and if God didn't want transfusions to happen, why did He allow them to be possible? For witnesses we don't accept blood tansfusions 'cause in the bible god tells us he doesn't approve of taking blood into our bodies.
At Acts 15 it says 'abstain from blood.'
And because of our respect for Gods commands, we wouldn't support the giving of blood. No Marc, we abstain from blood. Blood is sacred to God which symbolically means the life of the creature.
Acts 15:28,29 refers to taking blood in the same light as fornication and idolatry. Obedience to the commands of the Bible are a must for true Christians when it applies to them specifically. The apostle Paul cleared any confusion whether or not blood should be abstained.
To voluntary give blood so that it could be fed into another living person is no different than taking blood.
The blood means the life.
(Deuteronomy 12:23) .聽.聽.Simply be firmly resolved not to eat the blood, because the blood is the soul and you must not eat the soul with the flesh.
Though it says eat blood, it encompasses to take blood into your body, to be nourished with it. Marc, the JW receives blood transfusion but they have to go to Bulgaria. The bulgarian policy reversal nulls and void all the JW belief that they cannot received blood transfusion. Don't forget that the org. was founded by men. So, we expect for more reversals to come. In other words, bottom line impact is that JW are not credible and should not be taken seriously. Sad. RECENT WATCHTOWER CONTROVERSIES CONCERNING BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS
1998
In 1998, in order to receive legal recognition from the government of Bulgaria, the Watchtower Society signed an agreement with the Bulgarian government in which they stated that 鈥渕embers should have free choice in the matter for themselves and their children, without any control or sanction on the part of the association.鈥漑8] A press release distributed in 1997 by the European Commission of Human Rights clearly explains the understanding of the Commission and the Bulgarians of the Society鈥檚 stated position: 鈥淚n respect of the refusal of blood transfusion, the applicant association [i.e., the Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses] submits that there are no religious sanctions for a Jehovah鈥檚 Witness who chooses to accept blood transfusion and that, therefore, the fact that the religious doctrine of Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses is against blood transfusion cannot amount to a threat to 鈥榩ublic health.鈥橻9]
The Watchtower Society鈥檚 perspective on the agreement can be found in a press release it distributed on April 27, 1998. In announcing the agreement with Bulgaria, the only information about the agreement to allow transfusions is the statement: 鈥淭he agreement also includes an acknowledgment that each individual has the freedom to choose the type of medical treatment he receives.鈥漑10] This vague statement, while not openly contradicting the agreement, also contains no indication of the historic compromise to which the Society agreed by ostensibly allowing blood transfusions.The 1997 press release by the Commission, explaining their position regarding the then-unsettled case, alerted many people to a perceived doctrinal change by the Society. To prevent the media or other Witnesses from drawing their own conclusions about doctrinal changes, the Society stated in its press release: 鈥淭he terms of the agreement do not reflect a change in the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses.鈥漑11]
The position of the Watchtower Society was clear: despite their agreement to allow Witnesses to receive blood transfusions in Bulgaria, in reality the Society had no intention of honoring this agreement. The Society will continue to levy religious sanctions against Witnesses who receive blood transfusions, forcing the Witnesses to decide between possible death or 鈥渆xcommunication or disfellowshipping.鈥漑12]
2000
Widespread speculation on the Society鈥檚 position vis-脿-vis blood transfusions began in May with the publication of the June 15, 2000, issue of The Watchtower, in which the Society reiterated that Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses may receive blood fractions in their medical treatment, but still may not receive transfusions of whole blood.[13]Speculation increased with a rumor 鈥?spread on the Internet 鈥?that the Governing Body had met on May 24, 2000 and decided that Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses who accepted blood transfusions would no longer be subject to investigation by judicial committees.[14]
The most significant development that spurred such speculation was the June 14, 2000, article by Ruth Gledhill in the London Times, 鈥淯-Turn on Blood Transfusions by Witnesses.鈥漑15] Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses, according to Gledhill, are now allowed to accept blood transfusions. Gledhill quotes Paul Gillies, Watchtower spokesperson in the United Kingdom:
It is quite possible that someone who was under pressure on an operating table would take a blood transfusion because they did not want to die. The next day they might say they regretted this decision. We would then give them spiritual comfort and help. No action would be taken against them. We would just view it as a moment of weakness.[16]
Witnesses who receive a transfusion and are unrepentant, however, will be viewed as having disassociated themselves from the Society.[17] In response to Gledhill鈥檚 article, the Watchtower Society issued the following press release:
An article published in the June 14, 2000, issue of a British newspaper has incorrectly publicized what it feels to be a major change in the religious doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood transfusions. In order to correct the misinformation, Jehovah's Witnesses are providing the following statement. The Bible commands Christians to "abstain...from blood." (Acts 15:20). Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it is not possible to abstain from blood and accept blood transfusions. They have consistently refused donor blood ever since transfusions began to be widely used in civilian medical practice in the 1940s, and this scriptural position has not changed. If one of Jehovah's Witnesses is transfused against his or her will, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that this constitutes a sin on the part of the individual. This position has not changed.
If one of Jehovah's Witnesses accepts a blood transfusion in a moment of weakness and then later regrets the action, this would be considered a serious matter. Spiritual assistance would be offered to help the person regain spiritual strength. This position has not changed.
If a baptized member of the faith willfully and without regret accepts blood transfusions, he indicates by his own actions that he no longer wishes to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The individual revokes his own membership by his own actions, rather than the congregation initiating this step. This represents a procedural change instituted in April 2000 in which the congregation no longer initiates the action to revoke membership in such cases. However, the end result is the same: the individual is no longer viewed as one of Jehovah's Witnesses because he no longer accepts and follows a core tenet of the faith. However, if such an individual later changes his mind, he may be accepted back as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. This position has not changed.
Jehovah's Witnesses seek quality medical care and accept medical alternatives to blood transfusions. Support is given to members to help them obtain medical treatment that respects their religious convictions.
Contact: James N. Pellechia, telephone: (718) 560-5600[18]
The Society, in its press release, specifically states that there has been no change in doctrine, and lists several practices that it also claims have not been changed. While it is true that the doctrine has not changed, several of the ways in which the doctrine is lived by Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses have changed dramatically. i am not a JW.
The bible says categorically ... do not eat blood ...
in other words, do not allow foreign blood into our system.
i used to donate blood until i became a christian and i read this Law in my studies. I have stopped donating blood and will never receive blood ..
satan is crafty.
a christian receiving foreign blood, through blood transfusion or any other means, into his system is no better than a satanist taking blood in a satanic ritual. Unwittingly, the christian has crossed over to satan.
God told adam and eve not to eat the forbidden fruit. Does that mean you don't have to chew but you can swallow it or lick it or juice it ? get my point ...
the same idea with the blood Law.
Le 3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that YE EAT NEITHER FAT NOR BLOOD.
God says don't EAT blood, don't eat fat ie. animal fat.
Does that mean you can drink it?
transfuse [inject blood] into yr system ?
or by any other method, get the blood into your system w/o going through yr mouth ... ?
you know the answer. Therefore, if you belong to God, OBEY Him.
this is not about denominational teachings. The quote is from the Holy Bible. Thus, it is a biblical teaching. You didn't hear? They repealed that recently as a misinterpretation of the words. So yeah, all those who died because they didn't take blood died for no reason. Well, I guess stupidity is a good reason to not be alive. if God didn't want use of drugs to happen, why did He allow them to be possible?
and if God didn't want abortions to happen, why did He allow women to get pregnant? Hmmm neither |
