Official WT website explanation of refusal of blood. Not much of an explanation.

ThomasCovenant

This is the jw-media.org official explanation of why Witnesses refuse blood transfusions. It strikes me as being a little weak in its explanation. And very brief.

''Our View of Medical Care
Blood Transfusions
Why don't you accept blood transfusions?

We follow the Bible command, found at Acts 15:20, Acts 21:25, and elsewhere, that Christians must "abstain from . . . blood." Jehovah's Witnesses request the use of nonblood medical alternatives, which are widely accepted and used by the medical community.

Alternatives to blood transfusions

Jehovah's Witnesses request nonblood alternatives, which are widely used and accepted by the medical community. We do this because of the Bible's command to "keep abstaining from . . . blood." (Acts 15:29; see also Genesis 9:3, 4; Leviticus 7:26, 27; 17:1, 2, 10-12; Deuteronomy 12:23-25.) While we refuse blood for religious rather than medical reasons, many have acknowledged that this refusal has helped the Witnesses to avoid contracting many costly and fatal diseases such as AIDS and hepatitis.

Since the Bible makes no clear statement about the use of minor blood fractions or the immediate reinfusion of a patient's own blood during surgery, a medical process known as blood salvaging, the use of such treatments is a matter of personal choice.''

So, why don't you accept blood transfusions? Christians must 'abstain from.....blood'. That's it. Is that perhaps up for interpretation? Nope, that's it.

Since the Bible makes no clear statement about the use of the four main blood components, um oops sorry. Got carried away.

This is the main world wide web international awareness site for the dissemination of information to the world's media of why all 7 million JW's believe that transfusing blood is wrong.

It is pathetic.

miseryloveselders

Its as bad as, "that depends on what the meaning of the word is, is."

Alfred

Notice how they quickly divert the focus of this sensitive subject towards "non-blood" medical alternatives in a cowardly attempt to get themselves off the hook for causing thousands of deaths... tell that to the JW parents of a child who is dying right now in a 3rd-world country because these "alternatives" are not available within a 500-mile radius... Even if these were available, they probably wouldn't have the money to pay for this treatment anyway and the GB most certainly would not authorize any funds for these hopeless and desperate parents... after all, the GB needs this money to advance "kingdom interests" which doesn't include saving children's lives...

wasblind

Hello there Alfred,

I agree, I don't see how the WTS should be able to get off the hook, for any past doctrine that caused needless deaths

I'm beginning to think they allowed fractions, because one of the GB may have needed it, wouldn't that be shameful

I most certainly wouldn't put it past them

finallyfree!

they are so full of shite on this doctrine. one thing i also noted on the wts website in regards to blood fractions...they can and are derived from animal blood as well. look on the wts site in the medical section in one of the footnotes. i was quite surprised.

sabastious

"abstain from . . . blood."

Yup, that page is an accurate rendition of the the Jehovah's Witness Blood Doctrine.

-Sab

Pistoff

The blood doctrine is just one of the better examples of the WT's schizophrenic approach to belief.

They interpret a custom, not eating unbled animals, to mean that 'christians' should 'abstain from blood'.

That is a very broad interpretation.

But. but.

When it comes to 'abstaining' from blood, they do ANYTHING but abstain.

They take vaccinations, they can take RHogam, they in fract can take any and all parts of blood, as long as they have been separated beyond their mythical 'major components' of blood: plasma, red cels, platelets and white cels.

Of course, where do these fractions come from?

BLOOD.

The idea that witneses abstain from blood is ridiculous.

The policy is the most corrupt one they have.

PublishingCult

I just did a little research, I love you internet, and it turns out the original greek word translated “blood” used in Acts 15:20, Acts 21:25, and Acts 15:29 is α?ματος.

α?ματος is also used at Hebrews 9:12,22; Matthew 23:25; and a few others . . .
α?ματος should more literally be rendered “BLOOD SHED”.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=ai%28%2Fmatos&la=greek&prior=s

Original Word: α?μα, ατος, τ?
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: haima
Phonetic Spelling: (hah'-ee-mah)
Short Definition: blood
Definition: blood (especially as shed).

NASB Word Usage
blood (94), hemorrhage* (3).

These Bible passages are telling Christians to abstain from BLOODSHED, NOT the EATING of blood. Fucking bastards. The WTBTS has deliberately mistranslated and misinterpreted these scriptures, and are therefore guilty of α?ματος themselves.