What about the blood issue?

The wanderer

Sooner or later a person has to face his or her demons
regarding certain Jehovah's Witness doctrine. The one
issue that has haunted me is whether or not the Society
has a point regarding the abstaining of blood.
(Acts 15:29)

Do they have a point?

The fact of the matter is that blood does carry hepatitis
and the infamous Hiv virus that blossoms into Aids.
So the question regarding the Society's position regard-
ing the use of blood is:

Could they be right regarding blood use?

What is the evidence regarding taking or abstaining
from the use of blood?

Please post your reply so that we can all learn.

Respectfully,

The Wanderer

Tyrone van leyen

Under the Mosaic law a woman had to leave the home until her period ended and was declared clean. Why doesn't the watchtower enforce that anymore it's in the bible isn't it? It's because it doesn't apply to our times anymore. Besides screening tests have improved dramatically and we have to think according to our times. Do you think god would be happy if you died? They didn't know about different compatable blood types eitherin ancient days. We do now. Do you think the red cross would take a chance and get sued to oblivion. Further they say it's now ok to have blood fractions. Well guess what. What if god said you must abstain fron orange juice. Would strain the pulp out of the juice and say it's ok. It's silly! They know they are wrong and the only reason they are not making a complete turn around is beacuse it's too late and too volatile an issue.

AK - Jeff

It looks like Russell understood the issue and presentation by the Jerusalem council pretty well, and the prohibition was identical to the four prohibitions issued in Lev 17, 18. This was a peacemaking effort in a volitile time in the faith. The real issue to the Jewish Christians was the Law, observe or not? So if the recommendation by the council was nearly a repetition of this portion of scripture, in the same order of mention even, it would make perfect sense that the intent was not any different than with the Law itself - you shant eat it, you shall pour it out.

Today, health issues would be of concern to some - in fact many doctors do not rec blood as the first line of approach, but as a last one. This IMO is a wise position to take, as there are risks, though far less than they used to be I think.

Watchtower quotes in the early days of Jwism:

"The answer ignored every feature of that law, except four points; and the first three of these were mentioned no doubt as a basis of common fellowship between those who had been Jews and those who had been Gentiles, namely, (1) abstaining from meats that had been offered in sacrifice to idols; (2) abstaining from animal food that had not been killed after the manner of the Jews; (3) abstaining from the eating of blood. It would be almost impossible for those who had been reared as Jews to ignore these three points, and if the converts from the Gentiles did not observe them it would be a constant barrier to their social intercourse." The Watchtower 05/15/1897, p. 153 (Reprints p. 2158)
"...the things here recommended were necessary to a preservation of the fellowship of the "body" composed of Jews and Gentiles of their different education and sentiments....A similar thought attaches to the prohibition of the use of blood. To the Jew it was forbidden, and under his covenant it was made a symbol of life - to partake it would reply responsibility for the life taken....These prohibitions had never come to the Gentiles, because they had never been under the Law Covenant; but so deeply rooted were the Jewish ideas on this subject that it was necessary to the peace of the church that the Gentiles should observe this matter also." - The Watchtower 04/15/1909, p. 117 (Reprints p. 4374)

AlmostAtheist

Don't confuse health and doctrine. The Bible either condemns blood transfusion or it doesn't, regardless of the health risks. After all, if you're in a situation where you truly need blood (and these situations do exist, as evidenced by the people that die after refusing blood), then it's a huge DETRIMENT to your health to abide by it.

So even if blood were the least safe medical thing in the world, or it was the most safe, your question is a religious/biblical one, not a medical one.

Their primary scripture for the blood doctrine is Acts 15, verse 29 I think, where it says to "abstain... from blood". But it also says to "abstain.. from things strangled". Does that mean don't touch things that are strangled? Don't strip off its skin and use it for clothing? Don't pick it up and bury it? No. A very specific action was being condemned -- eating it. Likewise, the prohibition on eating blood was being reiterated.

Is transfusing blood into your veins the same as eating it? Well, blood is an organ, and a transfusion is a blood transplant. Would eating liver be the same as a liver transplant? Clearly not. Likewise, while a person may feel the Bible condemns eating blood, it can't be said that it condemns transplanting blood.

Dave

blondie

The WTS has stressed that even if blood transfusions became 100% medically safe, that JWs would not take them.

It gets confusing because the WTS uses the health angle to scare JWs that aren't sufficiently scared by "disobeying God."

Blondie

Blueblades

Wanderer, There are risks to ones health in all areas of medical attention, not just blood. For example: When taking all kinds of medications for all kinds of health concerns there are warnings in writing that warn you of various reactions and side effects that can happen including death. So its not just a blood issue, its all about the health issues which include matching the right blood, donor to recipient, to avoid any side effects that may cause further harm.

As AlmostAtheist stressed, "Don't confuse health with doctrine." The Watchtower knows it is caught in a catch 22 and can't find a way out legally or doctrinally without suffering severe repercussions which they are not willing to face or own up to at this time.

Blueblades

NanaR

The fact of the matter is that blood does carry hepatitis
and the infamous Hiv virus that blossoms into Aids.
So the question regarding the Society's position regard-
ing the use of blood is:
Could they be right regarding blood use?

Wanderer,

As someone pointed out, all medical treatment carries certain risks. If you have ever had to have surgery, you know that -- totally apart from the blood question -- one of the possible outcomes of any surgical procedure is death. Anesthesiology particularly is extremely dangerouts; whenever a person is "put to sleep" for surgery there is always a chance that they won't "wake up".

What occurs to me, though, with regard to the particular dangers of blood transfusion is this -- organ transplants, which have been "allowed" by the WTS for many years, carry THE VERY SAME RISKS as blood transfusions (reactions, transmission of disease, etc.) plus additional long term risks (the need to take immuno-suppresant medications for a lifetime, for example, thereby reducing the body's resistance to infection). In very real terms, blood IS an organ of the body, albeit a fluid one.

The WTS claims that all non-blood alternatives have come about as a result of health professionals looking for answers to their no-blood stand. I'm sure that some consciencious researchers took this into account, but I don't believe that was the entire motivation. Health professionals have always known of certain risks associated with the use of blood transfusions and treatments. Additionally, in times of disaster, alternative treatments can be more available and more stable. Blood deteriorates rapidly and must be matched perfectly between donor and recipient.

Do I think the WTS is right about blood? I'm certainly not willing to bet my life on it.

NanaR

Junction-Guy

I think the fact that Orthodox Jews take blood is evidence enough, I dont feel there is anything wrong to take blood if medically needed. The bible refers to Babylon the Great as being drunk with the blood of the martyrs, this describes the WT Society to a "T". The bible also says to absain from the fat, but you dont see judicial committees forming when someone fails to cut the fat off of their steak. Of course the JW's will say 'but that's the old law covenant" Well wasnt the tattoo prohibition in the old law covenant too? The WT Society loves to pick and choose from the bible which things they will obey--always for the betterment of the society though, people are just pawns. I despise this rotten death cult.

Oroborus21

howdy,

(just an aside, HIV doesn't "blossom" into AIDS and technically speaking, AIDS is not a disease as many people commonly say. AIDS is a medically defined category, a syndrome, which by definition entails the presence of a number of criteria including HIV.)

anyway, if one makes the discussion about medicine or health the debate is over. the efficaciousness of a blood transfusion far outweighs the very minute risk of contracting some blood borne disease or HIV.

-eduardo

Rabbit

They are not truly concerned with health matters at all. For them to even mention 'side effects' from a blood transfusion is ludicrous and self-serving. I take 3 Rx's that list hundreds of 'side effects', including death on each of them. The point is...blood, like Rx's is a medicine...for most people it saves their lives, cures or at least moderates our ailments.

My Mom had health issues that were taken care of, all except for a lack of red blood cells in her body. The hospital had plenty of red blood cells ready to give her, but, were forbidden to do so. The HLC was there to make sure Jah would 'smile' at her faithfulness.

My Mom slowly smothered to death -- right before my eyes. Blood would absolutely have saved her. If she had contracted a disease, however unlikely, they would have treated her for it.

Either way, she'd lived a much longer life with the blood transfusion. Without it -- she died.

The WT is not "right", they are responsible for her death. To me, the GB bears the same guilt, as if one of them had used their own hands to cover her mouth and nose to deliberately snuff out her life.

Rabbit

What about the blood issue?

Share this