JWs ARE free to accept the medical use of blood -- there is a list of parts of blood they may use. They have long accepted vaccinations of horse's blood.
They ARE allowed to exercise their conscience -- but if their conscience is not aligned to the edicts of the GB -- kapowee.
Accepting the MEDICAL use of blood has nothing to do with the Bible's instructions concerning EATING animal's blood. The OT writers were concerned at the inhumane practice of stripping flesh from a living animal and eating it while it was still dripping with blood. To make their point, the writers cast the injunction back in history to a common denominator in Noah.
Throughout Scripture, the word "blood" consistently means DEATH. (Read "The Meaning of the Word 'Blood' in Scripture" by A. M. Stibbs. If you can't find it on the www, write to me). In a transfusion, the presence of the blood does NOT symbolize the death of the donor.
Even today, Jews accept the use of blood transfusions.
Doug
The Watchtower July 1 Questions From Readers - Each one decides for himself
by garybuss 23 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
Doug Mason
-
GermanXJW
They used this reasoning to explain why JW in medical jobs could give a non-JW a blood transfusion.
-
Pistoff
Justhuman wrote:
"So my question is: How can they disfellowship someone for a conscious matter? "
Because when they say it is a conscience matter, they don't mean it. It is just what they want the outside world to hear.
The real consequence is df'ing or being da'd.
I came to the conclusion that the statement against blood was dietary one day in the tower study; I was rereading the book of Acts, and it hit me like a cartoon anvil.
It was a concession to the Jewish Christians, like other things done during the time separation from Judaism.
The WT wants to make it seem that Paul did all the right things concerning this, but in fact Paul waffled.
He went along with temple consecration of young men who had vowed themselves, a jewish custom, just to appease the jewish believers in Jerusalem. This was after the dictate about blood.
It was POLITICAL, not religious; it is understandable too, that people would have a difficult time letting go of old beliefs. And it is understandable that Paul and the older men would vacillate, flip flop in today's view, about this matter.
Just ADMIT this, and let it go. It makes no sense to insist that the older men in Jerusalem would dictate a policy that would reach down to this day to cover a practice that has nothing to do with anything present in the first century. -
Quartr
Saying that JW's can 'decide for themselves' is BS. The position they're put in is like a parent telling his/her child that they can do what they want, but they'll be very dissapointed if they chose one of the two paths in front of them. Obviously no real dedicated witness is going to vouch to go ahead with the transfusion. With that said, the one thing I do like about the JW religion is the no-blood rule. I honestly believe many, many lives can be saved if doctors would open up to non-blood practices when performing operations.