genetics was, or why for 2000 years it was okay, and than it wasn鈥檛. Now, we know why.
Another example is circumcises. When God instructed Israel to begin doing this, they didn鈥檛 know the science behind the why of it, now we do.
There is no safe blood transfusion, even if there is no infectious agent present in it. These studies are less than a year old:
Study Finds Stored Blood Lacks Nitric Oxide, May Trigger Heart Attacks, Strokes in Transfusion Recipients
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3003...
Duration of Red-Cell Storage and Complications after Cardiac Surgery
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/shor...
Increased Mortality, Postoperative Morbidity, and Cost After Red Blood Cell Transfusion in Patients Having Cardiac Surgery
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/...
How many may have died as a result of the transfusion, but the family was told they simply died of a heart attack?
Further, every transfusion lowers the body's immune response in the exact same manner as AIDS does. There may or may not be any connection, but the fact is it leaves you open very RARE diseases, just like AIDS. It still requires coming into contact with the disease for it to become a problem.
That aside, there is the growing problems with contamination of the blood supply.
I'm a taxi cab driver in Kansas City. Ask most any cab driver or taxi passenger in the area who Papa Bear is and they will tell you.
In 2006, there was a conference here of reps of Blood Services, from all over the world. They were here to learn a new labeling system. Up until than, there was no uniform labeling system for blood, causing mismatches and other problems.
I had some passengers from London and I asked them about an article I read that England was importing thousands of pinks of blood a year from the U.S. because of contamination of their local supply by Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (Mad Cow). They said they were, but the practice has been discontinued, as the U.S. supply was no longer considered safe within the parameters they set, in other words, what is an allowable percentage of contamination.
They now get it from Australia. Apparently, Canadian is also not considered safe. She said we are fooling ourselves if we think our supply was anywhere near being safe. There are no tests for Mad Cow that can be done on blood. It can only be confirmed after death. There has also been an increasing rate of viral zoonotic (Rabies).
The sale of blood and blood products is big money, to where there is a growing problem with over bleeding of those who donate or sell their blood. When you over bleed, the immune system gets activated, causing a production of chemicals to create clots. That can be a problem for those receiving the blood, to suddenly get a blockage in a vein.
It should also be noted that strict Judaism also believes the blood is the soul, which is why when there is terrorist bombing, they clean up every last bit of blood to be buried, even chipping up the roads.
The fact is that what the Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses have done for over 50 years has made the care of patients safer. It is why you must give permission to have your child treated. There is also one benefit of their work for those who do take transfusions. It had driven down the cost of blood as corporations compete to get hospitals to buy from them.
So, if people want to hide their heads and think their safe, go right ahead, but I'll stay with the 90% of non-JWs who are also refusing blood, as I did two weeks ago.
Quality Alternatives to Transfusion
http://www.watchtower.org/e/hb/index.htm...
SHOWING RESPECT FOR BLOOD
10 After Cain killed his brother Abel, Jehovah told Cain: 鈥淵our brother鈥檚 blood is crying out to me from the ground.鈥?(Genesis 4:10) When God spoke of Abel鈥檚 blood, he was speaking of Abel鈥檚 life. Cain had taken Abel鈥檚 life, and now Cain would have to be punished. It was as if Abel鈥檚 blood, or life, were crying out to Jehovah for justice. The connection between life and blood was again shown after the Flood of Noah鈥檚 day. Before the Flood, humans ate only fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts. After the Flood, Jehovah told Noah and his sons: 鈥淓very 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.鈥?However, God set this restriction: 鈥淥nly flesh with its soul [or, life]鈥攊ts blood鈥攜ou must not eat.鈥?(Genesis 1:29; 9:3,聽4) Clearly, Jehovah links very closely the life and the blood of a creature.
11 We show respect for blood by not eating it. In the Law that Jehovah gave the Israelites, he commanded: 鈥淎s for any man .聽.聽. who in hunting catches a wild beast or a fowl that may be eaten, he must in that case pour its blood out and cover it with dust. .聽.聽. I said to the sons of Israel: 鈥榊ou must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh.鈥欌€?(Leviticus 17:13,聽14) God鈥檚 command not to eat animal blood, first given to Noah some 800 years earlier, was still in force. Jehovah鈥檚 view was clear: His servants could eat animal meat but not the blood. They were to pour the blood on the ground鈥攊n effect, returning the creature鈥檚 life to God.
12 A similar command rests upon Christians. The apostles and other men taking the lead among Jesus鈥?followers in the first century met together to decide what commands had to be obeyed by all in the Christian congregation. They came to this conclusion: 鈥淭he holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [leaving the blood in the meat] and from fornication.鈥?(Acts 15:28,聽29; 21:25) So we must 鈥榢eep abstaining from blood.鈥?In God鈥檚 eyes, our doing that is as important as our avoiding idolatry and sexual immorality.
13 Does the command to abstain from blood include blood transfusions? Yes. To illustrate: Suppose a doctor were to tell you to abstain from alcoholic beverages. Would that simply mean that you should not drink alcohol but that you could have it injected into your veins? Of course not! Likewise, abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all. So the command to abstain from blood means that we would not allow anyone to transfuse blood into our veins.
14 What if a Christian is badly injured or is in need of major surgery? Suppose doctors say that he must have a blood transfusion or he will die. Of course, the Christian would not want to die. In an effort to preserve God鈥檚 precious gift of life, he would accept other kinds of treatment that do not involve the misuse of blood. Hence, he would seek such medical attention if that is available and would accept a variety of alternatives to blood.
15 Would a Christian break God鈥檚 law just to stay alive a little longer in this system of things? Jesus said: 鈥淲hoever wants to save his soul [or, life] will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it.鈥?(Matthew 16:25) We do not want to die. But if we tried to save our present life by breaking God鈥檚 law, we would be in danger of losing everlasting life. We are wise, then, to put our trust in the rightness of God鈥檚 law, with full confidence that if we die from any cause, our Life-Giver will remember us in the resurrection and restore to us the precious gift of life.鈥擩ohn 5:28,聽29; Hebrews 11:6.
16 Today, faithful servants of God firmly resolve to follow his direction regarding blood. They will not eat it in any form. Nor will they accept blood for medical reasons. They are sure that the Creator of blood knows what is best for them. Do you believe that he does?
THE ONLY PROPER USE OF BLOOD
17 The Mosaic Law emphasized the one proper use of blood. Regarding the worship required of the ancient Israelites, Jehovah commanded: 鈥淭he soul [or, life] of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement.鈥?(Leviticus 17:11) When the Israelites sinned, they could obtain forgiveness by offering an animal and having some of its blood put on the altar at the tabernacle or later at God鈥檚 temple. The only proper use of blood was in such sacrifices.
18 True Christians are not under the Mosaic Law and therefore do not offer animal sacrifices and put the blood of animals on an altar. (Hebrews 10:1) However, the use of blood on the altar in the days of ancient Israel pointed forward to the precious sacrifice of God鈥檚 Son, Jesus Christ. As we learned in Chapter聽5 of this book, Jesus gave his human life for us by lett Let us share with them the vision of the resurrection day when people of all former nations, generation after generation, will be welcoming their lost loved ones back from the dead into a new world. What a prospect! What tears of joy will be shed then as we recall that Jehovah is indeed the God 鈥渨ho comforts those laid low鈥?鈥? Corinthians 7:6.
BLOOD.......God鈥檚 Firm Stand on Blood
4 Blood is mentioned more than 400 times in God鈥檚 Word, the Bible. Among the earliest is Jehovah鈥檚 decree: 鈥淓verything that lives and moves will be food for you. . . . But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.鈥?He added: 鈥淔or your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting.鈥?(Genesis 9:3-5, New International Version) Jehovah said that to Noah, progenitor of the human family. Hence, all humanity was put on notice that the Creator views blood as standing for life. Everyone who claims to recognize God as Life-Giver ought thus to recognize that He takes a firm position about using lifeblood.
5 God again mentioned blood when giving Israel its Law code. Leviticus 17:10, 11, according to the Jewish Tanakh version, reads: 鈥淚f anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who reside among them partakes of any blood, I will set My face against the person who partakes of the blood, and I will cut him off from among his kin. For the life of the flesh is in the blood.鈥?That law could have health benefits, but much more was involved. By treating blood as special, the Israelites were to show their dependence on God for life. (Deuteronomy 30:19, 20) Yes, the central reason why they were to avoid taking in blood was, not that it could be unhealthy, but that blood had special meaning to God.
6 Where does Christianity stand on saving human life with blood? Jesus knew what his Father said about using blood. Jesus 鈥渄id no wrong, [and] no treachery was found on his lips.鈥?That means he kept the Law perfectly, including the law about blood. (1 Peter 2:22, Knox) He thus set a pattern for his followers, including a pattern of respect for life and blood.
7 History shows us what happened later when a council of the Christian governing body decided whether Christians had to keep all of Israel鈥檚 laws. Under divine guidance, they said that Christians are not obliged to keep the Mosaic code but that it is 鈥渘ecessary鈥?to 鈥渒eep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled [unbled meat] and from fornication.鈥?(Acts 15:22-29) They thus made it clear that avoiding blood is as morally important as avoiding idolatry and gross immorality.
8 The early Christians upheld that divine prohibition. Commenting thereon, British scholar Joseph Benson said: 鈥淭his prohibition of eating blood, given to Noah and all his posterity, and repeated to the Israelites . . . has never been revoked, but, on the contrary, has been confirmed under the New Testament, Acts xv.; and thereby made of perpetual obligation.鈥?Yet, would what the Bible says about blood rule out modern medical uses, such as transfusions, which clearly were not used in Noah鈥檚 day or in the apostles鈥?time?
Blood in or as Medicine
9 Medicinal use of blood is by no means modern. The book Flesh and Blood, by Reay Tannahill, points out that for almost 2,000 years, in Egypt and elsewhere, 鈥渂lood was regarded as the sovereign remedy for leprosy.鈥?Romans believed that epilepsy could be cured by taking in human blood. Tertullian wrote about this 鈥渕edical鈥?use of blood: 鈥淐onsider those who with greedy thirst, at a show in the arena, take the fresh blood of wicked criminals . . . and carry it off to heal their epilepsy.鈥?This was in stark contrast with what Christians did: 鈥淲e do not even have the blood of animals at our meals . . . At the trials of Christians you offer them sausages filled with blood. You are convinced, of course, that [it] is unlawful for them.鈥?Consider the implication: Rather than take in blood, which represented life, early Christians were willing to risk death.鈥擟ompare 2 Samuel 23:15-17.
This is a common misrepresentation that far too many "Christians" simply fail to see.
Paul spent practically his whole life trying to convey to the Hebrews that the Christian is not to be under the same laws.
Here is where the "New Testament" was outlined specifically for the Gentile (Christian), we read this huge difference in Acts 11:26
Furthermore, we are not held to most of the prescriptions of the Old Law.
We belong to the New Covenant ratified by the blood of Jesus Christ.
Watchtower publications show Jesus on an upright stake instead of a tradional Cross because "stauros" in classical Greek meant merely an upright stake or pole.
The reality here is that the New Testament was NOT written in classical Greek, but in "Koine" Greek in which "stauros" can be translated as an upright stake with a cross-beram above it.
Finally, for more on this read "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses" by Jason Evert. It can be purchased through the Catholic Answers order line (888 291 8000) or through its website: www.catholic.com.
God bless' There is no rational justification of superstitious delusions.
They refuse all medical treatment. because they are not a rational organisation. because god said he will demand blood for blood |
